Ethics Textbook Summary
MORAL RELATIVISM







Many moral philosophers coincide in defending the thesis that some actions are
objectively right and others are objectively wrong.
There are certain rules about what is right and wrong that apply to everyone. These rules
are universal principles. However, there are also many situations where what is right or
wrong can vary depending on the choices made by individuals or communities, or the
circumstances they find themselves in. So, while there are some clear rules about right
and wrong, there are also areas where things are more flexible and can change depending
on the situation.
The moral philosophers who deny that some actions are objectively right and others are
objectively wrong relativists. Relativists are of the view that everything in morality, from
beginning to end, is a matter of opinion and convention.
Many people choose moral relativism because they are afraid that if they believe their
ethical standards are the only correct ones, they might become intolerant and force their
beliefs on others. Moral relativism is the idea that there is no one correct set of ethical
standards, and what is right or wrong can vary from person to person or culture to culture.
The solution to this problem is not lack of ethical convictions but better ethical ideas.
The clearest argument for the existence of objective principles of morality is the fact that
in practice most of us are already spontaneously convinced of their existence. (Argument
from spontaneous conviction).
A second important argument against it is that people who hold that morality has no
objective basis cannot denounce and criticize injustice. (Argument from criticism of
injustice).
Ethical theories





Intuitionism, Consequentialism, Deontologism, Virtue Ethics and Natural Law.
Intuitionism
A fundamental ethical principle that says we can use our intuition or gut feelings to
determine what is right or wrong. It suggests that we have an inner sense or instinct that
helps us understand what is morally good or bad. Instead of relying solely on rules or
consequences, intuitionism encourages us to trust our feelings and emotions to guide us
in making ethical decisions. It suggests that our intuition can give us a sense of what is
right or wrong, even if we can't always explain it logically.
What they perceive to be the truth of the matter.
1. It is inherently exposed to dangers of bias, inconsistency and arbitrariness. 2. our own
intuitions can be inconsistent with each other. In other words, we might feel differently
about what is right or wrong in similar situations at different times. 3. different people










have conflicting intuitions on what should be done in a given situation. 4. the moral truths
that seem intuitively evident to many people are precisely those that are approved in their
own culture and they were taught during childhood.
Consequentialism
An action is considered morally right if, out of all the possible choices, it leads to the
best overall balance of positive outcomes compared to negative outcomes. If all the
options are bad, then the morally right action is the one that causes the least amount of
harm. It's important to note that consequentialists believe that only the results of an action
matter, not just that results are important. They argue that the consequences are the only
thing that should be taken into consideration when determining the morality of an action.
Three main conceptions of human well-being are:
i) well-being understood as enjoying pleasure; we are not satisfied with a life which can
offer us only feelings of pleasure.
ii) well-being understood as satisfying one’s desires; we have desires that are in actual
fact contrary to their interests. And underprivileged people tend to adjust their desires
over time.
iii) well-being understood as living a life rich in human goods such as love, learning,
artistic creation and expression, and so on: useless for the purpose of consequentialist
assessments.
Kantian Deontologism
According to Kant, there are moral rules or duties that are universal and apply to
everyone, regardless of the situation or consequences. These duties are based on reason
and rationality, rather than personal desires or outcomes. The main principle of Kantian
Deontologism is known as the "categorical imperative." It states that we should act in a
way that we could will the action to become a universal law applicable to everyone. In
other words, if an action is morally right, it should be something that could be applied
universally without contradiction.
Kant argues that our actions are not truly autonomous if we follow hypothetical rules
based on our existing desires. In such cases, we are simply pursuing desires that we
happen to have, but we haven't consciously chosen or given to ourselves. True autonomy
or freedom comes when we act based on laws that we have created for ourselves, using
our reason.
Kant did not consider multiple important aspects of human flourishing. He also did not
recognize the need for decision-making principles beyond the requirement of acting
consistently with universalizable principles.
The problem with relying solely on universalizable norms is that it doesn't provide
sufficient guidance on how individuals should live their lives. People can engage in selfdestructive behaviors, without directly harming others or violating fairness.
Virtue ethics
An ethical principle that emphasizes the importance of developing good character traits
or virtues. It focuses on the idea that being a good person and cultivating virtuous
qualities is the key to living a moral and fulfilling life. It encourages individuals to







develop virtues that are seen as essential for living a morally upright life and making
ethical decisions.
Virtue ethics suggests that by consistently practicing and embodying these virtues, we
can develop a good character and lead a virtuous life. It emphasizes personal growth,
self-reflection, and striving to be the best version of ourselves.
A main drawback of virtue ethics is that it often assumes that the character traits
considered virtuous in a particular culture are unquestionably good. This means it may
not critically examine or challenge the shortcomings of that culture. For example, if a
culture values loyalty above all else, it may disregard or excuse actions that harm others
outside of the group. This can lead to unfairness or injustice towards those who do not
align with the cultural norms.
Natural law
An ethical principle that suggests there are fundamental moral laws or principles that
exist naturally in the world. These laws are seen as objective and universal, meaning
they apply to all people regardless of their beliefs or culture.
According to natural law, these moral laws are derived from the nature of human beings
and the world around us. They are based on the idea that there are certain inherent goods
and purposes that humans should strive for in order to live a morally good life.
Natural law holds that human reason and rationality can help us discover these moral
laws. By using our ability to think and understand, we can discern what is morally right
or wrong.
Aquinas differs from Kant fundamentally in that Kantian ethics recognizes only one
aspect of human fulfillment—autonomy—while Aquinas explicitly recognizes that
human fulfillment has several different aspects. Aquinas also differs from
consequentialist theorists. He would deny that we should always and only try to
maximize good. While he allows that considerations of the greater good have a role in
practical reasoning, he thinks that an action can be irremediably flawed merely through
(e.g.) badness of intention, and flawed in such way that no good consequences that flow
from the action would be sufficient to justify it.
Human Fulfilment



