GE 8 ETHICS Week2 9

LEARNING MODULE IN STAT 01 (ELEMENTARY STATISTICS)
AGUSAN DEL SUR STATE COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE AND TECHNOLOGY

MAIN CAMPUS, BUNAWAN AGUSAN DEL SUR
WEEK 2-3
THE BASICS
LEARNING
OUTCOMES
Upon accomplishing this module, students will be able to:
A. Understand the significance of the basics of morality.
B. Mark the line between Ethics and Morality.
C. Apply concepts on moral and non-moral situations.
D. Analyze existing values and decipher its universality.
TARGET SKILLS
Understanding, Analysis. Application to Actual Situation
LEARNERS
1st year, 2nd year, 3rd year
TIME FRAME
This module will be accomplished approximately in 6 hours within 2 weeks to
complete all the activities recommended. This is a distance learning program, thus the
time frame is flexible and largely self-directed.
REFERENCE
Cayogyog, Alvin and Apolinar henry Fernandez. Ethics for the New GE Curriculum.
Davao City: SMKC PrintShoppe, 2019.
Cariño, Jovito. Fundamentals of Ethics. Quezon City: C & E Publishing, Inc., 2018.
PRELIMINARIE
S Ethics may be described as a critical reflection on various life situations. It is an
inquiry into some standard to guide one’s action, or as a tool to understand a given
condition. A person who asks himself or herself what to do next after losing a job or
someone who struggles while working abroad, far away from loved ones is an individual
for whom ethics is most real.
In either instance, there is a need for a person to confront his or her situation and to
make sense of one’s life against the odds. To do this, ethics suggests that besides action,
one needs something that can make his or her engagement with life more meaningful and
understandable. This other component is called theory. However, it is often difficult, if not
possible, to distinguish action from theory. In the ensuing discussion of ethics, the
significant connection between theory and action will be explained further. This
connection grants ethics a secure and legitimate place in philosophy.
DISCUSSION
Relationship as the Foundation

Morality is not a series of commands and prohibitions coming from the heavens.
Morality arises from the human community’s awareness of the claims and demands of
interrelatedness. In other words, morality is all about human co-existence. It is the search
COLLEGE OF ARTS AND SCIENCES
BACHELOR OF SCIENCE IN APPLIED MATHEMATICS
INSTRUCTIONAL MATERIALS DEVELOPMENT © 2020
for the acts, attitudes, dispositions––and more fundamentally perhaps the virtues and
institutions––that make for successful being with others. If this is at the heart of morality
therefore we can say that in us is something that wants to be moral, to desire goodness and
righteousness. We fail in our humanity if we do not recognize this fundamental reality in
us as persons because listening to the moral force in us is equal to listening to what is
deeply human in us.
What then is the relationship of morality towards ethical situations?
Etymological Meaning of Ethics
Ethics and morality are two words which are oftentimes used interchangeably, not
just in ordinary discourse and in popular media but also in academic discussions and fora.
But are these two terms exactly the same, or, is there a shade of difference between them?
Etymologically, the word "ethics" is derived from the Greek word "ethos" which
can be roughly translated in English as custom or a particular way and manner of acting
and behaving. Thus, custom would also mean here as a form of behavior or character. The
Latin equivalent for custom is "mos" or "mores". It is from this root word that the term
moral" or "morality" is derived (Agapay 2008:1). The two terms, ethics and morality, in
this sense, therefore, have literally the same meaning. That is why ethics is usually taken
as synonymous with morality. Also because of this. ethics is also called morality, or more
precisely, the other name of ethics is morality.
Thus, in many instances, We often hear people say: “What he or she did is moral or
ethical; His or her conduct shows a lack of ethics/morals; "The problem of that person is
that he or she doesn't have a sense of morality and ethics; "Our primary concern as a
people should be how to become moral or ethical in our behavior."
Ethics and Morality Distinguished
Though ethics and morality, by virtue of their etymological construction, and on
how they are used in people's daily Conversations, share practically the same meaning,
there 1S, Still, a slight distinction between them.
Generally, both ethics and morality deal with the goodness or badness, rightness or
wrongness of the human act or human conduct. But in ethics, we specifically study
morality. Morality gives ethics a particular perspective of what to study about-that is the
rectitude of whether an act is good or bad, right or wrong. Morality provides with a quality
that determines and distinguishes right conduct from wrong conduct" (Sambajon 2007:7).
Ethics: A Philosophy of Action
While Ethics arms the person with a theoretical knowledge of the morality of
human acts, so he/she may know what to do as well as how to do it, there 1s a whole
world of difference between knowing and doing, knowledge and action.
Knowledge, however, as anybody can readily attest in everyday experience, 1S
not always performed. It does not automatically happen that, as a person knows, then
he/she does. It does not necessarily follow that knowledge leads or results to practical
action

This would only mean that ethics, or make that learning" of ethics-does not
actually guarantee morality on the part of the person's concrete and practical conduct and
behavior. A person does not necessarily do what he/she knows. It has been said that the
farthest distance for a person o cross is the distance between the head and the heart.
While ethics (the theory) provides certain principles and guidelines as to what is
good and bad, right and wrong in human conduct, it is morality which actualizes the
theory. Ethics, as one particular author beautifully puts it, is the 'word', while morality is
the 'flesh. Morality, therefore, is here aptly understood as the application (praxis) of ethics
(theory) (Babor 1999:8).
Hence, we can say that both of them-ethics and morality truly need and
complement each other. outlines theories of right and wrong and good or bad actions,
morality translates these theories into real actions. Thus, morality Is nothing else but a
doing lor the practice| of ethics" (Babor 1999; 9).
Ethics: A Practical Discipline
lt may happen that some of those involved in the teaching of ethics or morality
may regard it as a purely academic endeavor. There is always the temptation, at least for
some teachers, to just present the ethical theories and concepts as if they are the end-all
and be-all of the subject.
There may be also others, whose manner of instilling ethics and morality to
students is through fear and intimidation, even though it has been long proven that it just
doesn't work. Today's young generation are practically brought up to question and
challenge almost everything, particularly on how one ought to behave morally.
It is a major tragedy, we dare say, to confine ethics to a purely intellectual exercise, just
like mathematics or any other theoretical and abstract disciplines. Ethical theories and
principles may, if taught correctly and truthfully, uplift the students mentally. bud may not
transform them concretely into better persons or human beings, in the trucst and finest
sense of the term.
Ethics, we earnestly believe, should be taken not just as an be academic study, but
as fundamentally, a "way of life." Ethics should be shown as a discipline which has an
intimate connection with the daily lives of man....To be vital, the teaching must be
something more than the presentation of exacting moral theories....there [should be] a
proper interaction between knowledge and practice. Knowledge serves practice, for each
new truth learned is a new reason for a better life" (Baldemeca et al. 1984: 85).
“Knowing what is right without actually changing the way we behave morally is
nothing but useless knowledge. One must be so convicted of the correctness of one's
thinking that it leads to a real and concrete transformation in one's daily attitude and
behavior, or it becomes, at the very least, the most basic and fundamental motive behind
one's day to conduct day (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/christian _ethics).
While Ethics is a subject that can be approached only academically, the learner
may be tempted to study it simply for the sake of obtaining a high grade. One may become
so adept at the various theories and principles concerning morality without one ever
becoming moral. One maay have a thorough grasp and mastery of ethical principles, yet,

still at a loss as to their relevance and value to the living of the good life itself (Ethics
being the study of the Good Life). "Such a study would be rather like learning the recipes
in a cook book without eating the food, so to speak. Reality would elude [the person].
[One] would not know the thing [one] knows; [one] would only know about it
"(Baldemeca et al. ibid.).
The Importance of Studying Ethics With what has been said so far, it is now clear
why the study of Ethics is very important to human life. Ethics is indeed an area of
knowledge which is indispensable in the living of life which is "truly human." It can be
said that without moral perception, man Without morality, man as a rational [and free]
being is a failure (Agapay 1991:3).
The living of the "good life has always been one of time mankind's most noble and
enduring pursuits Since time since pursuits immemorial. This is evident in the various
works of Literature, Arts, in the Humanities in general, most notably in Philosophy, and in
Theology or Religious Studies. The question of what kind of life a person ought to live as
a free and rational being, has preoccupied some of the greatest minds in history.
In fact, the idea of right and wrong, good and evil, though viewed and applied
differently at different times by different groups of people all throughout the ages, has
been a major and dominant theme of the various religions, cultures, and societies in the
entire history of human civilization. Every era, regardless whether it is aware of it or not,
has its own ethos" that defines its character and soul. For ethics and morality served as the
very foundation of every human society.
Thus, without ethics or at least a sense of morality, of what's right and wrong, good
and bad in relation to their conduct and behavior, people and society in general would
naturally and expectedly deteriorate. When the moral foundation of a nation is shaken, and
at the brink of collapse, society itself, as its very core, is also threatened as to its very
existence.
Since Ethics, as a practical science, is the study of the choices people make
regarding right and wrong, good and bad, and since many of us face several ethical
choices in the course of our lives, it is a given why studying Ethics is of prime importance.
Big and small, the choices and decisions that we make in our individual and collective
lives affect also the kind of life we live to a considerable extent. Hence, we become good
and bad persons through the choices we make.
Another important reason why there is a need in studying Ethics is the fact that
making moral decisions is oftentimes difficult. This is very true when we are confronted
and come face to face with moral dilemmas. In here, there is a need for us to the g pause
and reflect as to what particular course of action to take The study of Ethics can provide us
with certain moral paradigms or perspectives that will, In a way, guide us in determining
what’s right and what’s wrong under such condition. que Life of
The study of Ethics will also enable us to reason out our moral beliefs and of why
we hold them. It is not enough to have certain Sir Sig beliefs on what's good and bad. We
also have to know the reason li why we accept them in the first place. Our moral views
should be backed by good and sound arguments. If you do not have good [and defensible]
reasons for your moral opinions, why should anyone pay attention to them? More

important, why should you yourself pay attention to them, if you do not have good reasons
for holding them" (Ellin 1995: 6)? Ethics, as a rational enterprise, will enable us to
critically examine the ground and foundation of our moral beliefs and claims, whether
they are valid or not.
Still another important reason of studying ethics is that it will aid us to widen our
horizon as to what is good and bad. An exposure to the wide array of ethical paradigms
and perspectives that a course in ethics provides, will naturally allow us to broaden our
understanding and make us appreciate the richness and diversity of ethical views held by
various thinkers of different persuasions throughout the ages. "[A]n appreciation of the
complexity of ethics is valuable in counteracting our natural tendency toward inflexibility
and tribalism where we stubbornly adhere to the values of our [own] specific peer groups"
(Pojman & Fieser 2017:3).
Having stated all of the above reasons of why studying ethics is valuable, it is also
worth saying that "[t]he study of ethics is not only of instrumental value but also valuable
in its own right. For it is satisfying to have knowledge of important matters for its own
sake. We are rational beings who cannot help but want to understand the nature of the
good life and all that it implies”
(Pojman & Fieser 2017:33). (Though "doing the good is even much better than “just
knowing” the good.)
Relatedly and more specifically, apart from its practical benefits, ethics "can [also]
deepen our reflection on the ultimate or questions of life. This is of value in itself...
"(Gensler 2011:4). Life's ultimate questions involve questions regarding the meaning of
life and what it means to be truly human? These and other similar questions necessarily
deal in one way or the other, to a significant degree, with the question of what kind of life
is worth living? As the great Socrates famously said: “An unexamined life is not worth
living.”
Ethics: It’s Formal Definition
Philosophically. Ethics is defined as the practical science of the morality of human
act or conduct and of the good life. As a science Ethics is a body of knowledge
systematically arranged and presented in such manner that it arrives at its conclusions
coherently and logically. Ethics, as a branch of Philosophy, is also known as Moral
Philosophy. "[lt]” is that branch of philosophy that deals with how we ought to live, With
the idea [and the pursuit] of the Good and with concepts as right and wrong (Pojman &
Fieser 2017:1).
As a major area of the philosophical enterprise, Ethics tries to investigate and
examine critically as well as systematically, through the use of natural reason, certain
principles and codes of right or wrong, good or bad, particularly those pertaining to human
action. lt asks certain fundamental and intriguing questions such as: What constitutes the
good life for human beings? "What is the basis or standard by which human actions can be
judged as g0od or bad, right and wrong?," What makes good-good and what makes
wrong-wrong? "How man ought to behave so as to live a life that is truly human?
Furthermore, Ethics as a philosophical discipline, deals with ultimate principles
and truth concerning the morality of human conduct through the use of human reason and
experience alone, without the aid of supernatural reason or divine revelation. These
principles that the science of ethics deals with in its investigation provide the human
person the basis, standard or norm by which he/she must conduct his/her life. Hence,
Ethics deals with the study of the right conduct of the human person, the rectitude of
his/her actions.
Material Object of Ethics
Every field of study has a specific subject matter that it investigates from a
particular point of view or perspective. The material object of a science is its subject
matter, the thing, or things, or that which the science deals with in its study. The subject
matter of Ethics as a particular field of study is human conduct or the human act. Human
conduct, which the science of ethics mainly deals with, refers to the act that is done by a
human person proceeds from one’s which he/she is conscious of, which deliberation and
freewill, and thus, for which one is held morally responsible.
Formal Object of Ethics
The formal object of any science is the special or particular way and viewpoint that
a science employs in dealing with its specific subject matter. The formal object of ethics in
its investigation is the morality or the moral rectitude of human act or human conduct.
Ethics deals with the human person's right conduct, whether his/her actions conform to
right reason which is the immediate norm of morality. Morality is that quality in the
human act by which it is judged to be good or bad, right or wrong moral or immoral.
Ethics does this through the use of the natural light of human reason and experience alone.
Due to this particular and special concern, Ethics differs from all other fields of
study which also deal with human conduct or human act, such as the science of
Psychology, Anthropology, Sociology, Economics and the like. These sciences merely deal
with the way humans actually behave, without telling and judging the rightness and
wrongness, goodness and badness of their actions, while Ethics studies how one ought to
behave. It tries to assess and determine whether the actions are moral and worth doing, or
immoral, and have to be avoided. This makes ethics as a critical normative and
prescriptive discipline, while the other above mentioned fields are simply descriptive.
They just deal with the facts as they are and do not make any evaluative judgments on
them whatsoever.
Moral and Non-Moral Standards
Morality may refer to the standards that a person or a group has about what is right
and wrong, or good and evil. Accordingly, moral standards are those concerned with or
relating to human behavior, especially the distinction between good and bad (or right and
wrong) behavior.
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 refer to rules that are
unrelated to moral or ethical considerations. Either these standards are not necessarily

