What is virtue ethics and who is Aristotle?

Q1.1 Virtue ethics is the general term for theories that put emphasis on the role of character and virtue
in living one's life rather than in doing one's duty or in acting to bring about good consequences. For
virtue ethicists, their moral code would be: "Act as a virtuous person would act in your situation". Q1.9
Most virtue ethics theories take their inspiration from Aristotle who declared that a virtuous person
Q1.2 is someone who has ideal character traits. There is also St. Thomas Aquinas who asserted that no
human act is morally good (or "right", in the sense of "not wrong") unless it is in line with love of
self and neighbor (and thus with respect for the basic aspects of the wellbeing of each and all
human beings) not only:
i. in the motives or intentions with which it is chosen, and
ii. in the appropriateness of the circumstances, but also
iii. in its object (more precisely the object, or closest-in intention of the choosing person)
(The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ©2017)
Aristotle
Aristotle was born in a small colony of Stagira in Greece. That was fifteen years after the death of
Socrates, the teacher of Platc. His father was Nicomachus, who happened to be the court physician
during the reign of King Amyntas. Because of this affiliation, Aristotle became the tutor of Alexander
the Great, who was the grandson of the king. When Aristotle's father died, he left Stagira and went
to Athens to join the Academy, a famous school of Plato, and became student of Plato for twenty
years. He joined the school at the age of seventeen. His known works that are related to moral
philosophy are: Nicomachean Ethics (NE), Eudemian Ethics (EE), and the Magna Moralia. Most of the
ideas related to the framework he conceived are taken from his first two works.
Telos
How often do you ask why you always prepare yourself before going to school? Perhaps your reason
is because of hygienic purpose (you take a bath), or to be presentable (you dress properly) before
your classmates and teacher. Or maybe asking why you need to study all your lessons before
entering the class, and your answer is simply to go with the flow of all undertakings (reading notes
or handouts or books in advance) to happen inside the classroom. Under the ethical framework of
Aristotle, he means a lot that we need be aware of every action we make. For him, what we do
entails direction. If we decide to eat breakfast before we leave the house, it is because we want
nourishment, that is, having enough energy to prepare our body to actively engaging with the
concerns for the day. So, we eat to gain nourishment. Same thing goes with other human actions
that have objectives. This objective will lead us to our intended direction.

Q1.3 This direction is what we foresee as the outcome of our act. Conversely, we act in order to get us to
the intended direction. In short we may not get to our destination if we do not act. This is what telos
means for Aristotle. All our human actions would lead to our desired end. The end of human act is
Q1.4
 Q1.5
either good or bad. But for Aristotle, in his Nicomachean Ethics, the end is something that is good. In
real life, we always pursue the good because it makes us feel good. Conversely no one pursues a
bad end.
Q1.6
Now there are two things about the end as good. First, Aristotle insists that any good end is
achievable. Nothing in real life that good end is non-achievable by human action. From the
epistemological point-of-view, only human beings are capable of seeing the good in all things. The
rest of the creatures are incapable of doing so since they do not have the rationality, or the faculty
of reasoning. This is the reason why achieving the good is always considered a rational activity.
Second, every action that aims in achieving the good is the telos/end of human actions. It only
means that the result of our ethical decision-making is good. In fact there are so many seemingly
good
ends in life, and sometimes we understand them subjectively and relatively. Simply our
understanding of the good may not necessarily good to others. Therefore, there is a need to define
what good means. Corollary to settling the definition of good is how do we know that a particular
result is good.
Aristotle understands the meaning of good from the perspective of finality and self-sufficiency.
These are the two features that serve as criteria of determining the good. First, the finality of the
object of human action has two views - the dominant or monistic view and the inclusivists' view. The
first view claims that the aim of every act is good. But there are some human goals that entail more
actions. If one, who comes from Valencia City, Bukidnon, wants to go to Cagayan de Oro City, one
has to incur several actions like one should ride a bus, pay the ticket, watch movies on the monitor
or watch beautiful sceneries on its way, take a nap, or talking to someone sitting besides you. All
the series of actions before arriving at Cagayan de Oro, which is the finality of the act, yield good
results. Yet these are subordinate goods since the arrival at Cagayan de Oro is considered as the
dominant good. The second view claims that good, which is the result of the series of human acts on
your way to Cagayan de Oro, is the totality of all goods achieved, both the dominant and subordinate
goods in the first view. It only means that it is inconsiderate to think of the dominant good alone
because it cannot be achieved without the personal acts. The second feature of good is the self-
sufficiency of the object of human action. This means that the object of the act must be something
that will make life worthwhile. One can say that it is not enough to just fulfill what one intends to do
without considering whether it is worth of doing and acting on it or not. Since that object of the act
is self-sufficient, it only means that there is nothing more to desire. In other words, the object lacks
nothing.
