Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • p40 87

    Uploaded by

    Nina Galeste
    14 views24 pages
    .

    Original Title

    p40-87

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    .

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    14 views24 pages

    p40 87

    Uploaded by

    Nina Galeste
    .

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 24
    unlovables, like loving our others. Jesus’ ethics seeks no hypocrisy for it directly points at one’s heart and mind. He teaches honesty and sincerity. He does not like people who want to be moral because they are seeking for affirmation or approval from the common public or the mainstream society that they are good. Says Jesus: When you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites, for they like to pray standing in the synagogues and in the comers in order to be noticed. When you pray, go to your own room and lose the door and pray to your Father who is unseen, and your Father who sees you in secret will repay you... When you are going to give alms, for ‘example, do not blow a trumpet before yourself, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and the streets to make people praise them... But when you give to charity, your left hand must not know what your right hand is doing so that your charity may be in secret, and. ‘your Father who sees what is secret will reward you.” ‘The ethics of Jesus teaches faith in the Father. For Jesus, a believer should not worry for tomorrow; instead, he should develop a complete trust in the Father. Says the Savior: Which of you with all his worry can add a simple hour to his life? Why should you worry about clothing? See how the wild flowers grow. They do not toil or spin, and yet T tell you, even Solomon in all his splendor, was never dressed like one of them. But if God s0 beautifully dresses the wild grass which is alive today and thrown into the furnace tomorrow, will He not much ‘more surely clothe you? You who have 0 little faith? So do not worry and say, 3 or “What we have to wear?” For these all the heathen are in pursuit of and your heavenly Father knows well that you need all these. But you must make His kingdom, and uprightness before you, your greatest care, and you will love all these other things besides. So, do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will have worries of its own. Let each day be content with its own ills ‘The moral teaching of Jesus demands peace and rec In order to ‘emphasize His ethical demand, he compares His ethical system with the Jewish Law: Thus, He says: “You have heard that the men of old were told: ‘You shall not murder’ and ‘whoever murders will have to ‘statnow 6-27-94 is the most crucial demand in Jestis’ Ethics. Jesus says that the road to heaven is thorn; there are no b oses toward tl you that his brother ‘and anyone who says to I have ‘me, you must deny yoursel, take up your cross and begin to follow in my steps.” 2. Ethical Teaching of St. Augustine’ said that one cannot find peace if he is not at peace with himself. He who is th himself cannot have peace ‘one is not at peace with himself and with his fellowmen, how can he be at peace with God? To Jesus, he who has enemies is not worthy to be in good terms with God. Thus, says the Lord when you are presenting your gift atthe alta, if you remember that your brother has grievance against Ieave your git right there before the altar and go and make up with your brother, then come back and present your gift. Be quick and come to terms with your opponent while you are on the way to court with him, or he may hand you over to the off will never get out again until you have paid the last penny.* The moral teaching of suffering and sacrifice. TI connected to the first hes Beyond any reasonable dout to suffer; and to accept one’s dire lot of poverty is more than enough sacrifice. This} The focal point of Augustine’s moral s the highest by this so-called proponent of Medieval Philosophy as the basis and the central point of his moral teaching, Augustine believed that God is the starting, point and the terminal point of everything in "Mark 834. ‘He was bom in Tagasto, North Africa, of a pagan father named in 313, Emperor Constantine granted freedom of worship to Christians, In.325 0.C.E., the Cathoic Church set forth to define her basic doctrines. This gave bith to the Council of Nicea. At this point in time, Augustine played a vital role in abating the heretics and their doctrine. This made him write his highly reputed