BUILDING PRINCIPLED AND VIRTUOUS INDIVIDUALS

45

UNIT 3 – The Act

We make moral decisions daily. However have you noticed that some
decisions are automatic responses and that you are not consciously
deciding at all? For example, you help an elderly cross the road. Without
thinking, you ran to the opposite side of the road, away from some
perceived danger. Your desire to help and your fear of danger are gut
reactions while reasoned argument is just swirling beneath conscious
awareness.

LEARNING OUTCOME

1. Determine the influence of feelings in decision-making.

2. Differentiate actions based on reason and on feelings.
3. Formulate solutions that can eliminate the obstacles in making right decision
4. Differentiate will from reason.
5. Develop the will through self-mastery.

PRETEST
TRUE OR FALSE
Instruction: Read carefully each question. Write MAO JUD if the statement is true or
NAH DILI JUD if the statement is false. Write your answer in the space provided

______________ 1. Reason is pertinent in the decision-making.

______________ 2. Emotion too is very important in the decision-making.
______________ 3. Accordingly, morality is properly be felt than judged.
______________ 4. Impartiality and reason are requirement for morality.
______________ 5. Reason alone is insufficient to yield a judgment that something is
virtuous and vicious according to David Hume.
______________ 6. Direct passions are caused directly by the sensations of pain or
pleasure.
______________ 7. Philosophers encourage the use of reason in making decisions.
However, it should be noted that our moral compasses are also powerfully
influenced by feelings.
______________ 8. Deliberate means the act was intentional, planned with conscious
effort.
______________ 9. Emotions notoriously play favorites. It operate on a principle called
“the law of concern” where emotions only give to us a matter of personal interest.
______________ 10. Emotions could help in making better choices even without
consciously reasoning.
______________ 11. Will is the mental capacity to act decisively on one’s desire.

DRAFT. NOT INTEDNDED FOR PUBLICATION. FOR CLASSROOM USE ONLY.

BUILDING PRINCIPLED AND VIRTUOUS INDIVIDUALS

46

______________ 12. Moral courage is the courage you put your moral principle into
action even though you may be in doubt, are afraid, or face advert
consequences.
______________ 13. Aristotle believed that “will” is the power of intellect and sensation,
and that will gave the person the capacity for exciting moment in space.
______________ 14. Moral imagination is ability in particular circumstances to discover
and evaluate possibilities not merely determined by that circumstance or limited
by its operative mental mode or merely framed by a set of rules or rule –
governed concerns.
______________ 15. The resolve to put the decision into action is the role of the will.

Thank you for answering the test. See page 80 for the answers. If you got a
score below 5, please review the contents for this unit.

CONTENT

FEELINGS AS INSTINCTIVE AND TRAINED RESPONSE TO MORAL DILEMMAS

Philosophical Insights on Feelings

David Hume (1711-1776)
Hume maintained that, though reason is needed to discover the facts of any
concrete situation, reason alone is insufficient to yield a judgment that something is
virtuous and vicious (Hume, 2003: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2016).

He is a Philosopher, historian, economist, and essayist. He was known for his

four theses on feelings:
1. Reason alone cannot be a motive, but rather is the slave of the passion.
2. Moral distinctions are not derived from reasons.
3. Moral distinctions are derived the moral sentiments: feelings of approval (esteem,
praise) and disapproval (blame) felt by spectators who contemplate a character
trait or action.
4. While some virtues and vices are natural, others including justice are artificial.

In his Theory of the Mind, humans have passion which he called emotions or
feelings. There are two classifications of passion: the direct and indirect. Direct
passions are caused directly by the sensations of pain or pleasure. Desire is an
example of direct passion because it is an immediate response to the pleasure we
expect to feel.

Indirect passions are caused by the sensation of pain or pleasure derived from
some other idea or impression. For example, pride is a passion that emanated from the
pleasure you get for possessing something admirable (it could be physique, intellect,

DRAFT. NOT INTEDNDED FOR PUBLICATION. FOR CLASSROOM USE ONLY.

BUILDING PRINCIPLED AND VIRTUOUS INDIVIDUALS

47

property, family, etc.). Pride then is not a result of the person, the object of the passion,
and quality of the object. Other example of indirect passions are humility, ambition,
vanity, love, hatred, envy, pity, malice, and generosity.

Max Ferdinand Scheler

Scheler argues that the emotion is the most important aspect in human
existence. He asserted that emotions and feelings are inherent, objective, and it exists
even if you have not experienced it before (a priori). Feelings are independent of the
mind that it corresponds to the Divine Plan. Human feelings are not chaotic, it is actually
strict, exact, and objective.

Scheler presented four strata of feelings. These strata or levels are constant and
it follows the exact order of importance. He called levels of feelings as the stratification
model of emotive life.
1. Sensual feelings
2. Vital feelings
3. Psychic feelings
4. Spiritual feelings

Sensual feelings involve bodily pleasures or pain. Vital feelings are the life
functions such as health, sickness, energy, fatigue etc. Psychic feelings are about
aesthetics, justice, and knowledge (scientific). Lastly, spiritual feelings deal with the
Divine. For Scheler, among these levels, the spiritual feeling is the most important. It is
intentional and is directed towards special being.

What is the Role of Feelings in Decision-Making?

