ETHICS

INTRODUCTION

Ethics deals with principles of ethical behaviour in modern society at the level of the person,
society, and in interaction with the environment and other shared resources (CMO 20 s 2013).
Morality pertains to the standards of right and wrong that an individual originally picks up from the
community.
Ethics, as a course, teaches students to make moral decisions by using dominant moral
frameworks and by applying a seven-step moral reasoning model to analyse and solve moral
dilemmas.

A. Basic Concepts

a. Moral Standards vs. Non-moral Standards (What are the Differences?)

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. For some ethicists, moral standards = 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. Examples of
non-moral standards: 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.

Six(6) CHARACTERISTICS OF Moral Standards that differentiate them from non-moral standards:

1. Moral standards involve serious wrongs or significant benefits.

Moral standards deal with matters which can seriously impact, that is, injure or benefit human beings.
2. Moral standards ought to be preferred to other values.
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, or even one’s self-interest.
3. 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 a particular authoritative body. One thing about these standards is that its validity lies on the
soundness of the reasons that support and justify them.
4. Moral standards have the trait of universalizability.
Simply put, moral principles must apply to all who are in the similar situation. If one judges an act to
be morally right for a certain person, then it is morally right for all in a similar situation. This
characteristic is exemplified in the Golden Rule, “Do unto others what you would them do unto you (if
you were in their shoes.)” Universalizability is an extension of the principle of consistency, that is,
one ought to be consistent about one’s value judgments.
5. Moral standards are based on impartial considerations (free of bias or prejudice, fair to all).
Moral standard goes beyond personal interests to a universal standpoint in which each person’s
interests are counted as equal.
6. Moral standards are associated with special emotions and vocabulary.
These moral standards are generally put forth as commands or imperatives, such as, ‘Do not kill,’
‘Do no unnecessary harm,’ and ‘Love your neighbor’.. This feature is used to evaluate behavior, to
assign praise and blame, and to produce feelings of satisfaction or guilt. If a person violates a
moral standard by telling a lie, it is not surprising if he/she starts feeling guilty or being ashamed of
his behavior. On the contrary, no much guilt is felt if one goes against the current fashion, like,
refusing to wear tattered jeans.

b. What are Dilemmas? What are Moral Dilemmas?

A dilemma, in the most general sense, is a situation that requires a choice between two options
that are (or seem to be) equally desirable/satisfactory or undesirable/unsatisfactory. Non-moral
dilemmas, are options that are desirable/satisfactory or undesirable/unsatisfactory for reasons other
than morality, like being torn between buying a book or a shirt since he can only afford to purchase
one of them. There is no moral dimension to this decision, but it is surely a dilemma.
A moral dilemma is a situation in which the decision-maker has to give priority to one moral value
over another (Brinkmann, 2005). A person who faces a moral dilemma must decide which moral
duty to prioritize, but “whichever action is taken will offend another important moral value”
(Maclagan, 2003).
A moral dilemma can occur because of a prior personal mistake. This is called a self-inflicted
dilemma. A classic example is the Bible story about King Herod, where on his birthday, his
stepdaughter, Salome, danced so well that he promised to give her whatever she wanted. Upon
consultation with her mother, she decided to ask for the head of John the Baptist on a platter. The
king now was faced with the moral dilemma between honoring the promise to his stepdaughter
or honoring the life of John the Baptist. The king had unknowingly set a moral trap for
himself—a dilemma in which, whatever he decided, he would be acting immorally.
In our everyday life, we inflict ourselves with moral dilemmas involving double booking. Example:
two individuals are booked for separate appointments with one person, but at the same hour. One
surely cannot keep both appointments, and he must choose which one to break.
In a narrow sense, a moral dilemma is a situation in which the moral values at stake are of equal
importance. In the above-example, the two appointments have equally strong pull and significance.
Neither choice is less wrong than the other. This situation tells that moral wrongdoing is
inescapable (Gowans, 1994), or in Filipino, “walang lusot..”
In a wider sense, there can be moral dilemmas in which a person has strong moral reasons to act
in one way, but not equally strong moral reasons to act in another way. When considering the
nature of two promises, it may be reasonable to fulfil one over the other. The Herod case belongs to
the wider sense where there is an imbalance in the moral weight of the two options. Herod had
stronger moral reasons to spare the life of John the Baptist than to keep his word to his stepdaughter.
Clearly, one option was morally superior over the other. But this situation can still be called a moral
dilemma, but not in the pure sense since the moral values are not on equal footing, or can be
called a false moral dilemma. In False moral dilemmas, what ought to be done is clear, but there is
temptation or pressure to act in another way. In business ethics, the distinction between true
and false dilemmas has also been described as the distinction between dilemmas and
temptations (Brinkmann, 2005). Professional ethics and the handling of conflicts of interest are
at the core of professionals’ moral responsibilities toward clients, customers, patients, students, and
other users of professional services. For example, lawyers and accountants can be tempted to
prioritize self-interest over their clients’ interests since the risk that clients will detect such choices is
minimal. The professionals may claim that they are facing moral dilemmas when, for example,
opportunities arise to overcharge clients. The most appropriate term for such a situation is false
dilemma. Thus, conflict of interest situation may resemble a real dilemma since the decision-maker