books, namely: The Cily of God: The anessans: ne Encon: De Musca: among oer. He ced in Matthew 7:21-26, "Matthew 523-26. EIHICS/Part One/Chapter |. IMICs/Part One/Chapter One, 2 existence. God is the Creator and He created everything out of love” Love, therefore, i hat creations, God showed ‘much favor to man for He gives man free will. In this vein, Augustine proceeds in saying that ‘because man has free will, he is endowed by with the power to choose between good and Through this argument, Augustine confide draws a categorical conclusion that man’s free eedom, is the primordial basis of the Augustine is so resolved in his conviction that itis man who authors evil and not God. And he firmly anchors this conviction in the premise that everything which God created is good. Evil for Augustine is the negation or absence ‘of good. When a man does evil, he does it because of his free will; man lacks goodness and turns lows, then, that an nothing else but gestures o whether man does good or “ought” remains the sa should strive to have his moral upkeep. Despite his acceptance that man by nature (because of his prod his free will), Augu: capable of attaining, perfe that man should keep himself good, however, proposes some contri help man attain salvation. They refer to what he calls the five cardinal virtues, viz. prudence, justice, temperance, fortitude, and charity or love For Augustine, to be good is to desire for for happiness, ‘Augustine says beauty, power, honor, fame, health, and tl ‘cannot give man perfect happiness and ul satisfaction because they are by themselves finite and mutable, This is the reason why Augustine insists that only the cardinal virtues ¢an give man sure assurances towards his reunification with ine reechoes the In sum, Augustine's understanding of God as love drives him to take love as the basis and ‘urther, Augustine suggests that man should practice the cardinal virtues in the name of charity or love because for See St. Augustine, “Christian instructions,” in Primacy Texts in Morel Priesophy: A Phiigpine Cotlecton Rainier bana and Angeli “Tugado, eds. (Pasig Cty: Philippine Commission on Higher Education, 1968), pp. 144-145, “ [EIHICS/Past One/Chaptet One, differen reverber greatest vir neither temperance nor fortitude, This makes love the center of mor Aquinas — as an. philosophy, in general, and of Aristotelian Ethics, in particular - Christianized the pagan moral philosophy of Aristotle. This suggests that one rec istic ethics if one does not in ethics. This is made at Aquinas takes the concept 1s taught by Aristotle in his Nicomachean and integrates his theological virtues to virtues. This means that complements. In this regard, the Ari virtues should be given room for a convergence with the supernatural or theological virtues of Aquinas. With the wedding of the two sets of virtue, Aquinas added his concept of Beatific Vision. For Aquinas, the connatural ing here on earth a5, heaven. Asa whole, the Aristotelian id the supernatural virtues, which are “He was bor in the year 1225 at Rocca Seoca in the Kingdom he Was ordained priest despite the stem objection 13, he underwent a thorough study ofthe completo aster of theology of Faith, Hope, and Love, will help man attain ision (St. Thomas's term for salvation in which man sees God face to face). Now, let us consider the Angelic thinker’ concept of human actions. According to Aquinas, every agent acts for an end.* Human actions are always geared towards ends, When these ends are also become the means for the 2 series of ends in human actions. For example, Aas. The end of A~ why he eats ~ isto satisfy hhis hunger. But, when A has eaten already (meaning he has already attained his end in cating), A will make use of the energy brought about by the food he ate. Thus, the achieved end of A becomes the means of A's attainment of further ends. lows, then, that there should be a final this final or ultimate end of human actions happiness. Aquinas, too, takes the same term. But, it is true, itis not easy to know how can an end be called final. So that there will be a clear idea of what a final end is, Aquinas sketches 5 criteria, Thus, as end is understood as final if it complies with these criteria: s desirable to us for its own sake; is suficient in itself to satisfy us is attainable by the wise among us; and offers happiness to us. Furthermore, since hu always directed towards ends, it ase, human actions are, then, context, Aquinas speaks of the human actions. So, it becomes ‘human acts become voluntary acts are willed