linked to morality or by nature lack ethical sense. Basic examples of non-moral standards
include rules of etiquette, fashion standards, rules in games, and various house rules.
Technically, religious rules, some traditions, and legal statutes (i.e. laws and
ordinances) are non-moral principles, though they can be ethically relevant depending on
some factors and contexts.
The following six (6) characteristics of moral standards further differentiate them
from non-moral standards:
a. Moral standards involve serious wrongs or significant benefits.
Moral standards deal with matters which can seriously impact, that is, injure or
benefit human beings. It is not the case with many non-moral standards. For instance,
following or violating some basketball rules may matter in basketball games but does not
necessarily affect one’s life or wellbeing.
b. Moral standards ought to be preferred to other values.
Moral standards have overriding character or hegemonic authority. If a moral
standard states that a person has the moral obligation to do something, then he/she is
supposed to do that even if it conflicts with other non-moral standards, and even with self-
interest.
Moral standards are not the only rules or principles in society, but they take
precedence over other considerations, including aesthetic, prudential, and even legal ones.
A person may be aesthetically justified in leaving behind his family in order to devote his
life to painting, but morally, all things considered, he/she probably was not justified. It
may be prudent to lie to save one’s dignity, but it probably is morally wrong to do so.
When a particular law becomes seriously immoral, it may be people’s moral duty to
exercise civil disobedience.
There is a general moral duty to obey the law, but there may come a time when the
injustice of an evil law is unbearable and thus calls for illegal but moral noncooperation
(such as the antebellum laws calling for citizens to return slaves to their owners).
c. Moral standards are not established by authority figures.
Moral standards are not invented, formed, or generated by authoritative bodies or
persons such as nations’ legislative bodies. Ideally instead, these values ought to be
considered in the process of making laws. In principle therefore, moral standards cannot
be changed nor nullified by the decisions of particular authoritative body. One thing about
these standards, nonetheless, is that its validity lies on the soundness or adequacy of the
reasons that are considered to support and justify them.
d. Moral standards have the trait of universalizability.
Simply put, it means that everyone should live up to moral standards. To be more
accurate, however, it entails that moral principles must apply to all who are in the
relevantly similar situation. If one judges that act A is morally right for a certain person P,
then it is morally right for anybody relevantly similar to P.

This characteristic is exemplified in the Gold Rule, “Do unto others what you
would them do unto you (if you were in their shoes)” and in the formal Principle of
Justice, “It cannot be right for A to treat B in a manner in which it would be wrong for B to
treat A, merely on the ground that they are two different individuals, and without there
being any difference between the natures or circumstances of the two which can be stated
as a reasonable ground for difference of treatment.” Universalizability is an extension of
the principle of consistency, that is, one ought to be consistent about one’s value
judgments.
e. Moral standards are based on impartial considerations.
Moral standard does not evaluate standards on the basis of the interests of a certain
person or group, but one that goes beyond personal interests to a universal standpoint in
which each person’s interests are impartially counted as equal.
Impartiality is usually depicted as being free of bias or prejudice. Impartiality in
morality requires that we give equal and/or adequate consideration to the interests of all
concerned parties.
f. Moral standards are associated with special emotions and vocabulary.
Prescriptivity indicates the practical or action-guiding nature of moral standards.
These moral standards are generally put forth as injunction or imperatives (such as, ‘Do
not kill,’ ‘Do no unnecessary harm,’ and ‘Love your neighbor’). These principles are
proposed for use, to advise, and to influence to action. Retroactively, this feature is used to
evaluate behavior, to assign praise and blame, and to produce feelings of satisfaction or of
guilt.
If a person violates a moral standard by telling a lie even to fulfill a special
purpose, it is not surprising if he/she starts feeling guilty or being ashamed of his behavior
afterwards. On the contrary, no much guilt is felt if one goes against the current fashion
trend (e.g. refusing to wear tattered jeans).
Moral Dilemmas
First of all, let us define the term dilemma before we discuss the nature and
dynamics of moral dilemmas.
A dilemma is a situation where a person is forced to choose between two or more

conflicting options, neither of which is acceptable. As we can see, the key here is that the
person has choices to make that will all have results she does not want. For example, a
town mayor faces a dilemma about how to protect and preserve a virgin forest and at the
same time allow miners and loggers for economic development in the town.
It must be noted, however, that if a person is in a difficult situation but is not forced
to choose between two or more options, then that person is not in a dilemma. The least that
we can say is that that person is just experiencing a problematic or distressful situation.
Thus, the most logical thing to do for that person is to look for alternatives or solutions to
address the problem.
When dilemmas involve human actions which have moral implications, they are
called ethical or moral dilemmas.

Moral dilemmas, therefore, are situations where persons, who are called “moral
agents” in ethics, are forced to choose between two or more conflicting options, neither of
which resolves the situation in a morally acceptable manner. Consider the following
example:
Lindsay is a deeply religious person; hence, she considers

killing humans absolutely wrong. Unfortunately, it is found out that
Lindsay is having an ectopic pregnancy. As is well known, an ectopic
pregnancy is a type of pregnancy that occurs outside the uterus, most
commonly in the fallopian tubes. In other words, in ectopic pregnancy, the
fetus does not develop in the uterus. Now, if this happens, the development
of the fetus will definitely endanger the mother. Thus, if Lindsay continues
with her pregnancy, then there is a big possibility that she will die.
According to experts, the best way to save Lindsay’s life is to abort the
fetus, which necessarily implies killing the fetus. If we do not abort the
fetus, then Lindsay, as well as the fetus, will die.
In the above example of a moral dilemma, Lindsay is faced with two conflicting
options, namely, either she resorts to abortion, which will save her life but at the same time
jeopardizes her moral integrity or does not resort to abortion but endangers her life as well
as the fetus. Indeed, Lindsay is faced with a huge moral dilemma.
According to Karen Allen, there are three conditions that must be present for
situations to be considered moral dilemmas. First, the person or the agent of a moral action
is obliged to make a decision about which course of action is best. Here, the moral agent
must choose the best option and act accordingly. In the case of the example of above,
Lindsay may opt to abort the fetus as the best course of action. Second, there must be
different courses of action to choose from. Hence, as already pointed out above, there must
be two or more conflicting options to choose from for moral dilemmas to occur. And third,
no matter what course of action is taken, some moral principles are always compromised.
This means that, according to Allen, there is no perfect solution to the problem. And for
this reason, according to Benjiemen Labastin, in moral dilemmas, the moral agent “seems
fated to commit something wrong which implies that she is bound to morally fail because
in one way or another she will fail to do something which she ought to do. In other words,
by choosing one of the possible moral requirements, the person also fails on others.”
The Concept of Universal Values

Human values are the virtues that guide us to take into account the human element
when we interact with other human beings. Human values are, for example, respect,
acceptance, consideration, appreciation, listening, openness, affection, empathy and love
towards other human beings.
It is with those human values that one becomes truly able to put into practice
his/her ethical values, such as justice, integrity, refusal of violence and ban to kill – even in
a crisis situation. Human values convey a positive and affective surge, which reinforces
the rationale of moral values. They are thevalues that permit us to live together in
harmony, and personnally contribute to peace. Human values are a tool to manage human
relations and a tool for peace when the tension is high.

Using core ethical values as the basis for ethical thinking can help detect situations
where we focus so hard on upholding one value that we sacrifice another — eg we are
loyal to friends and so do not always tell the truth about their actions.
1. TRUSTWORTHINESS
Trustworthiness concerns a variety of behavioral qualities — honesty, integrity,
reliability and loyalty.
Honesty. There is no more fundamental ethical value than honesty. We associate honesty
with people of honour, and we admire and trust those who are honest.
Honesty in communications is about intent to convey the truth as best we know it and to
avoid communicating in a way likely to mislead or deceive.
There are three dimensions:
Truthfulness — truthfulness means not intentionally misrepresenting a fact (lying). Intent
is the crucial distinction between truthfulness and truth itself. Being wrong is not the same
thing as being a liar, although honest mistakes can still damage trust.
Sincerity/non-deception — a sincere person does not act, say half-truths, or stay silent
with the intention of creating beliefs or leaving impressions that are untrue or misleading.
Frankness — In relationships involving trust, honesty may also require us to volunteer
information that another person needs to know.
Honesty in conduct prohibits stealing, cheating, fraud, and trickery. Cheating is not only
dishonest but takes advantage of those who are not cheating. It’s a violation of trust and
fairness. Not all lies are unethical, even though all lies are dishonest. Occasionally
dishonesty is ethically justifiable, such as when the police lie in undercover operations or
when one lies to criminals or terrorists to save lives. But occasions for ethically sanctioned
lying are rare - eg saving a life.
Integrity. There are no differences in the way an ethical person makes decisions from
situation to situation - no difference in the way they act at work and at home, in public and
alone.
The person of integrity takes time for self-reflection so that the events, crises and the
necessities of the day do not determine the course of their moral life. They stay in control.
The four enemies of integrity are:
 Self-interest — Things we want
 Self-protection — Things we don’t want
 Self-deception — A refusal to see a situation clearly
 Self-righteousness — An end-justifies-the-means attitude
Reliability. When we make promises or commitments to people our ethical duties
go beyond legal obligations. The ethical dimension of promise-keeping imposes
the responsibility of making all reasonable efforts to fulfill our commitments.
It is also important to:
Avoid bad-faith excuses — Honourable people don't rationalize noncompliance or
create justifications for escaping commitments.
Avoid unwise commitments — Before making a promise consider carefully
whether you are willing and likely to keep it. Think about unknown or future
events that could make it difficult, undesirable or impossible to keep your
commitment. Sometimes, all we can do is promise to do our best.
Avoid unclear commitments — Since others will expect you to live up to what
they think you have promised to do, be sure that, when you make a promise, the
other person understands what you are committing to do.
Loyalty. Loyalty is about promoting and protecting the interests of certain people,
organizations or affiliations. Some relationships — husband-wife, employer-
employee, citizen-country — create an expectation of loyalty.
Prioritizing Loyalties. Because so many individuals and groups make loyalty

claims on us, it is often impossible to honor them all simultaneously. Consequently,
we must rank our loyalty obligations in some rational fashion. In our personal
lives, for example, it’s perfectly reasonable,
and ethical, to look out for the interests of our children, parents and spouses even if we
have to subordinate our obligations to other children, neighbors, or co-workers in doing
so.
Safeguarding Confidential Information. Loyalty requires us to keep secrets or
information learned in confidence.
Avoiding Conflicting Interests. Employees and public servants have an additional
responsibility to make all professional decisions on merit not personal interests. Their goal
is to maintain the trust of the public.
2. RESPECT
Respect is about honouring the essential worth and dignity of all people, including
oneself. We are morally obligated to treat everyone with respect, regardless of who they
are and what they have done. We have a responsibility to be the best we can be in all
situations, even when dealing with unpleasant people.
Respect focuses on:

Civility, Courtesy and Decency. A respectful person is a good listener. The respectful
person treats others with consideration, conforming to accepted notions of taste and
propriety, and doesn’t resort to intimidation, coercion or violence except in extraordinary
and limited situations to teach discipline, maintain order or achieve social justice.
Tolerance. An ethical person accepts individual differences and beliefs and judges others
only on their character.
3. RESPONSIBILITY
Life is full of choices. Being responsible means being in charge of our choices and
therefore our lives. It means being accountable for what we do and who we are. It also
means recognizing that what we do, and what we don’t do, matters.
Accountability. An accountable person is not a victim and doesn’t shift blame or claim
credit for the work of others.
Pursuit of Excellence. The pursuit of excellence has an ethical dimension when others
rely upon our knowledge, ability or willingness to perform tasks safely and effectively.
Diligence. Responsible people are reliable, careful, prepared and informed.
Perseverance. Responsible people finish what they start, overcoming rather than
surrendering to obstacles and excuses.
Continuous Improvement. Responsible people look for ways to do their work better. Self-
Restraint. Responsible people exercise self-control, restraining passions and appetites

(such as lust, hatred, gluttony, greed and fear). They delay gratification if necessary and
never feel it’s necessary to "win at any cost."
4. FAIRNESS
Fairness is a tricky concept. Disagreeing parties tend to maintain that there is only
one fair position - their own. But while some situations and decisions are clearly unfair,
fairness usually refers to a range of morally justifiable outcomes rather than discovery of
one fair answer.
Process
A fair person uses open and unbiased processes for gathering and evaluating
information necessary to make decisions. Fair people do not wait for the truth to come to
them; they seek out relevant information and conflicting perspectives before making
important decisions.
Impartiality
Decisions should be unbiased without favouritism or prejudice.
Equity
It is important not to take advantage of the weakness, disadvantage or ignorance of
others. Fairness requires that an individual, company, or society correct mistakes,
promptly and voluntarily.
5. CARING
Caring is the heart of ethics. It is scarcely possible to be truly ethical and not
genuinely concerned with the welfare others. That is because ethics is ultimately about our
responsibilities toward other people. Sometimes we must hurt those we care for and some
decisions, while quite ethical, do cause pain. But one should consciously cause no more
harm than is reasonably necessary.
6. CITIZENSHIP
The concept of citizenship includes how we ought to behave as part of a
community. The good citizen knows the laws and obeys them - but they also volunteer and
stay informed on the issues of the day. Citizens do more than their "fair" share to make
society work, now and for future generations. Citizenship can have many expressions,
such as conserving resources, recycling, using public transportation and cleaning up litter.
EVALUATION
1. Short Essay
Instruction: Write a short reflection on the question below after reading the
“Gyges” in Plato’s book The Republic. In summary: “Gyges is a shepherd who stumbles
upon a ring that at his command makes him invisible and, while in the state, he can
indulge in his greed to the fullest without fear of getting caught. He can thus escape the
restraints of society, its laws, and punishments. So he kills the king, seduces his wife, and
becomes king himself” (Pojman & Fieser 2017:67-68). So imagine you got the ring of
Gyges, would you still do what is good and what is right? In brief, would you still act
morally? Why should you, or not? Write your answer/s below:
Should I be Moral?
_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
2. Answer briefly the following and write your answers on the space provided below the questions.
2.1 Is it possible for a person to be moral but not ethical or ethical but not moral? Cite a
particular situation to support your answer.
ANSWER
2.2 How can theory help us in acting more effectively?
ANSWER
2.3 What are the possible challenges in realizing into concrete actions those established
universal values? Create and suggest possible solutions to these challenges.
ANSWER

