GEC 123

Ethics

NAME: Joanna Marie Maglangit BSN 1 - FITZPATRICK 01/28/2021

TEACHER:Meghann Sarceno

Module 1 – The Ethical Dimension of Human Existence

Unit 1 – Value, Sources of Authority and Senses of Self

1. What is the value of one’s life?

The value of one’s life is found in becoming and being of more value to others and
the world at large. This statement implies that the value of life is not in how long one
lives, the value of life is in our individual contribution to making life better for others,
it is in living a life of substance, an effective and impactful life that makes a positive
influence in the world.
2. What exactly were the wrongs done to Cris by his so-called fraternity brothers?
The wrongs that have been done to Cris by his so-called fraternity brothers was
vanished, avoiding and refusing to cooperate with the legal authorities about his death
and the leaders of their fraternity publicly denounced the death of Cris which is
wrong.
3. Is there any good to fraternities?
For me fraternity has no good because it may or can bring us chaos to one another that
can cause abusive performances which can held you to a very serious bad situation.

Activity:

Art and Offense

In 2011, the Cultural Center of the Philippines (CCP) mounted an exhibit that
included Mideo Cruz’s “Politeismo,” an installation comprised of an amalgam of
many images including a statue of Jesus wearing Mickey Mouse ears, a crucifix
adorned with a bright red phallus, and a picture of the face of Jesus with wooden ash
tray with penis tacked on the middle. Apparently conceived as a piece to promote
critical through and perhaps debate on idolatry. It was seen by many in this
predominantly Catholic country to be a deliberate insult to their faith. Given the
public outcry and the strong denouncement from various religious and secular leaders,
the exhibit was abruptly closed. In addition to being threatened and having his work
vandalized, Cruz was charged with obscenity. However, he (as well as he
administration of the CCP) was acquitted of these charges by the courts in 2013. A
case such as this allows us to consider questions on aesthetics, such as “Is it the point
of the work of art to be appealing or to be thought-proving?” it is allows us to
consider political questions, such as “Who gets to decide which artists and which
projects may or may not receive funding from the state?” our concern here is ethical,
and perhaps we can recognize that a number of highly significant ethical questions
can be raised: Does the artists have an ethical obligation to sensibilities of his
audience? Or does he have a moral obligation only to be faithful to his vision and his
art? What constitutes offense, and at what point is offense severe enough as to require
control or to justify retribution? Does a religious majority have monopoly on the
understanding of what is right or wrong? Does an artist have absolute freedom of
expression, or are there proper restrictions to this right?
What do you think?
I. Imagine a scenario in which an image of someone who is the object of religious
devotion (such as Jesus Christ or Mary, the Mother of Jesus) is placed side by side
with phallic image.
1. Is this an ethical issue? Why or why not?
Yes, because due to the article that I’ve read it is an insult to many Catholics on what
Cruz did to the statue. It is ethical issue just because it can creates a conflict towards
to the society in the catholic country.
2.Does the question of the rightness or wrongness of this depend on which religion
you belong to? Explain your answer?
Yes it depends on the religious beliefs because it is natural to depend what God and
religion you believe and belong to, and for the artist he did not think that what would
the believers of Christ felt what he did to the statue and for the others who are not the
believers of Christ they doesn’t care what the artist did to the statue.

II. Look for another example of an artistic creation-a painting, poem or song-that is a
source of either actual or potential conflict between the expression of the artist and a
sensibility that finds this offensive. Present the significant details and the reasons that
the conflicting sides might have on this issue.

Burnt-Out Europe
 by Manuel Ocampo
Explanation:
The painting of Manuel Ocampo was highly criticized because it depicts the head of
Jesus Christ attached to a hawk's body and is placed in the middle of two large
swastikas. For many Germans, swastika is the symbol used by Adolf Hitler in his
political movement. Which is why, when Manuel Ocampo displayed his works in a
prestigious modern and contemporary art exhibition in Germany, it was pulled out.
On the part of the painter, he used such symbols to express his views about political
and social problems in the present day and the painting doesn't promote fascism.

III. Look for and list down other sources wherein we find a dialogue between ethics
and the various domains of aesthetics, culture and religion.

Evaluation:
Answer the following questions:
1. Identify a list of: (a) obligations we are expected to fulfill, (b) prohibitions we are
required to respect and (c) ideals we are encourage to meet. Discuss whether these are
ethical in nature or not.

2. Are clothes a matter of pure aesthetic taste, or does it make sense for clothes to
become a subject in a discussion of ethics? Why? How about other forms of
adornment, such as tattoos and piercings?
3. Look for a newspaper article that tackles an ethical issue. Consider the following
questions:
a. What makes this matter of ethics?
b. What is your own ethical judgment on this case?
c. What are your reasons for this judgment?
4. Brainstorm and come up with a list f common Filipino value. Consider the
strengths and weaknesses of these.
5. Imagine that you are a legislator. What rules or laws that currently prohibit certain
acts or practices would you want to amend or repeal? Also, are there certain acts or
practices currently permitted by the law that you would want to prohibit? Think of
this on the level of your school, your city and the nation.
Reflection:
Write in the box below what you have learned from this unit/lesson.

