MORAL COURAGE
HOWEVER, ACCORDING TO PHILOSOPHER MARK JOHNSON,
ACTING MORALLY OFTEN REQUIRES MORE THAN JUST STRENGTH
OF CHARACTER (DRUMWRIGHT AND MURPHY, 2004).
jOHNSON ADDED IT IS IMPORTANT TO HAVE "AN ABILITY TO
IMAGINATIVELY DISCERN VARIOUS POSSIBILITIES FOR ACTING
WITHIN A GIVEN SITUATION TO ENVISION THE POTENTIAL HELP
AND HARM THAT ARE LIKELY TO RESULT FROM A GIVEN ACTION
(JOHNSON, 1994)." THIS ABILITY IS CALLED MORAL IMAGINATION.
MORAL IMAGINATION IS "ABILITY IN PARTICULAR
CIRCUMSTANCES TO DISCOVER AND EVALUATE POSSIBILITIES NOT
MERELY DETERMINED BY THAT CIRCUMSTANCE, OR LIMITED BY ITS
OPERATIVE MENTAL MODE OR MERELY FRAMED BY A SET OF
RULES OR RULE-GOVERNED CONCERNS (WERHANE, 1999)."
ALTHOUGH IT IS A NECESSARY COMPONENT, MORAL
IMAGINATION IS NOT SUFFICIENT ALONE FOR MORAL DECISIONMAKING. MORAL REASONING IS STILL NEEDED.
HOW CAN ONE PRACTICE MORAL COURAGE? THIS IS WHERE THE
"WILL" COMES INTO PLAY. IT TAKES DETERMINATION AND
WILLPOWER TO ACT ON AND STAND BY YOUR MORAL PRINCIPLES.
PHILOSOPHY, USING THE INTELLECT TO DECIDE IS JUST ONE PART
OF THE MORAL DECISION. THE RESOLVE TO PUT THE DECISION
INTO ACTION IS THE ROLE OF THE "WILL".
HE SAID SINCE VICE AND VIRTUES ARE UP TO US, "WE BECOME
JUST BY THE PRACTICE OF JUST ACTIONS; SELF-CONTROL BY
EXERCISING SELF-CONTROL; AND COURAGEOUS BY PRACTICING
ACTS OF COURAGE (AS TRANSLATED BY BIARD 2016)
Self-mastery therefore is the product of the "will" that is achieved
by actually putting rational, moral choice into action.
KANT AND THE RIGHTS THEORIST
Immanuel Kant





German philosopher
One of the famous thinkers during the modern period.
He was born in Konigsberg in 1724.
He spent the rest of his life in Konigsberg from birth to
death, and worked in Konigsberg University first as
lecturer and later as professor in philosophy from 1755
until his death in 1804.
His works related to moral philosophy are the
Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals (1785) and
The Critique of Practical Reason (1788).
WHAT IS "WILL"?
GENERALLY "WILL" IS THE MENTAL CAPACITY TO ACT DECISIVELY
ON ONE'S DESIRE. IT IS THE FACULTY OF THE MIND TO INITIATE
ACTION AFTER COMING TO A RESOLUTION FOLLOWING CAREFUL
DELIBERATION (JOACHIM 1952). WITHIN ETHICS, "WILL IS
IMPORTANT TOPIC ALONG WITH REASON BECAUSE OF IT'S ROLE
IN ENABLING A PERSON TO ACT DELIBERATELY.
ON THE CONCEPT OF "WILL" IN CLASSICAL PHILOSOPHY,
ARISTOTLE SAID: "THE SOUL IN LIVING CREATURES IS
DISTINGUISHED BY TWO FUNCTIONS, THE JUDGING CAPACITY
WHICH IS A FUNCTION OF THE INTELLECT AND OF SENSATION
COMBINED, AND THE CAPACITY FOR EXCITING MOVEMENT IN
SPACE." (HETT, 1964)
Why is the "will" as important as reason?
Aristotle believed that "will" is the product of intellect and
sensation; and that "will" gave the person the capacity for
"exciting movement in space".