WEEK 4
MORAL AGENT AND FREEDOM
LEARNING
OUTCOMES
A. Understand and articulate the concept of human freedom;
B. Make critique on the different concept of freedom;
C. Apply the proper concept of freedom in the daily moral situation.
TARGET SKILLS
Understanding, Critiquing, Applying
LEARNERS
Second Year, BS Applied Mathematics and AB English students
TIME FRAME
This module will be accomplished approximately in 3 hours within 1 week to complete
all the activities recommended. This is a distance learning program, thus the time
frame is flexible and largely self-directed.
REFERENCE
Quimba, Roawie L., Lunar T. Fayloga and Noriel R. Rogon. Christian Morality: Theology
Series Volume 4. Davao City: Blue Patriarch Publishing House, 2012.
https://www.open.edu/openlearn/history-the-arts/culture/philosophy/two-concepts-
freedom
PRELIMINARIE
S
Introducing the Concept of Freedom
What are the limits of individual freedom in a civilized society? Should we tolerate
unlimited freedom of speech, no matter how offensive the views expressed? Can the state
ever be justified in interfering with what consenting adults choose to do in private? When,
if ever, is coercion acceptable? Are all laws obstacles to freedom, or are they the very
condition of achieving it? Should we sometimes force people to be free, or is that a
contradiction in terms? These are serious questions. They're not merely abstract puzzles
for philosophers to ponder in comfortable armchairs. They are the sorts of issues that
people are prepared to die for.
Even if you choose to ignore them, the way other people answer these questions
will impinge on your life. Philosophers at least since Plato's time have put forward
answers to them. Here we'll be examining the arguments some of them have used.
However, this won't just be a survey of some interesting thoughts on the subject. The point
is to engage with the arguments: to examine their structure and content to see if they really
support their conclusions. You needn't agree with these conclusions. As long as you think
critically about the concept of freedom and are capable of arguing your case rather than
simply stating your prejudices, you will be reading in the spirit in which they are intended.
To live in a society requires all kinds of co-operation. Usually this means curbing
some of our more selfish desires in order to accommodate other people's interests. That is
an element of the human situation. Given that our desires often conflict, it would be
impossible for us to live in a society which imposed no limits whatsoever on what we do.
It would be absurd to argue that we should all have complete licence to do whatever takes
our fancy no matter who is affected by our actions. I shouldn't be allowed to walk into
your house and help myself to your stereo and television. Hardly anyone would argue that
I should be free to steal your possessions simply because I want them; but deciding where
to set the limits on individual freedom in less extreme cases is no easy task.
DISCUSSION
Freedom: A Definition
Freedom has often been mistakenly understood as "doing what we want" It is

mistakenly thought of as being free to do what we wanted to do, to express ourselves
freely, without considering consequences of our choices and actions to our own selves, to
others, and to God. Anything that prevents us from doing this would consider as a source
of unfreedom for some. Therefore, human freedom is always linked closely to our moral
responsibility. It is always understood as the act of constantly choosing and doing what is
good. The reason behind this is that the more we become the persons God wanted us to
become, the freer we are.
Freedom is not simply an instrument for meeting specific needs of choice. It is that
fundamental capacity for making a final and irrevocable choice to be someone, to be a
particular kind of human being. This further explains why freedom is the human persons
transcendental capacity. Authentic freedom is our intrinsic capacity to transcend beyond
ourselves, beyond our needs, beyond our desires and even beyond our emotions. It
liberates us from the enslavement of selfishness and greediness. This expresses the
communal dimension of freedom. Authentic freedom always takes into account the
freedom of others in the society. This comes from the fact that, our choices and actions
will always have repercussions to other members in the community, or to the environment,
directly or indirectly. We cannot exercise our freedom without considering other human
beings. The extent of our freedom ends the moment it leads to the unfreedom of others.
Authentic freedom primarily includes freedom from (emphasis added) anything that
opposes our true self-becoming with others in community. This would include internal and
external factors, biological factors, psychological compulsions or even social pressures
(193).
Types of Freedom
Freedom From
The concept of negative freedom centers on freedom from interference. This type
of account of freedom is usually put forward in response to the following sort of question:
What is the area within which the subject – a person or group of persons – is or
should be left to do or be what he is able to do or be, without interference by other
persons?(Berlin (1969), pp. 121–2; see, p. 155) Or, more simply, ‘Over what area am I
master?’ (ibid., p. xliii). Theories of negative freedom spell out the acceptable limits of
interference in individuals’ lives. You restrict my negative freedom when you restrict the
number of choices I can make about my life. The extent of my negative freedom is
determined by how many possible choices lie open to me, or, to use one of Berlin's
metaphors, how many doors are unlocked. It is also determined by the types of choices
that are available. Clearly not every sort of choice should be given equal status: some
choices are of greater importance than others. For most of us having freedom of speech,
even if we don't take advantage of this opportunity, is a more important freedom than the
freedom to choose between ten different sorts of washing powder. This is how Berlin puts
it:
The extent of a man's negative liberty is, as it were, a function of what doors, and
how many are open to him; upon what prospects they open; and how open they are. (It is
worth bearing in mind when reading extracts from Berlin's article that it was written in the
late 1950s when there was little concern about the apparent sexism of using the word
‘man’ to mean ‘human’, i.e. man or woman. He certainly does not intend to imply that
only men can be free, or that only men can limit another's freedom. For ‘man’ read ‘human
being’ or ‘person’.) It doesn't matter whether or not I actually take advantage of the
opportunities open to me: I am still free to the extent that I could, if I chose, take
advantage of them:
The freedom of which I speak is opportunity for action, rather than action itself. If,
although I enjoy the right to walk through open doors, I prefer not to do so, but to sit still
and vegetate, I am not thereby rendered less free. Freedom is the opportunity to act, not
action itself.
So, if you park your car across my drive, thereby preventing me from getting my
car out, you restrict my freedom; and this is true even if I choose to stay in bed listening to
my CDs all day, and would have done so even if you hadn't parked there. Or, if the state
prevents me from going on strike by making my actions illegal, even if I don't have
anything to strike about, and even if I don't ever intend to strike, my freedom is still
curtailed. Negative freedom is a matter of the doors open to me, not of whether I happen to
choose to go through them.
However, not all restrictions on my possible choices are infringements of my
negative freedom. Berlin states that only restrictions imposed by other people affect my
freedom. Colloquially, we might say that because we are human we aren't free to jump ten
feet in the air or free to understand what an obscure passage in a difficult book by Hegel
means. (Hegel was a philosopher (1790–1831) justifiably renowned for the obscurity of
most of his writing.) But when discussing political freedom, the sort we are interested in
here, these sorts of restrictions on what we can do, aren't counted as obstacles to freedom,
however distressing they may be. Other people limit our freedom by what they do.
Limitations on our action brought about by the nature of the universe or the human
body aren't relevant to the discussion of political freedom. Political freedom is a matter of
the relations of power which hold between individuals and between individuals and the
state.
The clearest cases in which freedom is restricted are when someone forces you to
do something. You might be forced to join the army, for instance, if you live in a country
which has compulsory military service. The law might force you to wear a crash helmet
every time you ride your motorcycle. Your partner might force you to stay in rather than
go out to the cinema, or to tidy up the kitchen rather than do another hour's study.
Freedom To
Positive freedom is a more difficult notion to grasp than negative. Put simply it
is freedom to do something rather than freedom from interference. Negative freedom is

simply a matter of the number and kind of options that lie open for you and their relevance
for your life; it is a matter of what you aren't prevented from doing; the doors that lie
unlocked. Positive freedom, in contrast, is a matter of what you can actually do. All sorts
of doors may be open, giving you a large amount of negative freedom, and yet you might
find that there are still obstacles to taking full advantage of your opportunities. Berlin
sometimes talks of positive liberty in terms of the question ‘Who is master?’ I want to be
in control of my life, but there may, for example, be internal obstacles to my living the
way I really want to. Here we might talk of my increasing my freedom (in the positive
sense) by overcoming my less rational desires.
This is easier to understand if you consider some examples. I might recognise the
value of study for making my life go well, but keep getting sidetracked by less important,
immediately gratifying activities, such as going out for a drink, or staying in and spending
the whole evening watching ‘soaps’ on television. I know that studying is important to me,
and will increase my control over my life. But I really enjoy going out for a drink and I
really enjoy watching television ‘soaps’. So the short-term gratifications tend to seduce me
away from activities which are better for me in the long term. My positive freedom would
be increased if my ‘higher’ rational side could overcome my ‘lower’ tendency to be
sidetracked. It is not a question of having more, or more significant, opportunities:
the opportunity for me to study is there now. Rather it is a question of being able to take
advantage of the opportunity by being in control of my life. Positive freedom in this
example is a matter of my having the capacity to take the rational option as well as having
the opportunity: whereas, according to a concept of negative freedom, the opportunities
that I have alone determine the extent of my freedom. I am free to study in the negative
sense since no one is preventing me from doing it; no one has locked away my books, or
hidden my pen and paper; no one has dragged me out of the door to go to the pub, or
chained me to my armchair in front of the television. However, I am not free in the
positive sense; I am not truly free, because I am a slave to my tendency to be sidetracked.
True positive freedom would involve seizing control of my life and making rational
choices for myself. Those who defend positive freedom believe that just because no one is
preventing you from doing something, it does not follow that you are genuinely free.
Positive freedom is a matter of achieving your potential, not just having potential.
Consider another example, a real one this time. James Boswell, the eighteenth-
century diarist and biographer of Dr Johnson, included the following in his journal for
Sunday 31 March 1776. It describes how he spent a night in London following a dinner
with friends:
I behaved pretty decently. But when I got into the street, the whoring rage came
upon me. I thought I would devote a night to it. I was weary at the same time that I was
tumultuous. I went to Charing Cross Bagnio with a wholesome-looking, bouncing wench,
stripped, and went to bed with her. But after my desires were satiated by repeated
indulgence, I could not rest; so I parted from her after she had honestly delivered to me my
watch and ring and handkerchief, which I should not have missed I was so drunk. I took a
hackney-coach and was set down in Berkeley Square, and went home cold and disturbed
and dreary and vexed, with remorse rising like a black cloud without any distinct form; for
in truth my moral principle as to chastity was absolutely eclipsed for a time. I was in the
miserable state of those whom the Apostle represents as working all uncleanness with
greediness. I thought of my valuable spouse with the highest regard and warmest affection,
but had a confused notion that my corporeal connection with whores did not interfere with
my love for her. Yet I considered that I might injure my health, which there could be no
doubt was an injury to her. This is an exact state of my mind at the time. It shocks me to
review it. (Boswell (1992 edn), p. 295)
Here Boswell's confession reveals clearly the tension between two sides of his
character. In his sober reflection he can see the foolishness of his having spent the night
with a prostitute. Even soon after the event he is stricken with remorse, which he attempts
to dispel by means of the transparent rationalisation that somehow, despite breaking his
principle of chastity, his infidelity does not interfere with his love for his wife. Yet he can't
hide behind self-serving justifications for long, when he realises that he has risked
catching a venereal disease, something that undoubtedly has the potential to harm her. His
higher self endorses a principle of chastity and fidelity; his lower self succumbs to
temptations of the flesh. According to some theories of positive freedom, Boswell's ‘true’
freedom could only be realised by achieving a greater degree of self-mastery. To achieve
‘true’ freedom, your higher self must have control over the impulses of the lower self.
Otherwise, you are simply a slave to passing emotions and desires; lusts in this case.
Sober, Boswell is shocked by his actions of the previous night. Perhaps the only way he
could have achieved ‘true’ freedom in the circumstances, given his lustful nature, would
be to have been forced to go straight home to bed after dining with his friends. This would
certainly have infringed his negative liberty in the sense of reducing his opportunities, but
it would have allowed him to do what at some level he felt was best for him, and thereby
to enjoy positive freedom in this respect.
From this it should be clear that the notion of positive liberty may rely on the belief
that the self can be split into a higher and a lower self, and that the higher or rational self's
priorities should be encouraged to overcome the lower, less rational self's inclinations: the
passing desires that if acted on can so upset a life plan. The higher self has desires for what
will make the individual's life go well; it wishes to pursue worthwhile and noble goals.
The lower self is easily led astray, often by irrational appetites. Consequently, advocates of
positive liberty argue, we need to be protected against our own lower selves in order to
realise the goals of our higher, ‘true’ selves. In many cases this can only be achieved by
coercing us to behave in ways which seem to go against our desires; in fact this coercion is
necessary to allow us to fulfil our rational higher desires, desires which we may even be
unaware of having. On this view, the freedom which is self-mastery, or positive freedom,
may only be achievable if our lower selves are constrained in their actions. By preventing
me from going out for a drink or from watching television all night you may help me to
realise my ‘true’ freedom which is achievable only if I spend a significant portion of my
available time studying. This is what I would have wanted had I been truly free. If Boswell
had been forced to go home straight after dinner rather than given the opportunity to spend
the night with a prostitute, his positive freedom might have been significantly extended.
This is Berlin's description of positive liberty and its origins:
The ‘positive’ sense of the word ‘liberty’ derives from the wish on the part of the
individual to be his own master. I wish my life and decisions to depend on myself, not on
external forces of whatever kind. I wish to be the instrument of my own, not of other
men's acts of will. I wish to be a subject, not an object; to be moved by reasons, by
conscious purposes which are my own, not by causes which affect me, as it were, from
outside. I wish to be somebody, not nobody; a doer – deciding, not being decided for, self-
directed and not acted upon by external nature or by other men as if I were a thing, or an
animal, or a slave incapable of playing a human role – that is, of conceiving goals and
policies of my own and realizing them. This is at least part of what I mean when I say that
I am rational, and that it is my reason that distinguishes me as a human being from the rest
of the world. I wish, above all, to be conscious of myself as a thinking, willing, active
being, bearing responsibility for his choices and able to explain them by reference to his
own ideas and purposes. I feel free to the degree that I believe this to be true, and enslaved
to the degree that I am made to realize that it is not. (Ibid., p. 131; see, pp. 160–1)
It is important to realise that Berlin's notion of positive liberty doesn't just apply to
self-mastery at the individual level; it also encompasses theories of freedom which
emphasise collective control over common life. So, for example, when someone calls a
society a free society because its members play an active role in controlling it through
their participation in democratic institutions, they are appealing to a notion of positive
freedom rather than of negative freedom. In this example the people as a whole are free
because they, collectively, have mastery over the life of their society. A free society based
upon the concept of negative freedom would typically be one in which state interference in
individual lives is kept to a minimum. This would not necessarily be a democratic society
since a benevolent dictator might be concerned to provide an extensive realm of individual
negative freedom for each of his or her subjects.
EVALUATION
I. Short Essay
1. What are the concrete situations as students where expression and usage of freedom is at
its best and at its lowest? Cite a concrete situation and explain.
ANSWER
II. Case Analysis
“NBI arrests teacher for online post offering ₱50M for Duterte slay”
By CNN Philippines Staff

