Ethics PPT For Re-Echo Training

ALEX SABALZA COMPAS
CLASSROOM NORMS
• No use of cellular phone and other gadgets inside the classroom
• No eating inside the classroom
• No cheating during exams
• Ask permission when going out of the room
• Don’t make unnecessary noise
• Don’t do assignments in the classroom when our class is about to start.
• Bring your own yellow pad and short bond paper.
• Use green book during major exams.
GRADING SYSTEM
• Major Written Exams

(prelims, midterms, semi-finals, finals) - 40%
• Written Output
(research report/projects/portfolio) - 30%
• Progressive Assessment
(quiz, reporting, role play, homework, others) - 30%
• Total 100%
CLASSROOM POLICIES
a. Attendance
• Regular attendance of classes is required. A student who incurs more
than 20% of unexcused absences in a semester will be
dropped from the rolls. If an absence is foreseeable, the student is
required to advise the instructor on such so that arrangements can be
made for any make up work. Although, attendance per se is not
given a grade equivalent, it will have a bearing on participation in
class activities and/or group presentations that will be graded. A
student who miss a class is responsible for the lessons taken up and
are not excused on any work assigned for a particular class session.
CLASSROOM POLICIES
Submission of Assessment Tasks (Student Outputs)
b.Should be on time; late submittal of coursework’s will not be
accepted, or where there is a valid justification, its acceptance is
upon the faculty discretion subject to reasonable grade penalties.
c. Major Examination (Long Quiz or major exams)
• Will be administered as scheduled. No special exam will be
given unless with a valid reason subject to the approval of the
Dean of the College.
CLASSROOM POLICIES
d. Course Portfolio
• Is required and will be collected at the end of the semester.
Lost documents will not be given due credit.
e. Language of Instruction
• Lectures, discussion, and documentation will be in English
except in Filipino Subjects.
CLASSROOM POLICIES
f. Academic Integrity
• Cheating during examination, copying another student’s
assignment & report, submission of reports copied from other
sources/ materials (plagiarism) are strictly prohibited. Anyone
caught guilty of any or all of these violations will be sanctioned
according to what is provided for in the Student’s Handbook.
CLASSROOM POLICIES
g. Wearing of prescribed uniform and ID/ Dress and

Grooming Codes
• Wearing of the official prescribed uniform and ID inside the
University must be strictly observed from Monday to Thursday.
Fridays and Saturdays are considered wash day, thus, proper
dress code and grooming is a requirement.
CLASSROOM POLICIES
.h.Grave misconduct
• Any form of disrespect to your teacher or to others will not be
tolerated and is meted corresponding sanction.
i. Consultation Schedule
• Consultation schedules with the Instructor are posted at the
Faculty Office. It is recommended that the student avail of
these services by setting an appointment to confirm the
instructor’s availability.
PART ONE
THE MEANING OF ETHICS
THE ETHICAL DIMENSION OF HUMAN
EXISTENCE
WEEK TOPICS INTENDED LEARNING TEACHING- ASSESSMENT TASK
OUTCOMES (ILO) LEARNING (AT)
ACTIVITIES (TLA)
2 Value  Demonstrate knowledge and  Lecture/Discussion  Submission and
understanding of ethics and other presentation of a
related concepts using graphic  Class Activity graphic
organizer.  Case Study organizer/concept
map showing the
 Define and explain the terms that concept “ETHICS” as
are relevant to ethical thinking. the main idea and
 Evaluate the difficulties that are other related
involved to maintaining certain concepts.
commonly- held notions on ethics. (Rubric)
GOAL: to discriminate moral from
non-moral standards
Role: mayor
Audience: employees
Situation: Conference
Performance; Short Talk
Standards: Analizing
VALUE
Class Activity: Classify the following norms/standards in the appropriate box.
- truth telling - traffic rules - table manners
- norms of grammar - art criteria - basketball rules
Moral Standards Non-Moral Standards

VALUE
ANALYSIS
How were you able to ascertain the norms to be moral or non-moral?
Ethics is about matters such as the good thing that we should pursue and the bad thing that
we should avoid; the right ways in which we could or should act and the wrong ways of
acting.
It is about what is acceptable or unacceptable in human behaviour.
It may involve obligations that we are expected to fulfil, prohibitions that we are required to
respect, or ideals that we are encouraged to meet.
VALUE
ABSTRACTION
Recognizing the notions of good and bad, right or wrong, are the primary concerns of ethics.
CLARIFICATIONS
1. MORAL STANDARDS and NON-MORAL STANDARDS
Moral Standards – The norms about the kinds of actions believed to be morally right
and wrong as well as the values placed on the kinds of objects believed to be morally good
and morally bad.
“Always tell the truth.” “It is wrong to kill innocent people.”
“ Honesty is good.” “ Injustice is bad.”
VALUE
Non-Moral Standards – The standards by which we judge what is good or bad and
right or wrong in a non-moral way.
 Etiquette – standards by which we judge manners as good or bad.
 Law – standards by which we judge legal right and wrong.
Language – standards by which we judge what is grammatically right and wrong.
Aesthetics – standards by which we judge good and bad art.
Athletics – standards by which we judge how well a game is being played.
Nota Bene: We recognize that there are instances when we make value judgments that
are not considered to be part of ethics.
VALUE
2. ETHICS and MORALS
Morals – specific beliefs or attitudes that people have or to describe acts that people
perform.
Ethics – the discipline of studying and understanding human behaviour and ideal
ways of thinking.
Nota Bene. The terms “ethical” and “moral,” “ethics” and “morality” will be used
interchangeably.
3. DESCRIPTIVE AND NORMATIVE
Descriptive – an investigation/study that attempts to describe or explain the world
without reaching any conclusions about whether the world is as it should be.
Anthropologists/Sociologists ask, “Do Filipinos believe that bribery is wrong?”
They don’t aim to determine whether these moral standards are correct or incorrect.
VALUE
3. DESCRIPTIVE AND NORMATIVE
Descriptive – an investigation/study that attempts to describe or explain the world without

reaching any conclusions about whether the world is as it should be.
Anthropologists/Sociologists ask, “Do Filipinos believe that bribery is wrong?” They don’t aim
to determine whether these moral standards are correct or incorrect.
Normative – an investigation that attempts to reach conclusions about what things are good or bad
or about what actions are right or wrong.
Ethicists ask, “Is bribery wrong?” They are concerned with developing reasonable normative
claims and theories.
Nota Bene: “ A philosophical discussion of ethics goes beyond recognizing the characteristics of some
descriptive theory; also, it does not simply accept as correct any normative theory. A philosophical
discussion of ethics must involve critiquing the strength and weaknesses of these theories.
VALUE
Normative – an investigation that attempts to reach conclusions about what things
are good or bad or about what actions are right or wrong.
Ethicists ask, “Is bribery wrong?” They are concerned with developing reasonable
normative claims and theories.
4. ISSUE, DECISION, JUDGMENT, AND DILEMMA
Case: The intense cry of the baby intuitively tells the mother that the baby is hungry. In
all misery, there is no food to eat; not even a single centavo to buy food. In a nearby
“honesty store,” where one could just get items without the presence of a storekeeper, the
mother has the opportunity to steal some food. The mother is conflicted between wanting
to feed her hungry, but then recognizing that it would be wrong for her to steal.
VALUE
- a situation wherein the mother cannot afford to buy food, but then
the possibility presents itself for her to steal. (Moral Issue)
- the mother is placed in a situation and confronted by the choice of
what act to perform. (Moral Decision)
- the mother is torn between choosing one of two goods or choosing
the lesser of two evils.(Moral Dilemma)
Moral Issue – a situation that calls for moral valuation.
Moral Decision – one is placed in a situation and confronted by the choice of what act to
perform.
Moral Dilemma - one is torn between choosing one of two goods or choosing
the lesser of two evils.

