ONLINE MODULE IN ETHICS
Chapter 1 : INTRODUCTION: KEY CONCEPTS IN ETHICS
Module 1: Ethics, and Its Key Concepts
Introduction
This module is concerned with developing your understanding of Ethics
as one of the key areas under the division of practical philosophy. The
discussion, description and explanation in this module hope to equip you
students with ideas on the importance of ethics and the key concepts related to
the moral experience. Make use of this module to provide you with insights and
ideas to help you understand difficult and pressing experiences that need proper
discernment.
Learning Objectives
With the completion of this self-learning module, you should be able to:
1. Illustrate knowledge of what ethics is and its importance
2. Recall rules you have to follow and why you need to follow
them
3. Differentiate moral from non-moral standards
4. Recall a moral experience and detect the moral dilemma
present in it.
5. Define why only human beings are moral
Content
A. Ethics: Its Definition And Importance
Have you experience a situation where it requires that you have to
choose on what to do and part of it is to decide which of the choices is right or
wrong? Can you recall an experience where you really felt bad and sad because
you hurt somebody because of your wrong action? Did you ever wonder why
people need to be good and avoid what is evil? Did it ever come to your mind
why we need to be pleasing in our action?
There are many people who ask why study ethics? Why be moral?
Webster’s dictionary has a number of definitions for moral including: - of or
relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior - conforming to a standard
of right behavior. This is an important question for a course on ethics - is being
moral important to you, why (or why not)? Most people think doing well in life is
associated with being “good”. (philonotes.com)
For example: do you think a person who gains money dishonestly is a
success? Is a politician who beats his wife and children a success? Is Mother
Theresa a success - she had very few of the things society commonly associates
with doing well. Most people like fairness, justice, truthfulness, compassion in
society. Ethics help give direction to societies and people who think they cannot
flourish without some form of morality. Morality is said to be breaking down in
society today - juvenile crime, drug abuse, alcoholism, teenage pregnancies,
crime rates - all seem to indicate that the moral fabric of society is breaking
down. Moral questions are at the heart of life’s vital issues - including those
affected by the actions above. “Morality is primarily concerned with the questions
of right and wrong, the ability to distinguish between the two, and the justification
of the distinction. (phlionotes.com)
Montemayor (1994) mentions in his introduction on his book Ethics: The
Philosophy of Life that Ethics is the philosophy of life and that it delves into the
deepest whys and wherefore of human existence, men’s actions, problems and
destiny.
He further mentions that to live well and happy, we must know what we
are living for. He says this is taught by Ethics that investigates the meaning and
purpose of human life. He mentions that according to Socrates the unexamined
life is not worth living for man.
Montemayor (1994) also states that Plato one of the greatest
philosophers of all times proclaimed Ethics as the supreme science, the highest
in the hierarchy of human values, as it is Ethics that is concerned with the
attainment of life’s greatest Good and Goal – Happiness.
Definitions of Ethics
The book of Montemayor (1994) provides the following definitions of Ethics:
1. Ethics is the practical science of the morality of human actions.
2. Ethics is the science of human acts with reference to right and
wrong
3. Ethics is the scientific inquiry into the principles of morality.
4. Ethics is the study of the rectitude of human conduct
5. Ethics is the human conduct from the standpoint of morality.
6. Ethics is the science which lays down the principles of right
living
7. Ethics is the practical science that guides us in our actions that
we may live rightly and well.
8. Ethics is normative and practical science, based on reason,
which studies human conduct and provides norm for its natural
integrity and honesty.
9. According to Socrates, ethics is the investigation of life.
Looking into these definitions we can say that they are similar to each
other. The definitions speak of the field of study of ethics as human conduct; and
of the investigation of such human conduct in terms of its morality. The important
terms that can be seen in them are:
1. Science-systematic study or a system of scientific conclusions
clearly demonstrated, derived from clearly established
principles and duly coordinated
2. Morality – the quality of human acts as right, wrong or
indifferent, moral immoral or amoral.
3. Human acts –acts done with knowledge, freedom and free will
or consent.
Importance Of Ethics
Montemayor (1994) proclaims that the importance of the study of ethics
follows immediately from the importance of ethics itself. His idea is manifested
in the following:
1. Ethics means right living and good moral character and it is in good moral
character that man finds his true worth and perfection. All the great
teachers of the ages maintain that the supreme purpose of human living
lies not in the acquisition of material good or bodily pleasures, nor in the
attainment of bodily perfections such as health and strength; nor even in
the development of intellectual skills but in the development of the moral
qualities which lift man far above brute creation.
2. Education is the harmonious development of the whole man-of all
ma’s faculties: the moral, intellectual, and physical powers in man.
Now then highest of man’s power are his reason and will. Hence,
the primary objective of education is the moral development of the
will
A. Rules And Its Importance To Social Beings (lifted from the book of De
Guzman, (2017) -Ethics: Principles of Ethical Behaviour in Modern
Society)
You find rules everywhere. But did you ever ask yourself why you need to
follow them? Try to recall an experience where you followed a rule and assess
what you did. Did you just follow it without asking yourself why you need to follow
it? Did you have any doubt about following it?
Rules refer to explicit or understood regulations or principles governing
conduct within a specific activity or sphere. Rules tell us what is or is not allowed
in a particular context or situation. In many ways, rules serve as a foundation for
any healthy society. Without rules, society would like fall into anarchy.
Rules benefit social beings in various manners:
1. Rules protect social beings by regulating behaviour. Rules
build boundaries that place limits on behaviour. Rules are
usually coupled with means to impose consequences on those
who violate them. One of the reasons people follow accepted
rules is to avoid negative consequences.
2. Rules help to guarantee each person certain right and freedom.
Rules form frameworks for society. Nations are generally nations of
laws and the governing principles are outlined in what is called
constitution. Because the majority has agreed to follow and consent
to be governed by such a constitution, the freedoms outlined exist.
3. Rules produce a sense of justice among social beings. Rules are
needed in order to keep the strong from dominating the weak that is
to prevent exploitation and domination. Without rules, schemes in
which those with the power control the system, would take over. In
effect, rules generate a stable system that provides justice, in which
even the richest and the most powerful have limitations on what they
can do. If they transgress rules such as laws and ordinances and
take advantage of people, there are consequences both socially and
criminally.
4. Rules are essential for a healthy economic system. Without rules
regulating business, power would centralize around monopolies and
threaten the strength and competitiveness of the system. Rules are
needed to ensure product safety, employee’s safety and product
quality. Copyright and patents help protect people’s intellectual
property. Rules and regulations also keep the banking system stable
so as to avoid depression and the like.
In short, society could not soundly functions without rules and
regulations. Rules are necessary to protect the greater good. Even the freest
societies ought to have rules in order to avoid exploitations and tyranny while
upholding the common good.
B. Moral Standards versus Non-moral Standards (lifted from the book of
De Guzman, (2017) -Ethics: Principles of Ethical Behaviour in Modern
Society)
Do you know the meaning of standards? Have you been in a situation
where you were chosen because you met the standards or you were
disregarded because you did not meet the standards? But are you aware that
there are different kinds of standards and the kind is dependent on their
implication or effect on people and situations? Why do you think there is the
need to distinguish moral standards from non-moral ones?
It is important to note that different societies have different moral beliefs
and that our beliefs are deeply influenced by our own culture and context. For
this reason, some values do have moral implications, while others don’t. Let us
consider, for example, the wearing of hijab. For sure, in traditional Muslim
communities, the wearing of hijab is the most appropriate act that women have
to do in terms of dressing up. In fact, for some Muslims, showing parts of the
woman’s body, such as the face and legs, is despicable. However, in many parts
of the world, especially in Western societies, most people don’t mind if women
barely cover their bodies. As a matter of fact, the Hollywood canon of beauty
glorifies a sexy and slim body and the wearing of extremely daring dress. The
point here is that people in the West may have pitied the Muslim women who
wear hijab, while some Muslims may find women who dress up daringly
despicable.
Again, this clearly shows that different cultures have different moral
standards. What is a matter of moral indifference, that is, a matter of taste
(hence, non-moral value) in one culture may be a matter of moral significance in
another.
Now, the danger here is that one culture may impose its own cultural
standard on others, which may result in a clash in cultural values and beliefs.
When this happens, as we may already know, violence and crime may ensue,
such as religious violence and ethnic cleansing.
This is where the importance of understanding the difference between
moral standards (that is, of what is a moral issue) and non-moral ones (that is,
of what is a non-moral issue―thus, a matter of taste) comes in. This issue may
be too obvious and insignificant for some people, but understanding the
difference between the two may have far-reaching implications. For one, once
we have distinguished moral standards from non-moral ones, of course, through
the aid of the principles and theories in ethics, we will be able to identify
fundamental ethical values that may guide our actions. Indeed, once we know
that particular values and beliefs are non-moral, we will be able to avoid running
the risk of falling into the pit of cultural reductionism (that is, taking complex
cultural issues as simple and homogenous ones) and the unnecessary
imposition of one’s own cultural standard on others. The point here is that if such
standards are non-moral (that is, a matter of taste), then we don’t have the right
to impose them on others. But if such standards are moral ones, such as not
killing or harming people, then we may have the right to force others to act
accordingly. In this way, we may be able to find a common moral ground, such
as agreeing not to steal, lie, cheat, kill, harm, and deceive our fellow human
beings.
Now, what are moral standards, and how do they differ from non-moral
ones?
