GEC 7: General Ethics

1. Title of the Module

Chapter 1: Basic Concepts in Ethics

2. Introduction
This chapter provides key ethical terms and concepts that recur throughout the
other chapters of the course. It is recommended that you study this chapter before
attempting to move further on the other chapters as it provides useful knowledge and
understanding of those significant terms and concepts.

3. Learning Outcomes
At the end of this chapter, the student is expected to:
a. differentiate ethics from morality;
b. distinguish between moral and non-moral standards;
c. detect a moral dilemma;
d. identify the three levels of moral dilemmas; and
e. explain freedom as a foundation of morality.

4. Learning Content
Topics for Chapter 1
Topic 1: Ethics and Morality
Topic 2: Moral vs Non-moral Standards
Topic 3: What are Moral Dilemmas?
Topic 4: Freedom as a Foundation of Morality

5. Teaching and Learning Activities

a. Activity Sheets: These are questions or activities in the module. Students
place their answers or perform the specific activity or activities to be
submitted for checking and recording.
b. Textual Reading: It is just what it says it is – read a given article from a journal
or part of a book but this involves analysis or scrutiny of the text, looking at
what you read in detail rather than superficially. All kinds of information
can be gleaned from a text – from its literal meaning to the subtext,
symbolism, assumptions, and values it reveals.
c. Discussion: It is the action or process of talking about something in order to
reach a decision or to exchange ideas on a face-to-face or online platform.
It may also refer to a detailed treatment of a particular topic in speech or
writing.
d. Video Clip/Power Point Presentation: No explanation needed! Just download
the links provided in the module and do your homework.

6. Recommended learning materials and resources for supplementary reading

De Guzman, Jens Micah, et al. (2018). Ethics: Principles of ethical behavior in

modern society. Philippines: MUTYA Publishing House, Inc.
 Ezra, Ovadia. (2006). Moral Dilemmas in real life: Current issues in applied
ethics. The Netherlands: Springer.
Rachel, James and Stuart Rachels. (2018). Elements of moral philosophy, 9th
ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.

7. Flexible Teaching Learning Modality (FTLM) adopted

Modular Distance Learning (MDL) – Module
Online Distance Learning (ODL) – VideoCon/Google Classroom,
Email, Messenger, Zoom

8. Assessment Task

a. Reflection Paper: A reflection paper is a chance for students to add their

thoughts and analysis to what they have read and experienced. It is meant to
illustrate their understanding of the material and how it affects their ideas and
possible practice in the future. For proper guidance in writing a reflection
paper, they may download on this site:
https://www.iirp.edu/pdf/IIRP-Reflection-Tip_Sheet.pdf

b. Reaction Paper: Reaction or response papers are designed so that students

will consider carefully what they think or feel about something they have read
or seen. For proper guidance in writing a reaction paper, they may download
on this site:
http://web.mnstate.edu/robertsb/313/Reaction%20paper%201.pdf

c. Module Exercises: These are exercises or quizzes provided in the module

where students complete the task as a form of self-assessment. These
exercises may be in the form of true/false, identification, multiple choice,
modified true/false, fill in the blank, matching type and essay. It may also
include preparing a power point presentation or others as may be instructed by
their professor.

d. Home work: A homework assignment is a set of tasks assigned to students by

their professor to be completed outside the classroom.

e. Situation Analysis: This is basically the process of critically evaluating the

internal and external conditions that affect those who are involved in a certain
situation. Students will identify the current opportunities and challenges of
those involved. A good research is involved. This in turn helps with devising a
strategy to move forward from their current situation to your desired outcome.

Situation analysis helps students define the nature and scope of a problem;
identify the current strategies and activities in place to overcome the problem;
understand the opinions and experiences of stakeholders; helps give a
comprehensive view of the current situation of those involved whether directly
or indirectly; helps detect the gaps between the current state and desired
 state; provides information necessary to create a plan to get to reach the
goals; helps identify the best courses of action to take; helps make sure that
efforts and actions are not repeated and wasted unnecessarily.

MODULE CONTENT

Topic 1: Ethics and Morality

Nominal Duration: 1.5 hours

Learning Outcomes:
Upon completion of this topic, the student must be able to:
1. distinguish Ethics from Morality;
2. explain the difference of good from right; and
3. explain the implications of following rules.