SOURCES OF AUTHORITY
WEEK TOPIC INTENDED LEARNING TEACHING-LEARNING ASSESSMENT TASK
OUTCOMES (ILO) ACTIVITIES (TLA) (AT)
3 Sources of • Identify the sources of • Lecture • Critique the sources
Authority authority in making • Discussion of authority in
ethical valuations. • Case Study: The Death of Cris making ethical
• Evaluate the difficulties Anthony Mendez valuation.
that are involved in https://rossanova.wordpress.com/
maintaining certain 2007/08/28hazinhazing-eyed-of-g
commonly-held notions raduating-up-student/
on the sources of
authority in making
ethical valuations.
Is there an ethical authority that influence our moral valuation?
Which ethical authorities should we use to check our moral decisions?
Who can we turn to for authoritative advice on ethics?
SOURCES OF AUTHORITY: EXTERNAL AUTHORITY
MORALITY AND LAW
• People sometimes confuse legality and morality, but they are different things.
On one hand breaking the law is not always or necessarily immoral. On the
other hand, the legality of an action does not guarantee that it is morally right.
1. An action can be illegal but morally right. Helping a Jewish family to hide
from the Nazis was against German law in 1939, but it would have been
morally admirable thing to have done.
 Nonconformity to law is not always immoral. There can be circumstances where,
all things considered, violating the law is morally permissible, perhaps even
morally required.
2. An action that is legal can be morally wrong.
Ex. Contractual hiring. Termination of hired workers after every six months to
avoid job benefits and security of tenure.
• How’s the relationship of law and morality? To a significant extent, law codifies
society’s customs, ideals, norms, and moral values.
• Changes in law tend to reflect changes in what society takes to be right and wrong, but
sometimes changes in the law can alter people’s ideas about the rightness and wrongness
of conduct. Even if society’s laws are sensible and morally sound, it is a mistake to see
them as sufficient to establish the moral standards that should guide us. The law cannot
cover all possible human conduct, and in many situations it is too blunt an instrument to
provide adequate moral guidance.
MORALITY AND RELIGION
• Religion provides its believers with a worldview, part of which involves certain moral
instructions, values, and commitments.
 “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” (The Golden Rule)
 Love, justice, righteousness
Many people believe that morality is based on religion, either in the sense that without religion
people would have no incentive to be moral or in the sense that only religion can provide moral
guidance.
Others contend that morality is based on the commands of God. God is the ultimate authority.
This is called divine command theory – good actions are aligned with the will of God and bad
actions are those contrary to the will of God. The holy books contain God’s directions, we can
use the holy books as moral-decision making guides.
Difficulties:
 Different religious teachings disagree with each other. It is unrealistic to assume a
multicultural society will adopt a religion-based morality.
ex. Christians: one wife at a time. Eat pork.
Islam: can have four wives at a time. Don’t eat pork.
 It is fallacious to equate “the good” with “God.” Religious people are likely to agree with
the statement “God is good.” However, it does not mean that God and “the good” are exactly
the same. To equate two related but different things is called the equivalence fallacy. The
statement “God is good” means there is an objective standard of goodness that God meets
perfectly.
(Ancient question: Plato’s Socratic dialogue Euthyphro) Is an action good because God
commands it, or does God command it because it’s good? In this dialogue Socrates concludes, “ The
gods love piety because it is pious, and it is not pious because the gods love it.” In other words, “the
good” is something that exists outside of God.
“Thou shall not kill.” Is it the case that this is so only because God commanded it, or that killing
is in itself wrong, and that is the reason why God commanded it?
 Morality is not necessarily based on religion. That religion influences the moral standards and
values of most of us is beyond doubt. But given that religions differ in their moral beliefs and that
members of the same faith often disagree on moral matters, you cannot justify a moral judgment
simply by appealing to religion. Besides, most religions hold that human reason is capable of
understanding what is right and wrong, so it is human reason to which you will have to appeal in
order to support your ethical principles and judgment.
MORALITY AND CULTURE
 Does culture influence one’s moral behaviour?
Ex. Eskimos intentionally kill their elderly people, or wives, with the consent of their
husbands, sleep with their male visitors as a gesture of hospitality.
 Cultures differ widely in their moral practices.
 There practices considered morally acceptable in some societies but condemned in
others, including infanticide, genocide, polygamy, racism, sexism, and torture. Such
differences may lead us to question whether there are any universal moral principles or
whether morality is merely a matter of "cultural taste." Differences in moral practices
across cultures raise an important issue in ethics -- the concept of “cultural relativism.“
What is ethically acceptable or unacceptable is relative to, or that is to say, dependent
on one’s culture.
 Cultural Relativism is a theory that holds that morality is relative to the norms of
one's culture. That is, whether an action is right or wrong depends on the moral
norms of the society in which it is practiced. The same action may be morally right
in one society but be morally wrong in another.
 For the ethical relativist, there are no universal moral standards -- standards that
can be universally applied to all peoples at all times. The only moral standards
against which a society's practices can be judged are its own.
If ethical relativism is correct, there can be no common framework for resolving
moral disputes or for reaching agreement on ethical matters among members of
different societies.
THE CASE FOR CULTURAL RELATIVISM

1. Different social contexts demand different moral guidelines (what is acceptable
and what is not).
2. By taking one’s culture as standard, we are provided a basis for our valuations.
3. We are tolerant of others from different cultures. We are in no position to judge
whether the ethical thought or practice of another culture is acceptable or not.
THE CASE AGAINST CULTURAL RELATIVISM
1.(Different societies have different moral codes.) This is true.
• But there are values that all cultures share – truth telling, caring for the young,
prohibition against murder.
• When customs differ, the underlying reason will often have more to do with the factual
beliefs of the cultures than with their values.
2. (It is arrogant for us to judge other cultures. We should always be tolerant of them.)
• There is 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 should not
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.
- apertheid
3. (The moral code of a society determines what is right within that society; that is, if
the moral code of a society says that an action is right, then that action is right, at least
within that society.)
• Let’s take the difference between what a society believes about morals and what is
really true. People might believe a particular moral code of their society is right,
however, that code, and those people, can be in error.
- Nigeria: woman was sentenced to be stoned to death for having had sex
out of wedlock.
• Cultural Relativism holds that society are morally infallible (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.
4. (Culture as a single, clearly defined substance or as something fixed and

already determined.)
• In a globalized world, the notion of a static and well-defined culture gives way to
greater flexibility and integration.
SENSES OF THE SELF: AUTHORITY OF THE
SELF
WEEK TOPIC INTENDED LEARNING TEACHING-LEARNING ASSESSMENT
OUTCOMES (ILO) ACTIVITIES (TLA) TASK (AT)
4 • Senses of the • Identify the sources of • Lecture • Critique the
Self authority in making • Discussion senses of the
ethical valuations. • Case Study: The Death of self in making
• Evaluate the difficulties Cris Anthony Mendez ethical
that are involved in https://rossanova.wordpress.c valuation.
maintaining certain om/2007/08/28hazinhazing-e
commonly-held notions yed-of-graduating-up-student
/
on ethics
SENSES OF THE SELF: AUTHORITY OF THE SELF
SUBJECTIVISM
 is the view that an action is morally right if one approves of it. A person’s approval
makes the action right.
 when a person says that something is morally good or bad, this means that he or she
approves of that thing, or disapproves of it, and nothing more. In other words:
ex. “X is morally acceptable.” “X is right.” This means: “I (the speaker) approve
of X.”
“X is morally unacceptable.” “X is wrong.” This means: “I (the speaker)
disapprove of X.”
Peter: “I do not believe that homosexuality is immoral.”

