INTRODUCTION TO

ETHICS
 OUTLINE

❑ BASIC CONCEPTS ON ETHICS

❑ MORAL AND NON-MORAL STANDARD
❑ MORAL DILEMMA
❑ FREEDOM AS FOUNDATION FOR MORAL ACTS
BASIC CONCEPTS
ON ETHICS
 NATURE OF MAN
❑ Man is composed of body and soul
❑ Man has will and intellect (person)
❑ To will something, man has to know beforehand
❑ Man cannot act unless he knows which is a “better good”
❑ When man acts according to what he knows is right, he acts freely
❑ Man is accountable with his actions
❑ Only man is capable of free acts
 ETHICS

Ethics or moral philosophy can be provisionally

described as the empirical study of moral decisions. It is a
discipline concerned with what is morally good and evil, right
and wrong. The word often refers to any scheme or
philosophy of universal ideals or beliefs.
 ETYMOLOGY

“Ethos”
CHARACTERISTIC WAY OF LIVING

“Mos, Moris”
TRADITION OR CUSTOM
ETYMOLOGY

MORALITY

ηθική
 DEFINITION

“Science of the morality of human acts.”

 DEFINITION

“Science of the morality of human acts.”

 DEFINITION

“Science of the morality of human acts.”

SCIENCE
- a systematically organized body of knowledge on a particular focus.
- SPECULATIVE – Science that enlightens the mind
- PRACTICAL – Science that induces a certain action
 DEFINITION

“Science of the morality of human acts.”

MORALITY
- quality of human acts by which they are determined as good, bad, or
indifferent.
 DEFINITION

“Science of the morality of human acts.”

HUMAN ACTS
- An act that is performed only by a human being and thus is proper to
man.
- Also called intentional or deliberate actions, or Voluntary acts

ACTS OF MAN
In contrary to human acts, it is involuntary and instinctive and unintentional.
 HUMAN ACTS

CONSTITUENTS
- KNOWLEDGE
- FREEDOM
- VOLUNTARINESS
 HUMAN ACTS

The boy knows that giving is good, desires to give a

doll to a girl, and freely gives the doll
 HUMAN ACTS

SOURCES
- OBJECT – act itself (what)
- END – intention/purpose (why)
- CIRCUMSTANCE – adds moral dimension to an action (who, where,
how, to what extent, how much)
 HUMAN ACTS

The lady gives a dollar (object) to the beggar living in a

street (circumstance), for the beggar to survive the
whole day (end).
 HUMAN ACTS
MODIFIERS
- VIOLENCE – Physical force brought to bear in a person to do an act which
he does not will
- FEAR – Shrinking back of the mind on account of an impending evil
- IGNORANCE – Lack of knowledge which a person should have
- PASSION – Tendency of the sensible appetite towards pleasurable good
- HABIT – Repeated actions becoming a manner (good = virtue, bad = vice)
 IMPORTANCE OF ETHICS
❑ Determine the difference between right from wrong, good and bad
❑ Eliminate actions that do not conform to what is right
❑ Careful to the actions and decisions to make
❑ Not being disturbed of the factors of not doing the right
❑ Establish good habits of characters of a person
❑ Makes a person responsible
❑ Sensitive to the needs of others more than himself or herself
❑ Reminds a person to fully need conscience in decision making
❑ Acknowledge the actions made.
ETHICS VS MORAL THEOLOGY

MORAL PHILOSOPHY MORAL THEOLOGY

VS employs reason insofar as it is

relies solely on human reason to
enlightened by faith or divine
investigate truths
revelation.
 BRANCHES OF ETHICS

NORMATIVE ETHICS METAETHICS

ETHICS
FOCUSED ON THE
CREATION OF THEORIES STUDY OF HOW MAN
THAT PROVIDE GENERAL APPLIED ENGAGE IN ETHIC
(NATURE OF MORALITY)
FRAMEWORK GOVERNING
MAN’S ACTIONS ETHICS

APPLY NORMATIVE
ETHICAL THEORIES TO
SPECIFIC ISSUES
 BRANCHES OF ETHICS

NORMATIVE ETHICS
IN A BASKETBALL GAME METAETHICS
ETHICS
THE ANALYSTS OBSERVING
A REFEREE OFFICIATING
THE BASKETBALL GAME
APPLIED AND FINDING THE REASON OR
MEANING OF THE PLAYS DONE
ETHICS BY PLAYERS

