ETHICS
prescriptions that serve as the frameworks
CHAPTER 1 – Understanding Morality and Moral
Standards
LESSON 1 – Importance of Rules
 Rules are important to Social Beings.
 Rules are meant to set order.
 Rules are not meant to restrict your freedom
 For the sake of order in society, everyone is
subject to rules. In a democratic country
like the Philippines, we often hear the
statement “No one is above the law,”
including the highest official of the country.
We are all subject to rules or else court
chaos.
 If there are rules or laws that restrict your
ability or strength to do good, they are
suffocating laws and they are not good laws.
They ought to be abolished. Any rule or law
that prevents human persons from doing and
being good ought to be repealed. They have
no reason to exist.
 If you are a rule or a law-abiding citizen,
you don’t even feel the restricting presence
of a rule or law because you do what the law
or what the rules states everybody should
do.
LESSON 2 – MORAL and Non-MORAL Standards
Ethymology and Meaning of Ethics
 The term “Ethics” comes from the Greek
word “ethos” meaning “custom” used in the
works of Aristotle, while the term “moral” is
the Latin equivalent. Based on the Greek
and Latin etymology of the word “ethics”,
deals with morality. When the Roman
orator Cicero exclaimed, “O tempora o
mores” (Cicero, 1856) (Oh, what time and
what morals), he may have been trying to
express dismay of the morality of his time.
 ETHICS or moral philosophy, is a branch
of philosophy which deals with moral
standards, inquires about the righteousness
or wrongness of human behavior or the
goodness or wrongness of human
behavior or the goodness or badness of
personality, trait or character. It deals with
ideas, with topics such as moral standards or
norms of morality, conscience, moral values
and virtues. Ethics is a study of the morality
of human acts and moral agents, what makes
an act obligatory and what makes a person
accountable.
 MORAL is the adjective describing a
human act as either ethically right or wrong,
or qualifying a person, personality,
character, as either ethically good or bad.
MORAL STANDARDS or MORAL
FRAMEWORKS and Non-MORAL
STANDARDS
 Moral Standards are norms or
for determining what ought to be done or
what is right or wrong action, what is good
or bad character.
 Moral Standards are either consequences
standards ( like Stuart Mills utilitarianism)
or non-consequence standards (like
Aristotle’s virtue, St. Thomas’ natural law,
or Immanuel Kant goodwill or sense of
duty).
 The consequence standards depend on
results, outcome. An act that results in the
general welfare, in the greatest good of the
greatest number, is moral. To take part in a
project that results in the improvement of the
majority of people is, therefore, moral.
 The Non-Consequence Standards are
based on the natural law. Natural law is the
law of God revealed through human reason.
It is the “law of God written in the hearts of
men.” To preserve human life is in
accordance with the natural law, therefore it
is moral. Likewise, the non-consequence
standard may also be based on good will or
intention, and on a sense of duty. Respect
for humanity, treatment of the other as a
human person, an act that is moral , springs
from a sense of duty, a sense of duty that
you wish will apply to all human persons.
 On the other hand, non-moral standards are
social rules, demands of etiquette and good
manners. They are guides of action which
should be followed as expected by society.
Sometimes they may not be followed or
some people may not follow them. From
time to time, changes are made regarding
good manners or etiquette. In sociology,
non-moral standards or rules are called
folkways. In short, non-moral actions are
those where moral categories cannot be
applied.
EXAMPLES of NON-MORAL
STANDARDS
 Rules of good manners and right
conduct
 Etiquette
 Rules of behavior set by parents,
teachers.
 Standards of grammar or language
 Standards of art
 Standards of sports set by authorities.
CLASSIFICATION of the THEORIES of
MORAL STANDARDS
 Garner and Rosen (1976) classified various
moral standards formulated by moral
philosophers:
1. CONSEQUENCE (teleological,
from tele which means end, result, or
consequence) STANDARD states
that an act is right or wrong
depending on the consequences of
 the act, that is, the good that is
produced in the world
The consequence standard can also
be a basis for determining whether or
not a rule is a right rule. So the
consequence standards states that the
rightness or wrongness of a rule
depends on the consequences or the
good that is produced in following
rule.
