Frameworks and Principles Behind Our Moral Disposition

Basic Theories as Frameworks in Ethics (De Guzman, 2017)

I. Meta-Ethics
Meta-ethics is the branch of ethics that studies the nature of morality. As such, it talks about the meaning, reference,
and truth values of moral judgments. It also explains what goodness and wickedness mean and how we know about
them. Studying the methods for choosing ethical principles and doing normative ethics can be said to be part of this
more basic branch of moral philosophy.

Because it studies the meaning of ethical language and the metaphysics of moral truths, meta-ethics deals with
questions like the following: Are there objective moral truths? What do the words 'good,' 'bad,' 'right' and 'wrong'
mean? Are moral judgments a matter of subjective personal feeling? If we say "Slavery is wrong," are we just
claiming our customs or are we making an objective declaration that is true regardless of what anybody may think?
How can we know if something is right or wrong? How may ethical propositions be supported or defended?

Meta-ethical theories are commonly classified semantically as either cognitivist or non-cognitivist; substantially as
either universalist or relativist; and epistemologically as empiricist, rationalist, or intuitionist.

1. Cognitivism vs. Non-cognitivism

a. Cognitivism states that moral judgments convey propositions, that is, they are 'truth bearers,' or they are
either true or false. Most ethical theories are cognitivist as they contend that right and wrong are matters of
fact. The most famous forms of cognitive ethics are the moral realism and the ethical subjectivism.

o Moral realism claims that the existence of moral facts and the truth (or falsity) of moral judgments
are independent of people's thoughts and perceptions. It maintains that morality is about objective facts,
that is, not facts about any person or group's subjective judgment.

o Ethical subjectivism, on the other hand, holds that the truth (or falsity) of ethical propositions are
dependent on the attitudes or standards of a person or group of persons. Subjectivism is obviously
contrary to moral realism.

b. Non-cognitivism denies that moral judgments are either true or false. It claims that ethical sentences do
not convey authentic propositions, hence are neither true nor false.

Emotivism is the most popular form of non-cognitivist theory. It submits that moral judgments are
mere expressions of our emotions and feelings. Like exclamatory sentences, ethical sentences cannot
be said to be either true or false according to the theory.

2. Universalism vs. Relativism

 Moral universalism theorizes that moral facts and principles apply to everybody in all places. Also
called 'moral objectivism,' it claims that a universal ethic exists and that this applies to all similarly situated
persons, regardless of nationality, citizenship, culture, race, gender, sexual preference, religion, or any other
differentiating factor. Believing that some behaviors are simply wrong, it also submits that if something is right
for one, then it is right for another. Moral universalism is very much compatible with 'moral realism.'

 Moral relativism, on the other hand, submits that different moral facts and principles apply to
different persons or group of individuals.
Believing that various cultures have distinct standards of right and wrong, it also maintains that ethical
standards also change over time even in the same culture. Denying a single, objective standard for
morality, it holds that all moral norms are equally true and morals are mere preferences. Noticeably, it
is very much compatible with 'ethical subjectivism.
 3. Empiricism vs. Rationalism vs. Intuitionism

 Moral empiricism is a meta-ethical stance which states that moral facts are known through
observation and experience.
The theory is an extension of 'empiricism' in epistemology which states that all knowledge of matters of
fact is derived from experience and that our mind is not equipped with pre-experience concepts. Some
forms of moral empiricism hold that moral truths are reducible to matters about people's opinions or
cultural conventions and thus are recognizable by observation of their conventions.

 Moral rationalism contends that moral facts and principles are knowable a priori, that is, by reason
alone and without reference to experience.

As 'rationalism' in epistemology claims that knowledge about reality is gained through a non- empirical
deductive system, most forms of moral rationalism purport that moral facts are known through a
rational inferential process. In general, the theory relies on reason rather than intuition in justifying a
belief or action.

 Moral intuitionism submits that moral truths are knowable by intuition, that is, by immediate,
instinctive knowledge without reference to any evidence.

The theory claims that we have an intuitive awareness of value or morality and that it defines the basis
of our ethical knowledge. It thus insists that the moral value of actions may be known intuitively, even
if their consequences have not been uncovered.