FOR EXAMPLE, RIZA IS TORN BETWEEN BUYING A NEW SMART
PHONE OR SAVE UP FOR A TRIP OUTSIDE THE COUNTRY. ON ONE
HAND, SHE CAN AFFORD THE SMART PHONE NOW. ON THE OTHER
HAND, SHE WOULD BE NOWHERE NEAR HER TARGET TRAVEL DATE
BECAUSE HER SAVINGS IS STILL FAR FROM ENOUGH. RIZA
WEIGHED THE PROS AND CONS BETWEEN BUYING A NEW PHONE
AND SAVING UP FOR HER TRIP. EVENTUALLY, SHE DECIDED TO
WALK AWAY FROM THE STORE AND GO TO THE BANK TO DEPOSIT
HER MONEY. IT WAS RIZA'S WILL" THAT ENABLED HER TO WALK
OUT OF THE STORE WITHOUT BUYING THE PHONE SHE LIKED.
DEVELOPING THE "WILL"
ARISTOTLE DISCUSSED THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WHAT PEOPLE
DECIDE TO DO AND WHAT THEY ACTUALLY DO. IN ARISTOTLE'S
Good Will
Kant claims that the only good without qualification is the
good will. He treats the good will as the highest good since its
end will always be good. It is also a condition of all other
goods. Other matters such as fortune or power or intelligence
or other traditional virtues are not enjoying the status of
highest goods since they can be used by rational beings for
bad ends. He even goes further that happiness also corrupts.
In the Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, Kant says
that the role of reason, particularly in ethics, is to produce a
will that is good, and this will becomes good only when it is
motivated by duty. So when we act from duty we exhibit the
good will.
The highlight of the will rests on the fact that humans, aside
from being rational are persons of moral worth. If every
person realizes that he is a human being with n moral
absolute worth, he should always will what is right. The moral
worth he possesses is an value over other things like talents
and right judgment. Now let us consider the motive of the
willing. If a person does the right thing just because it pleases
him, for Kant, he i not yet intrinsically moral. Moreover, when
his motive is whatever that pleases him, be could have done
the wrong thing. Therefore his will is acting not for the sake
of duty.
To act morally is to act from no other motive than the motive
of doing what is right. This kind of motive has nothing to do
with anything as subjective as pleasure. To do right out of
principle is to recognize an objective right that poses an
obligation on any rational being (Abbot, 88).
Kant uses an analogy to explain further about the good will.
When the will does its role of doing what is moral, the will is
like a jewel that shine[s] by its own light (Abbot, 88).
Moreover, Kant emphasizes that when a person acts out of
duty, he is obedient to the categorical imperative, and not the
hypothetical imperative.
CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE
When a person is acting out of duty, it presumes that that
person knows the categorical imperative. For Kant, moral
commands are always categorical and not hypothetical. In
speaking about categorical, it is all about ought, that is to say,
one is ought to do the moral law in the absence of conditions
since it is simply done out of duty. This categorical imperative
comes from the nature of the law, a sort of imposing
obligation. There are two formulas of the imperative written
by Kant in his two writings In the first formulation of the
categorical imperative, it says "act only according to a maxim
by which you can at the same time will that is shall become a
universal law" and in the second formulation of the
categorical imperative, also known as the formula of
humanity, it says "act in such a way that you always treat
humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of
any other, never simply as a means, but always at the same
time as an end."
From the two formulas are the two principles or determiners
of moral imperative, the respect for person and the
universalizability. The respect for person is the basic thing
about how we treat people we encounter in our daily living.
For Kant, any act that is good happens only when we deal
with other people not as merely means. It is all about dealing
people just because we want something from him/her, and
we cannot have the wants without them. When a man sticks
with a certain woman out of lust, that is, to satisfy his sexual
desire is an example of disrespecting a person. But when a
man sticks with that woman for the sake of the good of the
woman, and thereby the woman sticks with him for the sake
of his own good, is an example of treating each other as
means and ends at the same time. This is the first kind
determiner of moral imperative.