2
 must decide between two options that are both undesirable: cheating the client, which is wrong, and
turning down a chance to earn extra money. However, the former feeling has a moral component, but
the latter is just a temptation, a false moral dilemma, with only superficial similarities to real
dilemmas.
In some other cases that involve self-interest, however, the distinctions are not so clear-cut. The
following CASE: KVALNES AND ØVERENGET (2012) can serve to highlight how challenging a
situation can be even when it is close to the false dilemma end of the spectrum:

“Ben is the manager of a small private-banking unit within a large financial services group. Results
have slumped recently, mainly due to a bitter conflict between one employee and some of his
colleagues. They complain that he is rude and difficult to cooperate with. Ben has attempted to
mitigate, but to no avail. National legislation prohibits the option of firing the quarrelsome employee,
at least in the short run. Key members of Ben’s unit have become very upset by the situation and
have started to look for work elsewhere. A recent turn of events is that the employee himself has
applied for a job in a different part of the financial services group. Ben has agreed to serve as a
reference person. He receives a phone call from the manager of the unit currently contemplating to
hire the employee. The said manager is particularly interested in the employee’s social skills. “Does
he function well with his colleagues?” she asks. BEN’S DILEMMA: If Ben gives an honest answer,
he is likely to be stuck with the employee for a long time. If he lies, about the employee’s
social skills, he may get rid of his problem. He then runs the risk that his honesty will come up
for questioning later. It also feels wrong to lie to another person in order to get rid of a
problem at work. Lying in this case would be an attempt to transport one’s own problem over to
someone else, instead of taking responsibility and deal with it in one’s own organization. Question:
How should Ben respond to the question about the employee’s social abilities?

In this example, Ben had to choose between being honest and telling the truth about an employee’s
antisocial behavior, which would prevent the employee from moving to another organization. Ben
acknowledged that, regardless of what he decided to do, it would be wrong.
At first glance, this appears to be an obvious example of a false dilemma. Ben’s choice was between
the moral value of being truthful to others and the selfish desire to get rid of an employee problem. It
was tempting for him to withhold information and thereby help the difficult employee move to a new
job, but doing so would have violated Ben’s moral duty to be honest in business dealings. Ben could
have reasoned that the employee deserved another chance in a new work environment. By this logic,
if the employee were allowed to start anew in his career, he might be better able to fulfill his personal
and professional potential. That is all very well, but that consideration is relatively weak and clearly is
meant to camouflage a violation of the moral requirement to be straightforward and honest when
acting as a reference person.
The extent to which Ben’s situation is a real or a false dilemma depends on the details of the
case. This case is a good starting point when teaching ethics to both business managers and
business-school students, as well as in research on moral psychology. . .(Kvalnes, 2014).
People’s responses to Ben’s dilemma reveal their moral convictions. When I ask for
justifications regarding the choice of whether to be truthful, the participants in my ethics courses have
come up with a wide variety of reasons, thus expressing their individual loyalties and preferences.
People’s first responses are often based on their gut feelings, which cause one option to
instantly feel right or wrong. These are from System 1, where intuitions are dominant; In
System 2, reflection and analysis makes decision-making slower (Kahneman, 2013). Ethical
reasoning involves slowing down to become aware of the moral issues at stake and progressing from
a state of mismatching feelings to one in which the participants are able to recognize the ethical and
moral foundations for their own choices.