II. Normative Ethics

Normative ethics is the branch of ethics that studies how man ought to act, morally speaking. As the name
suggests, it examines ethical norms, that is, those guidelines about what is right, worthwhile, virtuous, or just.

This branch evaluates standards for the rightness and wrongness of actions and determines a moral course of action.
Prescriptive in nature, it addresses specific moral questions about what we should do or believe: We do normative
ethics if we justify norms like "Discrimination is wrong," or "We must always act in accordance with our duty." Just
for easy distinction, whereas meta-ethics tackles questions such as "What is goodness?" normative ethics deals with
issues like "What ought one to do?"

Classifications of normative ethical theories:

 Deontology is an ethical system that bases morality on independent moral rules or duties.
The term came from the Greek word dean, which means 'duty,' implying the foundational nature of man's
duties or obligations. This system equates behaving morally with adherence to duties or moral rules and
acting immorally with failure to obey them. Also called non-consequentialism, the system's principles are
submitted as obligatory, regardless of the consequences that actions might produce.

 Teleology refers to a moral system that determines the moral value of actions by their outcomes or
results.
From the Greek word 'telos,' which means 'end,' teleology takes into account the result of the action as the
exclusive consideration of its morality.

Teleology deems an action as morally right if its favorable consequences are greater than its adverse
outcomes. Its most famous form is consequentialism which proposes that morality is determined solely by a
cost-benefit evaluation of the action's consequences.

 Virtue ethics, as a moral system, emphasizes developing good habits of character, like kindness and
generosity, and avoiding bad character traits, or vices, such as greed or hatred.
 Virtue-based theories give importance to moral education which molds individuals to habitually act in a
virtuous manner. Focusing on the character of the agent, virtue ethics describes right actions as those
chosen and performed by a suitably virtuous person.

III. Applied Ethics

Applied Ethics philosophically examines specific, controversial moral issues. Using philosophical methods, this
area of concern in Ethics attempts to determine the ethically correct course of action in specific realms of human
action.

For a subject to be considered as an applied ethical issue, not only must it be a matter of moral judgment, but also it
has to be controversial. That is, there must be considerable groups of people both for and against the issue.

Applied ethical issues nowadays are classified into various subfields:

 Bioethics. This concerns with ethical issues about life, biomedical researches, medicines, health care, and
the medical profession. As such, it deals with controversies like those about surrogate mothering, genetic
manipulation of fetuses, stem cell research, using human embryos in research, in-vitro fertilization,
abortion, euthanasia, suicide, patient rights, confidentiality of patients' records, physician's responsibilities,
and mandatory medical screening.

 Environmental ethics. It deals with moral issues concerning nature, ecosystem, and its nonhuman
contents. This includes issues such as animal rights, animal experimentation, endangered species
preservation, pollution control, and sustainable development.

 Business ethics. It examines moral principles concerning the business environment, which involves
issues about corporate practices, policies, business behaviors, and the conducts and relationships of
individuals in the organizations. It investigates ethical controversies such as those about the social
responsibility of businesses, employee rights, harassment, labor unions, misleading advertising, job
discrimination, and whistleblowing.

 Sexual ethics. It studies moral issues about sexuality and human sexual behavior. It examines topics like
homosexuality, lesbianism, polygamy, pre-marital sex, marital fidelity, extra-marital sex, non-marital
procreation, loveless sexual relations, safe sex, and contraceptive use.

 Social ethics. It deals with what is right for a society to do and how it should act as a whole. Its focus is
on what may be deemed as proper behavior for people as a whole. Some of the issues under this are those
about racial discrimination, death penalty, nuclear weapon production, gun control, drug use for fun, and
welfare rights.

Virtue Ethics (De Guzman, 2017)

Virtue Ethics is a moral philosophy that teaches that an action is right if it is an action that a virtuous person would
perform in the same situations. According to the theory, a virtuous person is someone who acts virtuously and people act
virtuously if they possess and live the virtues. A virtue is a moral characteristic that an individual need to live well.

Virtue ethics outs emphasis on developing good habits of character and avoiding bad character traits or vices. It focuses
on the character of the agent and describes right actions as those chosen and performed by a suitably virtuous person.