Moral Standards and their Characteristics
Moral standards are norms that individuals or groups have about the
kinds of actions believed to be morally right or wrong, as well as the values
placed on what we believed to be morally good or morally bad. Moral standards
normally promote “the good”, that is, the welfare and well-being of humans as
well as animals and the environment. Moral standards, therefore, prescribe what
humans ought to do in terms of rights and obligations.
According to some scholars, moral standards are the sum of combined
norms and values. In other words, norms plus values equal moral standards. On
the one hand, norms are understood as general rules about our actions or
behaviors. For example, we may say “We are always under the obligation to fulfil
our promises” or “It is always believed that killing innocent people is absolutely
wrong”. On the other hand, values are understood as enduring beliefs or
statements about what is good and desirable or not. For example, we may say
“Helping the poor is good” or “Cheating during exams is bad”.
According to many scholars, moral standards have the following
characteristics, namely:
1) Moral standards deal with matters we think can seriously injure or benefit
humans, animals, and the environment, such as child abuse, rape, and murder;
2) Moral standards are not established or changed by the decisions of
authoritative individuals or bodies. Indeed, moral standards rest on the
adequacy of the reasons that are taken to support and justify them. For sure, we
don’t need a law to back up our moral conviction that killing innocent people is
absolutely wrong;
3) Moral standards are overriding, that is, they take precedence over other
standards and considerations, especially of self-interest;
4) Moral standards are based on impartial considerations. Hence, moral
standards are fair and just;
and 5) moral standards are associated with special emotions (such as guilt and
shame) and vocabulary (such as right, wrong, good, and bad).
Non-moral Standards
Non-moral standards refer to standards by which we judge what is good
or bad and right or wrong in a non-moral way. Examples of non-moral standards
are standards of etiquette by which we judge manners as good or bad, standards
we call the law by which we judge something as legal or illegal, and standards
of aesthetics by which we judge art as good or rubbish. Hence, we should not
confuse morality with etiquette, law, and aesthetics or even with religion.
As we can see, non-moral standards are matters of taste or preference.
Hence, a scrupulous observance of these types of standards does not make one
a moral person. Violation of said standards also does not pose any threat to
human well-being.
Finally, as a way of distinguishing moral standards from non-moral
ones, if a moral standard says “Do not harm innocent people” or “Don’t steal”, a
non-moral standard says “Don’t text while driving” or “Don’t talk while the mouth
is full”.
C. Dilemma and Moral Dilemma (lifted from the book of De Guzman,
(2017) -Ethics: Principles of Ethical Behaviour in Modern Society)
Do you have any idea of what a dilemma is? Have you ever encountered
a situation where you need to choose between two alternatives, yet choosing
any could lead to a negative consequence on what you did not choose? What
did you do? How did you feel?
The term dilemma refers to a situation in which a tough decision has to
be made between two or more options, especially more or less equally
undesirable ones. Not all dilemmas are moral dilemmas.
Also called ‘ethical dilemmas’, moral dilemmas are situation in which a
difficult choice has to be made between two courses of action, either of which
entails transgressing a moral principle. At the very least, a moral dilemma
involves conflicts between moral requirements.
What is common to moral dilemmas is conflict. In each ethical dilemma,
an agent regards himself as having moral reasons to do each of two actions, but
doing both actions seems to be ethically not possible.
The key features of a moral dilemma are these: a.) the agent is required
to do each of two (or more) actions; b.) the agent can do each of the actions; but
the agent cannot do both (or all ) of the actions. In a moral dilemma, the agent
thus seems condemned to moral failure no matter what he does, he will do
something wrong, or fail to do something that he ought to do.
Some ethicists propose that when one of the conflicting moral
requirements overrides the other, the case is not a ‘genuine moral dilemma’.
Thus in addition to the features mentioned above, in order to have a genuine
moral dilemma, some add that it must also the case that c) neither of the
conflicting moral requirements is overridden.
Three Levels of Moral Dilemma
Moral Dilemmas can be categorized according to these levels:
1. Personal Dilemmas. Personal Dilemmas are those experienced
and resolved on the personal level. Since many ethical decisions
are personally made, many if not most of moral dilemmas fall
under, or boil down to this level. If a person makes conflicting
promises, he faces a moral conflict. When an individual has to
choose between the life of a child who is about to be delivered and
the child’s mother, he faces an ethical dilemma.
2. Organizational Dilemma. Organizational moral dilemmas refer to
ethical cases encountered and resolves by social organization.
This category includes moral dilemmas in business, medical fields
and public sector.
A medical institution which believes that human life should not be
deliberately shortened and that unpreventable pain should not be tolerated
encountered a conflict in resolving whether to withdraw life support from a dying
patient. This is common moral dilemma faced by healthcare organizations.
Administrative bodies in business are confronted with situations in which
several courses of action are possible but none of them provide a totally
successful outcome to those affected by the decision or actions taken. Moral
dilemmas in business involve issues about corporate practices, policies,
business behaviors, and the conducts and relationships of individuals in the
organizations.
In a public sector, government leaders and employees have a moral duty
to act in a manner that is fair and unbiased, that is loyal to the public by putting
public interest, accountability and transparency. In fulfilling these
responsibilities, public officials may encounter foreseeable moral dilemmas.
These dilemmas include whether or not to favour family, friends, or campaign
contributors over other constituents; favoring the agenda of one’s political party
over a policy one believes to be good for the community; dealing with conflicting
public duties inherent in serving both as a council member and as a member of
an agency or commission; resigning from organizations in which membership
may give rise to future conflicts; becoming a whistle blower even if it means
potentially derailing a policy objective one is pursuing; and accepting gifts if it is
legally permitted but creates the appearance of impropriety.
3. Structural Dilemmas. Structural moral dilemmas refer to cases
involving network of institutions and operative theoretical
paradigms. As they usually encompass multi-sectoral institutions
and organizations, they may be larger in scope and extent than
organizational dilemmas.
Case in point is the prices of medicine in the Philippines which are higher
compared to other countries in Asia and in countries of similar economic status.
Factors affecting medicine prices include cost of research, presence of
competition in the market, government regulations, and patent protection.
Institutions concerned may want to lower the costs of medicine, thereby
benefiting the Filipino public, but such a move may ruin the interests of the
involved researchers, inventors or discoverers, and pharmaceutical companies
which own the patent of the medicines or healthcare technologies.
D. Only human beings can be Ethical (lifted from the book of De
Guzman, (2017) -Ethics: Principles of Ethical Behaviour in Modern
Society)
Oftentimes we experience something that test our being and often also
we wonder whether we deserve to be the highest form of animal. If we commit
something, we often hear “animal ka”. But we are as Aristotle say “rational
animasl”. We are animals minus the rationality.
Another basic tenet in ethics is the belief that only human beings can
truly be ethical. Most philosophies hold that unlike animals, human beings
possess some traits that make it possible for them to be moral.
Only human beings are rational, autonomous, and self-conscious. The
qualities of rationality, autonomy, and self-consciousness are believed to confer
a full and equal moral status to those that possess them as these beings are the
only ones capable of achieving certain moral values.
Synthesis/Generalization
1. As ethics is defined as the science of the morality of
human act, it provides as with set of rules or principles
needed so we can be guided in our actions in society.
2. Rules are important to social beings as they protect the
greater good avoiding exploitations and tyranny in society.
Society could function soundly without rules and regulations.
3. Not all rules are moral rules and not all standards are moral
standards as moral standards are equated by some ethicists
to moral values and moral principles.
4. Moral Dilemmas are situations in which a difficult choice has
to be made between two courses of actions, either which
entails transgressing a moral principles. They involve
conflicts between moral requirements and they can happen
in the personal, organizational or structural level.
5. Only human beings can be ethical as only human beings are
rational, autonomous, and self-conscious, can act morally
and immorally, and are part of the moral community.
References:
Agapay, R. B.(1995, 2008) Ethics and the Filipino: A Manual on Morals for Students
and Educators,
2ns ed. Manila: National Bookstore, Inc.
Ardales, V. B.(1987) Introductory Text to Philosophy. Quezon City: Great Books
Trading, Inc.
Babor, E. R. (1999) Ethics: The Philosophical Discipline of Action, 1st ed. Manila,
Philippines, Rex Book Store.
Cruz, C. C. (1995) Contemporary Ethics. Manila: National Bookstore, Inc.
De Guzman J.M et al. (2017). Ethics: Principles of Ethical Behavior in Modern Society.
Malabon City: Mutya Publishing House, inc.
Dela Torre, J. (1993) Ethics: The man’s Tool for the Development of Sound
Professional and Civil
Life. Manila: Educational Publishing House, Inc.`
Dy Jr., M B. (1986) Philosophy of Man: Selected Readings. Manila: Goodwill Trading
Co. Inc.
Glen, Paul J. (1965) Ethics, A Class Manual in Moral Philosophy, (reprint) Manila:
National Bookstore.
____________. (1994) Contemporary Social Philosophy. Manila: Goodwill Trading
Co. Inc.
Montemayor, F. M.(1994) Ethics: The Philosophy of Life. Manila, Philippines: National
Book Store
____________.(1995) Introduction to Philosophy Through the Philosophy of Man. 2nd
ed. Manila: National Book Store, Inc.