3
Moral dilemmas are omnipresent in organizations. Situations on all parts of the scale, from acutely
real dilemmas to false pseudo-dilemmas, constitute challenges that decision-makers should prepare
for.
NOTE: The three levels of moral dilemmas are: Individual, organizational and systemic.

Reference:
Brinkmann, J. (2005). Understanding insurance customer dishonesty: Outline of a situational
approach. Journal of Business Ethics, 61(2), 183–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

c. Foundation of Morality: FREEDOM-Responsibility for one’s act and to others

What is the role of human freedom in morality? C.S. Lewis once explained the different aspects of
morality by using the metaphor of a flotilla: Each ship must be well run on its own, but each must
also coordinate with the others so that they avoid collisions and stay in formation. Finally, the fleet
must be set on a destination, which constitutes the purpose of their journey. This is a helpful way to
think about morality regarding self, others, and our ultimate end - God.

Personal Morality
The personal aspect of morality— more properly called as ethics —is about the cultivation of virtue:
the development of character traits so that choosing the good becomes a matter of a habit. An
efficient and well-run ship is like a virtuous person. Their difference, however, is that a ship’s crew is
run hierarchically. A ship is under the command of a captain, whereas a virtuous person must
be free to cultivate the virtues, or not.
There is no virtue in being charitable when someone is forcing you to give. Virtue can be guided by
cultural traditions and social institutions, not coerced. A virtuous man must be a free man.

Morality Regarding Others

The interpersonal aspect of morality is more about rule-following. Rules are important because
they prevent us from “colliding” with each other. They permit us to live together in harmony and
make us recognize the rights of others. Here too, liberty is essential because it affords us the
greatest space possible to pursue our projects while living well with one another.
Note: A society where some people dominate will never reach its full potential in the human sciences,
physical sciences, and creative arts.

The Big Questions

Finally, there is the question of ultimate ends. Why are we here? Where are we going? As a
Christian, I have a specifically religious view of man’s destiny and final end – God. But for having a
final end, freedom remains essential. To paraphrase Lord Acton, “Freedom is so precious that
God will not override it, even when we badly misuse that freedom.” In other words, we can’t get
to where we’re going if we’re not free to walk the road. I think this is a point on which religious,
spiritual, agnostic, or even atheist persons can agree. Thus, freedom is essential to a genuinely
good human life at all the levels of morality. (Reprinted from Learn Liberty)

d. Minimum requirement for Morality: Reason, Feelings and Impartiality

Man, as rational, acts with a purpose. He is capable of knowing both his intentions and
consequences of his actions, and is capable of judging them as right or wrong, good or bad. But
apart from our rationality, feelings also play a crucial part in our experience. Feelings provide us with
an initial reckoning of a situation, and seek immediate fulfilment. But they should not be the sole
basis for our motives and actions. Feelings without reason are blind. Thus, it is reason that
tempers our compulsions, setting the course for making ethical and impartial decisions. But it is
not the sole determining factor in coming up with certain decisions. Reason, by itself, is not a

4
 sufficient instrument in assessing moral situations. Reason and feelings must constructively
complement each other in making choices. Reason, while a reliable ground for moral judgment,
needs the feeling of empathy to make, not just a moral, but also a just decision. Morality
involves impartiality to ensure that all interests are accounted for, weighed rationally, and
assessed without prejudice. Reason recognizes both the good of oneself, and those of others.

PART I: THE MORAL AGENT

A. Culture in Moral Behavior

1. Culture and its Role in Moral Behavior

Webster’s dictionary defines culture as the ideas, customs, skills, arts, etc. of a people or group,
that are transferred, communicated, or passed along to succeeding generations.

Culture is a pattern of behaviour acquired and transmitted by symbols, constituting the

distinctive achievement of human groups, including artifacts. The core of culture consists of
traditional ideas and their attached values. Culture systems may, on one hand, be considered as
products of (past) action, and on the other hand, as conditioning elements for further (future)
action (Lanuza, G. and Raymundo, S., 2016).

