CHAPTER 1 THE MEANING OF PHILOSOPHY

THE NATURE OF PHILOSOPHY Although the endeavor to give Philosophy a precise

definition to make it distinct and systematic
General Objective:
discipline has failed (and will always fail), it is not
 Understand the meaning and nature of
however a futile endeavor. The various definitions
Philosophy
offer insights about the nature of Philosophy as a
 Appraise the importance of Philosophy
special field of human inquiry. They reflect the
Specific Objectives:
diversity of Philosophical concerns: from man and
 Explain the different definitions of
his society to his science, politics, economics and
Philosophy
even his Religion. The various descriptions of
 Discuss the nature of Philosophy:
Philosophy, from ancient to contemporary period
Philosophy as an activity.
could be viewed as reflective of the history and
Philosophy as a conceptual analysis
evolution of Philosophy itself. For our purpose, we
INTRODUCTION
will consider the following widely held definitions
Ethics is a special branch of Philosophy that deals
of Philosophy:
with human conduct or Morals. Hence it is
1. The Love of Wisdom.
sometimes called Moral Philosophy. To understand
2. The love of exercising one's curiosity and
better the nature of ethics is to have a good grasp of
intelligence (Herodotus).
the nature of Philosophy.
3. The love of "wisdom" that can face the test of
What, then, is Philosophy?
critical discussions (Plato).
There is really no agreed definition of Philosophy
4. The collective name for questions that have not
only collections of different, and sometimes
been answered to the satisfaction of all that have
contradictory, claims. There are two reasons for
asked them (William James)
this: first, Philosophers in the past have sought to
We will consider each of these definitions and try
confine Philosophy within narrower boundaries,
to explain why they fail to grasp adequately the
because Philosophy tends to claim too much. The
true essence of Philosophy – and in so doing, we
quest is to search for the appropriate subject matter
will discover that Philosophy, as a life-activity,
of Philosophy and the method of investigations that
that need not to be defined but experienced.
is distinct to it. The second reason is the direct
Towards the end of this Chapter, it is expected that
consequence of the first. The attempt to narrow
we will formulate a practical perception of
down the meaning of Philosophy was a failure - the
Philosophy that will best reflect our conception of
original breadth of meaning of Philosophy remained
ethics. So, follow closely the discussions
reflective of its concerns over every facet of human
concerning the definitions of Philosophy below.
existence. From the ruins of such quest, are its
various definitions.
COMMON DEFINITIONS OF PHILOSOPHY philosophy, then there is a need to look for better
Love of Wisdom definition.
Some usually define Philosophy as the "Love of
Love of Exercising One's Curiosity and
Wisdom". The reason for this is etymological (i.e.,
Intelligence
based exclusively on the study of the origin or
Herodotus, instead of using the term Philosopia, has
historical development of the term). The Greek
used the term Philosophein in context in which it
word Philos is usually translated as Love, and
means nothing more than the desire to know or to
Sophia is ordinarily translated to English as
find out. Hence, Philosophy connotes the love of
Wisdom. The term Philosophy therefore crudely
exercising one's curiosity and intelligence. To
refers to the compound Philosophia and is thus
Philosophize is therefore to find pleasure in
translated into English as the "Love of wisdom".
wondering about the world, the universe, or about
Generally, this definition is good enough for
life itself. Unfortunately, this definition of
ordinary discussions, but it is inadequate if we
Philosophy proves to be very broad because it tends
desire a deeper understanding of the meaning of
to cover other fields of human inquiry. How can we
Philosophy. It is best to point out that the term
distinguish the difference of Philosophy from
Sophia had a much wider range of application than
Poetry, Sophistry, Cosmology, and other forms of
its English equivalent Wisdom. Wisdom is narrowly
inquiry that also display the love of exercising
defined as understanding what is true, right, or
curiosity? If, for example, a poet in his poem
lasting (The Grolier International Dictionary:
wonders about the beauty of a tree, does his
1978, Vol. II, p1469). But Sophia means more than
wondering make him a philosopher? Or if one
understanding of truth or of rightness but more on
wonders if the universe is static or expanding, does
the application of such understanding in the
it make him a philosopher? Certainly not. Clearly,
ordinary affairs of man. In the same way, Sophia is
more is needed to be said than simply saying the
more than
desire to know or to find out in defining Philosophy.
Intelligence because Sophia is more concerned with
Love Of "Wisdom" That Can Face The Test Of
the practical application of intelligence, that is,
Critical Discussions
wherever intelligence can be exercised in the
Plato, a well-known student of Socrates and the
practical affairs of man there is always room for
teacher of Aristotle, aimed at solving the problem
Sophia. One may understand truth but may refuse to
concerning the definition of Herodotus. According
be truthful; or one may proclaim that he is a lover of
to him Philosophy sought a "wisdom" that can face
wisdom but may refuse to do what is wise. For this
the test of critical discussions. As suggested in his
reason, the definition that philosophy is simply the
dialogue, Apology (the term dialogue in this
love of wisdom comes insufficient. If it is
statement is a general name referring to all the
insufficient, meaning the definition is not enough to
Books written by Plato because characters, or
cover distinctively the interest and purpose of
actors, are used to convey his opinions and ideas),
this criterion at once rules out almost every type of
what is ordinarily called wisdom. As compared to
Poetry and other forms of inquiry, Philosophy
formulates a clear, articulate, and discussable
system of ideas and principles. Let us clear this
point by comparing the wisdom found in poetry and
the wisdom offered by
Philosophy. In poetry ideas are presented in the
form of metaphors: “Life is like a garden of roses –
love is its water, hope, its sunshine” You don’t need
to push yourself hard to understand what it means –
because it could mean anything. Examples like this
one, according to Plato, will make us doubt if the
poet himself understands what he is saying. On the
other hand, in Philosophy, a philosopher presents a
clear thesis (a sort of an assertion about something –
see example below) and allows other philosophers
to discuss it clearly and critically. Plato claimed for
Philosophy a method, which according to him, is
exclusive to it. He called it Dialectics – that is,
Philosophy proceeds by criticizing received
opinions and deriving at the end a refined opinion
worthy of belief (i.e., Thesis + Antithesis =
Synthesis). For instance:
Juan: Pedro, how do you define man?
Pedro: Man, walks using only two legs – thus, man
is a biped animal (Thesis)
Juan: But Chickens are also biped animals; does it
mean that human beings and chickens are one and
the same? (Antithesis)
Pedro: They are both animals, yes. But they are not
the same – because Man possesses something that
makes him different from another biped
animals like chickens.
Juan: And what is that something that marks Man
from other biped animals?
Pedro: Unlike chicken, Man thinks.
Juan: So how do you define Man now?
Pedro: I propose another definition: Man is a
rational animal (Synthesis).
The short dialogue above shows how the received
