What is Ethics?

(Excerpts from the book, Ethics by Marc Pasco, et. al.):

Ethics is grounded on the experience of free persons who have to act in difficult situations. It
developed from the reality that when people act, they do not merely need to know the best way to
realize something but there are times when they need to act in a way that realizes the good. And
the good does not always mean the easiest or the most expedient way.

Ethical norms and the question of good and evil arise when people need to act as free persons. But
not all actions are inherently ethical. Actions only require ethical reflection when they are free acts
that involve a person’s desire to realize the good. For example, merely eating (nourishment) vs.
eating that is thought in relation to freedom.

Etymology

The term ethics comes from the Greek word ethos, which means custom, a characteristic or habitual
way of doing things, or action that is properly derived from one’s character.

• “…simple description of the mores or ways of behaving, whether of the human person in
general or of a particular population.” In other words, from the etymological point of view,
ethics is but a survey of patterns of behavior that is done by the human being in general
or a society in particular.

Looking closely, however, human action has to do with human movements that are ruled by one’s
freedom. Given that freedom is not only the independence from what could hinder but also a
consideration of the goal of the action, ethics cannot be limited to pure description. Since goal are
inherently directional, they imply normativity.

A Holistic Approach to Ethics

Ethics, also called moral philosophy, is a branch of philosophy that deals with the moral aspect of human life.
It attempts to systematically understand the way a man should live his life precisely as a man and why. A complete
approach to ethics includes three major themes, namely, goods, virtues and norms.

First, ethics is about goods when it attempts to understand the real destiny of man or the true meaning of
human life and of man himself as a moral agent. It asks questions about man’s fulfillment and self-realization through
action. Under this theme, ethics’ specific task is to understand what is really good or evil for man, and of what makes
him good or what makes him evil.

Second, ethics is about virtues when it tries to understand how the goods which contribute to a truly
meaningful life are acquired and lived. Under this theme, ethics’ specific task is to understand how and why an action
is good or evil, that is, contributing to man’s fulfillment or not.

Finally, ethics is about norms inasmuch as the pursuit for the good affects other people. Under this theme,
ethics’ specific task is to provide guidelines for living the good life in relation to oneself and to others or on how man
behaves well in the conduct of his affairs; to give answers to moral questions, and to prescribe normative rules of
conduct which may serve also as the basis of positive laws.

The Challenge of Cultural Relativism and the Universality of Morality

As what can be seen from the definition, ethics rest on a presupposition that there is such a thing as universal
and objective morality. However, not fer thoughtful persons will consider those who believe in the universality of
morals, primitive or backward. Hence, this will first respond to this challenge.

In the 19th century, cultural anthropology came into its own as a scientific discipline and reminded the West
that “out there” were a variety of cultures that follow a variety of moral codes. Cultural relativism poses a challenge
to Ethics because it presents tangible differences of moral codes among different cultures. Hence, many people
started to think that morality is relative, that is, what is moral or immoral depends on each culture.

Cultural anthropology and sociology, owing to their methodology, merely describe cultural diversity and the
emergence of customs based on historical and sociological factors. Thus, they do not provide a complete information
regarding the moral insights of each culture. Hence, they commit the fallacy of oversimplification when they advance
the information they gather. We are not saying that the information they gather and the descriptions they provide
about the lifestyle of these people are incorrect. What we mean here is that the information alone, describing some
of their practices especially religious ones, may not support their inference regarding the internal moral insights of
these people. Here are some examples that prove our point:

1. In some parts of Nigeria, a particular custom exists where children dispatch their parents rather than
allow them to die naturally in age. To the sociologists and cultural anthropologists, this is a good example
of moral relativism based on cultural differences. It would appear that this society has moral values very
much different from ours since they do not perceive the moral imperative of caring for their aging parents.
However, looking closely, what would be revealed is exactly the opposite. The reason for this particular
belief is that their religion teaches them that the bodily condition of a person at the moment of death will
determine his or her condition in the next life. Thus if their father or mother dies old and shabby, he or
 she will look like that in the next life, and they don’t want that to happen to their parents. Just like us, these
people perceived the moral excellence of loving, caring, respecting and wishing good for their parents. Yet
in the application of this moral law, they were mistaken because of an obstacle due to a predominant
belief of their religion. Hence, the difference actually lies not on their moral values but on their religious
beliefs.