by the agent. This means that if human actions are directed towards an end, the agent therefore intends an end as he performs an act. ‘According to Aquinas, the agent performs voluntary of willful actions through the following is in itself overt (externally If the agent is responsible for the consequences of his actions. Aquinas, however, proceeds further in ‘contending that man’s will can only intend what is good - this had been asserted by Socrates in cour earlier presentation. The point which Aquinas is trying to drive at is that the reason the age ddoes an acts that he sees the end in the act Once the agent because by doing so terms, the mere doing of an act befits the doer of the act. This is understandable because anything performance ‘That is why, for Aquinas, every agent acts for good. In this book, we intend to discuss the views of Aquinas concerning circumstances of human like concupiscence, fear, ignorance, and and al ' only, at the moment, discuss Aquinas‘ law, in general, and relate it to the mor (Our discussion on law in Aquinas's views, in a way, would perhaps complete our al philosophy. closely associated to each ot ciate Aquinas’s concept of law from his moral philosophy. Accordingly, Thomistc ethics is centered on the concept of the Natural Law and the Eternal Law. For Aquinas, God, in His divine providence, plans for all things and directs all things to their proper order, to their proper purpose, or to their proper ends. ‘This is the reason why we say things have their own purpose and end. Now, this plan and direction of God to all things is what Aquinas calls the Eternal Law. On the other hand, the natural order of things ~ which is nothing else ‘but the attainment of God's plan and direction of Precisely, the Natural Moral Law refers to the natural order of man as a being of rational being, and as.a free being, In ot this Natural Moral Law can only b [IHICS/Part One/Chapter One \CS/Pon One Chapter One is applied to man in relation to man’s the case, the Natural Moral Law in is actions. According to Aquinas, the Natural Law and the Natural Moral Law are manifestations and reflections of the Eternal Law. Since the Natural Law is the reflection of Eternal Law, Aquinas says that the Natural Law and Eternal Law are one. The Natural Moral Lan, on the other hand, is the Eternal Law acquired and understood by man through his reason. It is reason that serves as a medium of the Eternal Law to be known by man in the context of the Natural Moral Law. ‘man, Through his conscience, man is bound to do good and to avoid evil or do what is right and avoid what is wrong. In sum, the Eternal Law of God rules all things in their order and purpose (end) and man, in his intrinsic nature, cannot be exempted from the governance of the Eternal Law. That is why man’s through case, man’s actions should be duly correlated with God's Eternal Law. This is what Aquinas means when he says that man can and will only do that which is good or that man only performs an ‘The Natural Law is the voice of nature; It is writen in man's heart. Reason tet is called the Natural Law in the sense that tordins that g0o0 ought o be done and evi must be avoided. Hence, reason fs the voiee that speaks to us so that we can distinguish between good ‘and evil fis in his ght where guidance of the Etemal Law of the Natural Moral Law can ba understood. For further readings, see Benedict Ashley and Kevin O'Rourke, Ethics of Meath Care. (USA: The Cathole Health Association, 1997), p. 82. so INICS/Part One /Chapler One action which is good. Aquinas, however, admits sometimes, the will also does evil acts. But, for him this evil act appears as an apparent good to the agent, This is the reason why man is ‘compelled to heed the voice of conscience = which is the guide of the Eternal Law in man through the Natural Moral Law. ert One/Chepter One Exercise No. 1. Do you agree wit ‘ethics shows more ‘oppressed? Why? . us loves the poor, does it follow that He hates How do you explain the contention that Jesus’ ” ethics demands sacrifice ‘and suffering? 2 the contention that Jesus’ we? Why? contention that Jesus’ at teaches peace and Do you agree wi ethics is an ethics Do you agree wi ethics is an ethi reconciliation? What does Matthew 6:1-4 say about Jesus’ teaching of hypocrisy? What does Matthew 523-26 have t0 say about Jesus’ teaching of forgiveness? How did St. Augustine view evil? Do you aBF° with him? What is St. Augustine's concept of Tove 1% relation nae 8 Do you agree with St. Auy ine when he argues that “to be good is to desi ee |. What have St Augusti with morality? 