Virtue As Habit
In the second book of NE, Aristotle explicates about the acquisition of character excellence by
habituation (ethismos). Character excellence and habit are the two important terms we need to
Q1.7 consider here. The word character means the development of personality that resulted in the
application of virtues, while the word habit means that certain human acts are being carried out
frequently. It only means that when a person carries a certain act only ones, it is just a plain act and
not a habitual act. Now the terms habit and virtues are closely connected to each other, for virtues
are good acts (of which its equivalent opposite is vice, which means bad habit) habitually put into
action. So, what are these virtues that has to be acted oftentimes that which in turn develops the
character of the person? There are two kinds of virtues:
▪ Moral virtue
▪ Intellectual virtue.
Since our concern is more on the moral virtue, the role of intellectual virtue complements moral
virtue. There are two classifications under the intellectual virtue, the intellectual virtue of wisdom
and the intellectual virtue of understanding. The intellectual virtue of wisdom has the role of
governing ethical behavior. In this sense, this intellectual virtue of wisdom helps us what particular
virtue, among moral virtues, we need to apply under specific circumstance.
Now regarding moral virtues (we can find them in Books 2 to 5 of NE and Books 2 to 3 of EE), for
Aristotle, they are not innate, that is, those virtues just flow from our beings. These virtues are
acquired through constant practice, which in turn develops our character excellence. That is why
they are being put into action habitually or frequently. But ones we cease in carrying out or put into
disuse those virtues frequently or habitually, they will be lost from us.
Q1.8
Moreover, the moral virtues of Aristotle, when put into action, should observe moderation. This
moderation entails that one has to avoid what is excess or defect in action. In local parlance, the
excess means too much and the defect means too little. Aristotle suggests that the moral virtues
are in the middle between too much and too little. It is also called the Doctrine of the Mean. Here
are the excess and defects of the following virtues (Urmson, 33-34).

Excess or Too Much Virtues Defect or Too Little

Irascibility Even temper Impassivity
Foolhardiness Bravery Cowardice
Shamelessness Modesty Touchiness
Intemperance Temperance Insensibility
Envy Fair-mindedness (nameless)
Gain Justice Disadvantage
Prodigality Liberality Meanness
Boastfulness Truthfulness Mock modesty
Flattery Friendliness Churlishness
Servility Dignity Disdain
Vanity Pride Mean spirit
Ostentation Magnificence Unworldliness
We have to take note that the exercise of the moral virtues differs from one person to another
person. For instance, let us compare the situation of a lover and a soldier. A lover who has a feeling
towards his beautiful classmate has not expressed yet his feelings towards her. The reason for not
expressing his love for the girl is that he is afraid of getting busted. Thus, he needs courage to do it.
On the other hand, a soldier who has been sent for a mission to rescue a hostage victim is also
afraid to die in the line of duty. It is because he is afraid to leave his family, wife and children behind
Thus he needs courage to do it too. Both lover and soldier need the virtue of courage, but the
courage needed by a lover is not a matter of life and death unlike the soldier. Now, how are we
going to achieve the right amount of virtues so as to avoid the excess and the defect? Aristotle has
the answer: by observation and correction those excess and defect in our conduct.
Happiness As Virtue
The telos or end of our human actions, which are what we desire and tend for, is good. From the
dominant or monistic view, we see some series of actions by its corresponding results, with the rest
are subordinate goods and the last is the dominant good. This is not all there is since there are also
series of dominant goods in the scheme of human actions. Therefore, for Aristotle, all human acts
that we undertake must have to have the ultimate telos or end. He is referring to happiness or in
Greek eudaimonia as the supreme good. What is this happiness by the way? Can we exercise
happiness the way we exercise other virtues? Is happiness just one of the virtues laid down in his
doctrine of the mean?