Published May 12, 2020 4:16:07 PM
Metro Manila (CNN Philippines, May 12) — A public school teacher whose online post
offered a ₱50 million reward to anyone who would kill President Rodrigo Duterte is now
under the custody of the National Bureau of Investigation.

Authorities on Tuesday said Ronnel Mas, 25, was arrested a day earlier in Barangay North
Poblacion, Sta. Cruz, Zambales after posting on Twitter that “I will give ₱50 Million
reward kung sino makakapatay kay Duterte (to anyone who can kill Duterte)."
The NBI said Officer-In-Charge Eric Distor immediately ordered its Dagupan District
Office to track down and arrest Mas, a social sciences teacher at Taltal National High
School.
"Operatives of DADO then began to track subject MAS' whereabouts by tracing the links
of the comments on his post. After determining his possible location, operatives of DADO
lost no time and rushed to Barangay Poblacion North in Sta. Cruz, Zambales and
coordinated with barangay officials resulting in the arrest of [the] subject," the NBI said in
a statement.
Mas was brought to the NBI head office in Manila where he is set to face inquest
proceedings for inciting to sedition in relation to the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012,
and for violating the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials.
Mas has since apologized for his tweet against the President, but Justice Secretary
Menardo Guevarra said this does not mean he can escape criminal responsibility.
"Apology is not one of the grounds for extinguishing criminal liability. I cannot
feloniously injure another and get away with it by merely saying 'sorry'," Guevarra said in
a statement.
The NBI said it is "serious in carrying out its mandate to pursue cases involving threats to
security or assaults against the person of the President," as well as other government
officials.
Source:
https://cnnphilippines.com/news/2020/5/12/nbi-arrests-teacher-duterte-bounty.html
Question:
1. What values you can formulate out of the above situation in relation to one’s freedom?
ANSWER
2. Do you agree with the decision made by the teacher in expressing his freedom? Why?
ANSWER
3. What can you suggest as student on how to be responsible enough to exercising ones
freedom especially that we are already embracing the digital age?
ANSWER

WEEK 5
MORAL AGENT AND CULTURE
LEARNING
OUTCOMES
A. Articulate how culture can shape the moral agent.
B. Compare diverse cultures and their notion of morality.
C. Create an approach on how culture of diverse perspective on morality can co-
exist.
TARGET SKILLS
Articulating, Analyzing and Creating
LEARNERS
TIME FRAME
REFERENCE
Cariño, Jovito. Fundamentals of Ethics. Quezon City: C & E Publishing, Inc., 2018.
PRELIMINARIE
S Culture is what gives a particular community its unity and identity. It
encompasses way of life, practices, worldviews, religious of life, rites, festivals, belief
systems, as well as oral and written literatures. t is not surprising if one finds a close
link between ethics and culture especially among traditional communities. Culture
provides the fundamental norms for the practices and decision-making processes of
the members of these traditional communities just as ethics serves as a concrete
manifestation of cultural peculiarities. A clear example that illustrates this point is the
practice of bodong in the Cordillera region. Bodong refers to the peacemaking system
adopted by rival indigenous communities in the Cordillera to prevent the escalation of
hostilities between them. What makes the whole process interesting is the fact that bodong
is practiced by the very communities in conflict with each other. Rather than focusing on
what divides each them, these indigenous groups choose to build on their commonalities
as a people. Besides the indigenous communities in the Cordillera enhancement of their
cultural heritage, bodong also induces the further improvement of their also judicial and
peacemaking systems particularly at the local level. Culture and ethics, however, do not
always blend harmoniously as in the example provided by the ancient Greek historian
Herodotus. It involved King Darius of Persia and some of his Greek and Indian guests.
Eager to prove the inescapability of of the norms imposed by one's Custom when deciding
ethical questions, King Darius summoned the Greeks and asked them if they would
consider eating the corpses of their fathers rather than burn them. The Greeks vehemently

rejected the idea. Then, King Darius assembled some members of his guest Indian tribe
and inquired if they could imagine themselves cremating the remains of their fathers rather
than eating them. Instantly, he was rebuked for making such a horrendous suggestion. The
predicament illustrated by Herodotus is similar to the contemporary dilemmas given the
strong influence of cultural norms on decision-making.
Oftentimes, people discover that the cultural norms, which they hold dear,
have actually very restricted application and may be in conflict with others others'
cultural norms. If culture, therefore, is the sole m for determining what is and what is
not to be done it will be difficult to resolve moral dilemmas as there would always be
questions as to which culture Culture should prevail in deciding vital moral
questions. The other extreme of this scenario is equally problematic, that is, when one
Considers all cultures equal and insulated from any form of challenge or correction from
others. This is how relativism takes and, in the contemporary ethical climate, shape if
may be considered as one of the most delicate issues related to the discussion of ethics
and culture.
DISCUSSION
THE ISSUE OF RELATIVISM
Relativism is an issue descriptive of the tension between culture and ethics. It
may be illustrated in the following example. Imagine a conversation among family
members concerning their special summer getaway. The goal is to spend quality time
among them throughout the much-anticipated long weekend. The father proposes that they
should try Baguio, being the summer capital. The cold weather in the mountain city is a
welcome relief from the sweltering heat in the metropolis. However, the eldest daughter
does not like the idea. She thinks Baguio is boring and suggests going to a beach instead in
either Palawan or Boracay. Baguio does not excite her because for her it is just a city like
any other place with the same heavy traffic, huge crowds, fastfood joints, and malls.
At this point, the mother intervenes. She is neither for Baguio nor for any beach
destination. She hates long road trips and does not really savor the hassle that goes with air
travel. She would rather go tor a staycation in a nearby hotel and spend the whole stretch
of the long weekend resting. Her idea is instantly seconded by her ten-vear old son who
relishes the prospect of being holed up in a hotel room with unlimited Wi-Fi access. The
older son, second to the eldest daughter, wonders if the family would like to try camping
this time. A time spent out in the open nature all by themselves might be the kind of
bonding the family is looking for at this point, it is easy to see that the family is in a
stalemate. But given that the family 1is a lot less complex organization and that the
problem at hand is much smaller in scale, the situation illustrated above should not be
difficult to overcome. In fact, it can be resolved easily through any of the following
schemes. One option is to leave the decision-making to the parents or at least to one of
them like the way most Filipino families do. The other possibility is to accommodate all
the suggestions in their future weekend getaways one destination at a time. The last
option, though probably the least appealing of all, is to reject all the proposed plans and
settle for one whether they like it or not.

It is not as easy, however, when the same dilemma takes place in a larger context.
Take for example the tension surrounding the issue of same-sex marriage. As soon as the
news came out concerning the possibility of filing a bill for such purpose, a sharp divide
was immediately drawn between proponents and opponents of the would- De legislation.
Some sectors were supportive of it knowing the crucial role of this legislative measure in
the campaign of recognition of members of the LGBT community. Civil society groups,
especially the sympathizers of the differently gendered, were also in favor of the idea.
What was crucial tor them was not just the singular issue of same sex legitimate members
of the society. The Catholic Church and majority of its situations were expectedly the said
initiative, consistent with the view that marriage other than the traditional heterosexual
union is violative only of natural law but also of God's will.
Besides the tension among opposing views, the significance of the aforementioned
issue is the undercurrent. of cultures inherently at odds with each other. The government,
for example, 1S operating on the culture of modern politics which puts a premium on the
power of the state. The Church, on the other hand, anchors its views on a religious culture
that adheres to the supremacy of divinelv ordained state of things. The advocates of LGBT
rights think of themselves as vanguards of a liberal culture, which considers the
individual's capacity to assert his or her right to self-determination as supreme.
This diversity of culture makes it difficult for interested parties to talk and
listen to each other to clarify the issue at stake-in this case, the issue of same-sex
marriage-and how it can be resolved effectively. This is not to say that cultural
diversity is bad and that it should be avoided. There really is no reason to discount
divergence and particularity when it comes to culture since both are integral to the natural
dynamics of its formation as well as its evolution. Rather than dismissing diversity,
what must be aimed at is a kind of moral education that would equip ethical agents
to be conscious of the demands of a highly diversified cultural world. Such education
should go beyond the formulaic treatment of right and wrong and should strive
instead to cultivate among students a critical aptitude along with moral sensitivity to
the realities found in the cultures distinct from their own.
MORAL EDUCATION AND CULTURE
In his various works, Alasdair MacIntyre decries what he perceives as a steady
decline of the moral climate in his various works, Alasdair Macintyre decries what various
communities today. Modern politics and economy as well as advances in both science and
technology bring about numerous advantages which can also negatively affect our ways of
thinking and decision-making including the modes of our social interaction. Through
social media, for example, self-expression and interpersonal communication have become
more convenient and more creative. However it is also the environment where harmful
activities such as cyberbullying, identity theft, Ponzi scam, and child pornography
proliferate. Social media, in other words, are not as innocent as they seem. They carry with
them Consequences which, when unchecked, can result in very discouraging outcomes.
One is torn, therefore, between very extreme options: to use or not to use social media or
whether there should be limited or total control over its use. As previously illustrated,
these contentious choices represent not just varying points of view but also diverging
cultural persuasions. It should be emphasized that, as suggested by MacIntyre, cultural
differences are not a hindrance to the resolution of ethical conflict. Moral education

that neither exacerbates these issues nor leaves them unresolved is necessary. As far
as Maclntyre is concerned, each person is a potential philosopher, that is, a person with the
capacity to critically understand his or her own situation and sort out which is morally at
stake. Like Aristotle, MacIntyre believes that ethics has an inherent socio-political
dimension. In other words, a person can only hope to acquire full maturity of his or her
potential as a human person if he or she dutifully performs the demands of the socio-
political life of his or her community. It is also from the same community that a person can
generate the fundamental norms which will serve as his or her guide for action and
decision-making. If a farmer, for example, behaves and thinks differently from a public
school teacher, this is because he is operating on a totally different set of norms observed
by someone working in an academic institution. Most people, however, have the tendency
to overlook the fact that where a person lives, how one lives, and who he or she interacts
with can serve as grounds for doing ethics. When ethical issues are raised, appeal is made
almost instinctively to norms or standards imposed or created by external sources. This is
exactly what happens during debates (or lack of debates) the issue of same-sex marriage.
Once confronted by the learn issues, stakeholders immediately invoke ready-made
arguments and put forward conclusions remotely reflective their socio-political realities.
When such realities are of the for granted and ethical agents forget how they can are taken
be viable sources of standards for conflict resolution, the d-result is a fragile agreement
that undermines the moral fiber of a given society. This sad state of affairs can still be
died if the kind of moral education as envisioned by Alasdair Maclntyre is pursued. A
relevant moral education, says Maclntyre, should include practices and rational
instructions that enable participants of a given community to be conscious of their
groundedness in their own cultural milieu without neglecting the task of
understanding the cultural context of their counterparts. In this manner, dialogue
can be adequately pursued and the prospects of conflict resolution can be better
secured despite cultural diversity.
Cultural diversity is a natural feature of human life. Many disagreements can arise from
this diversity although many opportunities can be gained from these differences. One such
opportunity is the formation of an ethical climate where all ethical agents can actively
engage in the resolution of a given conflict. This possibility can only occur t moral
education, as envisioned by MacIntyre, is pursued earnestly. MacIntyre believes that aside
from schools, certain communities have a role to play in subscribing to this kind of moral
education. Rather than looking at ethics and culture as opposite terms, they may be viewed
as complementary Concepts vital to the achievement of human existence made more
humane.
EVALUATION
I. Answer the following questions concisely:
1. What is culture? How does culture narrow or widen a person’s ethical reasoning?
ANSWER

2. What makes culture a fundamental norm of ethical reasoning?

ANSWER
3. What are culturally-charged ethical issues in our society today? Why do issues deserve a
substantial and thorough discussion?
ANSWER
4. What is your take on the issue of same-sex marriage? What are the cultural and ethical elements
involved in your position?
ANSWER