5. Between Plato and Ari ‘Thomas Aquinas's ethic . How did St. Thomas Aquinas view ends in human actions? Following St. Thomas's line of thinking, what are the eriteria to be observed if one seeks to know the finality of an act? theological virtues? Using St. Thomas's arguments, when does an act ‘become voluntary? Do you agree with him? Why? |. What does “Eternal Law” mean? . What does “Natural Law” mean? Is there conscience? How is it related to these laws? What do you understand by “Natural Moral Law”? Whai have these laws to do with morality? Ethical Teaching of Immanuel Kant ethics is not pure philosophy for it involves an empirical part, on the] ‘one hand, which he calls practical anthropology, ani a rational part which he calls moral proper, on other hand. If both empirical and rational while morality is purely rational. No wonder Kant contends that the basis of morality is nothing else but reason. Thus, his schoo of thought in ethics cannot be used as a synonym morality. To be consistent, he uses morals, instead of ethics. Argues Kant practical anthropology; the rational part proper? Because Kantian morality is founded on reason. Kant keeps on pounding the idea of the good will motive, and duty. For Kant live in accordance with the one’s moral existence is concerned. Since therefore, the command by obeying the laws of reason is a Kant’s moral theory i it is not concerned for the ought.” In this light, to not just an invit indeed, idealistic in th shat is” but of the “wh: /e a moral life is a must and for the sake of simplicity, how can one live a ‘moral life? ‘Immanuel Kant, Foundation of Metaphysics of Morals trans. and ed. by Lewis White Back, in: Al. Melden, Ethica/ Theories, p. 292. ETH1¢S/Part One/Chopter One. 85 Ee ing of one's life in accordance with the laws of reason. Reason for Kant is not the terminal po! ather, it leads to the od will This means that, for Kant, ‘2 common understanding bby nature, man isa rational being. Therefore, it follows that to live in reason is to live in nature, But, what is the connection between Kant posits his claim that reason is capable of ‘what is Kant’s understanding the will is the determining f conduct. Therefo Kant maintains that the “... practi which determines the will by concept of reason... A perfectly g ich tunder objective . principle necessita good : The philosopher did not deny that we have intelligence, wit, judgment, courage, and ‘other connatural mental talents. But all these can be Simmanuel Kant, “The Groundwork ofthe Metaphysics of Morals,” in Primary Teas In Moral Philosophy: A Phsingine Cokecton. Paci ‘and Angoli Tugado, eds. (Pasig City: Philippine Commission “dueation, 1908), p. 190, But, is it enor that man can also investigates the motive behind the wi For the celebrated German thinker, motive determines the moral quality of an act and not the consequences of the act. He contends that itis the intention behind our acts that matters and not the consequences our acts beat. In this thread of thought, Kant claims that the motive in moral acts cannot be happy with his actions, nor should man act morally ‘because there is God who will reward his good actions Kantian ethical school, man acts morally s his duty to be moral. ‘The moral duty, according to Kant, is a duty of ‘man because of his res Duty is the obligatic governed by desire or in absolute and unconditional 's reverence for the moral law, the moral law jel or an absolute command. That is why he calls his brand of morality categorical ‘Seo iia, p. 191 Kant teaches that the categorical imperative is founded on two principles, viz. (1) Principle of Universality; and (2) Principle of Humanity. ‘The Principle of Universality is constructed by Kant in this way: “Act only on that maxim through which you can same time, will that it should become a universal law.”” The Principle of Humanity is however, constructed by Kant in this way: “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 atthe same time as an end.”