equate ethics with their feelings.
Moreover, if being ethical
What is ethics?
By Manuel Velasquez, Claire
Andre, Thomas Shanks, S.J., and
Michael J. Meyer
(Source:
https://www.scu.edu/ethics/ethics
‐resources/ethical‐decision‐maki
ng/what‐is‐ethics/)
Ethics is based on well-
founded standards of right and
wrong that prescribe what
humans ought to do, usually in
terms of rights, obligations,
benefits to society, fairness, or
specific virtues.
Some years ago, sociologist
Raymond Baumhart asked
business people, "What does
ethics mean to you?" Among
their replies were the following:
"Ethics has to do with what
my feelings tell me is right or
wrong."
"Ethics has to do with my
religious beliefs."
"Being ethical is doing what
the law requires."
"Ethics consists of the
standards of behavior our society
accepts." ETHICS
"I don't know what the word
means."
These replies might be typical
of our own. The meaning of
"ethics" is hard to pin down, and
the views many people have
about ethics are shaky.
Like Baumhart's first
respondent, many people tend to
But
being ethical is clearly not a
matter of following one's feelings.
A person following his or her
feelings may recoil from doing
what is right. In fact, feelings
frequently deviate from what is
ethical.
Nor should one identify ethics
with religion. Most religions, of
course, advocate high ethical
standards. Yet if ethics were
confined to religion, then ethics
would apply only to religious
people. But ethics applies as
much to the behavior of the
atheist as to that of the devout
religious person. Religion can set
high ethical standards and can
provide intense motivations for
ethical behavior. Ethics, however,
cannot be confined to religion
nor is it the same as religion.
Being ethical is also not the
same as following the law. The
law often incorporates ethical
standards to which most citizens
subscribe. But laws, like feelings,
can deviate from what is ethical.
Our own pre-Civil War slavery
laws and the old apartheid laws
of present-day South Africa are
grotesquely obvious examples of
laws that deviate from what is
ethical.
Finally, being ethical is not the
same as doing "whatever society
accepts." In any society, most
people accept standards that are,
in fact, ethical. But standards of
behavior in society can deviate
from what is ethical. An entire
society can become ethically
corrupt. Nazi Germany is a good
example of a morally corrupt
society.
1
were doing "whatever society
accepts," then to find out what is
ethical, one would have to find
out what society accepts. To
decide what I should think about
abortion, for example, I would
have to take a survey of
American society and then
conform my beliefs to whatever
society accepts. But no one ever
tries to decide an ethical issue by
doing a survey. Further, the lack
of social consensus on many
issues makes it impossible to
equate ethics with whatever
society accepts. Some people
accept abortion but many others
do not. If being ethical were
doing whatever society accepts,
one would have to find an
agreement on issues which does
not, in fact, exist.
What, then, is ethics? Ethics is
two things. First, ethics refers to
well-founded standards of
right and wrong that prescribe
what humans ought to do,
usually in terms of rights,
obligations, benefits to society,
fairness, or specific virtues.
Ethics, for example, refers to
those standards that impose the
reasonable obligations to refrain
from rape, stealing, murder,
assault, slander, and fraud.
Ethical standards also include
those that enjoin virtues of
honesty, compassion, and loyalty.
And, ethical standards include
standards relating to rights, such
as the right to life, the right to
freedom from injury, and the
right to privacy. Such standards
are adequate standards of
ethics because they are
supported by consistent and
well-founded reasons.ETHICS
 Secondly, ethics refers to the
study and development of one's
ethical standards. As mentioned
above, feelings, laws, and social
norms can deviate from what is
ethical. So it is necessary to
constantly examine one's
standards to ensure that they are
reasonable and well founded.
Ethics also means, then, the
continuous effort of studying our
own moral beliefs and our moral
conduct, and striving to ensure
that we, and the institutions we
help to shape, live up to
standards that are reasonable and
solidly-based.
MODULE II: ANG ETIKA,
BILANG PAG-UNAWA SA
MORALIDAD NG KILOS NG
TAO
(Mga Panimulang Konsepto)
Introduction
Preliminary Notions
ETYMOLOGICALLY, THE
WORD "ETHICS omes from the
Greek word “ethos” meaning
customs, usage, character. The
Roman language and culture,
which inherited the Greek
culture, expressed the same
concept in the word mores,
which in turn is the root of the
words "morality." "moral," and
"morals." We see then that
"ethics" and "morals" are
ordinarily used as equivalent
terms. In general, they mean the
traditional manners, customs,
habits, or character of a
community or group, which
pertain to the group's standards
or norms, or what is sometimes
called the group's "system of
values" which determines what
is considered "good," "right," or
the "proper" way of living, of
acting, of doing.
Norms of Morality
Such a broad concept,
however, needs further precision
for we see immediately that there
are various meanings of the
expression what is proper," or
"what is good and right." Hence
we talk sometimes of the "right
man for the job," or "the proper
political action to take." or "good
manners at table," or "a good and
just man." What this means is
that, within the broad ethos or
mores of a community, there are,
several different standards to be
found.
Upon closer analysis, we can
distinguish at least four types of
norms or standards within the
ethos or mores of a community.
First, there is what may be called
the technical norm. This refers
mainly to man's needs which
come from his bodily space-time
limitations. This norm has to do
with survival, health and well-
being. It 1s concerned with
problems of effecting change, of
transforming the natural world,
the problems of coping with
natural forces, both within and
without the human organism.
Thus, the technical norm is
concerned with the techniques of
relating means to ends and the
techniques of healing and health,
of work, production, and
organization. Therefore, because
of its survival and well-being.
every community prescribes
certain proper ways of working
and doing things. For example,
there are the "right" things to eat,
the"accepted" way of performing
an appendectomy. the "right"
way of preparing the field for
2
planting rice, the "correct" way
of constructing.the roof of a
house, the "established" way of
dividing the work so that certain
things are done by men, others
by women. Because of this
technical norm certain
community members are
considered "good," meaning
good workers, industrious,
efficient and productive. Others
are considered lazy, good-for-
nothing, inefficient.
Second, there is what might be
called the societal norm. This
has to do with the need for group
cohesion and for strengthening
the bonds that keep the
community together. In relation
to this norm. for example, certain
manners or attire, certain ways of
speaking or of conducting
oneself, certain rituals and
ceremonies, are considered
"proper and fitting."
"appropriate," or
"recommended," because they
maintain and strengthen the
bonds that keep the community
together. Other ways of behavior
are proscribed or frowned upon
because they are unmindful of or
destructive of social relations.
Third is the aesthetic norm.
This refers to typical perceptual
forms, regarding color, shape,
space, movement, sound, feeling
and emotion, touch and texture,
taste, scent and odor, both in the
natural and in the man-made
environment, which are
considered by the community as
"ennobling." "cathartic,"
"heightening man's existence," or
"beautiful," because they
represent a certain free play and
celebration of the human spirit.
 Fourth is the ethical or moral
norm in the narrower or stricter
sense. In the life of the
community, the ethical or moral
norm combines with religion to
form what is sometimes referred
to as the "ethico- religious" norm.
(We will see later how we can
differentiate more precisely the
ethical or moral from the other
aspects of life.) The moral norm
refers to some ideal vision of
man, an ideal stage or perfection
of man, which serves as the
ultimate goal and norm. In
relation to moral norm man and
his actions are judged to be right
or wrong. good or bad. Because
of this ideal vision of man, a
community has what is
sometimes called the
"nonnegotiables," those things
which the community cherishes
and considers of ultimate worth,
which give ultimate sense and
direction to human existence.
Therefore, all the other norms-
technical, societal, aesthetic-are
to be subordinated to this moral
norm.
Definition of Morality
In a narrower and stricter
sense, therefore, ethics or
morality refers to that dimension
of human existence whereby
man confronts or finds himself,
an ideal vision of man, or an
ideal state and goal of his
existence which he finds himself
oriented toward. The ideal vision
thus constitutes for him an
exigency, a demand to action n
accord with the ideal vision and
goal. By the same token, this
1deal vision of man constitutes a
fundamental norm in relation to
which his life and actions are
judged to be either right or
wrong. good or bad. Right and
wrong mean literally being
straight or not, in tine with, in
conformity or not. with the norm.
Good and bad are often used as
equivalents of right and wrong.
However, in more precise
language, night and wrong refer
specifically to that which is
morally binding or obligatory.
Thus, the right action is that
which we ought to do or ought to
have done, the wrong action that
which we ought to refrain from
or ought to have refrained from
doing. On the other hand,. good
and bad have the con-notation of
that which is in conformity or
not with the goal.
Therefore. good and bad
signify fulfillment, completion.
Perfection or not. Some moral
theories are considered to be
"deon-tological. because they put
more stress on the aspect of
moral, duty and obligation. Other
theories are "teleological" (telos-
end. Fulfillment, realization),
because they put more emphasis
on morality as the attainment of
man's end, fulfillment and
happiness.
MODULE III: VALUES
A. Place and Significance of
Values in Ethics
Undeniably, there is a
metaphysical dependence of
values in ethics, for values have
ethics as one of their
indispensable carriers. True
enough, ethics and values
support each other. An ethics
without values is hollow and
shallow and, therefore, weak.
Values without ethics are
paralytic. Needless to say, values
are values even if they are not
put into practice because
3
primarily- not absolutely-values
are objective. If values are
construed this way, it can be
inferred that they have nothing to
do with ethics. The contention
can be justified in view of the
fact that not everything which is
good is moral or ethical. In other
words, not all values (good) are
necessarily moral. The good in a
glass of water because it satisfies
our thirst - does not qualify water
as moral. The good in food -
because it satisfies our hunger
does not make food moral as
well. The good into watch -
because it gives us accurate time
- does not make the watch moral,
also. Neither can we say that a
glass of water, a plate of food,
and a piece of watch are immoral
if they don't serve their purposes.
So, admittedly, there is a
chasm between ethics and
axiology (a discipline in
philosophy that studies values),
considering that the two are
different disciplines in
philosophy. Despite this
difference, there still exists an
interplay between the two.
Through this interplay, we can
speak clearly of moral values.
In principle, actions
presuppose values. The radix of
actions are the values of a person.
The kind or quality of an act
which a person performs is a
manifestation of his values.
Probably, this is the main reason
why Values Education in our
Philippine Educational System
receives a special treatment from
the Commission on Higher
Education (CHED).
In the interplay of axiology
and ethics, axiology plays a
substantial and dynamic
 character. Values (axiology) do
not exist in themselves because
by nature, they are parasitic. This
means that values embody
themselves in another reality.
Thus values are values because
they are attached to something
else.
Values should necessarily
have carriers. In the interplay of
values and ethics, it is the latter
that serves as the carrier of
values. This is why we said
earlier that values are rooted in
ethics. Ethics or moral
philosophy is not the only carrier
of values, however. Values are
also carried by culture, religion,
beliefs, and the like.
B.The Meaning of Values
1. Axiology
The branch of philosophy that
studies value is called axiology'
Accordingly, man's awareness of
values happened not too long
ago. The end of
2. Definition of Values
a. General Definition
The following are various
views concerning the meaning of
values:
(1) Values are the object of
human desire and striving; they
are also the subjective
assessment of a particular object
insofar as it is good.