The second one is universalizability, that is, an act is capable
of becoming a universal law. An act is considered morally
good if a maxim or law can be made universal. That maxim or
law is made not only for our self but also for others as well to
perform or to prohibit. Sometimes when we follow the
maxim or law, it becomes either subjective or personal. In
order to avoid this to happen, that maxim or law is put to test
by the principle of universalizability. The particular maxim or
law becomes morally good when everyone can fulfill them. If
people are confused with the fulfillment of the maxim or law
with other maxims or laws, there is existing contradiction
among them. It means that one maxim or law contradicts
with other maxims or laws. If that is the case, then either of
those maxims becomes pointless and meaningless.
people can imitate your lying? Can lying be universalized? If
we use our common sense, the two maxims you createdkeeping the promise and lying about the promise - are
contradicting. Since you lie about the promise, you deprive
your friends, as well as to yourself, the right of the benefits of
friendship.
These two determiners are different in ways of coming up
with the same moral course of action. In universalizing the
maxim or law, the respect for person as end and means, and
never solely as means to serve one's end must be considered
at all times. If the respect for person will be out of reach in
every universalizing, then there is always contradiction. The
reason is simply that every person has intrinsic worth or
dignity. This reality cannot be just ignored. In the same
manner, whatever that pertains to the consideration of
treating every person as means and an end is always
universalizable.
DIFFERENT KINDS OF RIGHTS
Legal Rights - Refer to all rights one has by simply being a
citizen of a particular country like the Philippines. If the
Philippines is governed by all legalities stated in the 1987
Constitution, so all its citizens are governed by the same
constitution. Being a Filipino, one is entitled to all rights and
privileges accorded by the constitution. This entitlement is
acquired either by birth or by choice.
By birth means that one is born within a certain territory such
as the Philippines. By choice means each Filipino has the
option to stay as citizen of the republic or denounce it and
embrace other citizenship. This happens to few Filipinos who
have gone abroad to work and have stayed there for a longer
period of time, in countries that grant citizenship and
permanent residency. It only shows that every person has the
right to abandon their being Filipino, American, and
altogether embraced with other citizenship called dual
citizenships.
Moral Rights - Are rights that belong to any moral entities
such as human beings and animals. What make them moral
entities are the following features such as freedom,
rationality and sentience.
First, human beings are the only beings that enjoy freedom.
With freedom, every act they execute accompanies moral
consequences becomes possible.
Second, human beings are the only beings gifted with
rationality. With rationality, everything they do comes with
rational deliberation whether certain course of action would
lead to a desired result without regrets or undesired result
with undesired consequence.
Kant uses the example of lie and promise to illustrate the
point of contradiction under universalizability. If you make
promise to each other to keep the friendship even after your
high school graduation, you are now imposing the duty
among yourselves, and at the same time earning the right to
that duty. It is a promise to be fulfilled among friends, and it
can be imitate by other circle of friends as well. This is an act
of universalizing.
Lastly, human beings are not the only beings who are capable
of experiencing pleasure and pain. Of course, humans can
determine which action plan would yield more pleasure than
pain and vice versa like the utilitarian, and only humans can
give different dimensions of meanings to pleasure and pain.
On the other hand. animals too are capable of experiencing
pleasure and pain. On this ground animals are qualified of
becoming moral entity.
But one day, you have changed your mind and lied about the
promise since you found someone in your new school better
than your previous friends in high school. Do you think other
ARISTOTLE & VIRTUE ETHICS
Virtue ethics is an approach that reduces the emphasis on
rules, consequence, and particular acts. Instead, virtue ethics
focus on the quality of the person. Although action and
consequence are significant, virtue ethics does not focus on
whether an action is right or wrong; nor on whether the
consequences are good or bad. It is more concerned with
whether the person is acting as a virtuous person should act
in the situation.
Virtue Ethics is largely identified with Aristotle. In ancient
Western philosophy. Aristotle's discussion on moral character,
particularly virtue, is the most influential view on the topic.