John: “I believe that homosexuality is immoral.”
Subjectivism: Peter and John are just merely making a statement about their
attitude.
Peter: “I do not disapprove of homosexuality.”
John: “I disapprove of homosexuality.”
There is no disagreement between them; each should acknowledge the truth of
what the other is saying.
 the individual is the sole determinant of what is morally good or bad, right or
wrong.
 Morality is not dependent on society but only on the individual.
 teaches that there are no objective moral truths out there.
“No one can tell me what is right and wrong.”
“No one knows my situation better than myself.”
“I am entitled to my own situation.”
“It is good if I say that it is good.”
 They are appealing because they seem to express a cherished sense of personal
independence.
THE CASE AGAINST SUBJECTIVISM (OBJECTIONS)
1.“No one can tell me what is right and wrong.” This cannot be taken as absolute.
“Cheating is morally acceptable.” “Cheating is not morally acceptable.”
“Cheating is right.” “Cheating is not right.”
“Cheating is good.” “Cheating is not good.”

None of us is infallible. We are sometimes wrong in our evaluation and when we discover
that we are mistaken, we may want to change our judgments. But if subjectivism were
correct, this would be impossible, because it implies that each of us is infallible.
 Subjectivism cannot account for disagreement.

Peter: “I do not believe that homosexuality is immoral.”
John: “ I believe that homosexuality is immoral.”
2. “No one knows my situation better than myself.”

 This leads to a tendency not to listen anymore to others and there is no way
another person can possibly understand him/her and give her a meaningful advice.
3. “I am entitled to my own opinion.” This would seem that one’s opinion is
misconstrued as a right free from criticism and correction. Not all of the times one’s
opinion is morally correct or morally right. To insist one’s own right into having
opinions whatever these happens to be is to exhibit closed-mindedness that rightly
invites censure from someone trying to think more critically about values.
4. “It is good if I say that it is good.” Subjectivism says that moral judgments
describe our personal feelings:
“X is good” means “I like X.”
This view allows us to think for ourselves – since we need not agree with society; it
bases ethics not on what society feels, but on what we personally feel.
Problem: The mere fact that we like something (getting drunk and hurting others)
would make it good. It gives us a weak basis for dealing with areas like racism
( which would be good if I like it). And it tells us to follow our feelings but gives us
no guide on how to develop rational and wise feelings.
PSYCHOLOGICAL EGOISM: A THEORY OF HUMAN MOTIVES

 “Human beings are naturally self-centered, so all our actions are always already
motivated by self-interest”, which is the underlying basis or dynamic behind human
actions or for how one acts.
 We always act within our self-interest. Every action must be motivated by self-interest.
 Act to increase their own good or benefit.
 The ego or self has desires and interests, and all our actions are geared toward
satisfying these interests.
 Humans are naturally selfish. All actions are selfish in nature.
Self-directed behaviour (self-interested) Other-directed behaviour (altruistic)
• I watch a movie • I help a friend with her thesis rather
• I read a book than play videogames.
• I do window shopping
• I make use of my free time helping
• I take a course in college build houses for Gawad Kalinga.
• I join an organization
 We do these things in pursuit of our
 We do these things in pursuit of our own
own self-interest or self-serving desire
self-interest: “I enjoy it.” “It will benefit
even if we do not admit it or even
me.” “I will get some good out of it.”
conscious of it: “To impress her.”
Whether it is self-directed or other-directed
“Relieves her sense of guilt at being
behaviour, or whether or not the person
well-off compared to others.”
admits it, one’s actions are ultimately always
motivated by self-serving desire.
STRENGTHS WEAKNESSES
1. Simplicity – it has a unique appeal to it. 1. We will always do what we want to do. This
It would be pleasing to find a single is flawed. There are things that we do, not
formula that explains human behaviour. because we want to, but because we feel that
we ought to.
2. Plausibility – the self-interest
2. We always do what makes us feel good (self-
(motivation) is behind the person’s
satisfaction). Again, this is flawed. Our desire
action.
to help others often comes first; the good
3. Irrefutability – there is no other way to feelings we may get are merely a by-product.
try to answer it without being My desire to help a drowning child will usually
confronted that there is the self-serving be greater than my desire to avoid a guilty
motive at the root of everything. conscience.
ETHICAL EGOISM
 People ought always to do only what is in their own self-interest.
 We should always act within our own self-interest.Our only duty is to do what
is best for ourselves.
 Other people matter only insofar as they can benefit us.
 This is a dog-eat-dog world, everyone ought to put himself at the center.
 My self is the priority and not allow any other concerns, such as the welfare of
other people, to detract from this pursuit.
THE CASE FOR ETHICAL EGOISM
1. Altruism is self-defeating.
a) We know imperfectly the desires and needs of others. If we are to be “our
brother’s keeper,” we will bungle the job and end up doing more harm than good.
b) The policy of “looking out for others” is an offensive intrusion into other people’s
privacy.
c) Making other people the object of one’s “charity” is degrading to them; it robs
them of their dignity and self-respect.
 We should not adopt altruistic policies. On the contrary, if each person looks after
his/her interests, everyone will be better off.
2. AYN RAND’S ARGUMENT

Altruism leads to a denial of the value of the individual. “His first concern is
not how to live life, but how to sacrifice it.”
THE CASE AGAINST ETHICAL EGOISM
a) Ethical egoism endorses wickedness.
case: A letter carrier was shot seven times by a man because he was ₱ 50M in
debt and thought that being in prison would be better than being homeless.
b) Ethical egoism is logically inconsistent. It is self-contradictory.
ex. A and B mayoralty bets. It is A’s interest to kill B. It is his moral duty to do
so to win the mayoralty race. But it is also true that it is in B’s interest to stay alive. It is
B’s duty to stop A from killing him.
Problem: When B protects himself from A, his act is both wrong and not wrong –
wrong because it prevents A from doing his duty, and not wrong because it is in B’s
interest. But one and the same act cannot be both morally wrong and not morally wrong.
c) Altruism is not self-defeating.
Is the hungry child harmed when we “intrude” into his business by
supplying food?
“We ought to do whatever will best promote everyone’s interests.”
“The best way to promote one’s interests is for each of us to pursue our own
interests exclusively.”
“Therefore, each of us should pursue our own interests exclusively.”
Our ultimate principle is one of beneficence – we are doing what we think
will help everyone, not merely what we think will benefit ourselves.
PART TWO
ETHICAL FRAMEWORKS
ETHICAL FRAMEWORKS
 An Ethical Framework is a set of codes that an individual uses to guide his or

her behaviour.
Ethics are what people use to distinguish right from wrong in the way they
interact with the world.
So based on your moral judgment what you think is the best solution for a
particular problem is moral framework.
Frameworks are there to help us in our ethical decision-making.
ETHICAL FRAMEWORKS
From Chapters II to V, we go in-depth through each one of these frameworks –

