Ethics

 What are the roots of moral acts?

 Moral Acts

Moral action involves taking the necessary steps to transform the intent to do the
right thing into reality. This includes moral ownership, moral efficacy, and moral courage.
The goodness of a moral act is assessed based on three conditions: object (and its
goodness), intention (or end as expressed by Saint Thomas Aquinas), and circumstances.
For a moral act to be considered good, all three conditions must be met.
What are examples of moral acts?
Morals are formed out of a person's values. Values are the foundation of a
person's ability to judge between right and wrong. Morals build on this to form specific,
context-driven rules that govern a person's behavior. They're formed from a person's life
experience and are subject to opinion.
For example, someone's morals might indicate they're opposed to murder. That
is a general rule of thumb. But what about something more mundane? While one
person's morals might tell them not to gossip, another person's morals might be quite
different. They might not consider gossip to be a bad thing. Consider the following
examples of morals and see how many align with your core values and beliefs.
While morals tend to be driven by personal beliefs and values, there are certainly
some common morals that most people agree on, such as:
 Always tell the truth.
 Do not destroy property.
 Have courage.
 Keep your promises.
 Do not cheat.
 Treat others as you want to be treated.
 Do not judge.
 Be dependable.
 Be forgiving
 Have integrity
 Take responsibility for your actions
 Have patience
 Be loyal
 Have respect for yourself and others
 Be tolerant of differences
 Seek justice
 Have humility
 Be generous
  Acts of Man and Human Acts

Acts of man, therefore, are acts shared in common by man and other animals, whereas
human acts are proper to human beings.

 Acts of Man

Acts that we do without free will and intellect; some are done by instinct. The actions
are performed without conscious deliberation or knowledge and with the absence of a
free will. Acts of man constitute unconscious and involuntary actions. These are natural
processes within the body that continue to function without the use of free will and reason.
They just happen naturally as automatic responses to situations (Living a Christian Moral
Life, 2013)
Example: breathing, digestion, circulation of air in the body.

Essential qualities of Acts of Man:

DONE WITHOUT KNOWLEDGE
WITHOUT CONSENT
INVOLUNTARY

 Human Acts

Acts that we do with the use of free will and intellect. They are done freely,
deliberately, and voluntarily. These are actions that are proper to humans, thus the crucial
element of willful consent and knowledge of the action must be present. One must freely
use his/her intellect and freewill when acting. Human acts reveal the value of responsibility.
or accountability. (Living a Christian Moral Life, 2013).
Example: studying, working, eating healthy food

Essential qualities of Human Acts

 KNOWLEDGE OF THE ACT (IT MUST BE DELIBERATE)
 FREEDOM (IT MUST BE FREE)
 VOLUNTARINESS (IT MUS BE VOLUNTARY)

Constituents of Human Acts

1. Human acts must be known and deliberate.

 An individual, as the moral agent, has full knowledge of doing a certain action. There is
prior knowledge and a deliberate evaluation of whether to fulfill an action or not (Living
a Christian Moral Life, 2013). It asks the questions: Do you know exactly what you
are doing? or Do you do the act intentionally? He/she must have full knowledge and
consent of his/her action.

2. Human acts must be free.

An individual as the moral agent is free from any external factors as well as to do an
act. He/she is neither forced nor intimidated to do or not to do something (Living a
Christian Moral Life, 2013). There is an obvious absence of constraint from within and
outside of the individual. He/she is free to do the act without the influence of an outside
factor and personal pressure from within. He/she does the act so independently and
not because of shame, request, or control from someone else nor from emotional
disturbance.

3. Human acts are voluntary.

The action proceeds from the willingness of an individual to perform an action with a
perceived knowledge of the end. (Living a Christian Moral Life, 2013). It asks
the question: Are you willing to do the act? and do you know what you are doing and
where your action is leading into? He/she wills to perform the act with the
understanding that he/she knows consciously where his/her actions are leading into.

 What is Moral Character?