Reason plays a role in in making a moral decision. Philosophers encourage the
use of reason in making decisions. However, it should be noted that our moral
compasses are also powerfully influenced by feelings. Hume claimed that in any given
situation, a person act based on emotion rather than on reason. For example, Mr. Ca-
ang as your instructor announces to have long quiz of the following day. After school,
you passed by the mall and saw your classmate who was absent during the
announcement of your instructor about the exam. However, you did not make any move
inform your classmate about the announcement. Why? There is no particular reason
really. It could be that you did not feel like telling your classmate about it or you are not
close friends anyway.

Feelings Can Be an Obstacle in Decision Making

There are three features as to why emotions can be obstacles in making the right
decision.
1. Its non-deliberate nature
2. Its partial nature
3. It is capricious (Pizarro, 2000)

DRAFT. NOT INTEDNDED FOR PUBLICATION. FOR CLASSROOM USE ONLY.

BUILDING PRINCIPLED AND VIRTUOUS INDIVIDUALS

48

Non-Deliberate Nature of Feelings

Deliberate means the act was intentional, planned with conscious effort.
Non-deliberate is the contrary term. They are often spontaneous actions. It is
doing something without thinking through. For instance, you run to your bed the
moment you turn off the light because you are afraid. Why did the darkness
scare you? You never thought about it, you just run. Under this characterization,
emotions are no different from mindless automatic reflex.

The Partial Nature of Feelings

Emotions notoriously play favorites. It operate on a principle called “the
law of concern” where emotions only give to us a matter of personal interest.
However, emotions are quiet when it is of no personal concern. Take for
instance, your feelings about the victims of earthquake in other country is
different from your feelings if your family is a victim of an earthquake too.

There are two aspects in the partial nature of emotions:

1. Decisions based on feelings focus only on a narrow area; and
2. It reflects personal and self-interest perspectives

The Capricious Nature of Feelings

The third problem with emotion is that it rises up for arbitrary reasons.
For example, you did not give money to an old beggar asking for alms simply
because she tugged at your sleeves and startled you. Aspect or situation that
have nothing to do in moral situations could rile up your emotion and this emotion
will certainly influence your subsequent moral judgment (Pizarro, 2000).

How Emotions Help in Making the Right Decisions

Emotions could help in making better choices even without consciously
reasoning. There are at least three ways that feelings, especially negative feelings, help
in making the right decision.
1. It signals the need to adjust behavior
2. It can help us learn from our mistakes
3. Emotional responses can be reshaped as time pass by

REASON AND IMPARTIALITY AS REQUIREMENTS FOR ETHICS

A relevant definition of reason to our topic, is the power to think, understand, and
form judgment by a process of logic. However one of the moral philosophers in the
history of Western Philosophy, Immanuel Kant, argued that reason alone is the basis for
morality, and once the person understood this basic requirement for morality he or she
would see that acting morally is the same as acting rationally. In Kant’s view, the

DRAFT. NOT INTEDNDED FOR PUBLICATION. FOR CLASSROOM USE ONLY.

BUILDING PRINCIPLED AND VIRTUOUS INDIVIDUALS

49

definition of morality alone shows that a person must decide what to do. You as a
person must be able to think and reflect on different actions and then choose what action
to take. That a moral decision means mere desires did not force you to take. That a
moral decision means mere desires did not force you to act in a particular manner. You
acted according to your will.

As a student, you are always in turmoil on whether to study or not to study. You
know the importance of studying and the consequence of not studying. However, you
also know the importance of taking a break from the daily grind. So, when the exams
are coming and you feel so stressed from the different school requirements and you feel
the need to take a break. For Kant, that morality is based on reason.

Kant, as discussed above, underwent a decisive change of mind about the views
of Shaftesbury and Hutcheson. Early in his career, he endorsed core aspects of their
approach, but Kant’s mature work is organized around the idea that reason, rather than
feeling or emotion, is the highest authority in the moral domain. In this respect, many
features of his moral philosophy are fundamentally opposed to Hume’s. We can see this
opposition at work in their respective accounts of moral judgment and moral motivation.
A careful look at these topics, however, also highlights sentimentalism’s residual
influence on Kant.

According to Hume, moral judgments typically concern the character traits and
motives behind human actions. To make a moral judgment is to detect, by means of a
sentiment, the operation of a virtuous or vicious quality of mind. The sentiment here is a
“peculiar” kind of feeling—namely, a feeling of approval (love, pride) or disapproval
(hatred, humility) (T 3.3.1.3). We call the traits that elicit our approval “virtues”, and those
that elicit our disapproval “vices”. Sentiments of approval and disapproval are passions,
but they tend to be “soft and gentle” and therefore easily mistaken for thoughts or ideas
(T 3.1.2.1). The real story is that “morality… is more properly felt than judg’d of” (T
3.1.2.1). Reason and experience are required for determining the likely effects of a
given motive or character trait, so reason does play an important role in moral
judgment. Yet reason’s role is subordinate. It is one thing to say that a given trait
tends to be useful or conducive to pleasure and quite another to say that it is “good” or
“virtuous”. The moral value of a trait is conferred by the sentiment of approval, which
“gilding and staining all natural objects with the colours, borrowed from internal
sentiment, raises, in a manner, a new creation” (EPM App. I.21).

Is Impartiality a Requirement for Morality?

Impartiality is also called evenhandedness or fair-mindedness. It is defined as a

principle of justice holding that decisions should be based on objective criteria, rather
than on the basis of bias, prejudice, or preferring the benefit to one person over another
for improper reasons. It stresses everyone ought to be give equal importance and not
favor one class (people, animal, things) in a capricious way.