opinion is being criticized and how a refined
opinion is derived in considering the criticism. This
process is called Dialectics (it is also called the
Socratic Method, see Chapter 2).
For Plato, Philosophy is also the highest form of
inquiry, just because it alone involves no
presuppositions and if ever it does try to speculate
or presuppose things, its speculations and
presuppositions are controlled by the discipline of
close criticism. Philosophy also concerns itself with
the relationship between eternal and temporal
realities. This, Plato claims, can make knowledge
possible and distinct from mere beliefs and
opinions.
Many philosophers have thought that Plato had
adequately defined Philosophy. On the contrary, if
we reflect on the definition of Plato, we will realize
that the same problem arises – what is the difference
of Philosophy with other forms of study that
emphasize critical discussions? For instance,
Science also puts its scientific ideas under critical
tests and discussions. Clearly, then critical
discussions are not exclusive to Philosophy.
Platonic idea that Philosophy deals with the
relationship of temporal and eternal realities is again
not exclusive to Philosophy. Modern Science, for
example, seeks to discover General Principles or
Laws of Nature that could explain all physical
phenomena. Since these Principles are said to be
unchanging or at work since the beginning of time,
what then is the difference of Philosophical
concern, which is the relationship between the
eternal and temporal realities, with that of Scientific
Concern?
Another problem: Science, because of its method, is
believed to be free from presuppositions or
assumptions. If Philosophy is also without
assumption, then, Philosophy is not different with
science, but Philosophy is said to be different, and it
is even believed to be higher than Science. If it is
so, then what differentiate Philosophy with Science?
There must be a precise definition that could
identify Philosophy as an independent branch of
Human Knowledge.
The Collective Name for Unanswered Questions
William James defined Philosophy as a collective
name for questions that have not been answered to
the satisfaction of all that have asked them. To ask,
for instance, “What is the origin of the Universe?”,
“What is the meaning and purpose of life?”, “Is
there life after death?” “How should I live my
life?”, etc. already constitutes a dealing with
Philosophy. If one is curious enough, he or she
would ask further - what happens to Philosophy if
unanswered questions are satisfactorily answered?
James suggests that once answers are found, they
would form part of a special Science. One case to
prove this is the birth of cosmology or the scientific
study of the universe. Ancient Philosophers (e.g.
Thales, Anaximander, Democritus, and most
notably Aristotle etc.) are the first ones to inquire
and speculate about the nature of the universe:
“What is the nature of the Universe?” The
wondering about the cosmos continued for many
centuries. However, during the time of the
Scholastics, or the Great Church Scholars, in the
Medieval period, the answer takes a more
systematic (but still unsatisfactory) form. The idea
concerning the cosmos is largely based in the
Aristotelian philosophy (i.e. man and Earth takes
the central position in the universe, one “scientific”
proof is the common sense observation that the Sun
Revolves around the Earth), which, by this time, has
been incorporated in the doctrine (and dogmatically
held) by the Roman Catholic Church through the
teaching
of St. Aquinas (in his magnum opus “Summa
Theologica”). But since the inquiry about the nature
of the universe is essentially empirical and not
speculative (empirical means something capable of
being observed by the senses – material things like
tables and chairs which we could observe around
us are empirical things). Many, like Galileo, believe
that the answer offered by the Church is inadequate.
So, they continued to search– and after performing
experiments and surviving the harsh reactions from
the Church, they found a better and more satisfying
answer (man and Earth is insignificant in the order
and vastness of the universe, as shown by empirical
observation that Earth revolves around the Sun and
not the other way around). This discovery, and
other theories that came after it, (like the Newtonian
Physics, etc.) has paved the way for the formal birth
of Cosmology. With a satisfying answer found,
Cosmology has ceased to be a special part of
Philosophy.
What does our discussion show us? The far-
reaching implication of this definition is that
Philosophy, by trying to answer its own questions
(thereby giving life to other branches of Human
Knowledge), slowly digs its own grave. If all
unanswered questions are finally answered –
Philosophy ceases to exist. Philosophy (unanswered
questions) clearly depletes (by answering) its very
own existence! However, the next important
question is – Was James successful in adequately
defining Philosophy? Unfortunately, James’
definition, like our previous definitions, failed in
capturing the meaning of Philosophy. James’
definition claims at once too little for Philosophy -
because Philosophers do not restrict their attention
only to science. Philosophers does not only ask
questions that could lead to the creation of special
science if answered, but it also asks the relationship
of these Sciences to Human Society (for instance
industrialization and the issues of deforestation, and
pollution, etc.), or the relationship of Science and
Human Morality (for instance the morality of
human cloning). Again, defining Philosophy in this
way is clearly problematic.
PHILOSOPHY AS A PERSONAL
EXPERIENCE
There are still a lot of definitions that Philosophers
have proposed to define categorically what
Philosophy is. But time and time again, these
definitions are all too narrow or too broad to state
the real meaning of Philosophy. This book will not
attempt to join in the fray of giving Philosophy a
conclusive definition. This is done with purpose.
Philosophy is meant to be experienced, not
necessarily to be defined. All we need to do for us
to understand the meaning of Philosophy is to
experience it, that is, by living and doing
Philosophy. It is like understanding the meaning of
wonder, to understand the meaning of wonder is to
experience genuinely the sense of wondering - like a
child looking at the moon with great awe, and
asking for the first time, “mommy, where does the
moon come from?” Philosophy after all have been
born at that very moment when the first humans
began to experience such childish wonderments –
and it is being born in us every time we allow our
minds to wander and to wonder amidst the
everydayness of our human existence. But unlike
simple wonderings, Philosophy demands more – it
tells us to act, to do something about our
wondering: “Is this action Right?” We should not
stop in our simple wondering – we should try our
best to find out. And if we discover that it is not
Right, then “what should we do?” – to answer this
question and to act appropriately is to experience
Philosophy.
POINTERS ON THE NATURE OF
PHILOSOPHY
Basing on our discussions let us now get two things
straight about Philosophy:
Firstly, Philosophy is not really a subject – it is an
activity. One does not simply study it - one does it.
As an activity, Philosophy requires the cultivation
of certain qualities in man, which among others,
include the following:
1. Ability to Wonder – The predisposition of the
mind to wonder and to be curious about everything,
from the peculiar to the very ordinary. It also
suggests the personal interest to speculate about
things (for instance the questions “What is the
meaning of life?”, “What is the purpose of life?”,
“Is
there God?” etc.)
2. Sense of Autonomy – The quality of the mind to