Introduction

Ethics (Greek ethika, from ethos, “character,” “custom”), principles or standards

of human conduct, sometimes called morals (Latin mores, “customs”), and, by
extension, the study of such principles, sometimes called moral philosophy. From the
etymology of ethics and morality, they both speak of character and a customary way of
doing good/bad and right/wrong. Custom refers to tradition or community habit. Hence,
it is something a community of persons always does in a particular way; a way a person
or community usually or routinely behaves in a particular situation. According to Gaffney
(1979), the difference is basically between the realm of theory and the realm of practice.
Ethics refers to a set of ideas, principles or convictions determining what one considers
right and wrong in moral conduct, whereas morality refers to practical behavior as
judged according to someone’s ideas about right and wrong. Ethics points to how one
thinks about right and wrong and morality points to actual conduct with respect to its
rightness or wrongness. At the outset, ethics and morality have somehow almost a
comparable meaning, although ethics is sometimes limited to the concern for the
individual character and morality to the rules concerning good and bad. For the purpose
of this course, both ethics and morality will be used interchangeably while keeping in
mind the distinction to avoid a category error.

According to Meacham (2011), the primary task of ethics, or morality, is to guide

one’s actions. To guide one’s actions may seem obviously easy. Any person in general,
through the rule of thumb, would readily distinguish what is good from what is bad, and
what is right from what is wrong. A striking problem arises when an individual could
hardly make a fine line distinction between what is good from what is right. This is
because what is right does not necessarily mean that it is good, and vice versa, what is
good does not necessarily mean that it is right. In other words, there are many ways of
thinking about ethics whose focuses are on whether specific actions are good or bad, or
right or wrong. They help an individual decide what should be done in a particular case
or class of cases, or evaluate the actions that a person has done.

Meacham (2011) describes two ways of thinking about ethics, which manifest
themselves as two clusters of concepts and language, or domains of discourse, used to
recommend or command specific actions or habits of character: they are called the
good and the right (The subsequent discussion was availed with a special permission
from the author).

The Good and the Right

The good has to do with achievement of goals; the right, with laws and rules. The
goodness paradigm recognizes that people have desires and aspirations, and frames
values in terms of what enables a being to achieve its ends. The rightness paradigm
recognizes that people live in groups that require organization and regulations, and
frames values in terms of duty and conformance to rules. Goodness and rightness “are
not complementary portions of the moral field but alternative ways of organizing the
whole field to carry out the tasks of morality.”

Another approach, virtue ethics, focuses on qualities of character and motives for
action. Within Virtue Ethics the distinction between the good and the right is also
applicable. Questions about what sort of character traits one should cultivate can be
answered on the basis either of what is good or of what is right. Compassion and insight
are typical goodness virtues, and a disposition of conscientious obedience is a typical
rightness virtue.

The good and the right each have their area of applicability; they often get
confused and students need to know the difference so that errors in ethical judgements
are avoided.

The Good

What is good has to do with benefits. Something that benefits something or

someone else is called good for that thing or person. We can think of this instrumentally
or biologically. Instrumentally, an android phone is good for sending emails, sending
and receiving text messages, watching movies, playing online and offline games,
shopping and many other activities; what is good for the phone is what enables it to do
so well. Biologically, air, water, and food are good for living beings.

Instrumentally, what is good for a thing enables that thing to serve its purpose.
To make sense, an instrumental usage of the term “good” requires reference to
somebody’s purpose or intention. Thus, all products of technologies are good for
students, professionals, businessmen and everybody in this fast-paced environment for
so many reasons. We want the comfort and utility they afford us. The instrumental
usage is expressed in terms of usefulness, of utility for achieving a purpose or intention.
Some gadgets are better than others in that they have better and updated software and
applications and thus can be used more effectively and efficiently.

The instrumental usage leads to the biological usage. Why is it good for human
beings to have comfort and utility? It is because comfort and utility nourish us and keep
us alive. Unlike the instrumental usage, the biological usage does not require reference
to conscious purpose or intention.

The biological usage is expressed in terms of health and well-being. Biologically,

what is good for an organism is what helps it survive and thrive, what nourishes it.
Some things are better for us than others in this respect. For instance, a diet of whole
grains and vegetables is better, in the sense of providing better health for humans, than
a diet of simple carbohydrates and fats. Another example: some plants need full
sunlight to thrive, and others need shade; thus full sunlight is good for the former, and
shade is good for the latter. The good, in this sense, is that which enables a thing to
function well.