Aristotle argued that each person has a built-in desire to be
virtuous and that if a person is focused on being a good
person the right actions will follow effortlessly and you will do
good things.
What does it mean to be a good person? Aristotle believed
that humans have an essence. He called essence proper
functioning where everything has a function and the thing
that performs as intended is called good when it is able to
fulfill this function. Thus, a scissor is a good scissor if it can
cut. A car is good if it runs and takes you to your destination.
A person is also good if he or she fulfills what nature expects
of him or her. Hence, a person needs to sleep, be healthy,
grow, and develop as nature intended. However, aside from
its natural instincts, a person according to Aristotle is also a
"rational animal" and a "social animal". Therefore, using
reason to live and get along with other people is also the
human person's function. A "good" person is one who fulfills
all these functions.
So what does it mean to be virtuous? Virtue for the Greeks is
equivalent to excellence. A man has virtue as a flautist, for
instance, if he plays the flute well, since playing the flute is
the distinctive activity of a flautist. A person of virtue is
someone who performs distinctive activity of being human
well. The principle of being virtuous is called the "Doctrine of
the Golden Mean"- that moral behavior is the one that is in
the middle of two extreme behaviors (or what he called
vices). When he said "extreme behavior", it meant the act
was either excessive or deficient. For example, in Aristotelian
view eating is a human function as demanded by nature.
When a person overeats (gluttony), this behavior is excessive;
while a person who diets too much (starvation) is deficient.
Thus, the virtue when eating is temperance or to eat just the
right amount at all times to keep your body nourished and
healthy. Temperance is the golden mean between gluttony
and starvation. Aristotle understood virtue as a character that
can be developed, and that this can be developed by
practicing the golden mean (the doctrine of the Mean). In
time, behavior will come naturally.
Ethics
It is important to note that Aristotle's Doctrine of the Mean
does not claim that you behave in moderately at all times;
such as when you get angry, you should only ever be
'moderately' angry. In Aristotle's philosophy, you should be as
angry as the situation demands which can be very angry or
only slightly irritated. He concluded that virtue is a choice of
behaving the right way, at the right time, with the right
people, and that this choice is determined by rational
principle and practical wisdom (Lacewing, 2015). The virtuous
man is the kind of man (note: the term 'man' in Aristotle's
writing is equated with person and not just as opposed to
woman) who is able to satisfy both inclinations and rational
desires because his or her inclinations and desires are aligned
The virtuous man wants to do what is good and does it
because he/she derives pleasure from choosing and doing
what is moral.
But why do we have to be virtuous? The reason, according to
virtue ethics, is Eudaimonia Generally, eudaimonia can be
translated as "happiness", "well-being" or the "good life" and
that this is the goal of human life. Aristotle believed that to
achieve eudaimonia you need to practice the virtues in your
everyday activity all through your life.
NATURAL LAW ST. TOMAS AQUINAS
St. Thomas Aquinas was born in Roccasecca, Italy during the
medieval period. He studied liberal arts at the University of
Naples, and in , he became a Dominican Friar. He is known as
the Doctor of the Church. His influence on Western thought is
considerable, especially on modern philosophy. His most
important works are the “Summa Theologica” where he
expounded on the five proofs of existence of God and the
“Summa Contra Gentiles” or the “Book on the truth of the
Catholic faith against the errors of the unbelievers”. The two
books are combinations of philosophy and theology where he
discussed about the role of natural law, virtues and happiness
in moral philosophy.
NATURAL LAW
St. Thomas Aquinas begins his explanation of virtue ethics by
grounding on natural law. He discusses the natural law along
with eternal law. By linking the two laws he shows that it has
theological underpinning because his philosophy is theistic or
belief in God as the highest of all beings and the highest of all
goods. God expresses his self through the eternal law, his will
and his plan for all his creatures. There are two groups of
adherents who are God’s creatures to natural law, but in
different sense. The difference manifests to who can
reciprocate and respond to the moral requirements of God.