For instance, if everyone follows the
rule of a game, everyone will enjoy
playing the game. This good
consequence proves the rule must be
a correct rule.
2. NOT-ONLY-CONSEQUENCE
STANDARD ( deontological),holds
that the rightness or wrongness of an
action or rule depends on sense of
duty, natural law, virtue and the
demand of the situation or
circumstances. The rightness or
wrongness of an action does not only
depend or rely on the consequence of
that action or following that rule.
 Natural law and virtue ethics are
deontological moral standards because their
basis for determining what is right or wrong
does not depend on consequences but on the
natural law and virtue. Situation ethics, too,
is deontological because the rightness or
wrongness of an act depends on situation
and circumstances requiring or demanding
except{_:ion to rule.
 DEONTOLOGY – as the better moral
standard because it synthesizes or includes
all the other theory of norms. Under this
theory, the rightness or wrongness of an
action depends on ( or is a function of) all
the following:
A) Consequence of an action or rule, what
promotes one’s greatest good, or the
greatest good of the greatest number;
B) Consideration other than consequences,
like the obligatoriness or the act based
on natural law, or its being one’s duty, or
its promoting an ideal virtue.
DEONTOLOGY also considers the
object, purpose, and circumstances or
situation of the moral issue or dilemma.
WHAT MAKES STANDARDS MORAL:
 In China, B.C., Confucius taught the moral
standard, “ Do unto others what you like
others to do unto you”
 Immanuel Kant, the German philosopher,
formulated a criterion for determining what
makes a moral standard moral. It is stated as
follows : “ Act only according to that maxim
whereby you can at the same time will that it
should become a universal law.”
 Moral standards are standards that we want
to be followed by all, otherwise, one would
be wishing one’s own ill fortune.
 Thus, the universal necessity of the
maxim, what makes it a categorical
imperative is what makes it obligatory. “
Stealing is wrong” means “one ought not to
steal” and “Do not kill” means “one ought
not to kill.” It is one’s obligation not to steal
or kill. Ultimately, the obligations arises
from the need of self-preservation.
THE ORIGIN of MORAL STANDARDS :
THEIST and NON – THEIST
 THEISTIC line of thought states moral
standards are of divine origin.
 Non-THEISTIC line of thought, moral
standards must have evolved as the
process of evolution followed its course.
 With the Divine source concept,
moral standards are derived from
natural law, man’s
“participation” in the Divine law.
The moral principles, “Do good
and avoid evil” is an expression
of natural law. Man’s obliging
himself to respect the life, liberty,
and property of his fellowman
arises from the God-given
sacredness, spirituality, and
dignity of his fellow man. It
arises from his faith, hope. And
love of God and man.
LESSON 3 MORAL DILEMMAS
MORAL DILEMMAS
 are situations where two or more moral
values or duties make demands on the
decision-maker, who can only honor one of
them and thus will violate at least one
important moral concern, no matter what he
or she decides to do.
 Present situations where there is tension
between moral values and duties that are
more or less on equal footing. The decision
maker has to choose between a wrong and
another wrong. The decision-maker is in a
deadlock.
ETHICAL DILEMMA
 As a “decision-making” problem between
two possible moral imperatives, neither of
which is unambiguously acceptable or
preferable. It is sometimes called an ethical
paradox in moral philosophy.” (Oxford
dictionary)
FALSE DILEMMA
 Is a situation where the decision-maker has a
moral duty to do one thing, but is tempted or
under pressure to do something else. A false
dilemma is a choice between a right and a
wrong.
THE THREE LEVELS of MORAL
DILEMMAS
 INDIVIDUAL – This refers to personal
dilemmas. It is an individual’s damn-if-you-
do-and-damn-if-you-don’t situation.
 ORGANIZATIONAL – is a puzzle posed
by the dual necessities of a social
organization and member’s self-interest. It
may exist between personal interests and
 organizational welfare or between group
interests and organizational well-being..
(Wagner, J. 2019)
 May likewise occur in business,
medical. And public sector
 Arise due to different opposing
concerns between various
groupings in an organization.