be independent or the freedom of the will from
external control and influence. For instance, a
person
with a sense of autonomy would not blindly believe
what authorities claim to be the truth (Even if the
one claiming the truth is my beloved pastor, before
I accept his statement about X is true – he must
provide some good reasons why I should believe
him) or would not simply follow instructions
uncritically
(“My pastor told me to visit him alone tonight and
pray privately with him in his room – only imbeciles
will follow that instruction - I am not dim-witted to
be easily tricked.”). Sense of autonomy also refers
to our willingness to subject even our cherished
ideals and beliefs under critical reflection and
scrutiny (For instance, a person asking himself:
“God is a benevolent God, but why did God allow
evil to exists?”).
3. Sense of Objectivity – The ability of the mind to
think reasonably and to render impartial judgments
(For instance, “The fact that action X is wrong will
remain to be wrong even if the person who commits
action X is my son”). Objectivity also refers to
open-mindedness and tolerance to ideas, opinion, or
beliefs of others which we may not share (For
example the belief that, “No one is for certain that
what we believe is always true – every opinion
should therefore be heard and properly considered
if we want to arrive at a more complete picture of
truth). It also refers to the courage in accepting the
wrongness of personally held opinion and
abandoning it for a more reasonable one (for
instance, “I previously thought that my belief about
X is reasonable – now that what I believe about X is
proven to be unsound, there is no more reason to
hold my belief about X – so, I must get rid of it for
something better).
And secondly, Philosophy is largely a matter of
conceptual analysis or thinking about thinking.
Philosophy is not merely about thinking; it is also
about reflecting on the contents of our thoughts,
reflecting about our reflections: “Are the things
which I believed to be good really good?” “Am I
thinking about others morally?” Putting this in
mind, we are now ready for our study of the activity
of life called Ethics or Moral Philosophy.
CHAPTER 2
THE STUDY OF MORAL PHILOSOPHY
General Objectives
1. Develop insights on the nature of moral
Philosophy
2. Appraise the significance of Philosophy in the
contemporary life
Specific Objectives
1. Explain the definition of Moral Philosophy
2. Discuss the significance of Moral Philosophy.
3. Explain the Assumption of Moral Philosophy.
4. Explain the scope of Ethical study
INTRODUCTION
Juan: Tell me, what is your idea of justice? How
could we best act justly?
Pedro: I believe that justice is giving one his due.
So, one way of acting justly is to return the
borrowed property of others. Because returning
their property is their due.
Juan: So, when you borrow my bolo, it is only just
for you to return my bolo because it is my property.
Is that what you mean?
Pedro: Yes. That would be acceptable.
Juan: If, after borrowing my bolo, I lost my sanity
and I become uncontrollably violent, would you still
return my bolo?
Pedro: Of course not. You might use it to harm
yourself and other people.
Juan: But the bolo is my property, is it not?
Pedro: Yes.
Juan: And returning my property is my due – is it
not?
Pedro: Yes.
Juan: And you defined justice as giving one his
due– am I correct?
Pedro: Yes.
Juan: But in the case we have just considered, you
are not willing to return my bolo which is my
property, and therefore my proper due. What then
becomes of your definition?
Pedro: (Silent)
THE SOCRATIC WAY
The short dialogue presented in the introduction of
this chapter shows how Juan tried to demonstrate
the contradiction of Pedro’s idea of Justice –
without directly telling him about the contradiction.
All Juan did is to ask questions. This process is
what we call
the Socratic method. Questions are presented to
guide us in thinking about our basic assumptions in
life. It makes us discover our mistakes in a very
special way – the manner of discovering the faults
imbedded in our beliefs is special because by
answering some questions we make the discovery
ourselves. We can see that Socrates, through his
method of investigations, displays humility in his
desire to share what he knows: he never told people
what to believe, but rather, he simply asked
questions and left people realize the errors
imbedded in their own opinions. In this way,
Socrates demonstrates the importance of
applying the critical methods of rational inquiry,
by tearing down man’s unfounded assumptions,
man comes closer to the truth – about himself.
This best reflects the true activity of ethics. It is not
all about saying what others ought to do, but, like
the activity of a midwife, helping others give birth
to their own ideas and know how to critically
examine them, before acting from them. The pursuit
of truth by the critical methods of rational inquiry is
the way human beings ought to live their lives. It is
in this context that we can readily agree with
Socrates when he preached that man must examine
his life, because an “unexamined life is not worth
living”. Now, are you living an examined life?
Answering this one important question sheds light
to
the nature and significance of our study of ethics.
THE BIRTH OF MORAL PHILOSOPHY
It all started when man began to wonder about how
he should treat and how he should live his life with
others. Man’s interest in the rightness of his actions
and his desire to live the good life provides the
reason for the birth of another exciting branch of
Philosophy. Philosophers called it “Ethics” or
“Moral Philosophy”. Ethics comes from the Greek
word “Ethos”, which means “Character”. For the
Greeks, Ethics essentially deals with the
development of virtuous and moral character. They
believe that developing such character would make
one know the “right thing” to do and live the
“right way of life”. But what precisely is the right
way of life? For Socrates, the great Greek moralist
(Probably the first western moralist), the answer is
an examined life. Examined life is a life guided and
enriched by self-awareness or a sort of self-
knowledge through critical self-examination. Self-
examination simply means that we should know
what we desire
and know if they are permissible (morally
agreeable, acceptable etc.) or not; we should know
what we believe in and know if they are right or
wrong; we should know who we are, what we are
and so on. For Socrates, the first Ethical Imperative
we should observe (and try hard to live up with) is
“Know thyself”. This leads us back to the nature of
ethics: it is a tool that can help us in investigating
ourselves – anything and everything about what we
assume to know of ourselves as moral beings.
WHAT MORAL PHILOSOPHY IS
It is important to take note that we will use Ethics
and Moral Philosophy to mean the same thing. So,
expect that these two terms will be used
interchangeably in most of our discussions. For this
book, let us define Ethics as a special branch of
Philosophy which deals with the study of the
principles of right moral action. Hence, Ethics
aims to study the principles underlying the desirable
types of human conduct and to prescribe the
principles and methods for distinguishing right from
wrong and good from bad. Ethics is thus concerned
on questions such as: “What make my action right
or wrong, and how could I know it?” “How should
I live my life?” “How should I treat other human
beings and how should I be treated?” etc. If we are
to try reading these questions thoughtfully, we will
have the impression that Ethics is not a chance topic
or something people of the past invented for the
pleasure of discussing morality, but Ethics is
something that was born out of human experience
and out of the necessity to know how we should
