1.
1 ETHICS AND THE HUMAN PERSON: KEY
CONCEPTS IN ETHICS
RULES
are "accepted principles or instruction that state the way
things are should be done, and tells you what you are
allowed or are not allowed to do" (Cambridge, 2020)
LAW
according to Thomas Aquinas, is "an ordinance of reason
for the common good of a (complete) community,
promulgated by the person or body responsible for
looking after the community" (Stanford, 2020)
Both terms are commonly used interchangeably
as long as we are talking about order and organization
and the common good. But in terms of its consequences,
laws carry much more weight.
For Aquinas, as far as human laws are
concerned, they are all reasonably created, written, and
promulgated by a leader of readers of a particular
community. Violating laws would mean punishment and
restitution according to the nature of the violation
committed. Bottom line, any society or community needs
rules and laws as a guide to conduct, preservation, and
survival, peace and order, promotion of common good,
and flourishing of human values and rights.
THE IMPORTANCE OF RULES TO SOCIAL BEINGS
Rules benefit social beings in various ways:
1. Rules protect social beings by regulating behavior
2. Rules help guarantee each person certain rights and
freedom
3. Rules produce a sense of justice among social beings
4. Rules are essential for a healthy economic system
Both rules and laws are generated by our
reason by which, upon knowing it is good, we either
follow or violate them. But there are times, laws are
created but one could not follow because our
consciences dictate that it is wrong.
For instance, why are the death penalty,
abortion, and divorce are not allowed here in the
Philippines while other countries implement them? Is it
because we know better than them? If we do, how do we
know if rules are geared towards good and avoid what is
wrong? Perhaps, a more pressing question would be
“How do we know what is right?”, “Is there a universal
standard by which all rules and laws are generated?
These are just some of the many questions that
Ethics, a branch of Philosophy that deals with the
rightness and wrongness of human actions, is trying to
answer.
ETHICS
 is a major branch of Philosophy that studies morality
or the rightness or wrongness of human conduct.
 Morality speaks of a code or system of behavior in
regards to standards of right or wrong behavior.
 Moral Philosophy is “concerned with questions of
how people ought to act, and the search for a
definition of right conduct (identified as the one
causing the greatest good) and the good life (in the
sense of a life worth living or a life that is satisfying
or happy)”. (Philosophy Basics, 2020).
 The terms morality/moral and ethics/ethical can
be interchanged for they often refer to the same
meaning.
 Ethics stands to queries about what there is a
reason to do.
 Ethics is also concerned with character.
 In fact, the word “ethics is derived from the Greek
word ethos, which means ‘character” or in plural,
‘manners’. Taking its meaning from the word itself,
we can say that Ethics has something to do with our
actions which develop into custom or habit.
Some other questions that are ethical in nature:
 What is good?
 Who is a moral person?
 What are the virtues of a human being?
 What makes an act right?
 What duties do we have to each other?
3 SUB-PARTS OF ETHICS
1. META ETHICS
 is concerned with the nature of ethics or morality
itself. It deals with the questions such as “Is morality
objective or subjective?” and/or “Is there an
absolute, objective, and universal morality?”
2. NORMATIVE ETHICS
 deals with what one should act morally. The term
“should” imply its prescriptive nature. This includes
regulating our behaviors depending on the habits we
develop, the duties that we follow, and weighing the
foreseeable consequences of our actions.
3. APPLIED ETHICS
 deals with the application of ethical standards in
analyzing and solving moral issues from different
disciplines and institutions such as or related to
medicine, environment, society, technology, etc.
(IEP, 2020).
What you have to remember for now is the idea
that Ethics is a discipline that studies not only the
rightness or wrongness of our actions but also how
and why they are right or wrong.
Morality or Ethics is the basis of all laws and
rules. It is the guiding principle behind every creation and
promulgation of laws. Thus, there must be what the moral
philosophers called “Moral Standards” or “Moral Laws”
which nobody had written but everyone, every society,
and culture seems to follow.
