Ethical Theories

 HEDONISM ( Grp. # 1)
 PRAGMATISM (Grp. # 2)
 UTILITARIANISM (Grp. # 3)
 ETHICAL EGOISM (Grp. # 4)
 ETHICAL RELATIVISM (Grp. # 5)
 SITUATION ETHICS (Grp. # 6)
 KANTIAN ETHICS (Grp. # 7)
 VIRTUE ETHICS (Grp. # 8)
 CONFUCIANISM (Grp. # 9)
 BUDDHISM (Grp. # 10)
BACKGROUND

PROPONENT(S)

MAIN ETHICAL TEACHING(S)

Examples Cases (2-3)

1. Hedonism
The term “hedonism,” from the Greek word ἡδονή (hēdonē) for
pleasure, refers to several related theories about what is good for
us, how we should behave, and what motivates us to behave in
the way that we do.
All hedonistic theories identify pleasure and pain as the only
important elements of whatever phenomena they are designed to
describe.
The name given to the group of ethical systems that hold, with
various modifications, that feelings of pleasure or happiness are
the highest and final aim of conduct; that, consequently those
actions which increase the sum of pleasure are thereby
constituted right, and, conversely, what increases pain is wrong.
Pleasure will here be understood broadly, to include all
pleasant feeling or experience, such as elation, ecstacy,
delight, joy, and enjoyment.
Pain will be taken to include all unpleasant feeling or
experience: aches, throbs, irritations, anxiety, anguish,
chagrin, discomfort, despair, grief, depression, guilt and
remorse. Ordinary language must be stretched to
accommodate these broad usages. Pleasure and pain
themselves might be states, states of affairs, things, events
or properties.
2. PRAGMATISM
 Attributed
1. Charles Sanders Peirce (1839-1814)
2.William James (1842-1910)
3. John Dewey
Pragmatism has been America’s most distinctive and major contribution to
the world of philosophy.
Moral Principle: As an epistemological view, pragmatism holds that the
true and valid form of knowledge is one which is practical, workable,
beneficial, and useful. Being practical, it is one that we can practice, and
it produces practical results; being workable, it is one that we can put to
work, it can be worked out, and it works; being beneficial, it benefits
people; and being useful, it is one that can be used to attain good results.
The workability, practicality, or usefulness of an idea is the criterion of
true knowledge for the pragmatist. If an idea works or brings forth
good results, it is true. The truth of an idea is determined by its
consequences; if an idea is devoid of result, it is inconsequential, and
hence meaningless.
One may notice that pragmatism, though primarily a theory of truth or
knowledge, may prove to be an effective method of justifying one’s
moral decisions. Moreover, in the light of the pragmatic theory of truth
we can also gauge whether a particular act or moral judgment is right
or wrong, legitimate or not, by considering its practical usefulness and
beneficiality to the patient. Should the patient be told about the nature
of his/her serious illness? Would it be more practical to withhold the
information for the patient’s own good?
Examples
1. On the divorce issue: Is it more workable and beneficial for
both husband and wife to dissolve their marriage for the sake
of their own children, who have been greatly psychologically
affected by the horrendous and violent quarrels? For most
Americans, it is the most pragmatic and realistic thing to do
under given circumstances.
2. On abortion: Would it rather be more humane and
beneficial for a grossly deformed fetus to be aborted now than
to let it see the light of day only to suffer and live a life of
unbearable misery?
3. UTILITARIANISM
Found in the writings of two English philosophers, Jeremy Bentham
(1748-1832) and John Stuart Mill (1806-1873), this ethical doctrine states
that the rightness and wrongness of actions is determined by goodness
and badness of their consequences.
Hedonist Morality
1. As an ethical theory, Utilitarianism emphasizes on the pleasure or
happiness a person can get from doing an act or from a particular
course of action.