THE PLAYERS DOING THEIR

BEST TO SHOOT THE BALL IN
THE RING AND SCORE
 BRANCHES OF ETHICS

NORMATIVE ETHICS
IN A BASKETBALL GAME METAETHICS
ETHICS

APPLIED
ETHICS
 ETHICAL SYSTEMS
ATHEISTIC APPROACH
❑ This approach assumes that only matter exists and that man is only
responsible to himself since there is no god who creates and rules
the universe.
❑ It favors science than religion.
❑ It tries to centralized scientific ideology.
❑ Its followers are called atheist.
 ETHICAL SYSTEMS
ATHEISTIC APPROACH
PRINCIPLES OF THE AETHEISTIC APPROACH:
❑ Matter is the only reality.
❑ Man is matter and does not have spiritual dimension.
❑ Man is free and must exercise his freedom to promote society’s
welfare.
❑ There is no life after death.
❑ Man is accountable to the state.
 ETHICAL SYSTEMS
THEISTIC APPROACH
❑ It begins with the assumption that God is the Supreme Lawgiver.
❑ Employs the aid of a favoring religion.
❑ God’s will is the core of this approach.
❑ It believes that God is the point of origin.
❑ With God’s will, man must exercise his freedom.
 ETHICAL SYSTEMS
THEISTIC APPROACH
POSTULATED TRUTHS OF THE THEISTIC APPROACH:
❑ God is the Supreme Creator and Lawgiver.
❑ Man is free and must use his freedom to promote his personal and
social interests along with his fellow men.
❑ Man has an immortal soul which cannot die.
❑ Man is accountable for his actions, both good and evil.
MORAL AND NON-MORAL
STANDARDS
 MORAL STANDARDS

Moral standards involve the rules people have about the

kinds of actions they believe are morally right and wrong, as
well as the values they place on the kinds of objects they
believe are morally good and morally bad.
 CHARACTERISTICS OF MORAL
STANDARDS
MORAL STANDARDS INVOLVE SERIOUS HARM OR
SIGNIFICANT BENEFITS
Moral standards deal with matters which can seriously impact human
beings (injure or benefit).

Example
- Theft and murder cause harm to the victim and the guilty
- Giving alms produce benefits and is helpful to man
 CHARACTERISTICS OF MORAL
STANDARDS
MORAL STANDARDS ARE NOT ESTABLISHED BY
AUTHORITY FIGURES
Moral standards are not invented, formed, or generated by
authoritative bodies or persons such as nations’ legislative bodies.
Ideally instead, these values ought to be considered in the process of
making laws. In principle therefore, moral standards cannot be
changed nor nullified by the decisions of particular authoritative body.
 CHARACTERISTICS OF MORAL
STANDARDS
MORAL STANDARDS OUGHT TO BE PREFERRED
TO OTHER VALUES
Moral standards have overriding character or hegemonic authority. If
a moral standard states that a person has the moral obligation to do
something, then he/she is supposed to do that even if it conflicts
with other non-moral standards, and even with self-interest. When a
particular law becomes seriously immoral, it may be people’s moral
duty to exercise civil disobedience.
 CHARACTERISTICS OF MORAL
STANDARDS
MORAL STANDARDS ARE BASED ON IMPARTIAL
CONSIDERATIONS
Moral standard does not evaluate standards on the basis of the
interests of a certain person or group, but one that goes to a
universal standpoint in which each person’s interests are impartially
equal.
Impartiality is usually depicted as being free of bias or
prejudice. Impartiality in morality requires that we give equal
and adequate consideration to the interests of all concerned
parties.
 CHARACTERISTICS OF MORAL
STANDARDS
MORAL STANDARDS HAVE THE TRAIT OF
UNIVERSALIZABILITY
Everyone should live up to moral standards. Moral standards
believed to be universal as it is applicable anywhere and anytime.
This characteristic is exemplified in the Golden Rule, “Do unto
others what you would them do unto you.”
 CHARACTERISTICS OF MORAL
STANDARDS
MORAL STANDARDS ARE CORRELATED WITH DIFFERENT
FEELINGS AND VOCABULARY
Prescriptivity indicates the practical or action-guiding nature of
moral standards. These moral standards are generally put forth as
imperatives (such as, ‘Do not kill,’ and ‘Love your neighbor’). This
feature is used to evaluate behavior, to assign praise and blame, and
to produce feelings of satisfaction or of guilt.
If anyone doesn't live up to the norm or standards, he
will feel guilty, bad, and wrong. If he accomplishes what must
ne done, self-fulfillment is to be felt.
 NON-MORAL STANDARDS