DRAFT. NOT INTEDNDED FOR PUBLICATION. FOR CLASSROOM USE ONLY.

BUILDING PRINCIPLED AND VIRTUOUS INDIVIDUALS

50

How is impartiality a requirement for morality? A vivid example in the classroom

setting. During examinations, you saw your classmate opening her notebook and in
short cheating on examinations. Your instructor was able to see suspicious activity with
that classmate of yours and she was asked to if she is cheating. Your classmate
immediately closed the notebook and said I am not cheating sir. Since your instructor
was not sufficed with her answer, she asked you the same question, “Is your classmate
cheating”? What will you say?

According to Philosopher and Professor, Dr. James Rachels, for your decision to
be moral, you should think how your answer will affect your friends, your teacher, the
rest of your classmates and how it will affect you as a person. An impartial choice
involves, basing your decision on how all the persons in the situation will be affected and
not to the advantage of a particular party that you favor.

It is all too easy to assume that the word impartiality must denote a positive,
unitary concept – presumably a concept closely linked with, if not identical to, morality.
This, however, is simply not the case. Rather, there are various sorts of behavior that
may be described as ‘impartial,’ and some of these obviously have little or nothing to do
with morality. A person who chooses an accountant on the basis of her friends’
recommendations may be entirely impartial between the various candidates (members
of the pool of local accountants) with respect to their gender, their age, or where they
went to school. Yet if her choice is motivated solely by rational self-interested
considerations then it is clear that the impartiality she manifests is in no way a form of
moral impartiality. To take a more extreme case, consider an insane serial killer who
chooses his victims on the basis of their resemblance to that some celebrity. The killer
may be impartial with respect to his victims’ occupations, religious beliefs, and so forth,
but it would be absurd to regard this as a form of moral impartiality.

It is also worth noting that some types of impartiality may in themselves be

immoral or morally questionable. Suppose that I decide to pass along a treasured family
heirloom to one of my two sons, Bill and Phil. Flipping a coin would constitute one type
of impartial procedure for choosing between the two. But suppose that I have already
promised the heirloom to Phil on several occasions. In this case it would be quite wrong
to allow a coin toss to determine whether he gets it. Deciding by means of a coin toss
would be an impartial procedure, but it would be the wrong sort of impartiality here, for it
would ignore the moral obligation created by my previous promises.

The word ‘impartiality’, then, picks out a broad concept that need not have
anything to do with morality. In this broad sense, impartiality is probably best
characterized in a negative rather than positive manner: an impartial choice is simply
one in which a certain sort of consideration (i.e. some property of the individuals being
chosen between) has no influence. An analysis along these lines has been proposed by
Bernard Gert, who holds that “A is impartial in respect R with regard to group G if and
only if A’s actions in respect R are not influenced at all by which member(s) of G benefit
or are harmed by these actions” (Gert 1995, p.104). Thus, for Gert, impartiality is a

DRAFT. NOT INTEDNDED FOR PUBLICATION. FOR CLASSROOM USE ONLY.

BUILDING PRINCIPLED AND VIRTUOUS INDIVIDUALS

51

property of a set of decisions made by a particular agent, directed toward a particular

group.

Gert’s analysis captures the important fact that one cannot simply ask of a given
agent whether or not she is impartial. Rather, we must also specify with regard to whom
she is impartial, and in what respect. Gert’s analysis, then, permits and indeed requires
that we make fairly fine-grained distinctions between various sorts of impartiality. This is
necessary, since one and the same agent might manifest various sorts of partiality and
impartiality towards various groups of persons. Consider, for instance, a university
professor who is also a mother of five children, and who is currently acting as a member
of a hiring committee. Such an agent might be impartial between her children with
respect to the care they receive (while preferring her own children over others in this
respect), and also impartial between the various job candidates; but it is clear that these
two uses of the word ‘impartial’ denote very different practices. In particular, the idea of
merit applies in one case but not the other: to be impartial between job candidates is
presumably to select between them on the basis of merit, whereas to be impartial
between one’s children is not to think of merit at all, but rather to provide equal
protection and care to all.

Many attempts to characterize impartiality fail to respect the distinction between

the broadest, most formalistic sense of the notion, and a more specifically moral
impartiality. To say, for instance, that an impartial choice is one that is free of bias or
prejudice is to presuppose that we are dealing with a certain sort of impartiality, that
which is required or recommended by morality, or at least worthy of moral approbation.
‘Bias’ and ‘prejudice’ are loaded terms, suggesting not only that some consideration is
being excluded, but also that the exclusion is appropriate and warranted. Similarly, the
idea that impartiality requires that we give equal and/or adequate consideration to the
interests of all concerned parties goes well beyond the requirements of the merely
formal notion. (In the coin toss case, it is quite clear that Phil’s claims to the heirloom are
not being given equal or adequate consideration.) As a characterization of moral
impartiality, however, this suggestion is perhaps more promising, at least in some
contexts.

DRAFT. NOT INTEDNDED FOR PUBLICATION. FOR CLASSROOM USE ONLY.

BUILDING PRINCIPLED AND VIRTUOUS INDIVIDUALS

52

1. Gather the Facts

Do not jump to conclusions. Ask questions (who, what, where, when, why
and how). Gather as many facts as you can. Clarify what assumptions you
are making.
2. Identify the Stakeholders
Identify all the persons involved. Get the primary and secondary
stakeholders. Why are they stakeholders? Try to see the situation through
the eyes of the people affected.