(2) Values are our beliefs,
those beliefs which we hold to be
true. Thus values inspire us to
struggle towards our proximate
and ultimate (last) ends.
Because values are our beliefs,
values affect our thoughts,
decisions, and actions.
(3) Values refer to things,
persons, ideas, or goals which
are important to life; they enable
us to direct, understand, and
evaluate our lives. Thus, they
refer to our ideals and our
principles by which we live.
Further, values are those which
we like, approve, esteem, enjoy,
and prize.
C. Properties of Values
Values, generally, have five
characteristics or properties,
namely: subjective, objective,
relative, bipolar, and hierarchical.
1. Values Are Subjective
When we say values are
subjective, we mean that the
existence and the validity of
values are dependent on the
feelings or attitudes of the
subject. But, this should not be
interpreted literally. We should
not maintain an idea which holds
that values are purely subjective
because our appraisal of a certain
thing does not make the thing a
thing. Our feelings or attitudes
act only as evaluators of a certain
value. We should always
remember that evaluation is
always attached to a value. For
how can we value anything if
there is nothing of value? We
must know first what we must
value in order for us to value
what to value. If we will apply
this to ethics, this means that we
do not perform any action which
is not of value to us. However,
we should also remember that
our performance of any action
does not make the action an
action, for before we perform an
4
act, the act has been existing
already either as good or evil. As
to what action should be valued,
morality requires that it should
be the good one. Why? Because
everybody wants to be moral.
2.Values Are Objective
When we say values are
objective, we mean that the
existence and the nature of
values are independent of a
subject. We cited earlier that for
the economists, a value is
properly called a value in use if
it (be it a thing, person, ideas, or
goals) has the ontological
capacity to satisfy a human
desire or a need. Now, in trying
to establish a nexus between the
economists' and axiologists'
views, can we say that the nature
and existence of values are
independent of us (objectivism)?
Or should we say that the nature
and existence of values are
dependent on us (subjectivism)?
The contention of the
objectivists is that there is
nothing to value if there is
nothing to be valued. This
suggests that values exist first
before they are apprehended,
desired, or craved.
To arrive at a stand resolving
whether values are objective or
subjective is not our intention.
But, here we say that values are
clearly both objective and
subjective and we insist in
saying that values are primarily
objective, not purely objective.
Yes, values are primordial, not
our feelings, apprehensions,
craving or desires, but values
themselves need to be expressed
to be known. This is what we
mean in saying that values
necessarily need carriers.
Therefore, it is our firm
conviction that values are known,
expressed, and carried by our
actions.
3.Values Are Relative
This means that values have
intrinsic limitation and
imperfection. In themselves,
values are not limited and are not
imperfect. However, in the light
of the subject who values value,
value becomes limited and
imperfect. We always have to
remember that values are relative
only in the context of
subjectivism, not in objectivism.
In other words, in understanding
the relativity of values, we are
viewing the actual interplay
between the properties of value
as subjective and relative.
Now, in considering values as
relative, we have to raise two
substantial questions: First, what
are values good for? And second,
for whom are they good? In the
case of eyeglasses, "Is it good for
what? And it is good for whom?"
The intrinsic value in eyeglasses
cannot be imposed on all so that
everybody should crave for them.
Considering this, eyeglasses are
for fixing or correcting defective
eyesight. This.answers the
question "good for what?"
Logically, it follows that
eyeglasses are good only for
people who suffer eyesight
defects. This answers the
question "good for whom?"
As a conclusion, the concept
on the limitation and
imperfection of values is
anchored on the idea that they
cannot satisfy all subjects (but
we cannot deny that there are
values that can satisfy all, for
example truth, justice, equality,
love).
To apply the relativity of
values in ethics we have to
understand that some actions that
are of value to us cannot bear a
blanket-good for all. It is true
that some of our principles or
actions are only good to us.
4.Values Are Bipolar
By this we mean that values
do not exist alone; they always
exist with their counter values.
Thus, values are either positive
or negative. Positive and
negative values are independent
of each other. It does not mean
that a negative value is negative
(or destructive) because it lacks a
positive element with itself. For
example, unjust, ugly, and bad
are negative values. In
themselves, they are
ontologically and morally evil
and are negative. A bad act like
abortion, murder, etc. Is evil in
itself and therefore is a negative
value. Ugly objects around us are
ugly in themselves, not that they
lack beauty. In some other
respect, we can say that positive
values are good and negative
values bad. For example, in a
battery, there are signs that
indicate the positive and the
negative terminals. But, we
know that the negative sign is
not a symbol of evil but of
complementariness, just like
values, which are bipolar
Being bipolar, values exist
with their counter values. So,
every positive value exists with
its corresponding negative value.
Values therefore have pairs:
5
good and bad, beautiful and ugly,
just and unjust, health and
sickness, and life and death, etc.
Further, bipolar values are
also construed as not neutral,
nothing is in itself value-free. A
thing, a person, an idea, or a goal
is either positive or negative;
good or bad.
5.Values Are Hierarchical
Hierarchy does not mean
classification since the latter
means division while the former
means ranking. When we say
values are hierarchical, we do
not classify values but rather we
rank them. When we rank values,
we establish order of importance
among them. The closest
meaning of ranking values is
prioritizing values. To prioritize
values means to draw order of
importance among values.
The bone of contention in the
hierarchy of values is that no two
values are similar in degree or
level. One value is better than
another. This means that if one is
a better value, the other is a
worse value.
Again, in understanding the
hierarchy of values, we always
have to remember that
establishing order of importance
or priority is dependent on a
subject. In principle, hierarchy is
disclosed in preference. Hence,
when we are confronted with
two values, we usually prefer the
one which we think is higher
than the other.
To relate this in ethics, a
moral man is a man who prefers
positive values to negative ones;
he prefers superior to the inferior
values.
 D. Classification of Values
In general, values are
classified as intrinsic and
instrumental, accidental and
natural, primary and secondary,
moral or ethical, religious,
cultural, and social.
Among the foregoing values,
we will give more emphasis on
the moral or ethical values. We
will only define all the rest.
1. Intrinsic and Instrumental
Values. Intrinsic values are those
which are considered values in
themselves. Instrumental values
are those construed as desired
good because of their good to us
and to others. In comparing the
two, the former is called primary
while the latter, secondary values.
2. Accidental and Natural Values.
The former is subject to
variability, temporality and
impermanence while the latter
(which is also called natural
human values) are those that are
permanent in human nature. In
other words, natural human values
are essential in life. For example,
food, work, life, education, etc.
3. Primary and Secondary Values.
The former refers to values that
are chosen, acted upon, cherished,
and are necessary for human
development while the latter
refers to those values that are
obligatory in nature. For example,
values in the family are obligatory
to the children.
4. Religious Values. They are
those that enable us to encounter
the Absolute: God. Hence, these
values aim for the Absolute Good.
Sometimes, religious values are
understood as our search for a
transcendental determination of
values to which we feel we are
called. In this context, it is
possible to think. that behind
"professional" or "vocational"
lives are religious values. We may
say that our profession or
vocation is of great value because
this is God's call to us. In this
manner we try to encounter God
in our vocations or professions.
5. Cultural Values. They are those
values that embrace poetry,
painting, architecture, music,
literature, society's model of
living, etc.
6. Social Values. These are
understood as perfect, attributed
to an object or attitude from the
standpoint of relationship between
means and ends in society.
Examples of social values are
patriotism, economic productivity,
politics, liberty, freedom of
communication, freedom of the
press, fraternity, etc.
E. Moral Values
Through these values, actions
are viewed as moral" only from
the standpoint of conduct, not
from the standpoint of attitude.
In ethics, there are morally good
and morally evil acts. Viewed in
this perspective, moral values are
those values that go with either
morally good and morally evil
acts.
Accordingly, moral values
refer to those qualities of an act
performed by man freely and
knowingly. This entails that
moral values involve our
freedom to choose and the
indispensability of choosing.
Thus, moral values are
characterized as basic values,
more important than all other
values, permanent, universal,
6
absolute, objective and freely
chosen by us.
Of all these classes of values,
they are the only grade of values,
that single out man towards
goodness.Non-moral values do
not make us good; it is the moral
values alone that make us good.
We may be good entertainers,
good teachers, good businessmen,
good scientists, good
administrators, good students,
good soldiers, good athletes, etc.
and, yet, we may not be good
men. On the contrary, we may
consider an entertainer, a
politician, an administrator, or a
teacher a dead failure, and yet,
we may consider him a good
man. But, who is really a good
man?
In the context of the interplay
between ethics and values, a
good man does not become good
because he drinks good wine,
eats good food, or reads good
books. In this interplay, a good
man is good because he respects
the moral order, not because he
values good non-moral values.
Ethicists are one in saying that
we cannot demand more than
what is human. The moral order
is hooked in what is human. This
is why our moral values enable
us to judge whether our actions
are either good or evil. Inasmuch
as human nature per se is good,
then our moral values should aid
us to determine whether we still
are in the domain of the moral
order or we still are in the
domain of what is human. In
effect, we are saying that our
moral values are anchored in our
human nature.
 Therefore, if moral values are
anchored in human nature, it
follows that moral values are
objective, good, permanent, and
universal inasmuch as human
nature possesses the same
intrinsic attributes.
MODULE IV: The
Challenge of Cultural
Relativism
2.1. Different Cultures Have
Different Moral Codes
Darius, a king of ancient
Persia, was intrigued by the
variety of cultures he met in his
travels. He had found, for
example, that the Callatians, who
lived in India, ate the bodies of
their dead fathers. The Greeks,
of course, did not do that-the
Greeks practiced cremation and
regarded the funeral pyre as the
natural and fitting way to dispose
of the dead. Darius thought that a
sophisticated outlook should
appreciate the differences
between cultures. One day, to
teach this lesson, he summoned
some Greeks who happened to
be at his court and asked what it
would take for them to eat the
bodies of their dead fathers.
They were shocked, as Darius
knew they would be, and replied
that no amount of money could
persuade them to do such a thing.
Then Darius called in some
Callatians and, while the Greeks
listened, asked them what it
would take for them to burn their
dead fathers' bodies. The
Callatians were horrified and
told Darius not to speak of such
things.
This story, recounted by
Herodotus in his History,
illustrates a recurring theme in
the literature of social science:
Different cultures have different
moral codes. What is thought
right within one group may
horrify the members of another
group, and vice versa. Should we
eat the bodies of the dead or burn
them? If you were a Greek, one
answer would seem obviously
correct; but if you were a
Callatian, the other answer
would seem equally certain.
There are many examples of
this. Consider the Eskimos of the
early and mid-20th century. The
Eskimos are the native people of
Alaska, northern Canada,
Greenland, and northeastern
Siberia, in Asiatic Russia. Today,
none of these groups call
themselves "Eskimos," but the
term has historically referred to
that scattered Arctic population.
Prior to the 20th century, the
outside world knew little about
them. Then explorers began to
bring back strange tales.
The Eskimos lived in small
settlements, separated by great
distances, and their customs
turned out to be very different
from ours. The men often had
more than one wife, and they
would share their wives with
guests, lending them out for the
night as a sign of hospitality.