Moral character can be conceptualized as an individual's disposition to think, feel, and

behave in an ethical versus unethical manner, or as the subset of individual differences relevant to
morality.
Good moral character and reputation means the possession of honesty and truthfulness,
trustworthiness and reliability, and a professional commitment to the legal process and the
administration of justice, as well as the condition of being regarded as possessing such qualities.
Those who inculcate a strong moral character find both happiness and success in their
life and are clear about their goals. Moreover, people with strong moral character are able to gain
the trust of others and their relationships are based on transparency, honesty and mutual respect.
Moral character is formed by one's actions. The habits, actions, and emotional responses
of the person of good character all are united and directed toward the moral and the good.
 Asian and Western Perspectives of Moral Character

Cultures vary substantially in both moral judgments and moral behaviors. Cultural
variations in morality within societies can vary as much as cultural variations in morality between
societies.
Cultures vary substantially in both moral judgments and moral behaviors. Cultural
variations in morality within societies can vary as much as cultural variations in morality between
societies.
They included:
 Preference for social harmony;
 Concern with socio-economic prosperity and the collective well-being of the community;
 Loyalty and respect towards figures of authority;
 Preference for collectivism and communitarianism.

ASIAN CHARACTER

Asians tend to be highly group-oriented people who place a strong emphasis on family
connection as the major source of identity and protection against the hardships of life. The family
model is an extended one including immediate family and relatives, and loyalty to the family is
expected.
Among Asian values that were frequently cited were discipline, hard work, frugality,
educational achievement, balancing individual and societal needs, and deference to authority.
 There seems to be seem some character differences between Asians and Westerners but
defining these differences and interpreting their significance is difficult and even dangerous.
It has been said for example that Asian society based more on intuitive insight and
tradition while Western society is based more on logic. But defining exactly what tradition,
intuitive insight and logic are difficult, especially if you factor in cultural relativity.
 It can be argued that Asians are more honest than Americans anyway. In many instances
Asians are more likely to admit a crime if they have committed it. The adversarial Western
model of jurisprudence is alien to some Asians.
 It also be can argued that Asians are less likely to express anger of strong emotions in
public. Buddhism encourages its practitioners to keep their emotions and passions in
check. Controlling and not expressing emotions is viewed as a sign of strength.
 The same discipline is applied to social situations. An executive with the Chinese
computer firm Lenovo told U.S. News and World Report, “Westerners tend to speak first,
then listen, and easterners tend to listen, then speak.”
  Asians seem to be more willing to share their personal space with others than Westerners.
There is little privacy in Asia. People live close together and are used to having people
around them all the time. Wanting to be by oneself is considered kind of strange.
 Facial expressions for things such as fear, sadness, happiness and disgust are fairly
universal. One of the groundbreaking experiments that bore this out was conducted in the
1960s by psychologist Paul Ekman of the University of California, San Francisco. He
showed some photographs of Americans expressing different emotions to the isolated
Fore people of Papua New Guinea. Even though the Fore had never been exposed to
western faces before the readily recognized emotions such as surprise, anger, happiness,
fear and sadness. When the experiment was conducted in reverse with Americans
examining out photographs of Fore expressing different emotions the results were the
same.

Gordon Nagayama Hall, professor of psychology at the University of Oregon and the editor of the
journal Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology

“Loss of Face and Saying No”

 In Asia, it has been said that "face is more important than truth or justice" and losing face
is often an individual’s greatest fear. Face is essentially respect in a community and is a
crucial underpinning of society. Loss of that respect threatens the relations of individuals
with almost everyone in his or her world and is hard to get back once lost and thus is
avoided at all costs.

 ”Face” is equated with honor. Maintaining dignity and avoiding embarrassment is at the
heart of maintaining face. Some people describe the West as a guilt-based society where
people's behavior is dictated by their personal hang-ups. In Asian societies, on the other
hand, are often described as shame-based society, in which behavior is often defined by
fear of losing face. It is considered very bad taste to publically criticize a person since it
results in a loss of face within the community. Necessary criticisms and suggestions
should be made in way the that no one is blamed and shame is not cast upon any
individual.

 Southeast Asians consider it rude to say "no" directly. They often say something like
"maybe," "I am busy," or even "yes" when they really mean "no," or convey a no answer in
 way that foreigners don't understand. This behavior sometimes causes confusion with
Westerners who like a "yes" or "no" answer, and who tend to believe there is a possibility
of a "yes" unless they are told "no" straight out.

Eastern philosophy or Asian philosophy includes the various philosophies that originated
in East and South Asia, including Chinese philosophy, Japanese philosophy, Korean philosophy,
and Vietnamese philosophy; all of these are dominant in East Asia and Vietnam, and Indian
philosophy (including Hindu philosophy, etc)

WESTERN CHARACTER

Ancient Greece was the birthplace of Western philosophical ethics

Western moral ethics is concerned with being good - in other words, with being a good
person with good intentions. Therefore, in contrast to deontological ethics, the teleological ethical
traditions concentrate on the purpose of - or the intention behind - human actions.