2. Hence for Utilitarianism, right and wrong, are dependent on the
pleasure or pain that an act will bring or result to. If an act produces
pleasure, it is considered good; if it results to pain, it is considered
wrong or bad.
The Principle of Utility
1. It claims that there is one and only one moral principle – that
is, the principle of utility, formulated by Mill: “Actions are good
insofar as they tend to promote happiness, bad as they tend to
produce unhappiness” (Pahl: 20-21; Mill 1961).
2. How are we to determine, it may be asked whether an action
tends to promote happiness or tends to promote pain? By
means of its consequences or results rather than by means of
some features of the action itself. The utility or usefulness of an
action is determined by the extent to which it promotes
happiness rather than its reverse… Consequences, effects,
results and outcomes are most important.
The Greatest Happiness Principle
1. Bentham and Mill, bent on getting rid of any strain of individualism and
subjectivism, gave an alternative formulation of the utilitarian utility principle,
known as the principle of the greatest happiness: An action is good (right)
insofar as it produces the greatest happiness for the greatest number of
people; bad (wrong) insofar as it produces more harm than benefit for the
greatest number of individuals (Pahl 21-23; Albert and others 1984: 219-
238).
2. Everyone’s good or well-being must be considered, for each individual is
to count just as much as the next. Hence, the more people who profit from
a particular moral decision, the better. This can be carried out by remaining
strictly impartial and as disinterested as possible. One must be personally
detached and disengaged. Mill describes this point as the attitude of a
“benevolent spectator” who kindly watched over the welfare or happiness of
all concerned, without taking a self-serving, active part in the process.
ETHICAL EGOISM
This theory is called ethical egoism simply because it is an ethical
theory, a normative theory about how we ought to behave. It
implies that we ought to be selfish. Or, to put it more gently, we
ought to be self-interested. Calling the theory “ethical” does not
suggest that there might be a decent way to be selfish; it just
means that ethical egoism is a theory that advocates egoism as a
moral rule.
 Ethical Principle: “You Should Look After Yourself”
Twisted Version of the Golden Rule
1. Glaucon insisted that if you don’t take advantage of a situation,
you are foolish. Hobbes claimed that it makes good sense to look
after yourself, and morality is a result of the self-interest: If I
mistreat others, they may mistreat me, so I resolve to behave
myself. This is a rather twisted version of the Golden Rule (Do
unto others as you would have them do unto you). It is twisted
because it is peculiarly slanted toward our own self-interests.
2. The reason we should treat others the way we would like to be
treated is that it gives us a good chance of receiving just such
treatment; we do it for ourselves, not for others – so, do unto
others so that you will be done unto in a similar way.
3. So the ethical egoist might certainly decides to stop for a stranded
motorist on the freeway – not so for the sake of the motorist but to
ensure that “what goes around, comes around.” The Golden Rule
usually emphasizes others, but for the ethical egoist it emphasizes the
self.
This interpretation – that the theory tells us to do whatever will benefit
ourselves – results in a rewriting of the golden rule, because,
obviously, it is not always the case that you will get the same treatment
from others that you give to them. Occasionally you might get away
with not treating others decently because they may never know that
you are the source of the bad treatment they are receiving. Ethical
Egoism tells you that it is perfectly all right to treat others in a way to
your advantage and not to theirs as long as you can be certain that you
will get away with it.
ETHICAL RELATIVISM