The instrumental usage intersects the biological when we consider what is good
for something that is itself good for a purpose or intention. For instance, keeping one’s
clothes clean and taken cared of from dirt is good for the clothes; if they get too dirty or
tattered easily to provide a good impact on your personality, they are not useful as
clothes. So we can talk about what is good for the clothes in a way that is analogous to
what is good for a living being. The good, in this sense also, is that which enables a
thing to function well.

The approach to ethics that emphasizes goodness is called the teleological

approach, from a Greek word, telos, which means “end”, “purpose”, or “goal”.
Biologically, what is good for an organism helps that organism survive and thrive.
Instrumentally, what is good for a thing enables that thing to serve its purpose.

Just as good is defined in relation to an end, the value of the end is defined in
relation to another end. For instance, a hammer is good for driving nails. Driving nails is
good for, among other things, building houses. We build houses to have shelter and
warmth. And we desire shelter and warmth because they sustain our life. This chain of
goods and ends stretches in both directions from wherever we arbitrarily start looking.

This approach is also sometimes called a consequentialist approach or an effect-

oriented approach because both usages give meaning to the term “good” by reference
to the consequences or effects of an action or event. That whole grains are good for
humans means that the effect of eating them is healthful. That a cellphone is good for
faster communication means that using it for that purpose is likely to have the effect you
want.

The Goodness approach to ethics uses the terms “good” and “bad” and their
variants and synonyms to evaluate actions, things, people, states of affairs, etc., as well
as maxims or guidelines for conduct. Some synonyms for “good” in this context are
“helpful,” “nourishing,” “beneficial,” “useful” and “effective.” Some synonyms for “bad”
are their opposites: “unhelpful,” “unhealthy,” “damaging,” “useless” and “ineffective.”

There are degrees of goodness and its opposite, badness. That some plants
need full sunlight to thrive and others need shade means that full sunlight is good for the
former and not so good for the latter.

An ethics – a set of moral principles or values – based on goodness applied to

concerns about choices between courses of action will ask questions about the
anticipated or hoped-for benefits of one course of action as opposed to another. An
ethics based on goodness applied to concerns about character will ask questions about
the anticipated or hoped-for effects on one’s habitual way of approaching life of one
course of action as opposed to another.

The Right

What is right has to do with conformance to rules or regulations. This is easy to

see in non-ethical situations. For instance, the right answer to “9 divided by 3” is 3. We
apply a mathematical rule, the rule for how to do long division, and derive the right, or
correct, answer. In ethical situations, we apply a moral rule to determine what the right
course of action is. If one finds a wallet with some money in it and the owner's
identification as well, the right thing to do is to return the money to the owner because it
is wrong to keep something that does not belong to one, especially if one knows who
the owner is. The moral rule in this case is “it is wrong to keep something that does not
belong to you.”

The approach to ethics that emphasizes rightness is called the deontological

approach, from a Greek word, deon, that means “duty.” A person does her duty when
she acts according to the moral rules. We could also call this a rules-based approach.
(By “rules” we mean prescribed guides for conduct, not generalizations that describe
physical reality, such as the laws of nature).

According to the deontological approach, an action is justified on the basis of a

quality or characteristic of the act itself, regardless of its consequences. That
characteristic is its conformance to a rule. Morality is concerned with identifying and
obeying moral rules. It is right to obey the rules and wrong to disobey them. Any
particular act can be judged right or wrong according to whether and to what extent it
conforms to the moral rules. A central concern, then, is to identify the rules so one can
make sure one is acting in accordance with them. Once the rules are established, all
one needs to do in order to be moral is to do one's duty, which is to act in accordance
with the rules.
 The language associated with this school uses the terms “right” and “wrong” to
evaluate actions. Some synonyms for “right” are “proper,” “legal” and “correct.” Some
synonyms for “wrong” are “improper,” “illegal” and “incorrect.”

The problem, of course, is how to determine the moral rules. Humans seem to
have an innate sense of morality, of right and wrong; but, notoriously, the actual set of
rules they espouse varies from culture to culture. Although many people unreflectively
adopt the rules taught them by their parents, teachers, religious leaders and culture, the
task of philosophy is to provide a rational grounding for one’s choice of what rules to
follow. Philosophers have proposed numerous ways of determining what the rules are,
such as divine command, the dictates of pure reason, and using an intuitive moral
sense to apprehend an unseen but existent world of values. So far, there is no
agreement on which of these is correct.