3. Articulate the Dilemma

You need to express the ethical dilemma. The purpose of articulating the
dilemma is to make sure that you fully understood the situation and the moral
conflict you are facing. Awareness and comprehension are important in
making the right decision especially when there are lives that will be affected.

4. List the Alternatives

Think creatively about potential actions, as there maybe choices you
neglected. This will help ensure that you have not been pushed back into the
corner. For example, you already have solution A and B. Try to brainstorm
and come up with solution C that might satisfy the interests the primary
parties involved.

5. Compare the Alternatives with Principle

In decision-making, specify the relevant values that you want to uphold in
making your decision. Then compare whether your alternative actions are in
line with your values.

6. Weigh the Consequences

When considering the effects of your actions, filter your choices to determine
if your option will violate ethical values. Determine how all stakeholders be
affected by your decision.

7. Make a Decision
After all deliberations, a decision has to be made. It is not good to stay in the
discussion process only.

WHAT IS MORAL COURAGE?

Moral courage is the courage you put your moral principle into action even
though you may be in doubt, are afraid, or face advert consequences. Moral courage
involves careful deliberation and mastery of the self. Moral courage is essential not for
only a virtuous life but also a happy one because integrity is essential to self-esteem.

DRAFT. NOT INTEDNDED FOR PUBLICATION. FOR CLASSROOM USE ONLY.

BUILDING PRINCIPLED AND VIRTUOUS INDIVIDUALS

53

Moral imagination is ability in particular circumstances to discover and evaluate

possibilities not merely determined by that circumstance or limited by its operative
mental mode or merely framed by a set of rules or rule – governed concerns.

What is Will?
Generally, will is the mental capacity to act decisively on one’s desire. It is the
faculty of the mind to initiate action after coming to a resolution following careful
deliberation. Will is an important topic along with reason because of its role in enabling
a person to act deliberately.

Will and Reason

Aristotle believed that “will” is the power of intellect and sensation, and that will
gave the person the capacity for exciting moment in space. For example, Riza is torn
between buying a new smart phone and saving up for her trip outside the country. Riza
weighed the pros and cons between buying a new phone and saving up for her trip.
Eventually, she decided to deposit her money at the bank. It was Riza’s will that
enabled her to walk out without buying the phone she liked.

Developing the Will

Aristotle discussed the difference between what people decide to do and what
actually they do. In Aristotle’s Philosophy using the intellect to decide is just one part of
the moral decision. The resolve to put the decision into action is the role of the will. He
said that since vice and virtues are up to us we become just by the practice of just
actions; self-control by exercising self-control; and courageous by practicing acts of
courage (as translated by Baird, 2016). Self-mastery therefore is the product of the will
that is achieved by actually putting rational, moral choice into action.

Thank you for studying this unit. You may now proceed to the learning activities.

If you have questions or clarifications you may contact your instructor as provided.

Learning Activity

Activity 1. Multiple Choices.

Instruction: Encircle the letter of your answer.

1. According to Shceler, of the four levels of feelings, what feeling is the only one that is
intentional and most important?
a. sensual feelings b. vital feelings c. psychic feelings d. spiritual
feelings
2. What is the mental capacity of an individual to act decisively on one’s desire?
a. moral courage b. will c. passion d. feelings

DRAFT. NOT INTEDNDED FOR PUBLICATION. FOR CLASSROOM USE ONLY.

BUILDING PRINCIPLED AND VIRTUOUS INDIVIDUALS

62

Unit 4 – Framework and Reason for the Act

Decisions about right and wrong penetrate in everyday life, and it can be
very difficult to do. Making ethical decisions requires sensitivity to the
ethical implications of problems and situations. It also requires practice.
Understanding the framework for ethical decision making is therefore
essential.

LEARNING OUTCOME

1. Distinguish the virtues of ethics according to Aristotle.

2. Rationalize the natural law and its thoughts, and internalizes the four moral
cardinal virtues.
3. Explain the concept of utilitarianism also known as “consequentialism”, and
expound its disparity to that of Kant’s theory.

4. Define and distinguish justice and fairness for the common good.

PRETEST
True or False
Instruction: Read carefully each question. Write HEP HEP if the statement means true
and HOORAY when the statement means false.

______________ 1. It refers to the desired end of human act.

______________ 2. It is what human beings want to achieve in the performance of act.
______________ 3. It is a view in which all series of human acts, that is before doing the
final act as the ultimate goal of the moral agent, are considered subordinate.
______________ 4. It is considered self-sufficient good where lack and imperfection are
not part of its essence.
______________ 5. It is the development of personality that resulted in the application
of virtues.
______________ 6. It is achieved through frequent act until it becomes part of one’s
system of action.
______________ 7. It refers to those good habits that have something to do with the
rightness and wrongness of actions.
______________ 8. It is a doctrine that teach moderation – not too much and not too
little.
______________ 9. It is the supreme good for Aristotle.
______________ 10. It is a state of life where moral agents perfect those good acts.
________________11. Kant declares that we should never in any circumstances treat
people as a mere means.
________________12. Kant believes that we should not treat a persons merely as a
means except when society’s welfare is at stake.

DRAFT. NOT INTEDNDED FOR PUBLICATION. FOR CLASSROOM USE ONLY.