The first group is the rational creatures. It refers to us, human
beings, who are gifted with rationality and freedom. Because
we are thinking beings, it is we who can understand and
analyse the content of the moral requirements, and since we
are free beings, it is we who can either show obedience to
the moral requirement or not. The second group is the
irrational creatures. It refers to animals, plants and other nonliving creatures without rationality and freedom. Though they
are without the gifts of reasoning and free will, their
actuations are governed by the natural law.
The Natural and its Tenet in His book ETHICS
A Class Manual in Moral Philosophy, The Right Reverend
Msgr. Paul J. Glenn made a distinction of natural law in broad
sense and in the narrow sense for rational and irrational
creatures. Other than being a priest and an author, reverend
Msgr. Glenn was also an educator at St. Charles Preparatory
School and seminary. He served as the rector and principal of
the seminary from 1945-1957. His books include A Tour of
the Summa: A Journey Through St. Tomas Aquinas’ Summa
Theologica and Apologetics: A Philosophic Defense and
Explanation of the Catholic Religion. In his Ethics, Glenn has
made a distinction of natural law in broad sense and in the
narrow sense for rational and irrational creatures. For rational
creatures, it’s already given above that natural law is already
present in us who are rational beings. For irrational creatures,
the way they exist and the way their actions toward
something that seems to be good are all guided by this
natural law.
Can we say that this natural moral law is different from the
eternal law? It is not exactly. This natural moral law is an
expression of participation in the eternal law. The word moral
is inserted between the two words to show that emphasis on
moral action - observance to the moral requirements
established by God. In moral philosophy, this natural law is a
picture of eternal law as something sensible and knowable to
rational beings. These two laws can never be contradicting
from each other. But this law, because it is discoverable by
the use of our reason, has to be enacted to make them
feasible to other rational beings. Once it is enacted into
written law, it is now called human positive law. It implies
that if we do not just enact them to make it official, it remains
within the realm of natural law, unknowable to those who do
not recognize them.
There are two subclasses of human positive law – The Civil Law,
which is enacted and promulgated by the lawmakers of the land,
and the Ecclesiastical Law, which is enacted and promulgated by
the religious people regarding faiths and morals.
Happiness as Constitutive of Moral and Cardinal Virtues
The moral and cardinal virtues of Aquinas has special meaning in
this moral philosophy. Virtues consist of human actions that are
frequently carrying out, so much so that such human act becomes
easily executed. There are many kinds of acts that can be carried
out frequently but not all them belong to one category called
virtues. Virtues are special kind of human acts that are moral. It
means that such moral act is carried out in accordance with the
dictates of reason. This dictate of reason is also called conscience,
which is the proximate norm of morality. Conscience is being
formed through unceasing education by parents, members of the
community, the church and the society at large. Achieving certain
and true conscience takes time. It is not given automatically from
above. That is why we see now the definition of virtue as moral
frequent act. The opposite is the immoral frequent act or vice.
This proximate norm of morality is patterned after the divine
reason called eternal law that is established by God from all
eternity.
Among the frequent moral good acts, there are some virtues that
standout among other virtues. These are the known four moral
cardinal virtues. It is called Cardinal from the Greek word cardo,
means hinge because when these virtues are being practiced, the
rest of the virtues follow.
The Four Cardinal Virtues are Prudence, Justice, Fortitude, and
Temperance.
PRUDENCE - This virtue is an exercise of understanding that helps
us know the best means in solving moral problems in which we
encounter in the concrete circumstance. Knowing the best means,
and without acting carelessly without thinking, will incline us to
apply them immediately with certainty. It is like a one-stepbackward-and-two-steps-forward technique. If we encounter a
moral dilemma, we do not rush into conclusion without
considering the pros and cons of our act, and more so what is right
and what is wrong. If we do so, then there is a big possibility of
committing an immoral act than moral one.
JUSTICE This habit is an exercise of the will to give or render the
things, be it intellectual or material, to anyone who owns it. If a
thing belongs to you, then everyone should respect it and not own
it, or if it belongs to someone, then we must not treat it as ours. If
a laborer renders eight hours of work in a day, then the employer
should give him his just wage. If a student enters the classroom
with the things left behind by his classmates who are in the
ground for their PE subject, that student has no right to get their
things like cellphone or money. It is imply because those things are
not his. Robbers, burglars, and thieves are usually the violators of
this injustice.