The primary meaning of “right” in an ethical context is conformance to moral

rules. There are a number of other uses of the term “right” in addition to conformance to
moral rules, such as the following:

1) Correct, truthful, as in “the right answer.” This implies that rightness is exclusive, that
there is one right answer or opinion and that others are wrong.
2) The best possible option or a very good option, as in “the right choice.” This also
implies exclusivity, but is problematic. Often one does not need to do what is best.
Sometimes one only needs to do something good enough to get a useful response,
a response that gives feedback so one can further hone one’s strategy, one’s
response to what is happening.
3) Fitting, appropriate, in harmony with the way things are. This sense is more akin to
the goodness paradigm. It asserts an aesthetic component of rightness, as when
one artistically puts an element of a composition in “the right place.”
4) What the speaker approves of or assumes people generally approve of. This is an
uncritical usage and is the least useful.

Confusion between the Good and the Right

All too often people confuse the notions of good and right. Both concepts apply to
what one should do, and often the debate is really about persuading someone to act in
a certain way. Clarity of language and conceptual rigor seem to be less important than
rhetoric. Here is an example on iPhones and android phones: “Some phones are
problematic to unsuspecting consumers. We certainly respect companies’ desires to
protect their products, but the whole thing has become a mess. You want to install some
very important applications, and guess what, they do not work as they should, and you
have to ask help from a lot of people to make them work, and worst you are paralyzed
of an activity if they do not totally function well. That's just wrong.”

This argument quoted is partly in terms of the effects of some phones on

unsuspecting consumers – they have to jump through hoops, and doing so is
undesirable – and partly in terms of some unstated moral rule.
 Here is another example: “With the glaring poverty being experienced by almost
all Filipinos including average families, both the senate and congress should be figuring
out more ways for poor families to have foods on their table and eat three times a day.
Unfortunately, it appears both the TRAIN Law and Rice Tariffication Law have found
their way to stab the poor and send them to their graves alive. That is wrong ....” “With
the Balik Probinsya Program of the government on this pandemic, a lot of locally
stranded individuals in the National Capital Region (NCR) are transporting the Corona
Virus to the provinces thereby deliberately spreading the virus. That is a wrong …”

Again one does not need to understand TRAIN Law or Rice Tariffication Law to
understand what the remark is pointing but then says “That is wrong” as if the lack of
benefits of TRAIN Law or Rice Tariffication Law is what caused it to be wrong. It is the
same way with the remark on the Balik Probinsya Program of the government.

It is this way of using “right” and “wrong” – to express emphatically one’s

approval or disapproval – that leads some thinkers to assert that moral discourse is
actually meaningless and merely expresses the speaker’s preference or the speaker’s
attempt to influence someone else’s behavior.

Why It Matters

If someone says something is good, one can always ask “good for what?” If
someone says something is right, one can always ask “according to what rule?” The two
domains of discourse really are separate, and it is not useful to mix them. Mixing them
is a form of category error, that is, an error “by which a property is ascribed to a thing
that could not possibly have that property.” That something has good effects does not
make it right. That something is in accordance with a moral rule does not make it good.

Implication to Following Rules

Rules are not just sufficient but rather necessary to social beings in the
promotion of the common good in every society. Making the distinction between good
and right is important because it promotes clarity of thought and allows an individual to
assess oneself and understand why rules have to be followed. It does not mean,
however, that clarity of language is a necessary condition for clarity of thought, but it
certainly helps. The clearer one’s thinking, the more likely one is to follow rules.
Accurate thinking based on accurate perception leads to accuracy of action, action that
leads to attainment of one’s goals.
Topic 2: Moral versus Non-Moral Standards

Nominal Duration: 1.5 hours

Learning Outcomes:
Upon completion of this topic, the student must be able to:
1. differentiate Moral from Non-moral standards;
2. cite the metaphors for moral standards; and
3. explain the characteristics of moral standards.