Moreover, within a community,
a dominant male might demand-
and get-regular sexual access to
other men's wives. The women,
however, were free to break
these arrangements simply by
leaving their husbands and
taking up with new partners-free,
that is, so long as their former
husbands chose not to make too
much trouble. All in all, the
Eskimo custom of marriage was
7
a volatile practice that bore little
resemblance to our custom.
But it was not only their
marriages and sexual practices
that were different. The Eskimos
also seemed to care less about
human life. Infanticide, for
example, was common. Knud
Rasmussen, an early explorer,
reported meeting one woman
who had borne 20 children but
had killed 10 of them at birth.
Female
babies, he found, were especially
likely to be killed, and this was
permitted at the parents' discretion,
with no social stigma attached.
Moreover, when elderly family
members became too feeble, they
we there seemed to be remarkably
little respect for life.
Most of us would find these
Eskimo customs completely
unacceptable. Our own way of
living seems so natural and righ
to us that we can hardly conceive
of people who live so differently.
When we hear of such people,
we might want to say that they're
"backward" or "primitive." But
to anthropologists, the Eskimos
did not seem unusual. Since the
time of Herodotus, enlightened
observers have known that
conceptions of right and wrong
differ from the culture to culture.
If we assume that our ethical
ideas will be shared by all
cultures, we are merely being
naïve.
2.2. Cultural Relativism
To many people, this
observation-"Different cultures
have different moral codes"-
seems like the key to
understanding morality. There
are no universal moral truths,
 they say; the customs of different
societies are all that exist. To call
a custom "correct or "incorrect
would imply that we can judge
that custom by some independent
standard of right and wrong. But
no such standard exists; every
standard is culture-bound. The
sociologist William Graham
Sumner (1840-1910) put it like
this:
The "right" way is the way
which the ancestors used and
which has been handed down....
The notion of right is in the folk
ways. It is not outside of them, of
independent origin, and brought
to test them. In the folkways,
whatever is, is right. This is
because they are traditional, and
therefore contain in themselves
the authority of the ancestral
ghosts. When we come to the
folkways we are at the end of our
analysis.
This line of thought, more
than any other, has persuaded
people to be skeptical about
ethics. Cultural Relativism says,
in effect, that there is no such
thing as universal truth in ethics;
there are only the various
cultural codes, and nothing more.
Cultural Relativism challenges
our belief in the objectivity and
universality of moral truth.
The following claims have all
been made by cultural relativists:
1. Different societies have
different moral codes.
2. The moral code of a society
determines what is right within
that society; that is, if the moral
code of a society says that a
certain action is right, then that
action is right, at least within that
society.
3. There is no objective
standard that can be used to
judge one society's code as better
than another's. There are no
moral truths that hold for all
people at all times.
4. The moral code of our own
society has no special status; it is
but one among many.
5. It is arrogant for us to judge
other cultures. We should always
be tolerant of them.
These five propositions may
seem to go together, but they are
independent of one another,
meaning that some of them may
be true even while others are
false. Indeed, two of the
propositions appear to be
inconsistent with each other. The
second says that right and wrong
are determined by the norms of a
society; the fifth says that one
should always be tolerant of
other cultures. But what if the
norms of one's society favor
intolerance? For example, when
the Nazi army invaded Poland on
September 1, 1939, thus
beginning World War 1, this was
an intolerant action of the first
order. But what if it conformed
to Nazi ideals? A cultural
relativist, it seems, cannot
criticize the Nazis for being
intolerant, if all they're doing is
following their own moral code.
Given that cultural relativists
take pride in their tolerance, it
would be ironic if their theory
actually supported the
intolerance of warlike societies.
However, their theory need not
do that. Properly understood,
Cultural Relativism holds that
the norms of a culture reign
supreme within the bounds of the
8
culture itself. Thus, once the
German soldiers entered Poland,
they became bound by the norms
of Polish society-norms that
obviously excluded the mass
slaughter of innocent Poles.
"When in Rome," the old saying
goes, "do as the Romans do."
Cultural relativists agree.
2.3. The Cultural
Differences Argument
Cultural Relativists often
employ a certain form of
argument. They begin with facts
about cultures and end up
drawing a conclusion about
morality. Thus, they invite us to
accept this reasoning:
(1) The Greeks believed it was
wrong to cat the dead, whereas
the Callatians believed it was
right to eat the dead.
(2) Therefore, eating the dead
is neither objectively right nor
objectively wrong. It is merely a
matter of opinion, which varies
from culture to culture.
Or:
(1) The Eskimos saw nothing
wrong with infanticide, whereas
Americans believe infanticide is
immoral.
(2) Therefore, infanticide is
neither objectively right nor
objectively wrong. It is merely a
matter of opinion, which varies
from culture to culture.
Clearly, these arguments arc
variations of one fundamental
idea. They are both examples of
a more general argument, which
says:
 (1) Different cultures have
different moral codes.
(2) Therefore, there is no
objective truth in morality. Right
and wrong are only matters of
opinion, and opinions vary from
culture to culture.
We may call this the Cultural
Differences Argument. To many
people, it is persuasive. But is it
a good argument-is it sound?
It is not. For an argument to be
sound, its premises must all be
true, and the conclusion must
follow logically from them. Here,
the problem is that the
conclusion does not follow from
the premise-that is, even if the
premise is true, the conclusion
might still be false. The premise
concerns what people believe in
some societies, people believe
one thing; in other societies,
people believe something else.
The conclusion, however,
concerns what really is the case.
This sort of conclusion does not
follow logically from that sort of
premise. In philosophical
terminology, this means that the
argument is invalid.
Consider again the example of
the Greeks and Callatians. The
Greeks believed it was wrong to
eat the dead; the Callatians
believed it was right. Does it
follow, from the mere fact that
they disagreed, that there is no
objective truth in the matter? No,
it does not follow; it could be
that the practice was objectively
right (or wrong) and that one of
them was simply mistaken.
To make the point clearer,
consider a different matter. In
some societies, people believe
the earth is flat. In other societies,
such as our own, people believe
that the earth is a sphere. Does it
follow, from the mere fact that
people disagree, that there is no
"objective truth' in geography?
Of course not; we would never
draw such a conclusion, because
we realize that the members of
some societies might simply be
wrong. There is no reason to
think that if the world is round,
everyone must know it. Similarly,
there is no reason to think that if
there is moral truth, everyone
must know it. The Cultural
Differences Argument tries to
derive a substantive conclusion
about a subject from the mere
fact that people disagree. But this
is impossible.
This point should not be
misunderstood. We are not
saying that the conclusion of the
argument is false; for all we have
said, Cultural Relativism could
still be true. The point is that the
conclusion does not follow from
the premise. This means that the
Cultural Differences Argument
is invalid. Thus, the argument
fails.
2.8. Back to the Five Claims
Let us now return to the five
tenets of Cultural Relativism that
were listed earlier. How have
they fared in our discussion?
1. Different societies have
different moral codes.
This is certainly true, although
there are some values that all
cultures share, such as the value
of truth telling, the importance of
caring for the young, and the
prohibition against murder. Also,
when customs differ, the
underlying reason will often
have more to do with the factual
9
beliefs of the cultures than with
their values.
2. The moral code of a society
determines what is right within
that society; that is, if the moral
code of a society says that a
certain action is right, then that
action is right, at least within that
society.
Here we must bear in mind the
difference between what a
society believes about morals
and what is really true. The
moral code of a society is closely
tied to what people in that
society believe to be right.
However, that code, and those
people, can be in error. Earlier,
we considered the example of
excision- a barbaric practice
endorsed by many societies.
Consider three more examples,
all of which involve the
mistreatment of women:
In 2002, an unwed mother in
Nigeria was sentenced to be
stoned to death for having had
sex out of wedlock. It is unclear
whether Nigerian values, on the
whole, approved of this verdict,
given that it was later over
turned by a higher court.
However, it was overturned
partly to appease the
international community. When
the Nigerians themselves heard
the verdict being read out in the
courtroom, the crowd shouted
out their approval.
In 2005, a woman from
Australia was convicted of trying
to smuggle nine pounds of
marijuana into Indonesia. For
that crime, she was sentenced to
20 years in prison an excessive
punishment. Under Indonesian
law, she might even have
received a death sentence.
In 2007, a woman was gang
raped in Saudi Arabia. When she
complained to the police, the
police discovered in the course
of their investigation that she had
recently been alone with a man
she was not related to. For that
crime, she was sentenced to 90
lashes. When she appealed her
conviction, this angered the
judges, and they increased her
sentence to 200 lashes plus a six-
month prison term. Eventually,
the Saudi king pardoned her,
although he said he supported
the sentence she had received.
Cultural Relativism holds, in
effect, that societies are morally
infallible-in other words, that the
morals of a culture can never be
wrong. But when we see that
societies can and do endorse
grave injustices, we see that
societies, like their members, can
be in need of moral improvement
3. There is no objective
standard that can be used to
judge one society's code as better
than another's. There are no
moral truths that hold for all
people at all times.
It is difficult to think of ethical
principles that hold for all people
at all times. However, if we are
to criticize the practice of slavery,
or stoning, or genital mutilation,
and if such practice are really
and truly wrong, then we must
appeal to principles that are not
tethered to any particular society.
Earlier I suggested one such
principle: that it always matters
whether a practice promotes or
hinders the welfare of the people
affected by it.
4. The moral code of our own
society has no special status; it is
but one among many. It is true
that the moral code of our
society has no special status.
After all, our society has no
heavenly halo around its borders;
our values do not have any
special standing just because
they happen to be ours. However,
to say that the moral code of
one's own society "is merely one
among many seems to imply that
all codes are the same-that they
are all more or less equally good.
In fact, it is an open question
whether a given code "is merely
one among many." That code
might be among the best; it
might be among the worst.
5. It is arrogant for us to judge
other cultures. We should always
be tolerant of them.
There is much truth in this, but
the point is overstated. We are
often arrogant when we criticize
other cultures, and tolerance is
generally a good thing. However,
we shouldn't tolerate everything.
Human societies have done
terrible things, and it is a mark of
progress when we can say that
those things are in the past.
MODULE V: DESCRIPTION
OF MORAL DIMENSION
B. Readings for the Topic
Excerpted from "Ground and
Norms of Morality: Ethics for
College Students" by Ramon C.
Reyes
Introduksyon:
Sa naunang modyul, sa
Relatibismong Kultural,
ipinakita roon ang kahihaan at
kapintasan nito na umiinog sa
10
lebel ng kilos pangmoral. Pagkat
ang pangkulturang kilos ay
nakabatay sa apat na lebel, ang
Teknikal(Technical), Panlipunan
(Social), Pangrelihiyoso
(Religious), Estetika (Aesthetic),
at Pangmoral (Morality).
Masasabi natin na sa una,
ikawala, at ikatalong lebel ay
umiinog ang mga ito sa materyal
at kultural na pagpapahalaga.
Subalit nakita natin na sa lebel
ng pangmoral, ay may mga kilos
na tumatagos sa ibat-ibang
kultura kagaya ng pagpapatay o
di kaya naman ay
pagsisinungalin na mali para sa
lahat.
Sa modyul na ito, layunin nito
na mabigyan ng pansin ang
etikal na kilos sa pamamagitan
ng paglalahad ng deskripsyon
nito mula sa ating mga karanasan.