* ple rests Kant’s demand that man those actions that have universal should not perform acts ersalized. Kant contends that suicide (which is nothing else but if done by all can lead to the extinction of mankind) and not paying debts are actions that cannot become universal." In the Principle of Universal doing an act, should first In the second principle rests Kant's emphasis on the dignity of the human person. He writes: Now I say: man, and generally rational being, exists as an end in himself, not merely as ‘a means to be arbitrarily used by this or that will, bbut all his actions, whether they concern himself ‘or other rational beings, m Kant, therefore, stresses that man is not a means, to an end; he is an end in himself. This principle of FIHICS/Part One/Chapter One _—_— good will, As reason establishes a good will, good will ‘acts for duty’s sake. Duty, he reverence, or respect for the very nature as a rat ‘rong; reason does not make base our assessment of Kant’s moral teaching on Tho: ethics, Based on what we learned in ‘Scholasticism, the Moral Law comes from the Natural Law and the latter comes from God's Eternal Law. The Moral Law, therefore, is not our own invention, Kant also sounds quite polemic in saying that duty is the only motive in the performance of an act shat dy does ot coir wheter he agent i happy is action or not. Worst of all, Kant Eo with man’s moral duty But, the question is: "Is duty among others. Finally, Kant’s claim that man should act only if the action he wants to perform will become a universal law is erroneous. In principe, i is wrong to argue that mora rules are practiced universal ‘many moral rues, or actions speci beunivralizd For example me that says: “Tho because there are times whi indispensable. Aside from the two rules we mentioned, we can tyrdom, for example. impossible ‘martyrdom, for if it were true, then, all of us would become heroes and saints. act s0 as to produce t happiness to the gre people. Act utilitarianism is also called eudaimonistic sis well represented an John Stuart ism holds by John Rawls and give focus"o be centered on the Ethi Mil 1. Ethical Teaching of Jeremy Bentham ‘commonly admitted among the circle of that the man behind the founding of utilitarianism is Jeremy Bentham, Bentham is a philosopher wl believes that ethics is nature-based. nature that demands man to ‘man should realize tobe governed by two masters, viz. pain and. ure. Thus, says Bentham: Nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pai and pleasure. point out what we ought to do, as wel as to determine what we shall do.” bert Dewey, op. ct. p. 224 tham, %n Introduction to the Principles of Mora bert Dewoy, et al. An inroouction 0 Ethics, the greatest good happiness and pleasure wh disapproves of every action whatsoever according to the tendency by which it appears to augment or diminish the happiness of the party whose happiness. understanding of of mischief, pain, evil, or unhappiness to whose interest is considered..." In simple terms, the principle of utility is that principle that serves as the criterion on the sources and consequences of pain and pleasure. In general, Bentham’s school of utilitarianism can be divided into two, viz.; Psychological Hedonism and Egoistic Hedonism, n Psychological Hedonism, the contention that man by nature is capable of doing only those actions which give him pleasure and that he ns that give him pain is ib, pp, 226-227, “tid, p. 227, [ETHICS /Paxt One/Chopter One FCS Pot One/Chapler One follow what is natural in the name of pleasure and avo render him pain. This is Psychological Hedonism. In Egoistic Hedonism, the contention which is valued is that man is primarily obligated to seek ns the pleasure or punishment or penalty to violators of the law. by making him co other words, in mor ‘of pleasure is con imposes upon man to be moderate in his use of pleasure. Bentham, in his utilitarianism, did not only stop at providing due sanction to man’s natural desire for pleasure. He also tries to measure the ‘THICS/Part One/Chapter One of pleasure. To Bentham the best way to leasure is through a theory Pleasure and pain can be measured through the hedonic calculus which Bentham defines as the tool or the cr we value of pleasure. According to there are seven circumstances in which intensity, Bentham says that if man is between two pleasures, man is morally leasure which constitutes the higher degree. In duration, one is, for Bentham, morally ound to choose for that pleasure which has a longer effect In certainty, Bentham makes it clear that man should perform only those actions which certainly give him and the others pleasure. Those actions that are dubiously pleasure-giving should be avoided. In propinguity, Bentham says that timely pleasure should be preferred rather that those that are still to come. For Bentham, what matters are those pleasures that are right in the here-and-now. In fecundity, Bentham remarks that man should prefer pleasures that are not ends in themselves. What Bentham is saying is that man should prefer to pleasures that are also pleasure- producing and not those that are ends in themselves. ‘ibid, p. 290. 