BUILDING PRINCIPLED AND VIRTUOUS INDIVIDUALS

63

________________13. Kant claims that the categorical imperative is acting in order to

receive some kind of reward.
________________14. One formulation of the categorical imperative asserts, “Act only
according to a maxim by which you can at the same time will that it shall become
a universal law.”
________________15. Kant is a deontologist.
________________16. Rule utilitarians claim that the right thing to do might not always,
in that instance, produce the most good.
________________17. Utilitarianism requires that we be strictly impartial between our
own happiness and the happiness of others.
________________18. Utilitarianism asks for the greatest amount of goodness for the
greatest number of people.
________________19. The theory of utilitarianism sometimes called sequentialism.
________________20. David Hume is the founder of Utilitarianism
________________21. Behind the veil of ignorance, people have no knowledge of
human psychology.
_______________22. Rawls second principle of justice is exclusively concerned with the
distribution of money.
_______________23. Rawls holds that the concepts of justice and fairness are one and
the same.
_______________24. According to Rawls, parties in the original position are equal.
_______________25. Equity is a principle that is based upon justness and fairness
while equality demands everyone be treated at the same level.

Thank you for answering the test. If you got a score below 15, please review the
contents for this unit.

CONTENT

KANT AND THE THEORIST

Immanuel Kant is a German philosopher and

one of the famous thinkers during the modern
period. He was born in Konigsberg in 1724. He
spent the rest of his life in Konigsberg from
birth to death, and worked in Konigsberg
University first as lecturer and later as
professor in philosophy from 1755 until his
death in 1804. His works related to moral
philosophy are the Groundwork of the
Metaphysics of Morals (1785) and the Critique
of Practical Reason (1788).

DRAFT. NOT INTEDNDED FOR PUBLICATION. FOR CLASSROOM USE ONLY.

BUILDING PRINCIPLED AND VIRTUOUS INDIVIDUALS

64

Now what framework should we use in making an ethical decision? The second
ethical framework you will be introduced is the duty ethics of Immanuel Kant. This
framework focuses on the agent with the motivation to do morally good out of duty.

Good Will
Are you familiar with the situation of St. Paul in the Bible, particularly in his letter
to the Romans 7:15 of the new testament when he said that I do not understand what I
do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. He has the knowledge of what
are the right things to be done but the ends up doing the wrong ones. He is confused of
himself. St. Pauls’ situation is a counter agreement to Socrates contention that if you
know what is right, you will do what is right or possessing moral knowledge will
guarantee us with the production of moral acts. By experience we know that this is not
the case in reality. Why is that so? The answer of Kant is we need to look into our will,
as either we possess the will that is good or will that is bad. In highlighting the role of the
will as the starting point ethics moral theory, Kant gives the argument that the happiness
or the eudaimonia of Aristotle and St. Thomas Aquinas is not the highest good.

Good will is a will whose decisions are wholly determined by moral demands or,
as he often refers to this, by the Moral Law. Human beings inevitably feel this Law as a
constraint on their natural desires, which is why such Laws, as applied to human beings,
are imperatives and duties.

Kant claims that the only good without qualification is the good will. He treats the
good will as the highest good since its end will always be good.

Good will, for Kant, is an indispensable condition in order to achieve the

rightness of act. Having the will is not enough but the will must be good in order to
correct the undesirable acts or wrongful acts. But what makes the will good is simply by
virtue of volition.

Categorical Imperative
For Kant, moral commands are always categorical not hypothetical. Speaking
about categorical, it is an imperative about fulfilling the moral law in the absence of
conditions because it is done out of duty.

For Kant, a moral action is not based upon feelings or pity. It is not based on the
possibility of reward. It is a moral action that is based on a sense of “This is what I ought
to do.”

Categorical Vs. Hypothetical

The categorical imperative is to act for the sake of duty only while hypothetical
imperative is acting in order to receive some kind of reward.

DRAFT. NOT INTEDNDED FOR PUBLICATION. FOR CLASSROOM USE ONLY.

BUILDING PRINCIPLED AND VIRTUOUS INDIVIDUALS

65

For example, Helping an old lady across the street because you feel pity for her
is not a moral act. Helping an old lady because your coworker will think highly of
you is not a moral act. However, helping an old lady because you have sense of
duty to help the elderly is a moral act.

Two formulations of the Categorical Imperative:

1) First formulation (The Formula of Universal Law): "Act only according to a maxim
by which you can at the same time will that it shall become a universal law [of nature]."

- It is a principle we apply to certain human act whether it has the capacity of becoming a
universal law.

2) Second formulation (The Formula of Humanity): "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 a means, but always at the same time as an end.

- It is a principle about how we treat other people not as merely means.

From the two formula are the two principles or determiners of moral imperative,
the respect for person and the universalizability. The respect for person is the basic
things about how we treat people we encounter in our daily living. For Kant, any act that
is good happens only when we deal with other people not as merely means. It is all
about dealing people just because we want something from him/her, and we cannot
have wants without them. When a man sticks with a certain woman out of lust, that is to
satisfy his sexual desire is an example of disrespecting a person. But when a man sticks
with that woman for the sake of the good of the woman, and thereby the woman sticks
with him for the sake of his own good, is an example of treating each other as means
and ends at the same time. This is the first kind determiner of moral imperative.