Extrinsic goods are things such as money, power, status, security, ease and liberty
(“freedom from”). They solve problems, but by themselves they are not aspects of our
fulfilment. None of them are valuable in themselves; All of them make sense only as
means to get or protect intrinsic goods. And in relation to them, we are always in
competition with others.
Intrinsic goods are aspects of the well-being of persons. Knowledge, Life, excellence is
performance in work and play, aesthetic experience, harmony with other people,
intelligent control of one’s life, religion, etc.
What about pleasure? taken by itself, it is not something intrinsically valuable, but
rather an aspect of the way we experience the full reality of intrinsically valuable


activities. The pursuit of pleasure for its own sake often undermines our ability to pursue
intrinsic goods. They are fleeting by nature.
Intrinsic goods are not really things we get, but aspects of our fulfilment. They are not
just things we happen to want, but things we understand that it is reasonable to want. You
need to invest time and effort in them. And in relation to intrinsic goods, we are not in
competition with each other.
“There are many ways to skin a cat.”
Fundamental Ethical Principles






Rationality: “One should always strive to act intelligently." Acting intelligently means
guiding oneself by a consideration of the ways in which our actions may help or harm our
own fulfilment and that of others.
The main reasons why we should act intelligently include; our intelligence is able to
survey and understand the whole field of human possibilities and ways of reaching
fulfilment. We have many different emotions and each of them pulls in its own direction.
We can only achieve unity and harmony within ourselves by striving to shape our
feelings and emotions in the ways suggested by our intelligence. Our emotions often tend
to motivate us towards behavior which is not optimal in current conditions.
Concern for others: "We must be concerned with the well-being of all human beings,
not only with our own. In so far as we are not, we undermine our own fulfilment." The
principle has negative and positive aspects. The negative aspect relates to controlling
feelings of hostility or hatred towards others and avoiding harming them and is often
referred to as the no-harm principle. The positive aspect refers to helping others in so
far as we can do so in a way consistent with our other responsibilities and is often
referred to as the beneficence or benevolence principle.
It states that we should not concern ourselves only with our own narrow interests, but try
to lead lives in which we take care of our own interests and also try to help others.
Why we should not behave in a purely selfish or hostile way? If you behave selfishly or
with hostility towards others, they will retaliate and behave in a negative way towards
you whenever they have the opportunity. The more you act in a thoughtful, considerate
way, the stronger these emotions and feelings become. And the more you act as a meanspirited, selfish individualist, the stronger become the opposite emotional traits. Thirdly,
by disregarding or harming other people's fulfillment you will be isolating yourself from
others and eroding your self-esteem. All of this is strongly reflected in our own feeling of
happiness.
Important aspects of our fulfilment depend on our being of service to other human beings
and on the positive impact we have on other people. Finally, friendship and love are in
themselves very important aspect of our human fulfilment. However, we only have true
friends in the sense of this word relevant here when we are really love them and are ready
to sacrifice for them.

Fairness: "One should apply the same standards in decisions relating to one's own
actions, those of people who are dear to one, and those of strangers." In practice, the
easiest way in which to apply the principle of fairness is through the use of the Golden
Rule; whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them (Matt. 7:12). The
universalizability test; “Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same
time, will that it should become a universal law.” If an action or principle can be
universally applied without creating logical or moral inconsistencies, it is considered fair.
Finally, the test of the “Veil of Ignorance”; The veil of ignorance suggests that
individuals should imagine themselves in an original position where they are unaware of
their own personal characteristics, such as their gender, race, social status, talents, or
abilities. In this hypothetical state, individuals are behind a metaphorical veil that
conceals all knowledge about themselves and their position in society. They have no
information about their own advantages or disadvantages, and they are completely
unbiased. Individuals are encouraged to think from a position of fairness and empathy,
making decisions based on what is best for everyone rather than for themselves or any
specific group.

Effectiveness/dedication: “We must promote human fulfilment in an effective and
whole-hearted way.” Dedication shows seriousness of purpose in our concern for others
and in pursuing our own fulfilment; its lack would show that our pretended interest in
acting rationally and helping others were not real. Effectiveness demands perseverance,
serious effort, and concern with going beyond good intentions and actually achieving
results.
Life plan: “Each person needs to decide on a consistent set of basic commitments which
takes into account her peculiar circumstances, talents and opportunities and on which she
can focus her efforts.” Effective action requires that we provide a harmonious set of
orientations, purposes and commitments for our life which will provide a basic
framework for each of our more specific choices.
Three requirements that a "life plan" or "vocation" should meet: There is need for some
degree of concentration, the choice of what to concentrate on must take into account one's
peculiar talents and opportunities as well as the unsatisfied needs in one’s society, and the
main elements of a life plan should be harmonious with each other.
Role responsibility: "One does not have the same responsibility for all the aspects of the
well-being of all human beings. One's special circumstances, capacities, roles and
commitments give one a priority responsibility for certain aspects of the well-being of
certain people." This principle stresses that our responsibilities are differentiated.
Through a complex process of personal choices, mutual agreements, accidents of nature,
and many other factors, people are assigned specific responsibilities. In this way things
work much better than if everybody were in charge of everything and equally responsible