In the hierarchy of ethical or moral standards, Moral right ranks first in the priority, and utility or
usefulness ranks last. Hence, the model theory of morality is “Categorical Imperative,” since
it recognizes and protects the rights and dignity of man. There is no other theory of life that is
more conducive to rights and dignity than Categorical Imperative.

In a nutshell, Categorical Imperative is Immanuel Kant’s supreme principle of morality, where

Right-Wrong is determined by Rationality, Good-Evil are defined in terms of Law/Duty/Obligation.
For Kant, moral action is guided by Reason and Good Will (Right intention) when it commands:
“You ought to do your duty because it is your duty.” Categorical Imperative is equal to the
Principle of Universalizability or “Law of Universal Conformity” which states: “I should never
act unless my guiding rules (or maxims) for action should become a universal law.”

By respecting the moral rights of man, this theory gives justice to man’s humanity. Man
becomes human only if he enjoys his rights as a human being. His rights are his sacred
possessions which should be considered under all circumstances. To respect the rights of
man expresses respect for God, his Creator, and true Giver of rights. A society, therefore, that
respects the dignity and rights of its members is considered a better society, a better culture.

Criticism or attack on Categorical Imperative is based on some people’s unwillingness to abandon

their selfishness, to give up their earthly riches and pleasures for the sake of another fellow
human being. The path set by Categorical Imperative is, of course, difficult but the quest for moral
excellence is equally difficult and painful. The path to moral goodness and to holiness follows a
narrow and difficult road.

2. What is Cultural Relativism? Why is it not tenable in Ethics?

Present-day analyses of culture show that culture is like a story. It can have multiple meanings,
and it can exist independently of the people who created them. Culture can have a life of its own.
Postmodern thinkers, therefore, challenge the idea that culture is the same for everyone. They
rather espouse cultural relativism, and reject the idea of an encompassing universal culture.
5
Cultural relativism is simply the belief that all cultures are equally complex. There is no such
thing as superior or inferior culture. Therefore, cultures should be interpreted based on their own
logic and form. So, no culture must assume the ultimate standard of what is good and bad.

Postcolonial critics of culture argue that there is no such thing as culture with capital “C” but
only “cultures” in plural. The dominant approach simply reflected the view of western scholars.
Eurocentrism, Westernism, Americanization are all subspecies of Ethnocentrism. Ethnocentrism, a
word coined by William Graham Sumner (1906), is defined as the view of things in which one’s own
group is the center of everything (Kinder and Kam, 2010). All people are ethnocentric. But
historically, European explorers and scholars tended to go beyond their ethnocentric biases and
saw non-European cultures in bad light. They used their own perspectives to downgrade
indigenous cultures to justify colonialism. Example: Western people are seen as industrious and
rational, while the non-western natives are depicted as lazy and superstitious.

Reference:
Lanuza, Gerry M. and Raymundo, Sarah S. (2016). “Understanding Culture, Society and Politics”
Manila, Philippines: REX Book Store.

3. FILIPINO Moral Behaviour/Character: Strengths and Weaknesses?

A. STRENGTHS of the Filipino moral character / values / traits:

1. Pakikipagkapwa-tao. This refers to the Filipinos’ openness to others, and feeling of oneness and
belonging with them. It connotes a deep personal concern for others.
2. Family Orientation. A Filipino is a family-centered person. The family as his biological source is
also the source of his name, honor, security, reputation, support and status. He has, at all cost,
to support, protect and defend it. Thus, relationship is very strong and close.
3. Joy and Humor. The Filipino is fun-loving and cheerful. He laughs out his problems. He
manifests a sense of humor.
4. Flexibility, Adaptability and Creativity. In the face of natural calamities, Filipinos manage to
survive. They are flexible, adaptable, creative and resourceful to face situations. Filipinos are apt to
become scientists and inventors. Examples: fluorescent, water-fuelled motor vehicles.
5. Hardwork and Industry. Motivated to support and promote his family, the Filipino becomes a
hard-working individual, able to endure and survive during difficult times.
6. Faith and Religiosity. Filipinos are known for their predominantly Christian religious faith. The
country is dotted with churches filled every Sunday by the faithful. In 1995, Pope John Paul II, upon
his visit to the Philippines and was greeted by millions of Filipinos, remarked: “phenomenal.”