Right or good in ethical relativism is always relative to a

particular culture or society. To narrow that down, the moral
opinion of one individual is as good as any other. Different
societies or cultures have different moral codes. Hence, there
is no objective basis of saying that a particular action is good
or bad apart from a specific social group. As what the society
or culture dictates as good, it is considered as already good.
To state it in another way, what the people normally do, within
their cultural and personal context, is good.
In realizing these cultural or societal differences, some societies or
cultures consider as right several kinds of actions or practices that
other societies or cultures consider to be wrong. There is no
problem with that within the ethical relativist’s perspective. It is
because an action or practice is evaluated on the culture or
society the doer belongs.
Ethical relativism emphasizes the following points:
1. Different societies have different moral codes.
2. There is no objective standard that can be used to judge one
societal code better than another.
3. The moral code of our own society has no special status; it is
merely one among the many.
4. There is no “universal truth” in ethics – that is, there are
no absolute and objective ethical principles that are true,
valid and binding on all peoples.
5. The moral code of a society determines what is right
within that society: that is, if the moral code of a society
weighs that a certain action is right, then that action is right,
at least within that society.
6. It is mere arrogance for us to try to judge the conduct of
other people.
Wrongness or badness of an act under Ethical Relativism
is also relative or dependent on the given culture or
society. If the society or culture dictates that an act or
practice is wrong, then it is indeed wrong. This
understanding again boils down to the differences of moral
codes in every culture that in themselves are acceptable
depending on the culture.
It is then wrong or bad to commit the following:
1. Applying an absolute or universal ethical principle
2. Judging one society by an objective standard, hence, using
it in identifying a societal code as better than another.
3. Considering one culture as superior over others, hence,
applying the principles of that superior culture to the “inferior”
ones (E.g. Western Culture as superior)
6. SITUATION ETHICS - Joseph Fletcher
The judgment of goodness and badness of an act
according to Situation Ethics is based on Agapeic Love.
Agapeic Love (as contrary to Romantic and Filial Love)
refers to one’s care and concern and kindness towards
others.
It is characterized by charity, respect, and responsibility
towards the other.
This kind of love by which an individual should act, should
settle what is right and wrong, just and unjust in any
complicated situation
An act is good if:
1. Agapeic Love is present:
Christians, in order to deserve their calling, should base their
moral judgments on agapeic love. All codes, laws, and rules or
principles can be reduced to the love canon alone. This ultimate
norm (i.e. agape) seeks the good of the other radically and non
preferential.
For instance, a physician who extends medical assistance to an
injured NPA rebel acts out of Christian love, which knows no
barriers save for apathy, reluctance and indecision to serve the
good of the other.
2. The end justifies the means:
Fletcher claims that an evil means does not always nullify a
good end; it all depends upon the situation, i.e., “the relative
weight of the ends and means and motives and consequences
all taken together, as weighed by agapeic love.”
Circumstances do alter cases. An act which is right in some
circumstances may be wrong in others—that is, we may do what
would be evil in some situations, if, in this one, agape gains the
balance.
For example: The story of Robinhood wherein he steals from
the rich and give it to the poor.
3. Decisions ought to be made situationally, not prescriptively:
There is no general prescription by which an individual can decide on
certain moral problems. Moral decisions are relative to the situation.
Agapeic love plots the course of action according to the
circumstances, and the obligation to make and stand by our decisions
must be carried out.
The moral oughtness in carrying out one’s obligation to decide
depends upon the given circumstances; there is no absolute
prescription for all decisions.
For the Christian conscience, the total context of decision, the whole
situation, is always the circumstance under the concept of agapeic
love.
 Rodulf Karl Bultman
 Marthin Luther
 Joseph Francis Fletcher
7. KANTIAN ETHICS (Duty Ethics) Immanuel Kant 
Deontological (duty)
April 22, 1724= birth
February 12, 1804= death
The good here is the one that you ought to do. You simply have
to do good because it is good. It is good because it is a moral
duty for everyone to do the good.
Kant’s ethics is an ethics that is primarily based on good will.
The good will is good if it does its duty out of pure reverence to
the moral law.
The Two Imperatives 
a. Hypothetical Imperative
An action is necessary to the attainment of something desired: “You
must do such-and-such, if you want a certain result.” This first
imperative answers the question, “Does the proposed act effectively
bring about a desired end?”
b. Categorical Imperative
A categorical imperative applies no matter what one desires. The
moral necessity to act is unconditional. “You ought to do such-and-
such act; there are no ifs, ands, or buts about it.”
If the maxim passes this test, we may act on it; if it does not, we must
reject it.
Two formulations of the Categorical Imperative:
b.1. It can be Universalized
“Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same
time will that it should become a universal law.”
That is, made applicable to all persons.
b.2. Treat others as Ends not as Means
We must remember that man is an end in himself, not merely a
means, because he has dignity. We must always act as an end
and never as a means only, because we must at all times uphold
our dignity. Consequently, we must always treat others as ends
not as means. Therefore, the presence of others’ ends must limit
our actions in pursuit of our ends.
Quiz: One Half Crosswise
HEDONISM
PRAGMATISM
UTILITARIANISM
ETHICAL EGOISM
ETHICAL RELATIVISM
SITUATION ETHICS
Choose Four Ethical Principles, compare and contrast their ethical
principle(s) , be specific/clear with explanation and give specific
examples(2) for each group.
E.g. Hedonism and Pragmatism
Situation Ethics and Ethical Egoism
8. VIRTUE ETHICS: Aristotle 
1. Development of the Good or Virtuous Human Being
Aristotle describes his ethical system as being eminently common
sense-based, for the most part, founded as it is on the moral
judgments of the ideal human being, who based upon reason, is
considered good and virtuous. He states that human begin with a
capacity for goodness which has to be developed by practice.
2. The Doctrine of the Mean
 According to Aristotle, virtue is a mean between two extremes,
both of which are vices – either excess or deficiency (or defect).
Moral virtue, then, is defined by Aristotle as being “a disposition
to choose by a rule… which a practically wise man would
determine’ to be the mean between two extremes of excess or
deficiency.
 And,according to Aristotle, practical wisdom is the ability to see
what is the right thing to do in any circumstance. Therefore, a
person must determine what a “practically wise, virtuous man”
would choose in any circumstance calling for a moral choice,
and then do the right thing.
 What is the mean between excess and deficiency, and how
does one determine it? According to Aristotle, the mean in
ethics cannot be determined mathematically. Rather it is a
mean “relative to us” or to whoever is trying to determine the
right thing to do. For example, if ten pounds of food are to
much (excess) and two are too little (deficiency or defect), then
six pounds, which the mean between two extremes, still may
be too much for some and too little for others; therefore one
must choose the appropriate mean between two extremes
relative to himself or herself.
Some examples of means between two extremes, established by
Aristotle and tabulated by Sir William David Ross (he who
established the ethical theory of prima facie duties), are as follows:
Feeling/Action Excess Mean Defect
Confidence Rashness Courage Cowardice