Utilitarianism, Natural Law, Deontology, and Virtue Ethics.
We will encounter ethical theories which will serve as frameworks in order to
arrive at an understanding of the different ways that these theories provide us an
avenue of determining ethical valuation.
ETHICAL FRAMEWORKS
TYPES OF ETHICAL THEORIES

1. CONSEQUENTIALIST THEORY –judges the rightness or wrongness
of an action based on the consequences that action has.
- Utilitarian Approach
- The Egoistic Approach
- The Common Good Approach
ETHICAL FRAMEWORKS
2. NON-CONSEQUENTIALIST THEORY – judges the rightness or

wrongness of an action based on properties intrinsic to the action, not on its
consequences.
- Duty-based Approach
- The Rights Approach
- The Fairness or Justice Approach
- The Divine Command Approach
ETHICAL FRAMEWORKS
3. AGENT-CENTERED THEORY – the fundamental object of moral

evaluation is the agent or the person.
 the personal situation of agents, together with their personal desires and
projects, gives rise to genuine moral restrictions and goals.
- Virtue Approach
- Feminist Approach
ETHICAL FRAMEWORKS
FRAMEWORKS FOR ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING

• The Consequentialist Framework
• The Duty Framework
• The Virtue Framework
• The Natural Law Framework
UTILITARIANISM
UTILITARIANISM
 Read silently the introduction in chapter 2.
 Is wiretapping morally permissible or not?
 On what instances is wiretapping morally permissible and on what instances is
it not morally permissible?
UTILITARIANISM
 is an ethical theory that argues for the goodness of pleasure and the
determination of right behaviour based on the usefulness of the action’s
consequences.
 one’s actions and behaviour are good inasmuch as they are directed toward the
experience of the greatest pleasure over pain for the greatest number of persons.
 actions are right if they are useful or for the benefit of the majority.
 the action is right in so far as it promotes happiness, and that the greatest
happiness of the greatest number should be the guiding principle of conduct.
UTILITARIANISM: UTILITY
 Utility (usefulness) refers to the usefulness of the consequences of one’s action
and behaviour.
Utility is “that property in any object, whereby it tends to produce benefit,
advantage, pleasure, good or happiness or to prevent the happening of mischief,
pain, evil or unhappiness to the party whose interest is considered.” (Bentham
1948)
- ex. Wiretapping (though illegal) is permissible because doing so results
in better public safety.
UTILITARIANISM: CONSEQUENCES
 It emphasizes on the consequences of actions.
 determines right from wrong by focusing on outcomes. -
 the moral value of action is based solely or greatly on the usefulness of results
that determines whether the action or behaviour is good or bad.
 it is interested on whether these actions contribute or not to the total amount of
resulting happiness.
 Bentham and Mill value pleasure and happiness.
 Happiness is the experience of pleasure for the greatest number of persons, even
at the expense of some individual’s rights.
THE PRINCIPLE OF UTILITY
Bentham (An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation(1789):
actions are governed by two “sovereign masters” (pleasure and pain)
which help us determine what is good or bad and what ought to be done
and not.by our avoidance of pain and our desire for pleasure.
 Actions should be guided by our avoidance of pain and our desire for
pleasure.
 Pleasure as good if, and only if, they produce more happiness than
unhappiness.
Mill
 Moral good is happiness; happiness is pleasure.
 What makes people happy is intended pleasure and what makes us unhappy is the
privation of pleasure.
 The thing that produce happiness and pleasure are good; those that produce unhappiness
are bad.
 We act and do things because we find them pleasurable; avoid because they are painful.
 Theory of Life: Pleasure and freedom from pain are the only things desirable as ends.
 The principle of utility states that actions or behaviours are right in so far as
they promote happiness or pleasure, wrong as they tend to
produce unhappiness or pain.
 The pursuit of pleasure and the avoidance of pain is the only principle in
assessing an action’s morality.
- wiretapping, alleviating poverty, building schools and hospitals are done to
increase happiness and decrease pain.
Are all pleasures necessarily and ethically good? Is it morally permissible on
utilitarian principles to maximize pleasure by wanton intemperance?
Mill and Bentham have different view.
assesses the moral worth of an action- it being good as far as it promoted

pleasure, and bad as far as it promoted pain.
The right action is one that maximises pleasure and minimises pain.
 Mill took issue with some of the consequences of such a calculus.
For example, its egalitarian nature meant that no particular pleasure was worth
more than another. This meant that the pleasure a flower-seller received from her
weekly bottle of gin would count for the same as the pleasure a visit to the opera
by an opera-lover.
MILL’S QUALITATIVE HEDONISM
there are higher and lower pleasure, the higher being those of the intellect and
the lower being those of the body.
His argument that 'it is better to be a human being dissatisfied, than a pig
satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied' claims that we
should place a higher importance on 'higher' pleasures, even if they are more
difficult to attain.
 Quality is more preferable than quantity.
Thus we should value the pleasure of a visit to the opera, which is intellectually
demanding, over the pleasure from a bottle of gin, which is mere bodily pleasure.
While both quantitative and qualitative hedonism advocate the promotion of
pleasure and the prevention of pain, then, the latter makes a distinction between
kinds of pleasure that the former does not, which will affect which actions are
considered right.
 Test: experience both comparable pleasures and discover which one is more
preferred than the other.
Playing Online Games All day for a Studying Three Hours a Day for a
Week Week
• Immediately satisfies one’s search for • Tedious, yet allows one to develop his
fun and excitement intellect and virtue of perseverance in
• Allows one to hang out with friends learning important lessons for school
• Lets one enjoy oneself while escaping • The discipline of focusing on relevant
the everyday pressures of daily tasks tasks related to one’s education can go a
like household chores, etc. long way in one’s future endeavours
• Essentially satisfies one and one’s • Relatively solitary
gaming friends immediately • Has the potential to bring pleasure to
one’s family by showing one’s gratitude
for their gift of education
THE PRINCIPLE OF THE GREATEST NUMBER
 Utilitarianism is not a selfish act. It is not one’s self pleasure or happiness alone.
Self happiness (satisfaction) of action does not constitute a moral good.
 It is interested with everyone’s happiness, the greatest good of the greatest
number of people.
 It is interested with the best consequence for the greatest number of people.
 The morality of an action should be determined by how much it contributes to
the good of the majority.
 If one can show that an action significantly contributes to the general good, then
it is good.
 Between a good for an individual and a good for society, then society should
prevail, despite the wrong being done to an individual.
 For instance, if it could be shown that using someone as an example would be
an effective deterrent to crime, whether or not the person was actually guilty, the
wrong done to that person by this unjust punishment might be outweighed by the
good resulting to society.
 The harm is done only to one, whereas the good is multiplied by the many.
 It is not interested with the intention or motivation of the agent.
 Moral value cannot be discernible in the intention or motivation of the person
doing the act, it is based solely and exclusively on the difference it makes on the
world’s total amount of pleasure and pain.
NATURAL LAW: ST. THOMAS AQUINAS
THE CONTEXT OF THE CHRISTIAN STORY
 The Christian Faith: We are created by God in order to ultimately return to Him
(Summa Theologiae-his magnum opus)
 Summa Theologiae:
Part I – Man is created by God. Although man has limited human
intellect and cannot fully grasp God, nevertheless man is able to say something
concerning His goodness, His might, and His creative power.
Part II – Deals with the dynamic of human life. This is characterized by