B. WEAKNESSES of the Filipino moral character / values / traits:

1. Extreme Personalism. There is nothing wrong with loving and supporting oneself. But when such
acts are done to the extreme, they become negative because they encroach on the rights of
others. A clash of interests results, as in, graft and corruption.
2. Extreme Family-centeredness. A “padre de familia,” who loves his family, has the tendency to
commit illegal and immoral acts for the support of his family. Family members also tend to defend
the family’s name by all means, legal or illegal.
3. Lack of Discipline. Example: “Filipino time,” “lagay system” for traffic violations, “palusot,” fixers,
or “grease money” to facilitate quick processing of papers.
4. Passivity and Lack of Initiative. People generally depend on leaders or authority to do things for
them, instead of taking initiative. As a result, Filipinos tend to be complacent, easily resigned to
one’s fate, and tolerant to oppression and exploitation.
6
5. Colonial Mentality. Filipinos tend to prefer things foreign instead of patronizing local goods.
There’s less appreciation for Philippine-made products.
6. Kanya-kanya Syndrome. Selfish individualism is a Filipino self-serving attitude which generates a
feeling of polarization and competitiveness toward others, accompanied with jealousy. This is
demonstrated during the time of elections, sometimes resulting to killing of opponent candidates.
7. Lack of Self-Analysis and Self-Reflection. Filipinos tend to joke in the face of serious problems.
We joke about serious matters instead of deeply studying the problem to be solved. The Filipinos
emphasize form rather than substance – a clear indication of lack of self-analysis and self-
reflection.

B. The Moral Agent: Developing Virtue as Habit

1. How is Moral Character Developed?

Character cannot be separated from the person. To be of good character means that one’s habits,
actions, and emotional responses all are united and directed toward the moral and the good. In
this, public actions cannot be separated from private actions. Both sets of actions affect one’s
character. For example, a physician believes use of contraceptives to be immoral yet prescribes
them in the office because he or she feels a duty to provide what the patient asks for. Public acts
affect one’s character even if one’s private belief is the opposite of the action. They leave
traces on one’s character. Not only do actions reflect the goodness or badness of one’s character,
one’s actions also change one’s character. The more one does an immoral action or
recommends an immoral action for others, the more it becomes part of one’s character to be
the type of person who condones that immoral action. In order to be of good character one must not
only know and desire the good, one must also pursue good character in both private and public
actions. Virtue is an aid and the act of good character. Growing in the virtues, especially prudence
(knowing what to seek and what to avoid) forms good character. What is at stake is the integrity of
the person. The physician who believes that use of contraception is immoral must also act in ways
that display that belief and avoid certain actions that promote contraception use by his patients.

2. Stages of Moral Development

According to psychologist, Lawrence Kohlberg, moral reasoning develops in terms of three levels.

LEVEL 1: Self-Interest
This Pre-Conventional level, which represents Kohlberg’s lowest level of moral reasoning, has two
stages.
Stage 1: Moral decisions are based primarily on fear of punishment, or the need to be
obedient. (Example: “I should not steal because I will be caught and will go to jail.”)
Stage 2: Moral reasoning is guided most by satisfying one’s self-interest, but may involve
making bargains. (Example: “I can steal the drug and save my friend from death, but I’ll have to give
up some freedom by going to jail.”)
Note: Most children are at the pre-conventional level.

LEVEL 2: Social Approval

This Conventional level represents an intermediate level of moral reasoning.
Stage 3: Moral decisions are guided most by conforming to the standards of others. (Example:
“I should steal the drug, because that is what my friends expect me to do.”)
Stage 4: Moral reasoning is determined most by conforming to the laws of society. (Example:
“I should not steal the drug because what would happen to society if everybody stole.?”)
Note: Most adolescents and adults are at the conventional level.

7
LEVEL 3: Abstract Ideas
This post-conventional level represents the highest level of moral reasoning.
Stage 5: Moral decisions are made after carefully thinking about all the alternatives, and
striking a balance between human rights and laws of society. (Example: “I should steal the drug
because life is more important than money.”)
Stage 6: (Deleted by Kohlberg since it is seldom reached by people).
Note: Only Some adults reach the post-conventional level.