to provide for the welfare of everybody: a system of distributing responsibilities is more
efficient.
No intentional harm: "One should never intentionally harm a human being." One should
never intend to harm a human being out of malice or hatred. We should also not intend to
harm a human being even if the reason for doing so is to produce or protect a great good.
In the first place, only harms which are intended, that is to say, chosen as an end or as a
means to some other purposes are covered by it. The infliction of harm will be intended
when the objective of the actor is precisely to inflict harm, either as an end in itself or as a
means to a further end. Harm is not intended when it is only a collateral result of an
action which is otherwise legitimate. In the second place, the only harm covered by the
principle is an attack to intrinsic aspects of the well-being of a person. Instrumental goods
like money, and purely sensible goods such as pleasure or absence of discomfort, are not
covered by the principle.
Consequentialists deny this principle and believe that in certain circumstances it may be
right to intend the infliction of harm to somebody if that is the only way to achieve a
great good or avoid even worse consequences. However, we can at least point at the main
reasons which underpin the principle; In the first place, it is not possible to do a true
calculation of consequences (It is never possible to list and take into account all the
consequences of a proposed course of action AND it would still be impossible to decide
whether or not the good consequences outweigh the bad ones). Secondly, the alternative
view demands of us to stand ready to sacrifice every single commitment we have made
and every principle by which we live. A third main reason in favor of this principle is that
every human being is a subject of immensurable worth or dignity.
Acceptance of side-effects: "Under certain circumstances it can be reasonable to perform
actions which are likely or even certain to cause harmful side-effects." Means
acknowledging and accepting that certain actions or decisions may have unintended
consequences or negative effects on others, even if the primary goal or intention is
positive or beneficial. In simpler terms, it means understanding that when we do
something good or try to achieve a specific outcome, there might be other things that
happen as a result, which could be undesirable or harmful to some extent.
Ethical decision-making requires considering not only the intended positive outcomes
but also the potential negative consequences or side effects that may affect different
individuals or groups. It encourages us to weigh the costs and benefits and make
informed choices, striving to minimize harm while maximizing the overall good.
Conditions under which one could reasonably accept that some harm will be caused as a
consequence of one's actions; The action itself must not be aimed at causing the harm and
the acceptance of the harmful side effects must be compatible with fairness.
THE IMPORTANCE OF TRADITIONS AND COMMUNITIES: While the
fundamental principles of ethics, such as not intentionally harming others and doing
good, may be straightforward to grasp intellectually, the challenge lies in applying them
to real-life situations and consistently living up to them. Relying solely on individual
efforts to develop ethical virtues and act morally is futile. Virtues like chastity,
truthfulness, or justice are difficult to consistently practice without the support of a
community. Individuals who consistently exhibit high ethical standards are often
members of communities, such as religious, professional, or social groups, that are
committed to those standards. The process of defining specific moral norms is done
within communities that operate within a tradition. For example, ethical norms related to
marriage and family life are not simply developed by individual reflection but are the
result of centuries-old traditions in which people have lived married lives, shared their
experiences, and refined their views over time. Traditions continuously evolve as people
read, criticize, correct, and refine ethical views based on new experiences.
COMMUNICATION ETHICS




Human beings constantly communicate with each other and in doing so may benefit or
harm those to whom they express, hide or misrepresent their beliefs and shape themselves
as people who either value, or are indifferent to, truth and the wellbeing of others.
Ethical norms about truthfulness in communication:
Lying: asserting something one does not believe to be true. The harms one causes by
lying;
a) It results in harm to the interests of the party deceived as he or she acts on the basis of
false beliefs, in a way that is likely to be counterproductive, as it is based on false
information.
b) To have erroneous beliefs is not a good way to be.
c) lying to people is a way of disrespecting them.
d) Lying also harms the person telling the lie in several ways; the person who has been
seen to lie will be less trusted in the future. It is hard to tell only one lie. They will give
less importance to truthfulness and experience a greater inclination to lie. The person who
starts by lying to others ends up by believing, at least in part, the structure of deceptions
that he has erected. Finally, the person who habitually lies to others is also likely to lie to
himself, and this naturally leads to his believing such lies.
e) Lying also harms other human beings who are not directly involved in the transaction
between the liar and the person to whom he or she lies; when someone chooses to lie and
manipulate others for their own benefit instead of seeking mutually beneficial outcomes,
it hinders the formation of genuine friendships and makes it harder to engage in
cooperative projects within a society. And lying tends to destroy trust in human
communications and the lower the level of trust which exists in any given society the less
such society will be a good community.
Some omissions are morally equivalent to lies. Misleading others intentionally is wrong;
something false is not asserted. A positive duty to provide information? The only
general positive ethical duty to tell the truth is the duty not to fail to report information








whose omission amounts to a lie. Other people will benefit from receiving some
information.
Three ways in which disclosing information can cause harm to oneself or to one’s
associates using the issue of financial reporting as a case study: Firstly, information is
a competitive weapon, so it is always a relevant consideration to ask oneself whether
one's competitors could be able to use against one's firm the information one has
divulged. Secondly, Other parties with whom one has to negotiate, such as unions or
suppliers, could also benefit to one's detriment from having detailed knowledge of one's
financial position. Finally, there is a very real risk that other parties may draw
unwarranted conclusions from information about one's own firm, with serious
consequences for the firm. Because of these factors, generally speaking there is no
general positive duty to provide financial information to other parties.
Harmful communication: truthful communication is not always beneficial.
Calumny is telling lies about others that undermine their reputation. A party is harmed
intentionally in a serious way. It is also when something false is not stated in a
straightforward way, but rather just suggested, or put forward as a suspicion, or in which
a real fault is exaggerated. And one can harm the reputation of another just by praising
her less strongly than she deserves.
Hypocrites are those who with their behavior pretend to be better morally than they are.
Flattery is to praise qualities or behavior in a person which do not deserve such praise. It
harms the person flattered by confirming him in his bad behavior. Also, sometimes it is a
tactic for manipulating people.
Types of unjustified damaging communications about persons and groups:
Breach of confidentiality - There are many types of information that are held in
confidence and therefore should not be divulged. Confidentiality of information can
derive from an explicit undertaking, as when one has promised to keep a secret. It may
derive from a professional duty. It also derives from the fact that intimate personal
information is disclosed to another person in an intimate setting and trusting that it will
not be divulged. It harms the victims and society as people generally become more
reluctant to trust others and all types of activities, from trade, to asking for professional
advice, to friendship, suffer by this.
Unnecessary arguments - Sometimes people say things that are not true without even
realizing it. In such cases, it may be necessary for someone else to speak up and
contradict those false statements in order to defend the truth or protect their own or
others' interests. However, if someone disagrees with others not because they feel
obligated to defend an important truth or safeguard an important interest but because they
want to show off their knowledge, assert their superiority, or simply have hostility
towards the person they are contradicting, their communication is likely to cause pain or
division. In such cases, their actions go against the principle of caring for others, even if
what they say is true.