Some of the central characteristics of Western culture include:

 Democracy.
 Rational thinking.
 Individualism.
 Christianity.
 Capitalism.
 Modern technology.
 Human rights.
 Scientific thinking.

The Western history of moral philosophy begins in the fourth and fifth century Greece.
When the Athenians began to trade by ship, their horizons expanded and the exposure to new
customs and traditions led them to question their own moral traditions. Many thought that if a
different moral code worked somewhere else, then what made their own system better? Exposure
to different cultures also prompted early philosophers to question the difference between nature
(physis) and convention (nomos) and what it meant to be “Just” in each of these cases. Questions
about morality and how to best lead the ethical life led to more questions, such as, “what constitutes
the good life?”, and “what do we mean when we talk about the good life?”
In response to these questions, some philosophers posited that the good life was a
matter of eudaimonia, which is commonly translated as “happiness” though it means something
more along the lines of “objective human flourishing” instead of the subjective and temporary feeling
we usually associate with the contemporary conception of happiness. Philosophers such as Plato,
Aristotle and the Hellenistic Stoic and Epicurean Schools all held eudaimonistic accounts of ethics.
The schools differed in how eudaimonia was best achieved.
Still others, those who had been strongly influenced by the influx of new ideas, thought
that the good life was something different. Philosophies, like that of the Sophists and later the
Skeptics, considered justice, to be a matter of convention, or following the laws, while the Stoics
believed justice arose from the rational organization of nature. In spite of the differences in these
philosophies one common thread running through the philosophies was the importance of reason.
The first people to theorize on the relativism of ethics were the Sophists who were
traveling teachers. They would lecture on a range of subjects for a fee. Because the Greeks were
very concerned with political life and power, Sophists primarily taught rhetoric and boasted they
could teach anyone how to make a weaker argument stronger in order to convince people to vote in
their favor. Sophists, like Thyrasamachus from Plato’s Republic, thought the good life was achieved
through power in political life and considered justice to be the advantage of the strong.
Thyrasumachus and other Sophists like Glaucon thought justice should only be taken into account
when convention demanded it, but when it did not, man had no reason not to act in the way that
was unnatural. For them Man is naturally an egoist and pursues his own self-interests even to the
detriment of others.

Socrates
 Knowledge is the key.
 Knowledge helps us to live correctly and to live the good life
Socrates is famous for his method of incessant questioning which, has come to be known
as the Socratic method. It is in this method that most of the early Platonic dialogues are conducted.
Typically, Socrates begins by asking an authority of a subject, often a Sophist, what that subject
really is. For example, in the Euthyphro Socrates asks “what is piety?” Though most of the
dialogues end with the characters in perplexity, or what is termed aporia, Socrates presents certain
ethical standards. One of these standards is that the soul and the preservation of a pure soul is the
most important thing. This idea is shown in the Crito when Socrates tells his friend Crito that, “the
most important thing isn’t living, but living well” (Crito, 48b). He goes on to explain that “living well,
living a fine life, and living justly are the same” (Crito, 48b). This position illustrates another
important aspect of Socratic ethics: Socrates believes that no one knowingly commits wrong. To
commit wrong prevents achieving eudaimonia, thus no one would knowingly do so. In this view
Socrates’ ethics can be seen as the seeking of knowledge in order to live correctly and to live the
happiest life.
Plato
 Justice is harmony between the three different (reason, emotion, appetitive) parts of our souls,
with reason ruling.
 Being Just is in our own self-interest