The understanding of the term happiness is sometimes subjective since we interpret according to
our own need. In NE I.4 1095a22-5, Aristotle shows the instances of understanding happiness. When
we are sick, we think that to gain health is already happiness, or if we are poor, we think having
much money is a form of happiness. Moreover, for Aristotle happiness is not about emotion as one
is feeling contented when one gains health or possesses large amount of money. He gives a hint
that happiness is exclusively for human beings, and if it permits, the gods too can have it. For him,
happiness is a pleasant activity or excellent rational action where one judges his whole life as
successful and worth living. Thus, eudaimonia also means success.
If happiness is a rational activity in accordance with virtue (NE I.7), how is this to be understood?
One has to live a virtuous life, that is, practicing all virtues in one's life. For Aristotle, living a
virtuous life is the best life because it contributes to the happiness or eudaimonia of the person. It
means that happiness is not an immediate result of a certain human action, but a conglomeration of
human virtuous acts so as to achieve a eudaemon life.
Who is St. Thomas Aquinas?
St. Thomas Aquinas was born in Roccasecca, Italy during the medieval period. He studied liberal
arts at the University of Naples, and in 1249, he became a Dominican Friar. He is known as the
Doctor of the Church because of his immense contribution to the theology and doctrine of the
Catholic Church. His influence on Western thought is considerable, especially on modern philosophy.
His most important works are the "Summa Theologica" where he expounded on the five proofs of
the existence of God and the "Summa Contra Gentiles" or the "Book on the truth of the Catholic faith
against the errors of the unbelievers". The two books are combinations of philosophy and theology
where he discussed about the role of natural law, virtues and happiness in moral philosophy.
Natural Law
St. Thomas Aquinas begins his explanation of virtue ethics by grounding on natural law. He
discusses the natural law along with eternal law. By linking the two laws he shows that it has
theological underpinning because his philosophy is theistic or belief in God as the highest of all
beings and the highest of all goods. God expresses his self through the eternal law, his will and his
plan for all his creatures.
Aquinas insists that the natural law expresses moral requirements. It contains rules, commands,
and action-guiding requirements. But if we ask where to find it or discover it, it is not outside of us,
that is, located somewhere. The natural law is found within us, his rational creatures. But there is
the condition, that is, only insofar as the rational creatures share in the divine providence. It implies
that we adhere to the will and plan of God who shares his love and goodness to us, His creature. In
that, we live up to the expectation of God to be His moral creature, and with obedience to the law.
There are two groups of adherents who are God's creatures to natural law, but in different sense.
The difference manifests to who can reciprocate and respond to the moral requirements of God. The
first group is the rational creatures. It refers to us, human beings, who are gifted with rationality
and freedom. Because we are thinking beings, it is we who can understand and analyze the content
of the moral requirements, and since we are free beings, it is we who can either show obedience to
the moral requirement or not. The second group is the irrational creatures. It refers to animals,
plants and other nonliving creatures without rationality and freedom. Though they are without the
gifts of reasoning and free will, their actuations are governed by the natural law.
The premise is clear that rational creatures, where natural law is present, insofar as one shares in
divine providence, have to exercise their capacity to recognize that law within them. Conversely,
this natural law has to be discovered by any human beings by using their rationality. This law will
rule the whole human community, command them what to do and what not to do, and guide their
action towards the right direction. The repercussion is that since only rational creatures can
discover and obey the law, hence, it is only they who can disobey them.
The Natural and Its Tenet
In his book ETHICS: A Class Manual in Moral Philosophy, The Right Reverend Msgr. Paul J. Glenn
made a distinction of natural law in broad sense and in the narrow sense for rational and irrational
creatures. Other than being a priest and an author, Reverend Msgr. Glenn was also an educator at
St. Charles Preparatory School and Seminary. He served as the rector and principal of the seminary
from 1945-1957. His books include A Tour of the Summa: A Journey Through St. Tomas Aquinas'
Summa Theologica and Apologetics: A Philosophic Defense and Explanation of the Catholic Religion.
Where is natural law situated in the scheme of things in the philosophy of Aquinas? As we all know
that his philosophy is grounded on the belief that God exists. God is known as the highest good and
being who establishes eternal law where his divine plan for his creatures has been inscribed. But
he also categorizes the law to make his eternal law more comprehensible.
