Ethics

Document Code FM-STL-013
Saint Louis University Revision No. 01

School of Teacher Education and Liberal Arts Effectivity June 07, 2021
Page 1 of 138
GETHICS
MODULE IN
ETHICS
Property of and for the exclusive use of SLU. Reproduction, storing in a retrieval system, distributing, uploading or posting online, or transmitting in any form or by any
means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise of any part of this document, without the prior written permission of SLU, is strictly prohibited. 1
Page 2 of 138
REF GETHICS-2023
COURSE GUIDE
I. Course Title: Ethics
II. Course Overview
Dear student,
Welcome to this General Education Course - Ethics (GETHICS) or Moral

Philosophy. In this course guide, you will be informed about the course and what is
expected of you as the learner to accomplish the learning tasks throughout the First
Semester of 2023-2024.
A. Introduction
Ethics/morality deals with principles of ethical behavior in modern society at

the level of the person, society, and the interaction with the environment and other
shared resources. (CHED-CMO s 2013). Throughout the term, you will be introduced
to the ethical dimension of human existence at various levels – personal, societal,
environmental, and cultural. The major questions this course seeks to answer are:
what ethics is, how is it framed and practiced, and what is its value to the society
and to you as an individual person.
This study on ethics/morality is intended to facilitate the learning of the key

concepts in ethics and the understanding of the standards of right and wrong. It
teaches students to make moral decisions and demonstrates the rigor of moral
reasoning and judgment by using dominant moral frameworks and by applying
models of moral reasoning in analyzing and solving moral dilemmas. The course is
modular; thus, the accomplishment of tasks and activities before and after the
discussions and readings comes as a necessity.
B. Course Learning Outcomes
Just as Ethics is meant to guide as in our way of living to become morally

upright individuals, so to must our course be guided by expected learning outcomes
in order to guide us through our lessons and for us to have an idea on what is
expected of us in terms of our learning in this course.
As such, it is expected that at the end of the course, you, the students, should
be able to:
Page 3 of 138
1. discuss the importance of ethics for Filipinos in the present time;

2. discern the difference between moral and non-moral problem-situation;
3. describe what a moral experience is at it happens in different levels of human
existence;
4. express understanding of the importance of philosophizing and addressing
ethical issues in consideration of the socio-cultural contexts of Filipinos;
5. describe the elements of moral development and moral experience;
6. use ethical frameworks or principles to analyze moral experiences;
7. make sound ethical judgments based on principles, facts and stakeholders
affected;
8. demonstrate actions showing sensitivity for the common good, as guided by
the spirit of genuine services with a Louisian-CICM missionary heart; and
9. exhibit a life that integrates principles of ethical behavior in the modern, multi-
cultural, and globalized world at the level of the person, society, and in
interaction with the environment and other shared resources.
C. Module and Unit Topics
To be able to achieve the course learning outcomes at the end of the

Second Semester, the modules are divided corresponding to the grading division of
the term. Modules 1-4 will be for the PRELIM Grading Term while Modules 5-7 will be
for the MIDTERM Grading Term, and Modules 8-10 for the FINAL Grading Term. The
following modules and unit topics shall be covered:
Module 1: Overview and Brief Introduction to Philosophy

1.1 Definition and Nature of Philosophy
1.2 Branches of Philosophy
1.3 Importance of Doing Philosophy
Module 2: Basic and Key Concepts in Ethics

2.1What is Ethics? What Ethics is not?
2.2 Importance of Ethics
2.3 Moral vs Non-Moral Standards
2.4 What are dilemmas? Moral vs Non-Moral Dilemmas
2.5 Three Levels of Moral Dilemmas
2.6 Distinction of Action
2.7 Three-Fold Elements of Human Acts
2.8 Determinants of Morality
Module 3: The Moral Agent

3.1. Culture in moral behavior
3.1.a. Culture and its role in moral behavior
Page 4 of 138
3.1.b. Cultural relativism

3.1.c. Asian and Filipino understanding
3.1.d Moral behavior: strength and weaknesses
3.2. The moral agent: developing virtue
3.2.a. Moral character development
3.2.b. Moral development
3.2.c. Stages of moral development
3.2.d. Conscience-based moral decision
Module 4: The Act

4.1.a. Feeling and moral decision-making
1. Feelings as instinctive and trained responses to moral dilemmas
2. As obstacles to making the right decisions
3. Helping to come up with the right decision
4.1.b. Role of reason and emotion in moral decisions
4.1.c. Reason and impartiality as minimum requirements for morality
4.1.d. Reason and impartiality defined
4.2. The 7-step moral reasoning model
4.3. Moral Courage
4.3.a. Impediments to ethical decision-making
4.3.b. Will as important as reason
4.3.c. Development of the will
Module 5: Ethical Framework: Utilitarianism/Consequentialism

5.1 Ethical Egoism and Ethical Altruism
5.2 Origins and Nature of the Theory
5.3 Utilitarianism
5.4 Relevance of Utilitarianism
5.5 Objections to Utilitarianism
Module 6: Ethical Framework: Immanuel Kant and Rights Theorist

6.1 Immanuel Kant
6.1.a Good Will
6.1.b Categorical Imperative
6.2 Different Kinds of Rights
6.2.a Legal
6.2.b Moral
Module 7: Ethical Framework: John Rawls on Justice as Fairness

7.1 The Nature of the Theory
7.2 Distributive Justice
7.2.a Egalitarian
Page 5 of 138
7.2.b Capitalist
7.2.c Socialist
7.3 The State and Citizens: Responsibilities to each other
7.4 The principles of taxation and inclusive growth
Module 8: Ethical Framework: Aristotle’s Virtue Ethics

8.1 Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics
8.2 Telos
8.3 Virtue as Habit
8.4 Happiness as Virtue
Module 9: Ethical Framework: Thomas Aquinas Natural Law

9.1 St. Thomas Aquinas: Natural Law
9.2 Natural Law and its Tenets
9.3 Happiness as Constitutive of Moral and Cardinal Virtues
Module 10: Ethics through thick and thin, globalization and religion
10.1 Challenges of pluralism and fundamentalism: search for universal value
10.2 Globalization and pluralism: new challenges to ethics
10.3 Challenges of filinnials
10.4 The religious response: The role of religion in ethics.
III. Course Study Guide
1. Please refer to the study schedule at the end of this section. You may
independently set the time you will set aside for studying this course. Make sure
that you do not delay the completion of a module in its prescribed schedule as
your professor will provide two (2) formative assessments and two (2) summative
assessments. There will also be three (3) major examinations (prelim, midterm,
and final exam) for the entire semester.
2. Your learning packet includes photocopies of articles and a memory stick which
contains the following: (1) Course Guide; (2) The Course Module Readings; and
(3) PDF files of other supplemental readings (if any).
3. Follow the learning schedule. It is recommended that you allot 3-4 school days
per topic.
4. Do not neglect to read all the discussions and watch the suggested videos
provided for and indicated in this learning packet.
Page 6 of 138
5. The formative assessments in the “Engage” section of each module are meant
to introduce you to the lessons and supplementary materials discussed and
presented in the “Explore” and “Explain” sections, respectively. They are
primarily simple questions which invite you to reflect on your own experiences,
thoughts, and behaviors, in relation to the topics covered in a specific module.
In short, the answers you may provide to the questions in the “Engage” sections
are subjective since they are intended for self-assessment. On the other hand,
the formative assessments in the “Elaborate” section of each module are meant
to test your understanding through the application of the lessons to you and/or
other people’s experiences.
6. The Formative assessments may be graded or not graded. We encourage you

to accomplish them all the same as part of your preparation for the evaluative
assessments like the quizzes and the summative tests (prelim, midterm, and final
exams) which are graded. The formative assessments also serve as an avenue
for us, your teachers, to provide feedback on what you currently know and
understand concerning the lessons.
7. The activities and quizzes that you have to accomplish as well as the answer
sheets that you will be using are integrated within the printed module and the
same will be sent to you using either the messenger, the student portal and/or
google classroom.
8. Discussion will be done through blended or mixed-modalities (50% face-to-face

discussions and 50% online) for this course. Note that online meetings will be
synchronous and asynchronous.
9. In answering the activities, please write legibly. Observe proper standards

required for academic writing. Be conscious with your grammar, word choice,
and do not forget the citations. Always observe the copyright laws and laws on
data privacy. Faculty members handling the course will post in the google
classroom additional instructions on how to do your activities, quizzes and
examinations.
10. Once accomplished, submit them to the google classroom. Details for joining
the google classroom will be posted through the student portal or sent through
your SLU emails. Detailed information will be announced by the faculty handling
the course.
11. Contact information of your course facilitator is located at the end of this
document.
Page 7 of 138
IV. Study Schedule
Topic Learning
Schedule Activities
Outcomes
MODULE 1 OVERVIEW AND BRIEF INTRODUCTION TO PHILOSOPHY
Engage: Share your initial impressions regarding
Differentiate the main what philosophy is and your attitude towards
concerns of the different people who are called, “pilosopo.”
branches of Philosophy. Explore: (Refer to the “Explore” section of the
module for the discussions).
Elaborate on the basic Explain: For a brief overview of philosophy’s
themes and perennial humble beginning and it development,
questions dealt with in explore Hanks 10 minutes video here:
philosophy. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1A_CAkYt3
GY
Articulate what it really Elaborate: Elaborate on the implication/s of
means to “love wisdom.” the three main themes in philosophy on
what makes a philosopher, “philosopher,” in
short, “what does it mean to love wisdom?”
Evaluation: Midterm Integrated Quiz; and
Midterm Integrated Assignment (Please
refer to the Assignment Guide)
MODULE 2 BASIC AND KEY CONCEPTS IN ETHICS
Explain the similarities Engage: Do you think it is OK to make a
and differences of judgment about the morality or immorality of
“ethics/ethical” and the person by simply basing on what the other
“morality/morals. have shown us, or from what we have heard
about them? Would the circumstances of
Articulate the people matter when making moral
importance of Ethics to judgments?
one’s life.
Explore: (Refer to the “Explore” section of the
Judge whether the module for the discussions).
dilemma faced by
people in given Explain: Read through the discussion provided
situations are moral in the “Explain” section of the module and
dilemmas or not. then answer the formative assessment
provided.
Point out which among
the determinants of Elaborate: What is “impartiality?” Elaborate its
morality is/are involved role and significance in making moral
in a certain dilemma. decisions
Page 8 of 138
Demonstrate Evaluation: Midterm Integrated Quiz; and

understanding of the Midterm Integrated Assignment (Please refer
fundamental concepts to the Assignment Guide)
in ethics and morality
such as “knowledge,”
“voluntariness,” and
“impartiality” by
applying them in solving
certain moral dilemmas.
MODULE 3 THE MORAL AGENT
Engage: Give at least (A) one cultural
Explain what “Cultural practice in the place you grew up in to,
Relativism” is. which is openly performed but you think is
immoral, and (B) another one cultural
Defend the morality or practice in your place which is prohibited
but you think is moral. Give a brief
critique for the
justification for both.
immorality of certain
cultural practices.
Explain: Visit the following short videos to
Articulate the strengths familiarize yourself to different cultural
and weaknesses of your practices and beliefs around the world:
own culture. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4a_Gim
qd6X4
Enumerate the different https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EfAdrZdis
stages of Kohlberg’s 8c
theory of Moral https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r7GlMv5
Development. yflU
For Lawrence Kohlberg’s theory on the 6
Stages of Moral Development, watch the
Point out exactly which
following short video about it:
stage a person is “in to”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=boun
in given situations;
wXLkme4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYtIIs0Ws
RQ
Elaborate: Reflecting on Kohlberg’s Theory of

Moral Development, what is the highest
stage you have reached so far? Were you
able to maintain or stay in that stage for a
long time or you slide to the lower levels
every now and then? Elaborate.
Page 9 of 138
MODULE 4 THE ACT

Elaborate the Engage: Which do you usually rely on when
significance of emotions making decisions: your heart (feelings) or
and reason in making your mind (reason)? Could one be more
moral decisions. reliable than the other when making moral
decisions?
Outline the 7 steps of Explore: (Refer to the “Explore” section of the
Scott Rae’s Moral module for the discussions).
Reasoning Model. Explain: Watch the Video Talk saved in your
OTG flash drive regarding Scott Rae’s Moral
Apply Scott Rae’s 7-step Reasoing.
Moral Reasoning Model Watch Alex Gendler’s presentation of Plato’s
in certain moral Allegory of the Cave here:
dillemmas. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RWOp
QXTltA
Appraise the A presentation and discussion of the Allegory
significance of having of the Cave in Filipino version can be seen
moral courage and will. here:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6
hok2YmrIk
Evaluate moral situations
with impartial eyes. Elaborate: How were the Impediments to
Ethical Decision-making portrayed in
Plato’s Allegory of the Cave? What specific
character or objects in the allegory
correspond to the specific impediment to
ethical decision-making?
MIDTERM EXAM
MODULE 5 ETHICAL FRAMEWORK: UTILITARIANISM/CONSEQUENTIALISM
Differentiate Ethical Engage: Given the dilemma between your
Egoism from Ethical individual happiness and the happiness of
Altruism. the majority, which one will you choose?
Why?
Trace the development Explore: (Refer to the “Explore” section of the
of Utilitarianism from the module for the discussions).
early Hedonism. Explain: Watch the Video Talk saved in your
OTG flash drive on Utilitarianism and the
Justify our present following short video presentations:
quarantine protocols in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-
the country using a739VjqdSI
Bentham’s Felicific https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dr9954k
Calculus. aFBs
Page 10 of 138
Evaluate the present https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7MnnN0

education system which 00iXM
is Distance Learning Elaborate: Provide one example depicting act
Education (DLE) thru the utilitarianism and another example depicting
lens of J.S. Mill rule utilitarianism.
Evaluation: Final Term Integrated Quiz; and
Final Term Integrated Assignment (Please
MODULE 6 ETHICAL FRAMEWORK: IMMANUEL KANT AND RIGHTS THEORIST
Articulate the Engage: Which do you think should be given
importance of sound more weight when making moral decisions:
and reasonable the consequences of the action or the
decisions in moral intention of the person doing the act? Why?
dilemmas.
Identify the different module for the discussions).
kinds of Rights.
Explain: For additional knowledge on Kantian
Explain the role of duty ethics, explore the following videos:
as the basis of good. Short doodle presentation of Kant’s ethics:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-
Formulate maxims that UhiRLuSlIU
can become a moral Short discussion of Kant and Categorical
law. Imperatives:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8bIys6Jo
Cite instances where EDw
someone else’s maxim Discussion of the comparison between Mill’s
cannot rationally Utilitarianism and Kant’s Categorical:
become a moral law. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0zg3mzf
uCks
Differentiate a
hypothetical from the Elaborate: What do you think is one (1)
categorical imperative. maxim in society that is not in line with the
Categorical Imperative of Kant? Defend
Identify the strengths your answer.
and weaknesses of
deontology as a moral Evaluation: Final Term Integrated Quiz; and
framework. Final Term Integrated Assignment (Please
MODULE 7 ETHICAL FRAMEWORK: JOHN RAWLS ON JUSTICE AS FAIRNESS
Describe the Engage: If given the opportunity, what
background with which specific government position would you
Rawls’ theory of Justice want to have and what specific problem will
is based. you be solving using that position? How will
you solve that problem/issue?
Page 11 of 138
Explain the two Explore: (Refer to the “Explore” section of the

principles inherent in the module for the discussions).
concept of “justice as Explain: Watch the recorded discussion video
fairness.” on Rawls’ Theory of Justice provided in your
OTG flash drive.
Justify the importance of You may also explore the following videos:
undergoing the “veil of A visual review of Rawls’ theory of justice in just
ignorance” when 2 minutes:
making policies and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C1-
moral decisions. J8huxT8E
A discussion presentation of Rawls theory of
Tell why the concept of justice in 16 minutes:
justice as fairness is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n6k08C6
practical or not. 99zI
Elaborate: Do you think the “equal opportunity
Recommend specific principle” and the “difference principle” of
actions as solutions to Rawls’ theory of justice are seen/applied in
certain specific our country’s taxation system? If NO, why? If
problems currently YES, in what sense? Evaluate:
faced by our present Evaluation: Final Term Integrated Quiz; and
government. Final Term Integrated Assignment (Please
MODULE 8 ETHICAL FRAMEWORK: ARISTOTLE’S VIRTUE ETHICS
Trace the development Engage: Do you think you have the virtue of
of the concept of courage? If yes, in what way? If no,
Eudaimonia as the why?
highest good. Explore: (Refer to the “Explore” section of the
Identity which are the
virtues among the Explain: Watch the Video Talk saved in your
different vices. OTG flash drive regarding Aristotle’s Ethics.
Watch a summarized presentations of
Determine the possible Aristotle and Virtue Theory here:
level of happiness that https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PrvtOWE
one can attain, given XDIQ
the end that one is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSLsUO6u
pursuing. K4M
Elaborate: What is happiness? Are virtuous
Justify why man is people, such as your hero, happier than
considered as the vicious people? Are you happier when you
“highest” animal. are being virtuous? How does being vicious
affect you?
Apply Aristotle’s
“doctrine of the Mean”
in different facets of life.
Page 12 of 138

Final Term Integrated Assignment (Please refer
to the Assignment Guide)
MODULE 9 ETHICAL FRAMEWORK: THOMAS AQUINAS
Trace the connections Engage: You know that you are failing in one
between the Eternal of your subjects. Is it better to cheat during
Law and Natural Law. exam than to fail in that subject?
Compare and contrast module for the discussions).
Aristotle and Saint Explain: Watch the following short videos for
Thomas’ concept of additional knowledge on Saint Thomas’ moral
happiness and philosophy:
goodness. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJvoFf
2wCBU
Differentiate the https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UpVfd6
cardinal virtues from the oCF5M
theological virtues. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_UfYY7
aWKo
Argue for the possibility Elaborate: “Can I still be good or capable of
or impossibility of doing what is good even if I do not believe
“synderesis.” in God?” Assuming you were Saint Thomas,
what would your answer be? Elaborate.
MODULE 10 ETHICS THROUGH THICK AND THIN, GLOBALIZATION AND RELIGION
Explain the main Engage: Cite one specific problem
characteristics of associated with globalization that is
globalization, pluralism, greatly affecting you right now and then
and fundamentalism. reflect on how you should or could cope
with it using any of the ethical principles
Enumerate the presented in the earlier modules.
challenges posed by Explore: (Refer to the “Explore” section of the
pluralism and module for the discussions).
fundamentalism in our Explain: Read N. Ramanuja’s article on the
quest for universal value. “Challenges in Global Ethics” and
Kazuisa Fujimoto’s article entitled,
Assess the significance “Globalization and Ethics for the future.”
of religion and ethics as Elaborate: What does Ramanuja say about
a course in our search the effects of globalization in terms of
for meaning in the religious beliefs? Do you agree with him or
chaotic global world. not?
Page 13 of 138
FINAL EXAMINATION
V. Evaluation
Presentation of the items or activities that will be included in the course evaluation.
Formative Assessment
The reproduced materials include activities that you may answer independently to
test your knowledge and understanding of the lessons. There may also be
embedded activities in other presentations that will be provided you, which you are
encouraged to perform as well. Formative assessment activities are not graded;
however, all of them are necessary to prepare you for your evaluative assessments
and summative tests.
Summative Assessment
Summative assessments are those assignments / tasks that are graded; hence, you
are required to accomplish and submit them to your teacher. For each grading
term, there are only two (2) summative assessments: (1) one integrated quiz; and
(2) one integrated assignment. The details of these graded assignments are
indicated in the assignment guide.
Prelim, Midterms, and Final Exams Grading System
Prelim, Midterm, and Tentative Final Grade

Class Standing = 50%
Examination = 50%
FINAL GRADE
Prelim + Midterm + TFG/3 = 100%
VI. Technological Tools
The delivery of the course will require the use of the SLU subscribed Google
Suite, SLU E-Learning Resources, and SLU Student Portal.
Page 14 of 138
VII. Contact Information of the Facilitator
GETHICS FACILITATOR/S FACULTY E-MAIL ADDRESSE:

ABORDO, ANABELLE L. alabardo@slu.edu.ph
ALAWAS, GULLIVER ERIC CL. gecalawas@slu.edu.ph
DEL ROSARIO, MELANY F. mfdelrosario@slu.edu.ph
FLORENDO, JONATHAN G. jgflorendo@slu.edu.ph
NEBRIJA, GODOFREDO PRISCILO G. gnebrija@slu.edu.ph
PLACIDO, DENNIS M. placidodm@slu.edu.ph
SISON, OSCAR JR. oscarsison77@gamil.com
TAGGAOA, RONALD P. rptaggaoa@slu.edu.ph
VILLANUEVA, RAUL L. rlrvillanueva@slu.edu.ph
GARO, NIKKY S. nsgaro@slu.edu.ph
Mailing Address: School of Teacher Education

Saint Louis University Main Campus
A. Bonifacio St., 2600 Baguio City
PHILOSOPHY DEPARTMENT CONTACT NOS.:

STELA DEAN'S OFFICE CONTACT NOS.: 0938-757-7842 OR 0953-134-9220
Prepared by:
Philosophy Department
Page 15 of 138
GETHICS
COURSE LEARNING OUTCOMES

At the end of the module, you should be able
to:
1. discuss the importance of ethics for Filipinos

in the present time;
2. discern the difference between moral and

non-moral problem-situation;
3. describe what a moral experience is at it

happens in different levels of human existence;
4. express understanding of the importance of

philosophizing and addressing ethical issues in
consideration of the socio-cultural contexts of
Filipinos;
5. describe the elements of moral

development and moral experience;
6. use ethical frameworks or principles to

analyze moral experiences;
ETHICS 7. make sound ethical judgments based on

principles, facts and stakeholders affected;
8. demonstrate actions showing sensitivity for

the common good, as guided by the spirit of
genuine services with a Louisian-CICM
missionary heart; and
9. exhibit a life that integrates principles of

ethical behavior in the modern, multi-cultural,
and globalized world at the level of the
person, society, and in interaction with the
environment and other shared resources.
Page 16 of 138
"The standard that a society should actually embody its own professed principles is a utopian
one, in the sense that moral principles contradict the way things really are --- and always will
be. How things really are --- and always will be --- is neither all-evil nor all-good but deficient,
inconsistent, inferior. Principles invite us to do something about the morass of contradictions in
which we function morally. Principles invite us to clean up our act; to become intolerant of
moral laxity and compromise and cowardice and the turning away from what is upsetting: that
secret gnawing of the heart that tells us that what we are doing is not right, and so counsels us
that we'd be better off just not thinking about it."
Susan Sontag
COURSE INTRODUCTION
Ethics deals with the principles of reasonable behavior in modern society at the level
of the person, society, and the interaction with the environment and other shared
resources (CMO 20 s 2013). Morality pertains to the standard of right and wrong actions
that an individual originally picks up from the community. The course discusses the
contextualized principles of ethical behavior in modern society at the level of individual,
society, and the interaction with the environment and other shared resources. The course
also teaches the students to make moral decisions by using dominant moral frameworks
and by applying several steps in reasoning to analyze and solve moral dilemmas. The
course is organized according to the three (3) main elements of the moral experience: a)
the agent, including context – cultural, communal, and environmental; b) the act, and c)
reason or framework for the act. It also includes the mandatory topic on taxation.
A vision of the university is dedicated to the development of virtuous human

resources and innovation for inclusive growth. The mission is to develop globally
competitive professionals and industry-ready graduates via various modalities and
generate new knowledge and technologies to the improvement of the quality of life. The
goal is to provide quality instruction in the arts and sciences and develop well-rounded
professionals who can: think critically, scientifically, and independently; 2) preserve cultural
heritage; become active agents of change; exemplify disciplined and moral lives;
appreciate and cultivate the arts; and, help improve the quality of life. With the program
outcomes-based specialization, all graduates can: 1) critique or appraise the different
theories in society, politics, and ethics; 2) adapt to the varied responses of people that
meet with differing views on society, politics, and ethics; 3) respond proactively to the
challenges of post-modernity to their society, political situations, and ethical leanings.
Page 17 of 138
MODULE 1: Overview and Brief Introduction to Philosophy
This module will serve as an Introduction to Philosophy for students who never had an
encounter with philosophy before, or serves as a re-view of what philosophy is, for those
who have either only a faint memory of it or whose memory is starting to fade.
The aim of this module is to:

(1) define what is philosophy;
(2) describe the nature of philosophy;
(3) determine the different branches of philosophy; and
(4) point out the importance of philosophizing.
Learning Outcomes:
At the end of Module 1, you should be able to:
1. differentiate the main concerns of the different branches of Philosophy;
2. elaborate on the basic themes and perennial questions dealt with in philosophy;
and
3. articulate what it really means to “love wisdom.”
ENGAGE
Several people who either do not have an idea or only have faint idea of what philosophy
is, think that we cannot have a sensible conversation with a philosopher because they
think and speak of things “outside the box.” Being a “pilosopo” in our Filipino context has
earned a pejorative meaning and so such people are not treated seriously in the sense of
simply becoming a laughing stock. Before proceeding to the formal discussion on the basic
themes and branches of philosophy, and who “indeed” is a philosopher, share your initial
impressions regarding what philosophy is and your attitude towards people who are
called, “pilosopo.”
Page 18 of 138
EXPLORE
 1. Understanding Philosophy
Etymologically, the term “Philosophy” is derived from two Greek words; namely,
‘philos’ and ‘sophia which means love and wisdom, respectively. Literally, philosophy
means the “Love of Wisdom,” and so ‘philosophers’ are considered to be” lovers of
wisdom.”
Philosophy, as a course, is quite different from other academic subjects. No brief

definition can express the richness and variety of philosophy. It is unique both in its methods
and in the nature and breadth of its subject matter. Philosophy delves into the questions
concerning every dimension of human affairs. Its techniques can be applied to problems
in any field of study or endeavor. There are various desirable descriptions of Philosophy: a)
Philosophy is a search for meaning or a quest for understanding; b) Philosophy is a
reasoned pursuit of fundamental truths; c) Philosophy is a study of principles of conduct;
d) Philosophy seeks to establish standards of evidence to provide rational methods of
resolving conflicts, and to create techniques for evaluating ideas and arguments; e)
Philosophy develops the capacity to see the world from the perspective of other
individuals and other cultures; f) Philosophy enhances one's ability to perceive the
relationships among the various fields of study; and, g) Philosophy deepens one's sense of
meaning and variety of human experience.
Every aspect of human experience brings out questions to which its techniques and
theories apply, and its methods may be used in the study of any subject or the pursuit of
any vocation. Indeed, Philosophy is in a sense inescapable since life confronts every
thoughtful person with some philosophical questions, and nearly everyone is guided by
philosophical assumptions. To a large extent one can choose how reflective one will be in
clarifying and developing one's philosophical assumptions, and how well prepared one is
for the philosophical questions life presents. Philosophical training enhances our problem-
solving capacities, our abilities to understand and express ideas, and our persuasive
powers. It also develops understanding and enjoyment of things whose absence
impoverishes many lives such things as aesthetic experience, communication with many
different kinds of people, lively discussion of current issues, the discerning observation of
human behavior, and intellectual zest. In these and other ways, the study of philosophy
contributes immeasurably in both academic and other endeavors in life.
Philosophy, as a systematic study of ideas and issues, examines concepts and views
drawn from science, art, religion, politics, or any other endeavor. Philosophical appraisal
of ideas and issues takes many forms, but philosophical studies often focus on the meaning
of an idea and on its basis, coherence, and relations to other ideas. Philosophy, in general,
guarantees wisdom, leadership, and an excellent guide for our genuine existence.
Philosophy will never become obsolete as long as there is life.
Page 19 of 138
 2. Approaches in Doing Philosophy

Since time immemorial, people need morality that promotes unity, peace, harmony
and solidarity in community. The moral life is and will always be the concern of humanity
and for as long as people have been living together in groups, the moral regulation of
behavior has been necessary to the group's well-being. Although these morals were
formalized and made into arbitrary standards of conduct, they developed, sometimes
irrationally, after religious taboos were violated, or out of chance behavior that became
habit and then custom, or from laws imposed by chiefs to prevent disharmony in their
tribes. Ancient Egyptian and Sumerian civilizations developed no systematized ethics; yet,
maxims and precepts set down by secular leaders mixed with a strict religion that affected
the Egyptian worldview. In ancient China, the maxims of Confucius were accepted as a
moral code. The Greek philosophers, beginning about the 6th century BCE, theorized
intensively about moral behavior, which led to the further development of philosophical
ethics.
From the Ionians to Socratic Greek world, it was always about the amazement and
wonder of how to live in relation to the environment. As such, these thinkers were then
cosmocentric because they were reflecting on the relation of man to nature. Medieval life
was focused on the relation of man to God thus were theocentric because they were
proving God as the beginning and end of man’s life. Modern thinkers were focused on the
use of human reasoning and human abilities thus from then on, the main concern of doing
things was anthropocentric because everything is centered on the human person.
Contemporary life or human endeavor today integrate the moral experience of
cosmocentrism, theocentrism, and anthropocentrism. In short, we cannot deny our human
need for nature, interpretation of human experience in relation to faith towards the
Mystery, the Sacred or the Divine Being; and, the need to bring back the glory of humanity
as the center of all human experiences. Practically, there is no denial of ethical life so that
it is important to consider why are there moral standards and how do they differ from rules
of lives. What are moral dilemmas? Why is freedom crucial in our ability to make moral
decisions? What are the advantages of owning moral standards over merely abiding by
moral standards? Let us now look into the following moral versus non-moral standards,
moral dilemmas, three levels of moral dilemmas and, foundation of morality.
 3. Importance of Philosophy in life
Generally, philosophy is important 1) For acquiring persuasive powers: Philosophy

helps develop one’s ability and charisma to be more convincing of himself and of others.
2) For better communication skills: Philosophy helps one to express properly one's views,
enhances one's ability to explain difficult and challenging reading materials, and helps
one to eliminate ambiguities and vagueness from one's writing and speech; 3) For
enhancing better writing skills: Philosophy helps one to use his philosophical reasoning
and imaginations, and express his ideas through writing. Creativity and originality are also
encouraged; 4) For problem solving: Philosophy helps one to distinguish fine differences
between views and to discover common ground between opposing positions.
Page 20 of 138
Specifically, philosophy is important in educational pursuits. It is very much beneficial

in the pursuit of education: 1) For better understanding of other academic disciplines:
Philosophy is helpful and useful in assessing the various standards of evidence used by
other academic disciplines; 2. For enhancing and developing sound methods of research
and analysis: Philosophy emphasizes clear formulation of ideas and problems, selection of
relevant data, and objective methods for assessing ideas and proposals, 3. For those
undergraduates who wants to pursue post- graduate studies: Philosophy, as a course, is a
good preparation for post-graduate degrees such as Law, Medicine, Master in Business
Administration, Master in Public Administration, Master in Educational Management, and
other master’s program.
Philosophy is also important in non-academic careers: 1) For personal development;

Philosophy helps one to gain better self-knowledge, better foresight, and a better sense of
direction in life; 2) For professional advancement and promotion: People trained in
philosophy are not only prepared to do many kinds of tasks; they can also easily cope with
change, or even move into new careers, more readily than others. A recent long-term
study by the Bell Telephone Company, determined that majors in liberal arts fields, in which
philosophy is a central discipline, "continue to make a strong showing in managerial skills
and have experienced considerable business success" (Career Patterns, by Robert E.
Beck).
EXPLAIN
To give you a brief overview of philosophy’s humble beginning and its development,
explore Hanks 10-minute video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1A_CAkYt3GY
ELABORATE
With the given discussion above and the video you explored, show what you think are
the implication/s of the three main themes in philosophy on what makes a philosopher,
“philosopher,” in short, “what does it mean to love wisdom?”
“lover of
wisdom”
means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise of any part of this document, without the prior written permission of SLU, is strictly prohibited.20
Page 21 of 138
EVALUATE
*** The graded assignments for Modules 1, 2, 3, and 4 are all integrated into the following
summative assessments:
(1) PRELIM Integrated Quiz

(2) PRELIM Integrated Assignment
Please refer to the assignment guide to see the guidelines for each requirement.
Page 22 of 138
MODULE 2: Basic and Key Concepts in Ethics
Module 2 will introduce you to the basic terms used in Ethics and to the main components
to be considered when dealing with ethical issues and when making moral decisions. In
this module we will:
(1) examine the subject matter of Ethics;
(2) determine what ethics is, and what ethics is not;
(3) distinguish actions, on whether they are “human acts” or “acts of man”
(4) show examples of moral dilemmas; and
(5) analyze the different determinants of morality.
Learning Outcomes:

1. explain the similarities and differences of “ethics/ethical” and “morality/morals;”
2. articulate the importance of Ethics to one’s life;
3. judge whether the dilemma faced by people in given situations are moral dilemmas
or not;
4. point out which among the determinants of morality is/are involved in a certain
dilemma; and
5. demonstrate understanding of the fundamental concepts in ethics and morality
such as “knowledge,” “voluntariness,” and “impartiality” by applying them in solving
certain moral dilemmas.
ENGAGE
Many people easily make a judgment of others based on what they see about the
other at their “face value.” For instance, when we see a person giving a penny to a
beggar, he may right away be considered as a “moral person,” a “good” person who is
doing what is “right.” Or when we see someone being caught be a police officer for
stealing, he is right away judged as an “immoral person,” a “bad” person who did
something wrong.
Do you think it is OK to make a judgment about the morality or immorality of the

person by simply basing on what the other have shown us, or from what we have heard
about them? Would the circumstances of people matter when making moral judgments?
Write your answers in the box provided.
Page 23 of 138
EXPLORE
 2. Basic and Key Concepts in Ethics
2.1. What is Ethics
Ethics is derived from the Greek word “ethos,” which means a characteristic way of
acting which also refers to the principles or standards of human conduct. Ethics is also
called moral philosophy that involves systematizing, defending, and recommending
concepts of right and wrong behavior; thus, ethics is sometimes referred to as the study of
morality. It is said to be a science insofar as it is a body of systematized knowledge
arranged with its accompanying explanation. In terms of content, it is not to be classified
as a course in science. Ethics as a practical science means that it consists of principles and
laws that are applied in daily living. In this sense, ethics is not a course taken for the sake
of contemplation; rather, it is a study taken for application in a person’s everyday course
of action. Ethics then is an applied knowledge.
As a philosophical science, ethics is not a technical course or a laboratory study.