Sa partikular, makikita ito sa
mga sitwasyon na kung saan
nakakapagmuni-muni tayo sa
ginagawa natin kung tama ba ito
o mali o nararapat ba o hindi ang
ating mga ikinikilos patungo sa
ating sarili at sa iba. Dahil ito ay
bumubukal mula sa tunay na
karanasan ng tao, kayat hindi
sapat ang mga depinisyon ng
mga termino para ganap na
maunawaan ito. Nagiging bukas
ang ating isipan sa konkretong
pagtukoy o pagkilala sa mga
aspeto na nagbibigay anyo sa
ating moral na pagkilos bilang
kosiderasyon sa pagtaya o
pagtantsa rito. Ang moralidad ng
ating pagkilos ay inilalarawan ng
mga sumusunod: Kilos (Action),
Kalayaan (Freedom), Ang Kilos
bilang Mabuti o Masama (Action
as Good or Bad), Pangkalahatan
(Universality), Obligasyon
(Obligation). kaya mula sa mga
deskripsyong ito, ang moralidad
ay nagisisimula sa malayang
kilos ng tao, na isinaalang-alang
ang kakanyahan nito bilang
tamao mali, karapat-dapat o
hindi, na ipinatutupad at
sumasakop sa lahat ng tao (laban
sa Relatibismong Kultural)
bilang obligasyon nating isagawa.
Description of Moral
Dimension
Action
The moral dimension or moral
experience in general reveals
man to himself as being under
some kind of constant tension
between what is at present and
what must be in the future,
between what he is now and
what his being somehow must
ultimately be, what his being
ought to realize as its proper
immanent telos or end.
Because there is this tension
between what is and what ought
to be, morality or man as moral
being is, properly speaking.
action. Action is the moving of
oneself and taking concrete
means in view of the goal or end,
which is not yet but which
somehow ought to be. Hence,
morality, essentially, is not a set
of rules and prohibitions to limit
man. Nor is it primarily some
kind of theoretical knowledge
about man and the world. First
and foremost, morality is action,
the doing and the realizing of
what man ought to be. It is true
that this action cannot be purely
arbitrary or blind, and that for it
to be truly moral, it must
somehow be valid action. It must
be justifiable reasoned, and done
in the light of truth. But even this
light of truth, as we shall see
later, does not seem to be the
cool, tranquil Ight of theoretical
knowledge preceding the action.
It is not something that one
possesses for its own sake or
Something that one possesses
whether one acts or not. It is
rather a kind of lived truth, a sort
of light that goes ahead of itself,
It is a kind of knowledge which
1s not in full possession of itself,
but somehow comes only with
man's orientation and tendency
toward this future end. Hence,
the man who is usually looked
upon as a morally good man is
not necessarily one who has
expert knowledge about things,
but one who expectedly acts with
firmness and constancy
according to some kind of 1ived
sense of humanity. It is the lived
sense of what man must be,
which the ancients called
practical wisdom.
Telos- salitang Griyego na ang
ibig sabihin ay hantungan,
papupuntahan. Sa Ingles, ito ay
"end". sa kasabihang ito, "Take
others as an end, not as means.
"turing mo ang iba bilang han-
tungan ng iyong kilos, hindi isang
kaparaanan lamang. (para
makamit ang ibang bagay na
minimithi).
Oughtness- pagiging
kinakailangan
Ought to do -kinakailangan
gawin. kumpara sa 'should', "must,
"need, ang antas ng pag-uutos o
obligasyon ay pinakamahigpit,
walang negosasyon, o usapan pa,
talagang dapat mong gawin. Kaya
karaniwang ginagamit ito sa
usapin ng moralidad ng kilos.
Action in general refers to
man insofar as he takes up or
presents to himself an end or
goal. This goal is an envisaged
11
future state of things and
includes both himself and the
world. In view of this goal he
takes up means. He, moves
himself initiates a course of
events, or intervenes in the
natural course of events,
beginning with himself and
moving into the outside world
toward the attainment of the goal.
Insofar as morality is essentially
action, it requires man to take the
means and to set into motion a
course of events, starting from
himself and moving into the
world, toward what ought to be,
toward some future state of
being. which eventually includes
both himself and the world. This
moral end or goal needs to be
made more precise, but in any
case, morality 1s primarily man
taking up action, doing
something. realizing something
which ought to be.
Freedom
Morality therefore requires
man to act, to realize what he
must be and what his very being
ought to be. This means that
morality addresses man as a
being who can truly act, who can
truly be the cause, the origin and
initiator of action, and in this
sense free.
It is under the aspect of
morality, therefore, that we see
man properly as an I, as a person,
a being who is in some way
present to himself. Thus he has
and is called to determine and to
realize his being. Therefore man
has will and freedom. As person,
man has the power to be the
origin and to be the self-
initiating source of his action.
His actions are to a certain extent
his own. They are within his
control and he is responsible for
them.
Man, however, is finite, and so
too is his action. Human action
can only take place within the
context of the concrete embodied
individual and the circumstances
of the world. Viewed in the
concrete, human action means
man choosing a concrete goal
among the alternatives made
possible by the situation. N view
of his chosen goal he takes up
certain means. He sets into
motion a certain course of events,
chosen among several possible
alternative courses, starting from
within himself and his bodily
powers and extending to the
external world. 1nus man, within
his embodied situation, chooses
means toward goals. More
precisely, man chooses
intermediate goals, win turn are
chosen in view of some ultimate
moral goal, which man in his
very being is necessarily oriented.
In morality, therefore,
freedom means basically
freedom of action. This is more
precisely means, first, freedom
of choice of the means,
secondly, freedom of choice of
intermediate goals, and thirdly,
freedom to follow or not man's
necessary ultimate end, which
whether he chooses it or not,
remains his ultimate end to
which he is necessarily oriented.
As Thomas Aquinas says, man
necessarily or naturally tends
toward his ultimate end. In this
third sense, freedom means not
so much the completely free
option to take up or leave the
end, for there is no other
ultimate end, but the freedom of
man ultimately to determine
himself to be truly man or not.
Viewed in ts embodied
reality, human action lends
itself to the basic distinction,
made by traditional moral
philosophy, between what are
properly speaking human acts
and acts o man. Human acts are
voluntary acts, acts that man
knowingly and willingly does.
They are acts he does freely and
for which he is responsible. On
the other hand, acts of man are
acts proceeding iron man, but
due to lack of knowledge or
lack or consent and control,
they are involuntary acts. They
are not properly speaking
human acts, and thus are not
imputable to man.
Furthermore, a distinction is
made between the elicited act
and the commanded act. The
elicited act is the internal aspect
of the act which is not
vulnerable to the forces of the
physical and external world, for
example the act of deciding and
choosing one's goal. On the
other hand the commanded act
is that aspect of the action
which involves man with the
outside world, where man
somehow takes hold of his
physical powers, moves himself,
and initiates a chain of cause
and effect in the outside world
with a view to realizing his
intended goal. While the
elicited phase of the act remains
under the full control of man (a
man cannot be forced to will
something against his own will),
the commanded phase, which
has to reckon with physical and
external forces endowed with
their own proper nature and
tendencies, is subject to
contingencies not within man's
full control. Even without full
control, common knowledge of
the nature and propensities of
12
these physical and external
forces affords man a degree of
predictability of the
consequences of his acts. But,
given the infinite number of
physical and external variables,
there will always be an element
of uncertainty and risk in
human action. Hence, with
regard to the commanded phase
of the act, a man is responsible
only for those external aspects
within his control and those
normally foreseeable
consequences of his acts.
Action as Good or Bad
As we have Just seen, morally
speaking, the very being of man
calls upon him to act in order to
realize his telos, that which his
being can be and ought to be. It
is this telos, this final end of man,
which is somehow referred to
when man talks of good and bad:
We have already seen that
people make moral judgments
regarding one another and
themselves. There are actions
which are considered good, and
others bad. Such Judgments are
not quite the same as judgments
referring to pleasure or,
practicality or social expediency.
There is a big difference in
ordinary language between
saying that such an action gives
us pleasure or pain, or that such
an action is efficient or wasteful,
or that such an action is socially
expedient or unwise and saying
that such an action is morally
good or bad. One is wont to say
that he derives a lot of pleasure
drinking a mug or two of ice
cold beer after a hard day's work.
Or we often hear it said that it
would be more practical and
efficient in the long run to divide
the work into several
components, each to be assigned
to a different individual, rather
than to let everybody do all
things alike, all at the same time.
Or there is the saying that it is
not very wise or expedient to
prove your point and win the
argument but lose a friend. But
then there is that other type of
Judgment which says, for
example, that the torture of
fellow human beings is an
immoral, dastardly act.
We also see that the same
action could lend itself to all
these different types of
judgments. The act of cheating in
an examination, for example,
could lead to different
considerations. What pleasure
will I get out of ft? Putting one
over the teacher perhaps and
getting away with it? Passing the
course without having to labor
too much for it? How practical
and efficient would cheating be?
Could I do it smartly and
intelligently so that there is no
possibility of being caught? I see
all kinds of cheating going on
around me, so is it practical that I
go on plodding along honestly
while my neighbors go their
merry cheating way? Granted
that I am bright and smart and I
do what I see others around me
do and I cheat my way through
college, getting by without much
study, what would that make of
me in the long run in view of my
career or profession? How
expedient and wise would
cheating be in case I get caught?
As they say, 1if things can go
wrong. they will go wrong. What
the if I get caught cheating?What
will that do to my self-image
What will people say? How will
my parents take it should they
find out about it? How will my
best friend take it? And then, of
course, there is the moral
question. Independently of those
other considerations, is the act of
cheating in a final examination
morally right or wrong, good or
bad? What makes it right or
wrong, good or bad? If truly
wrong and bad, how the could I
really bear myself acting so
dishonestly? How could I ever
accept myself in the right of my
being as related to fellowmen? In
the light of my conscience? In
the light of the ultimate meaning
of my existence? In this sense, in
the light of all being?
It can be seen that there is a
different norm or standard
corresponding to each of these
judgments. As we have seen in
the section on the introductory
notions, there is the norm of
pleasure and pain which refers to
man's physical well-being and
man's inclination to physical or
sensual satisfaction. There is the
norm of efficiency or practicality,
which refers to the use of
suitable means in view of
previously chosen goals or
objectives. There is the norm of
social expediency which refers to
our relations with others and
more specifically, to the
advantages or disadvantages to
be obtained from our social
relations.
Finally. there is the moral
good and bad. We shall have to
go into this in more depth later.
For the moment, in this
descriptive phase, let it suffice to
say that the norm for the
judgment on the moral goodness
or badness of human action does
not refer to some norm which
comes from outside, such as
13
some natural or organic or
socially-required condition. The
norm seems to be something
immanent in man himself. It is
an ideal vision that man truly and
deeply aspires for, which in a
sense represents the fulfillment
and end of all his yearnings.
Thus it is called "the good, that
which I, or at least the better part
of me, would really like to do
and be. On the other hand, the
good does not seem to represent
simply a particular good for man.
It is not something that he may
arbitrarily assume or discard.