II. CREATING
Identify at least different cultures here in Agusan del Sur. Compare their different practices
and ethical values. Create a diagram that will show a comprehensive comparison of these
identified cultures.
ANSWER

WEEK 6
MORAL DEVELOPMENT
LEARNING
OUTCOMES
E. Articulate the notion of moral development.
F. Discuss the stages of moral development.
G. Realize the importance of moral responsibility and accountability in the daily
moral context.
TARGET SKILLS
Understanding and Articulating
LEARNERS
TIME FRAME
REFERENCE
Cayogyog, Alvin and Apolinar henry Fernandez. Ethics for the New GE Curriculum.
Davao City: SMKC PrintShoppe, 2019.
PRELIMINARIE
S
Social media harms moral development, parents say
By Judith BurnsEducation reporter

18 July 2016
A majority of parents in the UK believe social media harms their children's moral
development, a survey has suggested. Just over half (55%) of 1,700 people with children
aged 11 to 17 strongly agreed that social media hinders or undermines moral
development. The poll was part of a project by the Jubilee Centre for Character and
Virtues at Birmingham University. Researcher Blaire Morgan said some of the findings
were surprising. "Not least [of these is] the low level of agreement that social media can
enhance or support a young person's character or moral development. "Whilst parents
acknowledged that positive character strengths, including moral virtues such as love,
courage and kindness, are promoted through social networking sites, they were reluctant to
agree that these sites could have a positive impact on their child's character."
BBC Newsround research earlier this year suggested that children as young as 10
have social media accounts despite being below the age limit, which is usually 13. The

new poll highlights parents' concerns about the trend. Of those questioned, 93% were
themselves regular social media users but:
 only 15% thought sites such as Facebook had a positive influence on a young
person's character
 40% said they were concerned or extremely concerned about social media having a
potentially damaging impact on children
The survey, which also questioned parents about their own use of social media,
asked which negative traits or vices they saw online at least once a month.
 60% said they had seen anger and hostility
 51% had seen arrogance
 43% cited ignorance
 41% mentioned bad judgement
 36% said hatred
 30% said vanity
They were also asked to name character strengths they believed were lacking on
social media:
 24% said there was too little forgiveness and self-control
 21% said too little honesty
 20% said fairness
 18% said humility.
But almost three-quarters (72%) said they saw content containing a positive
message at least once a day. And asked to identify character strengths they saw at least
once a month on social media, the respondents replied:
 humour (52%)
 appreciation of beauty (51%)
 creativity (44%)
 love (39%)
 courage (39%)
Ms Morgan said: "The Jubilee Centre's parents and media project seeks to explore
the relationship between social media and virtues in more depth, and hopefully offer a
more constructive outlook on how social media might impact on a person's character and
moral values. "Social media is not going away, so by learning more about this relationship
we should be able to maximize the benefits of social media use and avoid the pitfalls."
Reflective Questions:
1. Who are the individual persons who can play an important role in the
development of one’s morality?
2. What is the role of the community in the development of morality of a young
one?
DISCUSSION
Kohlberg’s Stages of Moral Development
Lawrence Kohlberg expanded on the earlier work of cognitive theorist Jean Piaget
to explain the moral development of children. Kohlberg believed that moral development,

like cognitive development, follows a series of stages. He used the idea of moral
dilemmas—stories that present conflicting ideas about two moral values—to teach 10 to
16 year-old boys about morality and values. The best known moral dilemma created by
Kohlberg is the “Heinz” dilemma, which discusses the idea of obeying the law versus
saving a life. Kohlberg emphasized that it is the way an individual reasons about a
dilemma that determines positive moral development.
After presenting people with various moral dilemmas, Kohlberg reviewed people’s
responses and placed them in different stages of moral reasoning. According to Kohlberg,
an individual progresses from the capacity for pre-conventional morality (before age 9) to
the capacity for conventional morality (early adolescence), and toward attaining post-
conventional morality (once Piaget’s idea of formal operational thought is attained), which
only a few fully achieve. Each level of morality contains two stages, which provide the
basis for moral development in various contexts.
Kohlberg’s stages of moral development
Kohlberg identified three levels of moral reasoning: pre-conventional,

conventional, and post-conventional. Each level is associated with increasingly complex
stages of moral development.
Level 1: Pre-conventional
Throughout the pre-conventional level, a child’s sense of morality is externally
controlled. Children accept and believe the rules of authority figures, such as parents and
teachers. A child with pre-conventional morality has not yet adopted or internalized
society’s conventions regarding what is right or wrong, but instead focuses largely on
external consequences that certain actions may bring.
Stage 1: Obedience-and-Punishment Orientation

Stage 1 focuses on the child’s desire to obey rules and avoid being punished. For
example, an action is perceived as morally wrong because the perpetrator is punished; the
worse the punishment for the act is, the more “bad” the act is perceived to be.
Stage 2: Instrumental Orientation

Stage 2 expresses the “what’s in it for me?” position, in which right behavior is
defined by whatever the individual believes to be in their best interest. Stage two
reasoning shows a limited interest in the needs of others, only to the point where it might
further the individual’s own interests. As a result, concern for others is not based on
loyalty or intrinsic respect, but rather a “you scratch my back, and I’ll scratch yours”
mentality. An example would be when a child is asked by his parents to do a chore. The
child asks “what’s in it for me?” and the parents offer the child an incentive by giving him
an allowance.
Level 2: Conventional
Throughout the conventional level, a child’s sense of morality is tied to personal
and societal relationships. Children continue to accept the rules of authority figures, but
this is now due to their belief that this is necessary to ensure positive relationships and
societal order. Adherence to rules and conventions is somewhat rigid during these stages,
and a rule’s appropriateness or fairness is seldom questioned.
Stage 3: Good Boy, Nice Girl Orientation

In stage 3, children want the approval of others and act in ways to avoid
disapproval. Emphasis is placed on good behavior and people being “nice” to others.
Stage 4: Law-and-Order Orientation

In stage 4, the child blindly accepts rules and convention because of their
importance in maintaining a functioning society. Rules are seen as being the same for
everyone, and obeying rules by doing what one is “supposed” to do is seen as valuable and
important. Moral reasoning in stage four is beyond the need for individual approval
exhibited in stage three. If one person violates a law, perhaps everyone would—thus there
is an obligation and a duty to uphold laws and rules. Most active members of society
remain at stage four, where morality is still predominantly dictated by an outside force.
Level 3: Postconventional
Throughout the postconventional level, a person’s sense of morality is defined in
terms of more abstract principles and values. People now believe that some laws are unjust
and should be changed or eliminated. This level is marked by a growing realization that
individuals are separate entities from society and that individuals may disobey rules
inconsistent with their own principles. Post-conventional moralists live by their
own ethical principles—principles that typically include such basic human rights as life,
liberty, and justice—and view rules as useful but changeable mechanisms, rather than
absolute dictates that must be obeyed without question. Because post-conventional
individuals elevate their own moral evaluation of a situation over social conventions, their
behavior, especially at stage six, can sometimes be confused with that of those at the pre-
conventional level. Some theorists have speculated that many people may never reach this
level of abstract moral reasoning.
Stage 5: Social-Contract Orientation

In stage 5, the world is viewed as holding different opinions, rights, and values.
Such perspectives should be mutually respected as unique to each person or community.
Laws are regarded as social contracts rather than rigid edicts. Those that do not promote
the general welfare should be changed when necessary to meet the greatest good for the
greatest number of people. This is achieved through majority decision and inevitable
compromise. Democratic government is theoretically based on stage five reasoning.
Stage 6: Universal-Ethical-Principal Orientation

In stage 6, moral reasoning is based on abstract reasoning using universal ethical
principles. Generally, the chosen principles are abstract rather than concrete and focus on
ideas such as equality, dignity, or respect. Laws are valid only insofar as they are grounded
in justice, and a commitment to justice carries with it an obligation to disobey unjust laws.
People choose the ethical principles they want to follow, and if they violate those
principles, they feel guilty. In this way, the individual acts because it is morally right to do
so (and not because he or she wants to avoid punishment), it is in their best interest, it is
expected, it is legal, or it is previously agreed upon. Although Kohlberg insisted that stage
six exists, he found it difficult to identify individuals who consistently operated at that
level.
Summary
Kolhberg’s theory of moral development states that we progress through three

levels of moral thinking that build on our cognitive development.
KEY POINTS

◦ Lawrence Kohlberg expanded on the earlier work of cognitive theorist Jean

Piaget to explain the moral development of children, which he believed
follows a series of stages.
◦ Kohlberg defined three levels of moral development: pre-conventional,
conventional, and post-conventional. Each level has two distinct stages.
◦ During the pre-conventional level, a child’s sense of morality is externally
controlled. Children accept and believe the rules of authority figures, such
as parents and teachers, and they judge an action based on its
consequences.
◦ During the conventional level, an individual’s sense of morality is tied to
personal and societal relationships. Children continue to accept the rules of
authority figures, but this is now because they believe that this is necessary
to ensure positive relationships and societal order.
◦ During the post-conventional level, a person’s sense of morality is defined in
terms of more abstract principles and values. People now believe that some
laws are unjust and should be changed or eliminated.
◦ Kohlberg’s theory has been criticized for its cultural and gendered bias toward
white, upper-class men and boys. It also fails to account for inconsistencies
within moral judgments.
EVALUATION
I. Short Essay
1. What is the value of the school in the moral development of an individual? Cite specific
activities or programs which are considered to be key contributors in such development.
ANSWER
2. Cite a specific situation where you can contribute in the moral development of young
ones considering the challenges posted by the digital age. Be brief and concise.
ANSWER

CHAPTER 7-9
THE HUMAN ACT
READY
LESSON OBJECTIVES
H. Understand the difference between human act and act of man.
I. Articulate the major determinants of morality.
J. Make critique on the connection between act, feelings and rationality.
K. Make use of the different principles that will define the morality of the human
act.
TARGET SKILLS
Reading and Understanding, Critical Thinking, Analyzing, Evaluating, Explaining, and
Writing
LEARNERS
First Year, AB English Language students
TIME FRAME
This module will be accomplished approximately in 9 hours within 3 weeks to
complete all the activities recommended. This is a distance learning program, thus the
time frame is flexible and largely self-directed.
REFERENCE
Cayogyog, Alvin, and Apolinar Henry Fernadez. (2019). Ethics for the New GE
Curriculum. Davao City: SMKC PrintShoppe, pp 30-44
START
ACTIVITY 1: Let’s know what you know
Read carefully each item and encircle the letter of your choice.
1. It is an act performed by a person deliberately. Which one is it?

A. Acts of man C. mentality of man
B. Human perception D. Acts of man
2. _____ is that which primarily determines the morality of human actions or
behavior.
A. The effects of an action C. The intention of the person.
B. The action itself D. The person doing the act.
3. When can we know that an act is under the responsibility of the doer of the
action?
A. When the effects are evil. C. When the act is good for all.
B. When the effects are good D. When the intention of the agent
is good.

4. When one is ignorant of something, automatically he/she is exempted of the

moral responsibility of his/her act.
A. True, because ignorance is a modifiers of human acts.
B. True, because ignorance is an absence of knowledge in man.
C. False, because ignorance might be vincible, invincible, or affected.
D. False, because ignorance can be conquered.
5. Which of the following is a modifier of human acts?
A. Fear C. Circumstances
B. Knowledge D. Voluntariness
(For answers key, see attachments)
DISCOV
ER
ACTIVITY 2: Let’s try one more thing!
Situational analysis:
Read and answer the following questions based on your prior knowledge.
1. A teacher is giving a quiz to her 25 students. The teacher explicitly expressed

that cheating is forbidden and that anyone who will be caught copying answers
will be charged accordingly. Then everyone agreed not to cheat. During the test
Marianne, a student in that class accidentally touched her extra pens causing
them to fall including her answer sheet. Now Carlo helped her by picking up the
fallen pen but unintentionally saw Marianne’s answers. On one hand Carlo was
already struggling to answer the questions on the test.
a. If you were Carlo, what would you do?
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________.
b. Is Carlo responsible for seeing Marianne’s answer? Why?
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________.
c. Will Carlo be charged of cheating if he copied Marianne’s answers? Why?

_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________.
LEARN
LESSON 1: HUMAN ACTS and acts of man

A. Readings
According to Paul Glenn, human acts are actions which proceed from the
deliberate free will of man. Thus any action or activity of man from his/her conscious
will is called human act. These actions are products of man’s knowledge, freedom, and
voluntariness. It is important to note that actions that are knowing, free, and voluntary
are actions that are proper to man as human beings.
From the given definition a human act is that which contains 3 important
elements. They are: Knowkedge, Freedom, and Voluntariness.
1. KNOWLEDGE- When one fully knows or consciously aware of the acts to be

performed, acts he/she is performing, or acts already performed, and that the agent
knows the consequences of the action as good, evil or indifferent. Good when an act is
in accordance with the dictate of right reason, evil if its contradictory to the dictate of
right reason, and indifferent if it stands neither as good or bad. (Example: act of
helping someone in need=good, act of killing unnecessarily someone=evil, reading a
note=indifferent)
2. FREEDEOM- For an action to become human, it must be performed in freedom.