From eternal law is the natural law, which we are talking about. This law is discoverable by any
rational creatures and unknowable for irrational ones. In his Ethics, Glenn has made a distinction of
natural law in broad sense and in the narrow sense for rational and irrational creatures. In the
narrow sense, for rational creatures, it is already given above that natural law is already present in
us who are rational beings. All we have to do is to recognize that we are his creatures, and that we
are called to participate in the divine life of the highest being in order to have a fullness of being. In
the language of religious people, this is our divine vocation where we are to realign our moral life,
our thinking, and our being with that of God. This is also known as participation. For irrational
creatures, the way they exist and the way their actions tend toward something that seems to be
good are all guided by this natural law. When animals are hungry, they tend to look for food to eat,
or they tend to look for a comfortable place to lay their tired bodies when sleepy. When the sun
rises in the west, it will set in the east eventually, or when an object is thrown in the air, it will just
fall to the ground. These are all instances of how they are governed by the natural law. In the broad
sense, the natural law guides both the rational and irrational creatures in their own respective
tendencies towards the realization of their beings.
Can we say that this natural moral law is different from the eternal law? It is not exactly. This
natural moral law is an expression of participation in the eternal law. The word moral is inserted
between the two words to show that emphasis on moral action - observance to the moral
requirements established by God. In moral philosophy, this natural law is a picture of eternal law as
something sensible and knowable to rational beings. These two laws can never be contradicting
from each other. But this law, because it is discoverable by the use of our reason, has to be enacted
to make them feasible to other rational beings. Once it is enacted into written law, it is now called
human positive law. It implies that if we do not just enact them to make it official, it remains within
the realm of natural law, unknowable to those who do not recognize them. There are two
subclasses of human positive law - the civil law, which is enacted and promulgated by the
lawmakers of the land, and the ecclesiastical law, which is enacted and promulgated by the
religious people regarding faiths and morals.
Happiness as Constitutive of Moral and Cardinal Virtues
The moral and cardinal virtues of Aquinas has special meaning in this moral philosophy. Virtues
consist of human actions that are frequently carrying out, so much so that such human act becomes
easily executed. There are many kinds of acts that can be carried out frequently but not all them
belong to one category called virtues. Virtues are special kind of human acts that are moral. It
means that such moral act is carried out in accordance with the dictates of reason. This dictate of
reason is also called conscience, which is the proximate norm of morality. Conscience is being
formed through unceasing education by parents, members of the community, the church and the
society at large. Achieving certain and true conscience takes time. It is not given automatically from
above. That is why we see now the definition of virtue as moral frequent act. The opposite is the
immoral frequent act or vice. This proximate norm of morality is patterned after the divine reason
called eternal law that is established by God from all eternity.
Among the frequent moral good acts, there are some virtues that standout among other virtues.
These are the known four moral cardinal virtues. It is called cardinal from the Greek word cardo,
means hinge because when these virtues are being practiced, the rest of the virtues follow.
The four cardinal virtues are prudence, justice, fortitude, and temperance
Prudence. What is its role to our moral life? This virtue is an exercise of understanding that helps us
know the best means in solving moral problems in which we encounter in the concrete
circumstance. Knowing the best means, and without acting carelessly without thinking, will incline
us to apply them immediately with certainty. It is like a one-step-backward-and-two-steps-forward
technique. If we encounter a moral rights dilemma, we do not rush into conclusion without
considering the pros and cons of our act, and more so what is right and what is wrong. If we do so,
then there is a big possibility of committing an immoral act than moral one.
2. Justice. What is its role to our moral life? This habit is an exercise of the will to give or render the
things, be it intellectual or material, to anyone who owns it. If a thing belongs to you, then everyone
should respect it and not own it, or if it belongs to someone, then we must not treat it as ours. If a
laborer renders eight hours of work in a day, then the employer should give him his just wage. If a
student enters the classroom with the things left behind by his classmates who are in the ground
for their PE subject, that student has no right to get their things like cellphone or money. It is imply
because those things are not his. Robbers, burglars, and thieves are usually the violators of this
injustice.
3. Fortitude. What is its role to our moral life? This habit is an exercise of courage, to the me moder
face any dangers one encounters without fear, especially when life is at stake. It stands for
resilience to carry on despite trials and tribulations in life. doctrine
Temperance. What is its role to our moral life? This habit is an exercise of control in the midst of
strong attraction to pleasures. The key word here is moderation. Getting indulged into strong
pleasures has undesired consequences, either excess or disorder. Becoming beautiful or handsome
is not a bad idea, but if one is willing to spent thousands of pesos in order to achieve it is already
vanity.