Virtue ethicists, such as Aristotle, hold that people live their lives trying to develop their faculties to the fullest extent.
We have many faculties to develop such as intellectual, physical, social, moral, and so on. Developing one's moral
capacity to the fullest is pursuing ethical excellence, which is displayed by the virtues.
I. Aristotle’s Ethics
At least two (2) of Aristotle's works specifically concern morality, the Eudemian Ethics and the Nicomachean
Ethics. But since only a few have studied the former, the Nicomachean Ethics has been regarded as the Ethics of
Aristotle since the beginning of the Christian era.

Three general descriptions, which are interrelated, can be used to depict Aristotle's ethics. First, his ethical system
may be termed "self-realizationism." In his philosophy, when someone acts in line with his nature or end ('telos')
and thus realizes his full potential, he does moral and will be happy.

Aristotle's view is also of a type known as eudaimonistic. As such, it focuses on happiness (eudaimonia), or the
good for man, and how to obtain it.

Finally, his moral philosophy is aretoic, or virtue-based. Whereas act-oriented ethics is focused mainly on what we
should do, a virtue ethics is interested basically in what we should be, that is, the character or the sort of person we
should struggle to become.

Aristotle's “Telos”. A “telos” is an end or purpose. Aristotle believed that the essence or essential nature of
beings, including humans, lay not at their cause (or beginning) but at their end (“telos”).

Happiness and Virtues. Aristotle believed that the ultimate human goal is self-realization. This entails
achieving one's natural purpose by functioning or living consistently with human nature. Accomplishing it, in turn,
produces happiness; whereas inability to realize it leads to sadness, frustration, and ultimately to poor life. It
therefore behooves us to act in accordance with our nature to be content and complete.

Ethics, for Aristotle, is the inquiry into the human good. This is to say that the purpose of studying ethics is to make
ourselves good, though Aristotle assumes that we already want to become good. This human good is eudaimonia or
happiness.

Virtue as Habit. Aristotle's idea of happiness should also be understood in the sense of human flourishing. This
flourishing is attained by the habitual practice of moral and intellectual excellences, or 'virtues'.

Related to self-realization, acting in line with virtues is acting in accordance with reason. The function of human
being, accordingly, consists in activities which manifest the best states of his rational aspect, that is the virtues.

II. Thomas Aquinas’ Ethics

Also called the Angelic Doctor and the Prince of Scholastics, Thomas Aquinas is an Italian philosopher and
theologian who ranks among the most important thinkers of the medieval time period.

In Ethics, Aquinas depends so heavily on Aristotle. Like the Greek philosopher, Aquinas believes that all actions are
directed towards ends and that happiness is the final end. Aquinas thinks that happiness consists in activities in
accordance with virtue. Aquinas declared that ultimate happiness is not attainable in this life, for happiness in the
present life remains imperfect. True happiness, then, is to be found only in the souls of the blessed in heaven or in
beatitude with God.

The Natural Law. Central also in Aquinas ethics is his typology of laws. By the term 'law,' he means an ordinance
of reason for the common good, promulgated by someone who has care of the community. Aquinas' laws should also
be understood in terms of "rules and measures" for people's conduct and as "rational patterns or forms." Obedience
to the law is thus viewed also as participating in or being in conformity with the pattern or form.

For Aquinas, there are four primary types of law: the eternal, natural, human, and divine.

The (1) eternal law refers to the rational plan of God by which all creation is ordered. As God is the supreme ruler
of everything, the rational pattern or form of the universe that exists in His mind is the law that directs everything in
the universe to its appointed end. To this eternal law, everything in the universe is subject.
 The (2) natural law is that aspect of the eternal law which is accessible to human reason. Because mankind is part
of the eternal order, there is a portion of the eternal law that relates specifically to human conduct. This is the moral
law, the law or order to which people are subject by their nature ordering them to do good and avoid evil.

The (3) human law refers to the positive laws. For natural law to be adhered to, more exact and forceful provisions
of human law are helpful. Because the natural law is too broad to provide particular guidance, the human law's
precise, positive rules of behavior are supposed to spell out what the natural law prescribes. Moral virtues are also
reinforced by and cultivated through these human laws. This human law includes the civil and criminal laws, though
only those formulated in the light of practical reason and moral laws. Human laws that are against natural law are not
real laws, and people are not obliged to obey those unjust laws.