1C3/Part One/Chapter One easure experience that yy quantum of pain. mentor by asse or ideas and the phenomenal world were loaded with defects, Having claimed this, Aristotle started to advertise and sell his theory on matter and form as two stuffs of reality that are by nature complementary € waation goes with Bentham and talking about? Mill, rec Bentham focuses only in the quantitative value of pleasure, adds his concept on the qualitative values of pleasure and, them as the trademark of his ethical theory. I writes: It is compatible with the principle of utility to recognize the fact that some kinds of pleasure are more desirable and valuable than others. It would be absurd that in estimating all other things, quality is considered as well as quantity, the estimation of pleasure should be supposed to depend fon quantity alon ‘Mill, undeniably, assumes Bentham’ theory ‘on happiness, yet, he importance to the qual admits that ly ‘good, nor it is possible to conceive of pleasure as the greatest good. It could be posited, however, that some pleasures are more valuable than others. This is what he means by the qualitative difference in pleasure. For instance, intellectual pleasure is higher in scale or value than physical ‘or sensual pleasure. For Mill the qualitative value ‘of pleasure should be given more emphasis than the quantitative value. For M how much pleasure one gets w! an act; what matters is the qual tone savors out of the actions one performs. writes: “...we are justified in ascribing to the preferred enjoyment jority in quality so far outweighing quantity..." If Bentham’s emphasis is pleasure, Mill's is happiness. This seems tantamount to saying that happiness, as a quality, is higher in degree than pleasure. Mill says that “happiness is... the most fundamental principle of morality and the source utilitarianism, it used to be: “the greatest '"John Stuart Mil. Utitaranism, in Robert Dewey, et al. op. ct "EIHICS/Part One/Chopter OF happiness to the greatest number of people.” Now, Mill does not care about the recipients of happiness; instead, he focuses his a degree of happiness amassed by the in his actions. Does this mean that promote soci in his et thought? The ansi the negative, for his concept postulates that of Bentham. He only tries to give due emphasis to the qualitative value of happiness or of pleasure. In sum, we can say that the two noted utiltarians are one in contending tha man’s happiness. They are al saying that happiness is defined " the we should say that their brand of mi hedonistic. ‘At any rate, Bentham and Mill have different 3s his quanti by Jean-Paul Sartre. », we can name other prominent 3s, like Gabriel Marcel, Albert Camus, Karl Fyodor Dostoevsky, Nicolas Berdayaer, Martin Heidegger, among others. There are many substantial insights that sm can offer us. We might be able to hese insights by doing a cursory study of Existentialism, ETHICS/Pox One/Chapter One: In Existentialism, there are no absolute and that the essence of man is to exist. ‘The existentialists’ especially Martin Heidegger — assert that human existence is incomplete. That is why ‘man has to make his own existence. In Sartre's own words: “Man is nothing else but what hie makes of himself.” This, however, does not require an objective ‘moral standard, In Existentialism, man does not choose between good and evil moral standards in making his existence morally meaningful. What ought man to choose from is between authentic and inauthentic existence. This choice cannot be imposed, because it is man’s personal prerogative. If in ethics, generally, there are eternal and universal values, in Existentialism values are personal and subjective. The existentialists view man primarily Therefore, man himself should determine Since in Existentialism man makes his personal and subjective decision as the basis of his acti is also categorically free to assume responsi his decisions. The moral ought, therefore, pertains to gg tt PaUl Sat, Exton in Raber Done ea. op. CS/Part One/Chapter One a argues that m to his nature but to his, freedom, Man, for Sartre, is thrown to be free; and he maintains that man's thrownness to freedom becomes man’s burden and agony" One of the prevailing doctrines of the existentialists is that of death. For them, particularly Heidegger, death is dreadful; it is dreadful because nobody can replace one’s death. One has to die his ‘own death; and