Devoid of human experience, it presents and deliberates its subject matter “in the light of
its deepest principles by means of human reason alone.” There are various ways of defining
and discussing Ethics: 1) Ethics is a subject matter with content. It is a discipline with a body
of knowledge; 2) Ethics is a process of decision-making because it is a thinking skill leading
to actions that we perform coupled with accountability; 3) Ethics refers to well based
standards of right and wrong that prescribe what humans ought to do in terms of rights,
obligations, benefits to society, fairness, or specific virtues. It refers to standards that impose
the reasonable obligations to refrain from rape, stealing, murder, assault, slander, and
fraud. Ethical standards also include those that enjoin virtues of honesty, compassion, and
loyalty. Ethical standards include values relating to rights, such as the right to life, the right
to freedom from injury, and the right to privacy. Such standards are adequate standards
of ethics because they are supported by consistent and well-founded reasons; 4) Ethics
refers to the study and development of one's ethical standards. Since feelings, laws, and
social norms can deviate from what is ethical, it is necessary to constantly examine one's
standards to ensure that they are reasonable and well-founded. It is a continuous effort of
studying our own moral beliefs and our moral conduct and striving to ensure that we live
up to standards that are reasonable and solidly-based; and, 5) Ethics involves the study
and application of “right” conduct. When people ask themselves, “What ought I to do?”
they are concerned of their actions that might be wrong or are having difficulty working
through the moral or values dimensions and from these, they are asking an ethical question.
What Ethics is Not
Before we understand the moral from the non-moral standards, it is important to

look into some misinterpretations and misconceptions of what Ethics is all about. Such
misinterpretations and misconceptions can obliterate the real essence of Ethics as an
Page 24 of 138
important branch of Philosophy. Raymond Baumhart, a sociologist, asked some people,

"What does ethics mean to you?" Among their replies were the following: "Ethics has to do
with what my feelings tell me is right or wrong;" "Ethics has to do with my religious beliefs."
"Being ethical is doing what the law requires;" "Ethics consists of the standards of behavior
our society accepts;" and, "I don't know what the word means." These replies might be
typical of our own. The meaning of ethics is hard to pin down, and the views that some
people have about ethics are shaky and dangerous.
Ethics and Feelings

Ethics is not the same with psychology but is
Like Baumhart's first respondent, many a companion to it. Ethics is not merely
people tend to equate ethics with their attributed to observations and scientific
feelings. But being ethical is clearly not a interpretations of behaviors like what
matter of following one's feelings. A person psychology does. The ethicists dig deeper on
following his or her feelings may recoil from the reason why an action is such without
necessarily quantifying and measuring human
doing what is right. In fact, feelings
behaviors. However, psychology admits that it
frequently deviate from what is ethical.
developed and progressed in the course of time
Several students fall into the trap of
due to the contribution of philosophy, a
engaging in pre-marital sex because they
companion to its scientific investigations of
allow their feelings or emotions to
human behaviors.
dominate their rationality.
Ethics and Religion
Ethics is not the same with religion but Most religions, of course, advocate high
speaks about it. While religion seeks the ethical standards. Yet if ethics were confined
meaning of human existence through spiritual to religion, then ethics would apply only to
nourishment with Creed, Code and religious people. But ethics applies as much to
Ceremonies, ethics dwell on the reason or the behavior of the atheist as to that of the
existence of religion. This explains why we saint. Religion can set high ethical standards
have philosophy of religion. However, since and can provide intense motivations for
religion uses reason to explain faith like ethical behavior. Ethics, however, cannot be
theology, then we do philosophize which we confined to religion nor is it the same as
call moral philosophy. In fact, ethics is also religion.
known as the study of morality.
Page 25 of 138
Ethics and Law

Ethics is not the same with studying
Being ethical is also not the same as following law but is closely related to it. While
the law. The law often incorporates ethical law is concerned about the effects of
standards to which most citizens subscribe. But action through punishment and
laws, like feelings, can deviate from what is reward, ethics dwell on a deeper
ethical. What is legal is not necessarily ethical; meaning of action by finding the main
but what is ethical is necessarily worth reason of the act. This explains the old
legalizing. For instance; gambling, divorce, adage, “not all legal is ethical.”
abortion, and the like can be legalized in some However, if ethics reflect laws founded
nations, but they do not necessarily mean that on reason as their bases, then we do
they are ethical. philosophizing like legal ethics.
Ethics and what Society accepts:
Ethics is not the same with culture Being ethical is not the same as doing "whatever
but is closely connected to it. Ethics is society accepts." In any society, most people
not only about etiquette or manners like accept standards that are, in fact, ethical. But
the GMRC (Good Manners and Right standards of behavior in society can deviate
Conduct) we used to learn. Learning from what is ethical. An entire society can
variety of cultural norms is not a become ethically corrupt. Nazi Germany
guarantee of ethical evaluation. This before, particularly during the time of the
explains why ethics is not only holocaust, is a good example of this. If being
researches in cultural anthropology or ethical were doing "whatever society accepts,"
sociology that studies behaviors of a then to find out what is ethical, one would have
social group, an organization or a to find out what society accepts. To decide
community. However, in studying what I should think about abortion, for example,
society and culture, we have social I would have to take a survey of American
philosophy to explain the reasons of society and then conform my beliefs to
organizations to exist. We can say then whatever society accepts. But no one ever tries
that culture and society are associated to decide an ethical issue by doing a survey.
with ethics as a branch of philosophy.
Finally, the lack of social consensus on many issues makes it impossible to equate
ethics with whatever society accepts. Some people accept abortion but many others do
not. If being ethical were doing whatever society accepts, one would have to find an
agreement on issues which does not, in fact, exist.
Ethics is not the same with morality but is closely linked to it. While moral standard or
norm of action is fixed and already set, ethics dwells on the use of reason. It is because we
cannot limit philosophy from mere norms of conduct. However, ethics is identical to moral
science or moral philosophy based from the Latin term mos (nominative) or moris (genitive)
which also means custom, or “traditional line of conduct.” It is from this root word that the
word moral or morality is derived. The term morality is synonymous with the word ethics in
Page 26 of 138
etymological meaning; however, ethics deals more on the principles and laws on the
morality of human acts by providing the person knowledge that s/he may know, what to
do and how to do it. In other words, ethics provides the guides to the performance of an
act.
2.2. Importance of ethics
For some people, the importance of ethics only comes as a result of

encountering unethical conduct. But if Ethics is inculcated into one’s system, it is
being carried into one’s bloodstream and to the day-to-day activity of the
individual. Ethics is an important requirement for human existence. It is our means
of deciding a proper course of action. Without it, our actions would be aimless and
not properly rooted. When a rational ethical standard is taken, we are able to
correctly organize our goals and actions to accomplish our most important values.
Any blunder in our ethical values will reduce our ability to be successful in our
endeavors.
Ethics is important because of the following reasons: 1) It serves as a guide towards

our goals, rather than just allowing our lives to be controlled by self-serving motives,
accidental occurrences, customs, feelings, or our impulses; 2) It helps us deepen our
reflection on the ultimate questions of life and help us think better about the concerns of
morality; 3) It offers us a wider perspective on how to live our life to the fullest, taking into
consideration that we do not have the luxury of eternal time in this world; 4) It reminds us
of our duties, responsibilities, and accountabilities to ourselves, to our fellowmen, to our
society, to our nation, and to the world in general; 5) It encourages us to examine our life
and honestly evaluate how we are responding to the challenges and demands of this
contemporary time; 6) It increases our capacity to perceive and be sensitive to relevant
moral issues that deserve consideration in making our choices that will have significant
impact on ourselves and on others; 7) It polishes, strengthens and brings out to the fore our
value priorities in life which will make us better and happy individuals; and, 8) It helps us
realize and become what we ought to be in this challenging, yet beautiful, world.
2.3. Recognizing Terms in Ethics
There are ethical terms to be distinguished in relation to human acts: It is important

to consider Moral, Amoral, and Immoral actions.
Moral actions or events are those which require the goodness of the object chosen,
the intention or the end in view, and of the circumstances together. Moral actions
are deemed to be good as one performs the moral rules or codes of the society.
Immoral actions or events are those actions or areas of interest where moral
categories do apply and are considered to be evil, sinful, or wrong according to
the code of ethics. For examples: consciously telling a lie; graft and corruption;
Page 27 of 138
cheating during examinations, gluttony, taking a sip of water fully aware that there
is hemlock in it (suicide), and many more.
Amoral actions or events are those actions or areas of interest exhibiting

indifference. At times, these are manifested in the absence of knowledge, freedom
and voluntariness on the part of the acting agent. For examples: a young child who
speaks bad words, an Aeta who just came from the mountain obstructs a city traffic,
a person innocently taking a sip of water but the water contains a hemlock, or a
man accidentally entering the ladies comfort room.
2.4. Moral versus Non-Moral Dilemmas
A moral dilemma is a situation in ethics where the human person is to choose

between two possible alternatives and the options become limited. In decision-making,
even when you do not want to choose to act in a situation, that is still considered a choice.
It is impossible then that there is no possible option. Thus, whatever is the decision a person
makes, it is expected for that person to stand and be responsible with the decision s/he
takes whatever the consequences could be. To decide is to be responsible.
Moral dilemma happens when we cannot make a distinction between what is a

good act from an evil act. When we encounter question of ethics like, is it moral to attend
my class even if I am sick? Is it necessary to avoid killing someone when my life is in danger?
Is waking up early necessary when am always late in going to school? Is it important to
maintain my diet even if my doctor advised me not to? To avoid moral dilemma, it is
important to distinguish the good act from a bad act.
A morally good act requires the goodness of the object chosen, of the intention,
and of the circumstances together. An evil end corrupts the action, even if the object is
good in itself like for instance in the case of praying and fasting in order to be seen by men.
The chosen object can by itself vitiate or destroy an act in its entirety. There are some
concrete acts, such as bribery, robbery, fornication, and the like, which are always wrong
to choose, because choosing them entails an evil act.
It is therefore an error to judge the morality of human acts by considering only the
intention that inspires them or the circumstances which supply their context. There are acts
which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are always
gravely illicit by reason of their object; such as blasphemy, murder, adultery, and the like.
One may not do evil so that good may result from it. According to St. Thomas Aquinas, an
evil action cannot be justified by reference to a good intention. A good intention does not
make the action or behavior that is intrinsically disordered, good or just. The end does not
justify the means. Thus, the condemnation of an innocent person cannot be justified as a
legitimate means of saving the country.
Page 28 of 138
2.5. Distinction of Action:
Human acts are the fundamental foundation of morality. These acts which are
under the control of the will and therefore done knowingly and willingly; not acts which
happen by accident, as falling, or by nature, as growing, but acts performed by choice,
that is, after deliberation and decision. They are imputable to their human author to the
extent that he has knowledge of his own activity and its import, and to the extent that he
has freedom of election. The moral or ethical character of the human act lies in this, that
it is freely placed with knowledge of its objective conformity or nonconformity with the law
of rational nature.
As elaborated by ethicists, human acts are characterized by the following: 1) Acts

which are free and voluntary; 2) Acts done with knowledge and consent; 3) Acts which
are proper to man as man; because of all animals, he alone has knowledge and freedom
of the will; 4) Acts which are under man’s control, and for which he is responsible for its
consequences; and, 5) Acts which man is the master and has the power of doing or not
doing as he pleases. On the other hand, human acts should be differentiated from ordinary
‘acts of man’. Acts of man are bodily actions performed without deliberation and in the
absence of the will. For instances, the blinking of our eyelids, our breathing patterns,
sneezing, and the like are considered as acts of man. In many ways, we are accountable
to our actions but somehow our responsibility is lessened unlike human acts that absolutely
require moral obligation and responsibility.
Human Act requires moral responsibility that is derived from a person. If responsibility
is a coined term of “response” and “ability” then the ability to response is important in ethics
because “no one can give what s/he does not have.” It is expected for young people
studying ethics to respond to the problems of society today based on their capacities. As
such, we can apply the old saying, “if there’s a will, there’s a way.” For example, the right
to vote in local and national election, participate in any assembly, joining school
organizations, becoming choir members of the Church, joining professional associations,
and other organizing activities, are simple ways that young people can do to become
responsible individuals. If a person achieves an ethical attitude, it presupposes that s/he
takes moral responsibility to society. A personal conviction of what is “right and wrong”
becomes a social duty and such duty must be put into action. This makes ethics an
axiology, or what philosophy calls praxis, the emphasis on the practical application of
ethical ideas.
There are two significant considerations of ethics; the Ethics of Being and the Ethics of
Doing. In the Ethics of Being, the emphasis is on the “character development” which
involves the integrations of virtues, values and personhood; it is looking into the foundation
of actions who is the “good person” while the Ethics of Doing focuses not only the goodness
of the person but on the ability of the person to put into action his/her ethical conviction
(Fr. Ramon Coronel & Fr. Paul Van Parijs, CICM, Bioethics, 1996). It is not enough simply to
be contented in believing to be a good person while forgetting to do good actions; on
the other hand, it also not good just to think that you are doing good while you forget that
Page 29 of 138
you are first and foremost a good person. There is the need to harmonize the two
considerations of ethics; hence, you do a good act because you believe and think that
you are a good person capable of doing good. Both considerations are inseparably
related to be better person – intellectually mature, psychologically stable, socially
involved, spiritually nourished and economically well-off; and, to do good acts.
Our ethical responsibility is reflected in the following scheme:
Foundation of Morality
Responsibility
Ethics: Human acts: Bases of
Moral
Ethics
human responsibility: Free,
Theory and
Principles as
voluntary, and deliberate
guidelines of
human actions
The fundamental bases of morality start with the use of reason, exercise of human
freedom, willful, voluntariness, and deliberate act. Ethical principles and theories are
guidelines for human actions for which we can only talk about moral responsibility. It is
because we cannot be totally responsible to our actions that we are not aware of. We
can only be responsible to our actions that we are aware of, freely acting on them, and
voluntarily responding to the circumstance we are engaged in. With our moral conviction
arises our moral responsibility.
2.6. Three-fold Elements of Human Acts
There are three essential elements to consider any action to be a human act.
Without one of these elements, the action cannot be considered as a human act. These
are knowledge, freedom of the will, and voluntariness.
Knowledge is awareness or being conscious of one’s actions including its possible

consequences. The act of knowing is always consciousness of something which is
inevitably linked to the subject, who is the knower. For example, an insane person and a
three-year old child are not liable for their actions since they are not capable of acting
with proper knowledge. Their actions can never be considered as immoral. College
students and professionals are expected to be possessors of knowledge; thus, they cannot
claim excuses for their immoral actions. They are liable for the consequences of their
actions. According to Aristotle, knowledge is the first element of ethical practice. This
knowledge provides a framework for deliberating about the most appropriate technique(s)
by which the good can be attained. But, it should be noted that; although, knowledge is
a requirement for considering an act to be a human act, being knowledgeable or being
Page 30 of 138
aware of what is ethical or moral is not a guarantee that the person is already considered
as an ethical or moral person. It is not enough for an individual to know what is good. What
really count are his good acts.
Freedom of the Will. According to St. Thomas Aquinas, this is the power which human
beings have in determining their actions according to the judgment of their reasons. This
always involves a choice or an option of whether to do or not to do a certain action.
Without this freedom of choice, then responsibility and/or liability on the part of the
individual would be meaningless. Insane people who have no control of their minds and
children who have no idea of what they are doing or are not free to do or not to do, are
not responsible for their actions. Matured people, college students and professionals are
expected to be free from doing or not doing; thus, they are responsible or liable for their
actions.
Voluntariness. This is an act of consenting or accepting a certain action whether it

is done whole-heartedly, half-heartedly, or non-heartedly. According to Aristotle, the moral
evaluation of an action presupposes the attribution of responsibility to a human agent;
thus, responsible action must be undertaken voluntarily (Nicomachean Ethics III). Agapay
presented four modes of voluntariness. These are perfect, imperfect, conditional, and
simple voluntariness.
Perfect Voluntariness is actualized by a person who is fully aware and who fully
intends an act. The person, under perfect voluntariness, is fully convinced of his action
including its consequences. A politician who, in his right mind, engages in graft and
corruption is considered to be acting with perfect voluntariness. Imperfect Voluntariness is
seen in a person who acts without the full awareness of his action or without fully intending
the act. A drunken person who, acting irrationally, jumps from a ten-storey building is said
to be exhibiting an imperfect voluntariness. Conditional Voluntariness is manifested by a
person who is forced by his circumstances beyond his control to perform an action which
he would not do under normal condition. A freshman college student who is forced by his
parents to enroll in a course which is against his will is showing a conditional voluntariness.
Simple Voluntariness is exhibited by a person doing an act willfully regardless of whether
he likes to do it or not. It can either be positive or negative. It is a positive simple
voluntariness when the act requires the performance of an act. For examples: Studying
one’s lesson; participating in class discussions; engaging in sports, and so on. It is a negative
simple voluntariness when the act does not require the performance of an act. For
examples: Remaining silent or choosing to be alone; deciding not to go to a drinking spree;
avoiding to take illegal drugs; and so on.
2.7. Determinants of Morality
Freedom makes man a moral subject. When he acts deliberately, man is, so to
speak, the master of his acts. Human acts, that is, acts that are freely chosen in
consequence of a judgment of conscience, can be morally evaluated. They are either
good or evil. The morality of human acts depends on the object chosen; the end in view
Page 31 of 138
or the intention; and the circumstances of the action. These are the factors to consider in
making ethical judgement in determining the morality of human acts.
Object Chosen: This is a good toward which the will deliberately directs itself. The
chosen object resides out the acting subject. The object chosen morally specifies the act
of the will, insofar as reason recognizes and judges it to be or not to be in conformity with
the true good. Examples of Good Chosen Objects: nutritious foods; hard-earned money or
wealth; educational books and films; and the like. Examples of Bad Chosen Objects:
Forbidden drugs; Pornographic materials; Leakages for examinations; and others.
The Intention: This is a movement of the will toward the end. It is concerned with the
goal of the activity. The end is the first goal of the intention and indicates the purpose
pursued in the action. It aims at the good anticipated from the action undertaken.
Intention is not limited to directing individual actions but can guide several actions toward
one and the same purpose; it can orient one's whole life toward its ultimate end. For
example, a service done with the end of helping one's neighbor can at the same time be
inspired by the love of the Divine Being as the ultimate end of all our actions. One and the
same action can also be inspired by several intentions, such as performing a service in
order to obtain a favor or to boast about it. The intention resides in the acting subject as
contrast to the object chosen. Because it lies at the voluntary source of an action and
determines it by its end, intention is an element essential to the moral evaluation of an
action.
The Circumstances: These, including the consequences, are secondary elements of

a moral act. They contribute to increasing or diminishing the moral goodness or evil of
human acts. For instances: the number of people killed; the amount of money being stolen;
the number of trees cut by loggers; the regularity of the graft and corruption done by
politicians; the number of times a lie is spoken; or, the number of times a student cheated.
They can also diminish or increase the agent's responsibility. For examples: acting out of
ignorance or fear of death; acts done because of habit; choosing between two or more
evils in a certain situation; being forced to do something against one’s will; and so on. It
should be noted that circumstances of themselves cannot change the moral quality of
acts themselves; they can make neither good nor right an action that is in itself evil.
In Summary: A morally good act requires the goodness of the object, of the end,
and of the circumstances together. An evil end corrupts the action, even if the object is
good in itself (such as praying and fasting "in order to be seen by men"). The object of the
choice can by itself vitiate an act in its entirety. There are some concrete acts - such as
fornication - that it is always wrong to choose, because choosing them entails a disorder
of the will, that is, a moral evil. It is therefore an error to judge the morality of human acts
by considering only the intention that inspires them or the circumstances (environment,
social pressure, duress or emergency, etc.) which supply their context. There are acts
which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are always
gravely illicit by reason of their object; such as blasphemy and perjury, murder and
adultery. One may not do evil so that good may result from it.
Page 32 of 138
The object, the intention, and the circumstances make up the three "sources" of the
morality of human acts. The object chosen morally specifies the act of willing accordingly
as reason recognizes and judges it good or evil. "An evil action cannot be justified by
reference to a good intention" (cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, Dec. praec. 6). A morally good act
therefore requires the goodness of its object, of its end, and of its circumstances together.
There are concrete acts which are always wrong to choose, because their choice entails
a disorder of the will, i.e., a moral evil. One may not do evil so that good may result from it.
EXPLAIN
Categorize whether the act is Human Act or an Act of Man. Before each number, write A
if the act is a Human Act, or write B if the act is an Act of Man.
1. Jogging every morning
2. Brush, brush, brush, 3 times a day
3. Women monthly period
4. Praying before and after meal
5. Quick reflexes
6. Writing a good novel
7. Reading magazine everyday
8. Texting /communicating with your bf/gf daily
9. Breathing
10. Greeting Happy birthday to your friends/loved ones
ELABORATE
What is “impartiality?” Elaborate its role and significance in making moral decisions
in the box provided.
Page 33 of 138
EVALUATE

References:
Agapay, Ramon B. (1991) Ethics and the Filipino: A manual on morals for students and
educators. Manila: National Bookstore, Inc., 1991.
Andre, Claire and Manuel Velasquez. (Fall 1987). Issues in ethics: Vol.1 No.1, Markkula
Center for Applied Ethics.
Audi, Robert. (2000). Philosophy: A brief guide to undergraduates. The American

Philosophical Association.
Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC). (1994) Catholic Bishops Conference of the
Philippines (CBCP).
Coronel, Ramon & Parijs, Paul Van, CICM. Bioethics (1996). Baguio City: St. Louis University
(SLU)
Frank Navran, (1998) Ethics. Resource Center’s Principal Consultant Jackson, Wayne.
Christian Courier: Archives. October 26, 1998.
Gensler, Harry J. (1998). Ethics: A contemporary introduction. New York: Routledge.
Gualdo, et al. (2012). Ethics and contemporary moral issues. Revised Edition. Quezon City:
Mutya Publishing.
Kaplan, J. D, Ed. (1958). The pocket Aristotle. New York: Washington Square Press.
Montemayor, Felix. Ethics: The philosophy of life. (1994). Navotas: National Bookstore.
Petrick, Joseph A and John F. Quinn. (1997) Management ethics: Integrity at work.
California: Sage Publications, Inc., 1997), pp. 89-91.
Rachels, James (2003). The elements of moral philosophy. 4th Edition. Boston: McGraw
Hill.
Page 34 of 138
Velasquez, Manuel. (2005). Philosophy: Text with readings. “Ethics.” 9th Edition.
Australia: Thomson and Wadsworth.
Electronic Sources:
http://www.ethics.org/staff_bios.
http://www.philosophy.lander.edu
http//www.philosophy.lander.edu
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/socialresponsibility.asp
http://www.ehow.com/info_7861861_difference-between-social-responsibility-ethics.html
https://www.pachamama.org/social-justice/social-responsibility-and-ethics
http://www.imasocialentrepreneur.com/social-responsibility/
Page 35 of 138
MODULE 3: The Moral Agent
Module 3 looks at culture and its role in the development of the human person’s moral
behavior. Here we will be looking at our own Filipino culture vis-à-vis Asian and other
countries’ culture, and determine their influences in our process of becoming as moral
human agents. Specifically, this module aims to:
(1) revisit our own Filipino cultures and reflect on their roles in the development of our
moral behaviors;
(2) familiarize with other countries’ cultural practices and beliefs;
(3) understand what is “Cultural Relativism;”
(4) analyze cultural ambivalence
(5) show the different stages of moral development
Learning Outcomes:

1. explain what is “Cultural Relativism;”
2. defend the morality or critique for the immorality of certain cultural practices;
3. articulate the strengths and weaknesses of your own culture;
4. enumerate the different stages of Kohlberg’s theory of Moral Development; and
5. point out exactly which stage a person is “in to” in given situations;
ENGAGE
Give at least (A) one cultural practice in the place you grew up in to, which is openly
performed but you think is immoral, and (B) another one cultural practice in your place
which is prohibited but you think is moral. Give a brief justification for both.
A. _______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
B. _______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
Page 36 of 138
EXPLORE
 3.1. Culture and Its Role in Moral Behavior

What is the role of culture in shaping moral behavior?
For centuries, culture has been

Kinds of Culture
defined in so many ways. But
Culture is that complex whole anthropologists, scientists,
which includes knowledge, belief, Individual Culture
thinkers and experts could not (i.e. Rodrigo,
art, morals, law, custom, and any
create and agree on one Baustista, Donald,
other capabilities and habits
universal definition of culture. student, driver, farmer)
acquired by man as a member of
society,” Studies and discussions about it Organizational
Culture (i.e., company,
[Tylor, E. (Spencer- Oatey, 2012)] are impressively mushrooming
instituion, association
and increasingly becoming agency, corporation,
controversial everywhere. Thus, group, firm, assembly)
it would be safer to first typify culture into two: material and formal. Structural (i.e.,
network of institutions,
Formal Culture points to all the abstract, non-physical, information systems,
global network, United
spiritual, mental, immaterial, invisible elements such as knowledge,
Nations)
philosophy, beliefs, ideas, morals, laws, customs, values, emotions,
assumptions, systems, orientations. Whereas Material Culture refers
to all the physical, corporeal, solid, spatial, sensible, temporal, Arranged Child
actual, observable (visible and audible) and tangible objects such Marriage is a
as the artifacts, actions or behaviors, arts, buildings, technology, cultural practice by
music, “popular” (television, movies, mass media, social media, some of the tribes in
fads, digital gadgets), costumes, architectures, food, utensils, the Cordilleras in
designs, dances, smell, means of transportation, tools and which some parents
inventions. As a vehicle or expression, Material Culture is shaped by agree on having
Formal Culture in the same way as the Material Culture (e.g. popular their children to get
culture) may also shape Formal Culture (e.g. new radical religious marry when they
sects). reach young
adulthood. ”
The two types are interrelated co-principles. Their being intertwined
[Tylor, E. (Spencer-
makes an overlap that makes it difficult to create a universal Oatey, 2012)]
meaning of culture. This is manifested in Oatey’s (2012) distinction
of the three fundamental levels at which culture manifests itself: (a)
observable artifacts, (b) values, and (c) basic underlying assumptions. They could also be
categorized as the individual culture, organizational culture and structural culture.
Following the Western or deductive process since culture is a foreign concept, the three
levels of culture are discussed from the structural to the individual.
The first level (INDIVIDUAL), the analysis of the Eskimo’s moral behavior (under
Material Culture) – “lending his wife to a guest for a night” is visible and easily described as
distasteful but hard to decipher or interpret especially the underlying good or right reasons
why it is done and being preserved.
Page 37 of 138
Following Oatey’s (2012), to analyze this Eskimo’s moral behavior it is important to

study the values (under both Material and Formal Culture) that govern such behavior. But
the espoused value such as hospitality (Rachels, 2003) of “lending a wife to a guest for a
night” is hard to observe directly. So when the Eskimos say that such moral behavior is part
of their hospitality it is interesting to analyze why hospitality is the reason for such behavior,
what they ideally would like hospitality to be, and what are often their rationalizations for
“lending of wife to a guest for a night.” Or could it be that the value of hospitality is just the
biased understanding of non-Eskimo observers. The value of hospitality is becoming the
acceptable value to some Eskimos and outsiders. Nevertheless, the underlying espoused
value of hospitality for the “lending of wife to a guest for a night” remains unknown.
“To really understand a culture and to ascertain more completely the group’s values and
overt behavior, it is imperative to enquire into the underlying assumptions, which are
typically unconscious but which actually determine how group members perceive, think
and feel” (Oetey, 2012). Assumptions (under Formal Culture) are the philosophies and
beliefs about what things really are or their conceptions of what is good and right
(morality). They are learned and transformed values that lead to moral behaviors. To
explain such moral behavior then is to consider their assumptions on marriage, sex and life
as a whole. To Rachels (2003), this could be traced from their assumptions: that men could
marry more than one wife, that men can have sex regularly with other men’s wives, and
that they have less regard to human life. But, as a value of hospitality leads to the behavior
of “lending of wife to a guest for a night,” and as the “lending of wife to a guest for a night”
begins to answer disagreements or condemnations, the value of hospitality gradually is
transformed into an underlying assumption and the three original assumptions are
increasingly taken for granted. The taken-for-granted assumptions are so powerful
because they are less or non-debatable. There is a possibility to just be silent about it
because it can cause disorder and more troubles among them. Besides, they are more
concerned with other challenges of life. According to Oatey’s (2012): “they can be
brought back to awareness only through a kind of focused inquiry.”
3.1.a. The Role of Moral Behavior in Creating a Culture
It is not hidden to the consciousness of everyone that as culture shapes moral