fashion our existence vis-à-vis the existence of other
human beings.
WHY WE STUDY MORAL PHILOSOPHY
These are cold facts about Ethics: Ethics cannot
make a person wealthy. Never did we hear stories
about people becoming rich because of their
devotion to honesty and goodness (remember
anyone?). If there are few people who are lucky
enough to be rewarded, and thus become few-
hundred-thousand-pesos richer, because of their
honesty, the material gain is brought by mere
accident or as an indirect consequence of being
honest – not because of being honest per se (good
for them they are rewarded, because not all honest
people are rewarded materially). It is not their
honesty, but the fortunate consequence of them
being recognized and awarded, which made them
richer.
Ethics cannot make a person handsome or
beautiful. Mother Nature blessed Socrates, the first
western moralist, with a poorly designed physique
that no lover of beauty will ever find appealing – his
gifts of wisdom and moral excellence have failed to
turn him into an Adonis, or anything close to Aga
Muhlach. If this is so, then what is the point of
studying Ethics? Why not scrap Ethics as an
academic subject and devote the time to other
practical and timely endeavors, right? – Wrong. If
we expect to find earthly riches and physical beauty
in our study – then there is nothing to find in Ethics.
But if we desire to know how we could be a better
person, then Ethics can be a pot of Gold.
The significance of Ethics lies on its offer to help
man secure his moral elevation, and its offer to help
man to better his world. The reward of the study of
ethics is not necessarily material progress but moral
uprightness, “the discovery of true values of life”
and the inspiration to live a moral life. Though it is
true that Ethics could not make one wealthy and
beautiful, however, it could promise the rewards of
self-respect and self-worth, of deeper understanding
and appreciation of love, of respect, of service, of
life and the world. In short, Ethics affords man the
opportunity to rediscover his humanity. And what is
the value of ethics as an academic subject for
students? The answer is quite simple, it makes us
not only as better students but also as better future
members of our society. As one educator aptly puts
it “Students as future members and leaders of our
society, are the ones who urgently need the study of
ethics, (because) without ethics we will have college
graduates despite having earned degrees are bereft
of vital affirmation, firm conviction, and social
commitment (Amable.1995. p9).” However, Ethics
is not only significant because it helps us achieve
our elevated ideals – the other reason for its
importance is its practical use to our everyday social
life. Ethics helps us in making sound moral
decisions especially on difficult cases where clear
and easy answers are lacking. Ethics also furnishes
the norm (standard or pattern) by which relations
among men are regulated, it provides basis for
cooperation based on mutual respect and mutual
understanding, thus it contributes to the formation
of a just and orderly society where man can fairly
earn a living and secure for himself his own
necessities and comforts. The study of ethics is
made more important if we realize that we exist
with other people – who have dignity that can be
degraded by our actions and decisions in life.
Sometimes it is not important whether a person is
wealthy or not, at the end of the day money cannot
buy lasting companionship, true friendship, love,
and spiritual salvation. Sometimes it is not
important whether a person has a beautiful
appearance or not, after all physical beauty is just an
appearance – it won’t last forever, it fades away
with ages. Sometimes it is more important to
treasure a wealth and beauty that will make us truly
loved by others. It is our moral goodness that will
make others like us no matter who we are. It will
make us truly beautiful and satisfied.
SCOPE OF MORAL PHILOSOPHY
Ethics is necessary Human - because the locus (or
the viewpoint) of the study of ethics revolves
around man as a being who relates with his
environment. But it does not necessarily mean that
Ethics only deals with Human Relationships or
about anything that is exclusively Human. Ethics
also focuses on the moral relationship of man with
other beings in the world (for example how we
should treat animals, etc.), and even including his
relationship with his material environment (Have
you heard about environmental ethics?). Generally,
there are four conceivable areas which are covered
by Ethical study:
1. Man and “fellow” man – Ethics primarily deals
with the “oughts” or “shoulds” of human existence
vis-à-vis existence of other human beings. Thus, the
questions, “How should I treat other people?”, “Is
helping other people in distress something I ought
to do?”, etc. It investigates how should a person
lives his life with others. Man (as an animal being)
becomes a human being or a person (that is, as a
moral being) because he does not exist in a state of
license (or absolute freedom) to do anything as he
pleases (For instance to murder a fellow human
being). His desires and actions, how he treats
himself and others is necessarily regulated by a
generally accepted precepts of morality that
considers the welfare of other persons.
2. Man and his Society – Ethics also deals with the
study of man, as a member of a moral community (a
community of other rational beings). It investigates
how man should relate with his community and vice
versa. It prescribes how man should best contribute
to the welfare of his community and how his
community should best foster his personal growth
and improvement. “Is my action benefits the society
in general?”, “Why should I respect the laws of my
community?”, “Is it right to prioritize the interest
of the society over the interest of the individual?”,
“Does my society respect my rights and dignity?”.
3. Man and other sentient beings – Ethics
investigates not only the moral aspect of human
relationships, it also deals with the study of the
relationship that should exist between human beings
and other sentient creatures (i.e. lower forms of
animal existence). “Is it ethical to use other sentient
beings, which are also capable of experiencing
pain, for the advancement of human knowledge?”
4. Man and his Natural Environment – The study
of ethics also covers how man should treat his
natural environment, it tries to provide a rational
basis for environmental conservation and protection
in view of the duty to respect the right of future
members of the moral community. “Man needs to
prosper, but is it Ethical to sacrifice the
environment for the sake of progress and
development?”, “Confronted by necessity and
scarcity, what is more ethical- to use the scarce
resources for the sake of the living or to conserve
these resources for the sake of
the future and unborn generation?”
ASSUMPTIONS OF MORAL PHILOSOPHY
Moral Philosophy proceeds from some basic
assumptions. Without assuming certain qualities
about the human nature, doing Moral Philosophy or
Ethics will be pointless, it would be a futile human
endeavor. Assumption means fundamental beliefs or
statements that are accepted to be self-evident.
When we say self-evident it means that we accept
something to be true without the burden of proving
or of proof. Things are self-evident when they are
too obvious to be proven. For instance, our belief
that our parents love us is self-evident – there is no
point to look for evidence to prove that they indeed
love us. We simply assume it. Let us explain this
point. We might say that our parents do love us
because they send us to school – but we are not sure
enough to consider this as an absolute proof since
they might be sending us to school not out of their
love to us but out
of their sense of obligation. Doing things out of love