Sexual Pleasure Profligacy (too sensible, Temperance (moderation, Insensibility (inappreciable,

over mindful) self-restraint) unmindful)

Shame Bashfulness (too shy, self- Modesty (humility, simplicity, Shamelessness (without
conscious) reserve) shame)

Friendship Obsequiousness Friendliness Sulkiness (aloof, withdrawn)

(excessively eager to
please or to obey all
instructions)
9. ETHICAL TEACHINGS IN CONFUCIANISM
Confucius 
Background:
While Indian ethics (Hinduism, Buddhism) emphasizes rigid individual
moral life, Chinese ethics (Confucianism, Zen-Buddhism) emphasizes
individual moral life in relation to others. Expressed differently, Indian
ethics is self-oriented while Chinese ethics is other oriented. In
general, Chinese philosophy means humanism. This means that the
Chinese put much weight in their relatedness with their fellow human
beings.
The hallmark in Confucian ethics is human-heartedness (Jen).This is
made evident by the fact that the Chinese character for “ethic” (lun) is
“derived from the symbol for the human heart.”
The Doctrine of the Jen (Human-heartedness) 
Jen is the perfect virtue. This has been the cardinal principle of
humanism displayed in Chinese cultural achievement for thousand of
years. In the Analects “jen” expresses Confucius’ ideal of cultivating
human relations, developing human faculties, cultivating one’s
personality and upholding human rights.
For the Chun Tzu (the gentleman) “jen” is the supreme virtue. It
expresses correct procedure for human relations; a proper way for men
to meet each other, leading to positive efforts for the good of others. Its
basis is to be found first in one’s parents and brothers. It is the perfect
virtue which transcends race, creed, time. Thus, a man of “jen” is a
man of all-round virtue. In other words, a man of “jen” is one who will
do to another what he wants done to him (Golden Rule). This is the
positive way. It is to treat others as you want to be treated.
 Confucius summarizes “jen” as – in practice…
 a. Chung – Do to others what you wish yourself.
 b. Shu – Do not do to others what you do not wish yourself.
In the Christian Religion – Jen may be equated with Charity – Love
your neighbor as yourself. Jen (human-heartedness) is the
Confucian ideal of:
 1. cultivating human relations
 2. developing human faculties
 3. sublimating one’s personality
 4. upholding human rights
10. ETHICAL TEACHINGS IN BUDDHISM
Siddharta Gautama 
Buddhism was founded by Siddharta Gautama, the Buddha. Records
show that Buddhism is the second oldest religion in India. This plausible
because Buddha was originally a Hindu. As a religion, Buddhism is
referred to as a religion of liberation.
Basic Teaching
A. The Four Noble Truths – Doctrine of Dharma
 a. Life is permeated by suffering (dukkha)
 b. The origin of suffering is craving (tanha)
 c. Suffering can be eliminated through the elimination of craving
 d. The elimination of suffering is possible through the Eightfold Path
The Eightfold Path
 1. Right Understanding – understanding the Four Noble Truths
 2. Right Intention – the motives of our action like helping others
 3. Right Speech – entails truthfulness including courtesy
 4. Right Action – to abstain from harming or killing any living sentient
things, avoid immoral sexual behavior, avoid intoxicating drinks
 5. Right Livelihood – gain livelihood by right means
 6. Right Efforts – steps to purify and strengthen the mind.
 7.Right Attentiveness – to be clearly conscious and attentive to the
objects of contemplation
 8. Right Concentration – develops the skill of mental concentration
fostered by yoga
Ethical Teaching 
For Buddhism, to determine whether an action is good or bad, one
must, first of all, find out whether it leads to detachment or
attachment to the things of this world; if it leads to detachment –
the action is good; if it leads to attachment, the action is bad. But
why should actions that lead to attachment is bad? The reason is,
that one is made to cling to the things of the world and thus this is
conducive to suffering and bondage. The actions that lead to a
detachment from this world are good because they lead to
happiness and freedom. 
The emphasis on happiness apparently gives the Buddhist
theory a utilitarian character but we have to stress that unlike the