Panizo, A., O.P. (1964) Ethics or Moral Philosophy. Manila: UST Textbook Series
Robles, G. S. (1994) Everyday Ethics. Manila: Educational Publishing House, Inc.
http://philonotes.com/index.php/2018/05/13/ethics/
Chapter 2: THE AGENT
Module 2: Culture in Moral Behavior and Developing Virtue as a
Habit
Introduction
This module is concerned with developing your understanding of Ethics on
the aspect of the moral agent. The discussion, description and explanation in this
module hope to equip you students with ideas on the role of culture in developing
your moral character. As man belongs to home and communities, social
relationships are build that create ways of life. In one way or the other, people
living together influence each towards creating beliefs, practices and character
which to them are necessary for their lives together. Make e of this module r to
provide you with insights and ideas to help you understand the role of culture in
moral behavior and in developing virtue as a habit.
Learning Objectives
With the completion of this self-learning module, you should be able to:
1. Articulate what culture means and attribute facets of your
personal behavior to culture
2. Recognize and appreciate the differences of moral
behavior in different culture.
3. Evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of cultural
relativism
4. Analyze crucial qualities of the Filipino moral identity in
your moral experiences
5. Identify universal values and explain why universal values
are necessary for human survival
6. Recall defining moments in your moral formation and the
relationship between individual act and moral character
you find in your moral formation
Culture in Moral Behavior
To understand the role of culture in moral behavior, it is important to first
of all have an understanding of what culture is and its necessary relationships
with man. It is commonly said that culture is all around us. Practically, culture
appears to be an actual part of our social life as well as our personality.
The term culture is so complex that it not easy to define. In one sense,
culture is used to denote that which is related to the arts and humanities. But in
broader sense, culture denotes the practices, beliefs, and perceptions of a given
society. The following are other definitions of the term culture:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Culture refers to the cumulative deposit of knowledge, experience,
beliefs, values, attitudes, meanings, hierarchies, religions, notion of
time, roles, spatial relations, concepts of the universe, and material
objects and possessions acquired by a group of people in the course
of generations through individual and group striving.
Culture consists of patterns, explicit and implicit, of and for behaviour
acquired and transmitted by symbols, constituting the distinctive
achievement of human groups, including their embodiments in
artefacts, the essential core of culture consists of traditional ideas and
especially their attached values, culture systems may, on the one
hand, be considered as products of action on the other hand as
conditioning influence upon further action.
Culture is the sum total of the learned behaviour of a group of people
that are generally considered to be the tradition of that people and
are transmitted from generation to generation
Culture in its broadest sense is cultivated behaviour; that is the totality
of a person’s learned, accumulated experience which is socially
transmitted, or more briefly, behaviour through social learning.
Culture
is
symbolic
communication.
Some of its symbols include a group’s skills, knowledge, attitudes,
values, and motives. The meanings of the symbols are learned and
deliberately perpetuated in a society through its institutions.
Defined broadly therefore, culture includes all the things individuals learn
while growing up among particular group: attitudes, standards of morality, rules
of etiquette, perceptions of reality, language, notions about the proper way to
live, beliefs about how females and males should interact, ideas about how the
world works and so forth. We call this cultural knowledge.
Culture’s Role in Moral Behavior
Based on the definitions of culture above, it is not hard to pinpoint
the role of culture in one’s moral behavior. A culture is a ‘way of life’ of a group
of people, and this so called way of life actually includes moral values and
behaviors, along with knowledge, beliefs, symbols that they accept, ‘generally
without thinking about them, and that they are passed along by communication
and imitation from one generation to the next.
Culture is learned as children grow up in society and discover how their
parents and others around them interpret the world. In our society, we learn to
evaluate what is (morally) good and bad and to judge when an unusual action is
appropriate or inappropriate (Manebog & Pena, 2016).
Many aspects of morality are taught. People learn moral and aspects of
right or wrong from transmitters of culture: respective parents, teachers, novels,
films, and television. Observing or watching them, pole develop a set of what is
right and wrong and what is acceptable and what is not.
Even experientially, it is improbable, if not impossible, to live in a society
without being affected by its culture. It follows too that it is hard to grow up in a
particular culture without being impacted by how it views morality or what is
ethically right or wrong. Social learning is the process by which individuals
acquire knowledge from others to which they belong as a normal part of
childhood. The process by which infants and children socially learn the culture
including morality, of those around them is called enculturation or socialization.
Moral Standards as Social Convention and the Social Conditioning Theory
Among the popular notions which attempt to give account for basic
concepts in Ethics, such as the existence of moral rules, the senses of moral
obligation, and the moral accountability, are the so called social conventions and
social conditioning theories. These views are upshot of the fact that we can learn
from morality culturally or through socialization.
Theories Explained. The things we regard as moral laws (moral
standards or rules) some purport are nothing but just social conventions. By
convention, they mean those things agreed upon by people like through their
authorities. Convention also refer to the usual or customary ways through which
things are done within a group.
Since it is observed that morality is something that is handed down to us
primarily by education or socialization, either through parents and elders or
though teachers, some believe that moral standards are merely a human
invention., like those other inventions we learn from school or home. Essentially,
to theorize that moral law is a social convention is to say that it is something
which human beings had just made up for themselves and might have been
different had they liked.
However, just because something is learned at home or school does not
necessarily mean that it is a social convention. Mathematical operations,
geographical facts and scientific laws are also taught in those institutions, yet
they are never considered as mere human fabrications. Meaning, whether or not
people know and like them, they are as they are.
The philosopher C.S. Lewis offers two reasons for saying that morality
belongs to the same class as mathematics:
1. Although there differences between the moral ideas of one time or
another country and those of another, the difference are not really
very great.
2. We affirm that the morality of one people is better or worse than that
of another which means that there is a moral standard or rule by which
we measure both moralities and that standard is real.
Culture Relativism in Ethics
Cultural Relativism is the most famous and dominant form of moral
relativism. Moral Relativism fundamentally believes that no act is good or bad
objectively. It also submits that different moral principles apply to different
persons or group of individuals.
Cultural Relativism defines ‘moral’ as what is ‘socially approved’ by the
majority in a particular culture. It maintains that an act is ethical in a culture that
approves of it, but immoral in one that disapproves of it.
Cultural relativists claim the following:
1. Different societies have different moral codes.
2. The moral code of a society determines what is right or wrong within
that society.
3. There are no moral truths that hold for all people at all times.
4. The moral code of our own society has no special status; it is but one
among many.
5. It is arrogant for us to judge other cultures. We should always be
tolerant of them
It is concluded that morality differs in every society as concepts of right
and wrong vary from culture to culture.
Cultural relativism: an analysis
1. Valuable lessons from ethical relativism
In proposing that there’s no independent standard in Ethics, moral
relativism does encourage tolerance. Without a doubt, tolerance is necessary for
people of different cultural origins to co-exist and live peacefully in a society.
The theory also teaches us to be open minded, thereby being more open
to discovering truth. Cultural relativism warns against being judgmental as it
reminds us that some of our beliefs and practices are mere conventional, and
thus not absolutely and exclusively correct.
2. The theory’s ethical faults
Cultural relativism discourages analytical thinking and independent
decision-making in Ethics as it requires unsuspecting compliance and
subscription to social norms. The theory teaches that to be ethical, folkways and
cultural norms should be followed uncritically.
Cultural Relativism is inconsistent in promoting tolerance while
teaching that no culture is morally superior or more progressive than others.
The theory is practicable only if people do not belong to more than
one institution.
Moral relativism is fundamentality self-defeating.
3. Rachels’ evaluation of cultural relativism
Philosophy professor James Rachels (1941-2003) made a compelling
assessment of Cultural Relativism.
The Cultural Differences Argument
Rachels explained that cultural relativists’ approach is to argue from facts
about the differences between cultural outlooks to a conclusion about the status
of morality.
Thus we are invited to accept reasoning like these:
The Greeks believed it was wrong to eat the dead, whereas the
Callatians (an Indian Tribe) believed it was right to eat the dead.
Therefore eating dead is neither objectively wrong. It is merely a matter
of opinion, which varies from culture to culture.
The Eskimos see nothing wrong with infanticide, whereas we believe
infanticide is immoral. Therefore, infanticide is neither objectively right nor
objectively wrong. It is merely a matter of opinion, which varies from
culture to culture.
Different cultures have different moral codes. Therefore, there is no
objective “truth” in morality. Right and wrong are only matters of opinion, and
opinions vary from culture to culture.
Rachels call these cultural differences argument. It is nonetheless
unsound because its conclusion does not follow from its premise.
Against cultural differences argument, this counter-argument could be
submitted:
People in some societies (e.g. Primitive Tribes) believe that the Earth is
flat, whereas Europeans hold that truth that the Earth is spherical. This
argument is obviously unsound because some societies might simply be
wrong in their beliefs
Cultural Relativism goes wrong in drawing a conclusion about an issue
from the mere fact that people disagree about it.
The Disagreements among Cultures
There are many factors, Rachel further explains, which work together to
produce the customs of a society. Since the difference in customs may be
because of some other aspects of social life, then it’s wrong to conclude that
there is a disagreement about values and morality just because customs differ.
Therefore there may be less ethical disagreements that there appears to be
(1997, p. 27).
The Case of Eskimos and Callatians
In sociology and Anthropology, the Eskimos are popular for killing normal
infants, especially girls. This makes them appear to possess significantly
different values from ours.
It is not that Eskimos have less affection for their children or less respect
for human life. An Eskimo will always protect its babies if conditions permit. But
they live in a harsh environment where food is in short supply that “life is hard,
and the margin of safety is small” (1999, p. 28).
In Eskimo’s very special case, Infanticide is thus a recognition that drastic
measures are sometimes needed to ensure the family’s survival.