Detraction - refers to the act of harming someone's reputation by making true statements
about their faults or shortcomings without a valid reason for doing so. One might wonder
how speaking the truth could be wrong. The reason is that people often react negatively
to true information, and this should be considered when deciding what information to
communicate. There are also many instances where people have no legitimate need to
know about others' faults and would simply use that knowledge for amusement or
entertainment purposes.
However, there are circumstances where it is justifiable to communicate someone's faults
that are not widely known. The harm caused is not intended but accepted in order to
achieve a legitimate objective, making the action fair under the circumstances. Another
important consideration when discussing the faults of others is that there may be
instances where it is justified to communicate a fault to individuals who can take
appropriate action. However, this does not mean that the information should be
broadcasted to everyone without a valid reason.
Gossip - people often exchange information about common acquaintances and when this
is done with goodwill and without exposing anybody’s privacy this is a good social
practice. However, when it is a question of merely satisfying the idle curiosity of others
or of showing off one’s superior knowledge and treats the people being discussed as mere
objects of entertainment, there will be at least a lack of respect towards those discussed
that will be unfair.
Insult - remark or action that is disrespectful or scornful towards a person or group.
Insulting others can be seriously immoral. The reason is that eroding somebody’s selfrespect or the respect he enjoys in the community can cause that person significant harm.
THE ETHICS OF FAMILY RELATIONSHIPS



Marriage: a comprehensive, permanent and exclusive union of a man and a woman
oriented to family life and to the procreation and education of offspring. The great human
good of faithful marital communion can only be realized fully by one man and one
woman who forsake all others and faithfully hold fast to each other through good times
and bad and, if they are able, have and raise the children who incarnate their communion.
Marriage is distinguished from every other form of friendship. It involves mutual love, a
permanent and exclusive sexual relationship, commitment to provide each other with care
and support, sharing resources and life projects, and union of minds and wills.
Marriage is a special type of relationship that is closely connected to having and raising
children. It is a bond that is naturally intended for, and made better by, the act of bearing
and raising children. When everything goes well, the ultimate fulfillment of marriage is
found in the family that is formed as the children grow up. This includes the love
between parents, the love that parents have for their children, the love among siblings,
and the love that children have for their parents.






In simple terms, taking care of children is hard work and the outcome is uncertain, but it
is seen as a meaningful and valuable project for most parents. Marriage provides the best
environment for children to grow and develop, as mothers and fathers bring different
strengths and perspectives to parenting. However, it's also important to recognize that a
marriage without children can still be a fulfilling and true marriage, as it involves a deep
relationship and commitment between two people.
The roles of being spouses and parents are closely connected for couples who have
children. If a man is not a good father, he will also be a worse husband, and the same
applies to a woman who is not a good mother. Parents who love each other and fulfill
their roles as educators tend to be better at raising their children.
When couples face small difficulties in their relationship, they should consider their
children as a primary motive for staying faithful to their marriage vows. They made a
promise to be together through better or worse, and it becomes clear that the children will
be worse off if their parents cannot get along. Similarly, if they live in a disunited or
broken home, the children will be economically poorer. The process of cooperating in
procreating and raising children creates a significant common project for couples.
Engaging in this joint project and facing the challenges together tend to bring spouses
closer and strengthen their bond.
Exclusivity: Unlike most other commitments in life, marriage demands exclusivity.
Romantic love, which goes beyond mere sexual desire or friendship, naturally seeks a
deep and exclusive union. If a couple allows for similar relationships with others, it
compromises the exclusivity and total commitment of their marital love. It transforms the
marriage from a complete self-giving to a limited exchange, undermining the depth of
their commitment and connection. Polygamous marriages, where one person has multiple
spouses, have historically caused significant problems, especially for the children
involved and for the overall harmony among the spouses.
Permanence: Marriage requires a commitment that is entirely dependable and lasting.
The nature of romantic love itself desires a lasting union. If spouses consider the
possibility of future separation as a viable option, they are likely to limit their
commitment and protect themselves from potential losses. Stable marriages contribute to
better educational, emotional, and behavioral outcomes for children. Divorce can also
have negative economic consequences, particularly for women. During marriage, women
often prioritize caring for the children, which may limit their commitment to their
careers. Consequently, after divorce, they are often left in a weaker economic position
than their husbands.
Two basic conceptions of marriage:
1. Traditional Ideal of Marriage: This conception views marriage as an institution that
enables important aspects of human fulfillment, including permanent commitment,
maximum mutual identification between spouses, and the creation of an optimal
environment for raising and educating children








2. Romantic Association: It revolves around the states of "falling in love" and "being in
love." In this conception, fidelity is downplayed, and the primary objective becomes
securing romantic and emotional satisfaction for the spouses.
People guided by the traditional ideal of marriage tend to prioritize character-related
qualities in potential partners while also seeking romantic attraction. They develop close
relationships with individuals who possess the right character traits, which often leads to
falling in love. On the other hand, those driven by the romantic association model solely
seek romantic attraction as the primary desired feature in a marriage partner. Individuals
who prioritize romance and emotional highs are more likely to engage in "serial
monogamy," constantly seeking new relationships or experiences in an unending pursuit
of the thrill of being in love.
The importance of marriage:
- Married people have longer life expectancies and greater happiness than do otherwise
similar singles.
- Marriage is associated with better health and lower rates of injury, illness, disability and
substance abuse for both men and women.
- Married women appear to have a lower risk of experiencing domestic violence than do
cohabiting women.
- Married mothers have lower rates of depression than do single or cohabiting mothers.
- Marriage plays a crucial role in “civilizing” men.
Family relationships, have the potential to bring happiness and fulfillment to parents
and children. Well-functioning families have an ability to contribute to the well-being of
their members. They contribute according to their abilities and receive according to their
needs. Thus, family relationships are governed by the principle of "free giving."
The importance of family relationships; they serve as the first and indispensable school
of social life. They provide an example and inspiration for relationships in the broader
community, promoting values such as respect, justice, dialogue, and love. The quality of
social life in a country is strongly dependent on the health of family life in it.
Parents have a significant responsibility to prioritize their children's needs, actively
participate in their education, seek appropriate external support, and act fairly by
respecting their children's individuality and avoiding exploitation for personal
gratification.
The main responsibilities of children towards their parents:
Love and support, obedience, considering the common good; parents may make decisions
for the well-being of the children and other family members, especially when children are
unable to make sound decisions on their own.
Limits of parental authority: Parental authority does not extend to controlling every
aspect of a child's life. Coordinating family actions and decisions is necessary, but it does
not justify dictating children's careers, religious commitments, vocations, or spouses.
Parents should respect their children's autonomy and self-determination in these matters.