our pursuit of happiness.
- True/genuine/ultimate happiness rests in the highest good
(summum bonum), which God Himself, not on any particular good created by
God. Man’ striving is towards God.
Part III – Focuses on Jesus as our Saviour. The ultimate happiness can
be attained through salvation in Jesus.
 The ethics of Natural Law would be of greatest interest to us in Part II that
centers on human life and its striving toward God.
THE CONTEXT OF AQUINAS ETHICS
 In our pursuit of happiness, we direct our actions towards specific ends.
1. Emotions (“Passions”) – require proper order if they are to properly
contribute to good life.
2. Habits – dispositions:
good habits lead us to good disposition toward making moral
choices, hence contributes to moral virtue.
bad habits inclining us toward making immoral choices, bringing
us to vice.
THE CONTEXT OF AQUINAS ETHICS
3. Conscience – is an act of practical judgment of reason deciding upon an
action as good and to be performed or as evil and to be avoided. Hence, it is
judgment of moral values.
 The Christian Life is about developing the capacities (passions and habits) into
a disposition of virtue inclined toward the good together with the guidance of
our conscience.
Conscience and virtuous life require content (happiness).
 Conscience need a basis to be properly informed.
 Virtuous life needs a guidepost.
 For man to be directed in his sense of right and wrong, the Natural Law is the
answer.
 If divine command theory urges a person toward unthinking obedience to religious
precepts, the moral theory of Aquinas requires the judicious use of reason.
 One’s sense of right and wrong is grounded in human nature itself.
THE GREEK HERITAGE: NEOPLATONIC GOOD and THE ONE
 Plato’ influence
 There is someone supreme and absolutely transcendent Good., which is the source of
all beings.
 “The One,” the ultimate source of all other things. This source is so basic that it is
“beyond” being and is not properly called by any name or associated with any
personality or mind.
 The Good is identified with the One and the Beautiful.
 Neoplatonism influenced the Christian Middle Ages that the Good, the One and the
Beautiful is the creative and loving God.
ARISTOTELIAN BEING AND BECOMING

BEINGS
St. Thomas borrowed the concept of being from Aristotle.
A being is anything that exists or has existence.
According to Aristotle, any being has four causes (to explain change in the world):
1. Material cause – a being is made of a material stuff (corporeal);
- what something is made out of
ex. The human body is made up of cells.
Wooden boxes are made up of wood.
Computers are made out of transistors and other electronic components.
ARISTOTELIAN BEING AND BECOMING
BEINGS
2. Formal Cause – what makes a thing one thing rather than many things
- individuated; unique because it is made of a
particular stuff.
- it takes on a particular shape. The “shape” makes a
being a particular kind which can be called a form.
ex. The human body is human, wooden boxes are boxes,
computers are computers, birds are birds, cats are cats.
 One is different from the other in form.
3. Efficient Cause – something which brings about the presence of
another. A thing comes from another being.
- what did that.
ex. If a ball broke a window, then the ball is the efficient cause of the
window breaking.
- Parents begets children - A mango tree comes from seed
- A chair by a carpenter
4. Final Cause – end or goal
- why efficient causes do what they do and why formal
causes do what they do.
ex. A chair to be sat on - pen for writing
seed to become a tree - child to become an adult
 These are all pointing out the final cause of efficient causes.
To ask for the final cause of formal causes is to ask why these things exist at all.
Why do human beings exist? Aristotle says that they exist to make more human
beings, because they are alive. They also exist to be happy because they are
rational.
Why do computers exist? They exist because people made them. They wanted to
use them as tools in math, gaming and business.
 Why do rocks exist? They exist because the wind, sea and rain break rock
formations to produce rocks.
These things are also final causes.
BECOMING
- It is the possibility of change that takes place in a being.
Two Related Principles
1. Potency - refers to any "possibility" that a thing can be said to have.
ex. Puppy – has the potential or possibility to become a full-grown dog
2. Act (Actuality) - is the motion, change or activity that represents an exercise or
fulfillment of a possibility, when a possibility becomes real in the fullest sense.
ex. Full-grown dog is the actuality of a puppy
SYNTHESIS
I. God is fullness of being and of goodness.
II. He is the first efficient cause. All beings come from Him. He is the final cause.
It is to Him that all beings seek to return.
III. It is God’s will and love that are the cause of all things. Creation is the product
of God’s goodness. Since each being participates in His goodness, each being is in
some sense good.
IV. Only God is perfect in the fullness and goodness of His being. Other beings are
good as they participate in his goodness, but they are imperfect since they are
limited in their participation.
- But God directs us how to arrive at our perfection. The divine providence
properly ordered and guided beings toward their proper end; this end, which is for
them to reach their highest good, is to return to the divine goodness itself.
V. Beings are created by God in a particular way. Each being is created as
determinate substance. The unique way that we have been created is called nature.
VI. The unique way that we have been created is called nature. This nature both
good and imperfect at the same time. Coming from God, our nature is good but it
is to be perfected. We have to fulfil our nature the best we can, what God had
intended us to be. This is actualizing the potencies that are present in our nature.
VII. Man is endowed with reason. Using our reason, we reach God by knowing
and loving Him. Reason is the very tool placed by God in man as the way to
perfection and return to Him. It is reason which characterizes us from other beings.
VIII. The universe, a community of being, is directed toward its return to God.
This is the work of divine reason or God’s will. Under Divine governance beings
are directed as to how their acts are led to their end, which is return to God. In this
dynamic there is the existence of a law.
THE ESSENCE AND VARIETIES OF LAW
ESSENCE OF LAW
As one is endowed with free will, our actions are directed towards attaining ends
or goods that we desire. However, the good must really be good and not only
for one’s own but for the community as well, that is common good.
We should recognize the proper measure or the limits in our actions that would
direct our acts in such a way that we can pursue ends both our own and others.
The determination of the proper measure of our acts can be referred to as law.
 It is necessary for rules or laws to be communicated to the people involved in