Commonly to us Filipinos, we have a grasp of
Moral Laws through our Christian orientation. Most
familiar to us are the injunctions “Thou shall not kill”,
“Thou shall not lie”, “Thou shall not steal”, and “Thou
shall not commit adultery” that are commonly known to us
as part of the Ten Commandments.
But assuming that we did not become a
Christian nation or perhaps, without the Bible or religion,
is morality still possible? What do you think?
 For Immanuel Kant, practical reason is the
foundation of Moral Philosophy (Garath, Stanford 2020).
We can think and reason out that we can evaluate what
is right from what is wrong. Consider this thought
experiment for instance; What will happen if killing one
another becomes a law and allowable and required for us
to follow? What If all of us are required to lie? What if
stealing becomes naturally allowable for all of us? What if
adultery becomes morally permissible? What will happen
to us?
If all of these are allowed and become our rule
of life, then there will be chaos. Humanity might become
extinct. Ownership and security are impossible. Words
will be meaningless and the exclusivity of marriage and
family life will be different from what we think of them
now. Can you imagine sharing your husband or wife with
someone and it is totally fine to you?
Aside from reasoning, our natural inclination to
desire the welfare of the other leads us to do good, thus,
we are naturally sympathetic beings (Thilly,1900). From a
Christian perspective, we call it to love in its ultimate
sense. But then, even if we do not call it love, it is in our
system that we want what is good for others and
therefore, we could not help but do good for others. Any
action that intends and causes ill-effects to others is
wrong. Notice that in morality then, we behave morally by
avoiding first what is dangerous for others. Then, we tend
to do what is good not only for our survival but also for
our human flourishing and social advancements (p.226).
MORAL STANDARDS VS. NON MORAL STANDARDS
MORAL STANDARDS
 Moral standards involve the rules people have about
the kinds of actions they believe are morally right
and wrong, as well as the values they place on the
kinds of objects they believe are morally good and
morally bad. Some ethicists equate moral standards
with moral values and moral principles.
NON-MORAL STANDARDS
 Non-moral standards refer to rules that are related to
moral or ethical considerations. Either these
standards are not necessarily linked to morality or by
nature lack ethical sense.
The following characteristics of moral standards further
differentiate them from non-moral standards:
1. Moral standards involve serious wrongs or
significant benefits
2. Moral Standards ought to be preferred to other
values.
3. Moral Standards are not established by Authority
figures.
4. Moral standards have the trait of universalizability.
5. Moral standards are based on impartial
considerations.
6. Moral standards are associated with special
emotions and vocabulary.
Another basic tenet in Ethics is that only human
beings can be truly ethical.
1. Only human beings are rational, autonomous, and
self-conscious.
2. Only human beings can act morally or immorally.
3. Only human beings are part of a moral community.
MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR MORALITY
1. Reason is a requirement for morality entails that
human feelings may be important in ethical decisions, but
they ought to be guided by reason. Sound reasoning
helps us to evaluate whether our feelings and intuitions
about moral cases are correct and defensible.
2. Impartiality is a principle of justice holding that
decisions ought to be based on objective criteria, rather
than on the basis of bias, prejudice, or preferring the
benefit to one person over another for improper reasons.
Our human faculties, especially intellect and
reasoning make us capable of thinking, reflecting, and
contemplating our actions. If we are to agree with science
that we are animals in the highest form, it is our ability to
use our consciousness that makes us apart from other
animals. Thus, with all of the things that we discuss so
far, and the succeeding learnings on this course, we will
be touching the Moral Dimension of our humanity. This
course will remind us and deepen your understanding of
how and why man is naturally a moral being.
RECAPITULATION
 First, when we talk about ethics or morality, we are
talking about the rightness and wrongness of human
conduct.