itis certain that everybody dies. With more propriety, Heidegger contends that at the very moment a human being assumes life ~ specifically during conception ~ he is already old enough to die” Since man dies at anytime, he, therefore, should not ere in making plans for hi gratifying or rewarding already in one’ ‘on earth. It does not posit the idea that th and an Absolute 1 God who us of the good des Since the existential initiator of action and that man is a sul an error to say that ethics in ialism is wrong. lism is purely subjective, then, no corrective m can be employed to validate ‘whether existentialistic ethics is anarchistic or not at all. “Babor, The Human Porson: Not Real, But Existing. Op. ct. isegger, “Boing and Time,” in Marin Held ‘David Farell Kral, (Now York: Harper, ETHICS/Pert One/Chopter One ‘much emphasis on reason as the determining factor of action, Kierkegaard lamented that nothing becomes this age of the crowd. For the father of because man is superb! live life. In other words, Ki discover that the most emphasized value is mat freedom which. ‘The moral the Natural Moral Law of existentialstic eth human life and the virtues it teaches are human integrity and authenticity” Dialectical Ethics ‘This kind of ethical theory is well-represented Hegel, Mars, Kant, among others The’ major tenet ty. The values taught in this theo are the dignity and autonomy of man. These are the values emphasized by Hegel when he claims th: State only subordinates man; the State does not See Reber Kane, The Signitcance of Free Wilt (New York Oxfors University Press, 1998), pp. 32-43, [HICS/Par! One/Chapter One f ‘man, These same values are emphasized by Marx in his claim that man is not an individual, but social and For Marx, man, part 3, should establish an autonomy by chains of poverty ‘about by the capitalists. To do this, the t should establish a relatedness to his productive, for in doing, this he also tries to establish a relation to nature. Kant, in his own manner of thinking, also stresses the value of human dignity. We clarified this when we discussed Kantian Ethics. Hegel, on the other hand, argues that the moral {in the universal will. He argues that this ‘present in every man and is embodied and laws of society" 1 clearly pertains to his imperative which we isthe ought in Dialectical jatural Moral Law? Hegel's, ‘Marx's, and Kant’s answers are al in the negative. ‘Common to the three isthe claim that every man must construct his own moral laws. Kant asserts that man ‘aan do it in terms of intuition. For Hegel, the moral rnorins come from the law of the State; and since itis man who makes the law, man, then, is the maker of the moral law. ‘The virtues that are held and maintained in Dialectical Ethics are propriety (as claimed by Hegel due recognition of man’s dignity (as claimed by Kant), 300 ibid. 49, et Pe ee Ne ee EIHIGS/Port One Chop O actually an old name for roductory discussion, we in his own studies, says that good isin itself indefinable.® Ayer and Stevenson, in their own analysis, say that ethical terms are nothing else but ‘This eventually gives rise ‘emotive ethics ethics includes naturalistic, statements cannot be translated into nonethical ones. ‘The nonnaturalists insist that some ethical statements S00 John A. Soarlo, “How to Dera ‘Ought rors, Philippa Ireores of Es London xe Ue ress, 180. S00 Eile A. Babor, “An Essay on Goorge Edward Moore's Concept of Goodin Ainaacnan,nerdisopinary Research Journal ot Holy Namo University, Tagblaran Cy. Vol. 15, No. 2(Qetober 2004) pp. 2223. S00 AJ, Ayer, ota, “Ethics as Emotve Expression,” in Etol Aer, etal Gat Taattons in Ethics op. cp. 309 .FHICS/Fent One/Chapter One 7 used to condition one’s behavior, Examples t emotivism are the prevalent don'ts of moral imperatives, like “Dont Don’t cheat” and the like. In summary, we can say that metaethics i nothing else but the semantics or the linguistic analysis of tthical statements or words so that when these are properly studied, ore understandable and meaningful |. Evolutionistic Ethics is wrong to say synonymous with evol the same. As we have seen earlier, naturalistic ethics is metaethics while evol metaethies. This is the problem of some textbooks ethics that claim no difference between naturalistic and accommodate the concept of change. encer, Dewey, and many optimism on the part of an evolutionist like Spencer, who believes that nature per se provokes mutual aid and cooperation for the progress of man’s moral history Aside from the foregoing int the formet, howeve quite pessimistic as Hartman. According interpretation, ‘morality are in contradiction. This contradi in the way that whi ‘morality hel Mayer and Ri five points™ that 1. Before the theory of evolution was conceived, ethicists believed that God created the world and that God, in his Divine Providence, ordered and is evolving withou The theory of evolution gives greater emphasis, on the historical progress of ethics. What used to scientific viewpoint. 