The Bad Consequences of Cultural relativism
If we took cultural relativism seriously, we would be necessitated to deal
with the following corollaries enumerated by Rachels (1999, pp.25-27)
1. We could no longer say that the customs of other societies are morally
inferior to our own
2. We could decide whether actions are right or wrong just by consulting
standards of our society.
3. The idea of moral progress is called to doubt.
ASIAN AND FILIPINO UNDERSTANDING OF MORAL BEHAVIOUR
Because culture has an impact on morality, people from different cultures
appear to have seemingly, but not essentially different sets of ethics. This is
particularly apparent in ethics of groups of people from the Eastern or Asian
Culture as compared to those from Western culture
The Difference Between Western and Eastern Ethics
Western Ethics
Eastern Ethics
Focus
Finding the Truth
Protocol and Respect
Basis
Rational Thought
Religious Teachings
Emphasis
Logic, Cause, and Effect
Respect Towards
Family
Roots in
Athens, Rome and Judeo
Christianity
Hinduism, Buddhism,
Confucianism and
Taoism
Approach
Rational
Holistic and Cultural
Conflict and
Harmony
Good must triumph over Evil
Good and Bad, Light
and Dark all exist in
equilibrium
Filipino Moral Character: Strength and Weakness
Filipino cultural morality, especially that which concerns social ethics,
centers on ideally having a ‘smooth interpersonal relationship’ (SIR) with others.
The definition of SIR in Philippine culture is principally supported by and
anchored on at least six basic Filipino values.
Six Basic Filipino Values
1. Pakikisama is having and maintaining good public relation.
2. Hiya is described as a feeling of lowliness, shame or embarrassment,
and inhibition of shyness which is experienced as somewhat distressing.
3. Amor propio has been characterized as the high degree of sensitivity that
makes a person intolerant to criticism and causes him to have an easily
wounded pride.
4. Utang na loob is likewise a fundamental aspects of upholding group
harmony and relationships that demand the balancing of obligation and
depts.
5. Filipino hospitality refers to the innate ability and trait of Filipinos to be
courteous and entertaining to their guest.
6. Respects for Elders. Filipinos are not only respectful to elders, but also
have unique ways of expressing this respect.
These Filipino social values are important to maintain harmony in Filipino
relationships in social institutions such as family, school and community.
Universal Values
By Universal values, we mean those values generally shared by cultures.
The existence of the so-called universal values is a strong proof that cultural
relativism is wrong. If certain values exist both in Western and Eastern cultures
(including Filipino culture) despite the distance, then cultural relativism’s claim
that culture’s moralities radically differ from each other is mistaken.
Going back to the contention that Eskimos are also protective of their
children, Rachel submits the following sound argument (1999, p.29) Human
infants are helpless and cannot survive if they are not given extensive care for a
period of years. Therefore, if a group did not care for its young, the young would
not survive and the older members of the group would not be replaced. After a
while, the group would die out. Therefore, any cultural group that continues to
exist must care for its young infants that are not cared for must be the exceptions
rather than the rule.
The same argument could be used to reasonably show that other values
must be generally shared by many cultures. Given value on 1) truth telling, for
instance is indispensable in the existence of a society, for without it there would
be no reason to pay attention to what anyone communicates with anyone.
Rachels also mentions of the case of 2) valuing or respecting life which
necessitates the prohibition of murder. In a society where no one thought there
was anything wrong with killing at will, everyone would have to be constantly on
guard.
A. Developing Virtue as A Habit
1. Moral Character and Virtues
The term “character” is derived from the Greek word “charakter”, which
was initially used as a mark impressed upon a coin. It means a distinct mark or
qualities by which one thing was distinguished from others. At the beginning of
Book II of the Nicomachean Ethics, the Greek philosopher Aristotle tells us that
there are two distinct of human excellences:
1. Excellences of Thought
2. Excellences of Character
Excellences of Character
Excellences of character is often translated as ‘moral virtue(s)’ or ‘moral
excellence(s)’. ‘Ethikos’ (ethical) is the adjective cognate with ‘ethos’ (character).
So when we speak of ‘virtue’ or excellence of moral character, the highlight is on
the blend of qualities that make a person the sort of ethically admirable individual
that he/she is.
Moral Character
Moral character refers to the existence or lack of virtues such as integrity,
courage, fortitude, honesty, and loyalty. If one lacks virtue, he/she may have any
moral vices, or he/she may be marked by a condition somewhere in between
virtue and vice. Moral character means that you're a good person and a good
citizen with a sound moral compass. Moreover, philosophers usually think that
moral character traits, unlike other personality or psychological traits have an
irreducibly evaluative dimension; that is, they involve a normative judgment. The
agent is morally responsible for having the moral character trait itself or for the
outcome of that trait. Hence, a certain moral character trait is a trait for which the
agent is morally responsible.
The Circular Relations of acts and character
There are some ACTS THAT BUILD character and moral character itself.
But not all acts helps to build moral character. A person’s actions determine
his/her moral character, but moral character itself generates acts that help in
developing either virtue or vice. Habitual practice of moral and intellectual
excellences, or ‘virtues.’
For Aristotle, the function of human being consists in activities which
manifest the best states of his rational aspects, that is , the virtues. To determine
regularity and reliability, what individual acts are appropriate and reasonable in
certain situations. It is not easy to define in rules which acts deserve moral praise
and blame, and that, these matters require the judgment of the victorious person,
that is , someone with good moral character
Moral Characters as Dispositions
The moral characters that constitute a person’s moral character are
characteristically understood as behavioral and affective dispositions. Generally
speaking dispositions are particular kinds or characteristics that objects can
possess. Among human beings, moral character traits-either virtue or vices are
also considered as dispositions. Moral character traits are those dispositions of
character for which it is suitable top hold agents morally responsible. A moral
character which a person is deserving of a positive reactive attitude such as
praise or gratitude is a virtue. On the other hand, a vice is amoral character trait
for which the agent is deserving of a negative reactive attitude such as
resentment or blame.
Six Stages of Moral Development
The American psychologist Lawrence Kohlberg is best known for his
theory of stages of moral development. In Heinz dilemma, Kohlberg found a
pattern in how people justified whether or not they would steal the drug as people
age. By analyzing the answers from various children, Kohlberg discovered that
the reasons tend to change as the children got older.
Kohlberg’s Theory consist of 3 levels and 6 stages of Moral Development
Level
Level 1: PreConventional
Morality
Age Range
Pre – school children,
Elementary, Some HS
students
Stage
Stage 1: Obedience and
Punishment Orientation
Stage2: Individualism
and
Exchange
Level 2:
Conventional
Morality
Seen in a few older
Elementary and many
high school students
Stage 3: Good Interpersonal
Level 2:
Conventional
Morality
Seen in a few older
Elementary and many
high school students
Stage 3: Good
Relationships
Interpersonal
Relationships
Stage 4: Maintaining
Social
Order
Level 3:
Post Conventional
Morality
Rarely seen before
college (Stage 6 is
extremely rare even in
adults)
Stage 5:
Social Contract and
Individual rights
Stage 6:
Universal
Principles
Six Stages of Moral Development
Level 1 – Pre-Conventional Morality
•
Stage 1. Obedience and Punishment Orientation
•
Stage 2. Individualism and Exchange
Level 2 – Conventional Morality
•
Stage 3. Good Interpersonal Relationships
•
Stage 4. Maintaining the Social Order
Level 3 – Post- Conventional Morality
•
Stage 5. Social Contract and Individual Rights
•
Stage 6. Universal Principles
Synthesis/Generalization
1. As Culture includes all the things individuals learn while
growing up among particular group: attitudes, standards
of morality, rules of etiquette, perceptions of reality,
language, notions about the proper way to live, beliefs
about how females and males should interact, ideas about
how the world works and so forth, it is without doubt that
culture has role in the development of man’s moral
behaviour.
2. Moral law is not a social convention; it is not something
which human beings had just made up for themselves and
might have been different had they liked. Whether or not
people know and like them, they are as they are.
3. Cultural relativism has both positive lessons and bad
consequences to provide. Let us make ourselves the
judge of its worth.
4. Eastern, Western, and Filipino cultures provide different
perspectives about ethics and morality. Nevertheless all of
them contribute in making man become better equipped
to face moral issues and problems.
5. Universal values are present in society. They help create
peaceful and harmonious communities and societies.
6. The moral character that man projects are dependent on
his acts. Good moral character elicits virtuous actions; bad
moral character elicits vicious actions. Virtuous actions
make a good character and vicious actions make a bad
character
7. Kohlberg believes that man’s moral development has to
undergo stages.
References:
Agapay, R. B.(1995, 2008) Ethics and the Filipino: A Manual on Morals for
Students and Educators,2nd ed. Manila: National Bookstore, Inc.
Ardales, V. B.(1987) Introductory Text to Philosophy. Quezon City: Great Books
Trading, Inc.
Babor, E. R. (1999) Ethics: The Philosophical Discipline of Action, 1st ed. Manila,
Philippines, Rex Book Store.
Cruz, C. C. (1995) Contemporary Ethics. Manila: National Bookstore, Inc.
De Guzman J.M et al. (2017). Ethics: Principles of Ethical Behavior in Modern
Society. Malabon City: Mutya Publishing House, inc.
Dela Torre, J. (1993) Ethics: The man’s Tool for the Development of Sound
Professional and Civil
Life. Manila: Educational Publishing House, Inc.`
Dy Jr., M B. (1986) Philosophy of Man: Selected Readings. Manila: Goodwill
Trading Co. Inc.