 Second, Moral Standards or Moral Laws are guiding
principles of human conduct proper to the survival,
preservation, and progress of our humanity. These
are not promulgated or written by any men and can
be considered as “unwritten laws” (Chen, 2018).
 Thirdly, even in the absence of religion, it is natural
for us to use our reason and affection to do good
and avoid evil. Morality is natural to us.
 Fourthly, we realized that “not all rules are moral
rules” but every set of rules and laws can be derived
from a system of moral standards.
 Lastly, we must remember that “not all legal is
considered moral.” Consider for instance “abortion”
which is legal and lawfully permitted in other
countries. It may be legal but it is not moral because
it does not respect and do harm to human life.
Most importantly, this course packet brings us back to the
idea that as humans are subject to laws of nature and
created rules, our nature as moral beings makes us
follow naturally if not religiously inclined, these so-called
moral rules or standards. That, unlike other animals who
follow their instinct to eat, to kill, to prey among others,
we humans are capable of thinking and rethinking our
actions and therefore, responsible for our misconduct.
And no matter how we hate to follow rules, we are always
subject to follow the dictates of our reason and affection
more specifically if it pertains to our morality. Because
like it or not, we humans as persons are Moral Beings.
1.3 ETHICS AND THE HUMAN PERSON: FILIPINO
CULTURE AND MORALITY The world is lived through
the culture as the lifeworld of the Human Person. It is the
primary environment and influence that shapes and forms
humans to become persons. This is also where ethics
and morality is primarily exercise. It is the community
where the persons exude and express themselves
ethically or unethically in the continuous process of
personhood. Thus, we will be discussing the role of
culture in the moral development of the human person.
To put things in perspective, we will be exploring Filipino
Cultural terms and values that influence notion of morality
of the Filipino persons. With a limited time and space, we
will only discuss the terms “loob”, “hiya”, “daya” and
“kapuwa” and how are they interrelated and
interconnected to Filipino Ethics. THE ROLE OF
CULTURE IN MORALITY We concluded in the last
course packet that the human person is a situated
relational being. Our existence as human persons is
shaped by the world around us. Martin Heidegger calls
the human person as the “being-in-the-world”, much less,
as “being-thrown- into- the-world” where humanity, who
had no choice when s/he was born, is left with the world
to where he/she could depend on his/her existence and
exercise his/her freedom. In this world, as human
persons, we interpret our reality and create, in the words
of contemporary philosopher Jurgen Habermas, our
“lifeworld”, the environment where we create meanings
from our daily experience (Bohman & Rehg, 2014). Part
of the lifeworld that contextualizes a person is a culture
where he/she was born and raised. Culture “is that
complex whole which includes knowledge, belief, art,
morals, law, custom, and any other capabilities and
habits acquired by man as a member of society.” (Tylor
1958). It is the instrument societies use to adapt to their
environment. It is “... a historically transmitted pattern of
meanings embodied in symbols, a system of inherited
conceptions expressed in symbolic forms through which
men communicate, perpetuate, and develop their
knowledge about and attitudes toward life” (Geertz 1973:
89). To put it more simply, it is the way of life where a
community is conditioned and accustomed to living.
Culture shapes and forms the person more particularly in
terms of moral development. Along with personal identity,
the human person also develops moral identity which can
be defined as “the degree to which being a moral person
is important to an individual” (Hardy & Carlo, 2005)”. If
the person values respect, honesty, being good to
neighbors, and stands for justice and rights, most likely,
the person may develop a moral identity. This is being
developed not without in cultural context. For instance,
studies have shown that while Western cultures tend to
be individualistic, Asians are inclined to be collectivist.
Moreover, due to cultural differences and environmental
factors, we might find other cultures as somewhat
immoral and against our moral standards. For instance,
Eskimos are practicing wife swapping and offer sex as
hospitality (Rubel 1961) while some parts of Fiji and
Papua New Guinea are still practicing cannibalism.