3. Today, because of the theory of eval behavior is studied according to his animalistic background. Human instinctive drives are treated sg Fedotik Mayor, et al, Es andthe Modem Wore op. pt bid, . 143. mid EIHICS/Pan One/Chapter One FTHICS Port One/Cheptor One mudy of human res rise to the problem ynment. Several questions stops being only normative, and it also becomes descriptive. In sum, adherents of evolutionistic ethics maintain that moral norms, or moral standards, ‘or moral principles vary from time to time. Rational appropriations of morality keep on changing depending on the surrounding circumstances that occur in a given situation or in a certain moment. This perhaps explains why some European countries and even some states in America allow same sex marriage, divorce and abortion when long before mainstream society was always conservative on these issues Situation Ethics tion ethics is an ethics of “It depends” It ETHICS/Pert One/Chapter One sounds too subjective, and relativistic. lation Ethics, more or less, jibes with ‘moral or immoral. It accepts laws ive commands, but only as illuminating, guides. Situation Ethics, therefore, recognizes no absolute and objective moral laws. However, it embraces love as the only absolute principle of moral conduct. Thu injunction in Situation Ethics is: Always do the loving thing, against overlegal Protestant Christ ‘was popularized States by Joseph Fletcher. This book discusses only Fletcher's moral insights. Despite the claim of Fletcher advocated by Joseph Fletcher. For Fletcher, there are no intrinsically good or evil actions. He is convinced that goodness and badness are not ontological properties of action, but are mere conditions and predicaments of action, Actions for [ETHICS Par One/Chapter One ” Fletcher can only become good or evil depending upon the concomitant circumstances in which the act is situated. Since situations and circumstances vary in every case, therefore, there can be no universal rules or judgments that are applicable. In this perspective, Fletcher claims that morality is relative since there are no absolute laws. As cited earlier, Fletcher recognizes one absolute guide which is for him is nothing else but love. Law for Fletcher does not qualify to be the absolute basis of Situation Ethics because it imposes just as it austerely demands compliance. This is why Fletcher prefers love to law as moral guide in Situation Ethics. Love for Fletcher neither imposes nor commands; it only invites. Love is not what we feel, but what we do. Love, therefore, is not a feeling but a decision, In this case, love decides not prescribes. Thus, love makes its decisions, not prescriptively but situationally. Here, Fletcher asserts that love is the absolute norm in moral decisions, In other words, for Fletcher, love alone is the standard of morality Now, after considering Situation Ethics in general and Fletcher's Situation Ethics in particular, let us try to provide a critique on Situation Ethics. This means that we wish to make a discernment of both the positive and the negative aspects in Situation Ethics as dished out to us by Fletcher. Positively, Situation Ethics is good because it condemns rigid legalism. Besides, it considers every human being not as a means but as an end. Therefore, it takes man not as a means to an end but as an end in himself. Further, Situation Ethics emphasizes love in moral life. Negatively, however, its overemphasis on situations as grounds for moral decisions makes Situation Ethics questionable and ambiguous. jons per se are ambiguous, because they may two different things. One may refer to The former refers to a situation which defined, because it is open to various probable actions er as good or bad while the latter refers to a situation in which one shows a reaction based on his prior moral training, conceptis ons, and commitment. To elucidate this, let us cite an example. ‘not morally One early Monday morning, an unidentified ‘old man is lying at the main gate of Holy Name University unconscious, probably half-

    You might also like