Glen, Paul J. (1965) Ethics, A Class Manual in Moral Philosophy, (reprint) Manila:
National Bookstore.
(1994) Contemporary Social Philosophy. Manila: Goodwill Trading Co. Inc.
Montemayor, F. M.(1994) Ethics: The Philosophy of Life. Manila, Philippines:
National Book Store
(1995) Introduction to Philosophy Through the Philosophy of Man. 2nd ed.
Manila: National Book Store, Inc.
Panizo, A., O.P. (1964) Ethics or Moral Philosophy. Manila: UST Textbook
Series
Robles, G. S. (1994) Everyday Ethics. Manila: Educational Publishing House,
Inc.
http://philonotes.com/index.php/2018/05/13/ethics/
Chapter 2: THE AGENT
Module 3: The Human Act
Introduction
As Ethics is defined as the practical science of the morality of human
actions, it is imperative to have a clear understanding of the act, the human actions.
Human actions may either be moral, immoral or amoral depending on the
circumstances that surround them. This module is dedicated for you to get
acquainted with the act, the human act. It is hoped that the discussion, description
and explanation in this module will further help in your journey to the understanding
of ethics. Make use of this module to provide you with insights and ideas to help you
understand the object of study in ethic, the human act.
Learning Objectives
With the completion of this self-learning module, you should be able to:
1. Describe the difference between human act and act of man.
2. Illustrate knowledge of the essential attributes of human act.
3. Differentiate elicited from commanded acts
Content
Ethics deals with the study of man and particularly with his actions. But not
every act which proceeds from man is a human act, as used and understood in ethics.
By human act acts in ethics, we mean:
•
•
•
•
•
The free voluntary acts of man
The acts with knowledge and consent
Acts which are proper to man as man; because, of all animals, he alone has
knowledge and freedom of will.
Acts which, we are conscious are under our control and for which we are
responsible.
Human acts are those which man is master, which he has the power of doing
or doing as he pleases.
Acts therefore, in order to be truly human, must be done willfully, knowingly
and freely. Without will or consent, knowledge and freedom, there can be no human
act properly so called. Only human acts have moral significance. When one shoots
and kills another by a revolver, the act is morally wrong, but the moral evil is not in
the action of the revolver but in the act of the one who pulled the trigger that released
the bullet.
The biological or physiological functions or processes which occur in man’s
body, such as the circulation of the blood, the growth of hair and nails, the opening
and closing of the valves of the hear, breathing, etc., are not human acts and have
no moral bearing or significance. They are instinctive and are not within the control
of man. They are called acts of man. As such, they are not wilfully done, knowingly
done and freely. Examples of acts under this category: acts of person asleep or under
hypnosis, reflex actions where the will has no time to intervene and acts performed
under serious physical violence such as hostage obliged to do an evil action.
Human acts are either elicited or commanded acts. Elicited acts are those
performed by the will and are not bodily externalized. Paul Glenn enumerated the
following elicited acts:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Wish is the tendency of the will towards something, whether this this be
realizable or not. The object of wishing may include the impossible, or that
which is remotely possible such as winning the sweepstakes.
Intention is the tendency of the will towards attainable but without necessarily
committing oneself to attain it. Such is our intention to study the lesson, to
attend a party, or to spend a vacation in Baguio
Consent is the acceptance of the will of those needed to carry out the
intention. Thus a woman is said to show consent when she consciously attract
attention to herself.
Election is the selection of the will of those means effective enough to carry
out the intention. A salesman shows election when he opts to visit a client
instead of just writing him a letter.
Use is the command of the will to make use of those means elected to carry
out the intention. It is this act of the will which moves the salesman to dress
up and take a ride to see his client.
Fruition is the enjoyment of the will derives from the attainment of the thing
he had desired earlier. The joy of the woman on being complimented for her
attractiveness, or the satisfaction of the salesman in closing a deal with his
client is fruition.
Commanded acts are those done either by man‘s mental or bodily powers
under the command of the will. Commanded acts are either internal or external
actions. Examples of internal actions are conscious reasoning, recalling something,
encouraging oneself, controlling aroused emotions and others. Examples of external
actions are walking, eating, dancing, laughing, listening, reading and others. Some
actions are combinations of internal and external actions such as listening, studying,
reading, driving a car, writing a letter or playing chess.
Synthesis/Generalization
1. An act to have moral significance must be a human act.
2. A human act is an act that is knowingly done, wilfully done and freely done.
3. An act is an involuntary and reflexive action; it is not knowingly done, wilfully
done and freely done
4. Elicited acts are acts performed by the will but not bodily externalized
5. Commanded acts are acts performed by the will and are bodily externalized.
References:
Agapay, R. B.(1995, 2008) Ethics and the Filipino: A Manual on Morals for
Students and Educators 2ns ed. Manila: National Bookstore, Inc.
Ardales, V. B.(1987) Introductory Text to Philosophy. Quezon City: Great Books
Trading, Inc.
Babor, E. R. (1999) Ethics: The Philosophical Discipline of Action, 1st ed. Manila,
Philippines, Rex Book Store.
Cruz, C. C. (1995) Contemporary Ethics. Manila: National Bookstore, Inc.
De Guzman J.M et al. (2017). Ethics: Principles of Ethical Behavior in Modern
Society. Malabon City: Mutya Publishing House, inc.
Dela Torre, J. (1993) Ethics: The man’s Tool for the Development of Sound
Professional and Civil
Life. Manila: Educational Publishing House, Inc.
Dy Jr., M B. (1986) Philosophy of Man: Selected Readings. Manila: Goodwill
Trading Co. Inc.
Glen, Paul J. (1965) Ethics, A Class Manual in Moral Philosophy, (reprint) Manila:
National Bookstore.
____________. (1994) Contemporary Social Philosophy. Manila: Goodwill Trading
Co. Inc.
Montemayor, F. M.(1994) Ethics: The Philosophy of Life. Manila, Philippines:
National Book Store
____________.(1995) Introduction to Philosophy Through the Philosophy of Man.
2nd ed. Manila: National Book Store, Inc.
Panizo, A., O.P. (1964) Ethics or Moral Philosophy. Manila: UST Textbook Series
Robles, G. S. (1994) Everyday Ethics. Manila: Educational Publishing House, Inc.
http://philonotes.com/index.php/2018/05/13/ethics/`
Chapter 3 : THE ACT
Module 4: The Human Act as Knowingly Done
Introduction
This module is concerned with developing your understanding of what human
act as knowingly is, the modifier of knowledge and, reason and impartiality as
minimum requirement of morality. It is hoped that the discussion, description and
explanation in this module will further help in your journey to the understanding of
ethics, especially knowledge as an essential attribute of human act. Make use of this
module to provide you with insights and ideas to help you understand knowledge as
an essential attribute of a human act.
Learning Objectives
With the completion of this self-learning module, you should be able to:
1. Describe knowledge as an essential attribute of human act.
2. Cite and explain the principles related to ignorance as a modifier of
knowledge.
3. Interpret what it means by saying reason and impartiality are the
minimum requirements of mortality.
Content
Acts as knowingly Done
Another essential attribute for human act is knowledge. It means that you
should be sure that you know what you are doing. To will something, one has to
know beforehand. Man cannot choose or act unless he know which is a better good.
When a person chooses to act according to what he knows, he acts freely. What
can make man know what he is doing is his reason. . But the intellect does not
always determine the will.
Modifier Of Knowledge: Ignorance
We are familiar with the saying, “Ignorance of the law excuses no one”. This
implies that one should not act in the state of ignorance and the one who has done
wrong may n0ot claim ignorance as a defense.
Ignorance is the absence of knowledge which a person ought to possess. A
lawyer is expected to know his law, the doctor his medicine; and the manager, his
business operations. In the realm of morals, every one of age and reason is
expected to know at least the general norms of good behavior.
Ignorance is either vincible or invincible. Vincible ignorance can easily be
reminded through ordinary diligences and reasonable efforts. The ignorance of a
visitor regarding a particular address in a certain place is vincible, since he can easily
ask for information from a policeman or pedestrian.
Invincible ignorance is the type which a person without being aware of it,
or having awareness of it, lacks the means to rectify it. The ignorance regarding
missing persons or objects is often invincible. Thus a cook might be unaware that
the food he is cooking is contaminated.
Under the category of vincible ignorance is affected. This is the type which a
person keeps by positive efforts in order to escape responsibility. It is affected
ignorance when an employee refuses to read a memo precisely so that he may be
exempted from its requirements.
Principles:
1. Invicble ignorance renders an involuntary, A person cannot be held
morally liable if he is not aware of his state of ignorance. A waiter who
is not aware that the food he is serving has been poisoned cannot be
held for murder.
2. Vincible ignorance does not destroy but lessens the voluntariness and
the corresponding accountability over the act. A person who becomes
aware of the state of ignorance he is in has the moral obligation to
rectify it by exercising reasonable diligence in seeking the needed
information. To act with vincble ignorance is to act imprudently. A
waiter who suspects that the food he is serving has been laced with
poison has the moral obligation to ascertain the fact or at least
forewarn the guests about the suspicion.
3. Affected ignorance though it decreases voluntariness, increases the
accountability over the resultant act. Insofar as affected ignorance
interferes with the intellect, it decreases voluntariness. But insofar as
it willed to persist, it increases accountability. Certainly, refusing to
rectify ignorance implies malice. And the malice is greater when
ignorance is used as an excuse for not doing the right thing. Thus a
child who refuses to be guided by his parents has only himself to blame
for his wrongdoing.