FORTITUDE - This habit is an exercise of courage, to face any
dangers one encounters without fear, especially when life is at
stake.
TEMPERANCE - This habit is an exercise of control in the midst of
strong attraction to pleasures. The key word here is moderation.
Getting indulged into strong pleasures has undesired
consequences, either excess or disorder. Becoming beautiful or
handsome is not a bad idea, but if one is willing to spent
thousands of pesos in order to achieve it is already vanity.
UTILITARIANISM
Jeremy Bentham





is known as the founder of utilitarianism
He was born in 1748 in London.
He was sent to school at the age of seven in
Westminster School, then graduated from The Queen's
College, Oxford at fiʚ een.
His famous works related to moral philosophy are: :
Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation :
A Fragment on Government.
What led him to believe in the theory of utility is aʚ er
he read the book of David Hume on the Treatise of
Human Nature.
Origins and Nature of Theory
The theory of utilitarianism, sometimes called consequentialism,
focuses on the effect of a particular end or telos called happiness.
David Hume - The first who proposed the idea - A philosopher
during the modern period.
Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill - The ones who have made
the idea more depth and made it more profound.
The classical version of utilitarianism as formulated by Bentham
can be summed up into three points.
FIRST POINT > The basis for an act to be treated as morally right or
wrong is in its consequence they produced. It is known as
consequentialism.
What is there in the consequence that makes it morally rights?
It is only when there is the presence of happiness. In short,
happiness is the key in determining the morality of the act. It is
the end or telos of every act, that is, to produce happiness.
SECOND POINT ➢ What matters in every act that we do would be
the amount of pleasure produced. ➢One must not forget the
element of happiness in assessing the morality of the act. If there
is no pleasure yielded, then the act is morally wrong.
THIRD POINT ➢ which is the happiness experienced by every
person is counted the same. It means that every person's
happiness is taken into account and no one is leʚ behind.
THIRD POINT Now to measure happiness or pleasure, all we need
to do is to count all the happiness or pleasure that an act brings
minus the amount of pain that an act will also brings. If the
amount of happiness or pleasure is greater than pain, then the act
is good.
He acknowledges that there are certain just distributions that are
governed by existing principles:
1.
Furthermore, one has to consider in assessing an act the following
factors.
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
Happiness/pleasure should be more intense.
Happiness/pleasure should last longer.
Happiness/pleasure should be more certain to occur.
Happiness/pleasure should be happening sooner rather than
later.
Happiness/pleasure will produce in turn many happiness and
few pains.
Lastly, in determining the amount of happiness/ pleasure,
one has to consider how many people will be affected. The
better position would be when there are more people
affected positively, that is, greatest happiness for the
greatest number of people, and fewer affected negatively
How is utilitarianism being used in the business world?
The difference between the calculus of Bentham and the analysis
is that economists would use monetary units that represent
benefits or advantages and drawbacks or disadvantage.
2.
The first principle is called the principle of equality
➢ In this principle, Rawls claims that every member of
the society should have equal rights and liberties. These
rights and liberties refer to political condition of every
citizen.
The second principle is called the principle of difference.
➢ Rawls acknowledges that there cannot be just
distribution in the society in terms of socioeconomic
goods because of unequal socioeconomic status among
members of the society.
The Nature of the Theory

John Rawls has in mind about an ideal and just society
where there is justice, but in different philosophical
nuances. For Rawls, justice is the first virtue of a social
institution, and therefore it is expected that he would
always think of a society exercising justice.
The question that comes to mind about rales, since we have a
biased mind that rules are impartial is: are the rules
implemented can accommodate all people without
discrimination?
Idea of original position
If the benefit is greater than the amount spent, then it is worth it.
Therefore, it is pleasure.
LESSON 5: JUSTICE AND FAIRENESS: PROMOTING
RHE COMMON GOOD
John Rawls



One of the important political philosophers during the
20° century.