The (4) divine law serves to complement the other types of law. It is a law of revelation, disclosed through sacred
text or Scriptures and the Church which is also directed toward man's eternal end. Though concerned also with
external aspects of conduct, the divine law is more focused on how man can be inwardly holy and eventually attain
salvation.

Kant and Rights Theory (De Guzman, 2017)

I. Kantian Ethics
Kant categorically rejects that ethical judgments are based on feelings. For him, feelings even serve as obstructions
to our discernment of right and wrong. His ethical theory instead bases moral judgments on reason alone. Reason,
for him, is what deems an action ethical or otherwise.

Goodwill. Kant believes that when we wish to determine the moral status of an action, we consult reason. An act
either accords with reason or it does not. If it accords with reason, we must do it; if not, we must avoid it.

Kant believes that one of the functions and capacities of our reason is to produce a will which is good not as a means
to some further end, but good in itself. For him, it is goodwill which is the highest good and the condition of all other
goods.

Kant teaches that only good will is intrinsically good. That is, it is the only thing which is good without qualification.

Kant does not agree with many ethicists that happiness is the summum bonum or the highest good. Happiness, for
him, can be corrupting and may be worthlessFa or even positively evil when not combined with a good will. In the
same way, intellectual eminence, talents, character, self-control, and fortune cannot be intrinsically good for they can
be used to bad ends.

A good will is one that habitually wills rightly. And it is not what good will achieves that constitutes its goodness.
Even if goodwill, because of some hindrances, accomplishes nothing, it remains to be something with full value in
itself. Goodwill is good in itself.

But who is a good person or a person of good will? For Kant, it is the person who acts from a sense of duty. Kant
thinks that acting from a sense of duty means exhibiting goodwill even in the face of difficulty.

II. Rights Theory

In law, Immanuel Kant proposed the principle of rights. He saw a distinctive correlation, yet difference, between the
intent of the law and the enforcement of law. For Kant, governments were entrusted with the capacity to create laws
by the citizens they governed in exchange for protection. Thus, governments have no right to disrupt that trust by
making laws with cruel intent against the freedom that citizens had been promised.
 The principle of rights theory is the notion that in order for a society to be efficacious, government must approach
the making and enforcement of laws with the right intentions in respect to the end goals of the society that it governs.
Members of society agree to give up some freedoms for the protection enjoyed by organized society, but
governments cannot infringe upon the rights that citizens have been promised.

Rights Based Ethics is a broad moral theory in which Kant's principle of rights theory is included. The concept
of rights based ethics is that "there are some rights, both positive and negative, that all humans have based only on
the fact that they are human. These rights can be natural or conventional. That is, natural rights are those that are
moral while conventional are those created by humans and reflect society's values".

Examples of rights based ethics system:

 The right to life
 The right to liberty
 The right to pursue happiness
 The right to freely practice a religion of choice
 The right to express ideas or opinions with freedom as an individual
 The right to come together and meet in order to achieve goals
 The right to work
 The right to marry
 The right to bear children
 The right to free education
 The right to be treated as equal to others
 The right to personal privacy
 The right to own property

III. Legal vs. Moral Rights

What is legal is not always moral. And sometimes, what is moral is not necessarily legal in a particular country.
These principles prove, among other things, that being moral and being legal may be practically related but not the
same.

Some explain the difference between legal and moral to the difference between is and ought. That is, moral rights
refer to what ought to be, whereas legal rights are the rights that are 'on the books.' Moral rights represent the natural
law while legal rights embody the conventional positive law.

 Legal rights. Legal rights denote all the rights found within existing legal codes. As such, they enjoy the
recognition and protection of the law. Questions as to their existence can be resolved by just locating the
pertinent legal instrument or piece of legislation. Technically, a legal right does not exist prior to its passing
into law, and the limits of its validity are set by the jurisdiction of the body which passed its legislation.

 Moral rights. Moral rights, in plain contrast, are rights that exist prior to and independently from their
legal counterparts. The existence and validity of a moral right is not deemed to be dependent upon the
actions of jurists and legislators. For instance, many people argued that the black majority in apartheid
South Africa had a moral right to full political participation in that country's political system, although there
existed no such legal right.