Reason and Impartiality
Reason plays a vital role in Ethics as moral truths are truths of reason; a
moral judgment is true if it is espoused by a better reason than the alternatives. If
someone tells us that a certain action is immoral, we may ask why it is so and if there
is no reasonable answer, we may discard the proposition as absurd.
Impartiality
It involves the idea that each individual’s interests and point of view are
equally important. It is a principle of justice holding that decisions ought to be based
on objective criteria, rather than on the basis of bias, prejudice or preferring the
benefit to one person over another for improper reason.
References:
Agapay, R. B.(1995, 2008) Ethics and the Filipino: A Manual on Morals for Students
and Educators, 2ns ed. Manila: National Bookstore, Inc.
Ardales, V. B.(1987) Introductory Text to Philosophy. Quezon City: Great Books
Trading, Inc.
Babor, E. R. (1999) Ethics: The Philosophical Discipline of Action, 1st ed. Manila,
Philippines, Rex Book Store.
Cruz, C. C. (1995) Contemporary Ethics. Manila: National Bookstore, Inc.
De Guzman J.M et al. (2017). Ethics: Principles of Ethical Behavior in Modern
Society. Malabon City: Mutya Publishing House, inc.
Dela Torre, J. (1993)
Professional and Civil
Ethics: The man’s Tool for the Development of Sound
Life. Manila: Educational Publishing House, Inc. `
Dy Jr., M B. (1986) Philosophy of Man: Selected Readings. Manila: Goodwill
Trading Co. Inc.
Glen, Paul J. (1965) Ethics, A Class Manual in Moral Philosophy, (reprint) Manila:
National Bookstore.
____________. (1994) Contemporary Social Philosophy. Manila: Goodwill Trading
Co. Inc.
Montemayor, F. M.(1994) Ethics: The Philosophy of Life. Manila, Philippines:
National Book Store
____________.(1995) Introduction to Philosophy Through the Philosophy of Man.
2nd ed. Manila: National Book Store, Inc.
Panizo, A., O.P. (1964) Ethics or Moral Philosophy. Manila: UST Textbook Series
Robles, G. S. (1994) Everyday Ethics. Manila: Educational Publishing House, Inc.
http://philonotes.com/index.php/2018/05/13/ethics/
Chapter 3 : THE ACT
Module 5: The Human Act As Willfully Done
Introduction
This module is concerned with developing your understanding of what human
act as willfully done is, the modifier of free will, and feelings and moral decision
making. It is hoped that the discussion, description and explanation in this module
will further help in your journey to the understanding of ethics, especially will as an
essential attribute of human act and the role of feelings in making moral decision.
Make use of this module to provide you with insights and ideas to help you understand
free will as an essential attribute of a human act and the role of feelings in moral
decision making.
Learning Objectives
With the completion of this self-learning module, you should be able to:
1.Describe free will as an essential attribute of human act.
2.Cite and explain the principles related to passions and habits as modifiers of
knowledge.
3.Capture and analyse their feelings in personal moral experience
Content
Acts as Willfully Done
One essential attribute of an act to be truly human is the willingness to do the act;
you like doing it, you love doing it and your mind, your heart, your soul and your whole
self is with. Whether it be elicited or commanded, the willingness should be present
to be truly human and to have moral significance. By moral significance, we mean such
act can be judged as moral or right as it conforms to the norms of morality, immoral
or wrong as it does not conform with the norms of morality or, amoral or indifferent
as it cannot be determined as to whether it conforms or not to the norms of morality.
Modifiers of the Will : Passions and Habits
As the moral significance of a human act is very important, it good to know that
there are instances when the presence or absence of such essential attribute can make
a difference in the determination of its moral distinction as to whether moral immoral
or amoral. Let us look into tow modifiers of the will which can have important effect
in the moral distinction
Passion or concupiscence
Passion or concupiscence, are either tendencies towards desirable objects or
tendencies away from undesirable or harmful things. The former are called positive
emotions; the latter negative emotions. Passions are psychic responses. As such they
are neither mortal nor immoral. However, man is bound to regulate his emotions and
submit them to the control of reason.
Passions are either antecedent or consequent. Antecedent passions are those
that precede
an act. It may happen that a person is emotionally aroused to
perform an act. Antecedent passions predisposed a person to act. Thus, love may
induce one to make numerous and lengthy phone calls to his sweetheart or to plot
the murder of a rival.
Principle: Antecedent passions do not always destroy voluntariness but they
diminish accountability for the resultant act. Antecedent passions weaken the will
power of a person without however, completely obstructing his freedom. Thus the so
called “crimes of passion” are voluntary. But in so far as passions interfere with the
freedom of the will one’s accountability is diminished.
Consequent passions are those intentionally aroused and kept. Consequent
passions therefore are said to be voluntary in cause, the result of the will playing the
strings of emotions. Thus a young man may deliberately arouse himself sexually by
reading pornographic magazines. Or a victim of injustice may intentionally nurse his
resentment towards his tormentor. The young man who commits lasciviousness after
arousing himself sexually and the fellow who commits vengeance due to his cultivated
resentment are both morally accountable.
Principle: Consequent passion do not lessen voluntariness, it may even increase
accountability. This is because consequent passions are direct results of the will which
fully consent to them instead of subordinating them to its control.
Habit
Habit as defined by Glenn “is a lasting readiness and faculty, born of frequently
repeated acts, for acting in a certain manner. Habits are acquired inclinations towards
something to be done. They assume the role of a second nature, moving one who has
them to perform acts with relative ease.
The word habit forming that we use to refer to certain experiences shows how
easy it is for one to acquire a habit. It also implies that a habit is not easy to overcome
or alter. It requires a strong willed person to correct a habit successfully within a
limited period of time. Thus alcoholics and smokers find it almost impossible to reform
Principle: Action doe by force of habit are voluntary in cause, unless a reasonable effort
is made to counteract the habitual inclination, Habits are either good or bad,. We
speak here of bad habits which lead to immoral acts.
Habits are voluntary in cause because they are the result of previously willed
acts done repeatedly as a matter of fact. Thus every activity emanating form habit is
said to partaker of the voluntariness of those previous acts. Therefore for as long as the
habit is not corrected, evil actions done by force of habit are voluntary and
accountable. When a person decides to fight his habit, and for as long as the effort
towards this purpose continues, actions resulting from such habit may be regarded as
acts of man and not accountable. The reason as pointed out by Glenn is that the cause
of such habit is no longer expressly desired.
Feelings and Moral Decision-Making
Feelings As Instinctive Response to Moral Dilemmas
Ethics is also a matter of emotion; moral judgments at their best should be
emotional; feelings are deemed as instinctive and trained response to moral dilemmas.
Ethical judgments are highly emotional as people emotionally express strong approval
or disapproval of different acts. Being good involves both thinking and feeling.
Feelings as obstacles to Making the Right Decisions
Feelings/Emotions can become obstacles or impediments to becoming ethical.
Especially when feeling’s roles in ethics are misinterpreted or exaggerated.
Ethical Subjectivism
Ethical subjectivism is a meta-ethical theory, It holds that the truth or falsity of
ethical propositions is dependent on the feelings, attitude, or standards of a person or
group of persons. It denies that there is objectivity in morality. Moral judgments are
not about objective facts, but are simply about our personal feelings. Subjectivists hold
that there is no such thing as objective right or real wrong.
• Controversial Ethical topic: Abortion
First group: Abortion is immoral!
Second group: Abortion must be tolerated
Third group: No moral stance is objectively right and wrong, your
moral opinions are merely based on your feelings!
• Homosexuality is wrong!
He is not stating a fact about homosexuality, he is just reporting his
feelings towards it.
Analyzing Ethical Subjectivism
•
Positive side:
We are to identify our moral principles by simply following our own feelings,
not by what society dictates
Problem 1:
•
•
•
It provides a weak foundation when dealing with acts like rape,
bullying, and slavery
We cannot say that these acts are morally incorrect, we can only
express our negative feelings towards it
We believe and claim that our stance represents the “truth”
Problem 2:
•
•
•
Implies that each of us is infallible in expressing our feelings about
moral issues
We can be wrong in our moral evaluation
Counter-argument: “If Ethical Subjectivism is correct, then each of us
is infallible in our moral judgments as long as we are speaking sincerely.
But we are not infallible – we may be mistaken, even when we are
speaking sincerely. Therefore, Ethical Subjectivism cannot be correct”.
Problem 3:
•
Subjectivism cannot account for the fact of disagreement in ethics
•
Counter-argument: “When A says “X is morally acceptable” and B says
“X is morally unacceptable”, they are disagreeing. But if Ethical
subjectivism is correct, there would be no disagreement between A and
B. Therefore, Ethical Subjectivism cannot be correct.”
Emotivism
Emotivism is an improved version of Subjectivism; actually the most popular
form of non-cognitivism, the meta-ethical theory that claims that ethical sentences do
not convey authentic propositions. It based on Logical Positivism that states that all
truth claims must be empirically verifiable. It denies moral truth and knowledge,
because of the absence of scientific or empirical evidence. Moral judgments according
to Emotivism are not statements of fact but are mere expressions of he emotions of the
speaker, especially since they are usually feelings based.
• Purposes of Language
Statement To convey Information
“Marcos was a President once.”
“Jose Rizal wrote Noli me Tangere
Command To influence conduct
“Close the door!”
Expression
Express the speaker’s attitude
“Yes Lord!”