PART II: THE ACT

A. Feelings and Moral Decision-Making

1. Feelings can be obstacles to making right decisions
When you are in a positive mood, you are more likely to make positive decisions, or at least try to
think positive about a thing or situation. Whereas, if you are in a bad mood you are more inclined to
make negative decisions about things. In both situations, decisions tend to be greatly affected by
feelings, hence, may or may not be correct. Hence, over-optimism or over pessimism can hamper
your ability to make a decision without exercising a bias. Excessive emotions result in clouded
thinking which leads to poor decision-making. If we are in a bad mood and are very depressed, we
end up messing things, and sometimes harming ourselves physically, financially or emotionally.
Instant and emotionally driven decisions prove to be poor decisions. Therefore, do not take any
decision when you are angry. First, cool yourself down and then think about it.
2. How Feelings can help in making right decisions
The best decisions are made when there's a careful balance between emotions and rationality or
logic. To make balanced decisions, acknowledge your emotions. Pay attention to the way you are
feeling before making decisions. Reason, by itself, is not a sufficient instrument in assessing moral
situations. It is both – reason and feelings – that must constructively complement each other
whenever we make choices. Reason, while a reliable ground for moral judgment, needs the feeling
of empathy to come up with not just a moral but also a just decision. A decision which is
emotionally and rationally balanced can help you to justify the decision.

B. Reason and Impartiality as Minimum requirements for Morality

1. Reason and Impartiality defined.

A person is called “rational or reasonable” (Korsgaard, n.d.) when his beliefs and actions
conform to the dictates of rational principles, or when he is subjectively guided by them.
Since human beings are rational, they have a “free-will to strive for perfection” (n.d.). By achieving a
well-rounded development, they would somehow attain happiness. It follows that in order to be
ethical, an individual should decide which actions properly express his rationality. Moral
judgments must be backed by best arguments, good reasons, or better judgments. Our
decisions must be guided as much as possible by reason. The morally right thing is always best
supported by the arguments.

Morality requires “impartiality.” It requires the impartial consideration of each individual's

interests. Thus, being partial toward friends is not morally allowed. Impartiality (fair-
mindedness) is a principle of justice holding that decisions should be based on
objective criteria, rather than on the basis of bias, self-interest, prejudice, or preferring
one person over another for improper reasons. Other elements of impartiality are accuracy,
fairness, balance, context, and no conflicts or pre-judgments. The respect for truth at all
costs is paramount and necessary (Khatami, 2009; Rachels, 2018).

8
 3. The 7-Step Moral Reasoning/ Decision-Making Model

The decision- making process could be demonstrated in a Seven-Step Model (Scott Rae, 2009):
1. Gather the facts.
2. Determine the social issues.
3. Determine what virtues/principles have a bearing on the case.
4. List the alternatives.
5. Compare the alternatives with the virtues/principles.
6. Consider the consequences.
7. Make a decision.

C. Moral Courage

1. Why the WILL is as Important as Reason

Reason involves the important ability to think critically and analyze ethical dilemmas to come up
with a morally acceptable choice. On the other hand, of equal importance is the action of the will to
execute the judgment made by reason. For example, reason tells me that lying or cheating is bad.
Consequently, a strong will is expected to execute the choice made by reason, upholding moral
values. A good moral decision is not equivalent to executing that good moral decision. One must act
or execute the reasonable choice as morally permitted. One must “walk the talk” or “practice what he
preaches’ in order to prove one’s integrity.

2. Developing the Will (5 Tips)

1. Develop and practice self-discipline. One way to develop moral courage and will is to develop
and practice self-discipline. The concept self-discipline involves the rejection of instant gratification
and pleasure in favor of a higher and better goal such as executing a good rational moral
decision. Developing will and moral courage involves developing self-control sticking to actions,
thoughts, and behavior, which lead to moral improvement and success, focusing all energy on
a moral goal and persevere until it is accomplished.
2. Do mental strength training. This mental strength training involves declining to satisfy
unimportant and unnecessary desires. By practicing to refuse to gratify, a person gets
courageous and stronger day by day of his life.
3. Draw inspiration from people of great courage.
4. Repeatedly do acts that exhibit moral courage and will.
5. Avoid deeds that show lack of moral courage and will