is different from doing things out of obligation. The
same applies to cases when they give us things we
wanted – their act of giving us things we like is not
an infallible proof that they love us – they can give
us things because of other reasons. So, to stop these
pointless doubting whether our parents love us or
not, we need to simply assume (that is, without
proving it) that they love us. Most books concerning
the study of ethics present a long list of
assumptions. But
we will consider only the two most important and
most common assumptions of ethics.
1. That man is a rational being – This means that
we assume that man is a thinking being. Man acts
with purpose or man knows his reason for acting,
unlike a lowly animal (for instance a dog), which
acts merely from instincts and reflexes. As a
rational being, man is also capable of moral
judgments – he is aware of the intention and the
consequences of his action, and capable of judging
them as right or wrong or good or evil. In short,
man knows what he is doing because he is rational
or a thinking creature.
2. That man is a free being – This assumption
means that man is a free agent who acts according
to his own will and volition. In general, this
assumption tells that man has the capacity to
exercise choice of actions. This assumption implies
the capability of man in choosing and doing what is
good. If we take a closer look, we will see that these
two assumptions provide basis or grounds for our
system of giving praise and blame, reward and
punishment. Without
assuming the existence of rationality and freedom in
man, it is impossible to judge acts as ethical or
unethical, moral, or immoral. They (assumptions)
provide for the very reason why we are held
responsible for our actions. That is, only through
assuming that we think, and we are free, we can say
that are actions are our full responsibility. Let us
explain further why this is so. For us to judge an act
(for instance stealing) to be immoral, the act must
be performed by a person who is aware about the
moral
wrongness of his act and who has freely decided to
perform the act even if he knew that it is immoral. If
we remove the elements of knowledge (rationality)
and freedom, it is no longer plausible to judge the
act as immoral, hence the person committing it as
worthy of blame and punishment. Let us provide
specific examples to elucidate this point: In cases
wherein, a person is not aware that his act
constitutes stealing, he could hardly be judged as
someone who has committed an unethical (albeit,
illegal) act. For instance, a tourist who thought that
an item on display is a token to be given away (to
visitors) for free (but
on the contrary it was for sale), and acting from his
belief (that the item is free) he took one, did he
commit stealing? It is not hard to see that he can’t
be blamed for stealing. Of course, it is plausible to
point out that the tourist is still blameworthy
because he failed to ask if what he thought (that the
item is free) is accurate – but that is beside the
point, the point is (assuming that he indeed
sincerely thought that the item is free) we cannot
fairly accuse him of stealing. Another example
would be a toddler who pockets his playmate’s
chocolate bar. The toddler, because he or she is still
unable to discern the wrongness of taking the
property of others, cannot be blamed for stealing.
The same problem arises when the element of
freedom is removed in actions - In cases wherein a
person is physically forced or who have acted under
grave threat to perform an immoral act, he could
hardly be blamed and justly punished for
committing the act. Consider the case of a kidnap
victim who is forced by his kidnappers to kill
another kidnap victim under the grave threat that
failure to comply will surely result to his
decapitation (beheading). That
person, if he chooses to comply, cannot be judged
fairly to have committed a heinous crime.
These two elements (rationality and freedom) could
mitigate or aggravate the degree of moral
responsibility of persons. Moral responsibility is
thus basically defined based on these two
assumptions.
PHILOSOPHY: WISDOM
1. Wisdom in Human Existence
- We define in general terms as a certain knowledge
of the deepest causes of everything.
- Wisdom enables man to discover the meaning of
his life and to act in upright way
- In contrast, ignorance is the source of disorder and
errors in behavior which prevents man attaining
happiness.
- Thus, wisdom has a guiding and judging role
regarding other forms of knowledge since perfect
judgement about something can be attained only by
considering its ultimate causes.
2. Types of Wisdom
- In natural level, the most perfect wisdom is
attained through metaphysics
- Metaphysics provides the foundation for a proper
perspective in particular sciences
- It studies all things in the light of their ultimate
causes.
- If we consider ultimate causes in a relative way,
with respect to different aspects of reality, we can
speak of wisdom concerning each one of these
varied aspects.
3. Wisdom and Science
- Wisdom is science in so far as it shares what is
common to all sciences, that is, arriving at
conclusions by demonstration, starting from some
principles.
4. Wisdom and Ignorance
- Wisdom is of paramount importance in directing
human existence towards its goal.
- Ignorance, cause varied obstacles that hinder the
said task.
- Wisdom is not enough, however, it facilitates the
attainment of moral uprightness.
The Scientific Nature of Philosophy
1. Philosophy as Science
- in so far as science is a “certain knowledge
through causes”
- In so far as science is knowledge attained by way
of demonstration.
* Diversity of opinions in Philosophy seems to be
an obstacle to the acceptance of philosophy as
science.
* Pluralism and General Agreement
2. Unity and Multiplicity in Philosophy
- Philosophy is “science” composed of different
sciences.
- Denotes several disciplines having the same basic - They have their own autonomy; Philosophy does
perspective not prevent them from having their own methods of
- The nucleus of philosophy is metaphysics, which obtaining and judging their own conclusions.
studies the basic aspects of reality (its being) and its - Philosophy judges and guides the rest of the
ultimate causes. sciences, it determines the proper objects of
- Any specific aspect of reality can be the object of sciences.
Philosophical study THE METHOD OF PHILOSOPHY
3. Philosophy and Particular Sciences 1. Continuity with Ordinary Knowledge
-Philosophy studies reality in its deepest or most -Philosophy carries out its endeavours with ordinary
radical aspect and seeks its ultimate causes human knowledge.
-Particular science- studies specific aspects of -It begins from sense experience, through which it
reality and seek more immediate or proximate obtains abstract universal knowledge with the use of
causes. the intellect.
4. Philosophical Foundations of Particular -It advances knowledge by making use of
Sciences inferences.
- P.S. Study reality using their respective methods -Philosophy makes use in a systematic way of all
and perspectives, which are not Philosophical! But the, means available to human knowledge.
founded on Metaphysics. -Sense experience, induction, reasoning; the value
 Hence, it is possible for a particular science of
to build upon an erroneous metaphysical its Statements is based on evidence.
foundation. -It makes use of: O.K, Philosophy, Particular
 EX. Mechanism- Mechanical Machine- Science
Everything can be explained by the 2. Philosophy and Intellectual Evidence
movement of material parts. -Intellectual knowledge Starts from sense data:
 Marxism- reduces human phenomena to however, the intellect can reach the essences of
Economic factors and necessary laws of things.
History -From sensible images, we obtain universal