Reporting vs. Expressing an Attitude
“I like Marcos.”
^I am reporting the fact that I have a positive attitude towards him.
“Hurrah for Marcos!”
^I am expressing an attitude, but not reporting that I have it
1.
• Two purposes of Ethical Utterance
As a command
“Stealing is immoral”
“Don’t steal!”
2. To express (not report) a speaker’s attitude
“Fair play is good”
“Hurrah for fair play!”
“I approve of fair play”
Subjectivism vs. Emotivism
Subjectivism
= “I disapprove of hazing.”
Seen as a statement of fact about the speaker.
Can be true or false.
Emotivism
≠ “I disapprove of hazing.”
=“Do not participate in hazing.”
Does not state a fact about the speaker at all.
Evaluating Emotivism: Faults
1. It suggests that in ethical disputes, we can only appeal to emotion, not
reason. This situation can bring about anarchy.
2. It is against deliberate discussions about ethical differences.
3. It fails to distinguish moral judgements from expressions of personal
preferences.
4. Personal taste, does not require to be supported by reason. Moral
statements require backing by reasons. In the absence of sensible
rationale, they are merely capricious and ignorable.
5. The theory reduced morality to mere matters of feelings without
reasons. The fact is moral truths are truths of reasons
Feelings Can Help in Making the Right Decisions
There are situations in which our feelings and likings are relevant to the
rightness of our decisions and actions. Christian Philosophy of love is basically a string
of liking, desire, or emotion. Moral compasses are strongly influenced by the fleeting
forces of disgust, fondness, or fear. Emotions like our love for family and friends play
crucial part in giving meaning to life. Feelings should not be removed in the sphere of
morality. There are times when feelings are relevant to the rightness of decisions and
actions. Ethics-without-feeling goes against Christian philosophy’s emphasis on love,
in which we should serve God with a joyful heart or feeling. Sometimes, rational
thinking is not the only proper way to make an ethical decision.
Nonetheless, feelings and emotions involved in moral thinking should be
anchored on careful deliberations. It ought to mesh with an emotional instinctive
reaction that provides a motivation to act ethically and correct injustices.
Six ways to Control Your emotions and Make Better Decisions
1. Pause and assess the situation. This simple act can save you
headaches down the road. Give your brain enough time to evaluate
the current situation so you can make the right choice.
2. Don't always rely on your gut. Intuition, more commonly known as “gut
feeling”, is one of our most basic instincts. It helps us identify cues in the
environment so we avoid danger and survive. But avoid trusting this
human sense when it comes to games of chance (i.e. circumstances that
rely on a 50/50 probability). The best examples would be gambling and the
stock market. So when can you rely on your gut? When there are skills or
experience involved.
3. Put it in writing. You’re not going to feel better right away – however,
keeping notes about your day is a tried-and-tested form of therapy. It’s free,
it gives you some alone time, and you can review your thoughts later for
more clarity.
4. Narrow your options. Narrowing your selection will not only save
you a lot of stress, science says you’ll be happier with the choice
you’ve made, too!
5. Ask the majority. One of the best tricks to choosing the right
decision – especially if it involves big risks – is to ask for a second
opinion.
6. Avoid burnout. Feeling stressed, confused, or anxious? Get some
rest. Not only will you feel refreshed after waking up, your mind will
be clearer to pick a better option.
Synthesis/Generalization
A wilfully done action can be altered by the presence of passion and
habit. Feelings are instinctive responses to moral dilemmas. Yet as
responses they may either be obstacles or helps in making moral
decisions; that is why there is a need to be on guard against the improper
use of feelings in moral decisions.
References:
Agapay, R. B.(1995, 2008) Ethics and the Filipino: A Manual on Morals for Students and
Educators, 2ns ed. Manila: National Bookstore, Inc.
Ardales, V. B.(1987) Introductory Text to Philosophy. Quezon City: Great Books
Trading, Inc.
Babor, E. R. (1999) Ethics: The Philosophical Discipline of Action, 1st ed. Manila,
Philippines, Rex Book Store.
Cruz, C. C. (1995) Contemporary Ethics. Manila: National Bookstore, Inc.
De Guzman J.M et al. (2017). Ethics: Principles of Ethical Behavior in Modern Society.
Malabon City: Mutya Publishing House, inc.
Dela Torre, J. (1993) Ethics: The man’s Tool for the Development of Sound Professional
and Civil
Life. Manila: Educational Publishing House, Inc. `
Dy Jr., M B. (1986) Philosophy of Man: Selected Readings. Manila: Goodwill Trading
Co. Inc.
Glen, Paul J. (1965) Ethics, A Class Manual in Moral Philosophy, (reprint) Manila:
National Bookstore.
____________. (1994) Contemporary Social Philosophy. Manila: Goodwill Trading Co.
Inc.
Montemayor, F. M.(1994) Ethics: The Philosophy of Life. Manila, Philippines: National
Book Store
____________.(1995) Introduction to Philosophy Through the Philosophy of Man. 2nd
ed. Manila: National Book Store, Inc.
Panizo, A., O.P. (1964) Ethics or Moral Philosophy. Manila: UST Textbook Series
Robles, G. S. (1994) Everyday Ethics. Manila: Educational Publishing House, Inc.
Chapter 3: THE ACT
Module 6: The Human Act As Freely Done
Introduction
This module is concerned with developing your understanding of what human
act as freely done is, freedom as foundation of morality the modifier of freedom, and
the role of moral courage in becoming ethical. It is hoped that the discussion,
description and explanation in this module will further help in your journey to the
understanding of ethics, especially freedom as an essential attribute of human act,
freedom as the minimum requirement of morality and the role of moral courage in
ethics. Make use of this module to provide you with insights and ideas to help you
understand freedom as an essential attribute of a human act, freedom as foundation
of morality the modifier of freedom, and the role of moral courage in becoming ethical.
Learning Objectives
With the completion of this self-learning module, you should be able to:
1.Describe freedom as an essential attribute of human act.
2.Cite and explain the principles related to fear and violence as modifiers of freedom.
3.Exhibit knowledge of the role or freedom and moral courage in morality.
Content
Act as Freely Done
Freedoms as a Foundation of Morality
One of the reasons animals cannot be truly ethical is that they are not really
autonomous or free. Likewise, a robot no matter how beneficial its functions may be
cannot be said to be moral, for it has no freedom or choice but to work according to
what is commanded based on its built-in program.
Basically, morality is a question of choice. Morality, practically is choosing
ethical codes, values or standards to guide us in our daily lives. Philosophically,
choosing is impossible without freedom.
Morality requires and allows choice, which means, the right to choose even
differently from our fellows. In their daily lives, people make the choice to give to
charities, donate time and money to schools, mentor children, open businesses, or
protest against animal cruelty.
Everyone who wishes to function morally, and rationally in a society has to make
choices virtually every minute of the day. Practically, the sum of our choices can be
said to define our specific morality. Applicably, using the government or one’s culture
to coerce people to behave in a certain way is not morality but the antithesis of
morality. This principle in ethics applies even when the motive is pure.
The Modifier Of Freedom: Fear and Violence
Fear
Fear is the mind of a person who is confronted by an impending danger or harm
himself or loved ones. Distinction is made however between an act done with fear and
act done out or because of fear.
Certain actions which by nature are dangerous or risky are done with fear with
varying degree of fear. Climbing a cliff, flying an airplane through a storm, diving for
pearls, or arresting a notorious killer are examples of acts performed with fear. In these
cases, fear is a normal response to danger. Such actions are voluntary because the doer
is in full control of his faculties and acts in spite of his fear.
Fear is an instinct for self-preservation. We even fear new experiences or
situations such as embarking on a long journey, being left alone in a strange place, or
being asked to speak before a group of people. But doing something out of fear or
because of it is entirely different. Here, fear becomes a positive force compelling a
person to act without careful deliberation
The child reads his book out of fear of the mother; the employee volunteers to
work overtime out fear of being fired by the boss; a friend stops smoking out of fear of
contracting cancer. These examples show actions done because of fear. Fear modifies
the freedom of the doer, inducing him to act in a certain predetermined manner often
without his full consent.
Principles:
1. Acts done with fear are voluntary. A person acting with of fear is acting
in spite of his fear and is in full control of himself.
2. Acts done out of fear, however great is simply voluntary although is
conditionally voluntary. It is simply voluntary because the person
remains in control of his faculties including that of moderating fear. It is
also conditionally involuntary because, if it were not for the presence of
something feared, the person would not act or would act in another way.
3. Acts done because of intense fear or panic are involuntary. Panic
completely obscures the mind. In this mental state, a person is not
expected to think sensibly. Thus a person in a state of panic might jump
from the 12th floor of a building. Such is not considered suicide since it
is done involuntarily. Panic cause a person to lose complete control of
himself.
Intimidating or threatening a person with harm is an unjust act. Legally
speaking, actions done out of fear are invalid acts. Thus contracts
entered into out of fear are voidable, meaning they can later on be
annulled. It is grossly unfair to oblige a person to fulfil a contract
obtained by the forced of a threat.
Violence
Violence refers to any physical force exerted on a person by another free agent
for the purpose of compelling said person to act against his will. Bodily torture,
maltreatment, isolation and mutilation are examples of violence against person.
Principles:
1. External actions or commanded actions performed by a person
subjected to violence to which reasonable resistance has been offered
are involuntary and are not accountable. Active resistance should always
be offered to an unjust aggressor. However if resistance is impossible, or
if the there is a serious threat to one’s life, a person confronted by
violence can always offer intrinsic resistance by withholding consent
that his enough to save his moral integrity.