Utilitarian's who include the pleasure of the senses “to their
concept of happiness, the Buddhists believe that sense pleasure
leads to suffering. Happiness for Buddhism is achieved through
the control of all hankering for the world (of sense pleasure) and
a dejection of all craving for its false values, by a realization of
the impermanence of things in the world. Complete elimination
of this hankering is achieved only with the attainment of Nirvana
(an enlightened state in which the fires of greed, hatred, and
ignorance have been quenched, a state of perfect happiness).
Thus what is meant by “good” in Buddhism and what is
meant by “bad” in Buddhism? Based on the Majjima-
Nikaya:
“Whatever action, bodily, verbal, or mental, leads to
suffering of oneself, for others, or for both, that action is
bad. Whatever action, bodily, verbal or mental, does not
lead to suffering of oneself, for others, or for both, that
action is good.”
Biblical Understanding of Man (O.T. and N.T.)
A. Old Testament
1. Genesis 1:26-28,31
“then God said, Let us make humankind in our image, according to our
likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of
the air, and over the cattle, and over all the wild animals of the earth, and over every
creeping thing that creeps upon the earth. So God created humankind in his image,
in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them. God
blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and
subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air
and over every living thing that moves upon the earth”. “God saw all he had made,
and indeed it was very good”.
2. Exodus 19: 5
“Now therefore, if you obey my voice and keep my covenant, you shall my
treasured possession out of all the peoples. Indeed, the whole earth is mine”.
IMAGE OF GOD
Gen. 1:27
“God created man in the image of himself, in the image of God he created him, male and female
he created them.”
By being created in the image of God, our very activities of thinking and loving, in fact our very
being, reflect the beauty , the wisdom, the love of the Creator.
FUNDAMENTALLY GOOD
Gen. 1:31
“God saw all he had made, and indeed it was very good”.
It is precisely because we are the image of God that we are fundamentally good.
Because we know that we are good at the very core of our being, we should be a hopeful
people, especially in regard to our final destiny.
But God’s creatures, made in his image and reflecting his very dignity, are capable of doing evil,
are capable of distorting their true identity.
GOD’S PARTNERS
Gen. 1:28
“Be fruitful, multiply, fill the earth and conquer it.”
We are in a very real sense co-creators with God because we
have been given dominion which we must rule, develop and take
care of.
In the practical order, what this means is that we must share in the
development of the world
B. New Testament
1. St. Mt. 4:19
“and he said to them, “Follow me, and I will make you fish for
people”.
2. St. Jn. 5:1-11
“After this there was a festival of the Jews, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem,
now in Jerusalem by the sheep Gate there is a pool, called in Hebrew Bethzatha, which
has five forticoes. In these lay many invalids- blind, lame, and paralyzed. One man was
there who had been ill for thirty-eight years. When Jesus saw him saying there and knew
that he had been there a long time, he said to him, “Do you want to be made well?” the
sick man answered him, Sir, I have no one to put me into the pool when the water is
stirred up; and while I am making my way, someone else steps down ahead of me,”
Jesus said to him, “Stand up, take your mat and walk.” At once the man was made well,
and he took up his mat and begun to walk. Now that day was a Sabbath. So the Jews
said to the man who had been cured, “It is the Sabbath; it is not lawful for you to carry
your mat.” “The man who made me well said to me, “Take up your mat and walk”.
St. John 1:1-5
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God,
and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All
things came into being through him, and without him not one thing
came into being in him was life, and the life was the light of all
people. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not
overcome it”.
 Human Person: Natural Law