order to enforce them to ensure compliance. This is referred to as promulgation.
Therefore, laws are to be promulgated. It should be made known to those who
are subjects to it in order for those laws to be useful and obeyed. It should be
published.
Laws are promulgated for the common good. A law is for the welfare of the
community as a whole, and not for the benefit of individuals as such.
Is there someone in charge of this community of all beings in the entire universe,
guiding all toward their common good and directing all with His wisdom?
VARIETIES OF LAW
1. Eternal Law – refers to God’s divine plan for all things and to God’s
direction in all things for their proper order, purpose or ends. It extends to all acts
and movements in the universe.
- The Divine plan of the universe
ex. - Bodies obey the tendencies of their nature and follow the laws of
cohesion, gravity or inertia.
- plants grow, animals follow the guidance of their instincts
all because of Eternal law, powerless to reject its influence or to disobey.
Eternal is promulgated by God in the whole of creation; and God promulgated this
eternally. Eternal Law is forever.
Irrational creatures participate in the Eternal Law through the instinctual following of
their nature, complying with the law that God has for them.
2. Natural Law.
Human beings participate rationally, through the use of his reason. The unique imprint
upon human nature by God is the capacity to think about what is good and what is evil.
Man knows that honesty is good, murder is evil. This is the Natural Law. It is defined
as Eternal Law apprehended by human reason. The foundation expression of Natural
Law: “Do good and avoid evil.” It is promulgated by God in man’s conscience.
- Man, by the use of his reason, participates in the eternal law.
3. Human Law - refers to all instances wherein human beings construct and
enforce laws in their communities.
- ordinances, statutes, republic acts, etc.
4. Divine Law – refers to the instances where we have precepts or instructions
that come from divine revelation expressed in the Old and New Testaments which
assists man in understanding the requirements of law and morality.
Bible: Ten Commandments
Jesus: Love one another.
NATURAL LAW
Levels of Precepts
I. Good is to be done and pursued and evil avoided.
II. HUMAN INCLINATIONS (PERSON’S NATURAL TENDENCY)
1) In common with other beings. Though man is unique, there is also in our nature
something that shares in the nature of other beings.
• INCLINATION 1: We desire to preserve our own being.
ex. Cat runs away when it feels threatened.
Humans preserve their beings. Hence, no suicide even if it is a physician-assisted
suicide. No murder for it would be a violation of natural law.
2. In common with other animals.
Man, like other animals, through sexual intercourse, begets children and care
for his children (offsprings).
• INCLINATION 2: Sexual act is intended for procreation and care of
one’s offspring.
• Natural Law commands that we take care of our life, and transmit that life
to the next generation.
as basic as the preservation of life, the Natural Law
commands to rear and care for offspring.
Issue: Is abortion acceptable? Answer: NOT ACCEPTABLE.
-Abusing the young, forcing children to hard labor, deriving them of
basic needs, abusing them in a physical and emotional way is BAD.
Issue: Is it acceptable to use contraception? Answer: NOT ACCEPTABLE.
Although it allows sexual act, contraception inhibits procreation.
Any form of sexual act that could not lead to offspring must be considered
deviant. EX. HOMOSEXUALITY
3. Uniquely Human
We have an inclination to good according to the nature of our reason.
Through reason
A) We know the truth about God (Epistemic concern)
-Man shall shun ignorance; we know we pursue the truth
- Worship a creator
B) to live in society (social concern).
-Avoid offending those people with whom one lives; we
know we live in relation to others.
• Natural inclination is an inclination for an end that is good, and this end is
recognized to be good for all members of a species or for the world as a whole.
• It is an inclination that is rooted in nature, and it is a nature that is shared by all
individuals of the kind.
• This inclination is a tendency toward a good, and insofar as the good is not yet
possessed it makes sense to talk about an “appetite” or a “desire” for the good.
AS HUMAN BEINGS WE HAVE TO TAKE NOTE OF THE FOLLOWING:
1. The three (3) inclinations – preserve our own being, sexual act is for
procreation and care of offspring, and to do good by using our reason – are
man’s bases for moral valuation.
- Preserving one’s self is good.
- Sexual inclination and sexual act are good.
- But reason is the defining part of human nature.
- to be human is to exercise our reason in our consideration of
how the whole self should be comported toward the good.
- We are to make full use of our reason and determine when the
performance of our natural inclination is appropriate.
- Thus, I could not just engage in sexual act in any way without
thought or care, just because sex is natural and good.
2. By being rational, man shall recognize that he should take up the burden of
thinking carefully how a particular act may or may not be a violation of our nature.
- Man should think carefully about how his acts would either
contribute to, or detract from, the common good.
- Hence, human laws are extensions of natural law if they
contribute to the common good.
DEONTOLOGY
IMMANUEL KANT (KANTIAN ETHICS)

Born: April 22, 1724
Königsberg, East Prussia
(now Kaliningrad, Russia)
Died: February 12, 1804
Königsberg, East Prussia
German Philosopher, whose comprehensive and systematic work in epistemology, ethics

and aesthetics greatly influenced all subsequent philosophy especially the various schools
of Kantianism and idealism.
DEONTOLOGY
Read the introduction.
Reggie believes that returning the suitcase is a duty.
IT IS ONE’S DUTY TO DO THE RIGHT THING.

DEONTOLOGY
DUTY AND AGENCY
Agency – is the capacity of individuals to act independently and to make their
own free choices.
- the ability of the person to act based on her intentions and
mental states.
Duty – awareness of moral agent that the dutiful act he performs is done
because it is the right thing to do.
DEONTOLOGY
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MAN AND ANIMALS (ACORDING TO KANT)
Sentient – any organism has the ability to perceive and navigate its external
environment.
BOTH ANIMALS AND HUMANS INTERACT IN AND WITH THE
WORLD, REACTING TO STIMULI AND INTERNAL IMPULSES TO
SURVIVE AND THRIVE.
DEONTOLOGY
What makes the difference between man and animals is man’s rationality.
 Rationality consists of the mental faculty to construct ideas and thoughts that
are beyond our immediate surroundings.
1.This is the capacity for mental abstraction, which arises from the
operations of the faculty of reason. (how man imagines things can be)
2. This is also the ability to act on – to enact and make real – those mental
images.
DEONTOLOGY
 The rational will refers to the faculty to intervene in the world, to act in a
manner that is consistent with our reason.
 ANIMALS act only with impulses, based on natural instinct.
 The moment Reggie discovered that someone left a suitcase in his cab, Reggie
reacted according to his reason – to return the suitcase. It was his duty to return it
inasmuch as his rational will had conceived such a duty.
Hence, to act according to duty is a specifically human experience. This is
deontology
DEONTOLOGY
AUTONOMY
Etymology
auto = self nomos=law means self-law
HETERONOMY
heteros= other nomos=law means other law
DEONTOLOGY
Moral Autonomy - consists in the capacity of the will of a rational being to be a