Plato, defines the good life and how the good life is best achieved. Like Socrates, he
believes there are objective ethical truths that apply to everyone. This view is in direct opposition to
the moral relativism of the Sophists. One of the main tasks of The Republic, aside from defining
justice in an objective way, is to show that being just benefits the just person. To fulfill these tasks
Socrates, Plato’s mouthpiece throughout his dialogues, defines the just society in order to make a
comparison to the just individual.
Ultimately, Plato argues that justice is a kind of harmony between the three different parts
of the just society which, correspond to the individual’s parts of the soul. When a person achieves
harmony between these parts Plato thinks they will naturally act justly in the conventional sense.
But he also maintains that they will be acting in their own self interest because the just person is
happier than the unjust person.
In Book One of The Republic, the characters attempt to define justice, or righteousness
and morals in general. One attempt gives conventional examples of justice such as, “telling the truth
and repaying debts.” Another, given by the Sophist Thrysamachus, is that “justice is to the
advantage of the strong” by which he means that rulers make rules that we have to follow and that
justice as we conceive it is no more than the adherence to their rules. As this is how he conceives
justice he believes that we should not follow these rules and should follow, instead, what he
perceives to be the natural sense of justice in the rational pursuit of our own self-interests.
Glaucon expands on Thrysamachus’ definition of justice and suggests that if they were to
give a just man and an unjust man Gyges’ ring, a ring that makes the wearer invisible, both men
would do the same things; “we shall discover in the very act the just and unjust man to be
proceeding along the same road, following their interests which all natures deem to be their good,
and are only diverted into the path of justice by the force of law.” This definition of justice, along with
that of Thyrasumachus’ represents the differences in views of conventional and natural justice. It
also raises the question of whether or not acting justly benefits the just person and acts as the
catalyst which propels Plato to show how conventional and natural justice are the same and how
being just is actually in our self-interest.
The rest of The Republic is dedicated to the description of the just society and the
corresponding just individual. Plato thinks that the just society is one that is ruled by the Guardians,
or philosopher kings. Philosophers, according to Plato, are the only ones with knowledge of the
Forms, and especially knowledge of the Form of the Good. This part of the books deals more with
Plato’s metaphysics than his direct treatment of the nature of justice, but it is important to note that
the ability to see and recognize the Form of the Good is the requisite for becoming a Guardian. The
two other classes, the Auxillary and Economic classes (yes, that includes financiers), are
subservient to the Guardian class.
Justice then becomes the harmony of these classes under the rule of the Guardians.
These classes correspond to reason, spirit (emotion) and the appetitive parts of the individual’s soul
and justice in the individual is also a harmony between these parts ruled by reason. Thus, the just
man is one that “does not allow any part of himself to do the work of another part or allow the
various classes within him to meddle with each other.”
In The Republic Plato gives an outline of the ideal ‘just city’ in order to make a
comparison to the ‘just individual’. The just city is split into three different classes, the Guardians,
the Auxiliary and the Economic class which correspond to reason, spirit and appetitive parts of the
individual soul. Just as justice in the ideal city would be a harmonious balance between all classes
ruled by the guardians, Plato views justice as a harmony between the different parts of the soul
ruled by reason. The spirited part which controls emotion must assist and be guided by reason and
together these two parts must inhibit the desires of the appetitive part to seek only the essential
needs.
Plato has three responses to the Sophists version of justice. The first is to combine the
conventional and natural opinions of justice. Plato sees them as tied together and argues that
convention is rooted in human nature. Secondly, Plato dismisses Glaucon’s idea that conventional
justice is against one’s own self-interest because he believes that the just person will be happier
than the unjust. Finally, he rejects the idea that justice is only conventional justice and instead
believes that there are objective ethical truths. As these ethical truths are rooted in human nature it
is therefore, possible to determine what they are.

Aristotle
 The purpose of human life is eudaimonia (human flourishing, happiness).
 To achieve eudaimonia one must be virtuous.
 Ethics is an inexact science.

Aristotle’s main work on ethics is the book titled Nicomachean Ethics. Like the Greek
thinkers before him Aristotle thinks eudaimonia, which means human flourishing or happiness,
should be the main goal of life. He also thinks like Plato, Socrates and later some of the Hellenistic
schools, that to achieve eudaimonia one must be virtuous, or ethical.
There are three key components to understanding Aristotle’s ethics. The first is his
arguments for why eudiamonia should be sought above all else. The second is his view of the
human function and the third is what is called the doctrine of the mean. The first line of the
Nicomachean Ethics reads, “Every craft aims at some good.” To understand this statement it is
necessary to know that Aristotle thinks in a teleological way, which means that everything has a
purpose.

Happiness
Aristotle argues that human life aims at happiness and has two reasons for saying this.
The first is because happiness is “unconditionally complete” which, means that happiness is always
the best choice and that we choose happiness for itself and not for another goal towards which
happiness will lead. Take the example of money. We will choose to have money if we can.
However, we will choose money not for the sake of money, but for the things that money can buy,
thus money is not unconditionally complete.
The second reason that Aristotle identifies happiness as the end goal of human life is
because it is “self-sufficient” that is, happiness is the only thing needed to make the best life and
nothing else is needed.