behaviors, moral behaviors simultaneously create culture. Culture and moral behaviors are
inseparable of which a culture could be found in moral behavior just as the moral
behaviors happen in or even create and enhance a culture. This follows the Eastern or
inductive process whereby the individual leads to the structural. This is best expressed by
the author below:
Page 38 of 138
“All that I am, all that I have, all that I do… are all products of “Culture in its
my culture. I am and live in a culture, which eventually broadest sense is
becomes me, my very person. I cannot escape from my cultivated behavior;
culture. It determines my every personal behavior, which that is the totality of a
simultaneously reveal the kind of my culture. person's learned,
accumulated
experience, knowledge,
Using the same example of the Bontoc Igorots, the process beliefs, values,
could be inverted in such a way that their artifact “o′-lâg” or the attitudes, meanings,
physical separation of the young marriageable women to live in the hierarchies, systems,
“o′-lâg” is what shapes their value of high respect for women and religion, notions of
their beliefs that monogamous marriage is a blessing of God in order time, roles, spatial
relations, concepts of
to raise many children and that a married woman should always be the universe, and
true to her husband. material objects and
possessions which is
Further, the claim that the invading socially transmitted.”
Symbols
western foreigners who brought with them
“Every culture is filled their creations or artifacts (symbols) such as their modern clothes,
with symbols, or things betamax (films) and others raised their level of awareness (just like
that stand for in the case of Adam and Eve after eating the forbidden apple). The
something else and that Bontoc women started to develop the values of honor and dignity
often evoke various through the feeling of embarrassment. Their involuntarily
reactions and
adaptation of the foreign values simultaneously made them hate
emotions. Some
symbols are actually or put malice on their own values. Then, their normal practices of
types of non-verbal being visited by men to have sex in the “o′-lâg” became a taboo
communication, while such that they were most likely shaping also their own culture and
other symbols are in assumptions that marriage is essentially a sexual relationship and
fact material objects.” separation is the answer to its problems, and that a married woman
(Retrieved from is free to be true or not to a husband depending on what works for
https://doi.org/10.24926 her (similar to that of the foreigners). Such assumptions are hard to
/8668.2401) know or even to justify and to impose on them because they are
invisible and taken for granted. There could also be other
assumptions that need further research.
Some observers attribute the growing “culture of rape” or dramatic increase of rape cases
in a certain place with the fast-growing foreign influences that spouse problematic values
and beliefs. Alarmed by this development, many moral behaviors have been initiated by
a top government official encouraging barangay officials not to amicably settle cases of
sexual abuse, and barangay councils to reassess their development plans for the
protection of children (Baybay, 2011). The political moral behavior only expresses that such
culture of immoral amicable settlement should not determine their values. It is his people’s
moral behaviors that should form a “culture of strong respect for children and women.”
Page 39 of 138
3.1.b. Cultural Relativism
With the advent of globalization and information technology, cultural diversity

became more immanent. People became more aware of the diverse cultures in the world
with just a click of their computer mouse. They could now easily visit or explore the cultures
of the world because of the advancement of transportation and technology. They have
increasingly become aware of cultural diversity and the influence of such awareness to
their understanding, decisions and values. Nevertheless, they have been constantly
confronted with the difficult moral questions of whether to just simply become neutral to
other cultures’ moral practices even if they are against their values or not, and whether to
simply adapt other cultural practices or not. They are challenged with the phenomenon
of Cultural Relativism.
Cultural Relativism refers to the

understanding or belief that
Some Cultural Facts
everything should be judged only
In the United States, for example, if we nod our head up
according to one’s own respective and down, we mean yes, and if we shake it back and
culture. A cultural relativist believes forth, we mean no. In Bulgaria, however, nodding
that there is no superior or inferior means no, while shaking our head back and forth
culture; no culture is better than the means yes! In the United States, if we make an “O” by
other. That is, all cultures are unique putting our thumb and forefinger together, we mean
“OK,” but the same gesture in certain parts of Europe
with their own strengths and signifies an obscenity. “Thumbs up” in the United
weaknesses, benefits and detriments. States means “great” or “wonderful,” but in Australia it
means the same thing as extending the middle finger in
In past centuries in Northern the United States. Certain parts of the Middle East and
Luzon, the lowlanders’ discrimination Asia would be offended if they see you using your left
hand to eat, because they use their left hand for
of the Igorots could have been a
bathroom hygiene. Belgians count through their fingers
product of their belief that Igorots are starting from the thumb to the index finger while
animals because they have tails Filipinos start counting the opposite way.
(bahag or g-string) and live in the Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.24926/8668.2401
mountains, therefore, are inferior to
their culture. But after the intermarriages
and interactions brought about by the development of roads and bridges, both
lowlanders and highlanders became aware of their need to understand each other not
from their own respective culture.
They have learned to put themselves “into the shoe of the other” or to understand
the other by using the other’s mind. Besides, other university students may be amused and
make fun of the UP students’ “oblation run” but they could never understand unless they
study how such practice relate to UP’s “way of life.” Likewise, UPians may not understand
other universities ’cultural celebrations if they will not study the institutional history.
Here are some of the strengths and weaknesses of Cultural Relativism:
Page 40 of 138
Strengths Weaknesses
Its fails to accept that not all beliefs
It recognizes cultural and human
and cultural or social practices are
differences.
equally admirable.
It promotes respect and tolerance to It leads to mediocrity, moral
diversity or cultural-sensitivity and indifference and end of moral
uniqueness. progress.
It produces a peaceful and harmonious It promotes social anarchy because
society despite mass migration and each culture claims and stands for “a
differences. true culture.”
It rejects moral absolutism, imperialism It upholds democracy, consensus and
and superior ideologies. fairness to other ideologies.
It recognizes the natural sociality,
It seems culture has the sole influence
conformity and interdependency
on human life and morality.
among peoples.
It strengthens personal responsibility: It weakens social responsibility as if
each is fully responsible for his own humans cannot do anything to
moral actions and beliefs. change culture.
It advocates true multiculturalism and It leads to deterioration or corruption
adjustments for changing factors in of moral values, institutions and
society. societies.
It promotes humility and acceptance of
It promotes skepticism and atheism.
limitation or probability of things.
It recognizes that language is not It discourages common language for
neutral because culture determines unity and common standards to judge
language. moral beliefs or actions.
It supports non-judgmental attitude that It makes the job of ethics as purely
foster dialogue, cooperation and descriptive (non-prescriptive), thus,
learning. ineffective.
It allows one culture solve its own moral
It rejects any interference by one
problems and grow naturally in its
culture in the morality of another.
morality.
It accepts other ethical theories that It fails to determine other ethical
can bring a good life. theories that can bring a good life.
Thus, Cultural Relativism is not absolute. There will always be an occasion where
people will somehow judge another culture as inferior through their own cultural beliefs
and practices. Somewhere, somehow, there are some cultural practices that are
condemned, even if they are the most valuable or practiced, because they violate some
basic human rights. For example, a common practice in areas of India and Pakistan
is dowry deaths, where a husband and his relatives murder the husband’s wife because
Page 41 of 138
her family has not provided the dowry they promised when the couple got married
(Kethineni & Srinivasan, 2009).
Non-tenability of Cultural Relativism in Ethics:

The Asian-Filipino Way Filipinos who know they
are doing wrong but do not
While recognizing the strengths of Cultural Relativism for want to change easily find
excuses like "ako'y tao
loosening stringent and absolute attitudes and opening lamang" (I'm but
conservative minds toward others, it is very critical to respond human), "ganyan lamang
to the weaknesses of Cultural Relativism. Acknowledging ang buhay" (life is like
strengths should all the more encourage courageous solutions hat), "bahala na" (come
to the weaknesses of Cultural Relativism. These weaknesses what may), or "eveybody is
doing it."
could be answered by considering other ethical theories.
In this age of "passing the
Because of globalization that somehow ironically buck," another excuse
opened and vastly exposed cultural diversity, people have for shrinking
recognized cultural personal
variations over time responsibility is the
Some Socio-cultural Facts periods, between Filipinism, "I am not the
In China, South Korea, and other parts individuals, one".
of Asia, dog meat is considered a organizations,
delicacy, and people sometimes kill dogs Gorospe, V., SJ. Retrieved
structures, from http://thefilipinomind.
to eat them (Dunlop, 2008). As one countries and blogspot.com/2006/04/our
observer provocatively asked about
continents. -christian-god-religion-
eating dog meat, “For a Westerner, and-common.html
eating it can feel a little strange, but is it Cultures are seen
morally different from eating, say, pork? to reflect the moral
The dogs brought to table in China are and ethical
not people’s pets, but are raised as food, standards and beliefs that determine decision,
like pigs. And pigs, of course, are also actions and interactions. Moral practices are
intelligent and friendly” (Dunlop, basically peculiar to a society and as society
2008). Should we accept the practice of change its culture and practices also change.
eating dog meat on its own terms? Is it
any worse than eating pork or Using a changing culture as a basis for
slaughtering cattle in order to eat beef?
decisions and actions is not enough and quite
If an Asian immigrant killed and ate a
dog in the United States, should that dangerous. The need for enduring belief and
person be arrested for engaging in a values as bases can bring more convincing and
practice the person grew up with? strong actions. Though humans have different
languages, they can use their capacity for
Retrieved from language to create a globalizing language
https://doi.org/10.24926/8668.2401 that all children can learn and use to study
other cultures.
As social beings who have invented technologies such as the internet, televisions,
airplanes, bullet trains, they have successfully created globalization. Globalization has
allowed different people of diverse cultures to constantly check and balance their beliefs
and standards. People may have experienced reluctance in judging other cultural
Page 42 of 138
practices but deep within them is the possibility of considering others’ cultures as inferior to
them. People are naturally inclined to the good and right so that they must have made a
choice whether theirs is better than the others though not necessarily considering them as
inferior. This has been the problem of many Filipino indigenous peoples who have felt
inferior to the foreigners because of their cultural practices and so they have blindly
adapted the foreigners’ culture.
However, some assumptions, beliefs and philosophies behind the indigenous

practices that were abandoned could be actually far better and practical than that of
the foreigners’.
According to Vitaliano Gorospe, SJ, “there is a Recent studies of college

conflict between what Filipinos say as Christians and what students provide additional
they do as Filipinos; between their actual Filipino behavior and evidence that social contact
can help overcome cultural
their ideal Christian behavior; in short, between what is and differences and prejudices.
what ought to be.” Because many students are
randomly assigned to their
Gorospe have observed that in the Filipino culture, roommates when they enter
which is the product of the long colonization of the Spaniard, college, interracial
roommates provide a
is based on "group-centeredness" or "group-thinking." The “natural” experiment for
group determines for the individual what is right or wrong so studying the effects of social
has not yet attained moral independence and maturity. The interaction on racial
individual is guided by the basic questions: "What will my prejudice. Studies of such
family, or my relatives and friends, or my barkada think or say?" roommates find that whites
with black roommates’
"What will others say" usually determines Filipino moral
report lowered racial
behavior; it is "conscience from the outside." prejudice and greater
numbers of interracial
Gorospe accuses that Filipinos have a conflict between friendships with other
individual and social morality, between internal and external students. (Laar, Levin,
morality. He believes that Filipinos should internalize the norms Sinclair, & Sidanius, 2005;
Shook & Fazio, 2008).
of morality so that he can mature as individual and form his Retrieved from
own moral conscience from the inside. But using cultural https://doi.org/10.24926/8
relativism, Gorospe may have misinterpreted the Filipinos. It 668.2401
must be understood that Christianity is a western religion
imposed to them.
Gorospe’s example: parents tell their daughter who is being courted: "Iha, please
entertain your boyfriend at home. Do not go outside. What will the neighbors say?
Nakakahiya naman." He believes that “shame or hiya makes the parents and the girl
conform to the social expectations of the neighbors lest they become the object
of chismis or gossip.” But this could be understood differently by saying that Filipinos are
highly social and cultural-sensitive. Filipinos just like other Asians recognize that their society
is greater than them and that they value group harmony and community. They could not
just be so individualistic in their decisions and actions just like the Westerners. Gorospe
could have interpreted Filipino values from the American or Western perspective.
Page 43 of 138
Consider the Japanese when moral problem arises. “Japanese minimize conflict by
resolving disputes amicably. Lawsuits are uncommon; in one case involving disease and
death from a mercury-polluted river, some Japanese who dared to sue the company
responsible for the mercury poisoning were considered bad citizens” (Upham, 1976). This
could be attributed to the high regard to group harmony and community just like the
Filipinos.
But another Filipino cultural norm cited by Gorospe, the "Don't be caught" based on
shame or fear of the authority figure such as parent, teacher, priest or policeman is quite
disturbing. As many students would say: "What's wrong with cheating if I am not caught?"
If this explains why Filipino drivers only obey traffic rules because there is a policeman on
duty, then Gorospe is correct in saying that Filipino norm of moral behavior is purely
external.
It could be argued that Gorospe is wrong in his assumptions, precisely because

Filipinos are just practical and flexible. They are ready to break rules for the sake of greater
values. One cannot just stop there and wait for the green light if there are practically no
other cars and passengers to cross or pass by. Likewise, because the traffic structures as
substitute to the presence of a policeman are Western cultural symbols. Filipinos are more
relational and appreciative to actual persons.
Those structures re not originally theirs; they are imposed on them to follow. If it is
not theirs, it is hard for them to follow. Thus, through the history of colonialization, the
conflict between being a real cultural Filipino (Asian) and the ideal mature Christian
(Western) Filipino have continued.
Christian Filipinos were treated like parrots that recite incantations/prayers and
learned by rote, like robots that observe religious holidays, church rites and other symbols
of Catholicism without really understanding what they mean or stand for, and like priests
who follow the Catholic Church institution, its rules and teachings. Filipinos where not really
taught to mature and to freely live or emulate the supposed ideas and life of Jesus. Putting
Gorospe’s observations on the problematic Filipino cultural practices in their proper
cultural context is not enough. Filipino culture has changed; it has adapted the Western
culture so it must consider the western moral standards.
Filipino culture could enter into a social contract with Western culture for
enhancement. Filipinos as social beings must adapt check and balance of their culture
with Western moral standards. It is better that outsiders also question Filipino Cultural
practices for improvement. What could happen more if there is no outsider’s moral
standard that condemns the Nazi party’s Holocaust?
What could happen to those who accept the Holocausts as good? What could
happen to Africa’s practice of female genital cutting if there is nobody to question it? If it
continues to happen, what could happen to Africa’s future generations?
Page 44 of 138
 Kohlberg’s Stages of Moral Development

According to Lawrence Kohlberg’s Stage Theory of Moral Development, there are
three (3) levels of moral character development namely;
Level 1: Pre-conventional level of moral development (Punishment and Obedience

– egoism or satisfying one’s desire). In this period, the child responds to the prevailing
cultural values of right or wrong, good and evil. The child has no actual understanding of
the values themselves and accepts the authority of others. The physical consequences of
the actions determine the rightness or wrongness, regardless of the attribution of values.
Response is based on two concerns, “Will I be harmed (punishment) and will I be be helped
(reward)?
Level 2: Conventional level of moral development (Pleasing others and Respecting

rules). The child conforms to societal expectations of family, group, or nation in order to win
the authority figures. Conventional morality is characterized by group conformity and
allegiance to authority. The individual acts in order to meet the expectations of others and
to please those in charge.
Level 3: Post-conventional level of moral development (Social contract and

Personal conscience). The focus of this level is the development of social contract and
autonomous decisions apart from outside authorities. Post-conventional morality is the
most advanced level of moral development where the individual is concerned with right
or wrong conduct over and above self-interest, apart from the views of others, and without
regard of authority figures. Ethical judgment is based on self-defined moral principles.
Six Stages of Moral Development

By: Lawrence Kohlberg
LEVEL 1 Moral Reasoning of

each Stage
Stage 1: Stage of Punishment and Obedience. “I won’t hit him so he

Rules are obeyed in order to avoid punishment. will not hit me back.”
Stage 2: Stage of Individual Instrumental Purpose “I will help him

and Exchange. Conformity to rules is viewed to be because he may help
in one’s own interest because it provides reward. me in return.”
Fear of punishment is a major motivator at this level “I work extra because I
want to be given
bonus points.”
LEVEL 2
Stage 3: Stage of Mutual Interpersonal “I will go along with you
Expectations, Relationships, and Conformity. The because I want you to
concern is about the reactions of others as bases for like me.”
Page 45 of 138
decisions and behaviors. The primary motive is to be “I will treat you for
good for others in order to maintain good relations. lunch so that we will be
friends.”
Stage 4: Stage of Social System and Conscience “I will comply to the
Maintenance. The person conforms to laws and to order because it is
those in authority because of duty. Both out of wrong to disobey.”
respect for them and in order to avoid censure. For
persons in this level, fulfilling role in society and living
up to expectations of others are important, and guilt
is more of a motivator than fear of punishment
noted in Level 1.
LEVEL 3
Stage 5: Stage of Prior Right and Social Contract “Although I disagree

or Utility. The relativity of some social values is with his views, I will
recognized, and moral decisions derive from uphold his right to have
principles that support individual rights and them.”
transcend particular societal rules such as equity,
liberty, and justice.
Stage 6: Stage of Universal Ethical Principles. “There is no external
Internalized rules and conscience reflecting force coming from
abstract principles of human dignity, mutual respect conflicting social norms
and trust guide decisions and behaviors. Persons in that can compel me to
this level make judgment based on impartial do an act that is
universal moral principles, even when these conflict considered morally
with societal standards. good.”
EXPLAIN
Visit the following short videos to familiarize yourself to different cultural practices and
beliefs around the world:
Strange Customs Around The World That Are Still Happening in 2019:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4a_Gimqd6X4
Insane Beauty Standards Across Different Cultures:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EfAdrZdis8c
10 Most Bizaare Traditions From Around The World:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r7GlMv5yflU
For Lawrence Kohlberg’s theory on the 6 Stages of Moral Development, watch the
following short videos about it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bounwXLkme4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYtIIs0WsRQ
Page 46 of 138
ELABORATE
Reflecting on Kohlberg’s Theory of Moral Development, what is the highest stage you
have reached so far? Were you able to maintain or stay in that stage for a long time or
you slide to the lower levels every now and then? Elaborate.
EVALUATE

Page 47 of 138
MODULE 4: The Act
Module 4 is devoted for the elaborate consideration of the importance of reason in making
moral decisions. While recognizing the significance of feelings or emotions in making
decisions, the proper use of reason and our ability to analyze in moral situations are given
more priority. The module specifically aims to:
(1) point out the obstacles in making the right decisions;
(2) suggest ways to come up with the right decision;
(3) show the role of reason and emotion in moral decisions;
(4) present steps in making moral decisions; and
(5) argue for the importance of having moral courage and will.
Learning Outcomes:

1. elaborate the significance of emotions and reason in making moral decisions;
2. outline the 7 steps of Scott Rae’s Moral Reasoning Model;
3. apply Scott Rae’s 7-step Moral Reasoning Model in certain moral dilemmas;
4. appraise the significance of having moral courage and will; and
evaluate moral situations with impartial eyes.
ENGAGE
Assess yourself on which do you usually rely on when making decisions: your heart (feelings)
or your mind (reason)? Could one be more reliable than the other when making moral
decisions? Elaborate your answers by sharing your own experience.
Page 48 of 138
EXPLORE
 4.1. a. Feeling and Moral Decision-Making

There is always a way to determine what is right from
Through this interactive what is not right, to distinguish what is just from what is unjust,
lesson, we are to: a) what is ought to be done and what is ought not to be done,
identify the role and and what is ethical from what is unethical.
function of feelings and
reason responding to In the corporate world, the appropriateness of one’s
moral dilemmas; b) action can be decided vis a vis the organization’s vision-mission
manifests the functions together with its core values. In religion, what is right is judged
of feelings and based on the members’ code, creed, and professed conduct.
functions in responding In legal matters, we can know the truth based on what the law
to the demands of and jurisprudence say. In culture, what is right is adjudged
moral responsibility based on the good custom, beliefs, and practices that
members of the said culture claim as acceptable.
These claims are debatable since everything in philosophy can be questioned but
our proximate nearness to what is right becomes closer. We must remember, ethics is not
just in words or just academic in nature. It also includes our thoughts and how we translate
into action what we think and say.
Feelings as Instinctive and Trained Response to Moral Dilemmas
Feelings are important. It is an evidence of our being human. We feel sad upon
learning that there are about 50-200 species of plant, insect, bird, and mammal becoming
extinct every day or for 350-1,400 in a week, or 1,500-6,000 in a month and 18,000-73,000 in
a year. We feel happy when modern medicine can separate conjoined twins and allow
them to have separate lives to live. We are amazed to know that the longest name of a
city is Krung Thep Mahanakhon Amon Rattanakosin MahintharaYuthaya Mahadilok Phop
Noppharat Ratchathani Burirom Udomratchaniwet Mahasathan Amon Piman and we
know this city through its shortened name as Bangkok, Thailand.
We wonder if humans have the capacity to create a machine that can convert all
human garbage to something useful. If we feel inconvenient upon knowing the number of
animal species getting extinct every day, if we have no reaction to the news of conjoined
twins being separated, if we have no amazement over the wonderful inventions and
human creations, our humanity is questionable.
Emotion results in feeling and this human ability to feel is wonderful. Feeling gives color to
our life. It comes as a natural reaction to our encounter with ourselves, others, and
anything around us. When we receive high grades as a result of our hard work, we feel
Page 49 of 138
elated and we rejoice. When our grades are low because we take for granted our
academics, we feel down and regret our shortcoming.
When we see pictures of victims of crimes and violence such as the carnage of the
44 members of the Special Action Force in Tukanalipao Mamasapano, Maguindanao on
January 25, 2015, or the worst media related violence in the whole word in what is called
Maguindanao Massacre which caused the death of 58 people comprising of Esmael
Mangudadatu’s family members, civilians and Media people in November 23, 2009, we
feel sorry for the victims of these tragedies and feel a burning anger in our hearts.
In the same manner, we are moved to act when we see environmental destructions
such as the miners from Benguet and the nearby provinces letting go of their chemical
wastes down to the lowlands threatening lives and causing even deaths.
When we learn that there were about 350,000 children getting paralyzed yearly in
the 1980’s because of polio, we are shocked. But when we learn that in 2017, there were
only about 19 serious polio cases were reported, we are elated with the development that
we are becoming successful against this human pestilence.
In the same manner, we became happy to know that the human race is gaining
acceptance of respecting the rights of women and minorities. Recently, Saudi Arabia
allowed women to drive while Egypt came up with laws giving equal rights about
inheritance to men and women. In Jordan and Lebanon, laws that set free rapists who
marry their victims were repealed. Gender equality is now gaining support worldwide and
this is a good development that tells us to keep hoping for a brighter future.
Our emotions which lead to all kinds of feeling point to our humanity. We cannot
imagine what life is like if we do not have feelings at all. It is beyond question that emotion
is an important aspect of our humanity.
In previous discussions, we mentioned that reason is the basis of decision-making.

This means that there is a certain logic in analyzing situations of life; and, in logical
interpretation, we avoid fallacies or errors in thinking, wishful actions, invalid claims, and
misjudgment in determining rightful actions. In logical thinking, priority is right judgment and
proper actions and not based on mere intuitive knowledge and hypothetical or
assumptive analysis. In short, conclusion is achieved by analyzing premises that are
logically coherent and valid.
Philosophers through the years debate on issues and concerns relative to emotion
and reason. Traditional understanding emphasized that emotion is inferior to reason.
Emotion is said to be fleeting and can be dangerous while reason is superior and reliable.
Conventional thinking states that emotion must be controlled and tamed while reason
must be improved and perfected. But in spite of their academic discussions, no consensus
yet is arrived at on the connection between the two.
Page 50 of 138
The debates between and among the philosophers seem legitimate but we might
as well leave them with their mental skirmishes. More practical thinkers would see their
effort as an exercise in futility since it will never end. To capture the connection between
emotion and reason in a box may not be possible but to approach the problem on the
level of our day to day experiences can make sense.
We should focus instead on what emotion and reason can do to us in our everyday
living. We might as well see how emotion and reason work together in real life. We might
as well focus on the impacts of emotion and reason in our everyday encounter with our
fellow human beings together with the ethical decisions we make when confronted with
true to life concerns.
Again, experience tells us that feeling leads to thinking and thinking will further push
us to reflect deeper on what to do and what not to do. Thinking will also trigger what we
feel and this feeling can push us further to think. Even without deep philosophical insights
and debates, it is clear that emotion and thinking are interconnected.
Experience shows that emotion is connected with thinking. Those who insist that the
two are entirely different and independent may be correct and we do not contradict
them. We simply maintain that there is a connection between the two. Our day to day
experiences tell us that our feeling will usually trigger us to think and what we think will
usually have an impact to what we feel.
Our emotion that comes in terms of what we feel serve as a triggering device to
make us think. When we learn for example that our sickly brother is bullied in school, we
react and feel bad about it. We may experience anger and shed tears as we pity our
brother. This natural reaction will push us to think. It will trigger our mind to think on what
must be done. We may think of confront the bullies themselves. We may also think of
reporting it to the school authorities or we may simply think of letting it go since we do not
want further trouble.
Here is another example to illustrate the point that feeling can trigger us to think.
When a gentleman sees someone attractive, there comes in him the natural feeling of
admiration. This feeling of admiration and eventually attraction will ignite him to think on
what to do. His feelings will push him to come up with a plan and eventually to do his first
move. He might start asking, “How can I know her name? Is giving her a flower a good
move? Will I talk to her personally or through someone else?”
What we think can also result in what we feel. When we think of going to college
and pursue medicine, we may feel depressed upon realizing that the tuition fees and other
fees in medical schools are too high. But this depression will turn into hope and happiness
if we found that there are people willing to help determined students to pursue their goals.
Page 51 of 138
Reason and Impartiality as Minimum Requirements of Ethics
Plato told a story about Socrates who encounters a

Through this interactive young man named Euthyphro outside the court of Athens.
lesson, we are to: a) Socrates was amazed upon learning that Euthyprho is there in
define what reason and court because he will prosecute his own father for murder.
impartiality are in Everybody during those times thought that blood relationship
relation to ethics; b) will override any conflict that involves a family member. But
recall immediate the contrast is true in the case of Euthyprho. For this young
positive responses to man, a crime is a crime and so with murder. Anyone who
moral dilemmas; and, c) commits murder must be prosecuted even if the perpetrator
manifest well rounded is one’s own father.
responses to moral
The narrative tells that impartial ethical stand never
dilemmas through
takes personal stand since it only pursues what is true and just.
healthy interplay
between reason and Impartiality neither plays favorites nor caters to some people’s
feelings needs by giving in to their demands while denying others from
enjoying the same because of personal preferences.
Impartiality tells us never to manipulate rules, power, and favor
to achieve unjust advantage for ourselves and those whom we favor.
The concern about impartiality arises because of our human nature of self-
preservation. Human beings want to protect their own life, liberty, and property together
with the interest of those who are dear to them. With this premise, judges, elders, and
leaders acting as decision makers must remain impartial at all times. Impartiality is often
understood as fair-mindedness or being objective. It rules against rendering decisions
based on bias, prejudice, and self-serving interest.
Ethical decisions must be just and any decision is just if it is impartial. Impartiality is
often equated with fair-mindedness. One who is impartial is not biased, free from
prejudice, and allows objectivity to rule at all times. Impartiality is a necessary element in
any judicial system. Judges made a sworn statement prior to their assumption to office to
observe impartiality in the performance of their duty. This however, is easier said than done
based on what we observe every day.
Our day to day experiences tell us that impartiality is not a simple concept to
observe. In the celebrated quo warranto case filed against Chief Justice Maria Lourdes
Sereno, the eight (8) justices who voted for her removal claim impartiality in their decision.
In fact, they invoked the Philippine Constitution as their objective basis in arriving at their
decision. On the other hand, those who question the removal of the Chief Justice claim
that the 8 justices are biased and were never impartial. They also invoked the Constitution
as their basis to point out the error and partiality of the 8 Supreme Court Justices.
Aside from the difficulties encountered in the actual application of impartiality,

several philosophers have both complementary and conflicting ideas on what impartiality
Page 52 of 138
is. We need then to clarify the same for purposes of relating it with sound ethical decision
making.
Mohism, an influential philosophical, social, and religious movement flourished in the

Warring States in ancient China within 479–221 B.C.E. promoted “impartial care.” Mohists
emphasize that every person should equally care for everyone. It is only when a person
does not discriminate on anyone that he/she becomes truly righteous. A benevolent
person must promote what is universally good for all and refrain from committing any
societal evil action.
Adam Smith (1723-1790)
He was a Scottish philosopher in the 18 th century who came up with a moral point of view
popularly known as the “Impartial Spectator.” He arrived at this point of view to highlight
how a person can objectively make a judgment on person’s behavior and actions. To be
an “impartial spectator” is to empathize with the person whose behaviors and actions are
subject to our judgment. We must imagine ourselves in the circumstance of the person
whom we should judge. Our approval or non-approval of a person’s behavior depends on
the decision we make if we were the one’s involved in his/her situation. If we were in the
person’s situation and we performed the same action just like what the person did, the
same is acceptable. If we did otherwise because we claim that this behavior or action is
wrong then, the behavior or action is not acceptable.
We have the tendency to sustain and defend our ideas when they conflict with
other people’s ideas. Adam’s Smith proposes a solution by saying that “we need to move
beyond “literal impartial spectator” to reach some ideal by which we can judge both our
actions and that of others. His work is an honest attempt to lead people to become
impartial and objective in dealing with ethical concerns.
4.2. Scott Rae’s 7-Step Moral Reasoning Model
The previous topic dealt with the significance of being impartial and striking a
balance between using one’s feelings and reasoning when it comes to moral decision-
making. One does not only make a decision in a moral dilemma (or in any situation for that
matter) by simply relying on one’s gut-feeling; nor should one only be constantly logical
devoid of any emotional consideration in making moral decisions. Nevertheless, it is
necessary to exercise careful thinking when it comes to moral analysis, evaluation, and
decision-making: mindful of the persons involved, the act itself, the applicable principles,
and the overall context of the situation in which any moral decision is to be made. Scott
Rae, in his book, Moral Choices (2018), proposed a moral reasoning model that could be
used as a guide in making moral decisions. Rae’s moral reasoning model does not guide
one to an absolutely correct or “right” answer or decision to a moral dilemma; rather, his
model may guide an individual to ask the right questions to ethical deliberation (Rae,
2018).
Page 53 of 138
Scott Rae’s model for moral reasoning presents a 7-step approach to moral
analyses and evaluation. It is oriented towards virtues and principles with consideration of
consequences as a supporting role (Rae 2018). The 7-step model is as follows:
1. Gather the Facts
➢ It is essential that in moral decision- making, one has to know the general facts of
the moral situation, before coming up with a moral analysis, more so, a decision or
an evaluation.
➢ The simplest way of clarifying an ethical dilemma is to make sure the facts are clear.
Ask: Do you have all the facts that are necessary to make a good decision? What
do we know? What do we need to know? In this light it might become clear that
the dilemma is not ethical but about communication or strategy (Rae, 2018).
2. Determine the ethical issues
➢ After having identified the facts and overall context of the moral situation, the
ethical issue/s involved in the situation, must be clearly stated in order to specify
what issue one has to make a decision to. This section must likewise clearly state the
major moral dilemma involved in the case.
➢ Ethical interests are stated in terms of legitimate competing interests or goods. The
competing interests are what create the dilemma. Moral values and virtues must
support the competing interests in order for an ethical dilemma to exist. If you
cannot identify the underlying values/virtues then you do not have an ethical
dilemma. Often people hold these positions strongly and with passion because of
the value / virtue beneath them (Rae 2018).
3. Determine what virtues / principles have a bearing on the case
➢ Applicable ethical values and principles relevant to the case must be identified and
briefly explained in order to justify how such principles could be used in coming up
with a decision concerning the moral dilemma later on. In addition, the sources of
these principles must be acknowledged likewise. These values, principles could
come from: (1) established philosophical ethical principles; (2) socio-cultural norms;
(3) socio-political norms and laws; (4) religious traditions; and others.
➢ In an ethical dilemma certain values and principles are central to the competing
positions. Identify these. Determine if some should be given more weight than
others. Ask what the source for the principle is - constitution, culture, natural law,
religious tradition... These supplement biblical principles (Rae 2018).
Page 54 of 138
4. List the alternatives
➢ After having identified relevant values, virtues, and principles involving the moral
situation, possible alternative courses of actions must then be proposed and briefly
explained. These suggested courses of actions must then be evaluated based on
its applicability, sensibility, practicality before selecting one as the course of action
or decision to be made regarding the moral situation.
➢ Creatively determine possible courses of action for your dilemma. Some will almost
immediately be discarded but generally the more you list the greater potential for
coming up with a really good one. It will also help you come up with a broader
selection of ideas (Rae 2018).
5. Compare the alternatives with the virtues / principles
➢ The initial list of suggested courses of actions must then be evaluated from the
vantage point of the identified ethical values and principles.
➢ This step eliminates alternatives as they are weighed by the moral principles which
have a bearing on the case. Potentially the issue will be resolved here as all
alternatives except one are eliminated. Here you must satisfy all the relevant virtues
and values - so at least some of the alternatives will be eliminated (even if you still
have to go on to step 6). Often here you have to weight principles and virtues -
make sure you have a good reason for each weighting (Rae 2018).
6. Consider the consequences