Human acts are action done freely by an individual and should not be against his/her
will, otherwise it is not entirely his/her own.
3. VOLUNTARINESS- A voluntary act is an act that comes from the willfulness of the
person to do the act here and now or even in the future. Voluntariness requires both
knowledge and freedom thus making a voluntary act synonymous with a human act.
In short, human act is human and is the responsibility of the person if

-he/she knows (knowledge) what he/she is doing/will do/have done,
-he/she is free (freedom) to do or not to do that act, or if he/she has options
to choose,
-he/she is voluntary (voluntariness) to perform or not that act.
All of the above elements must be present in an act to make it human or to be called
acts of man, otherwise the absence of one ore more of the elements will make the act
impaired thus will make it acts of man.
b. EXAMPLES:
a. I am reading this notes, I know (knowledge) that I am reading. I am free
(freedom) not to read this, yet I perform the reading (voluntariness).
b. The act of typing messages on my phone.
c. Eating my breakfast
d. Driving a motorbike.
e. Planting rice in the rice fields
f. Stealing answers from a seatmate
g. Helping a beggar to cross the street
Note: Moral accountability lies on the fact that one knows the act, he/she is free in
choosing the options to act, and he/she is voluntary to will the act or not. See the
table below.
c. principles
CONDITIONS JUDGEMENT DEGREES OF
RESPONSIBILITY of
the agent
1. If all of the 3 elements - Human Act - Fully Responsible
are fully present in an
act
2. If one or two, or all are - Act of Man - Not Responsible

missing in an act
3. If one or two, or all are - Impaired Human Act - Less Responsible
partially absent/present

Examples:
Acts Judgment Degrees of
Responsibility
1. Violating a speed limit - Impaired human act - Less Responsible
when driving a
motorbike completely
unaware of the defect
in speedometer
2. Sleep-talk - Act of Man - Not Responsible
3. Hurting someone - Human Act - More responsible
intentionally
4. Breathing - Act of Man - Not Responsible
5. A man hit someone at - Impaired human act - Less responsible
the point of a gun
D. Exercises
Fill in the table with the correct judgement and degrees of responsibility based
on the acts given
Acts Judgment Degrees of
Responsibility
1. Writing a love letter
2. Copying a classmate’s
answer in this test
3. Respect to elders
4. Hearing a humor about
a friend
5. Killing a dog with a gun
6. Sending a message to a
wrong person.
7. Adultery
LESSON 2: Determinants of the morality of human act
A. Readings
Determinants of Morality means factors that would allow us to determine or
identify the morality (right or wrong/ good or evil/ moral or immoral) of a particular
act in relation to the objective norm of morality. These determinants are the sources
which defines acts as good to be performed or evil to be avoided. These
determinants are: the act itself or the Objet of the act, the motive or
intention, and the circumstances.
1. The Act Itself or the Object of the Act

This refers to “WHAT” the person does independent of any circumstances or of
the intention of the doer of the action/agent. The act itself has its very own nature
and its nature is objectively or intrinsically (in themselves) are taken as good or evil,
right or wrong, moral or immoral. Every act therefore, in the practical sense, done in
the concrete, has its intrinsic character or quality that defines its morality.
Examples:
A. B.
Actions that are intrinsically Actions that are intrinsically
good/right/moral/ evil/wrong/immoral

- Loving our parents - Torture

- helping someone to cross the street - Rape
- care for the sick - Killing unnecessarily
- teaching a friend to understand a difficult - Cheating
topic
- faithfulness - Adultery
- act of forgiving a mistake - Stealing
From the table above, actions that are intrinsically good (column A) are in
themselves good or morally right in nature though this judgement maybe altered by
some factors (in later topics). However, actions in column B are intrinsically wrong or
immoral and such acts can never be altered by any good intention or circumstances to
become good acts. It is in this very reason that the primary determinant or source of
morality is the act itself.
2. The Motive or the Intention

The motive or intention is an integral part of morality of human acts. It is the
purpose that for the sake of which something is done. It means that it is the reason
behind our acting. It answers the question “WHY we do what we do?” In short it is our
goal or end.
However, our intention/end why we do an act may differ from the motive or end of the
act itself. (see table for reference)
INTENTION/END OF THE
AGENT (may be the
HUMAN ACTS END OF THE ACT
following or something
else)
For the beggar to have For the agent to ask for

Giving food to a beggar
something to eat. favor after giving the food
To destroys credibility of
Telling the truth To express honesty other person or to hurt
someone with that truth.
Eating To fill the empty stomach To enjoy others’ company
At times, our goal as performer of an act coincides with the goal of the act itself.
INTENTION/END OF THE
AGENT (may be the
HUMAN ACTS END OF THE ACT
following or something
else)
Drinking water To quench the thirst To ease thirstiness
Eating To ease hunger To fill the empty stomach
Hitting hard someone To inflict pain To hurt someone

Depending on one’s motive or intention, a particular act or conduct can be

modified in its moral worth. Thus, under the motive or intention, there are four
principles to be considered. They are as follows (See Panizo 1964:43-44; Glenn 1968):
2.1 An indifferent act can become morally good or morally evil depending
upon the intention of the person doing the act.
Example: Talking/speaking is neither good nor bad. It becomes only good and
bad depending on the reason or purpose why one is talking or speaking. If the reason
is to destroy someone’s reputation (an ex-boyfriend/girlfriend, for instance) for the
sake of destroying it, then it becomes bad. But if the purpose of the act is to let the
truth be known in order to change lives for the better, then it becomes good.
2.2 An objectively good act becomes morally evil due to a wrong or bad
motive.
Example: The act of helping those in need (the poor and destitute) in our
society is an admirable act (objectively good); but if it is performed to simply get
public attention for one to be known as a charitable person, then the act turns into
something immoral.
2.3 An intrinsically (objectively) morally good act can receive added

goodness if done with an equally noble intention or motive.
Example: The act of praying is a good act in itself. It receives “more goodness”
if the purpose why one is praying is to give thanks and glory to God earnestly and
wholeheartedly. Praying as in simply asking for material things for personal gain and
comfort can be considered to be “less good” compared to praying out pure gratitude
to God.
2.4 An intrinsically evil act can never become morally good even if it is
done with a good motive or intention.
Example: To cheat in an exam in order to pass the subject and be able to

graduate on time. Cheating is wrong in itself (intrinsically evil). To aim to pass the
subject in order to graduate on time is a good intention (maybe, in this case, the
student needs to finish so he/ she can look and find a decent job to help the poor
family). But “the end just not justify the means.” No matter how good the intention is,
as long as it is done with an inherently evil act as a means, it is still morally wrong.
3. The Circumstances
The moral goodness or badness of an act is determined not only by the object
or act itself, plus the motive or intention of the moral agent, but also on the
circumstances or situation surrounding the performance of the action.
Circumstances refer to the various conditions outside of the act. They are not,
strictly speaking, part and parcel of the act itself. Circumstances are conditions that
influence, to a lesser or greater degree, the moral quality of the human act. They
either “affect the act by increasing or lessening its voluntariness or freedom, and thus,
affecting the morality of the act” (Salibay 2008: 33).
The kinds of circumstances that the study of Ethics deals with are those which
change and modify the specific moral character of the human act.
Four Types of Circumstances that Affect

the Morality of the Act
(Baldemeca et al. 1984:94; also see Montemayor 1985: 67):
1. Mitigating or extenuating circumstances diminish the degree of moral

good or evil in an act. To kill an innocent person is murder. However, suppose

a person commits murder for the first time or without any premeditation and
later admits his/her guilt, then these circumstances lessen the severity of the
act and its punishment.
2. Aggravating circumstances increase the degree of moral good or evil in
an act without adding a new and distinct species of moral good or evil. The
same act of murder can be made worse if it is carried out at night and with
the use of superior arms by a known recidivist.
3. Justifying circumstances show adequate reason for some acts done. A
person charged with murder can vindicate himself/herself if he/she can prove
that he/she killed a superior aggressor and that he/she did so in defense of
his/her own life.
4. Specifying circumstances give a new and distinct species of moral good
or evil of the act. The moral quality of the act of murder changes if the
murderer is wife of the victim, or if the murderer and the victim are one and
the same. Evidently, therefore, not only the nature of the act itself, but also
the circumstances which served as a reason for it, render it worthy of
approval or condemnation.
More concretely, on another related level, there are also seven specific kinds of
circumstances which affect the morality of human action. They basically provide
practical answers to particular questions as to WHO, WHERE, BY WHAT MEANS, WHY,
TO WHOM, HOW and WHEN of the act (See Panizo; also in Glenn, Babor & Agapay):
a.) Circumstance of Person- answers the question “WHO?” – is the subject or the
person who does or receives the action. Every act has a doer and a receiver. The
one who performs it and the one to whom the action is done. “Who” is the doer of
the action while “To whom” is the receiver of the act.
Example: It would matter what is the particular status or level (age, education,
position, etc.) of the person who performs or receives the act. Is the person a priest, a
minor, a widow, government official, a professional, illiterate, lunatic, disabled, hired
killer, military officer, senile, etc? (Here, we invite you the readers, to think about how
would a particular person’s status or level affect the morality of his/her action.)
b.) Circumstance of place- answers the question “WHERE?” – is the setting of an

action. Every act is done in a particular place. The place where the act is
committed by someone affects to a considerable degree its morality. But place
here is not only confined to a particular geographical location where the act
happened but also includes the nature of the place. Here we can ask the question:
“Is the act done inside the church or a place of worship, in a public place, inside
the privacy of one’s room, in the presence of children, in the classroom, in the
boarding house or dormitory, in the hospital or clinic, etc?” (Here, we invite you to
think how does a place where the act is done affect the morality of the act.)
Example: The act of hurting someone with a harsh word is a bad act. Also the
circumstance of place may add more responsibility when it is done publicly, of if it’s
done in a sacred pace.
c.) Circumstance of means- answers the question “BY WHAT MEANS?” – Although
one’s intention may be morally good, if the means of attaining the end are illicit or
unlawful, one’s acts are immoral. “The end does not justify the means.”
Example: Are the means of carrying the act through the use of force, compulsion,
threats, coercion, intimidation, embarrassing words, lewd remarks, vulgar statements,
insensitive comments? Are the ways employed in achieving one’s end or goal through
the use of deception, lies, half-truths, etc.?
d.) Circumstance of motive or intention- answers the question “WHY?” – is the

intention or the motive that moves the agent to an action. (This one, as a matter
of systematic presentation, was already dealt with above, as the second major
determinant of morality.)
Example: Act of giving foods to a person. This act changes in its state depending on
the intention of the agent. If one does to help, then the act is morally right. However if
the intention is to poison the person, then the act is evil.
e.) Circumstance of manner- replies the question “HOW?”– answers the question
as to the way or manner the act was carried or performed. This circumstance also
involves different conditions or modalities such as voluntariness, consent, violence,
fear, ignorance. It can also include the particular
weapon/equipment/tools/gadgets/etc. that the person used or employed in the
performance of the act. (This particular type of circumstance is actually very
similar to the question “By what means?”)
Example: Was the action performed in “cold blood,” “in a painful manner,” “in a very
brutal way (as in torture),” “maliciously,” etc.? Or was it done
gracefully/kindly/calmly/peacefully, privately/etc.? Was it done by the use of a kitchen
knife or a gun? Was the act done through the employment of minors, illiterate and the
innocent, etc.?
f.) Circumstance of time- answers the question “WHEN?” – is the time of the
action performed. Every act is done at a particular and specific time. The element
of time is also important and even vital as to the moral assessment and judgment
of the human act.
Example: Was the act performed in broad daylight or was it done during nighttime?
Was it committed when the victim (recipient of the act) was in the act of praying or
while asleep and unaware? Was the action done during the celebration of the Holy
Mass or done during the Lenten season (Good Friday)? Was the act performed at a
holy time such as the observance of a sacred feast such as during Ramadan?
g.) Circumstance of recipient- answers the question “TO WHOM?” – refers to the
recipient of the action, or the person to whom the act is done. (This was already
discussed as part of the WHO question in letter a, see above.)
Principles Governing Circumstances (Glenn 1965:119)
1. An indifferent act becomes good or evil by reason of its circumstances.

2. A good act may become evil by reason of circumstances.
3. An act may become better or worse, or may take on a new goodness or evil by
reason of circumstances.
4. An evil act can never be made good by circumstances.
5. A gravely evil circumstance entirely vitiates a good act.
6. A slightly evil circumstance does not entirely vitiate a good act.
B. EXAMPLES:
1. Human act and Intention
Human Act Intention Judgement
1. Cheating in a test To get high grades evil
2. Stealing medicines To help the sick recover evil
in a drugstore

3. Talking To explain a thought good

4. Murder To save others evil
5. Torture To know the truth evil
6. Tree planting Ecological responsibility Good
2. Human act and Circumstances

Human Act Circumstances Judgement
1. Act of hurting Who?- Daughter - The act by its very
someone Where?- In the public market nature is evil.
By what means?- Threatening - Every Circumstance
words which adds evil to the act
Why? - To embarrassed her is called an Aggravating
mom Circumstance thus adding
How?- Pointing finger to her more degree of evilness.
When?- On her mom’s
birthday
To whom? - Mother
2. Act of kindness Who?- You - The act by its very
Where?- In a sacred place nature is evil.
By what means?- Through - Every Circumstance
pure intention to help which adds evil to the act
Why? - To help others is called an Aggravating
How?- Out of care for others Circumstance thus adding
When?- On her birthday more responsibility.
To whom? - Mother
C. PRINCIPLES
DETERMINANTS OF MORALITY JUDGEMENT PRINCIPLES
ACT ITSELF/
INTENTION CIRCUMSTANCES
OBJECT
Intrinsicall Good Circumstances may be: The act is Good An
y  Aggravating- if they and takes intrinsically
good/moral add goodness to the another (objectively)
act act goodness morally good
 mitigating- if they because of the act can
diminish the good intention, receive
goodness and will take added
 justifying, if they more goodness if goodness if
give reasons for the done with an
such acts circumstances equally
 specifying, if they are good noble
give new species of intention or
moral goodness motive.
Intrinsicall Evil Circumstances may be: The act becomes An
y  Aggravating- if they evil and takes objectively
good/moral add evilness to the more evil with good act
act act the evil becomes
 mitigating- if they circumstances morally evil
diminish the evilness due to a
 justifying, if they wrong or bad
give reasons for motive.
such acts
 specifying, if they
give new species of
moral evil
Intrinsicall Gravely Circumstances may be: The act is An
y evil  Aggravating- if they gravely evil objectively
good/moral add evilness to the good act may
act act become

 mitigating- if they entirely evil

diminish the evilness because of
 justifying, if they the grave
give reasons for evil
such acts intention.
specifying, if they give
new species of moral
evil
Intrinsicall good Circumstances may be: The act remains An
y  Aggravating- if they evil intrinsically
evil/immor add evilness to the evil act can
al act act never
 mitigating- if they become
diminish the evilness morally good
 justifying, if they even if it is
give reasons for done with a
such acts good motive
specifying, if they give or intention.
new species of morality
Intrinsicall evil The act remains
y evil and the evil
evil/immor multiplies
al act because of the
evil intention
D. exercises
Determine the correct judgement of morality of the following given items.
ACT ITSELF/OBJECT INTENTION MORAL JUDGEMENT
1. Giving SAP To help the poor
allowances
2. Donating blood To help the sick
3. Giving of answers To help our classmates
during a test without answers
4. Giving alms To gain power over the

poor
5. Abortion To save from shame
6. Amputation To prevent cancer cells
from spreading to the
whole body
LESSON 3: modifiers of human act