The good does not seem to
represent simply a particular
good for me in accordance with
my tastes and preferences. This
good, as intimated in our moral
experience, seems to represent
precisely the good." It not simply
that which will be for my
individual pleasure or interest or
advantage, but that good which
somehow transcends particular
goods. It is the good that must be,
the telos, the good of my very
being as man and the good of all
others with whom I share my
humanity.
To say, therefore, that a man
is morally good or bad is not
simply to assert something about
his being happy or miserable,
bright or dense, successful or
unfortunately lost and frustrated.
Moral goodness or badness
signifies something more
profound and ultimate which
concerns the whole point and
sense of all existence. Thus,
when by remorse of conscience,
know that I have done something
bad, something immoral, I am
deeply disturbed since I know
and feel somehow that by this
immoral act I have perverted the
whole sense and direction of my
existence, at least as of that
moment in my life. In this light,
the good seems to be some kind
of ultimate norm, or some kind
of measure of the ultimate
meaning and worth of man's
existence.
Universality
Universality refers to that
aspect of the moral dimension by
which man experiences himself
as answerable to an end and a
norm common to all human
beings. Morality orients man
towards a certain end and norm
and places man in relation to all
other human persons. In a sense,
to view things morally is to view
things in the eyes of all humanity.
The moral attitude is the
willingness to accept that one is
subject to a norm or a rule
common to all.
Contrariwise. particularly in
our contemporary world, moral
visions and moral systems
abound, varying from culture to
culture and from human group to
human group. Such material
differences, however. salient as
they might be. appear more
serious than they really are, If we
look at each of these different
moral visions and systems from
within, we see that each o them
invariably has in view the notion
of all humanity, and each of
them formally holds that the
moral ideal and the moral norm
are incumbent on all universally.
Because of human limitations,
certain specific elements
regarding man's self-
understanding may vary. The
material extension of the concept
of all mankind may be relatively
restricted or open. Thus, an
aboriginal tribe, for example,
auto isolation. limited knowledge,
lack of means of communication
and travel. could have a very
limited extension for concept of
all humanity. But formality,
because of the moral dimension
or the moral structure of human
existence, each individual and
each human community has a
concept of a common humanity
which shares a common dignity
by virtue of a common moral end
and a common moral norm of
good and bad. In moral
experience, therefore, man
invariably sees himself gather
with his fellow human beings as
oriented to one common end and
subject to one common,
universal norm.
The universal norm, of course,
must be applied in the con of the
individual particular, concrete
situation. Nonetheless each one
in his or her particular situation
is perceived to be answerable to
use one, common, universal
norm and end. When in a moral
judgment, I come to the
conclusion that I ought to do
such and sucn, the implication is
that any man in my place ought
to act as now judge I should act,
or that any man, knowing the
conditions under which I now
am, should come to the same
judgment as I now make.
In moral experience, then,
man experiences himself or
herself as being one among
many in a community of all
human persons. For this reason,
equality and justice are the direct
corollaries of moral experience. I
must respect and recognize the
other as a human person like
myself. I must render to the other
what is his or her due. The moral
14
perspective, of its very nature, is
infinitely open and inclusive of
any and every human person,
placing man in the context of the
community of all fellow human
beings.
Obligation
We have seen that the moral
structure of human existence
calls upon man to act in view of
a certain telos and in view of the
good, which is not merely a
particular good for man, but
which seems to present itself as
"the good" and the end of all
human existence. However, "the
good" does not only present
itself as being the good for all
and universal.It presents itself as
universally binding and
obligatory. In this sense, the
telos or "the good" has an
imperative or binding demand on
man so that his being is an
"ought-to-be, and an ought-to-
act" in view of the end or "the
good. I am, therefore, not at total
liberty to take up or forego this
ultimate end of man, for there is
no other. I am free, of course, to
consent or not to this end. But
that simply means I am free to
determine myself as being truly
man or not, and being ultimately
good or bad. Nonetheless, I
remain obliged vis-a-vis the end,
whether I consent to or not.
Hence, in moral experience, man
experiences himself. Somehow
necessarily bound and
necessarily oriented to this final
end, in view of which he ought
to act. This sense of being bound
or required, beyond mere
inclination or preference, to act
in view of the necessary ultimate
end or "the good" is precisely
what is meant by moral
obligation.
 Obligation, in general, means
the state of being bound or
required to do or not do
something. Obligation signifies
some fund of ought or
imperative. There are, however,
many different kind of nuances
of obligation by which man may
be bound. There is, first, what
we might call technical
obligation. This refers to the
requirement of relating suitable
means to chosen ends or goals.
Thus, once an engineer has
decided to build a bridge. he is
obliged or bound to follow a
whole set of physical and
engineering laws governing
building materials and geological
formations in the design and in
the construction of the bridge.
Otherwise it would never hold.
Or for example in certain games
like chess, there are, at certain
moments of the game, "forced"
or "obligatory" moves. In other
words, if I intend to win at all.
given a certain configuration of
the pieces, I must move in some
specific way. Any other move
would mean that I lose the game,
or that I will be at a very great
disadvantage. Secondly, there is
the social obligation. (We are not
talking here of moral social
obligations which are moral
obligations regarding my relation
to society or the community.)
The social obligation refers to all
sorts of things one must do if he
or she would like to maintain
smooth relations with others or
with the group. Thus, for
example, one is obliged to greet
people on their birth anniversary,
to attend social functions, to
conform to certain customary
practices. Otherwise, he ends up
being isolated from and
ostracized by society. Thirdly,
there is the legal obligation.
Usually consequent upon a
contract between two parties, the
legal obligation requires that an
act be done or not done.
otherwise a penalty or some
other sanction is imposed by the
legal authority. Thus, for
example, I must pay the agreed
upon monthly installment to the
store with which I signed a
contract to buy my encyclopedia
set on installment. Any undue
delay in the installment
payments would incur legally
sanctioned penalties, such as
extra interest imposed or even
repossession of the books.
Fourthly, there is the religious
that represents obligation, by
which man feels bound to do or
not do certain things by virtue of
the relation man is believed to
have with God and to the
divinely sanctioned church or
congregation he belongs to. Thus,
there is the duty to pray, to love
one another, to attend Mass on
Sundays, to fast and abstain on
Good Friday.
Lastly, there is moral
obligation. Good and bad do not
present themselves as free
alternatives for man, like
choosing to have dessert or not,
or choosing to be a nuclear
physicist or not. In a sense, to be
good is something every man
ought to not simply for the
reason that it will make him
happy, or or popular, or self-
actualized and fulfilled. I must
be good unconditionally,
independently of personal
inclinations preferences. It 1s
true that the good seems to
represent something that is the
fulfillment of my being. It is
something that object of my
deepest yearnings. Hence is
15
"good. et, On the other hand, the
moral good seems to connote
something that goes beyond
merely being that which is good
I or me, or even being that which
is good for all. Rather, it seems
to signify what I and all other
fellow human beings must seek
and act upon unconditionally,
apart from any advantage or
good that I individually or
together with my fellow human
beings stand to gain by it. In this
sense, moral obligation is
absolute. In other words, it is
absolved of any relation to
conditions, terms, or provisos.
As one sometimes says in a
moral situation, I do this for the
principle of the thing. not in
view of any interest or gain.
What then is this absolute
good, this unconditional telos
binding on all? What does it
signify in the end? What is its
nature so that it can demand of
us to act unconditionally in view
of it? We shall have to face this
question again later on. At this
point when we are simply trying
to describe that which is given in
moral experience, we can say
that there seems to be no specific
object given whose formal
structure is clearly delineated.
For the moment when we talk of
"the good" or the telos what is
meant is that what is absolutely
binding is a certain general
direction, a kind of pointing-
toward, or a certain orientation
toward a horizon that somehow
englobes us, rather than a
specific object that we can grasp
fully, or a specific goal and
objective that we can project as a
well-conceived. Fully controlled
target.
 As we have already seen,
morality is not primarily a kind
of theoretical knowledge in full
possession of itself. Rather,
morality is essentially action,
where man is always ahead of
himself and turned away from
himself toward that which is
ahead which is beyond his full
grasp and control. Morality then
is not just any action. We see a
big difference between a purely
technical or socially expedient
action and moral action. In the
former instance, the goal and
objective is something conceived
and posed by man and thus
remains under his control. As
Kant would say, such actions are
commanded by hypothetical
imperatives precisely because
they are dependent upon goals
that man may either assume or
discard. On the other hand the
goal of moral action presents
itself as something which
ultimately transcends man's
grasp and control, On the
contrary, seems to be the moral
goal which commands man
imperatively and unconditionally.
Hence, man experiences
himself n some way related to a
kind of order which is not simply
of his whim or design, like a set
of self-imposed rules or
resolutions or a targetted goal he
poses for himself. The moral
structure seems to place man vis-
a-vis some kind of order of
transcendence, something other
than man, which is beyond man's
pure discretion. It is something
that presents itself
unconditionally and absolutely.
Granted then that because it 1s
beyond man’s full grasp and
control, that which binds us
unconditionally and absolutely
cannot be clearly delineated as a
specific object, the question
naturally arises how such an
undetermined thing or principle
can serve as the ground and
norm of morality? if only to
point toward a certain direction,
it would seem that what is
required is at least some general
idea or framework in function of
which we might chart our path
toward where we must tend
absolutely. Otherwise, we would
be left with an absolute
obligation to act, but with no
effective direction or norm as to
where we should go or what we
should do. We would thus be left
with an empty tautological
imperative that we must do
absolutely what we must do.
If we consult the way the
thinkers of antiquity described
moral experience, we find that
they experienced mans being as
a kind of "in-between (metaxu),
situated between the material life
of non rational beings and the
spiritual world of reason and the
good. This "in-between" is not
only in reference to man's natural
place in the hierarchy of beings,
but more properly., in reference
to man's very being as precisely
this very tension between the
closed existence of an animal,
physical, sensient life and the
free existence of the spirit open
to the Logos and to the good."
It is precisely this structural
tension situating him in between
the animals and the gods, as the
ancient Greeks would say, that
establishes man in his being as
man, in whom the Logos resides.
He is thus rational animal,"
being open to the Logos, later
referred to more precisely as the
nous. It is this in-between"
16
nature of man which opens up
his being. As were, freeing him
from thee enclosed, limited
existence of purely material life
and establishing him in his self-
determining existence of
spiritual freedom. It is this
tension of being between'" which
endows human existence with its
moral dynamism. In other words,
the ideal of greater and greater of
spiritual freedom presents itself
to man as "the good life. It is a
desirable, worthy ideal, nay, it is
the very fulfillment a end of
human existence, The good then
seems to present his as the
horizon of spiritual freedom, the
ideal of life in the nous which
represents the fulfilment of man's
very being.
Listening to the experience of
ancient thinkers, we feel its
resonance and corroboration in
our own moral experience. The
good, the end toward which man
is necessarily oriented, lies on
the horizon of spiritual freedom
itself, or what we would call
today personal existence. To put
it in another way, we cannot
describe and know the good" in a
purely theoretical way. We can
have a practical view of "the
good" only as we act and as we
tend and strive towards it. We
can have a lived, practical
knowledge of the good only in
terms of our active open being as
spiritual freedom or personal
existence. We can only know the
good as being that which
approaches somehow toward the
limit and horizon of spiritual
freedom. Hence, we seem to
have gained, if only a little, some
clarity regarding this absolute
good and this unconditional
ultimate end of man. The good
lies in the fulfilment of man's
nature as spiritual freedom or
personal existence.