His main work is A Theory of Justice published in 1971.
This work has addressed some of the social issues
especially in the name of justice between the state and
the citizens and among the citizens.
Rawl's proposes justice as fairness as an ethical framework. This
framework focuses how justice should be distributed that would
yield fairness for those who have more and those who have less.
The term fairness refers not to equality but as equity.
There are different definitions of justice just as there are
different thinkers in their respective field of specialization
• Plato ➢ defines justice as harmony where the three groups of
people in the society working togetherfor a common goal.
• Rawh ➢ defines that the justice embraces not only sociological
dimension but includes political and socio economic as well. In
fact, for Rawls, he understands justice where there is fairness
among members of the society with the goal of promoting their
common good.
The two principles are as followed:
> 1 Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive
scheme of equal basic liberties compatible with a similar scheme
of liberties for others.
> 2. Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that
they are both (a) reasonably expected to be to everyone's
advantage, and (b) attached to positions and offices open to all.



➢ He wants to put things in place where it creates a
favorable condition for justice to exist.
➢ It is an imaginary idea to speak about this position
but it is important and the basis of justifying his belief.
➢ The world's situation is unjust when one thinks of
unjust rules. He endorses the anonymity condition and
rejects the moral relevance of threat advantage.
➢ The two elements can be summed into what he calls the veil of
ignorance
Why he needs to endorse the anonymity condition?
➢ We cannot but doubt that rules are created with partiality. ▪ In
this anonymity condition, one knows nothing about the particular
individual each represents, about that citizen's gender, skin, color,
natural endowments, temperament, interests, tastes, and
references (Pogge, 64).
Due to the veil ignorance, it creates a just condition where there
is no threat advantage to anyone. Therefore everyone is seen
from the point-of-view of fairness
Distributive Justice


➢ is that everyone in the society has to share both the
burden and the benefit of whatever the society offers.
➢ Kinds of society
•
Egalitarian
•
Capitalist
•
Socialist
Egalitarian Distributive Justice
➢ As egalitarian, one is concerned with a just distribution in terms
of receiving an equal share.
2 kinds of distributive justice under egalitarianism
1.
2.
Political egalitarianism where legal rights of every citizen
are equally observed.
Economic egalitarianism where the distribution of
socioeconomic goods is equally observed
Capitalist Distributive Justice
➢ As capitalist, one is concerned with a just distribution in terms
of receiving one's share according to how much one contributes to
the over-all success of the goals of the institution where one is
employed.
Socialist Distributive Justice
➢ As socialist, one is concerned with a just distribution in terms of
one's needs.
➢ The socialist justice would emphasize the kind of work that is
based on one's natural talents.
The State and Citizens: Responsibilities to each other: The
Principles of Taxation and Inclusive Growth
➢ We all exist under a particular state like the Philippines, and the
state has the power to collect taxes from its citizen.
1987 Constitution, Article X "LOCAL GOVERNMENT, Section V"
➢ Each local government unit shall have the power to create its
own sources of revenues and to levy taxes, fees and charges
subject to such guidelines and limitations as the Congress may
provide, consistent with the basic policy of local autonomy. Such
taxes, fees, and charges shall accrue exclusively to the local
governments”.
➢ The principle of benefits-received is not without problems. All
of us are paying taxes to the government both direct and indirect,
that is, from economic perspective.
➢ For employed citezen a portion of your income is deducted and
paid directly to the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR), it is called
direct tax.
➢ When money is collected from a business entity, it is called
indirect tax.
The role of Economics and Inclusive Growth
➢ Economics is focused on the scarce resources that every
member of the society is facing.
➢ Macro-level •which is the economic growth from regional,
national and international level.
➢ Micro-level • which is economic growth from the personal level
that addresses their aspirations, capabilities, productivities and
opportunities.
➢Economic growth under inclusive growth must create
opportunities for all people in different levels of the societies, and
the resources distributed to them accordingly.
➢If economic growth is limited to the macro-level, then that is
exclusive growth.