Introduction

Moral Standards are principles, norms or models an individual or a group has

about what is right or wrong, what is good or bad. It is an indication of how human
beings ought to exercise their freedom. Norms are expressed as general rules about
our actions or behaviors. Some examples are: “Take responsibility for your actions”;
“Always tell the truth”; “Treat others as you want to be treated”; “It is wrong to kill
innocent people”. Values are underlying beliefs and ideals that are expressed as
enduring beliefs or statements about what is good and desirable or not. Some examples
are: “Honesty is good”; “Injustice is bad.” Moral Standards are a combination of norms
and values. They are the norms about the kinds of actions believed to be morally right
or wrong, as well as, the values placed on what we believe to be morally good and
morally bad. In other words, they point us towards achievable ideals (De Guzman,
2018).

What moral standards do? First, they promote human welfare or well-being;
second, they promote the “good” (animals, environment, and future generations); and
third, they prescribe what humans ought to do in terms of a.) Rights (responsibilities to
society); and b.) Obligations (specific values/virtues).

Non-Moral or Conventional Standards are standards by which we judge what is

good or bad and right or wrong in a non-moral way. Some examples are: good or bad
manners, etiquettes, house rules, technical standards in building structures, rules of
behavior set by parents, teachers, other authorities, the law, standards of grammar or
language, standards of art, rules of sports, and judgments on the way to do things.
Hence, we should not confuse morality with etiquette, law, and aesthetics or even with
religion. As we can see, non-moral standards are matters of taste or preference. Hence,
a scrupulous observance of these types of standards does not make an individual a
moral person. Violation of said standards also does not pose any threat to human well-
being.
 Some individuals may have heard the term “Amoral” (n.d). What makes this word
different from the descriptions above? It means not influenced by right and wrong. If a
person who is immoral acts against his conscience, a person who is amoral does not
have a conscience to act against in the first place. Infants could be said to be amoral
since they have not yet developed a mature mind to understand right and wrong. Some
extreme sociopaths are also amoral, since they lack a conscience as a result of a
cognitive disorder. In other words, an immoral person has a sense of right and wrong
but fails to live up to those moral standards. An amoral person has no sense of right and
wrong and does not recognize any moral standard.

Another word that needs clarification is the adjective “Unmoral” (n.d.). It refers to
something to which right and wrong are not applicable, such as animals, forces of
nature, and machines. For example, Typhoons cause damages to properties and loss of
lives but they are unmoral, since they are formed by unconscious natural processes that
exist outside the bounds of morality. When talking about non-moral agents, such as
animals or weather patterns, we use unmoral.

“Moral norms” (n.d.) have different forms. They can be expressed as principles,
dispositions, character traits, and even through the life of a person. These are different
ways of specifying criteria for moral judgments.

Metaphors for Moral Standards

1. Carpenter’s Square
Moral norms are like a carpenter’s square used to measure human freedom and
construct morally good character and right actions. Moral norms are standards or
criteria for judging and acting. Its purpose is first, to provide moral standards, criteria, or
measures for judging; and second is to guide one’s conscience in making moral
judgments.

2. Moral Road Signs

Moral road signs are guides to being and doing; they are indications or directions
to types of actions that are right or wrong, obligatory or permitted. Its purpose is to
preserve and protect moral goods and values by guiding us; and to focus our attention
on what is morally important.

3. A Model for an Art Class

Moral norms are ideals indicating who we ‘ought’ to become and what we ought
to do. They are models and patterns for how to do so. Hence, the purposes of moral
norms are to provide models to help us concretize our values and realize our ideals,
and to prioritize our values and help us to fit them with our circumstances.

4. An Architect’s Blueprint for a Building

Moral norms are a set of instructions and expectations for the moral life. Their
purposes are: to teach moral wisdom of a community and serve as moral reminders of
communal wisdom; and, to set moral expectation that shape how we see and act.
Five Characteristics of Moral Standards

1. Involved with serious injuries or benefits

They deal with situations, conditions and behaviors we think can seriously injure
or significantly benefit the well-being and the good of human beings, animals and the
environment. Some examples are fraud, theft, murder, assault, rape, slander, etc…

2. Not established by law or legislature

Moral standards are not formed or changed by the decision of particular
authoritative bodies such as the senate or congress or even the college of bishops of
the Church. The validity of these moral standards lies on the adequacy of the reasons
that are taken to support and justify them. We do not need a law to back up our moral
conviction that killing innocent people is absolutely wrong.