 Behaviorism- everything in man can be judgements.

reduced to material factors. -Sciences: sense evidence, Philosophy: Intellectual

* Examples of Reductionist Doctrines evidence

5. Autonomy of the Sciences -Abstraction is the process by which the intellect

- Particular sciences do not carry out a strictly grasps essences of things, expressing through ideas

metaphysical study. or concepts.

-Ideas are universal; Images are individual, sensible
and concrete representation.
-Degrees of “immateriability by Thomas Aquinas:
-physics: Matter, Mathematics: without Matter,
Metaphysics: Everything
3. Philosophy and Experimental Proof
-Particular Sciences: Make use of Intellectual
evidence
-Rely on experiments planned in such a way that the
results obtained guide or decide solutions to the
problems.
-It frequently utilizes the hypothetical-deductive
method.
-On the other hand, Philosophy makes use of
experience and it cannot afford to do away with it.
-However, starting from the date supplied by
experience, Philosophy applied reasoning and
proceeds to realm of essential causes arising in a
necessary way and deduces from them equally
necessary conclusions.
-Example Analysis on Change: Composition of Act
and Potency
4. The Specialized Study of Philosophy
-Study of Philosophy Requires a certain Familiarity
with Philosophical Terms.
-However, one must watch the danger of creating
unreal problems.
-To Understand Philosophy, one should ask himself
before tackling a particular topic:
What is the real issue involved here?
DIVISION OF PHILOSOPHY
Metaphysics- Field of Philosophy that tries to
understand the nature of reality of being and
existence in their most general aspect.
-It seeks the most intimate aspect of reality, that is,
its BEING.
-It is known as Philosophy of being.
-“Being” denotes everything “that is”. It is
something that has (habet) an act of being (esse) and
has specific manner of being.
-It came from two greek words “meta” and
“physica” which means “beyond physical”
-Aristotle defined it as “first Philosophy”
Continuation (DIVISION)
-It asks the questions such as: “what are space and
time? What is a thing and how does it differ from an
idea? Is a human being free to decide his fate or do
circumstances determine his actions?
-Materialist-made up entirely of matter vs. Idealist-
mind
-To round up the discussion, let us consider the
famous metaphysical theory of Plato’s theory of
ideas.
-Contrast between reality and appearance.
-World of Forms vs. World of Reality
-Ethics- explores the nature of moral virtue and
evaluates human actions.
-“Ethos”- means “character”
-Study of the nature of moral judgements.
-Religion v. Ethics
-Fundamental distinction in Philosophical Ethics:
1.The moral discourse or normative ethics- people
ought to do. It asks the question: “How shall we
distinguish between right and wrong actions?”
2.Metaethics or Moral Philosophy- It investigates
the principles governing human actions in terms of
goodness, badness, rightness and wrongness. It asks
the question: “What are the people doing when they
talk about what they ought to do?”
-Epistemology- the study of Human knowledge and
the conditions that make knowledge possible.
-Deals with the nature, sources, limitations, and
validity of knowledge.
-Presents us with the task of explaining how we
know what we claim to know, how we can find out
what we wish to know and how we can judge
someone’s what we wish to know.
-It asks these questions: What is knowledge ? What
is truth ? How do we tell the difference between the
scientific knowledge and doubtful pseudo-science?
What are valid sources of knowledge and truth?
-Theories of knowledge: 1. Empirism 2.
Rationalism
-Aesthetics – the study of the beautiful
-Philosophy of art, the establishment of criteria of
beauty is the function as aesthetics.
-Q: What is beauty, therefore? Beauty is defined as
the capacity of an object to yield feelings that are
pleasant.
-Aristotle: beauty is symmetry, proportion and an
organic order of parts in a united whole.
-Plato- beauty in relation to what is good.
-Kant and Schopenhauer- beauty becomes the
quality whereby an object pleases us regardless of
its use, stirring in us a will-less contemplation, a
disinterested happiness.
-Kant-no science of beautiful but only a critique.
-Schopenhauer- intellect is for a moment
emancipated from desire and realizes those eternal
forms.
-Cosmology- the study of inanimate beings such as
the universe from philosophical viewpoint.
-Philosophical Psychology – the study of the life
principle of living things specifically that of man.
-Theodicy – the Philosophical inquiry into the
existence of God, His nature and His relation to
man and the rest of creation
-Philosophy of Man – is a Philosophical Search for
a deeper understanding of what man is and what it
means to be fully human.
-Social Philosophy – Deals with the study of man
in relation to his family, state, and the Church.
-Political Philosophy- searches for the ultimate
foundations of State, its ideal form and its basic
powers
-PURPOSES of PHILOSOPHY
1.Philosophy is the Foundation of Humanity
2.Philosophy is the origin of man’s activities and
achievements.
3.Philosophy discovers truth
4.Philosophy discovers man’s identity.
5.Philosophy discovers one’s end
6.Philosophy discovers the right process in the
attainment of one’s end.
7.Philosophy enables man to learn more theoretical
knowledge
8.Philosophy is appreciation of learning.
MEANING AND NATURE OF ETHICS
“People act immorally, but they do not do so
deliberately.”
– Socrates
"And how will you inquire into a thing when you
are wholly ignorant of what it is? Even if you
happen to bump right into it, how will you know it
is the thing you didn't know?"
– Meno
Objectives:
1. Know the meaning of ethics;
2. Differentiate ethics to morality;
3. Study the postulates in ethics;
4. Compare ethics to other sciences that deal with
man; and
5. Learn about morality and human existence.
INTRODUCTION
How should we live? Shall we aim at happiness or
at knowledge, virtue, or the creation of beautiful
objects? If we choose happiness, will it be our own
or the happiness of all? And what of the more
particular questions that face us: Is it right to be
dishonest in a good cause? Can we justify opulence
while elsewhere in the world people are starving? If
conscripted to fight in a war we do not support,
should we disobey the law? What are our
obligations to the other creatures with whom we
share this planet and to the generations of humans
who will come after us?
Ethics deals with such questions at all levels. Its
subject consists of the fundamental issues of
practical decision making, and its major concerns
include the nature of ultimate value and the
standards by which human actions can be judged
right or wrong.
Morality is life itself. It must not be considered as a
mere extract from the crude of facts and events that
happen to us daily. Neither must morality be
considered as a product of brooding about one’s
own feelings, nor must it be construed as a matter of
frills rather than fundamentals.
Until today there remains a need to reecho the basic
moral question that seems to remain intriguing. The
question goes: “Why do we want to be moral?”
There are varied answers to the question. Kant says
because it is man’s rational duty. Mill and Bentham
say because of pleasure and happiness. Fletcher
says it depends upon the situation. Lawrence
Kohlberg says because of our fear of punishment.
Thomas Nagel says because of the intrinsic
impersonal standpoint any moral agent is supposed
to do, every person
being a person among others.
Ralph Barton Perry says because every human
person is a creature of values. Beauchamp, from his
end, argues that the human person wants to be
moral because as a member of a certain society he
adopts a particular moral way of life. Saints
Augustine and Aquinas say because there is God.
Aristotle, Plato, and Socrates say because of man’s
Karma to be one with the Brahman. Lao-Tzu and
Confucius say because of man’s deepest pleading to
be in harmony with nature; And for Mohammed,
because of Allah.