At this point we seem to come
upon a kind of aporia or
perplexity. We seem to be faced
with opposing elements in our
moral experience. On the one
hand, the good seems to present
itself as the good for man and the
fulfillment of his being as open
existence or spiritual freedom.
On the other hand, the good
presents itself as absolutely
obligatory, and imposes itself on
man, not merely as the exigency
of his being as rational nature,
but as something to which man
as moral being finds himself
subject. It is something which
comes from some strange order
of transcendence beyond man's
mere inclination, demand or
option.
But if the good is truly the
good for man, how then does it
acquire the aspect of something
absolutely or unconditionally
obligatory? How can that which
is man's proper good be anything
more than that which man in his
freedom takes up and imposes
upon himself in fidelity to his
own being? On the other hand, if
the good indeed is absolutely
obligatory, how can it impose
itself on man without violating
his very being as reason, as
spiritual freedom and personal
existence? Besides, what does it
really mean to have an
experlence of an unconditional
or absolute obligation? How
does the experience of such a
peremptory demand differ from
that of the human spirit's own
immanent exigency to be true to
itself? We shall have to
defer till later the attempt to
tackle this difficulty. For the
moment, we are simply trying to
describe the elements of our
moral experience or of the moral
structure of human existence as
faithfully as we can, avoiding the
temptation of simplifying the
problem by glossing over one or
other of the two opposing terms,
and leaving for later the matter
of theory and explanation. Let us
then at this stage simply register
what is given, explore its
ramifications, and leave it at that.
PART I1: THE 4 MAJOR
ETHICAL FRAMEWORKS
Ang ikalawang bahaging ito
ay tatalakay sa apat na
pangunahing etikal na kaisipan,
ang mga sumusunod ay, Virtue
Ethics ni Aristotle, Natural Law
Ethics ni Santo Tomas de
Aquino, Deontology ni
Immanuel Kant, at ang
Utilitariyanismo nina Jeremy
Bentham at John Stuart Mil. Ang
bawat isa ay nagpapakita ng
struktura at sistematikong
kaisipan upang bigyan ito ng
makatuwirang batayan na
sumasaklaw sa pangkalahatang
kilos ng tao bilang moral.
MODULE 7: VIRTUE
ETHICS (ARISTOTELIAN
ETHICS)
B. Readings for the Topic
VIRTUE ETHICS
(ARISTOTELIAN ETHICS
Historical Background
 Aristotle: 384-322 BCE
 Student of Plato in the
Academia, Athens
17
 Gave emphasis on reason as
the highest faculty of a
person (same with Socrates
and Plato)
 Founded his own school,
Lyceum because of his
intellectual differences with
Plato
Nicomachean Ethics
 Aristotle departs from the
Platonic theory that the real is
outside the realm of the
sensory experience and is in
the world of forms.
 Aristotle: real as matter and
form
 The good does not exist
independent of the person's
experience in the world
BCE Before Christian Era
Si Aristotle ay sinasabing isa
sa pinakamahusay na mag-aaral
ni Plato sa paaralan na kanyang
itinayo, ang Academy. Dahil sa
pag-lihis ng kaisipan ni Aristotle
sa kanyang guro, umalis siya at
nagtayo ng sariling paaralan na
tinawag nyang Lyceum.
Tinalakay ni Aristotle ang
kanyang kaisipan ukol sa Etika
sa kanyang aklat na
pinamagatang Nichomachean
Ethics. Ang pamagat na ito ay
hango sa pangalan ng kanyang
anak na lalaki na si
Nichomachus na sivang pinag-
aalayan ng isinulat na aklat.
Para kay Plato, hindi
mararanasan ang mabuti(good)
sa pisikal o materyal na mundo.
Sa halip ito ay mararanasan
lamang sa mundo ng
Porma(world of forms/ideas)
 Taliwas sa kaisipan ni Plato,
sinasabi ni Aristotle, ang mabuti,
ang reyalidad, ang katotohanan
ay hindi hiwalay sa mundo na
nararanasan ng ating katawan,
ang materyal na mundo. Ibig
sabihin, maaabot at mararanasan
natin ang perpeksyon ng ating
sarili dito sa mundo na kung saan
ang paggawa ng mabuti ay
bahagi nito.
Bukod pa rito, dagdag pa ni
Aristot le, na ang reyalidad ay
binubuo ng materyal (matter) at
porma (forms), magkasama ito
na umiiral sa lahat ng bagay,
may buhay man o wala
What is the ultimate purpose
of a person?
 There is a purpose in every
action of a person which is
perceived as something good.
 There is a hierarchy
purpose
 Criteria for the ultimate telos
a. Final
b. Self-sufficient
c. Attainable
What is the ultimate purpose
of a person?
Answer: Eudaimonia
Eudaimonia: highest purpose
and highest good
 Not an emotion which is
temporary
 Not nirvana (state of
liberation from samsara) nor
stoicism (rejection of emotion)
 "Activity of the soul in
accordance with virtue"
 Achieved by fulfilling a performing ones function)
person's ergon (function).
Telos -salitang Griyego na ang
ibig sabihin ay hantungan,
papupuntahan. Sa Ingles, ito ay
'end'. sa kasabihang ito, "Take
others as an end, not as means.
Ituring mo ang iba bilang
hantungan ng iyong kilos, hindi
isang kaparaanan lamang. (para
makamit ang ibang bagay na
minimithi).
May Antas (Hierarchy) ang
hantungan (end), layunin
(purpose) ang ating mga
ikinikilos. Tinatawag din itong
intermediary means. Kapag
naabot nati ito, kasangkapan
lamang ito para maabot ang mas
mataas na hantungan o layunin.
halimbawa, ang pagkamot sa
of balat na kinagat ng lamok ay
daan lamang para maalis ang kati
na dulot nito, nang sa ganon ay
makatulog ka ng maayos, para
hindi ka mapuyat, kinabukasan.
Kung hindi ka puyat,
makakapagaral ka ng mga aralin
sa skul para makakuha ng mataas
na grades, para makatapos ng
pag-aaral na siyang mas mataas
na hantungan na gusto mong
maabot, subalit hindi pa ito dito
nagtatapos.
Eudaimonia -salitang Grieyo
na nangangahulugang, Ganap na
Kaligayahan (Absolute/Perfect
Happiness). Dahil ganap ito, o
perpekto, kaya wala ka nang
hahanap-hanapin pa. Ito ang
pinaka hantungan, pinaka
layunin ng tao, ang maabot ang
ganap na kaligayahan na kung
saan nararanasan niya ang
kaganapan ng kanyang pagkatao.
18
Mararanasan nya lamang ito
kung isasagawa nya ang gawain
ng kan- yang pagiging tao (by
What is the function of a
person?
 Function is what
distinguishes or characterizes
the thing from other beings
(ex. umbrella used as
protection from heat and rain)
 Function of a person which
sets her apart from the rest:
activity of reason
 To be a person is to act in
accordance to reason.
 To be a good person is to
perform her rational activity
well.
 In a good or excellent way:
arête (virtue, birtud,
kagalingan, maayo)
Arete: Virtue
"But we must add "in a
complete life". For one swallow
does not make a summer..Also a
happy man needs the external
goods as well; for it is
impossible, or not easy, to do
noble acts without the proper
equipment...as good birth,
goodly children, beauty..."(Bk. I,
1098a19)
 Virtue cannot be
accomplished by a single act
 Conditions in order to be
happy
Ayon kay Aristotle, ang gawain
ng pag-iisip at katwiran (activity
of reason) ang siyang
naghihiwalayo nagbibigay
kaibahan ng tao sa mga hayop at
mga bagay. Ito ang gawain na
natatangi lamang sa tao kung
kayat naisasagawa nya ang
kanyang pagiging
tao(performance of one's function
as human being), at dito makikita
na ang tunay na kaligayahan ay
mararanasan lamang kung
isinasagawa natin ang gawain ng
pagiging tao na kung saan ang
kaganapano perpeksyon ng
pagiging tao ay naabot.
Ang gawain ng pag-iisip at
katwiran ay aspeto ng ating
kaluluwa.(para kay Aristotle,
ang kaluluwa ang siyang
nagpapakilos sa sa lahat ng
bagay na may buhay. Ang
kaluluwa ng tao ay hindi
maaaring humiwalay sa katawan
ng tao. Ibig sabihin, hindi na ito
umiral pag namatay ang
katawan tao)
Ang birtud(virtue, sa Griyego,
Arete) ay produkto ng
pagsasagawa ng pag-iisip at
katwiran ng tao (activity of
reason) sa lebel ng moral na
kilos. Ito ang tama at mabuting
kilos na kinakailangang maging
bahagi ng isang sarili sa
pamamagi tan ng paulit-ulit na
pagsasagawa rito hanggang sa ito
ay nagiging bukal sa ating
pagkilos, ibig sabihin, ang taong
gumagawa nito ay masaya at
hindi nahihirapan sa lahat ng
pagkakataon. (Taliwas ito sa
paniniuwala ni Plato na kung
alam mo ang tama at mabuting
kilos, awtomatik na gagawin mo
ito, pero sa tunay na buhay,
hindi sa lahat ng pagkakataon
nangyayari ito.)
Psyche: soul of a person
1. Irrational:
a. vegetative: growth, nutrition
b. appetitive: desire
 Not dictated by reason
 Desire: does not arise from
the rational faculty of the soul
but is subject to reason
2. Rational:
a. Moral (acting)
b. Intellectual (knowing)
i. Practical wisdom (phronesis)
ii. Philosophic wisdom (sophia)
 Dictated by reason
 Aspect of the soul where
virtue, that is, where human
excellence can be attained:
moral and intellectual virtues
Sa bahaging ito, tinatalakay ni
Aristotle ang mga aspeto ng
kaluluwa (psyche or soul) na
siyang nagpapagalaw o lamang masasabi na mabuti kang
nagbibigay buhay sa katawan. Sa
Irasyonal na bahagi. Sa antas ng
vegetative, ipinahihiwatig ng
termino na ang kilos na
ibinibigay ng kaluluwa sa
paglaki, paglusog, at pagyabong
na pare-parehong nagaganap sa
mga halaman, hayop, at tao. Sa
appetative, galaw na ibinibigay
ng kaluluwa ay nasa aspetong
pagnanais(desire) ng katawan
kagaya ng pagnanais sa pagkain,
sekwal na kilos at iba pang nina
nais ng katawan para mabuhay at
makapagpatuloy ang lahi.
kinapapalooban ito ng hayop at
tao. Ito ay nyutral (neutral), hindi
mabuti o hindi masama, subalit
kinakailangang gabayan ng
rasyonal na aspeto.