A. Readings
B. EXAMPLES
C. PINCIPLES
D. exercises
Modifiers of Human Acts factors or conditions that affect man’s inner
disposition towards certain actions. These conditions influence specifically the mental
or emotional state of a person to the point that the voluntariness involved in an act is
either increased, diminished, or terminated. This is significant precisely because the
moral accountability of the doer of the action is also increased or decreased, as the
case may be. These modifiers affect the very essential elements of human acts
(Knowledge, freedom, and voluntariness) turning the acts as less voluntary or less
human.
The following are the 5 common modifiers of human acts:
1. Ignorance
2. Concupiscence or Passion
3. Fear
4. Violence
5. Habit
Let’s know these modifiers:
1. Ignorance
Ignorance is the absence of necessary knowledge a person ought to have in a given
situation. This is present in man when one does not know what he/she ought to know.
Types of Ignorance
a. Vincible ignorance can easily be remedied through ordinary diligence and

reasonable efforts on the part of the person who is in this particular mental state.
This specific type of ignorance is therefore conquerable since it is correctible.
Examples:
1. Ignorance of a student who is unaware that there will be a quiz on the next
meeting. She/he may not know it but by diligent effort she/he may dispel or
eradicate the ignorance in her/him.
b. Invincible ignorance is the kind of ignorance which an individual may have

without being aware of it, or, having knowledge of it, simply lacks the necessary
means to eradicate the ignorance in him. This type of ignorance is unconquerable,
and thus renders the act involuntary.
Examples:
1. The ignorance of someone who lost something and has tried all humanly
possible ways to find it is having an invincible ignorance.
2. A waiter in a restaurant might be totally unaware that the food he is serving
to the customers contains harmful bacteria.
c. Affected ignorance is a type of vincible ignorance. It is an ignorance in man

which is due to a positive intention of having the absence of knowledge in him/her.
Examples:
When a student refuses or simply ignores to read a school policy well posted on
bulletin boards precisely so that he or she may be exempted from what it requires,
which the student finds burdensome.
Principles Governing Ignorance
Principles Rationale Example
1. Invincible A person cannot be held A mother who bought foods

ignorance renders morally responsible or for her family unaware that
an act involuntary liable if he or she is not the money she used was a
aware of the state of his or counterfeit (fake) money. This
her ignorance. ignorance will render her
unaccountable for the act of
deception
2. Vincible ignorance A person who becomes A driver who is not sure

does not destroy, aware and conscious of the whether the reading that he
but lessens the state of ignorance he or or she did on the

voluntariness and she is in has the moral speedometer is accurate or

the corresponding obligation to correct it by not, and has failed to double
accountability employing enough check, when it could have
over the act. diligence in finding the easily been done, is guilty of
information required to this kind of ignorance. This
make one’s ignorance does not destroy his
disappear. accountability on the act but
lessens it.
3. Affected or This kind of ignorance A student who intentionally

pretended happens when a person misses to read the Students’
ignorance does chooses to be ignorant so Handbook in order not to be
not excuse a that he/she can eventually responsible if ever he/she
person from his or escape any accountability violates a school policy.
her bad actions; arising from the
on the contrary it wrongfulness of the act
actually increases
later on.
their malice
2. Passion or Concupiscence
Passion or concupiscence is here understood as a strong or powerful feeling or
emotion. It refers more specifically to those bodily appetites or tendencies as
experienced and expressed in such feelings as fear, love, hatred, despair, horror,
sadness, anger, grief and the like.
Passion or concupiscence is also known by other names such as sentiments,

affections, desires, etc. (Although each of this term connotes different meaning.)
Passion or concupiscence is either an inclination towards desirable objects, or, a
tendency away from undesirable or harmful things. It includes both positive and
negative emotions.
According to St. Thomas Aquinas,
[I]n themselves passions are indifferent; they are not [intrinsically]

evil….in as much as they are the movements of the irrational appetite, they have
no moral good or evil in themselves. But if they are subject to the reason and
will, then moral good and evil are in them. God has endowed the human
person with these appetites which pervade his/her whole sensitive life. They are
instruments and means for self-preservation of the individual and the human race.
Every person needs them for self- defense, growth, and improvement. The saints and
Christ Himself expressed their passions (as cited in Salibay 2008:40).
Passions are either classified as antecedent or consequent. Antecedent are

those that precede an act. It may happen that a person is emotionally aroused to
perform an act. Antecedent passions predispose a person to act.
Principles Governing Passion
Principles Rationale Examples
Antecedent passions Antecedent passions weaken A couple dating together: out of

do not always destroy the will power of a person too much jealousy seeing her
voluntariness, but without completely boyfriend looking at another girl,
they diminish obstructing his freedom. the lady throw her phone hitting
accountability for the Thus, the so called ‘crimes her partner.

resultant act. of passion’ are voluntary. But -Here, her act is influenced by
in so far as passions her passion making her to act
interfere with the freedom of out of it.
the will, one’s accountability
is diminished
Consequent passions This is because consequent A man was so mad when he

do not lessen passions are the direct knew that his girlfriend had a
voluntariness, but results of the will which fully date with his best friend. Now he
may even increase consents to them instead of planned to hurt his best friend,
accountability. subordinating them to its and did the plan being mad.
control
-Here, the person concerned
willed the act even in the
presence of the passion. He/she
allows himself/herself to be
completely controlled by it and
hence, is considered morally
responsible for it. The
responsibility increases since
there is already knowledge of
the passion and willed the act
out of it.
3. Fear
Fear is defined as “the disturbance of the mind of a person who is confronted
by an impending danger or harm to himself or loved ones” (Agapay 1991: 24). “Fear
may be considered a passion which arises as an impulsive movement of avoidance of
a threatening evil, ordinarily accompanied by bodily disturbances” (Panizo 1964: 34).
Here, it is treated as a “special kind” of passion, and hence also treated as another
distinct modifier of human act since it is a kind of a test of one’s mental character.
In addition, a distinction must be made between and act done “with” fear and
an act done “out” or “because” of fear. It is only those acts done out or because of
fear are considered as a modifier of a human act since it “modifies the freedom of the
doer, inducing him to act in a certain predetermined manner, often without his full
consent” (Agapay 1991: 24).
Principles Governing Fear
Acts done “with” This is so since the person A student answering a test
fear are voluntary acting with fear is acting in is feeling fear to fail in the
spite of his/her fear, and said test. The student in
thus, still very much in full consent and knowledge
control of his/her conduct. is taking the test making
Therefore, the person her/him accountable of
concerned remains morally whatever the result of the
act he/she is doing.
responsible of his/her
action, whether good or

bad, right or wrong.
Acts done “because A person when acting out of A taxi driver who gave all
of” intense fear or extreme fear is not morally the money he has to a
panic are simply accountable of his/her robber who points a gun at
involuntary action or conduct since the him and threatening his
act is less human and is not life. In this case the driver
fully willed by the agent. acts because of fear and
not according to his own
will and consent.
4. Violence
Generally, violence refers to “any physical force exerted on a person by
another free agent for the purpose of compelling [the] said person to act against his
will” (Agapay 1991: 24). Any act where great and brutal force is inflicted to a person
constitutes violence. This includes acts such as torture, mutilation and the like.
Principles Governing Violence
Any action resulting _The person acting in A man doing nothing to

from violence is simply violence should always be help a friend who is being
involuntary in defiance in terms of tortured since helping the
his/her will to the violence other implies more
physical assault to him
-This means that when and to his friend.
one is compelled to do
something, one should not
consent to it
When a person “active resistance should Allan and Arman are best
experience so much always be offered to an of friends. One day they
fear in the face of an unjust aggressor. [But] if were caught in a robbery
unjust aggressor who resistance is impossible, situation by an robber
is armed and extremely or if there is a serious pointing gun at them. Out
dangerous, he or she is threat to one’s life, a of grave fear and the
not held morally person confronted by presence of violence,
responsible of his or violence can always offer Arman ran away and left
her action intrinsic resistance by his best friend. In this
withholding consent; that case Arman’s act of
is enough to save [one’s] leaving behind Alvin
moral integrity” (Panizo as
cited in Agapay 1991: 25).
Absolute violence The reason is that lack of A cashier of a store giving

excludes any consent precludes a up all the money to a
voluntariness from the human act and robber who’s pointing gun
forced action consequently imputability at him/her.
Relative violence do Voluntariness is not A student is sharing

not impair completely taken away his/her answer to a
voluntariness because there is a partial seatmate because of the
completely but lessens consent of the will. But condition given by the
it voluntariness is lessened classmate that if he/she
because relative violence won’t share any answer,
makes a person carry out he/she will be forever

what otherwise he would forgotten as a friend.

not do Violence in this example is
expressed in the condition
which pushes someone to
act.
5. Habit
Habit, is a “constant and easy way of doing things acquired by the repetition of
the same act” (Panizo 1964: 37). For Glenn, habit is “a lasting readiness and facility,
born of frequently repeated acts, for acting in certain manner” (1965: 43). Also,
“[h]abits are acquired inclinations towards something to be done. They assumed the
rule of a second nature, moving one who has them to perform certain acts of relative
ease” (Agapay 1991: 25).
Principles governing Habit
1. Actions done by force of This means that if a Act of cursing. I know I am

habit are voluntary in person will simply let doing it but I didn’t have
cause, unless a his/her habit take control any intention of correcting
reasonable effort is of his/her action without it.
made to counter act the doing anything about it
habitual inclination whatsoever, then we can
say that he/she is morally
accountable of his/her
action by allowing the
habit to determine his/her
conduct.
2. A deliberately admitted Since one has knowledge I know I hate blasphemy

habit does not lessen of the habit and is but I do it.
voluntariness and conscious of such habit,
actions resulting then it makes the agent
therefrom are voluntary responsible of actions out
at least in their cause of it.
3. An opposed habit If one has the intention of Act of swearing. If one

lessens voluntariness dislike of a negative habit knows that he/she speaks
and sometimes yet one acts out of it, bad words and that he/she
precludes it completely voluntariness is lessened has the intention of not
since habit affects the will saying it, however by
and intellect in the surprise and due to a
performance of such act. habitual act and (not
her/his intention) did the
thing, his/her
responsibility is lessened.
4. Habits are involuntary in As long as the habit is not If I am unconscious of a

cause, because they are corrected, evil actions bad habit of saying bad
the result of previously done by force of that habit words if surprised by a
willed acts done are voluntary situation.
repeatedly as a matter
of act

5. When a person decide to The reason is that the In the act of swearing, if
fight this habit, and for cause of such habit is no the agent intends and
as long as the effort longer expressly desired tried hard to fight the
towards this purpose habit, and the intention
continues, actions continues, then the act
resulting from such habit can be regarded as act of
may be regarded as act man and not human act.
of man and not
accountable
LESSON 4: feelings and human act

A. Readings
Read the following statements and make inference if they are right!
 I was so mad to be irritated by their jokes.

 I should feel sorry for the death of her/his dog. She/he is my friend so I
have to feel the same.
 It is absolutely wrong for me to be angry with my classmates. After all we
are all the same beings here on earth.
 My elder sister is so much afraid of the dark, so I have to feel the same
thing because I am even younger than her.
When was the last time you feel something great? Or you feel so down? Did
you intend to feel that way? Was it an act out of what you know, your will, and you
voluntarily did it? If your answer on the last question is No then you are on the right
track. This means that feelings and human acts are two distinct matter. First, we shall
put the line of distinction between the two then discuss the relationship in them.
FEELINGS HUMAN ACT

 Non-volitional acts  Volitional/voluntary act
 Actions under passions or  Actions under the command of
emotions the will and reason
 Result of a stimulus  Result of a choice
As we have discussed, passions are strong and powerful feelings or emotions.

(see Lesson 3).
However, it does not mean that feelings and human act are completely apart
from each other. I fact they have connections. Philosophical Psychology would tell us
how actions can create emotions, and how emotions lead one to act. Example: If one
act for others to be happy, he/she might feel that joy making seeing others happy,
and then such joy will lead him/her to act in a particular way based on the emotion
he/she has, which may also cause one to act accordingly. This connection is inevitable
as human beings as we are though it is important to set distinction between the two
for us to be guided well in making judgements on human act instead of the burst of
our emotions.
B. EXAMPLEs
FEELINGS HUMAN ACT
 Anger  Hurting someone physically
 Hatred  Avoiding an ex-boyfriend
 Joy  Intentional smiling to others

 Happiness  Buying goods

 Disappointment  Not doing anything
C. PINCIPLES
Feelings are not chosen Feelings come from Sadness, Joy, Pain
emotions which are not
directly controlled by
reason
Feelings are not chosen Even if not chosen, in the One can choose what to
but we can choose how presence of feelings, one do when she/he is sad, in
to act in their presence can still manage to act joy or in pain
rationally as long as one
is not controlled by
passion.
D. exercises
1. Identify the difference between feelings and human act.
2.
LESSON 5: rationality and impartiality

A. Readings
On the above discussion on morality it is important to note two important
points
1. Moral judgements must be backed by good reasons;
2. Morality requires the impartial consideration of each individual’s
interest.
1. RATIONALITY
It is true that when emotions are so strong we are (most of the time) tempted
to use emotions in making moral judgements rather than looking for right reasons.
Unfortunately, we cannot rely on our feelings no matter how strong they maybe. Let’s
take an example: Mariane is a 4-year old elementary student. Her mother died right
after she was born. Now her father, Mario was recently imprisoned and was sentenced
for a lifetime imprisonment because of drugs. Given the fact that social welfare
system in the Philippines is not par from other countries. Given the situation, some
relatives and neighbors of Mariane were furious to the government why they have to
take away the only person who can take care of her. Their feelings would tell them
that it is better that her father will be freed to take care of her. Others would feel sorry
for her but would also feel that it’s better that her father is away for her to live a
better life.
Different feelings often tell us opposite things. Some would feel strongly that
Mario should be given a life sentence, or some would strongly feel that it’s better if
Mario stays with her daughter. But both of such feelings cannot be correct. We must
discover the truth by letting our feelings be guided as much as possible by the
arguments that can be given for the opposing views. In any circumstance, the morally
right thing to do is that which has the best reasons for doing.
2. IMPARTIALITY
Every important theory of morality requires impartiality. Impartiality implies
that moral rule should be neutral when it comes to the question as to who are its
recipients. Thus we should treat everyone alike, without any discrimination or
favoritism on race, culture, color, disability etc.