Confronted with Nietzsche’s irreligious stance, any
moral being should reflect seriously over the
question: “Why do we want to be moral?” Thus:
“Why do we need to be moral?” The realistic
question can be answered in a threefold manner.
First, we want to be moral because we want to win
the good opinion or impression of others concerning
our self-image. Second, we want to be moral
because we want to refrain from troubles, or
consequently, punishment, which could result from
immorality. Third, we want to be moral because we
are persons, persons who exist in the collectivity of
persons. Thus, the fundamental reason why we want
to become moral is because we need to be moral;
because for all we know, the moral law cannot be
dissociated from the Natural Law and the Eternal
Law of God.
But, why do we need to be moral, anyway? By their
etymological definitions, ethics is derived from the
Greek word ethos and morality from the Latin word
mosormoris. Surprisingly, both mean one and the
same thing, i.e., custom. Would this mean that our
need to be moral is just part and parcel of our
custom so that if it is our custom to be immortal
then we can be immoral?
Meaning of Ethics
A. Definition
Etymologically, ethics is derived from the Greek
word ethos, or that which pertains to ethos, the
English translation of which is “custom” or
“character.” From this etymological meaning, ethics
is taken to mean as a philosophical science that
deals with the morality of human conduct or human
acts.
Ethics is a general term for what is often described
as the "science (study) of morality". In philosophy,
ethical behavior is that which is "good" or "right."
The Western tradition of ethics is sometimes called
moral philosophy.
Ethics is a philosophical science. This means that
ethics is one of the many disciplines in philosophy.
In general, we can speak of four divisions or
disciplines in philosophy, namely: descriptive or
speculative, normative, practical, and critical.
Descriptive or Speculative Philosophy is a
discipline in philosophy that posits the question:
What is the nature (essence, substance) of reality?
Metaphysics (philosophical science of beings) falls
under this.
Normative Philosophy is a discipline in philosophy
that posits the question: What is good and what is
bad? Or what is right action or wrong action? Ethics
or Moral Philosophy is categorized under this. It
includes the formulation of moral rules that have
direct implications for what human actions,
institutions, and ways of life should be like.
Practical Philosophy is a discipline in philosophy
which reflects upon truth in relation to action. Logic
belongs to this discipline. And Critical Philosophy
is a discipline in philosophy that posits the question:
What is truth? Epistemology falls under this
discipline. So, ethics as a philosophical science is a
normative philosophy. But what makes ethics as a
normative philosophy a science?
B. The difference between Ethics and Morality
Based on etymology, there is no difference between
ethics and morality. As cited earlier, ethics comes
from the Greek word ethos meaning “custom.”
Morality, on the other hand, comes from the Latin
word moor mores, which also means “customs.” In
this regard, ethics is also called moral philosophy,
or precisely, the other name of ethics is moral
philosophy.
Ethics, as a normative philosophical science, is a
theoretical science of good and bad or right and
wrong actions. So, ethics provides the principles on
the morality of human acts; it equips man with a
(theoretical) knowledge of the morality of human
acts. We know, however, that knowing is different
from doing. It does not necessary follow that man
does what he knows.
This means that ethics does not actually guarantee
that man will be moral or goof. One can only
become moral (or good human person) when one
applies ethics. In other words, when one does the
theories of ethics one actually performs the theory
meaning one is actually doing ethics. This is
morality: the praxis of the theory (Ethic). If
morality, therefore, is the practice of ethics,
morality, then, should be properly called Applied
Ethics.
While ethics (as a theoretical science) provides
principles or bases of right or wrong and good or
bad actions, morality actualizes the theory. As
ethics outlines theories of right and wrong and good
or bad actions, morality is nothing else but a doing
of ethics.
C. Postulates in Ethics
Postulates are proven facts that need to be
presupposed. Some examples of postulates are: the
Theory of Relativity of Theory of Gravitational Pull
and other established scientific theories. Ethics need
not prove them; instead it takes them as they are
because they are already proven by other sciences.
In moral philosophy, there are three basic
postulates:
1. The existence of God;
2. The existence of intellect and free will; and
3. The spirituality and the immortality of the soul.
ETHICS COMPARED WITH OTHER
SCIENCE THAT DEAL WITH MAN
I. Ethics and Psychology
Psychology is the science of mind and behavior. Its
immediate goal is to understand behavior and
mental process by researching and establishing both
general principles and specific cases. It is a
descriptive philosophy that treats of man’s intellect,
freewill, and conduct while ethics, are self-
regulatory guidelines
for making decisions.
It is also a branch of philosophy that deals with the
good for the individuals. It is a guide man’s intellect
to know moral truths and man’s will to translate his
intellectual knowledge of moral truths into action
(conduct). Psychology, generally, deals with human
behavior. It posits the question: “How does man
behave?” Ethics on the other hand, asserts the
question: “Why man ought to behave?”
II. Ethics and Sociology
Sociology is the scientific study of human social
behavior. Sociology tries to determine the laws
governing human behavior in social contexts. It also
deals with human relations, however, presuppose
proper setup or order in society. These proper orders
postulate the moral laws or order of right and wrong
action, which is ethics. Ethics is the practicing of
moral reasoning. Therefore, ethics and sociology
are closely related with each other.
III. Ethics and Logic
Logic is the formal systematic study of the
principles of valid inference and correct reasoning.
Logic is the branch of philosophy that deals with
man’s correct thinking. Logic examines general
forms which arguments may take, which forms are
valid, which are fallacies. Ethics on the other hand,
deals with man’s correct doing and correct living. It
also means the continuous effort of studying our
own moral beliefs and our moral conduct, and
striving to ensure that we, and the institutions, we
help each other to shape, live up the standards that
are reasonable and solidly-based. Therefore, like
sociology, logic is closely associated with ethics,
since a person who does not know how to think
correctly can never live his life rightly:
IV. Ethics and Anthropology
Anthropology is the social science that explores the
study of human in all social, cultural and physical
aspects. Anthropology deals with man’s origin and
the behavior of primeval man. Ethics, on the other
hand, deals with the principle of right conduct as
applied to all men at all time.
V. Ethics and Moral Theology
Theology is faith seeking understanding. Moral
theology, then, makes us begin to try and
understand more about our faith by making us
question whatever
everything in our human story lines up with
happiness and meanings. Moral philosophy (Ethics)
and Moral Theology presuppose God’s existence:
they too have the same end, the attainment of man’s
ultimate goal: God. The necessity for theology,
ethics and moral theology to be joined together in
some fashion is essential for each one to work.
VI. Ethics and Economics
Man supports himself by earning a living. Earning a
living to support his expenses makes man an
economic being. Economics as a science deals with
the study of wages, labor, productions, and
distribution of wealth. At the heart of these
relationships between and among parties cannot