➢ If principles have not yielded a clear decision consider the consequences of your
alternatives. Take the alternatives and work out the positive and negative
consequences of each. Estimate how beneﬁcial each positive and negative
consequences are – some might have greater weight than others (Rae 2018).
Page 55 of 138
7. Make a decision (including one’s justification for the

decision)
In understanding the
➢ After having analyzed the moral dilemma situation difference between
(from steps 1 thru 6), one must now make a reason and will, we are to
decision based on what has been previously a) point out the
discussed and must clearly justify the decision that significance of knowing
has been made. and actually executing
good moral decisions;
Ethical decisions rarely have pain-free solutions - it
might be you have to choose the solution with the least and b) evaluate actual
number of problems / painful consequences (Rae 2018). and hypothetical ethical
behavior relative to
 4.3 Impediments to Ethical Decision Making planning and execution
of important ethical
There are instances when our reason runs counter decisions; and c) state the
with what we do. There are also instances when our will significance of
does not jibe with what we know as proper. As a result, maintaining a healthy
there are times we end up consciously doing that we balance and interaction
know as wrong and refrain from doing what we know as
between reason and will.
right.
Here are some known hindrances why we fail to

execute what is ethical and consciously do what is unethical. This enumeration is not
exclusive. There are others hindrances out there that we encounter in our everyday life.
You are hereby asked to enumerate more based on your daily experiences.
1. Egocentrism
Every person generally focuses on her own thinking and feeling. We experience
the world vis a vis our feelings of pains and pleasure, joy and sadness, and what we long
for and what we dislike. Our experience is heavily influenced by how we think and feel
and this thinking and feeling influence a lot our decision-making.
If I am a teacher, it’s very easy to be engrossed with my tasks and needs and I
may not see things from the parents’ and administrators’ points of view. Ethical decision
making needs to see points of view that are opposed to our own. We experience that
when we focus on our reasoning and feeling, we will not hear and see what others are
saying and doing.
When too much focus is given to the self, we fail to see objectively what surrounds
us. If we fall in this trap, we lose our objectivity and become one sided towards our
personal concern.
Page 56 of 138
2. Failure to go with our developmental Maturity

Our thinking and decision-making capability grow side by side with our age. In the
words of Dr. Carlos Medina (1998), “We keep on defining and re-defining our plausibility
context.” This means we undergo different stages in our lives. As children, we think, act,
and speak like children. Our world is focused on the children’s world characterized by
toys, kiddie fun activities and food. When we become adolescents, we leave our
children’s world behind to embrace a new world belonging to the young and energetic
people. We start to outgrow our love for toys and kiddie stuffs. We start to see the worlds
using the lens of young people. When we turn adults, we leave the adolescent life
behind and become more serious with life.
The problem on ethical decision-making crops up if we fail to grow. When we

continue to use the pattern in deciding and dealing with our concerns using our younger
day strategies, we will experience problem. If we deal with an adolescent concern using
a child’s reasoning or an adult concern using a child or adolescent perspective, we will
encounter problems.
3. Refusal to let go of our wrongful thinking and see things objectively

One who says he/she does not believe in hell because he/she’s never been there
is a very difficult person to convince. One who says that there can be no global warming
because nobody proved that the earth is getting warmer through a scientific instrument
all at the same time in a global scope is a person not worthy of our time for discussion
purposes. If a person refuses to believe, no amount of convincing effort can change her/his
mind.
If we only base our decision on what we have experienced, our decision can turn
faulty because our experience is often times very limited. There are those who create a
picture of what the world is through what they virtually hear and see and just use them as
bases on what they claim as true. Again, this is very limited because what we hear and
see virtually together with the information, we derive from social media is often times not
so reliable.
Moral Courage and Will
Even if the person is very intelligent and has a lot of ideas but s/he lack the will and
power to implement his ideas, then the ideas remain to be abstract. The will is important
to make knowledge possible. This explains why we consider an action to be a human act.
Our Knowledge as an awareness or being conscious of one’s actions including its possible
consequences requires human will so that it becomes palatable. Since the act of knowing
is always consciousness of something which is inevitably linked to the subject or the knower,
then It is not enough for an individual to know what is good. What really count are his good
acts. Hence, an insane person and a three-year old child are not liable for their actions
since they are not capable of acting with proper knowledge. Their actions can never be
considered as immoral. College students and professionals are expected to be possessors
of knowledge; thus, they cannot claim excuses for their immoral actions. They are liable for
Page 57 of 138
the consequences of their actions. According to Aristotle, knowledge is the first element of
ethical practice. This knowledge provides a framework for deliberating about the most
appropriate technique(s) by which the good can be attained.
But, it should be noted that; although, knowledge is a requirement for considering

an act to be a human act, being knowledgeable or being aware of what is ethical or
moral is not a guarantee that the person is already considered as an ethical or moral
person.
The Freedom of the Will, according to St. Thomas Aquinas, this is the power which
human beings have in determining their actions according to the judgment of their
reasons. This always involves a choice or an option of whether to do or not to do a certain
action. Without this freedom of choice, then responsibility and/or liability on the part of the
individual would be meaningless. Hence, insane people who have no control of their minds
and children who have no idea of what they are doing or are not free to do or not to do,
are not responsible for their actions. On the other hand, matured people, college students
and professionals are expected to be free from doing or not doing; thus, they are
responsible or liable for their actions.
To develop the will, voluntariness is required which is an act of consenting or

accepting a certain action whether it is done whole-heartedly, half-heartedly, or non-
heartedly. According to Aristotle, the moral evaluation of an action presupposes the
attribution of responsibility to a human agent; thus, responsible action must be undertaken
voluntarily (Nicomachean Ethics III). It is then important to sharpen the “will” so that that
we can become consistent in doing the right and the good.
EXPLAIN
Watch the Video Talk saved in your OTG flash drive regarding Scott Rae’s Moral
Reasoning.
Watch Alex Gendler’s presentation of Plato’s Allegory of the Cave here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RWOpQXTltA
A presentation and discussion of the Allegory of the Cave in Filipino version can be seen
here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6hok2YmrIk
Page 58 of 138
ELABORATE
How were the Impediments to Ethical Decision-making portrayed in Plato’s Allegory of

the Cave? What specific character or objects in the allegory correspond to the specific
impediment to ethical decision-making?
EVALUATE

References
Aquinas, Thomas (1966). On law, eternal law and natural law. Summa Theologiae, vol. 28,
Blackfriars in conjunction with McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, pp. 5-97
Aristotle, (1983) Book I-III. Nicomachean ethics. Trans. Martin Oswald. Indianapolis: Bobbs-
Merrill Education Publishing.
Page 59 of 138
Baybay, A. (2011). Rape cases prevalent: ‘Shameful crimes’ against children up in Mt

Province.
Boyle, Joseph M. Jr., "Toward Understanding the Principle of Double Effect," Ethics, 90
(1980), 527-538
Cahill, L.S. "Teleology, Utilitarianism, and Christian Ethics," Theological Studies 42:4 (Dec.
1981) 601–629.
Grisez, Germain. (1983). Christian Moral Principles, 1, Franciscan Herald Press
Gualdo, R.S., Placido, D and Dagwasi, C. (2012). Ethics: Basic Concepts and
Contemporary Moral Issues. Malabon City: Mutya Publishing House, Inc.
Gula, Richard M., S.S., (1989). Reason Informed by Faith Foundations of Catholic Morality,
New York, Paulist Press.
Pasco, M.O.D, Suarez, V.F and Rodriguez, A.M.G. (2018). Ethics. Quezon City: C & E
Publishing, Inc.
Rachels, J. (2013). The Elements of Moral Philosophy. New York: McGraw Hill.
Rae, Scott B. (2018). Moral choices: An introduction to Ethics. 4 th Zondervan.
Smith, Janet E. Humane Vitae: A Generation Later. Catholic University of America Press.
1991
______"Veritatis Splendor," Proportionalism, and Contraception," Irish Theological

Quarterly 63: 4 (1998) 307-26.
______ "Moral Terminology and Proportionalism," in Recovering Nature: Essays in Natural

Philosophy, Ethics, and Metaphysics in Honor of Ralph McInerny ed. by Thomas
Hibbs and John O'Callaghan (Notre Dame Press, 1999) 127-46
Electronic Sources:
http://www.encyclopedia.com/religion/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-
maps/proportionality-principle
http://www.spectacle.org/0806/proportionality.html
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/51759938_The_principle_of_proportionality_re
visited_Interpretations_and_applications
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/proportionality
http://icucourses.com/pages/002-05-proportionalism-and-biologism
http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/zim/zim_195proportionalism.html
Page 60 of 138
MODULE 5: Ethical Framework: Utilitarianism/Consequentialism
Module 5 presents the ethical framework of Consequentialism. Although Ethical Egoism

and Altruism are presented here, the bulk of the discussion is on the Utilitarianism of John
Stuart Mill and Jeremy Bentham. This module aims to:
(1) show how to use Utilitarianism as a framework in analysing one’s moral experiences;
(2) examine some of the strengths and weaknesses of Utilitarianism.
Learning Outcomes:

1. differentiate Ethical Egoism from Ethical Altruism;
2. trace the development of Utilitarianism from the early Hedonism;
3. justify our present quarantine protocols in the country using Bentham’s Felicific
Calculus; and
4. evaluate the present education system which is Distance Learning Education
(DLE) thru the lense of J.S. Mill.
ENGAGE
Given the dilemma between your individual happiness and the happiness of the majority,
which one will you choose? Why?
Page 61 of 138
EXPLORE
 Utilitarianism/Consequentialism
Also known as Consequentialism, utilitarianism as an ethical principle determines
the morality of an act/choice by its end result. Thus, one ought to choose an act that
would yield the good results. The goodness or badness of an act is determined by its end
or consequence. The working principle here is “utility” or usefulness. The usefulness of an
act is determined by its consequences.
It is common for us to determine our moral responsibility by weighing the

consequences of our actions. According to consequentialist normative theories, correct
moral conduct is determined solely by a cost-benefit analysis of an action's consequences.
In consequentialism, an action is morally right if the consequences of that action are more
favorable than unfavorable.
Consequentialist normative principles require that we first tally both the good and
bad consequences of an action. Second, we then determine whether the total good
consequences outweigh the total bad consequences. If the good consequences are
greater, then the action is morally proper. If the bad consequences are greater, then the
action is morally improper.
Consequentialist theories became popular in the 18 th century by philosophers who

wanted a quick way to morally assess an action by appealing to experience, rather than
by appealing to gut intuitions or long lists of questionable duties. In fact, the most attractive
feature of consequentialism is that it appeals to publicly observable consequences of
actions. Most versions of consequentialism are more precisely formulated than the general
principle above. In particular, competing consequentialist theories specify which
consequences for affected groups of people are relevant.
Three subdivisions of consequentialism emerge:
1. Ethical Egoism: an action is morally right if the consequences of that action are
more favorable than unfavorable only to the agent performing the action. There are two
kinds of egoism namely, Psychological egoism and ethical egoism.
Psychological egoism asserts that action is good since the consequence of the
action is beneficial to the person who performs the act. Psychological egoism is a theory
of human psychology which asserts that each person does in fact pursue his or her own
self-interest alone. It is theory of human nature that every human action is motivated by
self-interest. People are incapable of being unselfish because they are so constituted
to always look out only for their own self-interest. For example, a mother sends her children
to school. Is the act of sending her child to school consummates an altruistic or egoistic
act? But what are the consequences if the mother will not send her child to school. The
act of not sending the child to school looks like to the disadvantage of her child. But
Page 62 of 138
psychological egoism will evaluate the act of not sending her child to school an act more
disadvantageous to the mother because she will not gain anything if her child will be a
liability to her and to the family. Further, the mother will be in pain seeing her child a jobless
moron or a goblin while other children of the neighborhood are successful honorable
members of the society. Thus, the act of sending a child to school is an act for the interest
of the mother for the first place.
James Rachel (2002) in his book The Elements of Morality cites Thomas Hobbes’s
(1588-1679) who affirms that psychological egoism is true. For Hobbes, altruistic act is an
illusion because human nature is self-interested or human acts are dictated by human
desires. In his thesis, people do charitable works because in the first place they will get
recognition or receive the reward of heavenly bliss. We will always do an action because
it makes us feel good. Hence, people sometimes seem to act altruistically, but it is not hard
to discover that the ‘unselfish’ behavior is actually connected to some benefit for the
person who does it. Further, because of pity, man can do altruistic acts. However, for
Hobbes, pitiful acts are demonstration of one’s power over the weak. Hobbesian man is
not a God-seeker but a power-seeker. Man is engaged in an endless pursuit of power
which ends only in death. So, by nature, men seek to possess and enjoy power. What is the
importance of this? Why do men seek power? The primary reason is to ensure the
preservation of their lives. Power is the tool used by men to protect their selfish interests, the
most important of which is to preserve their own lives.
Psychological Egoism claims psychological altruism is impossible. People can act to

benefit the interests of others but only when there is something in it for themselves; that
they will get something out of it for themselves is the sole reason they benefit others.
Accordingly, people are never even partially motivated to help others for their own sake.
In the end, people care nothing for others; they care only about themselves. People can’t
care for others for their own sake.
The other kind of egoism is Ethical Egoism. James Rachels (2002) explains that Ethical
Egoism is the radical idea that the principle of self-interest accounts for all of one’s moral
obligations. Sometimes one’s interests may happen to coincide with the interests of
others—in that by helping oneself, one will coincidentally help them, too. The benefit to
others is not what makes an action right, however. An action is right only insofar as it is to
one’s own ‘advantage.’ According to ethical egoism, however, we have no duties to
others; in fact, each person ought to pursue his or her own selfish interests exclusively. A
person ought to do what really is in his or her best interests, over the long run. According to
Ayn Rand (1905-1982), altruism leads to a denial of the value of the individual (and his
projects and goods). Rand argues that if a man accepts the ethics of altruism, his first
concern is not how to live his life, but how to sacrifice it. Each person has one life to live,
but altruism rejects the value of the individual, whereas ethical egoism views the
individual’s life as having supreme value, then ethical egoism is the moral philosophy we
ought to accept.
Page 63 of 138
Ethical Egoism is a consequentialist ethical theory that contends that we act morally
when we act in a way that promises our own best long-term interests. Ethics is concerned
on personal needs which are relatively different from any other persons.
2. Ethical Altruism: an action is morally right if the consequences of that action are
more favorable than unfavorable to everyone except the agent.
3. Utilitarianism: an action is morally right if the consequences of that action are

more favorable than unfavorable to everyone.
All three of these theories focus on the consequences of actions for different groups of
people. But like all normative theories, the above three theories are rivals of each other.
They also yield to different conclusions.
Utilitarianism developed in England in the 18 th and 19th centuries. Its main

proponents were Jeremy Bentham (1748 – 1832) and John Stuart Mill (1806 – 1873). The
philosophy of utilitarianism is anchored on the doctrine that “the only motives of human
actions are pleasure and pain, the former prompting us to perform an act, the latter
compelling us to avoid an action.” A utilitarian’s only motive of action is pain and pleasure,
“seek good and avoid pain.” There are two kinds of utilitarianism. First, act utilitarianism is
the position that an action is moral if it produces the greatest happiness for the most
people. Second, rule utilitarianism is the ethical position that we should act so that the rule
governing our actions produce the greatest happiness for the most people.
JEREMY BENTHAM: For Bentham, a person is selfish

Motto of Utilitarianism:
and acts to fulfill his/her happiness. Man acts to gain “Greatest happiness for the
pleasure or to avoid pain. Man is selfish and will not act greatest number of people.”
unless to procure his own pleasure. Pleasure is equated
with happiness and the first principle of ethics is the right
and desirable goal of human action as happiness, that
is, pleasure and avoidance of pain.
It, therefore, follows that the rightness or wrongness of an action has to be judged
by its consequences and by the ability of the act to produce pleasure or remove pain. An
action that produces a mixture of pleasure and pain has to be judged according to the
quantity of pleasure or pain. Whichever is greater will determine moral character of the
action. He calls the property of any act that produces pleasure or happiness “utility”,
hence, utilitarianism. In developing his calculus, Bentham distinguishes act utilitarianism
from rule utilitarianism.
Jeremy Bentham presented one of the earliest fully developed systems of

utilitarianism. Two features of his theory are noteworthy. First, Bentham proposed that we
tally the consequences of each action we perform and thereby determine on a case by
case basis whether an action is morally right or wrong. This aspect of Bentham’s theory is
known as act-utilitarianism. Second, Bentham also proposed that we tally the pleasure
Page 64 of 138
and pain which results from our actions. For Bentham, pleasure and pain are the only
consequences that matter in determining whether our conduct is moral. This aspect of
Bentham’s theory is known as hedonistic utilitarianism. Critics point out limitations in both of
these aspects.
First criticism, according to act-utilitarianism, it would

be morally wrong to waste time on leisure activities such as
watching television, since our time could be spent in ways
that produced a greater social benefit, such as charity work.
But prohibiting leisure activities doesn’t seem reasonable.
More significantly, according to act-utilitarianism, specific
acts of torture or slavery would be morally permissible if the
social benefit of these actions outweighed the dis-benefit.
A revised version of utilitarianism called rule-utilitarianism addresses these problems.

According to rule-utilitarianism, a behavioral code or rule is morally right if the
consequences of adopting that rule are more favorable than unfavorable to everyone.
Unlike act utilitarianism, which weighs the consequences of each particular action, rule-
utilitarianism offers a litmus test only for the morality of moral rules, such as “stealing is
wrong.” Adopting a rule against theft clearly has more favorable consequences than
unfavorable consequences for everyone. The same is true for moral rules against lying or
murdering. Rule-utilitarianism, then, offers a three-tiered method for judging conduct. A
particular action, such as stealing a neighbor’s car, is judged wrong since it violates a
moral rule against theft. In turn, the rule against theft is morally binding because adopting
this rule produces favorable consequences for everyone. John Stuart Mill’s version of
utilitarianism is rule-oriented.
Second criticism, according to hedonistic utilitarianism, pleasurable consequences

are the only factors that matter, morally speaking. This, though, seems too restrictive since
it ignores other morally significant consequences that are not necessarily pleasing or
painful. For example, acts which foster loyalty and friendship are valued, yet they are not
always pleasing. In response to this problem, G.E. Moore proposed ideal utilitarianism,
which involves tallying any consequence that we intuitively recognize as good or bad (and
not simply as pleasurable or painful). Also, R.M. Hare proposed preference utilitarianism,
which involves tallying any consequence that fulfils our preferences.
Hedonism is a philosophy on pleasure. “Hedone” in Greek means

“pleasure” as the norm of action. There are two proponents of hedonism
namely, Aristippus and Epicurus: For Aristippus, happiness is based on sensual
pleasure. Sensual pleasure as motive of life – short term pleasure; motto: “drink
and be merry for tomorrow you will die.” For Epicurus, happiness is based on
rational pleasure. Intellectual pleasure is longer in effect such as tranquility of
the soul like friendship and education. In sum, an act is neither theoretical,
legalistic nor experimental; instead, it is only valuable with practical and pleasure value.
The counterargument: Practical ethics leads to hedonistic tendencies, relativistic, no
universality and can be ambiguous or even antinomian; it lacks rational discernment.
Page 65 of 138
Bentham is credited with founding the doctrine of utilitarianism. In brief, Bentham

argued that “action is right if it will produce the greatest happiness for the greatest
number.” He believed that by calculating pleasures and pains, one can tell which action
is right and which is wrong. In concrete, Bentham’s principle of utility translates itself into
what he called a “felicific calculus,” that is, a “happiness calculator, or counter” which is
a way of balancing the pros and cons of an envisaged act. Pleasure and pain then is
reducible to quantifiable units and the morally good act is the net effect or outcome of
maximum pleasure minus minimum pain.
The emphasis of J. Bentham is the Quantity of Pleasure which are quantified as

follows using the Modified Pleasure Calculus. There are Seven Variables of Pleasure
Calculus: 1) Intensity: How intense is the Pleasure and Pain? 2) Duration: How does Pleasure
and Pain last? 3) Certainty: What is the probability of Pleasure and Pain to occur? 4)
Propinquity: How far off in the future is Pleasure and Pain? 5) Fecundity: What is the
probability that Pleasure and Pain will lead to another Pleasure and Pain? 6) Purity: How
sure is Pleasure or Pain truly experienced? And 7) Extent: How many persons are affected
by Pleasure and Pain?
For instance, wealth is proved or quantified by having a huge amount of money.

Intelligence is proved or quantified by highest correct answers in an exam. A product is
quantified by the largest amount ne can get or accumulate. A quantitative research is
proved to be valid by analyzing data through numbers.
Application of the felicific calculus.
For example, if one is invited to attend a dance party and birthday party that will
happen on the same day at the same time, then one may use the felicific calculus to
measure the pleasure and pain from the two alternatives of action. The intensity element
will ask the variability of the stronger pleasure and the lesser pain one may derive from
attending a dance party or a birthday party. Maybe the pleasure that is taken in the
birthday party is more intense because the foods prepared by the celebrant, are more
delicious; but one should also take into account the side effects of fatty foods into one’s
blood pressure. In duration, it asks the length of time of pleasure or pain one may derive
from the two alternatives. Maybe, the dance party will have a longer pleasure because it
may end in a longer time. But one should also take into account the length of pain one
may experience in a dance party because it is possible that nobody will dance with
him/her until the end of the program.
In certainty or the “sureness” of pleasure, it asks the probability of the occurrence

of pleasure and pain because it is not always a good option to choose from uncertainty.
The element of propinquity deals with the circumstances of “nearness” and “remoteness”
of pleasure and pain to be achieved. This can be illustrated with the case of an employee
who is granted a one-month vacation leave on the following fiscal year with the full
benefits and complete allowances from the company. If the employee accepts the offer,
what month will the s/he spends his/her vacation? What month will s/he select? The rule of
Page 66 of 138
propinquity demands that the opportunity should be taken in the nearest time possible
because one may not have the access of pleasure as s/he pleases when other
circumstances will occur. Hence, the first month of the year should be selected. This is also
true in applying a job. Also, to be considered is fecundity, or the capacity to engender
further pleasure; and purity, or the relative absence of any admixture of painful counter
effects. Finally, extent, or the number of people affected is considered. Extent brings into
balance the happiness of other people involved, hence, the more, the merrier.
Further, if more than one of the elements are involved in an action, all the other
amounts of pleasure and pain must be accounted for. One is therefore reminded that
even a seemingly innocuous act might turn out to have “systemic” effects (to the
environment, or to conditions elsewhere, etc.).
JOHN STUART MILL: Mill defended the Bentham’s doctrine of “Greatest happiness
for greatest number of people.” He accepted the greatest happiness principle of Bentham
and agreed with him that man seeks pleasure and avoids pain, and that happiness is the
goal of human life, which is identified with pleasure. JS Mill adds a qualitative dimension to
Bentham’s purely quantitative one. Mill’s Greatest Happiness Principle is still hedonistic,
since it “…holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness,
wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness.” Mill asserts that by ‘happiness’
is intended pleasure, and the absence of pain; by ‘unhappiness,’ pain, and the privation
of pleasure.” But Mill’s version modifies Bentham’s utilitarianism. Mill observes that “It is quite
compatible with the principle of utility to recognize the fact, that some kinds of pleasure
are more desirable and more valuable than others. Of two pleasures, if there be one to
which all or almost all who have experience of both give a decided preference,
irrespective of any feeling of moral obligation to prefer it, that is the more desirable
pleasure.”
Mill differentiates the pleasures of animals with those of humans; of those who are
intelligent with those who are ignorant: “…it is an unquestionable fact that those who are
equally acquainted with, and equally capable of appreciating and enjoying, both, do
give a marked preference to the manner of existence which employs the higher faculties
[….] Few human creatures would consent to be changed into any of the lower animals,
for a promise of the fullest allowance of a beast’s pleasures; no intelligent human being
would consent to be a fool, no instructed person would be an ignoramus, no person of
feeling and conscience would be selfish and base, even though they should be
persuaded that the fool, the dunce, or the rascal is better satisfied with his lot than they
are with theirs.”
Mill would assert that character formation is necessary in the cultivation of high
quality pleasures: “Utilitarianism, therefore, could only attain its end by the general
cultivation of nobleness of character, even if each individual were only benefitted by the
nobleness of others, and his own, so far as happiness is concerned, were a sheer
deduction from the benefit.” Moreover, subordinate rules are what we would normally
call “common sense morality”.
Page 67 of 138
Mill identifies the main deficiency of people who are “not happy”: “Next to
selfishness, the principal cause which makes life unsatisfactory is want of mental cultivation.
A cultivated mind…finds sources of inexhaustible interest in all that surrounds it; in the
object of nature, the achievements of art, the imaginations of poetry, the incidents of
history, the ways of mankind past and present, and their prospects in the future.” For Mill,
therefore, the “greatest” in “greatest happiness principle” does not just refer to the quantity
of happiness (or pleasure) but also to a higher quality or kind of happiness (or pleasure)
that everyone affected, regardless of status, could experience as the consequences of
the action in question. Applied to the body politic, utilitarianism and its objective of “the
greatest happiness for the greatest number” should be the goal of all laws and the ultimate
criterion of all institution. Thus, he maintained that pleasures do not only differ
“quantitatively” but also “qualitatively.”
The emphasis of J.S. Mill is the Quality of Pleasure and pleasure differs qualitatively.
His Motto is, “A good man would rather be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied.”
“A person would rather be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied.” And if the fool, or the
pig, is of a different opinion, it is because they only know their own side of the question.
The other party to the comparison knows both sides.” And aside from the qualitative
classification of pleasure, Mill stresses on the social character of happiness. One has to seek
the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. The end of moral action is not
merely one’s own happiness but the greatest amount of happiness for all.
Quality is important in terms of durability, elegance, and longevity

of anything important. For instance, qualifying an intellectual capacity is
based not on numbers but on justification of intelligence through
creativity and innovativeness. Qualifying a product means the inherent
value or worth of such product – a quality of time, of peace and of
tranquility, of enjoyment. A qualitative research deals with analysis
based on worth and value of the experiences in proving validity.
This picture depicts that an old man who has lived a long life and
enjoying music in old age, signifies happiness.
EXPLAIN
Watch the Video Talk saved in your OTG flash drive on Utilitarianism.
Watch the 10 minutes crash course on Utilitarianism here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-a739VjqdSI
Watch the short presentation of Mill’s Utilitarianism here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dr9954kaFBs
Page 68 of 138
Watch a short discussion on Bentham’s Utilitarianism here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7MnnN000iXM
ELABORATE
Having read the discussions above and watched the suggested videos, differentiate Act
Utilitarianism from Rule Utilitarianism by providing one example depicting act utilitarianism
and another example depicting rule utilitarianism.
Act Utilitarianism
Rule Utilitarianism
Page 69 of 138
EVALUATE
*** The graded assignments for Modules 5, 6, 7, are all integrated into the following
(1) MIDTERM Integrated Quiz

(2) MIDTERM Integrated Assignment
Page 70 of 138
MODULE 6: Ethical Framework: Immanuel Kant and Rights Theorist
Module 6 focuses on the Deontological ethical framework in making moral decisions. It is

aimed at understanding Kantian ethical theory and its relevance to the present world, and
to use Kantian ethics in evaluating and making sound and reasonable decisions
concerning moral dilemma cases with the focus in mind of the concept of duty in the
theory of legalism.
Learning Outcomes:
1. articulate the importance of sound and reasonable decisions in moral dilemmas;
2. identify the different kinds of Rights;
3. explain the role of duty as the basis of good;
4. formulate maxims that can become a moral law;
5. cite instances where someone else’s maxim cannot rationally become a moral law;
6. differentiate a hypothetical from the categorical imperative; and
7. identify the strengths and weaknesses of deontology as a moral framework.
ENGAGE
Which do you think should be given more weight when making moral decisions: the
consequences of the action or the intention of the person doing the act? Why?
Page 71 of 138
EXPLORE
 Deontology
Deontology came from the Greek word “deon,” which means ‘duty’ or
responsibility. Deontological theories assert that the morality of an action depends on its
intrinsic nature, its motives, or its rules or principles and not on its consequences.
Duty theories base morality on specific, foundational principles of obligation. These

theories are sometimes called deontological, from the Greek word deon, or duty, in view
of the foundational nature of our duty or obligation. They are also sometimes called non-
consequentialist since these principles are obligatory, irrespective of the consequences
that might follow from our actions. For example, it is wrong to not care for our children even
if it results in some great benefit, such as financial savings.
6.1. Immanuel Kant
An example of a deontological ethics is the Kantian ethics, giving more preference

on the performance of duty and intention of the act rather than its consequences.
In his book, “Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals,” Kant propounds that a

person who fruitfully resists the temptation of desire has willpower (willpower means a
combination of determination and self-discipline that enables somebody to do something
despite the difficulties involved) while the individual who gives in and acts to satisfy the
desire does not have willpower.
This concept of willpower brings to mind the following model of human action: The
agent begins with a group of beliefs and desires that are motives or reasons to
action. Motives to action are like forces that get the body into action. The agent,
however, must (or at least should) evaluate the desires to determine whether they should
or shouldn’t be satisfied. The agent’s reason acts as the evaluator. When reason acts as
evaluator, reason is also considered governor, because it is the last thing that determines
the will (will means the part of the mind with which somebody consciously decides things;
the use of the mind to make decisions about things; the determination to do something or
a desire or inclination to do something), which in turn determines action. Before a
particular desire can be acted on by the agent, the act of willing to attempt to satisfy the
desire must first exist. The agent needs to choose or decide to either act or not act on the
desire. Only then does the body act. Hence, we could imagine human action
schematically in the following manner:
Page 72 of 138
Beliefs + desires → evaluation of reason → Act of will to

satisfy desire (deciAion) → Action to satisfy desire.
In any event that reason is not acting as evaluator, the model turns into something like
this:
Beliefs + desires → Act of will to satisfy desire
(decision) → Action to satisfy desire.
Immanuel Kant acknowledged that desires often conflict. There are instances that
acting to satisfy one desire will ensure that we cannot satisfy another desire. Let us say for
example that you have the desire to go out with friends this coming Saturday to dance
and party. Satisfying now this desire would mean sacrificing your other desire to jump to
bed early and maximize the highly recommended hours of sleep of 7 to 8 hours a
day. Take again for example the given situation, you have the desire to play DOTA or to
have an EB with someone else you have been chatting lately over the net after your class
this afternoon; however, you also have the desire to read something about Immanuel
Kant’s life so that you will not be getting a failing score in your quiz in this subject next
meeting. In such instances where we have with us conflicting desires, we must decide
which desire to satisfy.
As rational individuals, it is expected on our part that we have to let our reason
decide between conflicting desires (but sometimes, as individuals with organic or earthly
bodies with organic or earthly desires and needs, we oftentimes find ourselves consumed
in satisfying our base desires. I am not saying this as an excuse but we should at least now
how to master our desires as rational individuals…I hope you still remember “the mark of
virtue” of Aristotle). No particular action will be done until our will has been
activated. Hence, our will is considered to be the master of our actions. According to
Immanuel Kant, if we are rational, then our will must not be the slave of our desires by
merely doing the request or command of our desires. Our will instead can cooperate with
our reason to master whatever desires we have.
The only thing that is good without qualification or restriction is a good will. A
good will alone is good in all circumstances and in that sense is an absolute good
or unconditioned good. The goodness of a good will is not derived from the
goodness of the results which it produces. A good will continues to have its own
uniqueness goodness even where, by some misfortune, it is unable to produce the
results at which it aims. As Kant would say in the Groundwork, “it would still shine
like a jewel for its own sake as something which has its full value in itself” (see your
reading for further emphasis on this point of Kant on the good will and its result).
In going further with his discussion on the good will, Kant in