When it comes to specific issues like career choices, choice of spouse, and fulfillment of
religious duties, children should have the freedom to make their own decisions, while
seeking advice from their parents. These decisions involve personal freedom and should
be respected, considering the importance of autonomy and personal responsibility.
Some parents mistakenly believe that by not providing their children with any religious
instruction, they are respecting their freedom to make their own choices. Not providing
religious education still communicates certain ideas to children, such as the insignificance
of the subject and the belief that religious truth doesn't require systematic instruction or
study. Individuals raised within a solid tradition are better equipped to critically evaluate
and potentially revise their beliefs.
SEXUAL ETHICS





Sexual drive is influenced by biological, psychological, and social factors. The primary
features of the sexual drive are pleasure, tension, interpersonal union, and
procreation. It is driven by the desire for pleasure, although not all sexual activities are
equally pleasurable. The urge produced by the sexual drive is similar to other cravings or
urges and can be experienced as a source of tension. People may engage in sexual
activities to satisfy this urge and reduce tension, but the mere fact of engaging in that
activity guarantees that the urge will reappear in future, and with increased power. this
activity soon becomes a habit that creates an urge and then the person experiencing the
urge finds that she finds it very difficult to resist it. Over time, the pleasure derived from
these activities may diminish.
Sexual intimacy can be an expression and cause of close interpersonal union. It has
emotional effects, creating an attachment between partners. If the circumstances are
minimally favorable, the first time a person has sexual intercourse, he may feel a strong
emotional attachment to his partner; if the relationship eventually ends, the person will
strongly feel the break. But if this relationship is followed by a series of other
relationships, there will be a tendency for both the emotional impact of each of the
relationships and the emotional impact of the break to become progressively weaker.
Eventually, sexual intimacy will mean very little: it will be an almost purely physical
event with a greatly reduced power to unite at a deep emotional level.
Sexual intercourse unites two individuals at an organic level, as they become "one flesh"
for the purpose of reproduction.
Marriage is seen as an institution that embodies the capacity of sexual intimacy to
express close interpersonal union and be the source of new lives. A good marriage is
considered essential for human flourishing and the well-being of children.
Chastity is as a virtue that allows individuals to master their natural tendency for
immediate sexual satisfaction. It provides personal freedom, fosters sincere relationships,
and makes a good marriage possible. It is acquired or lost, strengthened or weakened,
through our actions.


People who have no control over their sexual drive will very easily slide into exploitative
relations with other people in order to obtain the sexual favors they crave. The person
driven by uncontrolled sexual desires just lacks the freedom to engage in sincere, nonexploitative and non-manipulative relationships with persons of the opposite sex.
Unchastity is seen as detrimental to personal freedom, leads to exploitative relationships,
and undermines the potential for a fulfilling marriage. It is important to understand that
marriage is not a cure for unchastity. Unchastity hinders people from perceiving, desiring,
and engaging in sexual relationships beyond self-gratification, which involves using and
possessing another person's body solely for pleasure. This mindset fails to recognize the
full personhood of an individual with their unique sensitivities, boundaries, and
aspirations. Consequently, without personal chastity, a marriage gradually succumbs to
the introduction of significant barriers that widen over time, resulting in a deteriorating
quality of the relationship.
JUSTICE



Justice encompasses more than fulfilling promises and respecting legal rights; it entails a
broader attitude of consistently recognizing and honoring the fair entitlements of others,
even if it means prioritizing their interests over our own.
In the realm of virtues, justice primarily pertains to actions that affect others and is
considered unjust when it violates moral principles and causes harm or negative impacts
on individuals. The principles of non-harm and fairness guide our understanding of what
justice demands, with practical tests such as the Golden Rule and the "Veil of
Ignorance" helping to determine fairness in specific situations.
Commutative justice: This refers to justice in the relations between two individuals or
between two groups which are on a similar level.
- Justice in exchanges: It primarily deals with issues that arise in exchanges or
transactions between two parties, such as buying and selling, renting, or taking a loan.
- Some argue that any exchange, as long as it involves genuine consent and voluntary
agreement without fraud or force, is inherently just. This position is flawed because
the terms of an exchange can be unfair even if both parties consented and there was
no deception. For example, if someone takes advantage of another's desperate
situation or lack of knowledge to set unfair terms, it goes against the principle of
justice.
- To determine whether an exchange is just, Aristotle and Aquinas proposed
examining the equality of the agreed-upon terms. If the terms are not "equal,"
meaning approximately equal in value, the exchange is considered unfair. The value
of items in an exchange is determined by their ability to serve human interests, and
the best indicator of this ability is what people are willing to pay for them.
-
-
-
-
-



It's important to note that the principle of equality in exchanges does not mean that
none of the parties should make a high profit. Rather, it emphasizes that both parties
should receive "value for money" or "money for value," ensuring that neither party
benefits at the expense of the other.
Compensation for harms caused: when one person wrongfully causes harm to
another, justice requires that the responsible party take responsibility for their conduct
and make amends. The goal is to restore the victim to the position they would have
been in had the wrongful behavior not occurred. By compensating for the harm
caused, individuals can plan their lives with the assurance of protection against
certain external setbacks. Commutative justice requires that the victims be made no
worse off than they were before they were harmed, as far as that is possible.
The principle of equality and the Golden Rule play a role in issues of compensation
for harms. Just as we would want to be compensated for harm caused to us, it is fair
that we compensate others when we are responsible for causing harm.
Promises: when we make a promise, we bind ourselves to act in accordance with that
promise, creating predictability and reliability for others. The fundamental reason for
keeping promises is the Golden Rule – we would not want others to break their
promises to us, so we should fulfill the promises we make to others.
However, there are circumstances where a promise may not need to be kept. If a
promise is subject to a condition that is not fulfilled or if there is a significant
change in circumstances that would have naturally led both parties to agree on not
keeping the promise, it may be justifiable to breach the promise. The change in
circumstances should be such that, if it had been brought up at the time of making the
promise, reasonable people would have agreed that it would invalidate the promise.
Additionally, if keeping a promise becomes impossible or would require morally
wrong actions, the promise is not binding.
Distributive justice: refers to the distribution of benefits and burdens among the
members of a group. The specific standard to be applied for distribution depends on the
circumstances, and various standards such as merit, capacity, need, contribution, and
equality are available. However, determining the appropriate standard in each situation is
challenging.
The "veil of ignorance" test is useful for considering fairness in distribution issues. This
test encourages individuals to imagine deciding on the fundamental laws and structures of
society while being unaware of their personal attributes in later life, such as wealth, social
class, or intelligence. The idea is that agreements reached behind this "veil of ignorance"
would be fair because they would not be influenced by personal interests or biases.
An example is provided to illustrate the application of the veil of ignorance test. It
considers the fairness of redistributive taxation, where wealthier individuals' earnings are
used to assist those in need. A wealthy and intelligent person might argue against