law to itself, independently of the influence of any property of objects of volition.
- More specifically, an autonomous will is said to be free in
both a negative and a positive sense.
- The will is negatively free in that it operates entirely
independently of alien influences, including all contingent empirical
determinations associated with appetite, desire-satisfaction, or happiness.
- The will is positively free in that it can act in accordance
with its own law.
DEONTOLOGY
What do you think if Reggie takes the principle that he should benefit from other
people’s loss because they are careless, and thus do not deserve to keep those
things? Is it still autonomous agency when a person enacts any apparently self-
legislated principle? “I am entitled to benefit from this lost suitcase,” based on
how we have described the difference between autonomy and heteronomy. Is that
what autonomy properly means?
CERTAINLY NOT.
DEONTOLOGY
THE RATIONAL WILL AND ANIMAL IMPULSE
A) Animal Impulse (Animal Choice or Arbitrium Brutum)
- usually bodily and emotional
ex. Bodily instincts and desires: urge to eat, drink, sleep, sex,
Jealousy, rage
• There is hardly anything that comes between the stimulus and the reaction.
(One acts with immediacy= no middle)
DEONTOLOGY
B) Free Choice (Pure Reason)
- Reason has the capacity to intervene, to “mediate” within arbitrium
brutum
- the mental capacity which makes the intervention possible between
stimulus and reaction.
- through reason one can break the immediacy of stimulus and reaction
by stopping and deliberate and assess possible alternative actions.
DEONTOLOGY
Back to Reggie
“I am entitled to benefit from this lost suitcase. ”
Reggie is not acting autonomously. It is heteronomous. Because a sensible impulse
would be the cause of such an action.
- greed or obtaining easy money
 Heteronomy occurs when any foreign impulse, whether it is external (persons or
institutions that impose their will on the agent) or sensible (as in bodily instincts
or emotions) is what compels a person to act.
 Autonomy is the property of the will in those instances when pure reason is the
cause of the action.
DEONTOLOGY
TWO KINDS OF MORAL THEORIES
1. SUBSTANTIVE MORAL THEORY – immediately promulgates the specific
actions that comprise that theory.
- it identifies the particular in a straightforward manner that the
adherents of the theory follow.
EX: Ten Commandments (The specific laws are articulated in a
straightforward command)
“Thou shall not kill”
DEONTOLOGY
TWO KINDS OF MORAL THEORIES

2. FORMAL MORAL THEORIES – it provides us the “form “ or “framework” of the
moral theory.
- it does not supply the rules or commands straightaway, on
one’s own, the rules and moral commands.
- it supplies the procedure and the criteria for determining.
- It does not tell you what you may or may not do.
- Kant’s ethics is an example of formal moral theory.
DEONTOLOGY
THE CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE
- For Kant, morality is a system of absolute commands to act in certain ways, that
is, morality is a system of categorical imperatives or unyielding rules of human
conduct.
- If performing an act is a matter of duty, then we should do it regardless of the
consequences. If, on the other hand, we are prohibited by duty to perform a certain
act, then we should never do it, again, regardless of the consequences.
DEONTOLOGY
One of the important aspects of Kantian ethics is its notion of moral worth.
-Moral worth refers to the moral value of an act, something that makes an act
morally praiseworthy.
What gives acts their moral worth?
- For Kant, it lies in the motive of the moral agent who performs the act.
Motive – the reason why the moral agent chooses to
perform a particular course of action.
DEONTOLOGY
- Not all acts are equally praiseworthy.
- The action of a moral agent has moral value only if his motive for acting is out
of a sense of duty.
- “Sense of Duty” means the awareness of a moral agent that the act he performs
is done because it is the right thing to do.
- What makes two dutiful acts different lies in their motives ( the reason why a
moral agent chooses to perform a particular course of action).
- EX. My reason why I choose to lie rather than tell the truth, or the reason why I
decide to attend my classes rather than be absent..
DEONTOLOGY
- If an act is performed not primarily out of one’s sense of duty, but out of
inclination or feeling, even if the act is good it is still void of moral worth.
- EX. I help an elderly man cross the street primarily because I have compassion
for elderly people. I am not acting morally because I acted out of inclination.
- EX. As a senator, I tell the public about the corruption perpetuated by the spouse
of the President because I think it will increase my popularity, I am not acting
morally, but for political gain.
DEONTOLOGY
- The motive of an action is far more important than the action itself and its
consequences.
- What matters most is when I did the right thing with the right motive: that is, I
acted primarily out of my sense of duty.
EX. I help an elderly man because I think it is my duty to help anyone in distress,
then my act of helping has moral worth.
EX. I am a senator and I decide to tell the public about the corruption perpetuated
by the spouse of the President because I think that it is my duty to do so as a public
servant, then I am acting morally.
DEONTOLOGY
- Our sense of duty is the main motivation for performing our dutiful actions and
not any other reason.
- The moral worth of dutiful act lies solely in its motive and never in the perceived
or actual consequences.
- What if the consequence is not good?
Acting from my sense of duty, I attempt to save a drowning child, but accidentally
drown the child, my action can be considered moral since my motives were of the
right kind: the consequences of my action, are unfortunate, but irrelevant to the
moral worth of what I did.
DEONTOLOGY
- We can only discuss the motive of a moral agent when he present a maxim.
- If I help Juan, I’m the only one who knows the reason why I’m helping. But if I
state my reason, only then can people discuss my motives.
- Formula: “to always do action A when in circumstance B”
DEONTOLOGY
THE CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE
“ACT ONLY ACCORDING TO SUCH A MAXIM, BY WHICH YOU CAN