The second one is universalizability that is, an act is capable of becoming a

universal law. An act is considered morally good if a maxim or law can be made
universal. That maxim or law is made not for our self but also for others as well to
perform or to prohibit. Sometimes when we follow the maxim or law, it becomes either
subjective or personal. In order to avoid this to happen, that maxim or law is put to test
by the principle of universalizability.

Different Kinds of Rights: Legal versus Moral Rights

Legal rights refer to all rights one has by simply being a citizen of a particular
country like the Philippines. If the Philippines is governed by all legalities stated the 1987
Constitution, so all its citizen are governed by the same constitution.

DRAFT. NOT INTEDNDED FOR PUBLICATION. FOR CLASSROOM USE ONLY.

BUILDING PRINCIPLED AND VIRTUOUS INDIVIDUALS

66

Moral rights are rights that belongs to a moral entities such as human being and
animals. What make them moral entities are the following features such freedom,
rationality and sentience. First, human beings that has freedom. With freedom, every act
they execute accompanies moral consequence becomes possible. Second, human
beings are the only beings gifted with rationality. With rationality, everything they do
comes with rational deliberation whether certain course of action would lead to a desired
result without regrets or undesired result with undesired consequences. Lastly, human
beings are not only beings who re capable of experiencing pleasure and pain. Of course,
humans can determine which action would yield more pleasure than pain and vice versa
like utilitarian, and only human can give different dimensions of meaning of pleasure and
pain.

UTILITARIANISM

Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832)

Jeremy Bentham was born in

February 15, 1748 in London, England. He
was the teacher of James Mill, father of
John Stuart Mill. Bentham first wrote about
the greatest happiness principle of ethics
and was known for a system of penal
management called panopticon. He was an
advocate of economic freedom, women’s
rights, and the separation of church and
state, among others. He was also an
advocate of animal rights and the abolition
of slavery, death penalty, and corporal
punishment for children. Bentham denied
individual legal rights nor agreed with
natural law. On his death on June 6, 1832,
Bentham donated his corpse to the
University College London, Where his auto-
icon is in public display up to this day to
serve his memorial.

Jeremy Bentham is known as the founder of utilitarianism. His famous works

related to moral philosophy are: (1) Introduction to the Principles of Morals and
Legislation, (2) A Fragment on Government.

This framework focuses on happiness as the barometer of right morality through

the calculation of more pleasure produced over pain.

DRAFT. NOT INTEDNDED FOR PUBLICATION. FOR CLASSROOM USE ONLY.

BUILDING PRINCIPLED AND VIRTUOUS INDIVIDUALS

67

It calls for maximization of goodness in society. It asks for the greatest amount of
goodness for the greatest number of people.

Origin and Nature of Theory

The theory of utilitarianism sometimes called consequentialism, focuses on the

effect of a particular end or telos called happiness. The first who proposed the idea is
David Hume, a philosopher during the modern period, but the ones who have made the
idea more depth and made it more thorough were: Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart
Mill.

The classical version of utilitarianism as formulated by Bentham can be

summarized into three (3) points.

First is, the basis for an act to be treated as morally right or wrong is in its
consequence they produced. It is known as consequentialism. What is there in the
consequence that makes morally right? It is when there is the presence of happiness. In
short, happiness is the key in determining the morality of the act. It is the end or telos of
every act, that is, to produce happiness.

The second point is, what matters in every act that we do would be the amount of
pleasure produced. One must not forget the element of happiness in assessing the
morality of the act. If there is no pleasure yielded, then the act is morally wrong.
Happiness is comparative, that is, there will be great happiness, greater happiness and
greatest happiness. Likewise, there also will be great pain, greater pain, and greatest
pain. If there are multiple acts that can produce a variety and different degrees of
happiness, which act is right? In the theory of utility of Bentham, the greatest happiness
produced should be chosen over the others. How do we determine the greatest
happiness over the other greater and great happiness? Bentham uses the felicific
calculus – a method that can calculate or measure happiness and pain.

The third point, which is happiness experienced by every person is counted and
no one is left behind. It means that every person’s happiness is taken into account and
no one is left behind. How are we going to use such method? Bentham is a hedonist and
he understands happiness as pleasure. This pleasure has partner, which is pain. He
believes that the world governed by these two principles. It follows that human beings
are inclined more on achieving happiness as much as possible avoid what is painful.
Now to measure happiness or pleasure, all we need to do is to count all the happiness
or pleasure that an act brings minus the amount of pain that an act will also brings. If the
amount of happiness or pleasure is greater than pain, then the act is good.

amount of pleasure – amount of pain = moral or immoral act

DRAFT. NOT INTEDNDED FOR PUBLICATION. FOR CLASSROOM USE ONLY.

BUILDING PRINCIPLED AND VIRTUOUS INDIVIDUALS

68

Business Fascination and with Utilitarianism

In the field of business, there is also ethics. It is just one of the three points of
view used by people when it comes to decision-making related to business in the
corporate world. The other two views are economic and legal. It only shows that in
corporate world, there is the presence of ethical issues, it is specifically intended for
managers. One of the ethical theories being used by managers is the utilitarianism of
Jeremy Bentham.