19
Sa Rasyonal na bahagi,
tumutukoy ito sa pagkapit natin
sa katotohanan, at sa
pagsasagawa ng tama at
mabuting kilos. Unang elemento
nito ay ang Moral. Idinidikta
nito na gawin natin ang tama at
mabuting kilos. Sa bahagi ng
Intellectual. Una, ito ang
pagsisikap natin na malaman ang
tama at maling kilos(practical
wisdom ophronesis), pangalawa,
ito din ang pagsisikap natin na
malaman ang katotohanan ng
mga bagay-bagay(philosophic
wisdom o sophia) Kaya ang
pagkapit natin rasyonal na aspeto
ng ating kaluluwa nahuhubog
ang birtud o moral na
birtud(moral virtue) sa
pamamagitan, una, sa pag-alam
natin kung ano tama at mali,
pangalawa, kasunod nito ang
pagsasagawa nito ng paulit-ulit
hanggang sa maging bahagi ito
ng ating buhay : pagkakataong
ito lamang masasabi na mabuti
kang tao(a person of virtues).
kung saan, sa pagkakataong ito
tao (a person of virtues).
Moral Virtue
Determining the good and
doing the right actions
Acquired through habit
Formation of one's character:
habitually willing and doing the
good (mabuting pag-uugali)
What comprises moral virtue?
Acting out the right
feelings/passions?
 Most feelings/ passions are
neutral. Neither good nor bad
(ex. being angry)
 Moral virtue is the excellent sophia), maaari nating Phronimos (virtuous person)
management of one's feelings matutuhan ito mula sa kaala-
and passions man ng ibang tao o sa pag- a virtuous person does not
aanalisa at pag-oobserba sa ating even have to control oneself
 Ex. Being angry with the kapaligiran at ating mga because one's resolution has been
right person, time, reason, ginagawa. Kaya sa so habituated to always rightly
manner, circumstance pagsasabulhay naman ng act self-possessed
intelektwal na gawain ay
 Right measurement: mesotes nahuhubog sa atin ang tinatawag Definition of Moral Virtue
(mean) na Intelekwal na Birtud
(intellectual virtue). "Virtue, then, is a state of
Intellectual Virtue character concerned with a
Ayon kay Aristotle, sa choice, lying in a mean, i.e., the
Act of knowing pagdetermina o pag-aalam kung mean relative to us, this being
ano ang tama o maling kilos, determined by a rational
 Intellectual virtue is seen in principle, and by that principle
nakasalalay ito sa paghusga ng
wisdom by which the man of practical
praktikal na aspeto ng
karunungan. Ang batayan ng wisdom would determine it. "(Bk
 Acquired through teaching, II, 1106b36-1107a2)
learning paghusga o panukat ay ang
tinatawag niyang, Mesotes
(salitang Griyego na ang ibig Virtue is the mean in between
 Phronesis: excellence of two vices.
knowing what to do sabihin ay mean, middle o gitna).
Ang gitna na tinutukoy nya ay
Deficiency------ Virtue-----
 Phronesis: necessary for ang bahagi sa pagitan ng
Excess Mesotes
moral virtue dalawang sukdulan ng isang
nyutral na kilos (middle part Table of Virtues and Vices
Moral na Birtud (moral between 2 extremes ina neutral
virtue) - bilang bahagi ng action). Halimbawa: sa kilos na Class Excess Mean Deficie
rasyonal na aspeto ng kaluluwa paggasta, ang dalawang of ncy
(psyche or soul), ang moral o sukdulang kilos nito ay magarbo, action
ang rasyonal na kilos ay magastos, at sa kabilang dulo or
nahuhubog sa pagsasabuhay nito naman ay kuripot. Kaya ang feeling
sa lahat ng sandali hanggang sa gitnang bahagi nito ay matipido
ito ay maging likas (nature) natin praktikal sa paggastos. Fear rashne coura cowardi
ayon kay Aristotle. Ang kilos na and ss ge ce
isasabuhay natin ay nakabatay sa Mesotes confid
karunungan na pinagnilayan ence
nang malalim ng Intelektwal Hence it is hard work to be
bahagi ng rasyonal na aspeto, virtuous, since in each case it is Giving prodig libera meanne
ang praktikal (pangkilos) na hard work to find what is the and ality lity ss
karunungan. mean (mesotes)..So also getting getting
angry, or giving and spending small
Kaugnay nito, mapapansin money, is easy and anyone can amoun
natin na dalawa ang do it; but doing it to the right ts
pinagmumulan ng ating person, in the right amount, at
karunungan sa ilalim ng the right time, for the right end, pagtiti Uto- kabai mapagh
intelektwal na bahagi, una, ang and in the right way is no longer wala uto tan inala
praktikal na karunungang easy, nor can everyone do it.
practical wisdom o phronesis), Hence, (doing these things) well Moral Virtue: mesotes
pangalawa, ang karunungan ng is rare, praiseworthy, and fine.
reyalidad(philosophic wisdom o (Bk. II, 1109a24)
20
 Exactness of mesotes, or as
the maximum act (ex. Not
sobrang bait, not over sa
tapang, not medyo
palakaibigan)
 Wrong actions have no
mesotes (ex. Murder, adultery,
spite)
Bisyo (vice)- kasalungat ng birtud
o virtue. Tinutukoy nito ang mga
hindi mabubuting kilos bilang
sukdulan ng isang nyutral na kilos
na kung saan nagpapakita ito ng
sobra o kalabisan (excess) at
kakulangan (defeciency)
MODULE VII: NATURAL
LAW ETHICS
They show that the requirements
of the law are written on their
hearts, their consciences also
bearing witness, and their
thoughts sometimes accusing
them and at other times even
defending them.
Grace does not destroy nature
but perfects it.
1. Introduction to Aquinas
Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274)
was an intellectual and religious
revolutionary, living at a time of
great philosophical, theological
and scientific development. He
was a member of the Dominican
Friars, which at that time was
considered to be a cult, and was
taught by one of the greatest
intellects of the age, Albert the
Great (1208-1280). In a nutshell
Aquinas wanted to move away
from Plato's thinking, which was
hugely influential at the time,
and instead introduce
Aristotelian ideas to science,
nature and theology.
Aquinas wrote an incredible
amount in fact one of the
miracles accredited to him was
the amount he wrote! His most
famous work is Summa
Theologica and this runs to some
three and half thousand pages
and contains many fascinating
and profound insights, such as
proofs for God's existence. The
book remained a fundamental
basis for Catholic thinking right
up to the 1960s! But do not
worry we will only be focusing
on a few key ideas! Specifically
books -I, questions 93-95.
Santo Tomas de Aquino-
(1225 A.D.-1274 A.D)- isang
Italyanong prayle, pilosopo
(philosopher), at teyolohiko
(theologian)
-masugid na tagasunod ng
pilosopiya ni Aristotle
-bumuo ng isang komprehensibo
at sistematikong kaisipan sa
pamamagitan ng pagsasama ng
pananampalatayang Kristyano at
Gryegong pilosopya (plosopiya
niAristotle).
-para sa kanya, ang pilosopiya
at pananampalatayang Kristiyano
ay hindi magkakontra.
2. Motivating Natural Law
Theory: The Euthyphro
Dilemma and Divine
Command Theory
The likely answer froma
religious person as to why we
should not steal, or commit
adultery is: "because God forbids
us": or if we ask why we should
love our neighbour or give
money to charity then the answer
is likely to be "because God
commands it". Drawing this link
between what is right and wrong
21
and what God commands and
forbids is what is called the
Divine Command Theory (DCT).
There is a powerful and
influential challenge to such an
account called the Euthyphro
dilemma after the challenge was
first raised in Plato's Euthyphro.
The dilemma runs as follows:
Either God commands
something is right because it is,
or it is right because God
commands it. If God commands
something because it is right,
then God's commands do not
make it right, His commands
only tell us what is right. This
means God simply drops out of
the picture in terms of explaining
why something is right.
If on the other hand something
is right because God commands
it then anything at all could be
right; killing children or setting
fire to churches could be morally
acceptable. But if a moral theory
says this then that looks as if the
theory is wrong.
Most theists reject the first
option and opt for this second
option that God's commands
make something right. But they
then have to face the problem
that it make morality haphazard.
This "arbitrariness problem as it
is sometimes called, is the reason
that many, including Aquinas,
give up on the Divine Command
Theory.
So for Aquinas what role, if
any at all, does God have when it
comes to morality? For him,
God's commands are there to
help us to come to see what, as a
matter of fact, is right and wrong
rather than determine what is
right and wrong. That is,
Aquinas opts for the first option
in the Euthyphro dilemma as
stated above. But then this raises
the obvious question: if it is not
God's commands that make
something right and wrong, then
what does? Does not God just
fall out of the picture? This is
where his Natural Law Theory
comes in.
Divine Command Theory-
ipinahahayag nito na ang tamang
kilos ng tao ay naka-ayon sa
kung ano ang ipinag-uutos sa
atin ng Diyos na gawin at ang
maling kilos ay kung ano ang
Kanyang ipinagbabawal na
gawin.
Dilemma- ito ay 2 o higit
pang mga pagppilian na kaisipan
o bagay na pare-parehong may
negatibong katangian o resulta.
Euthyphro Dilemma - isang
pagtutol o hamon sa kaisipan ng
Divine Commad Theory. Una
itong binanggit ni Plato sa
kanyang aklat na Euthyphro.
Ipinahahayag nito na alin man,
na ang isang bagay na ipinag-
uutos ng biyos ay tama, o di
kaya naman, na tama ang isang
kilos dahil ito ay ipinag-uutos
ng Diyos.
Para ipaliwanag ito, Sa unang
salaysay, na ang isang bagay na
ipinag-uutos ng Diyos ay tama.
Kung tatanggapin natin ito, to ay
nagsasabing, ang ipinapakita nya
lamang sa kanyang mga iniuutos
sa atin ay kung ano ang mga
tamang kilos. Ibig sabihin, hindi
nakadepende ang pagigingg tama
ng isang kilos sa kanyang
agsasagawa ng pag-utos sa atin.
Sa Ikalawang kaisipan, anuman
ang Kanyang iniuutos ay tama.
Kaya maaari natin sabihin dito
na kahit ang pagpatay ay
magiging tama kung ito ay
kanyang iniuutos. Ito ay
humahantong sa tinatawag na
"arbitrariness problem," o kilos
na ayon lamang sa kung ano ang
maisipan at magustuhang gawin
ng Diyos. Ang puntong ito ang
tinututulan ni Santo Tomas de
Aquino upang ihain ang kanyang
Natural Law Ethical theory.
3. Natural Law Theory
Aquinas's Natural Law Theory
contains four different types of
law: Eternal Law, Natural Law,
Human Law and Divine Law.
The way to understand these four
laws and how they relate to one
another is via the Eternal Law,
so we'd better start there..
By "Eternal Law'" Aquinas
means God's rational purpose
and plan for all things. And
because the Eternal Law is part
of God's mind then it has always,
and will always, exist. The
Eternal Law is not simply
something that God decided at
some point to write.
Aquinas thinks that everything
has a purpose and follows a plan.
He, like Aristotle, is a teleologist
(the Greek term "telos' refers to
what we might call a purpose,
goal, end/or the true final
function of an object) (see
Chapter 3; not to be confused
with a telelogical ethical theory
such as Utilitarianism) and
believes that every object has a
telos, the acorn has the telos of
growing into an oak; the eye a
telos of seeing: a rat of eating
and reproducing etc. (notice this
links to his view on sex, see
Chapter 10). If something fulfils
22
its purpose/plan then it is
following the Eternal Law.