2. There is another culture where people believe it is wrong to eat cows. This culture may even be a poor
culture, in which there is a scarcity of food; still, the cows are not to be touched. Such a society would
appear to have values very different from our own. But does it? There is a reason behind this belief. The
reason why this people do not eat cows is that they believe that after death the souls of humans inhabit
the bodies of animals, especially cows, so that a cow may be someone’s relative who passed away. Thus,
just like the first example, the difference is in the belief systems and not in values. We agree that we should
not eat a relative; we simply disagree about whether the cow is (or could be) our relative who passed away.

3. One tribal culture in East Africa throws its deformed children into the river because it believes that such
infants belong to hippopotamus, the god of the river. We consider this a false belief, but the point is that
the same principles of respect for property and for human life are operative in these contrary practices.
These people differ with us only in belief, not in substantive moral principle.

4. The people of ancient Aztec practice human sacrifices. In the eyes of a sociologist, this is another proof
that cultures relatively perceive what is moral and what is not. It would appear that Aztecs have less
regard for life or that killing people is not wrong for them. However, the historical evidences would
suggest otherwise. Aztecs’ values are in fact not so different from ours. The reason why human sacrifices
were made was in order that lives may be saved in the belief that their gods will protect them from foreign
invaders, catastrophes, send them rain, give them good harvests or not send them pests. The Aztecs were
heavily agricultural, which explains why their gods embody forces of nature. They believe that in offering
human sacrifices, they contribute to the sacrifices of the gods in making other gods strong so that the
latter may continue to sustain the world or create another cosmic age in the event that the present one
comes to an end. In fact, in some cases, the entire community was involved in bloodletting. Again, what is
different here is the worldview of the Aztecs and not really their morality.

5. Related to Aztec’s human sacrifice is the Hindu practice called Suttee. This is a custom wherein a newly
widowed woman burns herself, either on a funeral pyre of her dead husband or in some other fashion,
soon after his death. Suttee is linked to the myth of the Hindu goddess Sati, who burned herself to death
in a fire that she created through her yogic powers after her father insulted her husband, the god Shiva. In
some cases, women “suffered immolation before their husband’s expected death in battle, in which case
the burning is called Jauhar. In 12th to 16th century, the Rajputs practiced Jauhar, most notably the
Citorgarh, to save women from rape, which they considered worse than death, at the hands of the
conquering enemies. Although it was outlawed by the British rule in India in 1829, it continued to occur
in scattered instances. The case of Roop Kanwar, an 18-year-old widow who committed suttee in 1987
was highly controversial. This practice again, is deeply religious and should not be taken immediately as
a manifestation of the Indian’s unique way of seeing morality. Just like anyone of us, the Indians
understood that life cannot be violated by anybody; while in the suttee the Indians believe that the widow
is doing something “godly” which is an imitation of the divine virtues of Sati. The term suttee itself came
to be understood as “chaste women.” Women who immolate themselves are doing so as a proof of devotion
and fidelity to their husbands. They were united with their husbands in life, they will do so in the next.
Suttee, for Hindu women makes them ultimately one with their husbands.

The point here is that, it is not true that morals are relative or that people perceive relatively what is wrong
and what is right, for the same people in a particular culture would assent to the wrongness of what they were doing
if presented a hypothetical situation different from the situation they are currently in. In other words, no Nigerian
would ever think of dispatching his parents if he realizes that their religion is sham. No person would ever think of
throwing the deformed infant to the river if he or she realizes that child, despite the deformity, is a human too. And
no Aztec would ever think of offering human lives if he realizes that it has nothing to do with good harvest or if it has
no value at all in the protection of life.

We could ask then, how some individuals or group of people, who are living in the same social milieu, are able
to transcend and criticize the social conventions of their times? The obvious answer is simply because these people
reflected, that is, they engaged themselves in ethical reflection. This is the importance of studying ethics, it leads a
person to love the attitude of engaging in ethical reflection.
(Reference: Dela Rosa, R. (2011). Introduction to Moral Philosophy. Davao City: Scientiarum Publishing and Pasco, M. et. al. (2018). Ethics.
Quezon City: C&E Publishing, Inc.)