How is utilitarianism being used in the business world? The key word used by
Bentham is extension. It refers to the extent of pleasure and pain spread through all the
populace. This is being considered and applied in public policy. After crafting the content
of public policy is in turn affect the legislative and judicial process of the government.
The extent of the consequence, which is the greatest good of the greatest number is
determined by the use of felicific calculus. We have to acknowledge that the calculus is
not without the problem. The manager or the economist has to consider the same
amount of utility for each individual and the amount of utility for a whole society. The
same computation is being used- amount of pleasure minus amount of pain- were of
course, the amount of pleasure should be greater than amount of pain.

The second problem is that pleasure is cannot be measured by quantity and

quality. There is no valid and reliable instrument to measure it. Some utilitarian manages
the problem by making educated guess, plus the past experience. Other economist,
instead of using felicific calculus, use the cost-benefit analysis. The difference between
the calculus of Bentham and the analysis is that economist would use monetary units
that represent benefits or advantages and drawbacks or disadvantage. If the benefit is
greater than the amount spent, then it is worth it. Therefore, it is pleasure.

Cost-benefit amount of money spent versus amount of benefit or drawback

If the benefit is lesser than the amount spent, then it is not worth it. Therefore, it
is pain.

The cost-benefit analysis is commonly used only as means for making decisions
such as major investments and on matters of public policy. But it is not limited to
business matters alone. Sometimes it can be applied to matters related to purchasing
things for personal use or family use. But again, just like the felicific calculus, the cost-
benefit analysis has its problem, that is, there are other things that monetary values
cannot be assigned like the human being.

DRAFT. NOT INTEDNDED FOR PUBLICATION. FOR CLASSROOM USE ONLY.

BUILDING PRINCIPLED AND VIRTUOUS INDIVIDUALS

69

JUSTICE AND FAIRNESS: PROMOTING THE COMMON GOOD

John Rawls is one of the important

political philosophers during the 20th
century. His main work is A Theory of
Justice published in 1791. This work has
addressed some of the social issues
especially in the name of justice between
the state and the citizens. Rawl’s proposes
justice as an ethical framework. This
framework focuses on how justice should
be distributed that would yield fairness for
those who have more and those who have
less. The term fairness refers not to equality but as equity.

Equality vs. Equity

The difference between equality and equity must be emphasized. Although both
promote fairness, equality achieves this through treating everyone the same manner
regardless of need, while equity achieves this through treating individuals based on their
needs and requirements.

Equality = Sameness Equity = Fairness

In the 1st image, it is assumed that everyone will benefit from the same supports.
They are being treated equally.

In the 2nd image, individuals are given different supports to make it possible for
them to have equal access to the game. They are being treated equitably.

DRAFT. NOT INTEDNDED FOR PUBLICATION. FOR CLASSROOM USE ONLY.

BUILDING PRINCIPLED AND VIRTUOUS INDIVIDUALS

70

Let’s comprehend with another examples:

1. If you are the teacher of a class and have been given the task of distributing
chocolates to all the kids equally, what you will do is to divide the total number of
chocolates you have by the total number of students in your class and arrive at
the number to be given to each child. This is what is denoted by the concept of
equality.

2. In business, do you divide profits equally among the labor and officer class?
Or divide the profits among partners equally? Or according to their share of
ownership? This explains the concept of equity. Equity is a principle that is
based upon justness and fairness while equality demands everyone be treated at
the same level.

There are different definitions of justice just as there different thinkers in their
respective field of specialization. Plato defines justice as harmony where the three
groups of people in the society working together for a common goal. The justice of
Rawls embraces not only sociological dimension but includes political and socio
economic as well. In fact, for Rawls, he understands justice where there is fairness
among members of the society with the goal of promoting their common good.

The two principles are as followed:

1st: Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive scheme of equal basic
liberties compatible with a similar scheme of liberties for others.

2nd: Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both (a)
reasonably expected to be to everyone’s advantage and (b) attached to positions and
offices open to all.

Rawls speaks of fairness in terms of equality and equity. He acknowledges that

there are certain just distributions that are governed existing principles. The first principle
is called the principle of equality. In this principle, Rawls claims that every member of
the society should have equal rights and liberties refer to political condition of every
citizen. The second principle is called the principle of difference. In this principle,
Rawls acknowledges that there cannot be just distribution in the society in terms of
socioeconomic goods because of unequal socioeconomic status among members of the
society. He highlights that these inequalities should benefit the least advantaged
members of the society, and that opportunities be given through employments. These
two principles are not independent from each other. The second principle shapes the
decision making of the political institutions while the first principle is most of the time
influenced by the socioeconomic institutions.

DRAFT. NOT INTEDNDED FOR PUBLICATION. FOR CLASSROOM USE ONLY.

BUILDING PRINCIPLED AND VIRTUOUS INDIVIDUALS

71

The Nature of the Theory

A common view about a just society is that every member treats each other in a
just way. We want to treat others justly and we want others to treat us exactly the same
way too. John Rawls has in mind about an ideal and just society where there is justice,
but in different philosophical nuances. By the way for Rawls, justice is the first virtue of a
social institution, and therefore it is expected that he would always think of a society
exercising justice. How did Rawls expose the idea of a just society? He understands
justice as fairness. His idea is different from that Plato in which the latter speaks of
justice as every member of the society acts harmoniously according to assigned roles.
Rawls justice is very much emphasized in taking into consideration the interest of every
member of the society.