the Groundwork tried to discuss the function of reason. According to Kant, reason
Page 73 of 138
has been imparted to us as a practical power─that is, as one which is to have

influence on the will; the true function of reason must be to produce a will which is
good, not as a means to some further end, but in itself….(see your reading for
further emphasis on this point of Kant on the function of reason). For Kant, reason
in action has for him two main functions, the first of which has to be subordinated
to the second. The first function is to secure the individual’s own happiness (a
conditioned good), while the second is to manifest a will that is good in itself.
However, despite these discussions made by Kant, a question comes to mind

that is, if one thing that is good without qualifications is a good will, then what
makes will good and what makes it bad?
Kant was a supporter of what we have called commonsense morality. He thought

that the moral views common to most people are pretty much correct. Therefore,
he would think that a person with a good will would not commit major moral
offenses such as murder or robbery, would not commit minor moral offenses such
as maliciously gossiping about people, and would help people in need.
Kant took these things for granted. But he recognized that a person might
have a good will and not to be able to actually do any of the things a good person
would do, or refrain from doing the things a good person would n ot do, similarly,
someone might do all the things that a good person would do and refrain from
doing all the things that a good person would not do, and yet not have a good
will. For example, someone may contribute to charity only because it’s in his self -
interest, perhaps a politician who believes that he will gain votes by (publicly)
contributing to charity. Kant does not think that his contributing money shows that
he has a good will.
What about performing actions that normally would be consider ed an

indication that someone lacks a good will? Suppose someone acts n a way that is
deeply offensive or insulting to someone else. Would that necessarily show that he
or she lacks a good will? No- not if he or she did not intent to offensive or insulting .
Kant points out that we cannot tell whether someone has a good will by
looking only at what that person does or does not do, or only at the effects or
consequences of his actions. One’s intentions are the key to whether one has good
will. It is what one wants to accomplish – what one wills – that counts (for the
Utilitarian philosopher Jeremy Bentham, it is the consequence of the act that
counts while for Immanuel Kant, it is not the consequence of the act that counts
but the intention of the person doing the act). A person has a good will if he or she
tries to do what is right and tries to avoid doing what is wrong. But the trying must
be a genuine trying a summoning of all one’s capacities to work hard toward doing
what is right and to refrain from doing what’s wrong (if by this time you now have
in mind this question of what is right and what is wrong, then such question will be
answered as we proceed with our discussion).
Page 74 of 138
Kant says that the concept of duty contains the concepts of a go od will but
it probably would be more accurate to say that the concept of a good will entails
the concept of duty (a duty is an obligation of behavior or conduct in relation to
others or even to God which has a stronger claim on a person than (he)r self -
interest). One has a good will if one tries to do one’s duty. But Kant emphasized
that for a will to be truly good, it must try to do its duty from purely moral motive,
rather than from a self-interested movie. The purely moral motive is the desire to
do one’s duty out of respect for the moral law. A person with a good will respects
the moral law and tries to act dutifully because he or she desires to act in ways
that conform to what (he)r duties are.
In introducing the concept of duty, Kant came up with 3 propositions about

morality rooted on duty:
(1) A human action is morally good, not because it is done from immediate
inclination still less because it is done from self-interest but because it is done for
the sake of duty (Consider the implication of this situation, what if for example in
this particular room at around 7 pm in the evening, I saw you desperately in need
for immediate medical attention but then the problem is I am not disposed this
time to help; likewise, I have a business deal to attend to at 7:15 pm to have this 4
million pesos account deal to be safely deposited to my account.);
(2) An action done from duty has moral worth, not from the result s it attains
or seeks to attain, but from a formal principle or maxim the principle of doing one’s
duty whatever that duty may be (This simply re -states the first proposition in a more
technical way. We have already seen that a good will cannot derive its
unconditioned goodness from the conditioned goodness of the results at which it
aims, and this is true also of the morally good actions in which a good will acting
for the sake of duty is manifested.);
(3) Duty is the necessity to act out of reverence for the law (What is this law?
This law speaks a law which is valid for all rational beings as such independently of
their particular desires. This law is better understood with the Categorical
Imperative of Kant as a test of maxim by helping us evaluate whether or not a
maxim is possible to become a universal law.).
ACTIONS AND MAXIMS
Kant believed that people acts as they do for the reason (whether or not
they are immediately conscious of the reason or engage in deliberation before
acting). For example, suppose that Marc and Andrew each contribute PHP 100,000
to charity. According to Kant, each has a reason for his or her action. Let’s assume
that we know their reasons. Marc approves of the goals of the charity and wants
to help in accomplishing its goals. Andrew knows that the names of large
Page 75 of 138
contributors will be publicized; he wants to impress his business associates and

customers, which he thinks will improve his business.
Kant believed that when people act for a reason, they’re following a maxim
– a kind of personal rule of action. Of course, people do not always consciously
formulate maximum and then deliberately follow them. Rather, people often act
as though they formulate and follow maxims. However, Kant seemed to assume
that we can discover what maxim will follow, even if we did not consciously
formulate and follow it. Given Marc and Andrew's reasons for contributing to
charity, we might express the maxims they were following as M1 (Marc’s Maxim)
and M2 (Adrew’s maxim.)
M1. I will contribute to charity when I approved of the Charity’s goal, and I
want to help it achieve its purpose.
M2. I will contribute to charity when I think that doing so will help improve my
business and I want to improve my business.
A maxim takes the form “I will do action X in circumstances C for purpose

P.” It is a personal principal of action, a kind of pres cription of how a person will
act in certain circumstances to achieve what he or she wants. Thus, a maxim must
specify: (1) what I will do, (2) the concrete circumstances in which I will do it, and
(3) why I will do it.
According to Kant, an action done from duty has moral worth based only on
the maxim that the agent follows, which specified the action, the circumstances
and the motive. But surely an action cannot have moral worth if the agent is
following a bad maxim, such as “I will kill people whe never it is advantageous to
me.” Presumably an action has moral worth if and only if the maxim being followed
is a morally acceptable maxim. But what makes a maxim morally acceptable or
morally unacceptable?
Before turning to this question, however, let us reflect a bit more on the
maxims and behavior of Marc and Andrew. Did Marc or Andrew do anything wrong
in contributing to charity? If they were following morally unacceptable maxims,
then they were doing something wrong, but if they were following morall y
acceptable maxims, they were not doing anything wrong. Whether they did
anything wrong, then it all depends on whether their maxims are morally
acceptable. Surely neither did anything wrong. However, Kant would say that
Andrew’s action lacked moral worth because the maxim he followed was purely
self-interested. (Lacking moral worth, their actions do not merit praise; but it does
not follow that because they lack moral worth, they merit condemnation instead)
so once again, we face the task of distinguishing between morally acceptable and
morally unacceptable maxims.
Thus, whether we are talking about the moral worth of actions or the
rightness and wrongness of actions, we need to distinguish between morally
acceptable and morally unacceptable maxims. We require a test of maxims that
Page 76 of 138
will enable us to distinguish between those that are and those that are not morally
acceptable to act on.
Kant did not think that we need to invent a totally new test to determine the
rightness and wrongness of maxims. He believed that there is a test that most
ordinary people apply and that has been endorsed by most of the world’s major
religions, including Christianity. This test is the so-called Golden Rule: Treat people
the way you want to be treated. However, he did think that the Gold Rule needed
to be made more precise in order to be applied correctly. He called his
reformulation of the Golden Rule the Categorical Imperative. It’s
an imperative because it takes the form of a rule. It’s categorical because
it applies in all circumstances, regardless of an agents’ desires and because it
binds all rational agents.
5 FORMULATIONS OF THE CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE:
(1) The Formula of Universality or the Principle of Universal Law

"Act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should
become a universal law."
(2) The Formula of the Law of Nature

"Act as if the maxim of your action were to become through your will as a universal law of
nature without contradiction."
(3) The Respect for People Formulation or The Principle of an End in Itself
"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."
(4) The Formula on Autonomy or The Principle of Freedom (Freedom of Will as Rational
Agents)
"So, act that your will can regard itself at the same time as making universal law through
its maxim."
(5) The Formula of the Kingdom of Ends

"So, act as if you were through your maxims a law-making member of a kingdom of
ends."
Can your maxim be universalized without contradiction?

Can your maxim show respect to yourself as a person and to other persons as
well?
If your answer is NO, then your maxim cannot become a moral law.
In the application of the rule on contradiction, you have to consider if in the process your
happiness or your own survival or existence or humanity's survival would be at stake
or compromised. At this point, it is important to point out that for Immanuel
Kant, committing suicide to escape the challenges and sufferings in life is not morally
Page 77 of 138
acceptable because this maxim can never be universalized without contradiction aside
from the fact that committing suicide will not also show respect to oneself as a person
since the self is sacrificed to achieve an end which is to run away from those challenges
and sufferings.
Take note that in the kingdom or in the World of Ends, one has either a price or a
dignity or intrinsic value or unconditioned value. If it has a price, then something else can
be put in its place as equivalent. If it is exalted above all price and so admits of no
equivalent, then it has a dignity.
Autonomy or Freedom is the ground or the cornerstone of the dignity of human

nature and of every rational nature. Dignity must be viewed as the result of people who
are free and autonomous moral and rational agents mutually respecting each other.
Note: The discussion on Kant’s ethics is simply taken and/or copied from attorney’s blog,
Mark Gil J. Ramolete, (August 17, 2013). “Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals,” Law
and Philosophy. Accessed from
https://law-and-philosophy.blogspot.com/2013/08/groundwork-of-metaphysic-of-
morals.html?m=1&fbclid=IwAR147f5LzGM8KAjEhE8BE2BCP14_RbOyurXZI9pELejDcuTyJAPITt
laxYg
 6.2. Different Kinds of Rights

Rights Theory is duty-based approach to ethics. Most generally, a “right” is a justified
claim against another person’s behavior – such as my right to not be harmed by you. Rights
and duties are related in such a way that the rights of one person imply the duties of
another person. For example, if I have a right to payment of P10 by Pedro, then Pedro has
a duty to pay me P10. This is called the correlativity of rights and duties. The most influential
early account of rights theory is that of 17th century British philosopher John Locke, who
argued that the laws of nature mandate that we should not harm anyone's life, health,
liberty or possessions. For Locke, these are our natural rights, given to us by God. Following
Locke, the United States Declaration of Independence authored by Thomas Jefferson
recognizes three foundational rights: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Jefferson
and others rights theorists maintained that we deduce other more specific rights from
these, including the rights of property, movement, speech, and religious expression.
There are four features traditionally associated with moral rights. First, rights are
natural insofar as they are not invented or created by governments. Second, they are
universal insofar as they do not change from country to country. Third, they are equal in
the sense that rights are the same for all people, irrespective of gender, race, or handicap.
Fourth, they are inalienable which means that “I cannot hand over my rights to another
person, such as by selling myself into slavery.”
a. Legal Rights
Page 78 of 138
Legal Right is a conditioned parameter of human act. It is a mandate from law

legislated by those who are in authority for the sake of the common good. Legal right
emanates from the rightness of act based on the legislated law. Obedience to the law is
obedience to reason as the basis of law; and as such, everyone is respected on that ability
to the follow the law. Legal rights are human rights that are derived from the moral law.
To be legal means to follow what the law prescribes. To know the law is an
advantage to those who obey the law. When we disobey what the law prescribes, we are
penalized based from the parameter of what the law provides.
Rules of Human Conduct: Legal rights can also be observed through the use of IRON
Rule rather than SILVER Rule and Golden Rule.
“All things therefore whatsoever you would that men should do unto you, even so
do you also unto them: for this is the law and the prophets”. This saying has been given a
metallic designation; it is called the “golden rule.” And that appellation has given rise to
two other philosophical canons of human conduct, known as the “silver rule” and the “iron
rule.” Every rational individual, to a greater or lesser degree, will adopt one of these maxims
as a guiding principle for his or her conduct. Let us reflect upon how these schools of
thought relate to human activity.
Iron Rule
It uses force or intimidation in imposing right or wrong. The Legalistic morality

determines right from wrong, based on a body of clearly stated and well-
documented body of laws. Laws provide a standard of behaviours which every
member of a particular state must observe. These laws are imposed by the
government to its citizens. The observances of laws are ensured through police
power and military forces. The legalistic theory of morality uses authority and force
on imposing standards of right and wrong. This explains why it is categorized under
Authoritarian Ethics.
The iron rule is the rule of power and force. Its motto is: “Might makes right.” It is an
egregious mistake to deify one’s physical prowess! Advocates of the iron rule have been
legion throughout history. Cain, who murdered Abel because his evil works were in stark
contrast to his brother’s, and because he had the strength to do it, was the first practitioner
of this nefarious rule.
The Silver Rule
The silver rule has sometimes been described as “the golden rule in a negative
form.” It is the golden rule without the gold. “What you do not wish done to you, do not do
to others.” In this mode it has found expression in the literature of many different cultures.
For example, among the Greeks, Isocrates and Epictetus taught the silver rule. The latter
Page 79 of 138
condemned slavery on the ground that one should not do to others what generates anger
in himself. The renowned Jewish rabbi Hillel said: “What is hateful to yourself, do to no
other.” Some have described this concept as a reflection of selfish egoism that withholds
injury for personal reasons. In the apocryphal Book of Tobit there is a passage in which
Tobias says to his son: “What you yourself hate, do to no man”. Confucius (551-479 B.C.), a
Chinese philosopher, also taught the silver rule. Tuan-mu Tz’u inquired of him: “Is there one
word that will keep us on the path to the end of our days?” The teacher replied: “Yes.
Reciprocity! What you do not wish yourself, do not unto others” (Confucius, XV, p. 24).
The unifying feature of all these sayings is that they are negative in emphasis. They
forbid much; they enjoin nothing. The silver rule would forbid you to steal your neighbor’s
purse – because such is hateful to you. On the other hand, if one finds a purse containing
P2,000 in the mall parking lot, the silver rule is mute. It, in effect, leaves you with the option,
“Finders keepers; losers’ weepers.”
b. Moral Rights
Moral Right is an attribute to a system of beliefs that help the individual define right
versus wrong, good versus bad. These values typically get their authority from something
outside the individual like a higher being or higher authority. Moral concepts, judgments
and practices may vary from one society to another. For instance, the morality behind
divorce and same sex marriages differ between the Philippines and the United States.
Morals also change over time within a given society as that society changes.
Morality right is more than the legal right prescribed for a person to follow. Instead.
It is what humans ought to do, usually in terms of rights, obligations, benefits to society,
fairness, or specific virtues. This explains why ethics refers to those standards that impose
the reasonable obligations to refrain from rape, stealing, murder, assault, slander, and
fraud. Ethical standards also include those that enjoin virtues of honesty, compassion, and
loyalty. And, ethical standards include standards relating to rights, such as the right to life,
the right to freedom from injury, and the right to privacy. Such standards are adequate
standards of ethics because they are supported by consistent and well-founded reasons.
What is moral is not necessarily legal. For instance, in the Filipino culture, sons and
daughters have the moral obligation to take care of their parents, which may not
necessarily oblige them legally to bring their parents to the Home for the Aged. A student
has the moral obligation to study his lessons without necessarily being obliged legally to do
it. On the other hand, he is not morally obliged to work without legally securing an
educational attainment or diploma.
William David Ross:
A more recent duty-based theory is that by British philosopher W.D. Ross, which
emphasizes prima facie duties. Like his 17th and 18th century counterparts, Ross argues
that our duties are "part of the fundamental nature of the universe." However, Ross's list of
duties is much shorter, which he believes reflects our actual moral convictions: a) Fidelity:
Page 80 of 138
the duty to keep promises; b) Reparation: the duty to compensate others when we harm
them; c) Gratitude: the duty to thank those who help us; d) Justice: the duty to recognize
merit; e) Beneficence: the duty to improve the conditions of others; f) Self-improvement:
the duty to improve our virtue and intelligence; and g) Non-maleficence: the duty to not
injure others
Ross recognizes that situations will arise when we must choose between two conflicting
duties. In a classic example, suppose I borrow my neighbor's gun and promise to return it
when he asks for it. One day, in a fit of rage, my neighbor pounds on my door and asks
for the gun so that he can take vengeance on someone. On the one hand, the duty of
fidelity obligates me to return the gun; on the other hand, the duty of non-maleficence
obligates me to avoid injuring others and thus not return the gun. According to Ross, “I
will intuitively know which of these duties, is my actual duty, and which is my apparent or
prima facie duty?” In this case, my duty of non-maleficence emerges as my actual duty
so I should not return the gun.
EXPLAIN
For additional knowledge on Kantian ethics, explore the following videos:

Short doodle presentation of Kant’s ethics: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-
UhiRLuSlIU
Short discussion of Kant and Categorical Imperatives:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8bIys6JoEDw
Discussion of the comparison between Mill’s Utilitarianism and Kant’s Categorical:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0zg3mzfuCks
ELABORATE
What do you think is one (1) maxim in society that is not in line with the Categorical
Imperative of Kant? Defend your answer.
EVALUATE
*** The graded assignments for Modules 5, 6, and 7 are all integrated into the following
(1) MIDTERM Term Integrated Quiz

Page 81 of 138
MODULE 7: Ethical Framework: John Rawls on Justice as Fairness
Module 7 presents John Rawls’ concepts on Justice as Fairness as a framework in dealing

with moral issues. While there are many and different concepts of justice, this module
simply focuses on having a deeper understanding of Rawls’ moral philosophy. And most
importantly, the module aims to help students develop the ability to make moral decisions
that are grounded on reason and impartiality, as guided by the principle of justice as
fairness.
Learning Outcomes:
1. describe the background with which Rawls’ theory of Justice is based;
2. explain the two principles inherent in the concept of “justice as fairness;”
3. justify the importance of undergoing the “veil of ignorance” when making policies
and moral decisions;
4. tell why the concept of justice as fairness is practical or not; and
5. recommend specific actions as solutions to certain specific problems currently
faced by our present government.
ENGAGE
Many Filipino citizes are dissatisfied with how our government officials respond to the crises
being faced by our country. Given the opportunity, if you were a government official in
our country nowadays, what would you be? Specifically, what position in the government
would you be having - the president/DOH secretary/Baguio mayor/Presidential
spokesperson? etc. etc. etc.... _______________________________________________________
Given the “power” that you have (based from the government position you have
indicated) cite one specific problem or issue that the current government is facing and
then propose solution/s to such.
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
Page 82 of 138
EXPLORE
 7. John Rawls’ Theory of Justice
Rawls’ theory of justice starts from the claim of the Original Position, a thought
experiment in which the parties select principles that will determine the basic structure of
the society they will live in. This choice is made from behind a ’veil of ignorance’, which
would deprive participants of information about their particular characteristics: his or her
ethnicity, social status, gender and, crucially, their conception of The Good. This forces
participants to select principles impartially and rationally. The guiding principle is “Justice
as Fairness”. He focused on distributive justice and attempted to reconcile the competing
claims of the values of freedom and equality.
In his concept of Veil of Ignorance, the individuals have to step back from real
circumstances and view the situation by forgetting about race, class, gender, and similar
factors so that fairness becomes the fundamental basis for justice. In negotiating social
agreements based on equality behind a veil of ignorance, risks are minimized and weaker
parties are protected.
Justice as Fairness aims to describe an arrangement of the major political institutions

of a liberal society the political constitution, and
that with the legal system. It is because justice as
“the first virtue of social institutions.” In Rawls’ Rawls’s principle of justice of
Thought Experiment, he proposed to imagine welfare of liberalism states that “the
humankind before society came into being – a distribution of benefits and burdens in a society
natural state. People then asked to create a is just only 1) Each person has the most political
society which decides how wealth and goods liberty compatible with equal liberty for all, and
are to be distributed. However, before they 2) economic inequalities are arranged so that
make any decisions they are placed behind a a) everyone has an equal opportunity to qualify
‘veil of ignorance,” which means they do not for all positions, and b) inequalities produce
have any idea how successful they will be, or benefits for the least advantage persons.”
how wealthy they will become. Life is a lottery!
There are two moral powers which include

conception of justice and the conception of good and there two Principles of Justices:
Principle 1: each person has an equal right to the same basic liberties that are compatible
with similar liberties for all and Principle 2: Social and economic inequalities are to satisfy
two conditions; a) they are to be attached to offices and positions open to all under
conditions of fair equality of opportunity and b) they are to provide the greatest benefit to
the least advantaged members of society.
In Rawls’ first principle, the basic liberties for all citizens includes: Political liberty (right
to vote and be eligible for public office); Freedom of speech and assembly; Liberty of
conscience and freedom of thought; Freedom regarding your own person; Right to hold
Page 83 of 138
personal property; and Freedom from arbitrary

arrest and seizure as these are understood under
Rawls’s difference principle is also
the rule of law. primarily intended to govern a society’s
economic institutions. Unlike the political arena,
According to John Rawls, the principles of where everyone must be equal, the economic
justice that governs society must be acceptable arena must allow for some inequalities.”
to everyone; otherwise, society will not be stable Inequalities are necessary to serve as incentives
but subject to unrest. The principle of equal liberty for greater production. If greater economic
is meant to govern primarily society’s political rewards (income and wealth) are given to those
institutions (its constitution, government, courts, who work harder and who have greater abilities,
legislative system, and laws). It states that, “each they will be motivated to be more productive and
person participating in political practice or all society will benefit.”
affected by it has an equal right to the most
incentive liberty compatible with a like liberty for
all.” It means that everyone must has as many political rights and freedoms as possible as
long as everyone has the same “equal” political rights and freedoms. For instance,
everyone must have the same voting rights, the same legal rights, the same freedom of
speech, the same freedom of conscience, the same freedom of the press, and so on. In
the political sphere, everyone must be equal and everyone must be granted the maximum
degree of freedom compatible with everyone else having the same degree of freedom.
Rawls’s second principle involves holding positions of authority and offices of

command is clear enough. For example, there is no hereditary positions; No exclusions
based on gender, race, etc. and, no “tests” based on wealth or property. In this principle,
arranging social and economic inequities so that everyone benefits are less clear;
However, Rawls provides the framework for thinking about this – original position and veil
of ignorance.
Rawls’s principle of opportunities is supposed to govern a society’s economic

institutions. It states that the desirable jobs and positions should be open to anyone who is
qualified by his or her abilities. This means that jobs qualifications should be related to the
requirements of the job and should not discriminate by race or sex. It also means that
society should provide people with the training and education needed to qualify for
desirable jobs.
To sum, for Rawls, “I do not know if I will be a man or a woman. I do not know if I will
be given fair share, jobs, and fair pay. By way of veil of ignorance, we need to step back
from real circumstances and view the situation by forgetting about race, class, gender,
and similar factors. It is because by virtue of the original position, we all have no idea about
our future lives but we know that we are all equal. In this way, the first rule should be to
assign basic rights and duties so that social and economic inequalities are just only if there
is compensating benefits for everyone particularly the least advantage. Thus, there is
fairness only when society makes choices of rules that are agreed upon by those that
compose society itself.
Page 84 of 138
2. Taxation in the Philippines vis-a -vis to Rawls’ principle of justice as fairness and the
progressive system of taxation
Tax law in the Philippines covers national and local taxes. National taxes refer to
national internal revenue taxes imposed and collected by the national government
through the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) and local taxes refer to those imposed and
collected by the local government. The Tax Code of 1997, Revenue Issuances and BIR
Rulings pertaining to national taxes ( vat, income tax, donor’s tax, capital gains tax, excise
tax, estate tax, etc) are posted at the BIR website (bir.gov.ph). Local taxation (like the
payment of cedula, amusement tax, real property tax, etc) is governed by the Local
Government Code.
Three (3) inherent powers of the sovereign state:

•police power - the power to protect citizens and provide safety and welfare of
society.
• eminent domain power - the power to take private property (with just
compensation) for public use.
• taxation power - the power to enforce contributions to support the government,
and other inherent powers of the state.
The 1987 Philippine Constitution sets limitations on the exercise of the power to tax.
The rule of taxation shall be uniform and equitable. The Congress shall evolve a progressive
system of taxation. (Article VI, Section 28, paragraph 1)
“Equality in taxation”
• similar to progressive system of taxation.
• tax laws and their implementation must be fair, just, reasonable and proportionate
to one’s ability to pay.
Primary requisite of equity principle:

• a progressive tax rate shall be applied equally to all persons, firms, and corporation,
and transactions placed in similar classification and situation.
Progressive system of taxation

• tax laws shall give emphasis on direct rather than indirect taxes or on the ability-to-
pay principle of taxation.
All money collected on any tax levied for a special purpose shall be treated as a
special fund and paid out for such purpose only. If the purpose for which a special fund
was created has been fulfilled or abandoned, the balance, if any, shall be transferred to
the general funds of the Government. (Article VI, Section 29, paragraph 3)
Page 85 of 138
The Congress may, by law, authorize the President to fix within specified limits, and
subject to such limitations and restriction as it may impose, tariff rates, import and export
quotas, tonnage and wharfage dues, and other duties or imposts within the framework of
the national development program of the Government (Article VI, Section 28, paragraph
2) The President shall have the power to veto any particular item or items in an
appropriation, revenue or tariff bill, but the veto shall not affect the item or items to which
he does not object. (Article VI, Section 27, second paragraph)
The Supreme Court shall have the power to review, revise, reverse, modify or affirm on
appeal or certiorari, as the law or the Rules of Court may provide, final judgments and
orders of lower courts in x x x all cases involving the legality of any tax, impost, assessment,
or toll or any penalty imposed in relation thereto. (Article VIII, Section 5, paragraph)
Tax exemptions are limited to those granted by law. However, no law granting any tax
exemption shall be passed without the concurrence of a majority of all the members of
the Congress. (Article VI, Section 28, par. 4). The Constitution expressly grants tax
exemption on certain entities/institutions such as (1) charitable institutions, churches,
parsonages or convents appurtenant thereto, mosques, and nonprofit cemeteries and all
lands, buildings and improvements actually, directly and exclusively used for religious,
charitable or educational purposes (Article VI, Section 28, paragraph 3); (2) non-stock non-
profit educational institutions used actually, directly and exclusively for educational
purposes. (Article XVI, Section 4(3))
In addition to national taxes, the Constitution provides for local government taxation.
(Article X, Section 5) (Article X, Section 6) Parenthetically, the Local Government Code
provides that all local government units are granted general tax powers, as well as other
revenue-raising powers like the imposition of service fees and charges, in addition to those
specifically granted to each of the local government units. But no such taxes, fees and
charges shall be imposed without a public hearing having been held prior to the
enactment of the ordinance. The levy must not be unjust excessive, oppressive,
confiscatory or contrary to a declared national economic policy (Section 186 and 187)
Further, there are common limitations to the grant of the power to tax to the local
government, such that taxes like income tax, documentary stamp tax, etc. cannot be
imposed by the local government.
THEORY AND BASIS OF TAXATION

The power of taxation proceeds upon the theory that the existence of government is a
necessity; that it cannot continue without means to pay its expenses; and that for these
means, it has a right to compel all its citizens’ property within its limits to contribute.
The basis of taxation is found in the reciprocal duties of protection and support
between the State and its inhabitants. In return for his contribution, the taxpayer received
Page 86 of 138
benefits and protection from the government. This is the so called “Benefits received
principle”.
LIFEBLOOD DOCTRINE:
The lifeblood theory constitutes the theory of taxation, which provides that the existence
of government is a necessity; that government cannot continue without means to pay its
expenses; and that for these means it has a right to compel its citizens and property within
its limits to contribute.
BENEFITS RECEIVED PRINCIPLE:

This theory bases the power of the State to demand and receive taxes on the reciprocal
duties of support and protection. The citizen supports the State by paying the portion from
his property that is demanded in order that he may, by means thereof, be secured in the
enjoyment of the benefits of an organized society. Thus, the taxpayer cannot question the
validity of the tax law on the ground that payment of such tax will render him impoverished,
or lessen his financial or social standing, because the obligation to pay taxes is involuntary
and compulsory, in exchange for the protection and benefits one receives from the
government.
DOCTRINE OF SYMBIOTIC RELATIONSHIP:

This doctrine is enunciated in CIR v. Algue, Inc. [158 SCRA 9], which states that “Taxes are
what we pay for civilized society. Without taxes, the government would be paralyzed for
lack of the motive power to activate and operate it. Hence, despite the natural
reluctance to surrender part of one’s hard-earned income to the taxing authorities, every
person who is able must contribute his share in the burden of running the government. The
government for its part, is expected to respond in the form of tangible and intangible
benefits intended to improve the lives of the people and enhance their material and moral
values.”
Note: The discussion on the Taxation in the Philippines vis-à-vis Rawls’ Theory of Justice was solely
provided by Atty. Mark Gil J. Ramolete
Page 87 of 138
EXPLAIN
Watch the recorded discussion video on Rawls’ Theory of Justice provided in your OTG
flash drive.
You may also explore the following videos:

A visual review of Rawls’ theory of justice in just 2 minutes:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C1-J8huxT8E
A discussion presentation of Rawls theory of justice in 16 minutes:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n6k08C699zI
ELABORATE
Do you think the “equal opportunity principle” and the “difference principle” of Rawls’
theory of justice are seen/applied in our country’s taxation system? If NO, why? If YES, in
what sense?
Page 88 of 138
EVALUATE
(1) MIDTERM Integrated Quiz

References:
Adkins, A.W.H. (1972). Moral Values and Political Behaviour in Ancient Greece from
Homer to the End of the Fifth Century. London: Chatto and Windus.
Aquinas, Thomas. (1966). Summa Theologiae: “On law, eternal law, and natural law.” Vol.
28, edited by Thomas Gilby, pp5-97. Cambridge: Blackfriars in coordination with
New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company.
Aquinas, Thomas. (1966). Summa Theologiae: I-IIae, q. 95, a.2, and q. 96, a. 4. Translated
by Manuel Velasquez, 2004.
Carlson, Erik. (1995). Consequentialism Reconsidered. Springer.
Crisp, Roger. (2006). Hedonism Reconsidered, Philosophy and Phenomenological

Research, LXXIII (3): 619-645.
Crisp, Roger. (1997). Routledge Philosophy Guidebook to Mill on Utilitarianism. Publish

London: Routledge.
Feldman, Fred (1997). Utilitarianism, Hedonism, and Desert: Essays in Moral Philosophy,
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Frankena, W. (1963). Ethics. Foundations of Philosophy Series. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:

Prentice Hall.
Glenn, Paul G. (1965). Ethics: A class manual in moral philosophy. USA: Herder Book Co.,
Missouri.
George, Robert P. (1995). Making men moral: Civil liberties and public morality. Oxford:
Clarendon Press.
Hursthouse, R. (1999). On Virtue Ethics. Oxford: OUP.
Ibana, Ranier & Tugade, Angeli (Ed). (1998). Comments on moral philosophy. Quezon
City: The Philippine Commission on Higher Education.
Kaplan, J. D. (Ed.). (1958). The pocket Aristotle. New York: Washington Square Press.
Page 89 of 138
Kant, Emmanuel. (1950). Foundations of the metaphysics of morals. USA: Prentice-Hall Inc.
Larimore T.B. (1843-1929) “The Iron, Silver, and Golden Rules.” Ethics as a philosophy. (See
Srygley, pp. 190-207).
Montemayor, Felix. (1994). Ethics: The philosophy of life. Manila: National Bookstore.
Mill, J.S. (2002). Utilitarianism. Edited by G. Sher. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing
Company.
Mill, J.S. (2003). Utilitarianism and on Liberty: Including 'Essay on Bentham' and
Selections from the Writings of Jeremy Bentham and John Austin. Blackwell
Publishing.
Mulgan, Tim. (2002). The Demands of Consequentialism. Oxford University Press.
Oakley, J. (1996). "Varieties of Virtue Ethics", Ratio, vol. 9.
Petrick, Joseph A. and John F. Quinn. (1997) Management ethics: Integrity at work.
(California: Sage Publications, Inc., 1997), pp. 89-91
Rachel, James (2004). What is morality: “Elements of moral philosophy” 4th Edition. New
York: McGraw-Hill.
Rawls, John. (1996). Reason at work: Reading in philosophy. “A theory of justice” pp.262-
267, edited by Steven M. Cahn and Goerge Sher. Forth Worth TX: Hardcourt Brace
College Publishers
Scheffler, Samuel. (1994). The Rejection of Consequentialism. Oxford University Press.
Singer, Peter Albert David. (1993). A Companion to Ethics. (Blackwell Companions to