redistributive taxation, as they believe they have worked hard to achieve their success and
can protect themselves through insurance. However, the veil of ignorance test prompts
individuals to consider the possibility of being disadvantaged or destitute without any
fault of their own, and how they would protect themselves in such a situation. In this
case, the test suggests that redistributive taxation would be fair because it safeguards
against extreme destitution for those who cannot protect themselves.
- The main standards used for just distribution:
- Contribution is relevant when distributing the fruits of collective efforts, where those
who contribute more receive a greater share.
- Merit is applicable in cases where the best performers or those displaying exceptional
qualities are rewarded.
- Need is straightforward when individuals require goods or support, regardless of
merit or contribution.
- Capacity is important for assigning tasks or burdens based on individuals' abilities or
circumstances.
- Equality should be applied when no other standard in applicable, either because none
of the members of a group has special relevant characteristics that would justify using
another principle or because such characteristics cannot be identified reliably in the
circumstances of the case. But in cases where other standards are applicable,
distributing equally would actually be unjust.
Social justice: refers to the overall organization of a society. It goes beyond individual
actions or specific groups and focuses on the fairness and equity in the fundamental rules
and features of a society. Sometimes, when we encounter difficulties in obtaining what
we deserve or protecting our rights, it may not be solely due to the actions of a particular
individual or group. Instead, it can be attributed to the way the entire society is organized
and structured. In such cases, we can identify instances of social injustice. Examples of
social injustice include a society that fails to protect the lives of unborn children or
neglects to provide support for individuals who are in destitution through no fault of their
own.
Legal justice: refers to the duties of citizens (or groups) towards the society to which
they belong and more generally to the duties of individuals towards the groups of which
they are members.
Retributive justice: refers to the norms that should guide the punishment of wrongdoers.
Procedural justice: refers to the procedures that should be applied in order to determine
the just thing to do. Thus, for instance, the idea that the two parties to a dispute should be
heard before deciding is a standard of procedural justice.
PROMOTION OF THE COMMON GOOD AND COMPLIANCE WITH THE LAW

The duty to promote the common good of the communities to which we belong:







Promoting the well-being of others is not only about helping individuals on an individual
basis, but also about fostering the well-being of the various communities we are part of,
such as our family, local community, nation, and even the international community.
The common good refers to the goods or set of goods that are shared by the members of a
community. It encompasses the conditions and benefits that contribute to the fulfillment
of every member of that society. Examples of aspects of the common good include
accessible and affordable healthcare, public safety and security, a thriving economy, a just
legal and political system, and a clean environment. These are the social conditions that
allow people, both as individuals and groups, to reach their fullest potential and lead
fulfilling lives.
Establishing and maintaining the common good requires the cooperative efforts of many
people. It is not something that happens automatically but requires active participation
and engagement. However, disagreements may arise regarding the prioritization of
different aspects of the common good. Resolving these disagreements and giving specific
content to the common good for a particular society often requires decisions made by a
legitimate authority, with the cooperation of all members of that society.
There are challenges in promoting the common good. The "free-rider problem" arises
when individuals benefit from the common good without contributing their fair share to
its support. This can undermine the sustainability of the common good. Additionally, an
individualistic mentality, where personal goals and self-interest take precedence, can
hinder efforts to promote the common good. Unequal sharing of burdens also poses a
challenge, as some individuals or groups may bear greater costs than others in
maintaining the common good.
The common good is common because only together as a community, and not simply as
isolated individuals, is it possible to secure and share in this good. The moral principle
that demands that we have concern for others leads us to work towards creating, fostering
and protecting the common good.
Contrary to misconceptions, the common good is not opposed to individual rights.
Protecting the fundamental rights of every individual is a requirement for the common
good. It is most fundamentally the set conditions which allow people to reach their
fulfillment. It emphasizes that no one should be sacrificed for the sake of collective goals
imposed by those in power. Evaluating policies and measures based on the common good
considers whether they genuinely serve the collective well-being rather than being solely
driven by partisan interests.
"The duty to obey the law" and explores the reasons why individuals have a moral
obligation to obey laws within a society. The law of "The Bad Man." The Bad Man is
someone who only cares about the law in terms of what will happen to them if they get
caught breaking it. If the Bad Man believes they can get away with a crime or that the
penalties will be slight, they will willingly break the law.