Needless to say, the practices of abortion, divorce, and
the death penalty are tolerated in other countries but
contradicted here in the Philippines. The differences in
culture lead to conflicting notions of morality to the point
that some adhere to the idea that right and wrong
depends on one’s perception of culture. Thus, being
situated is to be culturally conditioned. In the study of
Ethics, the influences of culture matter especially in the
ethical decision-making of the human person. This will be
expounded further in the next course packet. In the next
section, we will be talking about some cultural concepts
that define us as Filipinos. We will also connect these
terms to the concept of Filipino Ethics. THE FILIPINO
CULTURE: LOOB, HIYA, KAPWA, AT PANDARAYA
Local philosophers, anthropologists, sociologists, and
even theologians have contributed their reflections on the
search for a truly Filipino Philosophy. Four of the many
concepts they have explored are “loob”, “hiya”, “kapuwa”
and, recently, theologians included “daya” in moral
theology. Here we shall define and discuss first each
term and eventually use them all together to come up
with Filipino Ethics. LOOB Loob is a Filipino philosophical
concept of the inner self. However, unlike the Western
orientation of compartmentalizing the will, reason, and
emotions, the concept of loob shows “the connectedness
of intellectual, volitional and emotional and ethical”
faculties of the human person (Mercado, 1972). You
might hear someone who says “Do not let your reason
rule over your emotion” or might have heard in
philosophy classes the comparison that emotion and
reason as two horses in a chariot. This and other rational
and segmental explanations of human faculties are
Western-oriented. But being an Oriental nation, the
Philippines shares this tradition of unity of human
faculties and the concept of interiority with other Asian
nations. The loob or the interiority is expressed by the
outer self, the physical self, or pangangatawan. The body
is not like a machine that the inner self can control but
rather, it is the “self” itself. Thus, the human person in this
kind of philosophy is rightfully called “embodied spirit” or
beautifully said in Filipino “sumasakatawang-diwa”,
implying that whatever the conditions of the inner self are
what the body, the outer self would show. There is no
duality nor a separation of the body(soul) and spirit but
only unity. Now, ethically speaking, the Filipino Aesthetics
(philosophy of beauty) contributes to the philosophy of
“loob” when we talk about “beauty”. “Ganda” or
“Kagandahan” or “maganda” is the Filipino concept of
beauty where in ethical sense it speaks of “goodness,
order, and truth and guilelessness” or “mabuti, maayos,
totoo at walang daya”(De Mesa & Cacho, 2012). So that
when one says “maganda ang ating ginagawa” this
means we are doing good, “magandang samahan”
means good relationship, and “gandang tunay at walang
daya” is genuinely and winsomely beautiful without guile
or hypocrisy. When we speak of ethical and moral good
acts in Filipino, we think of actions that spring from
“kagandahang-loob” or beauty from within which is
physically expressed by our outer self, our bodies or we
can say “pinangangatawanan”. Since we speak of “loob-
labas” connection, every action that we do be it freely and
joyfully done or otherwise (bukal sa kalooban vs. labag
sa kalooban), it will flow from within and will be felt by
those who receive the gesture. Thus, those who have
“magandang-loob” is an ethically upright person while
those who are called “masama, magulo at madaya” are
unethical, immoral, or worst be called “evil”. DAYA “Daya”
or fake, treachery, or deception is proposed by Filipino
theologians Jose De Mesa and Rebecca Cacho as the
rightful translation of sin, the theological equivalent of
unethical and immoral actions. While we have “mali” o
“pagkakamali” and “kasalanan” as the opposite of “tama”
or “right”, both of these terms can be reduced as
“mistake” or “missing the point” which on some
occasions, unintentional. Daya or pandaraya is never
unintentional. No one will say “Pare sorry hindi ko alam
na nandadaya ako” in a game. Nobody cheats on exams
and if caught would say “Sorry, I do not know that I am
cheating. “Daya” could also mean bad intentions
disguised through good deeds. We usually experience