The Function Argument

Once he has established that the end goal that life should aim at is happiness, Aristotle
elaborates on how eudiamonia can be achieved. First, like Plato, Aristotle divides the soul. He sees
it as having two main parts which are each subdivided into two more parts. First he divides the soul
into a rational part and a non-rational part, the rational part includes our ability to reason on practical
matters and theoretical matters, while the non-rational part contains our nutritive part of the soul
which makes us grow and our appetitive part which dictates our desires and emotions. He then
seeks out what the human function might be. Part of our soul shares in growth with plants and part
of our soul shares in desires and sense perception with animals. Therefore, the human function
cannot come from either of these parts because this function must be something unique to humans.
As these are the two parts of the soul that are non-rational Aristotle comes to the conclusion that the
human function must be “some sort of life of action of [the part of the soul] that has reason.” (1098a)
The human function is thus the ability to use reason, but this is not the end of the
argument. Aristotle points out that a harpist has the function of playing the harp. To best fulfill that
function she must play the harp with excellence (arête). For Aristotle the virtue (arête) of a thing is
to do the thing’s function well. So must a human express his function well. Aristotle concludes that
the full function of a human is to use the rational part of the soul to express virtue. The rest of the
book is dedicated to elaborating on the virtue and how best to express the human function.

The Doctrine of the Mean

Up to this point Plato and Aristotle are similar in thinking humans should seek
eudiamonia and the way to achieve eudiamonia is by living a life of reason. However, Plato thinks
that the virtues naturally arise in us and are not merely a matter of convention. Aristotle, on the
other hand, thinks that while we have the capacity to act virtuously, the virtues are acquired by
habituation. He thinks that virtues can be acquired in much the same way that people acquire a craft,
though habituation, and claims that, “we become just by doing just actions and, temperate by doing
temperate actions, brave by doing brave actions.”(1103b). Once we have become habituated to a
certain action, a state of character arises. But the state of character that arises can be bad or good,
so it is important to do only the actions that express good reason; as this is the human function.
Aristotle maintains that any account on how to be ethical and virtuous will be inexact, but
he does give us something to go by which is known as the doctrine of the mean. This is the idea
that any virtue will, “be ruined by excess or deficiency” (1104a10). For example if we think of the
virtue of bravery, this will be ruined by brashness, the excess of bravery, or by cowardice, the
deficiency of bravery. Unfortunately, being ethical is harder than just knowing what the mean
between excess and deficiency. Being virtuous requires us to know what the mean is for us as
individuals, in the right place, at the right time, and in the right measure.

Hellenistic Period
 Cynics – the purpose of life is happiness through virtue in accordance with nature
 Skeptics – there are no moral certainties
 Epicureans – what is good is pleasurable; what is bad is painful. Happiness is attained through
pleasure
 Stoics – reason is the highest authority and reason follows the laws of nature

After the death of Alexander the Great, and the subsequent decline of his Empire, four
differing schools of thought emerged. The ethical views of these schools differed from earlier
philosophies in that they de-emphasized an active political life and turned instead to how man
should live outside of political life. The Cynics, the first of these schools, completely rejected
convention and opted for a very basic and simple life, which they viewed to be more in tune with
nature. In keeping with the Greek tradition the Cynics emphasize the use of reason as a means to
the ethical and virtuous life so long as reason is in accord with nature rather than convention.
The Skeptics as the name suggests, are skeptical about any moral certainties. As far as
they are concerned a feasible argument can be made for either side of a moral issue. Accordingly,
the moral philosophy of the Skeptics is to follow the prevailing conventions of morality.
In contrast to Skeptics’ view is the philosophy of Epicurus who founded the school of
Epicureanism. Epicurus, like Socrates and Plato, thinks that man should strive towards happiness.
People should not fear death or the gods and should instead seek pleasure in this life. As pleasure
is the main emphasis of life, Epicureanism is hedonistic. However Epicurus also emphasizes the
importance of avoiding pleasures that may cause harm in the future.
The philosophy of the Stoics originated in Syria, but most of the writings that are widely
read today come from the Romans, Marcus Aurelius and Seneca. The Stoics think reason is the
highest authority and in tune with the rational laws of nature. Since nature is rational, we should
accept things for how they are and not try to change them. Thus, we should rationally analyze and
adjust our emotions until they are in harmony with things as they actually are:
 Moral Relativism
 Eudaimonia
 Happiness
 The Greeks
 Good
 Harm

Western philosophy deals with Individualism while Eastern Philosophy is related to

Collectivism. Both philosophies center on virtues. Eastern philosophy takes more of a spiritual
approach while Western philosophy is more hands-on.