Philosophy) Blackwell Publishing.
Smart, J.J.C., and Bernard Williams. (1973). Utilitarianism: For and Against. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Smith, James and Sosa, Ernest (eds.) (1969). Mill’s Utilitarianism: Text and Criticism,
Belmont CA: Wadsworth.
Timbreza, Florentino. (1993). Bioethics and moral decision. Manila: De La Salle University.
Trianosky, G.V. (1997). "What is Virtue Ethics All About?" in Statman D., Virtue Ethics.
Cambridge: Edinburgh University Press.
Velasquez, Manuel. (2004). Philosophy, a text with readings. “Ethics,” chapter 7. 9th edition.
Australia: Thomson Wadworth.
West, Henry R. (ed.) (2006). The Blackwell Guide to Mill’s Utilitarianism, Oxford:
Blackwell.
Page 90 of 138
Electronic Sources:
https://www.britannica.com/topic/teleological-ethics
http://www.iep.utm.edu/hedonism/
http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Teleological_ethics
https://www.balance.com/kimberly-amadeo-3305455 updated April 21, 2018
https://www.balance.com/law-of-supply-&-demand-defintion-xplained-example-
3305707
heir,heiress, jet-setter
Bringing Ethics into the Capitalist Model: Amartya Sen's Approach to ...
https://journals.openedition.org/lisa/8233
prostratecategorizesurroundexert
https://www.wisdomquotes/quotes/robert-wrihgt.html
Page 91 of 138
MODULE 8: Ethical Framework: Aristotle’s Virtue Ethics
Module 8 presents the Virtue Ethics of the famous “Father of Logic,” Aristotle. Different
virtues are analyzed here in details vis-à-vis the different vices. The importance of the use
of reason in attaining happiness is emphasized, and it shows that while habits are usually
deemed bad, there is one and the best habit that one could have: the habit of doing
what is good.
Learning Outcomes:
1. trace the development of the concept of Eudaimonia as the highest good;
2. identity which are the virtues among the different vices;
3. determine the possible level of happiness that one can attain, given the end
that one is pursuing;
4. justify why man is considered as the “highest” animal; and
5. apply Aristotle’s “doctrine of the Mean” in different facets of life.
ENGAGE
With the global pandemic, we realize the courage that was shown by our front
liners. They are not only our health workers but also our military men and women, our
garbage collectors, our street sweepers, grocery personnel, drugstore personnel,
and our food vendors and delivery/errand persons, to name a few.
Do you think you have the virtue of courage? If yes, in what way? If no, why?
Page 92 of 138
EXPLORE
MODULE 8 Readings
 Virtue Ethics
Meaning and Origin
The word virtue comes from the Latin root vir, for man. At first, virtue meant
manliness or valor, being parallel to the old expression “man of character”, but over time
it settled into the sense of moral excellence. Virtue can also mean excellence in general
while it can be construed also as the quality of being morally good. Virtue ethics is
classified as a teleological ethical principle. Teleological or teleology comes from the key
Greek word, telos, meaning an end or purpose proper to one’s nature. In other words,
attaining virtue is the telos or purpose proper to human nature, e.g. virtue is knowledge in
Socrates, and virtue of character and intellectual virtue in Aristotle.
Socrates, as represented in Plato's early dialogues, held that virtue is a sort of

knowledge (the knowledge of good and evil) that is required to reach the ultimate
good, or eudaimonia, which is what all human desires and actions aim to achieve.
Discussion of what were known as the Four Cardinal Virtues (prudence, justice, fortitude
and temperance) can be found in Plato's "Republic". He also claimed that the rational
part of the soul or mind must govern the spirited, emotional and appetitive parts in order
to lead all desires and actions to eudaimonia, the principal constituent of which is virtue.
The concept reached its highest elevation in Aristotle's "Nicomachean Ethics" in

the 4th Century B.C.E. Aristotle held that eudaimonia is constituted, not by honor, wealth
or power, but by rational activity in accordance with virtue over a complete life, what
might be described today as productive self-actualization. This rational activity, he
judged, should manifest as honesty, pride, friendliness, wittiness, rationality in judgment;
mutually beneficial friendships and scientific knowledge.
The Greek idea of the virtues was later incorporated into Scholastic Christian moral
theology, particularly by St. Thomas Aquinas in his "Summa Theologiae" of 1274 and his
"Commentaries on the Nicomachean Ethics". The Christian virtues were also based in
large part on the Seven Virtues from Aurelius Clemens Prudentius's epic poem (410 A.D.):
chastity, temperance, charity, diligence, kindness, patience and humility. Practice of
these virtues was alleged to protect one against temptation from the Seven Deadly Sins
(lust, gluttony, greed, sloth, wrath, envy and pride).
The term "virtue ethics" is a relatively recent one, essentially coined during the 20th
Century revival of the theory, and it originally defined itself by calling for a change from
the then dominant normative theories of Deontology (e.g. Immanuel Kant with
Categorical Imperatives) and Consequentialism (e.g. Jeremy Bentham on Utilitarianism).
Page 93 of 138
To illustrate the difference among three key moral philosophies mentioned above,
ethicists Mark White and Robert Arp refer to the film The Dark Knight where Batman has
the opportunity to kill the Joker. Utilitarians, White and Arp suggest, would endorse killing
the Joker. By taking this one life, Batman could save multitudes. Deontologists, on the
other hand, would reject killing the Joker simply because it’s wrong to kill. But a virtue
ethicist “would highlight the character of the person who kills the Joker. Does Batman
want to be the kind of person who takes his enemies’ lives?” No, in fact, he doesn’t.
So, virtue ethics helps us understand what it means to be a virtuous human being.
And, it gives us a guide for living life without giving us specific rules for resolving ethical
dilemmas.
Character Building For A Good Life
Imagine a person who always knows what to say, can diffuse a tense situation,
deliver tough news gracefully, confident without being arrogant, courageous but not
reckless, generous but never prodigal. This is the type of person everybody wants to be
around with and to be like, someone who seems to have mastered the art of being a
person. This sounds like an impossible feat but Aristotle believed that while rare, these
people do exist. They are all what we should aspire to be: virtuous!
Virtue theory does not spend a lot of time telling you what to do, there is no
categorical imperative or principles utility, and no set of rules to follow in order to be a
good person, instead it’s all about an individual’s character. Aristotle and other virtue
theorists argued that if we can just focus on being good people, the right actions
naturally follow, and effortlessly; become a good person and you will do good things.
The theory reflects the ancient assumption that humans do have a fixed nature or
essence and that the way we flourish is by adhering to that nature. Aristotle describe this
in terms of what he called proper functioning; everything has a function and a thing is
good to the extent that it fulfills its function and it is bad if it does not. This is easy to see in
the things around us like a chair whose function is to be sat upon for comfort and
convenience; a flower is expected to grow and reproduce and if it does not fulfill its
function then it is a bad flower. The same is true for humans, while we are also animals, all
the stuff that indicate proper functioning for an animal holds true for us as well- we need
to grow, be healthy and fertile. We are also a rational animal, and social animal, so our
function also involves using reason and getting along with our own species. Proper
functioning is not all about God’s plan but that nature built into us that desire to be
virtuous.
What does it mean to be virtuous? To claim that having virtue just means doing
the right thing, at the right time, in the right way, in the right amount and to the right
person is vague. For Aristotle, there is no need to be specific, because if you are virtuous,
you know just what to do. You know how to handle yourself and how to get along with
others; you have a good judgement and you know what and when it is right. Aristotle
understood virtue as a set of robust character traits that once developed, will lead to
Page 94 of 138
predictably good behavior. Virtue is the midpoint between two extremes, which are
called vices; it is the right amount, the sweet spot between the extreme of excess and
the extreme of deficiency, and this spot is known as the Golden Mean; it is also referred
to by some scholars as the Theory of Moderation, or Theory of the Middle. To
demonstrate the theory let’s take a look at some particular virtues starting with courage.
What is courage? Take a closer look at this situation: while on your way home you
see a person being mugged, what is the courageous action for you to take? Your
immediate reaction might be the in line with the acclaimed idea that “a courageous
person would run over there and stop the mugging because courage means putting
yourself in a harm’s way for a good cause”. A virtuous person in the Aristotelian sense
would first take a stock of the situation, size up the mugger and have a good reason to
believe that you could safely intervene, and that is probably the courageous choice. So
if you assessed the situation and you recognized that intervention is like to mean that
both you and the victim are in danger, the courageous thing to do is not to intervene
and call for help instead. According to Aristotle, courage is the midpoint between the
extremes of cowardice and recklessness – cowardice is the deficiency of courage while
recklessness is an excess of courage, and both are bad. Aristotle said that “you definitely
can have too much of a good thing”, so being courageous doesn’t mean rushing
headlong into danger, but rather “a courageous person will assess the situation, they will
know their own abilities, and they will take the right action in the particular situation”.
Furthermore, part of having courage is being able to recognize when, rather than
stepping in immediately, you need to find authority who can handle the situation that is
too big for you to tackle alone. Basically, courage is finding the right way to act. Aristotle
thought all virtues work like this: the right action is always a midpoint between two
extremes so there is no “all or nothing” in this theory including honesty. Accordingly,
honesty is the midpoint between the extremes of brutal honesty and failing to say things
that need to be said – it is knowing what needs to be put out there and what you should
keep quiet about. It also means knowing how to deliver hard truths gracefully, how to
break bad news gently, or to offer criticism in a way that it is constructive, rather that
soul-crushing.
To determine the midpoint of every action can become tedious, not to mention
the fact that the midpoint could vary from person to person as well as from one situation
to the other. How then can we possibly learn to be virtuous? According to Aristotle, virtue
is a skill, a way of living, and it is something that can only really be learned through
experience. Virtue is a kind of knowledge he called practical wisdom, or phronesis. It is
something that one can learn practically in the streets or while performing those multiple
concerns or chores in life like cooking, attending classes or even reading a book. A
character is developed through habituation - if you do a virtuous thing over and over
again, eventually it will become part of your character. Furthermore, learning to do the
right thing comes by way of finding those who are, in a way, already virtuous and
emulating them. These people who already possess virtues are called moral exemplars,
and according to this theory, we are built with the ability to recognize them and with the
desire to emulate them, so you learn virtue by watching it and then doing it. In the
beginning it would be hard or you may feel phony because you are just copying
Page 95 of 138
someone who is better than you of being a good person. But over time these actions will
become an ingrained part of your character and eventually it becomes that robust trait
that Aristotle is talking about. It will just manifest every time you need it, that’s when know
you have virtue and before you realize it, becomes effortless.
Why do we need to build our character, apply practical wisdom and emulate
moral exemplars? What motivates us to become the ‘good person’ that we can be?
Virtue theory evokes that we should become virtuous because if we are then we can
attain the pinnacle of humanity. It allows us to attain what is known as eudaimonia, a
Greek word which would mean “a life well lived” or “a good life”, while it can also mean
“human flourishing”. A life of eudaimonia is a life of striving. It’s a life of pushing oneself to
the limit and finding success. A eudaimonistic life is full of the happiness that comes from
achieving something really difficult, rather than just having it handed to you. But
choosing to live a eudaimonistic life means that you are never done improving,
constantly setting
goals and working to develop new ways to achieve them. Choosing to live life in this way
also means you’ll face disappointments and failures. Eudaimonia does not mean a life of
cupcakes and rainbows, it does mean rather the good feeling of sinking into your bed
after an absolutely exhausting day in school or office – it is the satisfaction of knowing
that you accomplished a lot and then you pushed yourself to be the very best person
that you could be.
Summary
Virtue ethics is the quest to understand and live a life of moral character. This character-
based approach to morality assumes that we acquire virtue through practice: honing our
strengths while working on our weaknesses. By practicing being honest, brave, just,
generous, and so on, a person develops an honorable and moral character. According
to Aristotle, by honing virtuous habits, people will likely make the right choice when faced
with ethical challenges.
(*** Lecture of Mr. Raul Leandro Villanueva)
 Virtue Ethics
Virtue ethics is regarded with the theories of Self-Realization. Theories of self- realization
represent the moral reflections of the ancient people more than two millennia years ago.
The common denominator of these theories is the idea that the moral good of the
individual consists in the development of one’s potentialities as perfectly as possible, and
thus fulfilling and realizing one’s nature. This fulfillment is achieved by actualizing man’s
possibilities, considering all important elements of human nature and including the inherent
social character of the human person. Virtue ethics considers that moral life should be
concerned with cultivating a virtuous character rather than following rules of actions. In
virtue ethics, a moral person is someone who displays the character traits of honesty,
courage, and integrity.
Page 96 of 138
Virtue ethics was introduced by Socrates in his ‘know-thyself ‘principle which is a lifetime
project inculcating self-questioning, self-reflection and self-assessment. This process of self-
knowing implies that a person cannot cheat himself/herself since for Socrates, ‘an
unexamined life is not worth living.’ In life, one has to be wise by being prudent, temperate,
courageous and just. Wisdom sums up everything that a person does. Plato’s moral
philosophy (429 – 347 B.C.) introduced the view that things that exist on this earth are
merely imperfect copies or reflections of the ideal world. Ideas are perfect, eternal,
immutable and universal. Things we perceive through our senses in space and time are
but the temporary manifestations of the ideal, which is one, indivisible, timeless and space-
less. Thus, human dignity, integrity and virtues continue to live even if the person already
dies. In another sense, Platonic morality implies that ‘you cannot put a good man down.’
Virtues are unseen and indefinable yet they are important, valuable and essential. So,
we are to strive to attain completeness of the Good, Beauty and Truth, and yet, we can
never complete them absolutely.
Known as father of idealism, Plato grounded his ethical thought where morality
consists essentially in the constant imitation of the Good, the highest of all ideas. To be
moral, a human person ought to know the Good, to follow or do the Good, and ultimately
to possess the Good. In his allegory of the cave, the world is an imperfect copy of the ideal
world; thus, ideas are eternal, immortal and perfect and ignorance is the only evil (absence
of good). For this reason, one must educate oneself through virtues that are eternal,
immutable or immeasurable – good, beauty and truth.
1. Aristotle (384 – 322 B.C.)

Unlike his teacher Plato, Aristotle believes that the world that we perceive is the real
world. Human nature is as it actually is and not simply a copy or manifestation of the idea,
e.g., man. Man is a composite of body and soul, mind and matter, senses and intellect.
Man is, therefore, a rational being. While man has a nature in common with the other
animals, he is, however, above all of them because of his reason. As such, man strives
towards an end or goal in view. This is the Good. But what is the Good that man seeks? To
Aristotle, it is happiness. But what is man’s true happiness? To answer this question, we must
understand what man’s true end is. What is the proper function or purpose of man?
If man is rational then the proper function of man is the act of reason. For Aristotle,
the end or function of man could only be the activity of reason brought to its fullest extent,
namely, the moral virtues viewed within the framework of a communal life of the “polis”
and the “act of contemplation.” Moral virtue is following the rule of moderation: taking the
middle between two extremes, excess and deficiency. Overeating as well as eating too
little is bad; eating moderately is good. To drink much alcohol results to hang-over while
not drinking alcohol can result to making the body imbalanced. To experience real
happiness, one needs to drink moderately.
To Aristotle, the act of contemplation is the best and most perfect virtue.
Contemplation is to engage in the highest, most perfect type of reflection, whereby
Page 97 of 138
man can commune with the divine and eternal truths. It is the fulfilment of the
highest potential of man as a rational being. The twin ends of moral virtues and act
of contemplation enable man to attain happiness. Happiness or “eudaimonia” is
the result of virtuous living, the proper exercise of reason in all of man’s action and
endeavors.
It is truly important for persons to live as humans, thus must practice virtues such as
righteousness, honesty, integrity, moderation, goodness, truth and sincerity. On the other
hand, the possible counterargument is that virtue ethics is not always the best to resolve
ethical dilemmas. Issues are not resolved by being good alone nor being righteous alone.
Terms in Aristotelian Ethics
Akrasia - Usually translated as “incontinence,” this term connotes a lack of self-control.

A person exhibiting akrasia knows what good behavior consists of but lacks the self-control
not to give in to physical pleasures. The concept of akrasia is significant to Aristotle, as he
generally agrees with the Socratic claim that no one willingly does evil and that all
wrongdoing is a result of ignorance. If the incontinent person acts wrongly in full knowledge
of what is good, this poses a dilemma for Socratic ethics, which Book VII of the Ethics
attempts to answer.
Arete - Usually translated as “virtue,” this important term means something more akin to
“excellence.” For the Greeks, arete can be used to refer not only to a person’s moral or
intellectual virtues, but to any other kind of excellence, be it the fitness of an athlete or
even the sharpness of a knife. Generally speaking, a person, animal, or thing exhibits arete
when it is performing its function properly. That the Greeks use the term arete in their
discussions of ethics implies a strong sense that humans have a function just as knives do,
and that we become good by fulfilling this function.
Doctrine of the Mean - Aristotle’s doctrine, stated most explicitly in Book II, that virtue
is a mean state between the vicious extremes of excess and deficiency. This doctrine is left
necessarily vague, as Aristotle thinks that this mean varies from person to person. Essentially,
it consists of the observation that it is always possible to have too much or too little of a
good thing.
Energeia - This Greek word, which is the root of our word energy, is generally translated
as “activity.” However, it is not necessarily an activity in the sense that we might understand
it. For instance, Aristotle describes both happiness and contemplation as activities. In
calling happiness an energeia, Aristotle contrasts it with virtue, which he considers to be a
hexis, or disposition. That is, the virtues dispose us to behave in the correct manner. Actually
behaving according to the virtues, however, is not itself a virtue but rather the energeia of
happiness.
Page 98 of 138
Ethos - We can see that this term is the root of our word ethics. However, it is more
accurately translated as “character,” which gives us an important insight to understanding
the Ethics. Aristotle is not so much concerned with moralizing as he is with determining what
constitutes an admirable character.
Eudaimonia - Normally translated as “happiness,” eudaimonia also carries

connotations of success and fulfillment. For the Greeks, happiness is not an inner, emotional
state, but the activity, or energeia, of a successful person. The Greeks did not share our
sharp distinction between the public and the private, so for them, happiness is a public
matter that can be evaluated just as accurately by an observer as by the person being
observed.
Hexis - Translated as “disposition,” hexis is the term Aristotle uses to qualify the virtues.
According to Aristotle, virtue is not something one actively does. Rather, virtue is a
disposition to behave in the right way.
Phronesis - Often translated as “prudence,” this term is perhaps better, but more
cumbersomely, translated as “practical wisdom.” Phronesis is an important intellectual
virtue that allows us to reason properly about practical matters. Phronesis consists in no
small part of an appropriate application of the practical syllogism.
Psyche - The root of our word psychology, psyche is generally translated as “soul,”
though it carries none of the spiritual connotations of the Christian use of that word. Psyche
is that unobservable property that distinguishes living things from nonliving things. The
human psyche consists of three major parts: the nutritive part, which it shares with both
plants and animals; the appetitive part, which it shares with only animals; and the rational
part, which is distinctively human.
Telos - This important term can be translated variously as “end,” “goal,” or “purpose” but
specific for the Greeks, telos is the purpose proper to ones nature. According to Aristotle,
we have a telos as humans, which it is our goal to fulfill. This telos is based on our uniquely
human capacity for rational thought. Aristotle’s view of humans having a telos based in
our rationality leads directly to his conclusion in Book X that contemplation is the highest
human good.
Virtues and Vices
SPHERE OF ACTION OF FEELING EXCESS MEAN DEFICIENCY

Fear and Confidence Rashness Courage Cowardice
Pleasure and Pain Licentiousness Temperance Insensibility
Getting and Spending (minor) Prodigality Liberality Illiberality
Getting and Spending (major) Vulgarity Magnificence Pettiness
Page 99 of 138
Honor and Dishonor (minor) Ambition Proper Ambition Unambitiousness

Honor and Dishonor (major) Vanity Magnanimity Pusillanimity
Anger Irascibility Patience Lack of Spirit
Self-expression Boastfulness Truthfulness Understatement
Conversation Buffoonery Wittiness Boorishness
Social Conduct Obsequiousness or Friendliness Cantankerousness
Flattery
Shame Shyness Modesty Shamelessness
Indignation Envy Righteous Malicious
indignation enjoyment
Themes, Ideas & Arguments

Virtue and Happiness
The word happiness in the Ethics is a translation of the Greek term eudaimonia, which
carries connotations of success and fulfillment. For Aristotle, this happiness is our highest
goal. However, Aristotle does not say that we should aim at happiness, but rather that we
do aim at happiness. His goal in the Ethics is not to tell us that we ought to live happy,
successful lives, but to tell us what this life consists of. Most people think of happiness as
physical pleasure or honor, but this is because they have an imperfect view of the good
life.
The conception people have of happiness frequently does not line up with true happiness
because people are generally deficient in virtue. Virtue is a disposition to behave in the
right manner, which is inculcated from a young age. A person with the virtue of courage,
for instance, will not only show confidence in the face of fear, but will think of this courage
as a good thing. Behaving courageously will make the virtuous person happy and will be
one part of living a generally good life. By contrast, a person who has been poorly brought
up and exhibits the vice of cowardice will find happiness in the avoidance of danger and
thus will have an imperfect view of the good life.
Moral Education
A question of high importance in any investigation of ethics is how we can teach people
to be good. Aristotle is quite clear that he does not think virtue can be taught in a
classroom or by means of argument. His Ethics, then, is not designed to make people good,
but rather to explain what is good, why it is good, and how we might set about building
societies and institutions that might inculcate this goodness.
According to Aristotle, virtue is something learned through constant practice that begins
at a young age. We might understand his outlook better if we recognize the meaning of
the word arete, which is rendered as “virtue” in most English translations. This term more
Page 100 of 138
generally means “excellence,” so a good horseman can exhibit arete in horsemanship

without necessarily implying any sort of moral worth in the horseman. It should be obvious
to anyone that excellence in horsemanship cannot be learned simply by reading about
horsemanship and hearing reasoned arguments for how best to handle a horse. Becoming
a good horseman requires steady practice: one learns to handle a horse by spending a
lot of time riding horses.
For Aristotle, there is no essential distinction between the kind of excellence that marks a
good horseman and the kind of excellence that marks a good person generally. Both kinds
of excellence require practice first and theoretical study second, so the teaching of virtue
can be only of secondary importance after the actual practice of it.
The Doctrine of the Mean
One of the most famous aspects of the Ethics is Aristotle’s doctrine that virtue exists as a
mean state between the vicious extremes of excess and deficiency. For example, the
virtuous mean of courage stands between the vices of rashness and cowardice, which
represent excess and deficiency respectively.
For Aristotle, this is not a precise formulation. Saying that courage is a mean between
rashness and cowardice does not mean that courage stands exactly in between these
two extremes, nor does it mean that courage is the same for all people. Aristotle
repeatedly reminds us in the Ethics that there are no general laws or exact formulations in
the practical sciences. Rather, we need to approach matters case by case, informed by
inculcated virtue and a fair dose of practical wisdom.
Aristotle’s claim that virtue can be learned only through constant practice implies that
there are no set rules we can learn and then obey. Instead, virtue consists of learning
through experience what is the mean path, relative to ourselves, between the vices we
may be liable to stumble into.
The Unity of the Virtues
For Aristotle, virtue is an all-or-nothing affair. We cannot pick and choose our virtues: we
cannot decide that we will be courageous and temperate but choose not to be
magnificent. Nor can we call people properly virtuous if they fail to exhibit all of the virtues.
Though Aristotle lists a number of virtues, he sees them all as coming from the same source.
A virtuous person is someone who is naturally disposed to exhibit all the virtues, and a
naturally virtuous disposition exhibits all the virtues equally.
Our word ethics descends from the Greek word ethos, which means more properly
“character.” Aristotle’s concern in the Ethics, then, is what constitutes a good character.
All the virtues spring from a unified character, so no good person can exhibit some virtues
without exhibiting them all.
The Importance of Friendship
Aristotle devotes two of the ten books of the Ethics to discussing friendship in all its forms.
This is hardly a digression from the main line of argument. Happiness, according to Aristotle,
Page 101 of 138
is a public affair, not a private one, so with whom we share this happiness is of great
significance.
The city-states of ancient Greece were tightly knit communities. In the Politics, Aristotle
argues that we cannot fully realize our human nature outside the bounds of a Greek city-
state. The bonds that tie citizens together are so important that it would be unthinkable to
suggest that true happiness can be found in the life of a hermit.
The Life of Contemplation
In Book X, Aristotle ultimately concludes that contemplation is the highest human activity.
This is largely a consequence of his teleological view of nature, according to which the
telos, or goal, of human life is the exercise of our rational powers. In discussing the various
intellectual virtues, Aristotle extols wisdom as the highest, since it deals only with
unchanging, universal truths and rests on a synthesis of scientific investigation and the
intuitive understanding of the first principles of nature. The activity of wisdom is
contemplation, so contemplation must be the highest activity of human life.
EXPLAIN
Watch the Video Talk saved in your OTG flash drive regarding Aristotle’s Ethics.
Watch a summarized presentation of Aristotle and Virtue Theory here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PrvtOWEXDIQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSLsUO6uK4M
ELABORATE
What is happiness? Are virtuous people, such as your hero, happier than vicious people?
Are you happier when you are being virtuous? How does being vicious affect you?
Page 102 of 138
EVALUATE
(1) Final Term Integrated Quiz

(2) Final Term Integrated Assignment
Page 103 of 138
MODULE 9: Ethical Framework: Thomas Aquinas’ Natural Law
Module 9 tackles the moral philosophy of one of the greatest philosopher-theologican in

the middle ages, Saint Thomas Aquinas. In this module, we will trace the influence of
Aristotle in Thomas’ philosophy and point out what is “new” in it. As you come to
understand Saint Thomas’ concepts on morality and his method in knowing what is good,
it is hoped that you will come to appreciate him as one who taught us that divine union
with God is not simply a matter of faith, but also a matter of using the gift of reason.
Learning Outcomes:
1. trace the connections between the Eternal Law and Natural Law;
2. compare and contrast Aristotle and Saint Thomas’ concept of happiness and
goodness;
3. differentiate the cardinal virtues from the theological virtues; and
4. argue for the possibility or impossibility of “synderesis.”
ENGAGE
You know that you are failing in one of your subjects. Is it better to cheat during exam than
to fail in that subject?
Page 104 of 138
EXPLORE
 9. Thomas Aquinas and Natural Law

Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274 AD)
Acclaimed as the greatest theologian of mankind and well known as angelic

doctor, Thomas Aquinas teaches us that moral life is guided by God through our
conscience, known as “the little voice of God” in us. Through our conscience, we are
directed towards happiness which ultimately to attain perfection with God. Through our
conscience, we are naturally called to do good and avoid evil, which he calls synderesis.
This natural tendency to do good and avoid doing wrong is God’s will for man because
God is already present in the life of man. Through wise use of human freedom and
intelligence which is given as gifts of God, man is lead to enjoy the fullness of life by
following an ethical life. This conscience resides in the human heart where God speaks
within a person. Thomas Aquinas believes that every person is given by God an angel to
protect him/her in order to follow God’s will by doing good and avoiding evil; and from
this view, he was given a title “Angelic Doctor” because of his concept of angels guiding
us towards God.
In philosophy which employs the natural powers of human reason alone in its
investigations, Aquinas followed fundamentally the teachings of his great predecessor,
Aristotle, whom he honored with the exclusive title, “The Philosopher”. However, St. Thomas
saw farther and beyond the vision of Aristotle who relied only on the natural powers of
human reason and experience in his search for truth. Like Aristotle, Aquinas proclaimed
that supremacy of reason in man, and maintained that man can know the truth with
certainty by the use of his reason. Yet Aquinas stressed that there are some truths which
cannot be known by human reason alone but can be known only with the aid of the light
of divine revelation. Yet, the two truths, i.e., those known through reason and divine
revelation can never contradict each other, because they emanate from the same
source; God who is TRUTH itself.
To illustrate, let us take up the concept of God by Aristotle. Man can know and
validly prove God’s existence by reasoning, as shown in the conclusions of Aristotle’s
arguments to prove the existence of God. For Aristotle, god is: Prime Mover, First Cause,
Perfect Good, Final Cause and Good of all Things. St. Thomas Aquinas upheld these
arguments as valid and true, and in fact adopted these proofs in his Quinque Viae (Five
Ways) to prove God’s existence. Yet, he saw their limitations: they do not reveal the nature
of God as we know Him from the Bible and Christian Teaching – as a Personal God, our
loving Father, Redeemer and Benefactor to whom we pray. The same limitation in
knowledge is obtained in Aristotle’s philosophy of man, particularly on the ultimate destiny
of man. For instance, while there are hints of the immortality of the soul of man in his writings,
Page 105 of 138
Aristotle never proved the immortality of the soul as this lies beyond the comprehension of
human reason.
Man has the natural inclination to be happy, but more than Aristotle, Thomas
Aquinas adhere that man seeks ultimate happiness in God, the Greatest Good (Summum
Bonum). Thus, faith and reason go together in seeking the truth of God. We can come to
know God through our conscience, the “little voice of God in us.” Obedience to Natural
Law is rational participation in the Eternal Law of God. Humans follow their conscience in
caring for themselves and for their fellow humans. Thus, the nuns, priests and monks may
guard their virginity without going against the Natural Law.
Here are partial lists that virtue ethics that a person can live for (Rachels, 176):
benevolence fairness patience

civility friendliness prudence
compassion generosity reasonableness
conscientiousness honesty self-discipline
cooperativeness industriousness self-reliance
courage justice tactfulness
courteousness loyalty thoughtfulness
dependability moderation tolerance
These character traits foster the development of a human person, fitting for the
person to have. It is always believed that virtues cannot be bought by any means because
they are carried through life, they cannot be bought by money but they can be taught to
children, and through constant practice, they can be learned and developed overtime.
They are inherent in a person. It is noticeable that a person is good by his actions, words,
and ways of doing things, and relating to people.
For Thomas Aquinas, we need to follow the law which is “a rule or body of rules that
tells individuals what they may and may not do.” Nevertheless, man has the gift of reason
and freedom to obey that which is good and just. The law is legislated by those given
authority for the sake of the common good; thus, the law is a human positive law because
it is crafted by the human mind. The human positive law is derived from the eternal law,
which according to Thomas Aquinas, “is God’s decree for the governance of the
universe.” The eternal law, however, is reflective of the natural law, which is a “pattern of
necessary and universal regularity and universal moral imperatives, a description of what
ought to happen in all human relationships.”
For Thomas Aquinas, natural law is the order of nature and like Aristotle, he taught
that the purpose of human life is happiness and that the goodness or badness of an action
would depend on this relation to that purpose. To follow the human nature which is to be
rational, the person should use his/her conscience as “little voice of God” “to do good and
to avoid evil” which he calls synderesis. It is human nature to understand so s/he can
Page 106 of 138
believe (Filipino: Sundin ng tao ang konsensiya o ang kanyang kagandahang-loob para
sa kanyang ikaliligaya na kasama ang Diyos).
As human beings, it is not our nature to go against what nature provides. We do not
need to go against it but be satisfied with what it gives us. It is because “the natural law, in
its universal character, can in no way be blotted out from men’s hearts.” Epictetus has said
it, “Do not seek the good in external things; seek the good in yourselves: if you do not, you
will not find it.”
EXPLAIN
Watch the following short videos for additional knowledge on Saint Thomas’ moral
philosophy:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJvoFf2wCBU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UpVfd6oCF5M
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_UfYY7aWKo
ELABORATE
“Can I still be good or capable of doing what is good even if I do not believe in
God?” Assuming you were Saint Thomas, what would your answer be? Elaborate.
Page 107 of 138
EVALUATE