Objectives
1. Define Natural Law.
2. Enumerate the different kinds of law.
3. Explain the importance of law.
4. Explain the relationship of man and law
Intro.
Is natural law absolute or relative, unchanging or changing?
“In constantly doing what is good as commanded him by his rational
nature, man becomes one with the natural law, is attuned to the rhythm
of the universe and thus enjoys peace and happiness” (Confucius’
Philosophy of Man)
To be happy, we must live The Natural Way, The Natural Law, the
TAO

A. Definition with Understanding

1. Law
ordinance of reason directed for the common good and promulgated
by him who has charge of the community (St. Thomas Aquinas).
Ordinance of Reason
law must be reasonable, fair and just (Cessante Ratione
Cessat Lex Ipsa = Reason is the soul of the law and when
reason for the law ceases to exist, so does the law itself)

Made by him who has charge of the community

made by duly constituted authority to enact laws that govern
the acts of the subjects in a community.
For the common good
law is made for the well-being of the people, not for the privileged few
or for ruler (Salus populi est suprema lex = the welfare of the people is
the supreme law.)
Republic vs monarchy

Promulgated
that law to be made binding on the subjects should be made known
Natural law = reason (conscience)
Law of the state = every citizen is obliged to know the law by due
diligence ( ignorantia legis neminem excusat = ignorance of the law
excuses no one.)
2. Eternal Law
“As the divine reason or the divine will of God commanding
that the natural order be preserved and forbidding that it shall not
be disturbed.” (St. Augustine)
Two facets:
a. Physical law
that which governs the universe, the birth, growth and the
death of plants and animals and the body of man
b. Moral law
a disposition of the human mind to discover the moral
meaning of our actions in relation to the final end. (Rev. Fr. Alfredo
Panizo)
NB:
God’s law from all eternity.
It reveals the necessary relations between the creator and the
creatures.

Principles of Natural (Moral) law as the ultimate norm of Morality

a. Primary principle
a.1. “Do good and avoid evil”
a.2. “Live a life in accord with reason”
a.3. “Do unto others what you want others to do
unto you”
b. Secondary Principle
Ten Commandments…
c. Tertiary Principle
Application of the a and b principle: laws of nations; international
and civil and religious societies
E.g. Marriage… Divorce… Birth control… Family Planning

3. Classification of Laws with their characteristics

a. Divine Law
man-God relationship
NB: LOVE
b. Ecclesiastical law
promulgated by the Church
NB: Divine law
as church member
c. Civil law
promulgated by the State
NB: Duties

If conflict arises between Ecclesiastical law and Civil law….