Non-moral standards refer to rules that are unrelated to

moral or ethical considerations. Either these standards are not
necessarily linked to morality or by nature lack ethical sense.
Basic examples of non-moral standards include rules of
etiquette, fashion standards, rules in games, and various
house rules.
 FORMING MORAL STANDARDS
There are certain moral standards that all of us hold in our
actions in society. There are various factors on how moral standards
are influenced:
❑ Moral values or principles that we conform with, in our rearing
❑ Manners that were imbibed with us by means of birthright
❑ Religious values that our forefathers taught us
❑ Values we learned from school
❑ Moral conduct, ways and habits of those people around us
❑ Direct and implied cultural norms
❑ Life experiences
 MORAL
DILEMMA
 DILEMMA

A situation in which a person is forced to

choose between two or more conflicting
options, neither of which is acceptable
 MORAL DILEMMA

Situations where the agent is forced to choose

between two or more conflicting options,
neither of which resolves the situation in a
morally acceptable manner
 MORAL DILEMMA
CONDITIONS
❑ The agent is obliged to make decisions about which course of
action is the best.
❑ There must be different courses of action to choose from.
❑ No matter what course of action is taken, some moral principles
are always compromised.
 LEVELS OF MORAL DILEMMA

❑ INDIVIDUAL MORAL DILEMMA

❑ ORGANIZATIONAL MORAL DILEMMA
❑ STRUCTURAL MORAL DILEMMA
 LEVELS OF MORAL DILEMMA
INDIVIDUAL MORAL DILEMMA
❑ Personal dilemmas are those experienced and resolved on the
personal level. Since many ethical decisions are personally
made, many, if not most of, moral dilemmas fall under, or boil
down to, this level.

❑ EXAMPLE: A man’s wife is giving birth and is in danger of

death. The doctor asks him whom he wanted to be saved, is
it his wife, or his child?
 LEVELS OF MORAL DILEMMA
ORGANIZATIONAL MORAL DILEMMA
❑ Moral conflicts encountered by social organizations like in
business, medical field, education, and public sector.

❑ EXAMPLE: A hospital believes that human life should not be

deliberately shortened and that unpreventable pain should
not be tolerated encounters a conflict in resolving whether
to let the patient live and continue suffering or to withdraw
life support and let the patient die.
 LEVELS OF MORAL DILEMMA
STRUCTURAL MORAL DILEMMA
❑ Moral conflicts involving network of institutions (macro level).
As they usually encompass multi-sectoral institutions and
organizations, they may be larger in scope and extent than
organizational dilemmas.
❑ EXAMPLE: A country is in a conflict whether they would pass
a law legalizing death penalty which may harm the innocent
if not properly sentenced, or not to legalize it which may
give criminals the guts of continuing their crimes.
 MORAL DILEMMA
“THERE IS NO PERFECT
SOLUTION TO THE PROBLEM”
According to Benjiemen Labastin, in moral dilemmas, the moral agent
“seems fated to commit something wrong which implies that he is
bound to morally fail because in one way or another he will fail to do
something which he ought to do. In other words, by choosing one of
the possible moral requirements, the person also fails on others."
 FREEDOM
AS FOUNDATION OF HUMAN ACTS
 IMMANUEL KANT’S
PHILOSOPHY ON FREEDOM
❑ Kant's definition of freedom is the right to control one's actions
based on reason, not desire. All of this can be simplified to
autonomy
❑ The principle, then, is not to live by the animalistic rules forced on
them from birth, but rather to live by the laws that you enforce on
yourself.
❑ Therefore, from Kant's point of view, libertarian freedom is
the subjugation of oneself to one's wish.
 IMMANUEL KANT’S
PHILOSOPHY ON FREEDOM
❑ There is only one inherent right, "says Kant," freedom
(independence from being limited by the option of another) to the
degree that it can coexist with the freedom of each other
following universal law".
❑ As discussed in “Theory and Practice”, freedom highlighted the
autonomous right of all individuals to conceive of happiness in
their way. Interference with another’s freedom is understood as
coercing the other to be happy as the former sees fit.
 IMMANUEL KANT’S
PHILOSOPHY ON FREEDOM
IMMANUEL KANT ACCENTUATES THE FOLLOWING PHILOSOPHY
ON FREEDOM:

❑ Individuals have the right to choose one's conduct based on reason,

not desire.
❑ Individuals have to abide by the rules that they follow.
❑ Individuals are independent from being limited by the option of
others to the extent that they may coexist with each other's freedom
under universal rule.
❑ Individuals have an autonomous right to be happy in their
own way, and the intervention of another's freedom means
forcing others to be happy.