Human rights cannot be reduced to, or exclusively identified with legal rights. In fact, some human rights
are best identified as moral rights. Human rights are meant to apply to all human beings universally,
regardless of whether or not they have attained legal recognition by all countries everywhere.
 Human rights are best thought of as being both moral and legal rights. The legitimacy claims of human
rights are connected to their status as moral rights. Nonetheless, the practical efficacy of human rights is
essentially dependent upon their developing into legal rights.

Utilitarianism (De Guzman, 2017)

Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) and John Stuart Mill (1808-73) are British philosophers who had an immense impact on
British thought. Bentham was the head of a group of reformers called "the philosophical radicals," whose members
included James Mill and his son, John Stuart Mill. Bentham and the younger Mill are considered the main proponents of
the moral theory called Utilitarianism.

I. Utilitarianism Explained

Perhaps the most prominent moral philosophy in the last two centuries, utilitarianism is known as a consequentialist
theory, a subclass of teleological moral theory. A teleological ethical system judges the rightness of an act in terms
of an external goal or purpose. Its basis in the determination of what one ought (or ought not) to do rests exclusively
on the consequences of the act, not the nature of the act nor the traditional moral rules.

 Consequentialist ethics proposes that actions, rules, or policies should be ethically measured and
evaluated by their consequences, not by the intentions or motives of the agent. As opposed to absolutists
who hold that some actions are intrinsically wrong and must never be done no matter what the results are,
consequentialists suppose that there is no kind of act which may not be justified by its effects. Absolutists
believe in natural law or in natural rights which render some acts, those which violate those rights or
conflict with that law as immoral· no matter what their outcomes are. Consequentialists, on the other hand,
believe that there is no class of actions which must be ruled out in advance independent of their
consequences.

Utilitarianism is the most influential consequentialist theory. Derived from the Latin term utilis which
means 'useful,' utilitarianism basically states that what is useful is good, and that the moral values of
actions are determined by the utility of its consequences. Arguing that the consequences of an act are what
make it either moral or immoral; it explains that those actions that bring about favorable effects are moral
while those that produce damaging results are immoral. Utilitarianism is thus essentially opposed to ethical
theories that consider God's will or some inner sense or faculty, like the conscience, to be the final arbiter of
morality.

Utilitarian ethics argues that the right course of action is one that maximizes overall happiness. This ethical
system is basically hedonistic as it identifies happiness with pleasure. In general, it puts forward that an
action is right if it amplifies pleasures and minimizes pain.

The principle of utility can be applied to either particular actions or general rules. The former is usually
called 'act-utilitarianism' and the latter, 'rule-utilitarianism.'

 Act Utilitarianism. In Act Utilitarianism, the principle of utility is applied directly to every alternative act
in a situation of choice. The right act is then defined as the one which brings about the best results, or, the
least amount of bad results.

One of the criticisms against this outlook is the difficulty of getting a full knowledge and certainly of the
consequences of people's actions. Moreover, it is argued that it is possible to justify immoral acts using act
utilitarianism. Suppose you could end a regional war by torturing children whose fathers are enemy
soldiers, thus revealing the hideouts of the fathers.

 Rule Utilitarianism. In Rule Utilitarianism, on the other hand, the principle of utility is used to decide the
validity of rules of conduct (moral standards or principles). A moral rule such as promise-keeping is
established by evaluating the consequences of a world in which people broke promises at will
 and a world in which promises were binding. Moral and immoral are then defined as following or breaking
those rules.
One of the criticisms against this view is that it is possible to produce unjust rules according to the principle
of utility. For example, slavery in Greece might be right if it led to an overall achievement of cultivated
happiness at the expense of some mistreated individuals.

Justice and Fairness (De Guzman, 2017)

I. Rawls’ Justice as Fairness

Many consider the American political philosopher Rawls (1921-2002) the most important political philosopher of
the 20th century. Rawls rejects utilitarianism and offers some arguments against such a theory. He argues that
utilitarian thinking cannot absolutely exclude systems such as slavery or racial segregation as there is nothing in the
moral theory to dismiss them from consideration. That is, if slavery, for example, is to the ·overall benefit of society,
in that the wellbeing of the slave-owners overshadows- the suffering of the slaves, then utilitarianism would be
required to accept slavery.

Rawls maintains that slavery is wrong under all situations, regardless of any utility calculations, for it does not
respect the fundamental rights and liberties of all persons. Slavery is wrong not because it is unproductive or
inefficient, but because it is unjust, for it does not consider individual rights inviolable.