To sum up ensuring impartiality and rationality of moral decisions, the following

steps are of great help to guide us making moral choices.
1. STOP AND THINK
2. CLARIFY GOALS
3. DETERMINE FACTS
4. DEVELOP OPTIONS
5. CONSIDER CONSEQUENCES
6. CHOOSE
7. MONITOR AND MODIFY
B. PINCIPLES
 Moral judgements must be backed by good reasons.
 Morality requires the impartial consideration of each

individual’s interests
C. Exercises
 A young 12-year old boy had stolen bread for the sake of giving such bread to
his mother who is sick. He was caught by the police and he explained why he
had stolen the bread. How would you judge his action of stealing and his act of
helping his sick mom? Is he correct?
________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________.
EXAMIN
E
ACTIVITY 3: ONE MORE TRY
Read carefully each item and encircle the letter of your choice.
1. It is an act performed by a person deliberately. Which one is it?

C. Acts of man C. mentality of man
D. Human perception D. Acts of man
2. _____ is that which primarily determines the morality of human actions or
behavior.
C. The effects of an action C. The intention of the person.
D. The action itself D. The person doing the act.
3. When can we know that an act is under the responsibility of the doer of the
action?
C. When the effects are evil. C. When the act is good for all.
D. When the effects are good D. When the intention of the agent
is good.
4. When one is ignorant of something, automatically he/she is exempted of the
moral responsibility of his/her act.
A. True, because ignorance is a modifiers of human acts.
B. True, because ignorance is an absence of knowledge in man.
C. False, because ignorance might be vincible, invincible, or affected.
D. False, because ignorance can be conquered.
5. Which of the following is a modifier of human acts?
C. Fear C. Circumstances
D. Knowledge D. Voluntariness
ACTIVITY 4: Let’s try one more thing!

Situational analysis:
Read and answer the following questions based on your readngs and understanding of
the topics.
1. A teacher is giving a quiz to her 25 students. The teacher explicitly expressed

that cheating is forbidden and that anyone who will be caught copying answers
will be charged accordingly. Then everyone agreed not to cheat. During the
test Marianne, a student in that class accidentally touched her extra pens
causing them to fall including her answer sheet. Now Carlo helped her by
picking up the fallen pen but unintentionally saw Marianne’s answers. On one
hand Carlo was already struggling to answer the questions on the test.
a. If you were Carlo, what would you do?
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________.
b. Is Carlo responsible for seeing Marianne’s answer? Why?
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________.
c. Will Carlo be charged of cheating if he copied Marianne’s answers? Why?

_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________.
d. If Carlo copied the answers he saw from Marianne’s paper, will his act be
considered a human act? Why?
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________.
EVALUATE
Chapter test
I. True or False: Write your answers on the space before the number. Choose A if the
statements are correct otherwise E if the statements are wrong.
________1. Human acts are responsible acts, unlike the acts of man.
________2. ________
________3. The presence of voluntariness turns an act into an act of man.
________4. All elements of human act must be present for an act to become truly
human.
________5. Determinants of morality define the morality of human act.
________6. The act itself is considered as the object of an act.
________7. Determinants of morality defines the wrongness or rightness of an act.
________8. There are three major elements or determinants of morality.
________9. The primary determinant of morality is the motive of the person.
________10. The act itself is the most important determinant of morality of human acts.
________11. It is the act that the will chooses to perform a voluntary act.
________12. Motive and intention of the agent are two different elements which
determines morality.
________13. The purpose of which something is done is called motive.

________14. There are four types of circumstances that affect morality of human
conduct.
________15. Circumstances are considered minor determinant of morality of human
actions.
________16. Circumstances that ethics deals with are purely internal in nature.
________17. Conditions that are internal to the act which affects morality refer to
circumstances.
________18. Human acts are actions of man which are freely and voluntarily done.
________19. Good actions are the only actions subjected to morality.
________20. Human acts are actions done out of an ignorance in man.
________21. Sleepwalking is an example of acts of man.
________22. Consent and freedom are two important elements of human acts.
________23. All human acts are acts of man, but not all acts of man are human acts.
________24. Human acts are actions that emanate from the instinctive act of man.
________25. Actions that we share with animals are called acts of man.
II. Multiple Choice: Choose the letter of the correct answer and write them on the
space provided.
________26. It is kind of ignorance which can be cleared up by ordinary diligence.

Which one is it?
A. invisible ignorance C. invincible ignorance
B. vincible ignorance D. visible ignorance
________27. It is a condition which is itself indifferent.
A. Violence C. Passion
B. Habit D. Ignorance
________28. They are also called bad habits. Which one is it?
A. Vices C. Virtues
B. Happiness D. Riches
________29. Which of the following is a grave fear?
A. Losing one’s wallet C. Dying
B. Breaking up with a girlfriend D. Losing one’s phone
________30. They are dispositions which influence one to perform an act repeatedly.
Which one is it?
A. Fear C. Violence
B. Habits D. Passion
________31. When an act is considered to be deliberate, the agent is _____.
A. willing C. free
B. aware D. none of these
________32. It is also called the motive why a person performs an act.
A. End of the act C. end of the agent
B. Circumstances D. habit
________33. Identify which of the following is a slight fear.
A. Losing one’s life C. Losing one’s shoes
B. Losing one’s family D. none of these
________34. According to him, passions are in themselves indifferent and that they are
not intrinsically evil.
A. Aristotle C. Plato
B. Aquinas D. Pythagoras
________35. Which of the following is correct about ignorance?
A. Ignorance is a product of a repeated acts
B. Vincible ignorance makes an act involuntary
C. Vincible ignorance lessens voluntariness
D. Affected ignorance excuses one from a responsibility
________36. Violence happens when ____ .
A. one is acting according to his/her will
B. one is in defiance to act because of external force
C. one is free in choosing which act to do
D. one submits his/her will to an aggressor

________37. It is an element of a human act which is the awareness of the agent of the
act. Which one is it?
A. The act must be deliberate C. The act must be free
B. The act must be voluntary D. All of the above
________38. These are actions which flow from a deliberate will of man. They are
______.
A. Human actions C. Human thoughts
B. Acts of man D. All of the above
________39. When can we say that an act is voluntary?
A. When the act is done with hesitation C. When the act is
deliberate
B. When an act is done knowingly and freely D. All of the above
________40.______ is the primary determinant of what is right or wrong, good, or evil.
A. The subject C. Intention
B. Voluntariness D. Object of the act
________41. A situation which surrounds the act that increases the f degree of moral
responsibility is said to be ___.
A. Voluntariness C. Aggravating
B. Object of the Act D. All of the given
________42. According to the principle, an intrinsically good act may become evil if
______.
A. the intention is pure C. the motive is evil
B. the motivation is enough D. All of the given
________43. Which of the following is NOT correct about circumstances?
A. Circumstances may increase moral responsibility
B. Circumstances may decrease moral responsibility
C. Circumstances shows that one is guilty
D. Circumstances may exempt one from doing a required act.
________44. Which of the following is considered passion?
A. Hatred C. Joy
B. Happiness D. All of the above
________45. It is a kind of ignorance which makes the agent more responsible of her/his
acts.
A. Vincible ignorance C. Affected ignorance
B. Invincible ignorance D. All of the given
________46. Which of the following is true about habits?
A. Actions done out of habits are involuntary C. Habits are passions
B. Habits are voluntary in cause D. All of the above
________47. Habits are voluntary in cause because they are ______.
A. acts chosen previously. C. repeatedly actions
B. acts of man D. All of the above.
________48. Which of the following is a modifier of human acts?
A. Hatred C. Anger
B. Joy D. All of the above
________49. Passions are called antecedent when _______.
A. they predispose a person to act C. they are free
B. they destroy voluntariness D. they lessen accountability
________50. What kind of ignorance does a person who intentionally evade knowing
has?
A. Invincible ignorance C. Vincible ignorance
B. Affected ignorance D. Effected ignorance
III. Matching Type: Choose the letter of the correct answer and write them on the
space provided
Answers COLUMN A COLUMN B

_________ 51. Circumstance of Place A. The subject
_ 52. Circumstance of time B. The act is performed in the evening
_________ 53. Circumstance of person C. In the market
_ 54. Circumstance of manner D. Motive

_________ 55. Circumstance of reason E. The act is done in ignorance

_
_________
_
_________
_
_________ 56. Ignorance A. Not sure if I know the answer
_ 57. Vincible ignorance B. Predisposes one to act
_________ 58. Invincible ignorance C. Lessens voluntariness
_ 59. Antecedent passion D. Precedes the act
_________ 60. Consequent passion E. Absence of knowledge
_
_________
_
_________
_
_________ 61. Antecedent passion A. Do not lessens voluntariness but
_ 62. Acts because of fear increases responsibility
_________ 63. Consequent passion B. Voluntary acts
_ 64. Passion C. They diminish accountability
_________ 65. Acts done with fear D. Simply involuntary
_ E. Concupiscence
_________
_
_________
_
_________ 66. Fear A. Shrinking of the mind
_ 67. Violence B. Either vincible or invincible
_________ 68. Habit C. Generally voluntary in cause
_ 69. Passion D. Concupiscence
_________ 70. Ignorance E. Physical force exerted by another
_ person
_________
_
_________
_
_________ 71. Voluntary act A. A free and knowing act
_ 72. Actions in freedom B. The person act with his/her own
_________ 73. Deliberate act volition
_ 74. Involuntary act C. The agent must be conscious
_________ 75. Act of man D. Non humane acts
_ E. Opposite of human act
_________
_
_________
_


GE 8 ETHICS Week2 9

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

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

GE 8 ETHICS Week2 9

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

LEARNING MODULE IN STAT 01 (ELEMENTARY STATISTICS)

AGUSAN DEL SUR STATE COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE AND TECHNOLOGY

Relationship as the Foundation

COLLEGE OF ARTS AND SCIENCES

COLLEGE OF ARTS AND SCIENCES

COLLEGE OF ARTS AND SCIENCES

COLLEGE OF ARTS AND SCIENCES

COLLEGE OF ARTS AND SCIENCES

A dilemma is a situation where a person is forced to choose between two or more

COLLEGE OF ARTS AND SCIENCES

Lindsay is a deeply religious person; hence, she considers

The Concept of Universal Values

COLLEGE OF ARTS AND SCIENCES

Prioritizing Loyalties. Because so many individuals and groups make loyalty

Respect focuses on:

Restraint. Responsible people exercise self-control, restraining passions and appetites

COLLEGE OF ARTS AND SCIENCES

2.2 How can theory help us in acting more effectively?

COLLEGE OF ARTS AND SCIENCES

Freedom has often been mistakenly understood as "doing what we want" It is

COLLEGE OF ARTS AND SCIENCES

II. Case Analysis

By CNN Philippines Staff

COLLEGE OF ARTS AND SCIENCES

COLLEGE OF ARTS AND SCIENCES

COLLEGE OF ARTS AND SCIENCES

COLLEGE OF ARTS AND SCIENCES

COLLEGE OF ARTS AND SCIENCES

COLLEGE OF ARTS AND SCIENCES

2. What makes culture a fundamental norm of ethical reasoning?

COLLEGE OF ARTS AND SCIENCES

COLLEGE OF ARTS AND SCIENCES

By Judith BurnsEducation reporter

COLLEGE OF ARTS AND SCIENCES

COLLEGE OF ARTS AND SCIENCES

Kohlberg’s stages of moral development

Kohlberg identified three levels of moral reasoning: pre-conventional,

Stage 1: Obedience-and-Punishment Orientation

Stage 2: Instrumental Orientation

Stage 3: Good Boy, Nice Girl Orientation

Stage 4: Law-and-Order Orientation

Stage 5: Social-Contract Orientation

Stage 6: Universal-Ethical-Principal Orientation

Kolhberg’s theory of moral development states that we progress through three

COLLEGE OF ARTS AND SCIENCES

◦ Lawrence Kohlberg expanded on the earlier work of cognitive theorist Jean

COLLEGE OF ARTS AND SCIENCES

1. It is an act performed by a person deliberately. Which one is it?

COLLEGE OF ARTS AND SCIENCES

4. When one is ignorant of something, automatically he/she is exempted of the

(For answers key, see attachments)

1. A teacher is giving a quiz to her 25 students. The teacher explicitly expressed

c. Will Carlo be charged of cheating if he copied Marianne’s answers? Why?

LESSON 1: HUMAN ACTS and acts of man

1. KNOWLEDGE- When one fully knows or consciously aware of the acts to be

2. FREEDEOM- For an action to become human, it must be performed in freedom.

In short, human act is human and is the responsibility of the person if

2. If one or two, or all are - Act of Man - Not Responsible

COLLEGE OF ARTS AND SCIENCES

LESSON 2: Determinants of the morality of human act

1. The Act Itself or the Object of the Act

COLLEGE OF ARTS AND SCIENCES

- Loving our parents - Torture