these through “user- friendly” friends who are present
when they are in need from you, politicians who help the honorable and dignified (may kahihiyan) Filipino to be
poor only when elections come, “lovers” with flowers to truly ethical without any “daya”. But no matter how
cover up their affairs, students who pretend to be good at beautiful our culture is, there is a danger when we make
their teachers, etc. In other words “fake people with bad it the ultimate standard of morality as it could go either in
intentions”. What makes pandaraya greater than the right direction or otherwise. Hiya and utang na loob
kamalian and kasalanan? It is the nature of awareness are the two of the most compelling Filipino cultural
and intention that makes “daya” unethical and immoral in concepts that could make or break the ethical Pinoy. As
the fullest sense because of the three integral parts of the such, the need for a more solid grounding of ethical
moral act that we discussed in the previous lesson (De theories and principles could complement and
Mesa & Cacho, pp.22-30) HIYA Be it in the local movies supplement these cultural values to attain what is truly
or real life, what do we usually hear when someone has ethical and be aware of what is truly unethical. This will
wronged the other? It is either “hayop ka!” or “walanghiya be our task on our next course packet.
ka!” The first one connotes the degradation of humanity
into an animal (hayop in Filipino) stature every time an
immoral act is committed against the other. Although the
first expression is indeed an insult to animals who are
naturally not rational, it means that the person lost the
reasoning to act properly and therefore be likened to a
beast usually a swine. The second expression is the loss
of honor, dignity. “Hiya” is usually translated as “shame”
in English and it could be in the Filipino context a feeling
of embarrassment in a negative sense and a notion of
honor and pride in a positive sense. This trait springs
from the collectivist perspective where Filipinos are so
conscious of what other people might say against or in
favor of their name. “Ayaw natin ng napapahiya tayo”.
“Hiya” is linked to our face or “mukha”. Although the
whole body is the physical manifestation of the self,
“Mukha” is where our identity lies. We flaunt our face
when we know it is presentable and on an honorable
occasion but we cover it when we are disgraced just like
those who are publicly arrested because of a crime or
defeated athletes after bragging and thrash talking to
discredit the opponents. But after being caught in the act
of crimes, or being discovered a fraud, corrupt, dishonest,
and “mandaraya” yet still have the face to show others as
if nothing wrong happened and continuously doing
shameful acts, these people are called “makapal ang
mukha” or “matigas ang mukha”, a version of “walang
hiya” for those who are already indifferent to shame and
unmindful of honor. KAPUWA The culture of loob, hiya
and daya is always geared towards others or “kapuwa”.
Derived from the Spanish term “capoua” which means
“equal” and “both” usually used for humans (Reyes,
2013). We usually translate it in English as “others” but it
is utterly insufficient. “Kapuwa” is a “recognition of shared
identity, an inner self shared with others” while “other” is
an individuated self who is different from the “self”. Thus,
kapuwa is “another self” (p.97) or the “shared self” (p.98).
Now since “loob” equals “self”, kapuwa, therefore, is
“another loob”. Potentially, everyone is kapuwa as we are
interconnected by our humanity, particularly as Filipinos.
But the genuine actualization of relationship with kapuwa
or “another loob” is when the kagandahang loob is
reciprocated by “utang na loob” or “depth of gratitude” or
“indebtedness” (p.100). The reciprocal relationship of
kagandahang-loob and utang na loob constitutes a
dynamic relationship of the self and the “another self”
which is expressed in ethical and moral ways. If every
Filipino possesses kagandahang- loob, then, s/he will be
ashamed of deceiving his/her “kapuwa”. And as a
kapuwa who is at the receiving end of kagandahang-loob
we should be ashamed of “pandaraya” or else, we will be
marked as “walang utang na loob”, another way of saying
walang hiya ka! So it is implied that both kagandahang-
loob and utang na loob should be possessed by every