2. Elicited acts or those done by the ill alone are not subject to violence and
are therefore voluntary. The will insofar as it is a spiritual faculty is not
within the reach of violence. History carries the story of thousand heroes
who had suffered death instead of surrendering their will to that of their
tormentors. On the contrary, we consider them villains or weakling
those who succumbed and consented to the wishes of tyrants. Burt we
may not be too harsh on them, since every man has his own limit of
endurance. “Violence of force in any instance if bound with the refined
cruelty of present day methods of psychological torture, can constitute
a serious temptation and often also contribute towards a notable
diminution of inner freedom.
Moral Courage
We have learned that in morality, over reliance on feelings, to say the least is
disadvantageous in resolving moral dilemmas. We are thus advised to guide emotions
with reason if not tonally suppress them. But reason for many ethicists is also not
enough in carrying out moral decisions. Moral courage is also important.
The Importance of Will and Moral Courage
Moral Courage means doing the right thing even at the risk of inconvenience,
ridicule, loss of job or security or social status, etc. It requires that we rise above the
apathy, complacency, hatred, cynicism, and fear mongering in our political systems,
socioeconomic divisions and cultural/religious differences. Will refers to that
faculty of the mind which chooses at the moment of making decision, the
strongest desire from among the various desires present. Will does not refer to
any particular desire, but rather to the capacity to act decisively on one’s
desires. Moral courage demands us to make judgments about what behavior or
acts are supportive to our ethical ideologies or highest ideals, and which ones
are destructive. Moral courage and will require us to recognize our responsibilities
and be accountable to the consequences of our own actions.
References:
Agapay, R. B.(1995, 2008) Ethics and the Filipino: A Manual on Morals for Students and
Educators, 2ns ed. Manila: National Bookstore, Inc.
Ardales, V. B.(1987) Introductory Text to Philosophy. Quezon City: Great Books
Trading, Inc.
Babor, E. R. (1999) Ethics: The Philosophical Discipline of Action, 1st ed. Manila,
Philippines, Rex Book Store.
Cruz, C. C. (1995) Contemporary Ethics. Manila: National Bookstore, Inc.
De Guzman J.M et al. (2017). Ethics: Principles of Ethical Behavior in Modern Society.
Malabon City: Mutya Publishing House, inc.
Dela Torre, J. (1993) Ethics: The man’s Tool for the Development of Sound Professional
and Civil
Life. Manila: Educational Publishing House, Inc. `
Dy Jr., M B. (1986) Philosophy of Man: Selected Readings. Manila: Goodwill Trading
Co. Inc.
Glen, Paul J. (1965) Ethics, A Class Manual in Moral Philosophy, (reprint) Manila:
National Bookstore.
____________. (1994) Contemporary Social Philosophy. Manila: Goodwill Trading Co.
Inc.
Montemayor, F. M.(1994) Ethics: The Philosophy of Life. Manila, Philippines: National
Book Store
____________.(1995) Introduction to Philosophy Through the Philosophy of Man. 2nd
ed. Manila: National Book Store, Inc.
Panizo, A., O.P. (1964) Ethics or Moral Philosophy. Manila: UST Textbook Series
Robles, G. S. (1994) Everyday Ethics. Manila: Educational Publishing House, Inc.
http://philonotes.com/index.php/2018/05/13/ethics/
Chapter 3 THE ACT
Module 7: The Human Act : Its Determinants of Morality
Introduction
This module is concerned with developing your understanding of the
determinants of morality. It is hoped that the discussion, description and explanation
in this module will further help in your journey to the understanding of ethics,
especially the determinants of morality which is important in helping to develop
responsible moral agent. Make use of this module to provide you with insights and ideas
to help you understand the determinants of the morality of the human act.
Learning Objectives
With the completion of this self-learning module, you should be able to:
1.Cite and describe the determinants of the morality of human act.
2.Interpret properly the principles of the determinants of morality.
Content
Determinants of the Morality of Human acts
Morality consists in the conformity and non-conformity of an act with the norm.
But how does an act relate to the norm? How do we know that a given act is morally
objectionable or not Human acts relate to the norm under the following aspects: a) the
object in itself, that is the deed or act itself, b) .in its motive, and in its circumstance.
These are referred to as the object, the end and the circumstances. These three aspects
are called determinants of morality because they determine how An act is rendered
good, bad or indifferent on the basis of its relation with the norm.
1.
The Object or The Act Itself
To consider an act in itself is to regard its nature. An act of course is not simply
a mental or bodily activity requiring an expenditure of energy. An act is a physical
tendency towards a definite result. This result is identified as the end of the act as
distinguished from the end of the agent or the end of the doer of the act.
In the physical sense, some actions are because they produce such evil as pain,
hunger, or death. In the moral sense, actions are bad because they disturb the harmony
within the acting person. They are unfit to the natural and spiritual tendencies of the
human soul. Moral evils also produce physical harm and damage of oneself and others.
But they are moral evils because what they destroy is the innate goodness, the image of
God in our human nature. Thus we say that all moral evils are that those that go against
the natural law.
2. The Motive or end of the Act.
a. End of the act- is the natural termination or completion of an act. It
determines whether an act is intrinsically or extrinsically good or evil. An act that is
intrinsically good is any act which is consistent with the natural tendencies of human
nature. And an act that is Intrinsically Evil is
-acts which are contrary to reason. Extrinsically Good or Evil actions are those which
are neutral or indifferent to the norm of morality; actions that are either good or bad,
not on account of their nature, but because of factors or circumstances concomitant
to them.
b. End of the Doer or agent is the purpose or motive which the doer wishes to
accomplish by his actions. Without a motive, an act is accidental or involuntary. “The
END does not justify the MEANS” BUT “The MEANS will always justify the END”.
Motive and Action: the correlation between motive and act is defined in the following
principle(Glenn: 111-113)
1.
An evil act which is done on account of an evil motive is grievously wrong.
2. A good action done on account of an evil motive becomes evil itself.
3. A good action done on account of a good purpose acquires an additional merit.
4. An evil action done on account of a good motive does not become good
in itself.
5. An indifferent act may either become good or bad depending on the motive.
3. Circumstances of the Act
Circumstances of the act re the historical elements surrounding the commission
of an act, such as the status of the doer, the place, the time, or the intensity of an act.
The circumstances are hinted by the interrogative pronouns - who, what, where,
with whom, why, how and when.
The circumstances are hinted by the interrogative pronouns - who, what, where,
with whom, why, how and when.
6 Ws And H
1. WHO
Refers either to the doer of the act or the recipient of the act. It has to do with
the age, status, relation, schooling, social standing, an economic situation of those
involved in an act. In this regard, we note the following:
(a) The moron, insane, senile and children below the age of reason are
incapable of
voluntary acts and are not morally accountable.
(b) Educated people have greater accountability than those with less or without
education.
(c) People constituted in authority have accountability for the actions of those
under
them.
(d) The legal or blood relation of people involved in act may modify the nature
if such act.
2. WHAT
Refers to the act itself, or to the quality and quantity of the results of such act.
3. WHERE
Refers to the place where the act is committed
4. WITH WHOM
Refers to the companion or accomplices in an act.
5. WHY
Refers to the motive of the doer.
6. HOW
Refers to the manner the act is perpetrated.
7. WHEN
Refers to “the time of the act”
1. Circumstance may either increase or decrease the wrongfulness of an
evil act. e.g .The killing of innocent people in the case of terrorists
exploding a bomb in public places constitutes a serious crime against
humanity. On the other hand, killing a tyrant who has long oppressed
the assailant accepts a mitigating factor and, therefore is less evil.
2. Circumstances also may either increase or decrease the merits of good
act.
3. Circumstances may alter the nature of the act.
4. Circumstances do not prove the guilt of the person.
References:
Agapay, R. B.(1995, 2008) Ethics and the Filipino: A Manual on Morals for Students and
Educators, 2ns ed. Manila: National Bookstore, Inc.
Ardales, V. B.(1987) Introductory Text to Philosophy. Quezon City: Great Books
Trading, Inc.
Babor, E. R. (1999) Ethics: The Philosophical Discipline of Action, 1st ed. Manila,
Philippines, Rex Book Store.
Cruz, C. C. (1995) Contemporary Ethics. Manila: National Bookstore, Inc.
De Guzman J.M et al. (2017). Ethics: Principles of Ethical Behavior in Modern Society.
Malabon City: Mutya Publishing House, inc.
Dela Torre, J. (1993) Ethics: The man’s Tool for the Development of Sound Professional
and Civil
Life. Manila: Educational Publishing House, Inc. `
Dy Jr., M B. (1986) Philosophy of Man: Selected Readings. Manila: Goodwill Trading
Co. Inc.
Glen, Paul J. (1965) Ethics, A Class Manual in Moral Philosophy, (reprint) Manila:
National Bookstore.
____________. (1994) Contemporary Social Philosophy. Manila: Goodwill Trading Co.
Inc
Montemayor, F. M.(1994) Ethics: The Philosophy of Life. Manila, Philippines: National
Book Store
____________.(1995) Introduction to Philosophy Through the Philosophy of Man. 2nd
ed. Manila: National Book Store, Inc.
Panizo, A., O.P. (1964) Ethics or Moral Philosophy. Manila: UST Textbook Series
Robles, G. S. (1994) Everyday Ethics. Manila: Educational Publishing House, Inc.
http://philonotes.com/index.php/2018/05/13/ethics/