Aquinas thinks that something
is good in as far as it fulfils its
purpose/plan. This fits with
common sense. A "good' eye is
one which sees well. an acorn is
a good if it grows into a strong
oak tree. But what about humans?
Just as a good eye is to see, and a
good acorn is to grow then a
good human is to...? Is to what?
How are we going to finish this
sentence? What do you think?
Aquinas thinks that the answer
is reason and that it is this that
makes us distinct from rats and
rocks. What is right for me and
you as humans is to act
according to reason. If we act
according to reason then we are
partaking in the Natural Law.
If we all act according to
reason, then we will all agree to
some overarching general rules
(what Aquinas calls primary
precepts). These are absolute and
binding on all rational agents and
because of this Aquinas rejects
relativism.
The first primary precept is
that good is to be pursued and
done and evil avoided. He thinks
that this is the guiding principle
for all our decision making.
Before unpacking this, it is
worth clarifying something about
what "law" means. Imagine that
we are playing Cluedo and we
are trying to work out the
identity of the murderer. There
are certain rules about how to
move around the board, how to
deal out cards, how to reveal the
murderer etc.These rules are all
written down and can be
consulted.
 Ayon kay Aquinas:
Eternal Law (Batas na Walang
Hanggang)-ito ang pag-isip ng
Diyos, ang plano ng Diyos sa
lahat ng bagay. Ito rin ang telos o
layunin o hantungan ng lahat ng
bagay na iniukit Nya rito nang
likhain nya ito. Ang anumang
umiiral ay maituturing natin na
mabuti (good) kung tinutupad
nito ang kanyang layunin o
gagampanin ng kanyang
pagiging (function). Halimbawa,
ang mata ay mabuti kung
nakakakita ito.
Ang kakayahan ng tao na
mag-isip ang nagbibigay sa tao
ng kaibahan nito sa mga bagay,
hayop at halaman.
Kung pagbabasehan natin ang
ating katwiran sa maayos na
paraan, sino man ay hahantong
sa iisang pagtingin sa
katotohanan. Hindi tayo
hahantong sa relatibismong
kaisipan na nagsasabing ang
katotohanan ay nakadepende sa
tumitingin at nag-isip.
Ang katwiran ang matuturo sa
atin sa Batas ng Kalikasan
(Natural Law) na nakaukit sa
sang nilikha. Kaya ang kumilos
ayon sa katwiran (reason) ay
pakikibahagi natin sa sang
kalikasan. sa paggamit natin ng
ating katwiran, nalalaman natin
ang mga batas ng kalikasan,
kagaya ng pagnanais natin sa
mabuti at maisagawa ito at pag-
iwas natin sa mga bagay na
masama.
However, in playing the game
there are other rules that operate
which are so obvious that they
are neither written down nor
spoken. One such rule is that a
claim made in the game cannot
both be true and false; if it is
Professor Plum who is the
murderer then it cannot be true
that it is not Professor Plum who
is the murderer. These are
internal rules which any rational
person can come to recognize by
simply thinking and are not
external like the other rules such
as you can only have one guess
as to the identity of the murderer.
When Aquinas talks of Natural
Laws, he means internal rules
and not external ones.
Natural Law does not generate
an external set of rules that are
written down for us to consult
but rather it generates general
rules that any rational agent can
come to recognize simply in
virtue of being rational. For
example, for Aquinas it is not as
if we need to check whether we
should pursue good and avoid
evil, as it is just part of how we
already think about things.
Aquinas gives some more
examples of primary precepts:
1. Protect and preserve human
life.
2. Reproduce and educate
one's offspring.
3. Know and worship God.
4. Live in a society.
These precepts are primary
because they are true for all
people in all instances and are
consistent with Natural Law.
Aquinas also introduces what
he calls the Human Law which
gives rise to what he calls
"Secondary Precepts'. These
might include such things as do
not drive above 70mph on a
motorway, do not kidnap people,
23
always wear helmet when riding
a bike, do not hack into
someone's bank account.
Secondary precepts are not
generated by our reason but
rather they are imposed by
governments, groups, clubs,
societies etc.
It is not always morally
acceptable to follow secondary
precepts. It is only morally
acceptable if they are consistent
with the Natural Law. If they are,
then we ought to follow them, if
they are not, then we ought not.
To see why think through an
example.
Consider the secondary
precept that "if you are a woman
and you live in Saudi Arabia
then you are not allowed to drive'.
Aquinas would argue that this
secondary precept is practically
irrational because it treats people
differently based on an arbitrary
difference (gender). He would
reason that if the men in power
in Saudi actually really thought
hard then they too would
recognize that this law is morally
wrong. This in turn means that
Aquinas would think that this
human law does not fit with the
Natural Law. Hence, it is
morally wrong to follow a law
that says that men can, and
women cannot, drive. So
although it is presented as a
secondary precept, because it is
not in accordance with Natural
Law, it is what Aquinas calls an
apparent good. This is in contrast
with those secondary precepts
which are in accordance with the
Natural Law and which he calls
the real goods.
And katwiran ang kumikilos
sa tao ay may sariling panloob na
 panuntunan( internal rules) na
isinusunod na naghahatid sa atin
upang mailala ang mga batas ng
kalikasa( natural laws) kung
kaya hindi ito bumabase sa
panlabas na panuntunan
(external rules) na atimg
isinisulat para pagbasehan ng iba
para makilala ang mga batas ng
kalikasan (nayural laws).
Mapapansin ito sa ating
pagkiling o likas na pagkilos
( natural tendency) sa mga
sumusunod na gawain. Ang ilan
sa mga ito ay:
1. Proteksyon at pangalagaan
ang ating buhay
2. Magkaanak at turuan ang
mga ito
3. Kilalanin at sambahin ang
ating Diyos
4. Mabuhay at makibahagi sa
lipunan
Human Laws- batas na gawa ng
tao na ipinapatupad ng ating
gobyerno. Hindi lahat ng batas ng
tao kung ito ay hindi
sumasalungat sa batas ng
kalikasan (natural laws)
Unlike primary precepts,
Aquinas is not committed to
there being only one set of
secondary precepts for all
people in all situations. It is
consistence with Aquinas's
thinking to have a law to drive
on the right in the US and on
the left in the UK as there is no
practical reason to think that
there is one correct side of the
road on which to drive.
It is clear that on our own we
are not very good at discovering
primary precepts and
consequently Aquinas thinks
that what we ought to do is talk
and interact with people. To
discover our real goods our
secondary precepts which
accord with Natural Law -we
need to be part of a society. For
example, we might think that
"treat Christians as secondary
citizens" is a good secondary
precept until we talk and live
with Christians. The more we
can think and talk with others in
society the better and it is for
this reason that "live in society"
is itself a primary precept.
But looking at what we have
said already about Natural Laws
and primary and secondary
precepts, we might think that
there is no need for God. If we
can learn these primary precepts
by rational reflection then God
simply drops out of the story
(recall the Euthyphro dilemma
above).
Just to recap as there a lots
of moving parts to the story. We
now have Eternal Law (God's
plans/purpose for all things),
Natural Laws (our partaking in
the Eternal Law which leads to
primary precepts), Human Laws
(humans making specific laws
to capture the truths of the
Natural Laws which lead to
secondary precepts) and now
finally Aquinas introduces the
Divine Law.
The Divine Law, which is
discovered through revelation,
should be thought of as the
Divine equivalent of the Human
Law (those discovered through
rational reflection and created
by people). Divine laws are
those that God has, in His grace,
seen fit to give us and are those
"mysteries", those rules given
by God which we find in
scripture, for example, the ten
commandments. But why
24
introduce the Divine Law at all?
It certainly feels we have
enough Laws. Here is a story to
illustrate Aquinas's answer.
A number of years ago I was
talking to a minister of a church.
He told me about an instance
where a married man came to
ask his advice about whether to
finish an affair he was having.
The man's reasoning went as
follows"I am having an affair
which just feels so right, we are
both very much in love and
surely God would want what is
best for me! How could it be
wrong if we are so happy?
Divine Laws -batas na
ipinahayag ng Diyos (divine
revelation) at ito ay mababasa
sa Bibliya. Ang halimbawa nito,
ang 10 Utos ng Diyos.
Ginagabayan nito ang batas ng
tao. Bilang tugon ni Aquinas sa
Euthyphro Dilemma, partikular
sa Divine Command Theory,
binibigkas lamang ng Dyos sa
bibliya ang kanyang mga utos
na dapat lamang sundin ng tao,
at hindi ang kung anuman na
Kanyang gugustuhin
In response, the minister
opened the Bible to the Ten
Commandments and pointed out
the commandment that it says that
it is wrong to commit adultery.
Case closed. The point of this
story is simple. We can be
confused and mistaken about
what we think we have most
reason to do and because of this
we need someone who actually
knows the mind of God to guide
us, and who better to know this
than God Himself. This then is
precisely what is revealed in the
Divine Law.
 Or consider another example.
We recognize that we find it hard
to forgive our friends and nearly
always impossible to forgive our
enemies. We tell ourselves we
have the right to be angry, to
bear grudges, etc. isn't this just
ourselves we have the right to be
angry, to bear grudges, etc. Isn't
this just human? However, these
human reasons are distortions of
the Eternal Law. We need some
guidance when it comes to
forgiveness and it is where the
Divine Law which tells us that
we should forgive others
including our enemies.
Following the Human Laws and
the Divine Laws will help us to
fulfil our purposes and plans and
be truly happy.
4. Summary of Aquinas's
Natural Law Theory
For Aquinas everything has a
function (a telos) and the good
thing (s) to do are those acts that
fulfil that function. Some things
such as acorns, and eyes, just do
that naturally. However, humans
are free and hence need guidance
to find the right path. That right
path is found through reasoning
and generates the "internal"
Natural Law. By following the
Natural Law we participate in
God's purpose for us in the
Eternal Law.
However, the primary precepts
that derive from the Natural Law
are quite general, such as, pursue
good and shun evil. So we need
to create secondary precepts
which can actually guide our
day-to-day behaviour. But we
are fallible so sometimes we get
these secondary precepts wrong,
sometimes we get them right.
When they are wrong they only
reflect our apparent goods. When
they are right they reflect our
real goods.
Finally, however good we are
because we are finite and sinful,
we can only get so far with
rational reflection. We need
some revealed guidance and this
comes in the form of Divine Law.
So to return to the Euthyphro
dilemma. God's commands
through the Divine Law are ways
of illuminating what is in fact
morally acceptable and not what
determines what is morally
acceptable. Aquinas rejects the
Divine Command Theory.
COMMON STUDENT
MISTAKES
 Thinking that Aquinas is a
Divine Command Theorist.
 Thinking that Eternal Law is
something that God decided
to write.
 Thinking that Natural Laws
are laws of science-e.g. law
of thermodynamics.
 Thinking that all the "laws"
are absolute.
 Thinking that it is always
morally required of us to
follow secondary precepts.
 Thinking that Aquinas is
committed to there being only
precepts for all people in all
situations set of secondary
precepts for all people in all
situations.
25