Rawls is said to somewhat used the elements of both Kantian and utilitarian philosophy in describing a method for
the moral evaluation of social and political institutions. He called his concept of social justice 'Justice as Fairness'
which consists of two principles.

Rawls' Two (2) Principles

 Rawls' First Principle of social justice often called The Liberty Principle, which concerns political
institutions.

"Each person has the same and indefeasible [permanent] claim to a fully adequate scheme ·of
equal basic liberties, which scheme is compatible with the same scheme of liberties for all."

This means that everybody has the same basic liberties which can never be taken away. This first principle
is very Kantian in that it provides for basic and universal respect for individuals as a minimum standard for
all just institutions.

 Rawls' Second Principle of social justice consisted of Fair Equality of Opportunity and The
Difference Principle, which are concerned with social and economic institutions.

“Social and economic inequalities ore to satisfy two conditions (1) first, they ore to be attached to·
offices and positions open to oil under conditions of fair equality of opportunity; and (2) second,
they ore to be to the greatest benefit of the least-advantaged members of society (the 'Difference
Principle1).“

While focused on equality, the Second Principle recognizes that a society could not avoid inequalities
amo.ng its people. In real world, inequalities result from things such as a person's inherited characteristics,
social class, personal motivation, and even 'luck.' Even so, Rawls maintained that a just society ought to
find ways to lessen inequalities in areas where it can function. Rawls specially refer to the best jobs in
private business and public employment by the term 'offices and positions' in his Second Principle. He
proposed that these jobs must be 'open' to everybody by the society granting fair equality of opportunity.
For this purpose, society should, among other things, eradicate discrimination and afford everybody easy
access to education.
II. Distributive Justice

Rawls' 'Justice as Fairness' principles is an example of a social justice concept called distributive justice. This
concept basically concerns the nature of a socially just allocation of goods in a society. If, incidental inequalities in
outcome do not arise, then the principles of distributive justice are said to exist in a society. Distributive justice
includes the available quantities of goods, the process by which goods are distributed, and the subsequent allocation
of the goods to society members. People usually turn to the distributive norms of their group to determine whether
distributive justice has occurred. A norm is the standard of behavior that is required, desired, or designated as normal
within a specific group. Distributive justice is said to have occurred if rewards and costs are allocated according to
the designated distributive norms of the group. The following are the common types of distributive norms:

a. Equity. Members' outcomes should be based upon their inputs. Therefore, an individual who has invested a
large, amount of input (e.g. time, money, energy) should receive more from the group than someone who has
contributed very little. Members of large groups prefer to base allocations of rewards and costs on equity.
b. Equality. Regardless of their inputs, all group members should be given an equal share of the rewards/costs.
Equality supports that someone who contributes 20% of the group's resources should receive as much as
someone who contributes 60%.
c. Power. Those with more authority, status, or control over the group should receive more than those in lower
level positions.
d. Need. Those in greatest needs should be provided with the resources needed to meet those needs. These
individuals should be given more resources than those who already possess them, regardless of their input.
e. Responsibility. Group members who have the most should share their resources with those who have less.

Distributive justice, in social psychology, is defined as perceived fairness of how rewards and costs are shared by, or
distributed across, group members. When workers of the same job, for instance, are paid different salaries, group
members may feel that distributive justice has not transpired. In the context of organizational justice, distributive
justice as a principle is seen as fairness associated with outcomes decisions and distribution of resources.

REFERENCES:
Bulaong, O., Calano. M., & Lagliva, A. (2018). Ethics: Foundations of moral valuation. Sampaloc, Manila: Rex Book
Store, Inc.
Cariño, J. (2018). Fundamentals of ethics. Quezon City: C & E Publishing, Inc
De Guzman, J. (2017). Ethics: Principles of ethical behavior in modern society. Malabon City: Mutya Publishing
Houze, Inc.
Leaña, R. & Gubia A. (2018). Ethics for college students: CHED curriculum compliant. Intramuros, Manila:
Mindshapers Co., Inc.
Ocampo, M. (2018). Ethics primer: a young person’s guide to moral reasoning. Quezon City: Abiva Publishing
House, Inc.