 STRUCTURAL – the case of the principal
whether to be participatory or non-
participatory in school affairs but due to her
not so favorable experience of attempting to
be participatory ended up to one-woman rule
is an example of a structural dilemma
EXAMPLES of STRUCTURAL DILEMMA
1. Differentiation – any attempt to introduce
reform in society or government creates
structural dilemma. For instance, promoting
or introducing universal healthcare, which is
tantamount to socialized health care, give
rise to structural dilemma, that is , a conflict
of perspective of sectors, groups and
institutions that may be affected by the
decision.
2. GAP Versus OVERLAP – There may be
gaps and overlaps in roles and
responsibilities. If key responsibilities are
not clearly assigned, there may be gaps or
overlaps in important tasks. If there are
gaps, organizations end up with no one
doing the responsibility. If there are
overlaps, things become unclear and may
lead to more confusion and even conflict and
worse wasted effort and perhaps even
resources because of the unintended overlap.
3. LACK of CLARITY Versus Lack of
Creativity – if employees are unclear about
what they are supported to do, they often
tailor their roles around personal preferences
instead of system wide goals, frequently
leading to trouble.
4. FLEXIBILITY Versus STRICT
ADHERENCE to RULES -You
accommodate by bending rules to help
someone or you stick strictly to rules no
matter what and so unable to help someone
who is thrown into a helpless situation. Or
you may become being too accommodating
that all rules are no more.
5. EXCESSIVE AUTONOMY Versus
EXCESSIVE INTERDEPENDENCE –
This refers to being too isolated versus too
much coordination.
6. CENTRALIZED Versus
DECENTRALIZED DECISION
MAKING – In decentralized decision
making, organizations can respond to
change more rapidly and effectively because
the decision makers are the people closed to
the situation. However, top managers may
lose some control. This is the dilemma of
tight overcentralization or diffusing
authority which is loose.
LESSON 5 – FREEDOM as FOUNDATION
for MORAL ACTS
Ethics Applies Only to Human Persons
 Human persons have a choice or freedom ,
hence, morality applies only to human
persons.
 FREEDOM and MORAL CHOICE.
Without freedom it is impossible to make a
moral choice. If we are to have free will we
must have the ability to make a decision that
is unhindered.
LESSON 6 – CULTURE : HOW IT
DEFINES MORAL BEHAVIOR
 The “absolute freedom” that the
existentialist and phenomenologist are
talking about does not of course exist in
vacuum. It exists in a world with all its
spatio-temporal conditions. Its
“facticity” refers to the “givens” of our
situation such as language, our
environment. Our previous choices and
our very selves in their function as in –
itself constitute our facticity that
includes culture.
 WHAT IS CULTURE?
 “is the integrated pattern of
human knowledge, beliefs, and
behaviors. This consists of
language, ideas, customs, morals,
laws, taboos, institutions, tools,
techniques, and work of art,
rituals, and other capacities and
habits acquired by a person as a
member of society”
 Magisterium of the church
explains culture as” the setoff
means used by mankind to
become more virtuous and
reasonable in order to become
fully human. In its fullest sense,
culture means opening up to the
divine, and ultimately, to a
religious dimension “. Church
defines culture to serve human
persons.
 Sociologist perspective on
culture:
1. Non -Material – language,
values, rules, knowledge, and
meanings shared by members
of society.
2. Material – physical object
that a society produces -tools,
streets, homes and toys.
 Culture is passed on to the next
generation by learning not through
the genes or heredity. “CULTURE “
includes phenomena which are not
purely results of human genetics
(Kroeber et al, 1952)
 Enculturation, Inculturation and
Acculturation
 Enculturation, an
anthropological term, was
coined by J.M. Herskovits
Margaret Mead has, however,
was the one who defined the
term as “ the process of
learning a culture in all its
uniqueness and particularity”.
  Inculturation refers to the
“missiological process in
which the Gospel is rooted in
a particular culture and the
latter is transformed. By its
introduction to Christianity.”
 Acculturation is another big
term. It is the “cultural
modification of an individual,
group, or people by adapting
to or borrowing traits from
another culture”.