The duty to obey people in positions of authority arises from the fact that all members of
the community are entitled to the benefit of everyone's obedience to those in authority.
To illustrate this point, the example of passengers in a sinking ship. The captain issues
instructions on how to distribute seats in the lifeboats among the passengers. It is in the
passengers' best interest to obey the captain because disobeying would result in confusion
and hinder the common goal of saving lives. By following the captain's instructions and
coordinating their actions, the passengers have a higher chance of saving lives compared
to each person acting according to their own beliefs. Society, like a sinking ship, requires
cooperation and coordinated action to prevent harm and achieve common goods.
Laws, in most cases, prescribe actions that are not morally obligatory in themselves but
promote common goods and enable effective cooperation. By obeying these laws,
individuals contribute to the common good and fairness within the community. Those
who breach such laws exhibit selfishness and unfairness by prioritizing their own
interests over the common good and burdening law-abiding citizens. Obedience to the
law is seen as an ethical duty stemming from the desire to contribute to the well-being
and benefit of the entire community.
Unjust laws: there are situations where a fair-minded person who has the well-being of
the community in mind may have good reasons not to comply with a law, particularly
when the law itself is unjust.
An unjust law can take various forms. One common type is a law that distributes the
benefits and burdens of society in an unfair manner. This could mean that certain groups
or individuals are unfairly advantaged or disadvantaged by the law. Another type of
unjust law is one that imposes regulations that are clearly inappropriate and driven by
ideological bias or partisan interests. Additionally, a law can be unjust if it deprives
citizens of fundamental rights, such as religious freedom or the right to education.
Obeying an unjust law cannot be considered a moral duty because the duty to obey the
law derives from the principle of fairness and concern for the well-being of others. If a
law itself is unfair and hinders rather than fosters the common good, then there is no
moral obligation to obey it.
The determination of whether a law is unjust: it suggests that individuals should not
hastily conclude that a law is unjust and that one should give the law the benefit of the
doubt as long as there is room for reasonable doubt. Disobeying a law based on its
injustice is justified only when a person is morally certain about the law's injustice.
Furthermore, the injustice of a law should be substantial to warrant disobedience. It is
also prudent to seek the opinion of reliable people before concluding that a law is
seriously unjust, as a single individual may not possess all the necessary knowledge to
make a confident judgment.
The duty to obey a law is influenced by the actual enforcement and implementation of the
law. There may be reasons to obey unjust laws to a certain extent. The potential impact of
one's example on others, both in terms of discouraging disregard for all laws and
promoting respect for the law, is mentioned as a factor to consider when deciding
whether to comply with an unjust law. Also, legal systems may not necessarily contain
provisions exempting individuals from legal penalties in cases where their actions are
morally justified.
ETHICS OF PROPERTY. THE ACQUISITION, USE AND CONTROL OF MATERIAL
GOODS





Justification of private property:
Private property is considered a more efficient system, especially when dealing with
scarce resources. When a good is abundant and its use does not prejudice the needs of
others, no property rules are necessary. However, for scarce resources, private property
allows for effective use and incentivizes care, dedication, initiative, and risk-taking by
owners, which promotes the production of goods and services.
- It minimizes conflicts and disputes over the use and distribution of resources. Private
property provides clear ownership rights and reduces tensions.
Private property is essential for the protection and exercise of personal freedom. In a
society where all means of production belong to the state, the state becomes the sole
employer. This concentration of power can limit individual freedom, as dissenting
individuals may face unemployment and lack alternative employment options. In
contrast, private property allows individuals to work for private employers or be selfemployed, fostering freedom and autonomy.
- It enables variety in methods of work and rewards offered to workers. This promotes
innovation, creativity, and personal fulfillment.
- Private property provides individuals with a necessary area of personal and familial
independence. It allows people to express their personalities, decorate their homes
according to their tastes, and make gifts to others. It also offers protection against
impositions from others, as reliance on public welfare or communal ownership often
subjects individuals to the decisions and priorities of public agencies.
Human beings have a natural right to the fruits of their own work. When individuals
create wealth through their own physical and mental effort, they project their personality
and self onto the natural materials they utilize. Taking away the wealth created by
individuals can be seen as claiming ownership over their labor and infringing upon their
rights.
Limitations of the right of private property: property rights should not be considered
absolute because natural resources are not created for the exclusive benefit of
individuals. Instead, everyone has a right to share in natural resources, and any
conception of private property that leads to the exclusion of some individuals from basic
needs is unsound.








Those who own and produce goods benefit from various social benefits and
contributions made by others, such as public safety, accumulated knowledge, and
economic cooperation. Therefore, private property itself cannot be seen as an absolute
right, but rather a mechanism to effectively develop and utilize natural resources for the
satisfaction of everyone's needs while promoting personal freedom.
Property holders have a duty to assist those in urgent need. It draws a parallel between
the duty to rescue a drowning child, which is considered a strict duty, and the duty of
property owners to help those in need. If someone possesses more goods than they need
while others suffer from unmet fundamental needs through no fault of their own, it is
deemed unreasonable for the property owner to refuse assistance.
However, the passage clarifies that these arguments do not imply that the state should
come and deprive individuals of all their wealth. Private property is still seen as
important, but it should not be absolute. Instead, property owners should consider the
needs of others, and the state has a role in regulating, taxing, and potentially seize
property, if necessary, with fair compensation to the former owners.
Breaches of the right of property by the state: the right to property can be violated by
the state if it regulates property in a way that makes it impossible or very difficult to
exercise the right, or if it imposes severe restrictions on the right. When the state or a
small group of people controls a great concentration of wealth and economic power, it
can lead to a lack of opportunity for individuals to have private property, including the
means of production. This concentration of wealth deprives people without property of
important freedoms and the means to satisfy their fundamental needs.
Aristotle and Aquinas, have argued that while private property should remain in the hands
of individuals, its use should be communal or secondary and relative to the availability of
goods for the benefit of people in need. This implies that it is unjust to keep superfluous
possessions when others are in urgent necessity, and the needy may justifiably take the
superfluous property of others, even against their will.
The limitations on property rights can be incorporated into specific legal norms,
depending on the circumstances, to safeguard public order and the certainty of the law.
Breaches of property rights by individuals: property rights can also be violated by
individuals, particularly through theft. Stealing, which involves the voluntary taking or
keeping of something that belongs to another against the owner's reasonable will, is a
breach of fairness and is considered unethical. However, it's important to note that
ownership rights are not absolute in morality. Owners have a responsibility to use their
surplus property to help others satisfy their essential needs. In cases of urgent necessity,
where someone's life or the lives of their dependents are at stake, taking another person's
property to survive is not considered stealing in morality, although it may be illegal.
Property rights can also be breached by failing to fulfill contractual obligations, incurring
debts that cannot be repaid, depriving others of their property through fraud, or misusing
and destroying one's own property. It is a common mistake to think that being an owner
grants the right to do whatever one pleases with the property. However, ownership always
entails a responsibility to care for and manage the goods in a way that considers the
universal destination of goods, meaning that the material world is a gift to all of
humanity, and individuals have responsibilities towards others. Thus, owners should
prioritize their own needs and those of their dependents, but when they have excess
property, they should make it available to meet the needs of others.
RESPECT FOR THE DIGNITY, LIFE AND FREEDOM OF OTHERS