The next question is: How happiness becomes constitutive of moral and cardinal virtues? If the telos
or end of Aristotle is happiness, which means success or human flourishing, for Aquinas, it entails
the wholeness of human beings that involves body and soul to be united with the highest good or
summum bonum, no other than God himself who is in heaven. How this is being done? Let us go
back to the contention of Aristotle that every act tends towards something. That something must be
good. In short, good is anything that which is aired at. This good is not a prescriptive term or that
knowing that it is good, it should be done right away. When good is done, whatever is that good,
promotes the ultimate good. What is the ultimate good? The ultimate good for man is for him to
fulfill his nature. What is this nature? This nature is no other than to live as being His creature, in
accordance to his purpose and to the divine plan of God, and to act that does not hinder his future
union with God in heaven.
Immanuel Kant
- a German philosopher and one of the famous thinkers during the modern period.
- was born in Konigsberg in 1724 He spent the rest of his life in Konigsberg from birth to death,
- worked in Konigsberg University first as lecturer and later as professor in philosophy from
1755 until his death in 1804. His works related to moral philosophy are the Groundwork of
the Metaphysics of Morals (1785) and The Critique of Practical Reason (1788).
Now what framework should we use in making an ethical decision? The second ethical framework
you will be introduced is the duty ethics of Immanuel Kant. This framework focuses on the agent
with the motivation to do morally good out of duty.
Good Will
Are you familiar with the situation of St. Paul in the Bible, particularly in his letter to the Romans
7:15 of the New Testament when he said that I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I
do not do, but what I hate I do. He has the knowledge of what are the right things to be done but he
ends up doing the wrong ones. He is confused of himself. St. Paul's situation is a counter-argument
to Socrates' contention that if you know what is right, you will do what is right or possessing moral
knowledge will guarantee us with the production of moral acts. By experience we know that this is
not the case in reality. Why is that so? The answer of Kant is we need to look into our will, as either
we possess the will that is good or will that is bad. In highlighting the role of the will as the starting
point of his moral theory, Kant gives the argument that the happiness or the eudaimonia of Aristotle
and St. Thomas Aquinas is not the highest good.
Kant claims that the only good without qualification is the good will. He treats the good will as the
highest good since its end will always be good. It is also a condition of all other goods. Other
matters such as fortune or power or intelligence or other traditional virtues are not enjoying the
status of highest goods since they can be used by rational beings for bad ends. He even goes further
that happiness also corrupts. How do we possess the good will? In the Groundwork of the
Metaphysics of Morals, Kant says that the role of reason, particularly in ethics, is to produce a will
that is good, and this will become good only when it is motivated by duty. So when we act from duty.
we exhibit the good will.
The highlight of the will rests on the fact that humans, aside from being rational, duly are persons of
moral worth. If every person realizes that he is a human being with moral worth, he should always
will what is right. The moral worth he possesses is an absolute value over other things like talents
and right judgment. Now let us consider the motive of the willing. If a person does the right thing
just because it pleases him, for Kant, he is not yet intrinsically moral. Moreover, when his motive is
whatever that pleases him, he could have done the wrong thing. Therefore, his will is acting not for
the sake of duty.
Good will, for Kant, is an indispensable condition in order to achieve the rightness of act. Having the
will is not enough but the will must be good in order to correct the undesirable acts or wrongful
acts. But what makes the will good is simply by virtue of volition. To quote:
To act morally is to act from no other motive than the motive of doing what is right. This kind of
motive has nothing to do with anything as subjective as pleasure. To do right out of principle is to
recognize an objective right that poses an obligation on any rational being (Abbot, 88).
Kant uses an analogy to explain further about the good will. When the will does its role of doing
what is moral, the will is like a jewel that shine[s] by its own light (Abbot, 88). Moreover, Kant
emphasizes that when a person acts out of duty, he is obedient to the categorical imperative, and
not the hypothetical imperative.
Categorical Imperative
When a person is acting out of duty, it presumes that that person knows the categorical imperative.
For Kant, moral commands are always categorical and not hypothetical. In speaking about
categorical, it is all about ought, that is to say, one is ought to do the moral law in the absence of
conditions since it is simply done out of duty. This categorical imperative comes from the nature of
the law, a sort of imposing obligation. There are two formulas of the imperative written by Kant in
his two writings. In the first formulation of the categorical imperative, it says "act only according to
a maxim by which you can at the same time will that is shall become a universal law" and in the
second formulation of the categorical imperative, also known as the formula of humanity, it says
"act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of
any other, never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end."
