Ethics Reviewer

I. Ethics and Morality

Ethics comes from the Latin word “ethica” which originated from the Greek word
“ethike” or ”ethos” which means a place where we dwell or the solid foundation of
things. In St. Thomas Aquinas’ commentary on the ethics of Aristotle, he defines ethics
as a philosophical science that deals with human acts as directed towards an end.

Here, ethics is not an empirical science and therefore, does not give scientific
certitude but a practical one. In this view, ethics is knowledge of certain universal
truths that becomes the basis of human behavior. The focus of ethics is human acts or
the kind of actions willed and deliberated as directed to a particular end or purpose.
The end is determined by the nature of things, as in the case of man, reason.

This end (or reason) serves as the standard of goodness and evilness of an act. This
standard norm is known as morality. It comes from the Latin word, “mores” which
means “conduct” or “customs”. Morality, therefore, is the conformity or
disconformity of the human act with the human reason (the rule of morality). And
so, at times, ethics is coined as “moral philosophy”.

Characteristics of Ethics

a. Ethics is a PRACTICAL SCIENCE.

- is not to mere study the principles but on the basis of its applicability in the
lived world, particularly to teach men how to live a practical life with the
capacity to discern right from wrong and direct his actions to an end.
- Aristotle once said, “We do not study ethics to know what virtue is, but in
order to become virtuous and good”.

b. Ethics PROCEEDS FROM HUMAN REASON.

- distinct from theology which deals with its studies by Christian revelation
through faith.

c. The knowledge in ethics is not the same as knowledge of natural sciences or

metaphysics but it looks for a MORAL CERTITUDE that is applicable in the majority of
the situations.

d. It is RELEVANT IN OUR PROFESSION.

- it deals with human acts and behavior, which is fundamental to man.
- In our society nowadays, which is undergoing deep transformation (e.g., the
progress of technology, health care, human rights, sociological changes,
business, tourism, etc.) ethics is important as a guide in making moral
decisions.
II. Relativism

The doctrine that there are no absolute truths in ethics and that what is morally
right or wrong varies from person to person or from society to society. What’s
considered right or wrong corresponds to what we, as a community believe in.

Two types of relativism

a. Individual - Individual moral relativism is the idea that values vary from person to
person and each person has their own valid set of morals. There is no concept of
correct moral principles; everything is based on what an individual desires.

b. Social - The morality behind a decision or idea is based off of what your entire
culture believes in, undeterred by what you may personally think of it.

Relativism is highly dependent on our social codes; mostly based on “sentiment” than
reason. (What we think is right & what feels right) However, this is highly favored by
many because this can best explain the variability of moral belief.

III. Deontology

Ethical theories that place special emphasis on the relationship between duty and
the morality of human actions. The term deontology is derived from the Greek deon,
“duty,” and logos, “science.”

In deontological ethics, an action is considered morally good because of some

characteristic of the action itself, not because the product of the action is good.
Deontological ethics holds that at least some acts are morally obligatory regardless of
their consequences for human welfare.

Immanuel Kant

One of the distinctive features of Kant’s ethics is that it focuses on duties, defined by
right and wrong. Right and wrong (which are the primary deontic categories, along
with obligatory, optional, supererogatory, and others) are distinct from good and bad
(which are value categories) in that they directly prescribe actions: right actions are
ones we ought to do (are morally required to do) and wrong actions we ought not to do
(are morally forbidden from doing).

He believes that:

1. Morality is rational. He models his morality on science, which seeks to discover

universal laws that govern the natural world. Similarly, morality will be a
system of universal rules that govern action.
2. There should be imperative. The word “imperative” in his categorical
imperative means a command or order. However, unlike most other commands,
which usually come from some authority, these commands come from within,
from our own reason. Still, they function the same way: they are commands to
do certain actions.
- Hypothetical imperative is conditional on a person’s wants, needs, or
desires and normally comes in the following form: “If you want/need A,
then you ought to do B.” For example, the advice, “If you want to do
well on a test, then you should study a lot” would be a hypothetical
imperative.
- Categorical imperative, instead of taking an if-then form, is an
absolute command, such as, “Do A,” or “You ought to do A.” Examples
of categorical imperatives would be “You shouldn’t kill,” “You ought to
help those in need,” or “Don’t steal.” It doesn’t matter what your
wants or goals are; you should follow a categorical imperative no matter
what.

The Maxims

What Kant means by a maxim is a personal rule or a general principle that underlies
a particular action. As rational beings, we don’t just act randomly; we devise certain
rules that tell us what to do in different circumstances. A complete maxim will include
three pieces: the action, the circumstances under which we do that action, and the
purpose behind that action.
1. Universality - by asking if it would be possible for everyone to live by this
maxim. If the maxim can be universalized, meaning that it’s possible that
everyone could live by it, then it’s permissible to follow it. If it can’t be
universalized, then it is impermissible to follow it. The logic of the
universalization test is that any rule you follow should apply to
everyone—there’s nothing special about you that allows you to be an exception.
2. Means to ends < ends - The idea underlying the second formulation is that all
humans are intrinsically valuable. To treat someone merely as a means is to not
give the person the proper respect—to fail to treat the person with dignity, to
treat the person as a thing. It makes sense to use inanimate objects as
tools—you can use a hammer as a means to drive in nails without worrying
about what the hammer feels about this because it’s a thing. But if you use a
person in such a way, it devalues the person.