Before he speaks what is a just society, he would first lay the foundation of a
social order. Just like any political philosophers, he would consider order as first things
first. He would talk about social order where there are rules and sanctions that put social
affairs into places. He would underscore that rules in social order should be construed
as our moral obligation to obey. Rules are there for us to obey and follow for the sake of
social order. The question that comes to mind about rules, since we have a biased mind
that rules are impartial is: are the rules implemented can accommodate all people
without discrimination? So Rawls formulate an idea of original position. What is all
about?

Rawls ha his theory’s beginning in the original position. He wants to put things
in place where it creates a favorable condition for justice to exist. It is an imaginary idea
to speak about this position but it is important and the basis of justifying his belief. The
world’s situation is unjust when one thinks of unjust rules. He endorses the anonymity
condition and rejects the moral relevance of threat advantage. These two elements,
when it observes well would result to justice as fairness. What are they are all about?

The two elements can be summed into what he calls the veil of ignorance. Why
he needs to endorse the anonymity condition? It is because we cannot but doubt that
rules are created with partiality. In this anonymity condition, one knows nothing about
thee particular individual each represents, about that citizen’s gender, skin, color, natural
endowments, temperament, interest, tastes and references. Due to the veil ignorance, it
creates a just condition where there is no threat advantage to anyone. Therefore,
everyone is seen from the point of view of fairness.

Distributive Justice

There are different theories of justice, and Rawls speaks of justice as distributive.
Distributive justice – is that everyone in the society has to share both the burden and
the benefit of whatever the society offers.

DRAFT. NOT INTEDNDED FOR PUBLICATION. FOR CLASSROOM USE ONLY.

BUILDING PRINCIPLED AND VIRTUOUS INDIVIDUALS

72

If one enjoys the benefits offered to them, one has also accept the burden. Nobody
enjoys only benefits without taking the burden or purely burden without taking the
benefit. What is the content of benefit and burden? This can be answered depending on
the following kinds of society- egalitarian, capitalist and socialist.

• Egalitarian Distributive Justice

As egalitarian, one is concerned with a just distribution in terms of receiving an equal
share.

Two (2) Kinds of Distributive Justice under Egalitarianism:

1. Political Egalitarianism- legal rights of every citizen are equally observed.

2. Economic Egalitarianism- the distribution of socioeconomic goods is equally

observed.

• Capitalist Distributive Justice

As capitalist, one is concerned with a just distribution in terms of receiving one’s share
according to how much one contributes to the overall success of the goals of the
institution where one is employed. The term proportion is useful here.

Example: There is a working student who shares his experience being a library staff
during his vacant time. He receives his salary/allowance according to the number of
hours rendered, and for every hour, he is paid P20.00. If he decides to be on duty for
four hours, he receives P80.00; if 6 hours, P120.00; if two hours, P40.00.

• Socialist Distributive Justice

A socialist, one is concerned with a just distribution in terms of one’s needs. We have
various needs in life, and we want achieve those needs, we need to work hard according
to the amount of needs we have. If one has greater needs, then one expects that his
share is greater in the distribution on scheme, and vice versa.

The State and Citizen: Responsibilities to each other: The Principles of Taxation
and Inclusive Growth

We all exist under a particular stare like the Philippines, and the state has the
power to collect taxes from its citizens. As citizen, we have the obligation to support its
existence through monetary contribution. It stated in the 1987 Constitution, Article X
“LOCAL GOVERNMENT” section V.

The state possesses inherent powers wherein the government can issue
command for the survival of the people, and the same time, maintain order and peace in
the land. One the inherent power is the taxation power, and the other powers are police
and eminent domain. The reason why the state possesses such power is to let people
contribute monetarily in order to support the cost of the government, its existence, and
other projects for the betterment of the whole populace.

DRAFT. NOT INTEDNDED FOR PUBLICATION. FOR CLASSROOM USE ONLY.

BUILDING PRINCIPLED AND VIRTUOUS INDIVIDUALS

73

The basis of taxation is necessity and reciprocal duties. As to necessity, the

government should collect some amount of money from its populace for its existence
and its expenses. As to reciprocal duties, we see how the state and the citizens have
responsibilities towards each other.

As recipients of the benefits given by the State, we need to do our responsibility

by paying taxes so that social and physical projects of the government will be carried out
smoothly and the existence of the State will be firmed. Taxes collected from the people
are considered public money to be used for public needs such as construction and
maintenance of roads; health care, education, security, promotion of science,
commerce, industry, and others for the welfare of the general public.

Thank you for studying this unit. You may now proceed to the learning activities.

Note: If you are having difficulties in understanding the contents of this unit, please
contact your instructor.

Learning Activity

Activity 1. Identification
Instructions: Identify which among the keywords is being described in each statement.
Write your answer in the blank space before the number.

Virtue Ethics

Character, dominant view, moral virtue, telos, virtuous life, good,

eudaimonia, God, virtue, mean

1. ____________________ It refers to desired end of human act.

2. ____________________ It is what moral human beings want to achieve in the
performance of the act.
3. ____________________ It is a view in which all series of human acts, that is, before
doing the final act as the ultimate end of the moral agent, are considered
subordinate.
4. ____________________ It is considered self-sufficient food where lack and
imperfection are not part of its essence.
5. ____________________ It is the development of personality that resulted in the
application of virtues.
6. ____________________ It is achieved through frequent act until it becomes part of
one’s system of action.
7. ____________________ It refers to those good habits that have something to do
with the rightness and wrongness of actions.

DRAFT. NOT INTEDNDED FOR PUBLICATION. FOR CLASSROOM USE ONLY.