Page 108 of 138
MODULE 10: Ethics through thick and thin, Globalization and Religion
Module 10 is the last module for this course, GEthics. As a contemporary student of
philosophy, we will be looking at the new challenges to ethics as brought about by
globalization. Likewise, we will venture on the challenges of pluralism and fundamentalism
in our search for universal value. The question on what could possibly be the role of religion
in ethics and its response to the challenges of fillinials, are also considered in this module.
Learning Outcomes:

1. explain the main characteristics of globalization, pluralism, and fundamentalism;
2. enumerate the challenges posed by pluralism and fundamentalism in our quest
for universal value; and
3. assess the significance of religion and ethics as a course in our search for
meaning in the chaotic global world.
ENGAGE
Cite one specific problem associated with globalization that is greatly affecting you
right now and then reflect on how you should or could cope with it using any of the
ethical principles presented in the earlier modules.
Page 109 of 138
EXPLORE
MODULE 10 Readings
 Challenges in Global Ethics by N. Ramanuja

Challenges of pluralism and fundamentalism: search for universal value
We believe, the global ethics emanates from the Individual to the family, the society,
community, country and the world. All the transactional events like business are a part of
the Samyak or total concept of global ethics. There is a beautiful sloka on human
interaction in Mahābhārata’s Shānti-Parva 167:9 where Vidura tells Yudhisthira:
By self-control and by making dharma (right conduct) your main focus, treat others as
you treat yourself. This thought is reflected again in Bible Luke 6:31 “Do for other people
everything you want them to do for you. Treat others the same way you want them to
treat you”.
The need
In my opinion this maxim ‘Do not do unto others what you do not want others to do unto
you’ forms the basis for emergence of ethics. According to Prof. Richard T De George,
University Distinguished Professor of Philosophy at the University of Kansas, “the focus of
ethics discussion has moved from theological and religious matters to ecological issues,
social problems and more recently social responsibility and business ethics”.
Chanakya in the chapter 7 of Chanakya Niti says so of profits in business:
one must be satisfied with whatever he has as wife, wealth, and income. Still, one must
never get satisfied with the knowledge and acts of charity.
Earlier, businessmen feared that any ethical conduct or adopting of moral philosophies
would lead to sacrifice of efficiency and productivity; and the competitiveness in the
market place would fade away. Lately, this misconception about the business ethics has
changed, as businesses believe that being ethical and moral would provide loyal
customers and greater acceptance in the society. Today, more and more businesses are
accepting ‘business ethics’ as a part of business conduct.
Cast doubt on many things that we believed or knew until now. We have read that
eminent philosophers like Milton Friedman were of the view that the aim of the business is
to earn profits by utilizing the resources and engaging in open and free competition,
without deception or fraud. But does this happen?
This process generates uncertainty, imbalances and conflicts both socially (by
confronting sectors which
Page 110 of 138
adopt different attitudes and views regarding change) and personally. And this worry
has been exacerbated by the economic and financial crisis which, among other global
problems, has revealed ethical deficiencies in the actions of many institutions, and has
again placed values at the forefront of people’s demands, as a guide for dealing with
uncertainty and as a factor of stability in facing up to the crises and conflict. There is a
need shared values and ethics; they are vital for the proper functioning of the economic,
political and social network and, therefore, for the well-being and development of the
potential of every world citizen.
Challenges of ethics in a Globalised World

The advancement of technology dissolved international boundaries and opened the
cultures to a whole new arena, enabling globalization of businesses. Globalization,
ushered in during the decade of 1990s,is an empowering entity. It interconnects the
world, supports economic development, provides information availability and has been
a catalyst in emergence of a ‘Global Village’ or ‘Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam’ spelt out by
our ancient sages.
Globalization, brought in new ideas about the business and also

ethics with the widening of the consumers and the supply chain.
But globalisation, brings forth a multiplicity of new queries for the
management, for which it had to provide an ethical response.
Although businesses increasingly are becoming global,
businessmen began to realise that it was certainly not more
uniform across the markets.
Global ethics as a foundation for businesses in their world-wide

operations began to emerge. however, the case “how to transact ethically?” is not as
clear, as it is desired, when various cultures and different levels of economic
development of countries are being experienced with.
Globalisation as we see has brought in many ethical issues like
• Exploitation of workers
• Outsourced from countries which have no strong labour laws and also indulge in
unhealthy labour practices including child labour
• Exploitation of Tax Loopholes
• Indulging in unethical financial processes
• Dumping toxins
• Unnecessary medical procedures.
In view of this, defining global ethics does become a challenge as this aspect has to be
dealt considering various aspects like:
1.Technological imbalances
Scientific and technological progress is probably the phenomenon that is most decisively
shaping our age. But together with the enormous opportunities of this scientific and
technological revolution that we are experiencing, a large number of new and difficult
Page 111 of 138
ethical questions is emerging. Here we have remember Elvin Stakman’s famous maxim:
“Science cannot wait until ethics catches up with it, and nobody should expect scientists
to think of everything for everybody.” This however is not totally valid. We need a more
constructive approach, along the lines of that of Heinz Pagels: “Science cannot resolve
moral conflicts but it can help to better formulate the debates on conflicts.”
Technology has contributed to the rise in inequality, but there are also some significant
ways in which technology could reduce this inequality. But the adaptation to the
computer technology which India witnessed in the decade of 1990s and 2000s and later
has proved that it is possible to cope up with proper foresight in adapting newer
technologies and keeping in pace the technology paradigms by incorporating
appropriate technology in the education system. But the ethical paradox is – are new
technologies making local industries obsolete and people lose out on jobs?
2. Cultural differentiations existing in different countries

Due to the unprecedented access to cultures, a much wider audience than ever before
has a gateway to see, hear and experience phenomena that were never accessible
earlier. Misrepresentation, stereotyping and the risk of loss of cultural and intellectual
property rights are the consequences of unmonitored access.
There are a number of negative impacts globalization has had on cultural diversity,
including the influence multinational corporations have on promoting a consumer
culture, exploitation of workers and markets and influencing societal values. This
increased availability of commercial media and products can "drown out" local cultural
influences. It is also that e-learning technologies perpetuates colonization by designing
curriculum that is based on the dominant culture. Not having access to technologies
that are present in the classroom, combined with an education system geared toward
the dominant society can be a lethal combination for non-dominant cultures. The
present education, legal and power structures reflect western ideas and philosophies.
Loss of individualism and group identity occur when globalization encourages a 'Western
ideal of individualism'. We have seen many instances of the negative influences on
culture in our country also.
But, this also has a positive side. Technology provides a medium where depiction of images
and thoughts can provide the means in which truism can be established. Global media
centres allow cultures a distinctive voice to promote awareness and provide public
knowledge and understanding of their stories and identities. It also allows for the
communication on issues that are important in preserving the culture and knowledge
acquisition of cultural ways - allowing them to retain their diversity.Technology can be
used to preserve language, customs and culture. Technology allows for self-
representation and preservation of personal and collective identity by providing
autonomy and empowerment
Page 112 of 138
3. Socio-economic considerations-Ethics to assist the community

Here I am reminded of the famous ‘Parable of the Sadhu’ which received the Harvard
Business Review’s Ethics Prize in 1983. Mr. Bowen McCoy, Managing Director of the
Morgan Stanley Company, relates his experience in the distant mountain of Nepal to the
short and long-term goals of American business. Here the trekkers were left with
unexpected ethical dilemma left them questioning their values--and the values of
business, which often places goal achievement ahead of other considerations such
issues on poverty.
Prof. Peter Albert David Singer, an Australian moral philosopher and Professor of Bioethics
at Princeton University, and the University of Melbourne, presents a brilliant survey of the
ethical problems of globalization and focuses on ethical issues concerning the reduction
of extreme poverty. He examines the reasons why developed countries and their people
should contribute more for this purpose and argues that the elimination of poverty is a
common benefit in which ethical requirements and the interests of the people of the
developed countries converge. But in reality is this happening? We are seeing ideas of
environmental pollution which would hinder progress in the developing countries being
thrust on them by the developed world. We see a very clear divide between the
developed and developing countries. As we notice, this calls for proper policies to be
put in place poverty alleviation initiatives, keeping pace with the technical paradigms.
Source: Milanovich D, Economist,

World Bank Research Department
If it is in our power to prevent something any adverse happening, without sacrificing
anything of comparable moral significance, we ought to do it. This action seems non-
controversial.
4. Education standards
Migration plays a very important role in the global society. Due to increasing poverty in the
developing countries and lack of opportunities, the migration of educated people to
developed countries has seen an increase. There are various opportunities provided by
the developed countries, which at times tend to be dangerous as well.
Page 113 of 138
Comparison of Migration of Indian Temporary

Workers and Students in USA, Australia & Canada
Source: Immigration reports of respective countries
Source: U S Census Bureau, Population Division

2000 to 2013 Single Year American Community
While education standards have gone up in the developing countries, to fill the gaps in
the developed world, the expenditure on providing higher education means higher
allocation of funds in the developing country. Governments of developing countries
need to take up this as a challenge and come out with strategies like Make in India to
retain talent.
There is also a positive side to this. We have seen many American/European universities
coming to India to establish collaborative institutions.
5. Religious beliefs
Indian sages during the time of Rigveda recognised the plurality in thought globally and
came out with the concept of
Aa no Bhadrah Kratavo yantu Vishvatah
Let knowledge come to us from all sides and
The Truth is one, the
Page 114 of 138
learned perceive differently’. Globalization has now brought in a culture of pluralism,

meaning religions “with overlapping but distinctive ethics and interests” interact with one
another. Essentially, most of the world’s leading religious traditions—teach values such
as human dignity, equality, freedom, peace, and solidarity. Therefore, through such
religious values, globalization engenders greater religious tolerance in such areas as
politics, economics, and society.
Today, secularism and multiculturalism are converging. Putting somewhat less

enigmatically, the issues about the proper regime are becoming and more and more
interwoven with issues about the proper ways to deal with the growing diversity of these
societies. The main point of a secularist regime is to manage the religious and
metaphysical philosophical diversity of views fairly and democratically. This is a tough
issue in developing countries where religion plays a very important role in the societal
thinking. Despite these advantages, the resistance to the new paradigms in developing
countries pose challenges, especially where religion has an overpowering influence on
the society. There is also a fear that globalisation undermines the concept of nationalism,
with dominant migrant population.
6. Business considerations–Strategic Planning

Business is primarily a form of social cooperation— it is about people from various societies
working together to create value that no one of us could create on our own. It is about
creating chairs that allow the body to rest, vehicles and networks that enable us to travel
and communicate over great distances, a range of products and services as broad as
the human imagination. Keeping sustainability in mind, the Companies need to limit its
strategic initiatives to those meeting needs of consumers without depleting resources
needed by future generations. The view that “the business of business is business, not
ethics” is no longer acceptable. The companies need to change to a culture that
places profits and good performance ahead of ethical behaviour. It is ethically
dangerous for company personnel to assume that local ethical standards are an
adequate guide to ethical behaviour globally.
Right or wrong?
In the guidelines for businesses decision-makers, but there are still many “grey areas” not
covered by laws and regulations. Some organizations develop ethical guidelines for their
members. Here ethics involve standards about what is “right” and “wrong”. However, in a
global setting it is not as easy, as it seems, to decide what is right and what is wrong.
Actually, it is the social responsibility of a firm in the target market, which comes into debate
in this context.
Present Ethical Education

Business ethics being taught in Universities provides perspectives to students, in the sense,
how ethical practices would help in creating and running businesses without resorting to
fudging of accounts, balance sheet or numbers. Case studies of the firms which run their
businesses ethically, the struggles that they go through to get Government approvals,
Page 115 of 138
delays caused in approvals for not paying bribes etc., would provide the students a
deeper insight into how to navigate through the pitfalls and how to run a business in a
sustainable and socially responsible manner. On the other hand, case studies of business
houses which resorted to unethical practices would provide them a picture of how such
firms climbed to unbelievable heights within a short period and a steep decline, as soon
as the outcomes of unethical practices get exposed. Once this exposure is given to the
students, it is ultimately left to the students to follow ethical or unethical practices. Swaying
from ethical to unethical or partially ethical or partially unethical is a result of not only
dedicated ethics class/ or embedded ethics teaching, but also by comparing their peers
or seniors, how they are climbing the career path and through what means. Whether fast
growth path or slow but fairly consistent and acceptable growth path - the choice is left
to them.
Scams and Crises

In an age of corporate scams, swindles and general malpractices – from the Enron,
Lehman Brothers’ case to that of the Reebok franchise in India which has been
charged with a multi-crore misappropriation of goods and funds – ethical business
practices might at first sound like an oxymoron, a contradiction in terms. Across the
world there is growing skepticism about big business – particularly trans-national big
business – and the way it operates, supposedly with the bottom line of profit being it’s
only moral lodestar and its sole ethical imperative. Scams and crises are not new. In
the Sanskrit there is a saying
“VYAPARAM DROHA CHINTANAM” means Business is all about Cheating? Even our
ancestors were of the aware that the businesses could also be means of unethical conduct
and its only purport is to make profit and oneself rich! In the recent times, the business
arena, generally had a more positive view of commerce. But two waves of scandals—
Enron in 2001 and the global financial crisis in 2008, followed by many scams around the
world— have decimated such a trust universally. As a result, globally, people are more
ambivalent about business than they were in the 1990s, and many students entering
business school today are eager to revive the focus on virtue. An interesting feature is that
a survey by the Aspen Institute showed an increase between 2002 and 2007 in MBA
students’ desires to have their careers make a contribution to society. The survey also found
a decline in the belief that a company's primary responsibility is to maximize shareholder
value.
There are three main reasons why ethics has to play a key role in business:
• It is crucial that ethics have a considerable influence if we want an efficient, smoothly
operating economy. Ethics helps the market to its best.
• The government and the legal system cannot resolve certain key problems of business
and protect the society while ethics can. Ethics can only resolve futuristic issues. That
company’s social responsibility should extend beyond what the regulations require.
Page 116 of 138
• Ethical activity is value in itself, for its own sake, because it enhances the quality of lives
and the work we do.
The issue of teaching ethics is an old one. Almost 2500 years ago, the philosopher Socrates
debated the question with his fellow Athenians and his position was clear: Ethics consists
of knowing what we ought to do, and such knowledge can be taught. Most psychologists
today would agree with Socrates. Studies indicate that a person's behaviour is influenced
by his or her moral perception and moral judgments. It is in the light this that the Corporate
Boards need to spend more time on the reporting of non-financial issues such a strategic
performance drivers, value to customer, quality improvement rates, stakeholder concerns,
corporate culture measurement and environmental issues.
Ethical leadership
Leaders who lead ethically are role models, communicating the importance of ethical
standards, holding their employees accountable to those standards, and -- crucially --
designing environments in which others work and live. Moral leadership in a company is of
critical importance, especially in this century society where government regulations, the
public and consumer watch groups demand it and widespread media reacts to a
company that fails to deliver on it. Small businesses must pay special attention to
maintaining moral expectations of communities they serve, making moral leadership and
guidance key.
In my experience as CEO of a large public sector with global operations I have seen that
ethical leadership can cause a host of positive outcomes, and to reduce the risk of many
negative outcomes. Leadership is indeed the most important lever in an ethical system
designed to support ethical conduct.
Conclusion
According to Professor Thomas Piper, one of the architects of the business ethics program
at Harvard, “Our emphasis is on a three-lens model: an economic imperative; a
legal/regulatory imperative that connects to public policy concerns; and an ethical
imperative. We believe that each lens is very important; no one lens is sufficient.” This
approach depends upon healthy collaboration among faculty trained in a variety of
disciplines: law, ethics, marketing, organizational behavior, economics, strategy, and
general management.
The real journey begins when we actively engage, as live issues, the concepts of various
markets, economic models, human nature and environment, that are foundational to
prevailing beliefs about business. And for those who teach business ethics, it begins when
we stop fighting for legitimacy and start conducting business in positive ways, that our
knowledge empowers us to do.
I would like to conclude with this mantra of Isavasya Upanishad which highlights the need
for ushering in ethics and sustainability on this planet.
Page 117 of 138
This entire universe is pervaded by God, for the reason that it is dependent upon primordial
nature, which in its turn is also pervaded by Him. Enjoy whatever is given to you by Him, and
do not seek wealth from any other source.
References:
1.THE GLOBALIZATION AND GLOBAL ETHICS: THE CASE OF LESS DEVELOPED COUNTRIES
Dr. ÖZNUR YÜKSEL Professor, Dean and GUVEN MURAT Associate Professor Dr., Vice
Dean Zonguldak Karaelmas University, Faculty of Caycuma Economics and
Administrative Sciences, Zonguldak, Turkey.
2. https://www.bbvaopenmind.com/wp-content/ uploads/2013/02/Ethics-in-Business-
and-Finance_ the-Great-Post-Crisis-Challenge_FranciscoGonz%C3%A1lez.pdf
3. http://docslide.us/documents/be-and-csr.html
4. http://www.colorado.edu/studentgroups/libertarians/ issues/friedman-soc-resp-
business.html; The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits; by Milton
Friedman.
5. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_divide
6. http://www.e-ir.info/2014/07/16/religion-andglobalization-new-possibilities-
furthering-challenges/, Religion and Globalization: New Possibilities, Furthering
Challenges, Daniel Golebiewski, July 16, 2014
7. h t t p s : / / w w w . b b v a o p e n m i n d . c o m / w p
content/uploads/2013/02/Secularism-and-
Multiculturalism%C2%AC_Charles-Taylor2.pdf
8. http://www.slideshare.net/rupaleeslideshare/ ethics-12132965
9. Teaching business ethics in Universities - is it a waste of time? Theodora Issa Curtin
University in research gate.
10. Can you teach businessmen to be ethical? By Jonathan Haidt January 13, 2014 in
The washington Post.
11. Indian Philosophy and Business Ethics: A Review Chandrani Chattopadhyay.
12. Advances in Management & Applied Economics Journal, Vol.2, No.3, 2012, 111-123
Scienpress Ltd., 2012.
13. http://ethicalsystems.org/content/leadership
14. http://www.changemag.org/archives/back%20issues/november-
december%202009/full-teaching-businessethics.html Teaching Business Ethics in the
Age of Madoff; by R. Edward Freeman, Lisa Stewart, and Brian Moriarty
Page 118 of 138
 20 Globalization and Ethics for the Future by Kazuisa FUJIMOTO

Abstract
This article approaches the notion of developing an ethics for the age of
globalization. Developing such an ethics necessitates revisiting the premises of
traditional ethics, which include three presuppositions: (1) Presentism, (2)
Anthropocentrism, and (3) Individualism (voluntarism). The ethical subject is restricted
to the agents and themes that appear in the present time and space, leading to the
position of human being as a privileged actor in ethics as well as to Individualism
(voluntarism). These traditional ethical paradigms were established at an epoch
when the power of technology was relatively small, and in today’s globalized world,
these paradigms must be redefined. We need to extend the range of ethics
according to the extension of the politico-market system and technology, taking into
account all absent agents and factors. This new approach requires the expansion of
the three ethical presuppositions: (1) from Presentism to Futurism, (2) from the
restrictive consideration for humanity to a general consideration for all lives or all
beings, and (3) from the individual subject to a collective subject in terms of
responsibility. Above all, it is imperative to take into consideration the temporal
dimension, the future generations of the world that are not yet present, and those
generations that may even never be present. Such an ethics, which calculates the
incalculable, has to leave open the possibility of becoming for the world, in the
world, and the very possibility of the world. True “globalization” consists of such a
“worldization,” that is, the movement, formation, or becoming of the world to come.
In order to allow this “wordlization” to fit into our ethical framework, we must also
expand the concept of “globalization,” redefining it as not simply a political,
economic movement but a movement of “englobing” all beings and all lives,
including future generations. Such an ethical globalization will be a globalization of
hope.
Globalization and Ethics
It has been a long time since globalization first provoked violent changes in the diverse
fields of politics, economy, society, and culture. This stream, principally derived from
economic globalization (the expansion of a capitalist economy and the formation of a
global market), has brought about a huge increase in the cross-border flows of peoples,
goods, materials, and information by lowering many of the barriers between nations.
Needless to say, we should not overlook in this context the role of the worldwide
information network (that is, information and media globalization).
From a philosophical viewpoint, this sort of globalization in the market, transportation,

information, etc., consists in a departure from the material, the physical, and the natural,
Page 119 of 138
such as land, ground, soil, territory, region, country, history, community, restricted society,
traditional culture, race, blood, origin, etc. There is, thus, “deindustrialization” (a drift to
post-secondary industry) and a structural shift to tertiary industries (the service industry)
and the information industry in economically advanced countries, and at the same time,
an “international division of labor” that imposes primary and secondary industries on
“developing countries.” In this new global regime, the relocation of material production
to the “Third World” gives rise in advanced countries to the illusion of emancipation from
material constraints, an illusion confirmed by advanced information technologies and the
“media” (the media technology or media industry) that pervades our everyday life.
It goes without saying that this globalization necessitates a great change (“Reform,”
“Renovation”) in political, economic, legal, and cultural systems, but this necessity also
extends to the fields of philosophy and thought. In particular, ethics needs to be
reconsidered entirely in what is a genuinely convulsive situation that overturns the
traditional ways of thinking and value systems. Ethics has a mission to think about such
issues as good and evil and how to lead a good life in order to point us in the right
direction. It is urgent that we reconstruct ethics, unless we want to throw it away as
obsolete and ineffectual. However, all of the traditional and established ethical systems
in human history have presuppositions that are absolutely incapable of coping with the
new circumstances presented by globalization. This premise is what we could call
Presentism. Without “deconstructing” this Presentism, there will be no possibility of
reconstructing an ethics for the future.
Presentism
What does it mean to say that previous ethics have been molded out of Presentism? We
refer here to a text of Hans Jonas. In his work The Imperative of Responsibility, he points
out that traditional ethics has been based on “simultaneousness,” “directness,” and
“reciprocality.” In traditional ethics, “the range of human action and therefore
responsibility was narrowly circumscribed.”⑴
All enjoinders and maxims of traditional ethics, materially different as they may be,
show this confinement to the immediate setting of the action. “Love thy neighbor as
thyself”; “Do unto others as you would wish them to do unto you”; “Instruct your child
in the way of truth”; “Strive for excellence by developing and actualizing the best
potentialities of your being qua man”; “Subordinate your individual good to the
common good”; “Never treat your fellow man as a means only but always also as an
end in himself”̶and so on. Note that in all these maxims the agent and the “other” of
his action are sharers of a common present. It is those who are alive now and in some
relationship with me who have a claim on my conduct as it affects them by deed or
omission. The ethical universe is composed of contemporaries, and its horizon to the
future is confined by the foreseeable span of their lives. Similarly confined is its horizon
of place, within which the agent and the other meet as neighbor, friend, or foe, as
superior and subordinate, weaker and stronger, and in all the other roles in which
Page 120 of 138
humans interact with one another. To this proximate range of action all morality was
geared.⑵
It means that previous ethics have been focused only on presence in the spatio-temporal
sense of the word. Traditional ethics is restricted to subjects as well as objects in the range
of presence, modeled after a face-to-face and contemporary relationship: this is an
ethics for and among present beings who exist in the here and now, whether this being is
subject or object. In short, this is an ethics of what is countable, an ethics of countability.
Of course, it is natural that we should look after or respect those beings who are present
before us as ethical subjects, or within the reach of our actions and influences. This is an
important ethical truth as valid today as ever. However, the conditions of globalization,
with its advanced technologies, demolish this premise of the ethics of presence. The
global market and its transport and information networks reduce distances, removing
peoples and products from their native places and origins in order to circulate goods,
materials, resources, knowledge, ideas, and information. Hence the juxtaposition and
mixture of foreign objects/subjects. In a world that is connected by highly developed
transport and information systems, all heterogeneous, distant, absent beings have the
potential to become neighbors, a part of the “global village” constructed by this
ubiquitous network. Thus, it becomes possible for one individual’s small actions to have a
significant effect for someone else living on the other side of the globe. This has
environmental consequences, for it also means that industrial activities can have a
tremendous effect far beyond their immediate location.
The generation of electricity by nuclear power is an obvious example. If a severe

nuclear accident, like those of Chernobyl and Fukushima, occurs in China, it will
cause widespread damage to neighboring
countries, particularly those to the east, including Japan and Korea. What is more, it will
have serious aftereffects on the environment for generations to come. Even if there is no
accident, a nuclear power plant cannot generate energy without radioactive waste,
which means future generations pay for our prosperity. Nuclear energy policy thus
confronts us with an ethical question beyond our immediate time and space̶ does the
present generation have the right to live in prosperity at the cost of others to come, who
are absent here and now? J.-P. Sartre said that the advent of nuclear weapons made
humanity into an entity that shared a common destiny. In order to face the problem of
nuclear power, we are required to expand the concept of ethics and responsibility to an
extent that previous ethical systems did not have to consider: an ethics of responsibility
for our species, humanity, and for the entire environment, for the world itself.
Presentism, Anthropocentrism, Individualism

Here, let us point out three principal features of traditional ethics. We can refer to them as
Presentism, Anthropocentrism, and Individualism (or voluntarism). We have explained the
first of these already. It must have been impossible for past ethical systems to imagine
that one might have a responsibility for human beings living a thousand years later.
Page 121 of 138
Anthropocentrism can be described as the restriction of ethics and responsibility to

human subjects and objects. As Jonas says, “ethics accordingly was of the here and
now, of occasions as they arise between men, of the recurrent, typical situations of
private and public life.”⑶ In a sense, it is reasonable or common sense to restrict ethical
beings to humans. It seems nonsensical to accuse anyone of using violence when they
punch a stone. What about animals, though? If one beats a dog or cat, a whale or
dolphin, it probably can be regarded as “violence” or animal abuse, but it may be
difficult to use terms like “abuse,” “ill-treatment,” and “murder” when describing the killing
of a mosquito or a cockroach. This shows that the ethical criterion for judging what
agents have to be respected consists in “proximity” (that is to say, degree of presence)
to humankind.
Individual voluntarism refers to the idea that the traditional ethical agent was based on
the individual and its will. Jonas writes as follows in his criticism of Kant’s categorical
imperative:
Kant’s categorical imperative was addressed to the individual, and its criterion was
instantaneous. It enjoined each of us to consider what would happen if the maxim of
my present action were made, or at this moment already were, the principle of a
universal legislation; the self-consistency or inconsistency of such a hypothetical
universalization is made the test for my private choice.⑷ Upon reconsidering the
matter, it is this restriction of ethical agents to individuals and their wills that made it
possible to ignore ethical responsibility for acts of violence or outrages in wartime
committed in the name of the state or some other group. It was only in recent times
that crimes against humanity during wartime began to be denounced or judged in
the courtroom.
What was the cause of this limitation to the classic concept of ethics? According to
Jonas, when the conventional concept of ethics was developed, the power of human
action was not so great that it could destroy the world. When the force of scientific
technology exceeds the scale imagined by previous ethics, we have no choice but to
widen the scope of responsibility as new conditions might require. The measure of
responsibility must correspond with that of power.
It will be the burden of the present argument to show that these premises no longer
hold, and to reflect on the meaning of this fact for our moral condition. More
specifically, it will be my contention that with certain developments of our powers the
nature of human action has changed, and, since ethics is concerned with action, it
should follow that the changed nature of human action calls for a change in ethics
as well: this not merely in the sense that new objects of action have added to the
case material on which received rules of conduct are to be applied, but in the more
radical sense that the qualitatively novel nature of certain of our actions has opened
up a whole new dimension of ethical relevance for which there is no precedent in
Page 122 of 138
the standards and canons of traditional ethics. The novel powers I have in mind are,
of course, those of modern technology.⑸
In his Imperative of Responsibility, Jonas accuses Francis Bacon and his famous phrase
“scientia est potentia” of being the source of a human arrogance that provoked the
wholesale exploitation of the planet by technology for the purpose of expanding human
health, wealth, and individual or social possibilities. Bacon himself, however, was not so
naïve as to affirm such a human mastery, which justified treating and transforming nature
as required or desired. Or rather, such a notion was beyond the reach of his imagination
because, for him, humans could only act under conditions of obedience to the laws of
nature in order to have any practical effect on the external world. Bacon’s
understanding rested on the premise that it was impossible to manage, rule, and govern
nature by force or to act contrary to nature. We might posit the image of an absolute,
unwavering terra, a Great Mother who generously embraces her little demon of a child,
no matter what he does with technology, behind which might be an overmastering
confidence in the Creation and Acts of God. At least, the power of technology was not
so big that it could destroy the world. “All this has decisively changed. Modern
technology has introduced actions of such novel scale, objects, and consequences that
the framework of former ethics can no longer contain them.”⑹
New concepts of “Globalization” and “Ethics”

From now on, we must change or extend the concept of globalization. Globalization
does not mean only the economic and political movement of expansion all over the
world, but also the technological movement that tends to encompass all beings, all lives,
all generations, and all species. We must now call this all-inclusive movement or
tendency “globalization.” Above all, we need to recognize and emphasize its diachronic
dimension in relation to its synchronic dimension. Globalization should not be reduced to
a simple geographical concept of the world. More exactly, the planet’s existence has to
be considered or reflected as a continuum or a node, an extension from the past into the
future, that is to say, a process of eternal becoming. Living in and reflecting on the
present world cannot be done properly without this diachronic dimension of the world,
without, so to speak, this “worldization” (this becoming of the world, world generation,
world formation), another aspect (precisely, the other aspect) of “globalization.” It
reflects a certain “Genesis” without which we will lose our future generations and the
significance or worth of our present world.
From this point of view, a new ethics will require following extensive turns:
1. From Presentism to Futurism (consideration of the world to come)

2. Form restrictive consideration for Humanity to general consideration for all lives or all
beings
3. From individual subject to collective subject in responsibility
Page 123 of 138
When scientific technology encompassed nuclear energy (nuclear power generation,

atomic bomb), humans possessed (or have been possessed by) a power huge enough
to destroy the planet. What is at stake is the very existence of all beings, the dilemma of
whether “to be or not to be,” in a very basic ontological sense, an elementary, physical
ontology far beyond a metaphysical ontology like Heidegger’s. Today, we find an
ontological question directly related to physics as well as ethics, as in Spinoza’s
philosophy. We are on the verge of the ontological possibility of the world. What we are
faced with is the possibility or rights of our future world, of future generations. Ultimately,
this means the possibility itself of possibility, the generation of generation. Being is
precisely the possibility of a world to come; in other words, the becoming of a world to
come. We living humans in the present world must be responsible for the generation of
our future generations, those who are not yet present. These generations do not exist in
present space and time, nor can they make any response to our inquiry or call, much less
have any right to do so. Of course, it is always possible that they will never ever come into
being. What is threatened today, however, is the impossibility of their coming into being,
the possibility itself of impossibility. Thus, even impossibility is on the verge of extinction. It is
our ethical duty to protect and hand over at least this possibility of impossibility for
generations to come. We are responsible for the beings who/which are incapable of
responding. We are responsible for leaving open the possibility itself for future generations
to respond to “us,” to other beings, to the world. Giving the responsibility (the possibility of
response) to those beings yet to come, to the becoming (a present to the future, of the
future, for the future) is a new ethics, an extended, generic ethics. This is a kind of present,
a donation of what we cannot have, what is outside of our property (because this
present is theirs, their possibility/responsibility, not ours). Once, the existence of the world
“had been a first and unquestionable given, from which all idea of obligation in human
conduct started out. Now it has itself become an object of obligation; the obligation
namely to ensure the very premise of all obligation, that is, the foothold for a moral
universe in the physical world̶the existence of mere candidates for a moral order. This
entails, among other things, the duty to preserve this physical world in such a state that
the conditions for that presence remain intact; which in turn means protecting the
world’s vulnerability from what could imperil those very conditions.”⑺
Destruction of the natural environment, the use of atomic energy and radioactive waste,
gene manipulation and its impact on our human descendants and the ecosystem: these
phenomena and their consequences are difficult or principally impossible to know
perfectly and predict because of the long time span, the gathering of data, the
threshold of interpretation, etc. Now that the power and influence of technology might
mean the total destruction of the world, however, this difficulty allow for no excuse any
longer (“beyond expectation”). It would be irresponsible to use difficulty or impossibility as
an excuse to refuse questions and arguments about what technology should be and
how it should be used. On the basis of our understanding, knowledge, and information,
an ethics of technology must go further. Such work will be impossible on the basis of
scientific, technocratic, technicien logic alone. It needs collective arguments and
Page 124 of 138
responsible systems that are beyond specialties. We have to think “together” as a

multiple, yet single being about what is desirable, what the world should be, and not only
about what is made possible by technology.
Ethics for all beings