What I have learned in this unit/lesson is that ethics or moral philosophy involves
developing, defending, and recommending concepts of right and wrong behavior.
Ethics deals with well-based standards of how people ought to act. Ethics does not
describe the way people do act. It deals with the way people should act. Ethical
people always strive to make the right decision in all circumstances. They do not
rationalize their actions based on their own different self-interests. Ethical decision-
making needs following certain well established norms of behavior. The best way to
understand ethics may be to differentiate it from other concepts. Also I’ve learned that
the value you get from ethics are the basic and fundamental beliefs that will motivate
and guide you to your actions also to your attitude. We must know that in ethics, we
must do what’s the right thing to do and to learn to yourself of being happy. I’ve learn
too that ethics and morality is not the same because according to what I’ve read and
study, ethics is the theory of the right action and the greater good while in morality its
stated that it is the practice of the rightness and wrongness of the human action. So
ethics is a systematic study of the underlying the principles of morality and in
morality is it the prescriptive of nature and tells us what we need to do or follow the
right way.

Module 2 – Utilitarianism
Unit 1 - The Principle of Utility, Principle of the Greatest Number and
Justice and Moral Rights

Motivation:
On January 25, 2015, the 84 th Special Action Force (SAF) conducted a police
operation at Tukanalipao, Mamasapano in Maguindanao. Also known as Oplan
Exodus, it was intended to serve an arrest warrant for Zulkifli bin Hir or Marwan, a
Malaysian terrorist and bomb-maker who had a $5 million bounty on his head.
This mission eventually led to a clash between the Philippine National Police’s
(PNP) SAF, on the one hand and the Bangsamoro Islamic Freedom Fighters (BIFF)
and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) on the other. Although the police
operation was “successful” because of the death or Marwan, the firefight that
ensued claimed sixty-seven lives including forty-four SAF troopers, eighteen MILF
Fighters and five civilians. However, the relatively high number of SAF members
killed in this operation caught the attention of many including the Philippine
media and the legislature. In one of the congress investigations that followed this
tragic mission, then Senate President Franklin Drillon and Senator Francis
Escudero debate the public hearing of an audio recording of an alleged
conversation that attempted to cover up the massacre of the PNP-SAF
commandos. Drillon questioned the admissibility of these recordings as evidence
under the Anti-Wire Tappig Law whereas Escudero cited the legal brief of the Free
Legal Assistance Group (FLAG) arguing that the Anti-Wire Tapping Law protects
only the recoding and interception of private communications. Drillon cited
Section 4 of the Anti-Wire Tapping Act (RA 4200) and explained that “any
communication or spoken word or the existence, contents, substance, purport or
meaning of the same or any part thereof or any information therein contained
obtained or secured by any person in violation of preceding sections of this act
shall not be admissible in evidence in any judicial, quasi-judicial, legislative or
administrative hearing or investigation.
1. Can the government infringe individual rights?
Yes the government can infringe individual rights.
2. If it is morally permissible for the government to infringe individual
rights, when can the government do so?
3. Does it become legitimate to sacrifice individual rights when considering
the greatest benefit for the greatest number of people?

Activity:
Watch the movie (Pursuit of Happyness) makes a reflection paper from the movie
using or based on the rubric given with the following scores:

Content – 20 points
Reliability - 10 points
Organization – 10 points
 “Reflection about Pursuit of Happyness”

In the movie Pursuit Of Happyness, we learn what it means to struggle for your child.
Chris G went through many struggles just to try and do what he needed to do for his
son Chris. Linda (Chris’s Wife) walked out on him and their son during the hard time
to try and make a higher life for her, while it might make life a bit tougher for Chris to
require care of their son. Chris was a awfully intelligent person, but nobody gave him
the prospect to indicate his intelligence. Then Jay Twisel gave him an effort at being a
stockbroker where he took an internship. While he was taking his internship he
became homeless, and since the internship paid him no money he had to try selling his
bone density scanners to urge money to feed and find a place to lay their heads for his
son and himself.

After a long 6 months at the internship without no pay and making it by with what
little he had he finally got the work. Since he got the job he got a place for him and
his son to stay, had no more worries about where there going to sleep, or what they
were going to eat. Taking that internship was the most effective thing he could have
done for his son and himself.

Evaluation:
Answer the following questions:
1. Are all pleasures commensurable? Can they be evaluated on a single scale? Can
some goods, like friendships, be balanced against other goods, like money?
2. Mill revises utilitarianism by arguing for “higher” pleasures. Which pleasures are
higher?
3. Mill proposes that “higher” pleasures are those preferred by the majority of people.
Do you agree that this is a good way of distinguishing between higher and lower
pleasures? Can a well-informed majority prefer higher pleasures?
4. Does utilitarianism questions individual rights? What if violating the civil rights of
a minority increases the sum total of pleasure of the majority?
5. Are all pleasures comparable, even objectionable pleasures? What if the majority
derives pleasure from being sexist?
Reflection:
Write in the box below what you have learned from this unit/lesson.
What I have learned in this unit is all about the principles of utility, that stated the
actions or behaviors are right in so far as they promote happiness or pleasure, wrong
as they tend to produce unhappiness or pain. And I learned that the Utilitarianism is
an ethical theory that determines right from wrong by focusing on outcomes. It is a
form of consequentialism. And according to what I’ve read in the internet the
Consequetialism means it is the doctrine that the morality of an action is to be judged
solely by its consequences. I’ve also learned about the Jeremy Bentham was an
English philosopher, jurist, and social reformer regarded as the founder of modern
utilitarianism. Bentham defined as the "fundamental axiom" of his philosophy the
principle that "it is the greatest happiness of the greatest number that is the measure of
right and wrong." according to the wikipedia.