AT ONCE WILL THAT IT BECOME A UNIVERSAL LAW”
Categorical Imperative – refers to the unconditional or unyielding rules of human
conduct.
Maxim – are the verbal expressions of a moral agent’s volition or reasons for acting.
formula: “to do action A when in circumstance B”
DEONTOLOGY
EX. If I propose to help Juan because I expect some financial reward, the maxim
of my action has this form: “to always help when you expect to be financially
rewarded for your troubles.”
EX.If I want to help Juan because helping others makes me feel good, my maxim
would be: “to always help those in need when helping feels good.”
EX. But if I desire my act of helping Juan to have a moral worth, that is, for my
helping act to be praiseworthy, I may propose this maxim: “ to always help those
in need because it is a duty to do so.”
DEONTOLOGY
ACTIVITY: Instructions. Formulate a maxim out of the following:
1. I want to borrow money, while knowing I cannot pay it back.
“When I am in need of money, I shall borrow it even when I know I cannot pay
it back.”
2. Juan, a taxi driver, found a suitcase in his taxi containing a laptop, cellphone,
and 5M pesos. “These are all mine,” he said.
“When a suitcase that does not belong to me is found in my taxi cab, I shall take
its contents for my own benefits.”
DEONTOLOGY
- Rational human beings have duties. These duties are categorical-absolute and
unconditional – “you ought always to tell the truth” or “you ought never to kill
anyone.”
- Hypothetical duties tell you what you ought or ought not do if you want to
achieve a certain goal. It is merely conditional duty.
- EX. “If I want more customers, then I ought to be more honest in my dealings
with them.”
- “If I want to be trusted, then I ought to tell the truth.”
DEONTOLOGY
- For Kant moral duties are never hypothetical.
- “ I ought to be honest regardless of whether or not honesty brings me more
customers.”
- “ I should always tell the truth regardless of whether or not in doing so I will be
trusted.”
- How do we precisely know if an act is our duty or not?
- Two (2) principles or formulas to guide us in determining our categorical duties:
Principle of Universalizability and the Principle of Humanity.
DEONTOLOGY
The Principle of Universalizability says: “ act only according to the maxim
whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.”
- The principle declares that we have a duty to do only those actions whose
maxims (underlying reasons) we are willing to let other people use to justify
the same proposed actions in similar circumstances.
- Two tests: ReversalizabilityTest and Contradiction in Conception Test.
DEONTOLOGY
CONTRADICTION IN CONCEPTION TEST
This requires that the maxim of a proposed action should not contradict itself
once it is conceived as a universal law of conduct. If we cannot will, or if we
don’t like to, the maxim underlying our proposed action to be a universal law of
conduct, we are bound by duty not to perform it regardless of the consequences.
Steps: 1. Determine the maxim of your proposed course of action (“To always do
action A when you are in circumstance B”)
2. Imagine a hypothetical world where all people perform the maxim all at
the same time.
DEONTOLOGY
3. Decide if the result is desirable. In other words like the imagined state of affairs
actually happening in the real world.
4. If your answer in step 3 is yes, then it would be fine to do your proposed
action. If the answer is no, then it is your categorical duty never to perform it
regardless of the consequences.
DEONTOLOGY
A POOR MOTHER’S DILEMMA
The intense cry of the baby intuitively tells the mother that the baby is hungry. In
all misery, there is no food to eat; not even a single centavo to buy food. In a
nearby “honesty store,” where one could just get items without the presence of a
storekeeper, the mother has the opportunity to steal some food. The mother is
conflicted between wanting to feed her hungry, but then recognizing that it would
be wrong for her to steal.
If you were the mother, would you steal?
DEONTOLOGY
Application.
Step 1: Maxim
Step 2: Hypothetical world
Step 3: Decide (if the result is desirable.
Step 4: If yes, do the proposed action. If no, do not perform the proposed action.
DEONTOLOGY
THE REVERSALIZABILITY TEST
This test asks one simple question: “Would I want other people do my proposed
action to me?”
-If we like the idea of other people doing the act, which we propose to do, then it
would be fine to do it, but if we don’t, then it is our duty not to do it.
The test tells us to imagine reversing the situation.
If I like to poke the eyes of my seatmate, I simply reverse the situation and ask
myself: “would I like my seatmate to poke my eyes?”
DEONTOLOGY
THE PRINCIPLE OF HUMANITY
Man is a rational being whose existence has in itself an absolute worth – something
that exists as an end in himself and not merely as a means to be arbitrarily used by
anyone.
Principle of Humanity: “Act in such a way that you treat humanity whether in your
person or in the person of another, always at the same time as an end and never
merely as a means.”
This is a law which imposes the supreme limiting condition of man’s
freedom not to treat anyone inhumanely or against his will.
End – the result that a plan is intended to achieve and that (when achieved) terminates
behaviour intended to achieve it.
Means – Instrumentality or the medium used to achieve an end.
DEONTOLOGY
- This principle is a practical law which imposes the supreme limiting condition of
every man’s freedom to act.
- It spells the dichotomy between what we can and cannot do to ourselves and to
others.
- Our sense of self-worth or our sense of dignity demands that we should always
be treated with respect.
- There should be consent. The principle categorically prohibits the deliberate
attempt to make man do an unethical act, or those against his will.
DEONTOLOGY
- Any act that degrades the dignity of human beings (or treat them merely as a
means to an end), is always wrong.
- But how do we precisely know if our actions, or those of others, are mere means?
- Two tests: The Consent Test and Means Test
- Consent Test: This requires that the person who is used as a means should give
his free and informed consent to be used by another.
- We violate the principle of humanity when we use persons as mere means, use
them without their consent, or when we deceive them: force, coercion, deception
DEONTOLOGY
CASE: THE HEIR
A very rich couple, Mr. Baog and Mrs. Fertile, was still childless after several years
of marriage. When they went to their doctor to find out why, tests showed that Mr
Baog was sterile. But because does not want the idea of leaving his vast fortune
except to an heir, he decide to look for a perfect stranger who could give his wife a
child. Mrs. Fertile, a devout Christian, strongly opposed the idea. But Mr. Baog
literally forced his wife to accept the ordeal and in due time she conceived. The
child was fully accepted by Mr. Baog and he raised and loved the child as his own.
Free consent is free choice. It brings back the dignity that is lost when we are used
as a means by others.
DEONTOLOGY
The Means Test: Even if we give our consent, whether informed or not, voluntary
or forced, using ourselves in ways that violates our sense of self-respect, or our
dignity, is morally wrong regardless if the end is morally desirable.
For Kant, consent is not everything because there are cases where the mere giving
of consent cannot justify the immorality of certain actions.
There are types of acts which are in themselves degrading to the dignity or
humanity of human beings, acts that we are categorically prohibited from doing
even if their ends are morally desirable.
DEONTOLOGY
The following are some examples of acts which, for Kant, are intrinsically
wrong:
suicide, mutilation, murder, slavery,
prostitution, rape, exploitation,
deceptive promises, and other self-degrading and
inhumane treatments of human beings.
Giving free consent in these cases is insufficient to make them morally
justifiable. They assault self-respect. If a person allows himself to be
enslaved and exploited by another, his consent cannot justify his treatment.
DEONTOLOGY
CASE: A BANK EMPLOYEE’S WIFE
Mr. Q, a young bank employee, was indicted for embezzlement, and the evidence
all seemed to point to a conviction. But he knew he was innocent, and his wife,
Mrs. R, believed him. Mrs. R was soon informed that Mr. S. another bank
employee, knew the whereabouts of documents that would reveal the real
embezzler and prove that her husband was innocent. Mrs. R tried to ask for help
from Mr. S, but unfortunately, he refused to help her get the evidence. Desperate to
prove her husband’s innocence, Mrs. R quickly made the decision to get the
evidence at whatever cost. She went to Mr. S and tried again to win his
cooperation, this time by offering sexual services. After spending several nights
with Mr. S, Mrs. R successfully made him oblige. Eventually the documents were
forthcoming, her husband was cleared, and the real embezzler was indicted and
convicted.
DEONTOLOGY
Is the end of Mrs R (saving her husband) morally desirable?
Was Mr. S justified in sexually using Mrs. R?

Ethics PPT For Re-Echo Training

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ethics PPT For Re-Echo Training

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ALEX SABALZA COMPAS

• Major Written Exams

g. Wearing of prescribed uniform and ID/ Dress and

Moral Standards Non-Moral Standards

Descriptive – an investigation/study that attempts to describe or explain the world without

THE CASE FOR CULTURAL RELATIVISM

4. (Culture as a single, clearly defined substance or as something fixed and

Peter: “I do not believe that homosexuality is immoral.”

 Subjectivism cannot account for disagreement.

2. “No one knows my situation better than myself.”

PSYCHOLOGICAL EGOISM: A THEORY OF HUMAN MOTIVES

2. AYN RAND’S ARGUMENT

 An Ethical Framework is a set of codes that an individual uses to guide his or

From Chapters II to V, we go in-depth through each one of these frameworks –

TYPES OF ETHICAL THEORIES

2. NON-CONSEQUENTIALIST THEORY – judges the rightness or

3. AGENT-CENTERED THEORY – the fundamental object of moral

FRAMEWORKS FOR ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING

assesses the moral worth of an action- it being good as far as it promoted

Part II – Deals with the dynamic of human life. This is characterized by

ARISTOTELIAN BEING AND BECOMING

 It is necessary for rules or laws to be communicated to the people involved in

IMMANUEL KANT (KANTIAN ETHICS)

German Philosopher, whose comprehensive and systematic work in epistemology, ethics

IT IS ONE’S DUTY TO DO THE RIGHT THING.

Moral Autonomy - consists in the capacity of the will of a rational being to be a

TWO KINDS OF MORAL THEORIES

“ACT ONLY ACCORDING TO SUCH A MAXIM, BY WHICH YOU CAN

Is the end of Mrs R (saving her husband) morally desirable?

Was Mr. S justified in sexually using Mrs. R?

You might also like