HOW CULTURE SHAPES THE MORAL
AGENT
 Culture has a very long lasting hold on an
individual. A person may have become
highly educated, may have even obtained a
doctorate degree, but if he comes from a
society with a culture of vengeance then he
has the tendency to obey the culture.
LESSON 7 – CULTURAL RELATIVISM
 Cultural relativism is the idea that a person’s
beliefs, values, and practices should be
understood based on that person’s own
culture rather than be judged against the
criteria another.
 Cultural relativism is the view that moral or
ethical systems, which vary from culture ton
culture, are all equally valid and no one
system is really “better” than any other.
This is based on the idea that there is no
ultimate standard of good or evil, so every
judgement about right and wrong is a
product of society. Therefore, any opinion
on morality or ethics is subject to the
cultural perspective of each person.
Ultimately, this means that no moral or
ethical system can be considered the “best,”
or “worst,” and no particular moral or
ethical positions can actually be considered
“right” or “wrong”.
Cultural Relativism vs Cultural Perspective
 PERSPECTIVE is a standpoint or
viewpoint of something. For instance,
there are as many perspectives of a
building , a house, as there are stand
points. You try to appreciate the design
of a house considering its various
perspectives, but you never judge the
design based on only one perspective.
Trying to understand one’s culture,
having a perspective of one’s culture, is
the needed to understand people. But it
does not follow that morality must be
based only on said culture.
 RELATIVISM in general breaks down
when examined from a purely logical
perspective.
Lesson 8 -The Filipino Character
The Filipino Character : Strenghts and
Weaknesses
The Weakness of the Filipino character as cited in
the Report :
1. Extreme family centeredness – excessive
concern for family means using one’s office
and power to promote family interests and
thus factionalism patronage, political
dynasties and the protection of eering family
members. It results in lack of concern for
the common good, and acts as a block to
national consciousness.
2. Extreme personalism – “takes things
personally,” cannot separate objective task
from emotional involvement. Because of
this the Filipino is uncomfortable with
bureaucracy, with rules and regulations and
with standard procedures. He uses personal
contacts and gives preference to family and
friends in hiring, services and even voting.
Extreme personalism leads to the graft and
corruption evident in Philippine society.
3. Lack of Discipline – a casual attitude toward
time and space, manifested in lack of
precision and compulsiveness , in poor time
management and procrastination. Aversion
to following procedures strictly results in
lack of standardization and quality control.
Impatience results in short cuts, palusot,
ningas cogon. Lack of discipline often
results in inefficient work systems, the
violation of rules and a casual work
ethiclacking follow through.
4. Passivity and lack of initiative – waiting to
be told what to do, reliance on others
(leaders and government), complacence,
lack of sense of urgency. There is high
tolerance for inefficiency, poor service, and
even violations of one’s basic rights. Too
patient and matiisin, too easily resigned to
his fate, the Filipino is easily oppressed and
exploited.
5. Colonial mentality – lack of patriotism, or of
an active awareness, appreciation and love
of the Philippines and an actual preference
for things foreign.
6. Kanya – kanya syndrome, talangka
mentality – done by tsismis , intriga,
unconstructive criticism … it is evident in
the personal ambition that is completely
insensitive to the common good, e.g., the
lack of a sense of service among people in
the government bureaucracy. This results in
the dampening of cooperative and
community spirit and in the trampling upon
other’s right.
7. Lack of self – analysis and self – reflection –
the tendency to be superficial and somewhat
flighty. In the face of serious personal and
social problems, there is lack of analysis or
reflection and instead satisfaction with
superficial explanations and solutions.
8. Emphasis on porma rather than substance –
this lack of analysis and emphasis on form is
reinforced by an educational system that is
more form than substance.
 These weakness are rooted in many factors :
home, social and economic environment;
culture and language; history; religion;
Educational system : mass media; leadership
and role models.
STRENGHTS OF THE FILIPINO
CHARACTER
 Pakikipagkapwa-tao
 Family orientation
  Joy and humor
 Flexibility, adaptability and creativity
 Hard work and industry
 Faith and religiosity
 Ability to survive
 There is so much good in the Filipino but so
much needs to be changed, too. Many of
our strengths as a people are also sources of
our weaknesses.