The second key point for a new ethics is the expansion of ethical objects from humans to
all beings, all lives. Hans Jonas writes:
And what if the new kind of human action would mean that more than the interest of
man alone is to be considered that our duty extends farther, and the
anthropocentric confinement of former ethics no longer holds? It is at least not
senseless anymore to ask whether the condition of extra human nature, the
biosphere as a whole and in its parts, now subject to our power, has become a
human trust and has something of a moral claim on us not only for our ulterior sake
but for its own and in its own right. If this were the case it would require quite some
rethinking in basic principles of ethics. It would mean to seek not only the human
good but also the good of things extra human, that is, to extend the recognition of
“ends in themselves” beyond the sphere of man and make the human good include
the care for them.⑻
Jonas’s argument here seems to limit the object of ethics to the “biosphere,” but he
affirms elsewhere the necessity of expanding ethical objects to all beings in the
environment. It is certain that Jonas made great progress in extending ethics, but it is
undeniable that he considers the human being to be a privileged, representative ethical
subject who bears full responsibility for all the beings because of the enormous
technological power humans possess. For this reason, there must be some concern that
anthropocentrism lingers on in his work. He seems to be aware of this problem himself. He
says
There is no need, however, to debate the relative claims of nature and man when it
comes to the survival of either, for in this ultimate issue their causes converge from the
human angle itself. Since, in fact, the two cannot be separated without making a
caricature of the human likeness̶ since, rather, in the matter of preservation or
destruction the interest of man coincides, beyond all material needs, with that of life
as his worldly home in the most sublime sense of the word we can subsume both
duties as one under the heading “responsibility toward man” without falling into a
narrow anthropocentric view.⑼
We do not have the time to treat this delicate problem, here taking his words in the banal
sense that those who possess more power are obliged to take more responsibility.
If there is something left to be desired in Jonas’s argument, it is that we need to count

among the new ethical object/subjects that are “extrahuman” such entities as robots,
Page 125 of 138
computers, cyborgs, and genetically modified humans, because from now on our
environment will include the ubiquitous computing network, whether or not equipped
with artificial intelligence, and robots, which (who) perform hard and dangerous tasks
impossible to humans, will be the important members of human society. We have to
regard as companions of our world beings about whom or about which it would not
make sense to ask whether they were natural or artificial, such as gene-manipulated
humans. In such a situation, where should we draw the boundary of ethics? Traditionally,
ethics has regarded conscious beings as its objects, but if it is possible to think that there
are “consciences” wherever there is the flow, exchange, and circulation of information,
we have to treat them as participants in an ethical relationship. Needless to say, we have
to recognize the risk of going too far in extending the ethical concept: everything would
be an ethical object. We cannot, however, avoid a constant redefinition of being, life,
conscience, etc., and without such a difficult problem, which in principle has no
definitive answer, there would not be any fundamental ethics nor any sustainable
society.
For the incalculable and the becoming of the world

The third and last feature of a new ethics is “Why should we expand the concept of
ethical actor from the individual to the collective?” Because the technology in question is
beyond the reach of our individuality. This is a matter of system. Any technology implies,
in its essence, some impersonal elements. As individuals, we cannot control today’s
advanced technology, which becomes more and more expansive and complicated. It
no longer consists simply of an individual, or one simple company, or one state, either in
technological terms or in the mode of its production, diffusion, and use. That is why
advanced technology cannot be placed under the control of a single agent. Because
the mode of technology has been networked, so also must control, intervention,
restructuring, and actors be networked. The heterogeneous, multiple actors must
participate in a collective orientation of the technological ecosystem we live in. This
collective multidimensional intervention will create our mode of being (presence) and
our possibility (future). Although perfect self-determination is nothing but an illusion, it
would be suicidal to abandon ourselves to a perfect heteronomy or to simply be
conformist. Neither option would constitute an ethics for the future, which seeks the best
direction.
The collectivity that we call for will not be restricted to the human collectivity. It not only
contains things, animals, computers, and robots, but also beings to come, who (which)
do not yet exist. More primordially, beings to come who (which) never exist; that is, the
future itself, possibility itself. The ultimate actor in an ethics for the future is this power of
being always open to the future.
Is such an ethics too heavy a task? An excessive task? Faced with rapid changes in our
society, it is very hard or even impossible to foresee even just a few years ahead, to say
nothing of the future in one hundred years’ time. Is it necessary to take responsibility for
Page 126 of 138
what is not foreseeable? For what is not countable? For what is impossible? It is an abuse
of ethics, isn’t it? This is not only the objection from utilitarianism, rationalism, or
conservatism, but also from the traditional ethics that condemned them. This is precisely
the bind of Presentism. If we recognize the importance or necessity of ethics, we need to
create an ethics that counts what is not countable. Because what an econocentric and
technocentric type of globalization tends to destroy is the being itself of the world and̶
what is more̶ the possibility itself of the being (or becoming) of the world. The existence of
the world and its possibility are not things that are countable in their essence or in their
“fact.” It is the “basis” of this uncountable existence of the world that lends possibility to
all the countable̶ politics, economy, law, society, culture, etc. From this point of view,
an ethics that calculates the incalculable consists in an endeavor to make another
calculation that makes possible all other calculations, beyond calculations. Without such
a heterogeneous calculation, every technology or means, however sophisticated or
advanced it may be, would be nothing but a makeshift.
We must not take the problem of globalization for only an economic or geopolitical one
but extend it to another globalization; that of the ethics of being. That will be a true
globalization. A globalization to come. A globalization of hope, hope for the future.
NOTE
⑴ Hans Jonas, The Imperative of Responsibility: In search of an Ethics for the Technological
Age, Translated by Hans Jonas in collaboration with David Herr, The University of
Chicago Press, Chicago, 1984, p. 1.
⑵ Ibid., p. 5.
⑶ Ibid.
⑷ Ibid., p. 12.
⑸ Ibid., p. 1.
⑹ Ibid., p. 5.
⑺ Ibid., p. 10.
⑻ Ibid., p. 8.
⑼ Ibid., p. 136.
 21 Ethical Dilemmas of Globalization

April 8, 2012
By Dr. Sylvain Ehrenfeld
International Humanist and Ethical Union Representative to the United Nations
Member of the Ethical Culture Society of Bergen County
Page 127 of 138
We are in the midst of an unprecedented transformation, even larger than the Industrial
Revolution. Because of technological changes our world is becoming more and more
interconnected.
The dynamic force of globalization will continue to change our perceptions, as it

reshapes our lives, the way we make a living and the way we relate. The changes are
economic, technological, cultural and political. Incidentally, Karl Marx, in the Communist
Manifesto predicted that the relentless search for markets will alter older social structures.
As he put it “all that is solid will melt”. Some say it is a runaway world. To quote Ralph
Waldo Emerson, commenting on the Industrial Revolution in his day, “things are in the
saddle and ride mankind”.
I will look at the economic impact of this story and the contentious issue of globalization
in trade and its effects on the poor as well as the rich.
The gap between rich and poor in the world is still very large. The bottom 2.5 billion ,40%
of the worlds population live on less than $2 a day and receive only 5% of the worlds
income.
There are still too many people who die because they are too poor to live. Can trade
help? Aid and a fairer trading system are crucial. As we will see, it can be an enormous
help to poor countries. It can start them on the first steps of the ladder of progress.
Tremendous changes are also occurring in the richer countries.
Let’s examine trade and globalization.
Globalization, free trade and outsourcing are very controversial issues. They have been
much in the news but they have not been seriously discussed in the media.
Thinking on this subject falls basically into two camps. There are the gung-ho free traders
and the anti-globalists who strongly oppose international institutions like the World Bank,
the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and particularly the World Trade Organization
(WTO). The anti-globalists come in two varieties. The protectionists, as for example Pat
Buchanan, are extreme conservatives who think American nationalism suffers from the
commands of the global economy. This approach is essentially economic nationalism.
They believe that international institutions undermine the sovereignty of the nation and
make the country more beholden to transnational corporations. Buchanan opposes
multiculturalism and immigration, claiming it leads to a moral decline of the nation.
The opposite pole of anti-globalists is much more radical in their thinking. They oppose
the WTO, the World Trade Organization, claiming that it is undemocratic, and ignores
environmental problems and labor conditions such as child labor and workplace safety.
Finally, they claim that globalization increases inequality and further impoverishes the
poor. The anti-globalist movement has grown in passion and strength. They have staged
numerous protests. The one in Seattle involved some violence, but mostly they are
peaceful. The one recently in Hong Kong however was not peaceful.
The pro-globalists claim that free trade creates wealth, and this increase trickles down
and improves the condition of the poor.
Page 128 of 138
Firstly–what is globalization? It is the increasingly closer integration of countries and

peoples of the world brought about by the enormous reduction of transportation and
communication costs and the breakdown of barriers to the flow of goods, services,
capital and knowledge. Think of it as a tidal wave of change brought about by the
impact of new technologies. Television, the internet and other forms of rapid
communication have increased mobility and commercialization of ideas. Different
aspects of globalization include free movements of capital, trade, cultural and political
differences.
With these changes come many problems which cross national boundaries: terrorism,
disease, refugees, environmental problems, and rapid flow of capital. No nation can be
totally immune. In the past many people lived in small areas. Some people never went
further than 20 miles from their homes. Now if there is genocide in Rwanda and Darfur, or
a suicide bomber in Jerusalem, we see it on TV, we live more and more in a global
community, and are experiencing a global economic order.
Is globalization new? Not really. The scope and worldwide reach of our present
globalization is new. However, from 1860 to 1914 there was a significant globalization
trend which was also spurred by developments in transportation and communication. It
came about because of railroads, cars, telephone and telegraph.
World War I stopped this trend. Between the two world wars, there was much
protectionism. After World War II a major economic conference took place in Bretton
Woods, a sleepy New England town. It was there the World Bank, the International
Monetary Fund (IMF) and GATT were created. GATT stands for General Agreement on
Tariffs and Trade. In 1995 this became the World Trade Organization (WTO).By 2002 it
accounted for 97% of world trade.
The ancient world was always aware of the enormous benefits of trade. Ships constantly
crossed the Mediterranean. The Silk Road between China and the Roman Empire had an
enormous effect on the enrichment of cultures as well as wealth.
Why is trade beneficial? If I have something you need and you have something I want–if
we bargain and come to a deal– we both benefits. Of course, one of us may be in a
stronger bargaining position. Nevertheless, we can both benefit.
Adam Smith, and later, Ricardo, British economists, made the case for the free exchange
of goods and services. This allows individuals to specialize in what they do best, to
everybody’s benefit. As an example– the tailor does not attempt to make his own shoes
but buys them from a shoemaker. In turn, the shoemaker doesn’t attempt to make his
own clothes, but employs a tailor. The ideal was that no country should produce
anything it could import more cheaply from abroad. Countries should concentrate on
industries in which they are low cost producers or to use economic language, they
should produce where they have a relative advantage.
A classic example involved the Lancaster textile mills which exploited the climate of
northern England, and Portuguese vineyards which prospered in the southern sun. In the
presence of prohibitive tariffs of imports and exports which were prevalent at the time,
England would have been forced to make its own wine, and Portugal to manufacture
cloth. This is obviously a waste of resources. This concept is a powerful argument, and it
Page 129 of 138
has worked up to a point. However it omits the effects of changing technologies. The
country with weaker bargaining power remains committed to its own industry and may
be unable to develop. This has occurred in Central and South America, which for years
traded only in a few crops and were totally dependent on the price of those crops.
There is much talk about free trade. We must remember that every free trade agreement
is a negotiated document. It involves all kinds of bargaining about different products and
tariffs. For example, for the North American Free Trade Agreement, NAFTA, the results
were uneven. US corn producers benefited, while textile workers have not. Mexican
farmers were devastated by US corn imports, and their textile workers lost out. Part of the
reason is textile products from China and US subsidies for agriculture. It is estimated that
the growth in Mexico and Latin America has benefited the upper 30% but the bottom
gained little.
The great inequalities in Latin America and the lack of gains in the world trading system
have brought forth radical leaders in recent elections as Chavez in Venezuela and
Morales in Bolivia. The irony of democratic elections.
There are many charges against the WTO. Here are three of the main criticisms.
1. WTO places economic considerations ahead of concern about labor conditions and
the environment.
2. WTO is undemocratic
3. WTO increases inequality and makes the rich richer and leaves the world’s poor worse
off.
WTO has a set of rules which all member states must accept. (There are about 30,000
pages of them.)If a dispute arises, and a complaint is made about unfair practices, there
is a dispute panel. If the complaint is upheld and the nation continues to act in breach of
the rules they are subjected to severe penalties–including tariffs against its own goods
and perhaps a fine of money compensation. These are secret panels of trade
organizations and lawyers.
Rulings are mostly based on the idea that a country can’t embargo a good because
they object to the process by which it is made. Only the quality or content is relevant. This
has become known as the “product” versus “process” principle. If a product is made by
child labor, in unsafe conditions, or is damaging to the environment, it cannot be
rejected. This makes it difficult for a country to impose environmental labor or health
standards. WTO rules prohibits countries from treating physically similar products
differently on the basis of how they are made. So– anti-globalists have a strong case.
However, free traders say WTO is ill equipped to rule on labor conditions and
environmental situations. These decisions are complex. They claim that this is neither their
role nor their mission. They are only concerned with trade. Rules concerning labor laws
and environmental conditions are the province of international labor conventions of the
International Labor Organization (ILO) and international environmental treaties. Globalists
say protesters should focus their pressure on countries to abide by international laws. The
final irony is that underdeveloped countries do not want to be pressured to impose labor
and environmental standards as it will make their products more costly. They want and
Page 130 of 138
need the business. They also say that many people in the west may regard low-paying
jobs at Nike factories as exploitation but for many people in the underdeveloped world
factory work is far better than growing rice and risking hunger. They also add that child
labor is the only way a family may have as protection from starvation.
Obviously labor laws and environmental rules are hard to enforce. We will say more
about this later.
A charge against the WTO is that decisions there are usually made by consensus. Rule by
consensus can also be called rule by veto. It takes the opposition of only a single
member to stop an overwhelming majority from making changes. Developing countries
make up the majority of members of WTO. But not every country has the same
bargaining power. In practice the agenda is set in informal meeting of the major trading
powers: the US, the European Union, Japan, and Canada. Once these powers have
reached agreement these are presented at a formal meeting usually as a fair accompli.
Not in the least democratic. Finally, dispute panels are not selected democratically. Even
if WTO decisions were taken by the majority of states that are members it would not be
really democratic since for example India, representing a billion people would have the
same number of votes-one- as Iceland which has 275,000,
A third charge and perhaps the most serious is that globalization makes the rich richer
and the poor poorer. It takes from the poor to the rich–Robin Hood in reverse.
Let us separate the issues into two parts. Firstly–has inequality increased? The UN reports
that gaps in income between the poorest and richest countries have continued to
widen. In 1960 the 20 percent of the worlds’ people in the richest countries had 30 times
the income of the poorest 20 per cent. In 1997, the gap has more than doubled– it is now
74 percent. This widening of the gap is happening at a faster pace. The assets of the 200
richest people are more than the combined income of 41 percent of the world’s people.
Just imagine that visually –the 200 people can fit into our local libraries’ auditorium.
The gap in income within countries has also widened. In the US, according to the US
Census Bureau, the top and bottom tiers are growing and the middle shrinking. The top
20% held 85% of the countries wealth. An interesting illustration of this is the recent two
years of the holiday shopping season. Retailers that cater to lower and middle income
shoppers like Walmart, Sears and Kohl’s had disappointing results, even with the lower
prices. The higher end chains like Marcus and Nordstrom did well.
Obviously, income gaps have widened both within countries and between countries. A
recent UN study by ILO called for a fair globalization. They show that global trade
increases wealth but the trade benefits are uneven. Like most economic changes there
are winners and losers. What is a fair division of the growing pie? This raises ethical
questions.
Are the very poor worse off? The world’s population is currently a little over 6 billion.
About 1.2 billion live in absolute poverty (about 1$ per day) and many more even below
that. About 3 billion–that is nearly half the world’s population–have about $2 per day.
About 820 million lack adequate nutrition, more than 850 million are illiterate and almost
all lack access to basic sanitation. In rich countries less than one child in a hundred dies
Page 131 of 138
before the age of five. In the poorest countries one child in five dies. Every day three
hundred thousand young children die from preventable causes. Life expectancy in rich
nations averages 77 years whereas in sub Sahara Africa, it is 48 years.
The number of absolute poor has decreased by 200 million. Most of the improvement has
been in China and India. In sub Sahara, Eastern Europe, and central Asia, poverty is up.
In Latin America and the Caribbean there has not been much change. So–to disagree
with both sides of the argument– globalists’ claim that the increase in wealth has helped
the poor–the trickle-down theory is certainly not true. The claim that poverty has
increased is also not true, although the level of misery that exists already could hardly in
any imagination be worse.
To sum up the anti-globalization charges– WTO does ignore labor rights and the
environment. It is most certainly not democratic. Finally the changes created by
globalization taking over the world, with increasing inequalities is ultimately a dangerous
situation.
What then, do we need? What we need to do is achieve some progress in halting the
dangerous increase in inequality world-wide and fair trade–not the so called free trade.
Trade can be a particular thorn in the flesh for poor countries. The developed world
spends over a billion dollars a day on farm subsidies and only one-seventh of that in
development aid. Much of that goes to rich country experts and sales of technology.
Rich countries’ subsidies for their farmers make it difficult for poor countries that rely on
exports to compete. Other subsidized products include textiles and cotton. The IMF
estimates that a repeal of the subsidies would improve global welfare by about 120
billion. If we put together interest on the debt owed by poor countries together with
trade barriers, more money flows from the poor countries to the rich, than the other way.
A recent UN report states that rich countries trumpet the virtues of open markets and free
trade even as they put up barriers against goods from poor countries and spend
hundreds of billions that benefit large scale farmers .The recent Hong Kong meeting did
not change that.
About outsourcing and outbasing -a hot issue. Because of tremendous changes in
technology, many more jobs can be outsourced. Some examples are radiologists who
examine x-rays, reservation agents, computer programming, accounting, data base
management, financial analysis, tax preparation. Companies can comparatively easily
move production to other parts of the world.
With outsourcing and outbasing who gains and who loses? Some American gain:
consumers enjoy lower prices, and stockholders see profits rise. Some Americans lose:
workers whose jobs are displaced, the owners of firms whose contracts are transferred to
foreign suppliers.
Recently, Paul Samuelson the renowned economist and very much for free trade has
revised some of his ideas. He pointed out that free trade can hurt an advanced country.
When a poor, but ambitious nation, is trading with a wealthy advanced economy free
trade can undermine the wage level in the advanced economy. He cites the example
of China and the US. This explains why the US hourly wage, discounted for inflation, has
been stagnant for many years and has aggravated inequality in the US. Monthly wages
Page 132 of 138
are 11% lower than in 1973 adjusted for inflation in spite of rising productivity. A revealing
statement by Wal-Mart’s chief executive, urging Congress to raise the minimum wage:
“our customers simply don’t have the money to buy basic necessities between
paychecks”, ironic coming from Wal-Mart.
Other gainers are employees abroad who get jobs. Still, as we said, other gainers are US
consumers who get cheaper goods, It is estimated that since the 90’s cheap imports
have saved US consumers around $600 billion and US manufacturers many billions in
cheaper parts and services for their products. We have a conflict here. Consumers are
saving money but at the expense of US jobs. Wal-Mart has set the standard by their drive
for cheap prices using imports from China. They give their workers low wages and
minimal benefits. To compete other companies are driven to do the same thing. We are
both consumers but also citizens, this presents us with a conflict. Another concern is the
growing trade deficit which may become a serious problem.
Overall is this good or bad? What criteria should we use to judge? Some economists talk
about a compensation principle. If the gainers can compensate the losers the economy
gains. Of course, the compensation is never made. It leads me to think that the gainers
have some moral obligation to the losers.
In any case the process seems unstoppable. We can however ease the bounce and
provide springs for a rough ride. Income support and retraining for workers outsourced
can help. This may not be effective for older and less educated workers. Another
suggestion is wage insurance which companies resist. For this we need governments and
international agencies with some moral clout and power. Other policies which would
help much are: public investment in education, universal affordable health care and
more federal financing for research in the sciences and engineering which has declined
in recent years. China and India are now graduating more engineers and computer
scientists than from all American and European universities.
A story to illustrate. Recently Toyota decided to put up a new assembly plant in Ontario
Canada. Why there and not in the US? One reason cited is the comparative quality of
the work force, compared to the south. Unionization may also be a factor.
Another reason was Canada’s National Health System. To support this consider the GM
claim that it pays $1525 in health care costs for each car that comes out of its assembly
line- more than it pays for its steel. Recently GM, like many other companies, has made
deals with unions to cut benefits, lay off workers and cut pensions. Even well off
companies like IBM are doing the same thing. Times are getting tough for working
people. I find it difficult to understand why companies do not support universal health
care as it makes them more competitive.
Globalization could be an engine for growth and great benefit to all groups if guided
with some attempt at fairness. I am reminded of the early stages of industrialization in
England, US and Europe. Working conditions were horrible. After much struggle laws
regulating worker safety, child labor, and the right to form unions were developed. The
question arises–how well can a global free market–an essentially unregulated market–
function in the absence of a global authority to set minimum standards on issues like child
Page 133 of 138
labor, worker safety, union rights, and the environment? What we have now on the
international scene is early capitalism in the raw.
What to do?
All trade agreement should include minimum ILO (international labor organization)
standards.
International conventions on these issues exist. They can be checked by rapporteurs, a
method now used in the human rights area. The WTO can enforce these standards as
they do now in trade disputes. If a country cannot afford to meet the standards they
should be helped.
For the well being of our society and the health of our economy we need a universal
health care system.
We should support the growing fair trade movement. They support more than 5 million
people in Africa and Latin America in socially responsible trade. We should buy these
products like fair trade coffee. It costs a little more but we are not only shoppers but also
citizens. Oxfam America has a campaign for fair trade. They have a website providing
much information (www.maketradefair.com) on how to get involved.
We are in the historic process of becoming one world. There are precedents in which
governments come to relinquish some of their sovereignty for the benefits of
cooperation. Regional organization already takes place in the form of WTO and the
European Union. Such groupings are likely to increase in the future because of the
necessity of avoiding the chaos and suffering of the vast disparities between the haves
and the have-nots, and perhaps the side effects of competition between the great
economic powers.
Globalization can be a great boon. It is not globalization per se, but the unfairness and
damaging results from the way it is developing that is the moral and humanitarian
problem.
In the meantime, we need to hang on tight because there’s a rough ride ahead of us.
1. Ethical Issues in Globalization

We have to choose between a global market driven only by calculations of short-term
profit, and one which has a human face.” Kofi Annan
2. What is Globalization?
a process (or set of processes) which embodies a transformation in the spatial
organization of social relations and transactions, expressed in transcontinental or
interregional flows and networks of activity, interaction and power.
3. Globalization Brings Four Types of Change
a stretching of social, political and economic activities across frontiers, regions and
continents. intensification of interconnectedness and flows of trade, investment, finance,
migration, culture, etc. a speeding up of global interactions and processes, the diffusion
of ideas, goods, information, capital and people. deepening impact such that the
Page 134 of 138
effects of distant events can be highly significant elsewhere and specific local
developments can come to have considerable global consequences.
4. Globalization, in short, can be thought of as the widening, intensifying, speeding up,

and growing impact of world-wide interconnectedness.
5. Some Big-Ticket Issues
Very personal: the meaning of work?
Organizational: who’s in charge, and of what? Supply chain ethics?
National: do nations matter any more?
Supranational: what does it mean that some areas are ‘developing’?
Global: systems change? Justice?
6. JOB DISPLACEMENT
U.S. – more jobs overall, but many industries in decline.
A shift in skills and education required for higher-paying jobs.
Loss of economic viability for many communities.
Increasing competition among polities for job-providing ventures.
7. JOB DISPLACEMENT In the developing world:

The opposite is true … more jobs and industry growth, rising wealth, etc….
BUT … there are major issues of human rights and environmental protection at stake.
8. SWEATSHOPS
“a shop or factory in which employees work for long hours at low wages and under
unhealthy conditions.” --Merriam-Webster OnLine Dictionary
9. Sweatshop abuses Child labor, sometimes children as young as 5 or 6,

Piece rates instead of wages, requiring long hours to earn an income that does not
come close to raising the worker out of poverty,
Mandatory overtime, sometimes 24-hour shifts,
Dangerous, unhealthy workplaces; no protective equipment to guard against toxic
exposures,
Verbal intimidation, harassment, and bullying,
10. Sweatshop abuses Forced pregnancy tests and firing of pregnant women,
Physical and sexual abuse by supervisors, managers, and armed guards,
No breaks during the work day, even to go to the bathroom,
Lock-ins to prevent workers from stealing or leaving the factory, creating fire hazards,
Violent ends for those who try to organize unions.
11. Addressing Sweatshop Problems
Page 135 of 138
Supplier codes of conduct specify how supplier relations are to be handled and what
suppliers must do in order to get and keep contracts with the company.
Factory monitoring, often by independent NGOs, to check for prevailing wage rates,
underage workers, workplace hazards, or human rights violations.
12. HEALTH THREATS

36.5 million workers worldwide infected with HIV/AIDS (ILO data).
Health care not widely available.
Disease is poorly understood and often subject to prejudice.
Sufferers can’t afford drugs.
Families can’t afford to lose their productive workers.
13. Other health threats: Dengue fever

Schistosomiasis caused by parasitic flatworms
Trypanosomiasis or sleeping sickness
Typhoid fever
Malaria
Cholera
Dysentery,
Malnutrition
Measles
Tuberculosis
Yellow fever
Corona Viruses (recent)
14. Underlying problems: Lack of health care and related infrastructure

Very limited access to vaccines, anti- parasitics, and other pharmaceuticals
Lack of clean water
15. “RACE TO THE BOTTOM”

Global price pressures lead to search for lower regulatory standards as well as labor
costs.
This affects worker treatment and benefits, human rights, consumer & investor protection,
environmental protection.
16. ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES: “Eco Top Ten”

Agriculture – use of rural lands and development of sustainable farming;
pesticide/herbicide use; bioengineering and genetically modified organisms.
Atmosphere – climate change/global warming, acid rain, smog, ozone depletion.

Biodiversity – “types of biodiversity and the plight of endangered species.”
Page 136 of 138
Energy – the use of fossil fuels (oil, coal); the need to develop alternative energy sources.
Forests – deforestation and regrowth; forest ecologies.

Fresh water – changing patterns, desalination, declining supplies of fresh water.
Habitat loss – threats to species survival, causes, solutions.

Industry – the environmental impacts of industrial globalization.
Marine – life
Ecology – threats to the seas and the living things therein.
Population – growth, pressure, geographic patterns.
20. Financial crashes tend to be immediate and the consequences are readily seen.
However, environmental disasters tend to develop over a longer period of time, and the
consequences are not so easy to discern.
Industries are not so eager to establish international environmental regulation, and the
temptations are great to find lowest-cost solutions to pesky developed-world
environmental problems.
21. WHAT CAN Globalization lead to?
22. BRIBERY & CORRUPTION

Transparency International (Ti) defines corruption as “the misuse of entrusted power for
private gain.”
23. “In the past 12 months, have you or anyone in your household paid a bribe in any
form?” (Yes answers)
Switzerland, Finland, Singapore, Sweden, 1%
USA, United Kingdom, Turkey, South Korea, Austria, Taiwan, France, Germany, Iceland,
the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Denmark, 2%
Canada, 3%
Israel, 4%
Albania, 66%
Morocco, 60%
Cameroon, 57%
Congo, 40%
Nigeria, 39%
Mexico, 28%
Ukraine, 23%
Kenya, Peru, Venezuela, 22%
Page 137 of 138
24. Possible consequences of corruption:

Democratic elections
Government contracting
Victims of fraud
Overpayment
Lack of accountability
Supporting the incompetent
25 “We must ensure that the global market is embedded in broadly shared values and
practices that reflect global social needs, and that all the world's people share the
benefits of globalization.”-- Kofi Annan
EXPLAIN
Watch the short video presentation on Globalization here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JJ0nFD19eT8
Read N. Ramanuja’s article on the “Challenges in Global Ethics” and

Kazuisa Fujimoto’s article entitled, “Globalization and Ethics for the future.”
ELABORATE
What does Ramanuja say about the effects of globalization in terms of religious
beliefs? Do you agree with him or not?
Page 138 of 138
EVALUATE


Ethics

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ethics

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Document Code FM-STL-013

Saint Louis University Revision No. 01

I. Course Title: Ethics

II. Course Overview

Welcome to this General Education Course - Ethics (GETHICS) or Moral

Ethics/morality deals with principles of ethical behavior in modern society at

This study on ethics/morality is intended to facilitate the learning of the key

B. Course Learning Outcomes

Just as Ethics is meant to guide as in our way of living to become morally

1. discuss the importance of ethics for Filipinos in the present time;

C. Module and Unit Topics

To be able to achieve the course learning outcomes at the end of the

Module 1: Overview and Brief Introduction to Philosophy

Module 2: Basic and Key Concepts in Ethics

Module 3: The Moral Agent

3.1.b. Cultural relativism

Module 4: The Act

Module 5: Ethical Framework: Utilitarianism/Consequentialism

Module 6: Ethical Framework: Immanuel Kant and Rights Theorist

Module 7: Ethical Framework: John Rawls on Justice as Fairness

Module 8: Ethical Framework: Aristotle’s Virtue Ethics

Module 9: Ethical Framework: Thomas Aquinas Natural Law

III. Course Study Guide

6. The Formative assessments may be graded or not graded. We encourage you

8. Discussion will be done through blended or mixed-modalities (50% face-to-face

9. In answering the activities, please write legibly. Observe proper standards

IV. Study Schedule

Demonstrate Evaluation: Midterm Integrated Quiz; and

Elaborate: Reflecting on Kohlberg’s Theory of

MODULE 4 THE ACT

Evaluate the present https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7MnnN0

Explain the two Explore: (Refer to the “Explore” section of the

Evaluation: Final Term Integrated Quiz; and

Prelim, Midterms, and Final Exams Grading System

Prelim, Midterm, and Tentative Final Grade

VI. Technological Tools

VII. Contact Information of the Facilitator

GETHICS FACILITATOR/S FACULTY E-MAIL ADDRESSE:

Mailing Address: School of Teacher Education

PHILOSOPHY DEPARTMENT CONTACT NOS.:

COURSE LEARNING OUTCOMES

1. discuss the importance of ethics for Filipinos

2. discern the difference between moral and

3. describe what a moral experience is at it

4. express understanding of the importance of

5. describe the elements of moral

6. use ethical frameworks or principles to

ETHICS 7. make sound ethical judgments based on

8. demonstrate actions showing sensitivity for

9. exhibit a life that integrates principles of

A vision of the university is dedicated to the development of virtuous human

MODULE 1: Overview and Brief Introduction to Philosophy

The aim of this module is to:

Philosophy, as a course, is quite different from other academic subjects. No brief

 2. Approaches in Doing Philosophy

 3. Importance of Philosophy in life

Generally, philosophy is important 1) For acquiring persuasive powers: Philosophy

Specifically, philosophy is important in educational pursuits. It is very much beneficial

Philosophy is also important in non-academic careers: 1) For personal development;

(1) PRELIM Integrated Quiz

MODULE 2: Basic and Key Concepts in Ethics

At the end of Module 2, you should be able to:

Do you think it is OK to make a judgment about the morality or immorality of the

 2. Basic and Key Concepts in Ethics