From the two formulas are the two principles or determiners of moral imperative. the respect for
person and the universalizability. The respect for person is the basic thing about how we treat
people we encounter in our daily living, For Kant, any act that is good happens only when we deal
with other people not as merely means. It is all about dealing people just because we want
something from him/her, and we cannot have the wants without them. When a man sticks with a
certain woman out of lust, that is, to satisfy his sexual desire is an example of disrespecting a
person. But when a man sticks with that woman for the sake of the good of the woman, and thereby
the woman sticks with him for the sake of his own good, is an example of treating each other as
means and ends at the same time. This is the first kind determiner of moral imperative.
The second one is universalizability, that is, an act is capable of becoming a universal law. An act is
considered morally good if a maxim or law can be made universal. That maxim or law is made not
only for our self but also for others as well to perform or to prohibit. Sometimes when we follow the
maxim or law, it becomes either subjective or personal. In order to avoid this to happen, that maxim
or law is put to test by the principle of universalizability. The particular maxim or law becomes
morally good when everyone can fulfill them. If people are confused with the fulfillment of the
maxim or law with other maxims or laws, there is existing contradiction among them. It means that
one maxim or law contradicts with other maxims or laws. If that is the case, then either of those
maxims becomes pointless and meaningless.
Kant uses the example of lie and promise to illustrate the point of contradiction under
universalizability. If you make promise to each other to keep the friendship even after your high
school graduation, you are now imposing the duty among yourselves, and at the same time earning
the right to that duty. It is a promise to be fulfilled among friends, and it can be imitated by other
circle of friends as well. This is an act of universalizing. But one day, you have changed your mind
and lied about the promise since you found someone in your new school better than your previous
friends in high school. Do you think other people can imitate your lying? Can lying be universalized?
If we use our common sense, the two maxims you created-keeping the promise and lying about the
promise are contradicting. Since you lie about the promise, you deprive your friends, as well as to
yourself, the right of the benefits of friendship.
These two determiners are different in ways of coming up with the same moral course of action. In
universalizing the maxim or law, the respect for person as end and means, and never solely as
means to serve one's end must be considered at all times. If the respect for person will be out of
reach in every universalizing, then there is always contradiction. The reason is simply that every
person has intrinsic worth or dignity. This reality cannot be just ignored. In the same manner,
whatever that pertains to the consideration of treating every person as means and an end is always
universalizable.
So if the maxim or law says keep the promise, one is ought to fulfill it because it is a moral
command. The existence of a law means that one has to fulfill them no matter what are the
circumstances. In the hypothetical imperative, there is always the presence of conditions in
carrying out the moral command. If the maxim I will buy a house next year under hypothetical
imperative, one has to consider the condition if the unit is not of substandard materials or of
reasonable price.
Different Kinds of Rights: Legal versus Moral Rights
Legal rights refer to all rights one has by simply being a citizen of a particular country like the
Philippines. If the Philippines is governed by all legalities stated in the 1987 Constitution, so all its
citizens are governed by the same constitution. Being a Filipino, one is entitled to all rights and
privileges accorded by the constitution. This entitlement is acquired either by birth or by choice. By
birth means that one is born within a certain territory such as the Philippines. By choice means
each Filipino has the option to stay as citizen of the republic or denounce it and embrace other
citizenship. This happens to few Filipinos who have gone abroad to work and have stayed there for a
longer period of time, in countries that grant citizenship and permanent residency. It only shows
that every person has the right to abandon their being Filipino, American, and altogether embraced
with other citizenship called dual citizenships.
Moral rights are rights that belong to any moral entities such as human beings and animals. What
make them moral entities are the following features such as freedom, rationality and sentience.
First, human beings are the only beings that enjoy freedom. With freedom, every act they execute
accompanies moral consequences becomes possible. Second, human beings are the only beings
gifted with rationality. With rationality, everything they do comes with rational deliberation whether
certain course of action would lead to a desired result without regrets or undesired result with
undesired consequence. Lastly, human beings are not the only beings who are capable of
experiencing pleasure and pain. Of course, humans can determine which action plan would yield
more pleasure than pain and vice versa like the utilitarian, and only humans can give different
dimensions of meanings to pleasure and pain. On the other hand, animals too are capable of
experiencing pleasure and pain. On this ground animals are qualified of becoming moral entity