B. Natural Law (in Focus)
God is not only the creator of all things. He is at the
same time, the Ruler, the First Legislator of the Universe.
In his infinite wisdom, he has a plan for all things and
directs all things to their proper ends. This plan and order
of God directing all things to the attainment of their goals is
what we call the eternal law. All things have their ends, and
the adjustment of means for the attainment of these ends
constitute the natural order of things or natural law.
C. Human Life and Law
Human is living in a world of laws.
E.g. fire… hunger… rains… bodies fall toward the
earth…
Man has no way in which he can get free of these
Freedom within…know them

Laws are made for the purpose of securing the common good.
NB:
If the law well not serve its end it is not the law. One who twisted
this law is a tyrannical.
Against this tyrannous power the people has the right to resist.
sedition… seditious
1. Adjustment of laws
a. Contrary to common good
a.1. as the government imposes on subjects burdensome laws which
promotes not the good of the people but the selfish interests of the rulers
a.2. when the rulers enact laws outside of their powers
a.3 when the laws are discriminatory in their imposition… These laws are
rather acts of violence than laws and do not bind in conscience unless perhaps
for the avoidance of a greater evil which would ensure from the non-observance
of said laws.
b. When they contravene or run counter to the natural law or divine law.
E.g. Adultery, killing of the aged
NB: Laws must be based on JUSTICE
From Natural Law
A. Human beings are:
1. Rational – our ability to think
2. Free – our ability to choose
3. Loving – choose to do good to another person
4. Embodied spirit
5. Unique, Yet Social
6. Historical – we each have a history of our own.
Human Being and Freedom
Intro.
Is freedom absolute?
“Can I do anything I want?”
1. PHYSICAL
There are many choices which a person cannot make simply because of what life has given him:
1. A man cannot choose to be a woman/mother.
2. A person with 65 IQ cannot choose to become a doctor.
3. A tone-deaf person cannot choose to be a professional singer. 
2. PSYCHOLOGICAL
My freedom can also be limited and taken away by various subjective factors that at times control
my mind such as fear, desire and resentment:
1. I may not be able to express my ideas in front of a crowd because of my fear.
2. I may not be able to bring myself to speak to someone because I am afraid
what his/her reaction will be.
3. An overwhelming desire for success in school can lead me to cheat on an exam.
4. I may become so angry that I say things that I later regret.
3. SITUATIONAL
As a human being I always live and act in a particular, concrete situation. Such situation necessarily
plays an important role in my life, guiding the choices that I make:
a. I cannot choose to be a farmer if I have no land.
b. I cannot choose to travel if I lack the necessary funds.
c. I cannot choose a career that is not present in my situation.
d. I cannot choose relationships except those offered in my situation…
d.1. I cannot marry someone whom I never met.
d.2. I cannot talk with someone who does not share a common language with me.
4. HABITS
Habits may have developed in the past without any serious choice on my part, yet, at the present
moment they determine what I do and how I do it:
1. The habitual smoker
2. Drug addict
3. The habitual gossiper
4. Habitual alcoholic
5. FATE / PREDESTINATION
Human history is somehow guided by forces outside of it.
These forces have been understood in different ways by
various human cultures:
a. Position of planets and stars
b. Horoscope
c. Power of a supernatural being which they call god
Meaning
the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or
restraint.
“Freedom is a possibility but not an actuality”
We have the power of free choice. But there can be a possibility for us not
live a free life:
A Life of Chance – dominated by chance (palad ko, swerte)
Social Pressure – controlled by the influences of family, friends and
culture
Feelings – dependent or controlled by feelings
Needs / Wants – when asserts themselves in an overwhelming way
they dominate one’s life
“Freedom is not the liberty to do anything whatever. It is the freedom to do
the good… It finds its true meaning in the choice of moral good.” (Instruction
on Christian Freedom and Liberation, 26)
Freedom has two basic aspects:
1. Freedom of Choice
a. Freewill
b. Capacity to make choices and decisions 
2. The Freedom to become one’s truest self
It is possible by choosing what is good
But it is still left to the freewill of the person to obey or
not to obey the moral obligation to do what is good.
“Paghubog sa ating pagkatao.”
To become our truest self, which is our truest freedom,
we ought to choose and do the good.
It includes the greater good of the person and others.
Points to Consider:
1. Right to freedom means we cannot enslaves other
individual.
2. The right to equality of every individual in a democratic society is to
enjoy equality not in talent or beauty but equality under law and opportunity.
3. A person is responsible for his action when:
a. Self-sameness= There must be continuity of personal
identity
b. the deed must issue from the will of the agent.
c. the doer must be supposed to be intelligent.
d. The doer must be a moral agent.
4. Man is physically free but morally to obey the law.