3. Overriding
They should be preferred to other values including self-interest. If a person has a
moral obligation to do something, then the person ought to do that even if this conflicts
with other non-moral values or self-interest. At work, for instance, moral values of
honesty and respect for lives come first rather than compromising them for keeping a
well-paid job.

4. Based on impartial considerations

Moral standards do not evaluate on the basis of the interest of one particular
individual or group but one that goes beyond personal interests to a universal
standpoint in which everyone’s interest are objectively counted as equal.

5. Associated with special emotions and vocabulary

Emotions such as guilt and shame, and vocabulary such as right, wrong, good
and bad revolve around moral standards. The feeling of guilt, shame and remorse arise
as an individual acts contrary to certain moral standards. If your heart and mind tell you
an action you have done had an unsettling and seemingly disconcerting ending, then
the action was probably morally wrong and not the best way to react. For example: A
young man helps an old lady to cross the street in order to impress the ladies on the
other side of the road but then he feels guilty about it when he reflects on what he just
did.
Topic 3: Moral Dilemmas

Nominal Duration: 1.5 hours

Learning Outcomes:
Upon completion of this topic, the student must be able to:
1. recognize and recall a moral experience;
2. detect a moral dilemma; and
3. give examples of the three levels of moral dilemmas.

Introduction

A dilemma is a situation in which a difficult choice has to be made between two

or more alternatives, especially equally undesirable ones. It is a conflict in which you
have to choose between two or more actions and have moral reasons for choosing
each action.

1) An individual is presented with two or more actions, all of which the individual has the
ability to perform.
2) There are moral reasons for the individual to choose each of the actions.
3) The individual cannot perform all of the actions and have to choose which action, or
actions to perform when there are three or more choices.

Since there are moral reasons to choose each action, and the individual cannot
choose them all, it follows that no matter what choice the individual makes, he or she
will be failing to follow his or her morals. In other words, someone or something will
suffer no matter what choice he or she makes.

Three Levels of Moral Dilemmas

1. Individual Moral Dilemma

This is a moral dilemma that involves the individual on a personal level. Factors
such as personal health issues, family issues, personal financial issues, peer pressures
and socio-economic issues among many others may lead to ethical tensions within the
person himself. Example: A child in the family is in a dilemma whether to donate his
kidney for the sake of his sister or not considering that there may be some health
complications that may arise in the future.

2. Organizational Moral Dilemma

This is a moral conflict that occurs in the organization or institution where
individuals within the organization will face the dilemma of personal choices against the
working ethics of the organization or institution. Example: a network administrator who
found out about the infidelity of his best friend’s wife through her emails is in a dilemma
whether to inform his best friend about it or not considering the policy of the company
on personal emails. Other examples may be found in businesses, scholarship policies,
medical field, and employment discriminations among others.

3. Systemic Moral Dilemma

This is a moral dilemma that occurs at a macro level. Factors such as political
pressures, economic conditions, societal attitudes, government regulations and policies
may bring about a moral dilemma. These factors affect operations and relationships
which drives an impact to the people, the market, the workplace and others on a local,
national and international level. Examples are death penalty, Contractualization, War on
Drugs Program of the Government, RH Law….
Topic 4: Freedom as a Foundation of Ethics

Nominal Duration: 1.5 hours

Learning Outcomes:
Upon completion of this topic, the student must be able to:
1. explain freedom as an essential characteristic of ethics;
2. explain the moral dimension; and
3. identify other basic foundations of morality.

Introduction

Why do matters of right/wrong and good/bad need a foundation? What difference

would a foundation make? Let’s consider these comments from someone: “I am going
to obey my conscience regardless of whether it is or it is not grounded in any
foundation. I am going to obey it even if some reliable foundation tells me not to. Even if
a god suddenly appears and tells me to do something that my conscience won’t let me
do, I am not doing it. So, where did this conscience come from? How about if a person’s
conscience contradicts the conscience of another individual?

The comment above leads us to the question of choice, freedom or liberty and
decision. It also leads to the question of end.

Freedom or liberty may be described as the power or right to act, speak or think
as one wants without hindrance or restraint. But this power is not absolute. It has
limitations. “Great power comes with great responsibility.” Imagine the world if there is
no limit to freedom and no appeal for responsibility. When one changes the question
from “what do I want to do?” to “what do I ought to do?”, all moral acts become clearer
and point to freedom of choice. There is the invocation for people to use their freedom
in way that they won’t harm anyone including animals, plants and the whole of nature, to
not abuse their freedom and to give limitation to it. The exercise of freedom to act
morally liberates us from our selfish passions and desires. If we are not free in making
decisions, then the ethical value of our decisions are questionable.