exist. There are three ways in which ethics enters
economics.
First, economist has ethical values that help shape
the way they do economics. This builds into the
core of economic theory a particular view of how
the economy does work and how it should work.
Second, economic actors (consumers, workers,
business owners) have ethical values that help shape
their behavior. And lastly, economic institutions and
policies impact people differentially and thus ethical
evaluations, in addition to economic evaluations,
are
Important.
VII. Ethics and Law
Ethics deals with morality, and when we speak of
morality, we mean primarily the moral law. Law
may be defined as crystallized ethics. Law and
morality presuppose the concepts of right and
wrong, good and bad, even the rules of conduct.
Law covers the external actions of man. In the
making of law, the items covered in that Law is the
external action and behavior of a person. We speak
of ethics, as the study of motivation and intension,
including the internal disposition of the person.
Therefore, law is external-oriented while ethics c. Man has willed. Man is free to act or not to act.
focuses on the internal disposition of a person. Men will equip man with the power to choose either
good or bad and right or wrong actions. Man’s will,
MORALITY AND HUMAN EXISTENCE
therefore, requires man a decision which obligates
Categorically, there is morality only in the context
him to be responsible for the consequences of his
of humanity. There is no morality outside the
actions.
context of humanity. In simple terms, we say there
is morality because there is man.
II. Man as an Animal
Is MAN really an animal? To many people the
I. Man as the only Moral Being
answer must seem obvious. To ask the question at
Man is the only moral being (homo moralist) whose
all is naive. Of course he is! Yet there are many
intimate world, consciousness and conduct function
informed people who would say with more caution,
in terms not only of utility, but also of beauty and
"Yes, man is an animal, hut he is far more than an
good. Since the formation of Homo sapiens in
animal."
prehistoric times, its nature has acquired a moral
A few animals can stand erect, and some apes can
essence.
even run erect for short and a few species are able to
Charles Darwin wrote that the moral creature can
oppose their thumbs in grasping things. So it could
reflect on its past deeds and their motivations, to
be said that man is, after all, only quantitatively
approve of some and to condemn others. Man is the
different, different in degree but not essentially
only creature that could be so defined; it is the
different in any classificatory sense.
greatest difference between humans and lower
animals.
By appetency, we mean the drive to seek or strive
for something. Thus, man, being an animal, is also a
Man is the only being by virtue of the following
subject of these drives. Man desires food when
reasons:
hungry and seeks water when thirsty. Sex is one of
a. Man is being of action. Man acts and knows his
them. And in as much as man is an animal, he also
acts. Because he knows he acts, he knows he is
subject to the instinctive sexual drive.
responsible for his actions.
b. Man has intellect. His intellect enables him to
III. Man as a Rational Animal
know what is right or wrong and good or bad.
It has been said that man's animalist is distinct in
Because he is capable of knowing, he is therefore
nature from his rationality, though they are
mandated to face the consequences of his actions.
inseparably joined, during life, in one common
Thus, morality of human acts can be applied only to
personality. "Animalist" is an abstraction as is
those who have knowledge of right or wrong or
"rationality". As such, neither has any substantial
good or bad actions.
existence of its own. To be exact we should have to
write: "Man's animalist is rational"; for his
"rationality" is certainly not something superadded
to
his "animalist".
Man is one in essence. In the Scholastic synthesis, it
is a manifest illogic to hypostasize the abstract
conceptions that are necessary for the intelligent
apprehension of complete phenomena.
A similar confusion of expression may be noticed in
the statement that man is a "compound of body and
soul". This is misleading. Man is not a body plus a
soul — which would make of him two individuals;
but a body that is what it is (namely, a human body)
by reason of its union with the soul. As a special
application of the general doctrine of matter and
form which is as well a theory of science as of
intrinsic causality, the "soul" is envisaged as the
substantial form of the matter which, so informed, is
a human "body".
It is in this sense that the Scholastic phrase
"incomplete substance", applied to body and soul
alike, is to be understood. Though strictly speaking
self-contradictory, the phrase expresses in a
convenient form the abiding reciprocity of relation
between these two "principles of substantial being"
D. Intellect Compared with Will
Intellect and will go hand in hand as complementary
factors as they are
intrinsically endowed in man as moral agent. In
order that we can view the
difference between intellects and will properly, let
us consider another diagram:
Through his intellect, man knows what is right or
wrong actions. Through his will man can choose
between good and bad actions.
Man’s intellect makes him capable of understanding
right or wrong actions; his will makes him capable
of doing (or expressing) his choice, either good or
bad actions.
Man’s intellect enables him to search for truth while
his will, for good. When man is in possession of
truth then he can practice what he knows (wisdom)
while his exercise of good makes him virtuous. In
the fundamental moral option between right or
wrong and good or bad actions, man is will-bound
to choose what is right and what is good.
E. Concrete Basis of Morality
There are still other questions that we have to
consider: “Is morality absolutely based only on the
categories of intellect and will?” “Is morality
merely a cerebral affair?” “Is morality anchored
only in the sphere of concepts?”
Morality is not a mere cerebral affair; it is applied
ethics. Therefore, it is also real or concrete. It
becomes real, perhaps, through the following:
a. When one encounters a moral experience
b. Moral experience could ensue(result) when one
encounters a moral problem; and
c. A person encounters a moral problem when free will; and, the spirituality and the immortality of
problem injects him moral obligation. the soul.

SUMMARY Ethics can be compared to other sciences, such as

Ethics comes from the Greek word “ethicos” psychology, sociology, logic, anthropology, moral
meaning “custom or character”. From this, ethics is theology, economics and law.
therefore derived as philosophical science that deals
with morality of human conduct or human acts. Moreover, there is morality because there is a man.
Man can be explained further in terms of the
Also, Ethics is a philosophical science. In general, following: man is the only moral being, man as an
there are four disciplines in philosophy, namely: animal, and, man as a rational being.
descriptive or speculative, normative, practical, and
critical. There are differences between intellect and will in
different views. Lastly, there are concrete basis of
Ethics is also a normative science, because it morality to be able that it will become real.
systematically establishes standards or norms of
human conduct.
In etymological point of view, there are no
differences between ethics and morality. However,
by the way of applying the concept of theory and
practice, there are some differences that can be
traced.

The differences are the following: because ethics is

a normative science, then it will provide the
principles on the morality of human actions; if
morality is the practice of ethics, then morality
should be called Applied Ethics; and, because ethics
is a theoretical
science, then morality is nothing else but a doing of
ethics.

There are three basic postulates of ethics. They are:

the existence of God; the existence of intellect and