Kant points to freedom as the autonomy or self-determination of rational beings.

This type of freedom plays a crucial role in the ethical journey of each individual, of
societies and humanity as a whole. Our everyday choices allow us to pursue our goals
that in a way enable us to live well and pursue the kind of human beings we ought to be.
We want to be virtuous by choice, for example, because reason and experience
teaches us that there is no fulfillment in life if we are coerced to live a life that we do not
like. There is no true happiness from slavery within. Human potential and creativity
flourishes when there is liberty.
Freedom has a Moral Dimension

1. The moral dimension belongs to the realm of human freedom.

The act or conduct that is not the result of free choice is without moral quality.
Morality relates to what we are accountable for. Freedom is not just about what we can
do but also about what we must do. It does not follow that just because we can do
something so we must do it.

2. The moral dimension refers to the concern for the good and happy life.
Moral philosophy claims an essential connection between goodness and
happiness. The moral dimension is concerned with defining ultimate goal of man or
what constitutes his happiness. The path to being happy is the way of goodness.

3. The moral dimension speaks to our sense of moral responsibility.

The moral dimension pertains to what freedom entails – the freedom to commit –
and the limits that the freedom of others imposes on our own. The moral dimension is
about developing the skills for sound decision making based on ethical principles.

Basic Foundations of Morality (n.d.)

1) Harm/Care
This is related to our long evolution as mammals with attachment systems and
an ability to feel (and dislike) the pain of others. This foundation underlies virtues of
kindness, gentleness, and nurturance. This foundation makes us sensitive to signs of
suffering and need. In order to maximize care and minimize harm, we enact laws that
protect the vulnerable. We punish people who are cruel and we care for those in
suffering.

2) Fairness/Reciprocity
This is related to the evolutionary process of reciprocal altruism. This foundation
generates ideas of justice, rights, and autonomy. This foundation leads us to seek out
people who will be good collaborators in whatever project we are pursuing. It also leads
us to punish people who cheat the system. People on both the right and the left believe
in fairness, but they apply this foundation in different ways. Haidt explains: “On the left,
fairness often implies equality, but on the right it means proportionality – people should
be rewarded in proportion to what they contribute, even if that guarantees unequal
outcomes.”

3) In-group/Loyalty
This is related to our long history as tribal creatures that are able to form shifting
coalitions. This foundation underlies virtues of patriotism and self-sacrifice for the group.
It is active anytime people feel that it’s “one for all, and all for one.” We love the people
on our team, and loyalty makes our team more powerful and less susceptible to our
failure. Likewise, we have a corresponding hatred for traitors. Those who betray our
“team” for the other side are worse than those who were already on the other side.
4) Authority/Respect
This is shaped by our long primate history of hierarchical social interactions. This
foundation underlies virtues of leadership and followership, including deference to
legitimate authority and respect for traditions. Authority plays a role in our moral
considerations because it protects order and fends off chaos. “Everyone has a stake in
supporting the existing order and in holding people accountable for fulfilling the
obligations of their station.”

5) Purity/Sanctity
This is shaped by the psychology of disgust and contamination. This foundation
underlies religious notions of striving to live in an elevated, less carnal, nobler way. It
underlies the widespread idea that the body is a temple which can be desecrated by
immoral activities and contaminants (an idea not unique to religious traditions). No
matter the era, humans have always considered certain things “untouchable” for being
dirty and polluted. The flipside is that we want to protect whatever is hallowed and
sacred, whether objects, ideals, or institutions.

6) The Liberty/Oppression Foundation

This foundation builds on Authority/Subversion because we all recognize there is
such a thing as legitimate authority, but we don’t want authoritarians crossing the line
into tyranny. Oppression is hated and liberty desired. It is liberty for the underdogs and
liberty from intrusion.

Concluding reflection on freedom: Whether morality is subjective, objective or a

social construct, they all point to one thing: the individual is a choice-maker. A believer
makes a choice; and so with the non-believer; and members of society make their own
choices. The individual’s freedom is essential to any levels of morality. Hence, human
freedom is the primal foundation of morality.