The concept of the dignity of human beings emphasizes the unique and special value
that humans possess in comparison to other animals and inanimate entities. While
humans have a physical, bodily nature like other animals, what sets them apart is the
presence of spiritual or non-material capacities. Acts of understanding, love, and free
choices are examples of such capacities that cannot be attributed solely to the functioning
of the body or the brain.
Due to these distinct qualities, human beings have a significantly higher value or dignity
than any other beings in the universe. This inherent dignity implies that humans should
not be treated merely as a means to fulfill the purposes of others. Instead, they deserve to
be treated with consideration and respect that befits their dignity. This distinction in
ethics between animals or things and persons highlights the legitimacy of using the
former but not the latter. “Imago Dei”.
It's important to note that human dignity stems from being human itself. It is not
something acquired through certain behaviors or the development of capacities to a
certain extent. Human dignity is innate and universal to all human beings, regardless of
their achievements or circumstances.
Protection of human life: There are many factors today that threaten human life,
particularly the life of the weakest members of the human family: the unborn, the
severely impaired, the sick, the elderly and the dying.
Abortion
The deliberate and intentional killing of a human being in the initial phase of their
existence. Based on fundamental ethical principles such as concern for others, fairness,
and the principle against intentionally harming human beings, it would seem easy to
conclude that abortion is wrong, especially considering the vulnerability and
defenselessness of the child in the womb.
Many people argue in favor of the permissibility of abortion and proceeds to examine and
refute the main arguments put forward by abortion's defenders. They mention that
common justifications for abortion include viewing the fetus as just a part of the mother's
body, claiming that the fetus is not a human being, asserting that even if it is a human
being, it is not a person, or arguing that the rights of the mother should prevail in case of
conflict.








From the moment of conception, an embryo has its own genetic makeup, separate from
that of the mother. The embryo is genetically unique and distinct from both the mother
and father. Additionally, the embryo possesses the capacity to develop itself, following its
own DNA, through various stages of growth and maturation. These biological factors
indicate that the embryo is not merely a part of the mother's body but a separate entity.
A fetus is a member of the human species, as it possesses the same genetic makeup that
the individual has at all stages of development. The embryo gradually develops all the
organs necessary for the functioning of a mature human being, and by the eighth or tenth
week after conception, it already has a fully formed beating heart, hands, fingers, feet and
toes, a complete brain, and a recognizable human form. The fetus is human already, albeit
in an immature stage of development.
Regarding the claim that a fetus is not a person. Personhood should be attributed to
human beings based on the type of entities they are, rather than the specific capacities
they possess. if personhood were contingent on developed capacities, it would lead to
unequal rights among human beings with different degrees of abilities.
The argument based on the rights of the mother, which asserts that a woman should have
the right to control her own body and make decisions regarding pregnancy is
fundamentally weak. While the sacrifices of pregnancy should not be minimized,
abortion affects the unborn child's body and life far more radically than pregnancy affects
the mother's body and autonomy. The author maintains that our humanity demands
setting aside plans and making sacrifices in light of new moral responsibilities, and
abortion should not be justified solely based on the rights of the mother.
There is no exception of allowing abortion in cases of rape, the unborn baby is
innocent and terminating the pregnancy does not correct or limit the wrong done by the
rapist. Finally, there is a difference between intentional killing and accepting death,
emphasizing that intentional killing, as in the case of abortion, is morally different from
accepting the natural course of events.
Euthanasia
Defined as an action or omission intentionally causing death in order to eliminate
suffering. It can involve both active measures, such as administering a lethal injection, as
well as omissions, such as withholding necessary treatment or food and water. Euthanasia
is voluntary when it is performed on persons who give free and informed consent to
being killed. It is involuntary when performed on individuals who are not capable of
giving free and informed consent, because they are unconscious or are too young.
Voluntary euthanasia refers to euthanasia performed on individuals who give free and
informed consent to be killed. Advocates of voluntary euthanasia argue that respecting a
patient's autonomy and their desire to end their suffering is an act of kindness or
beneficence.







While autonomy should be respected, it does not mean one has a responsibility to
actively help someone carry out a self-destructive choice. Assisting in suicide goes
against the value of life and can have a negative impact on the person's character and
society's respect for life. Also, your choices shape your character and you risk shaping
shape yourself as a killer, somebody for whom the value of life has become relativized. It
will in no way contribute to their fulfillment.
A decision to engage in euthanasia always involves a denial of the inherent worth of
every human life and the equal dignity of every individual, irrespective of the
circumstances in which he may find himself.
From the point of view of the person tempted to put an end to his own life; That
decision would itself constitute a denial of the value of the gift of life. Suicide always
causes harm to others. Finally, suicide always involves a failure in respect and obedience
to God. They are choices contrary to the intrinsic good of human life.
Involuntary euthanasia occurs when euthanasia is performed on individuals who cannot
give informed consent, such as those who are unconscious or too young. It is justified on
the basis of the putative lack of quality of life of the patient, in some cases pushing the
argument to the extreme of stating that some patients who are in permanent coma, are no
longer persons whose right to life ought to be respected. Such judgments are arbitrary and
thus unjust. It is a fact that different authors list different qualities that one needs to
possess in order to have what they consider a “meaningful life”, and even the same author
at times lists different qualities in different defenses of her position. The qualities that
supposedly make life worthwhile such as intelligence, capacity to form relationships,
self-determination, awareness, and response to stimuli, always admit of differences in
degree. Therefore, some cutoff point has to be determined below which life is not
supposed to be any longer meaningful.
People who oppose euthanasia think that even if human life falls short of the degree of,
say, awareness that somebody considers necessary, is itself something valuable that
human life is something intrinsically good. On the other hand, those who support
involuntary euthanasia typically believe that human life is not valuable in itself but only
instrumentally good, meaning that it is valuable only if makes it possible for us to enjoy
other good things such as certain conscious experiences or communication with others.
Human solidarity, love for that person (not that body), and respect for the basic
human good of life.
Euthanasia and the community: legalizing euthanasia without stringent regulation may
lead to coercion or pressure on individuals to choose euthanasia against their wishes. In
places where physician-assisted suicide is legal, protections intended to prevent coercion
often fail. Weakening the social norm of unconditional respect for human life will result
in a new form of discrimination and oppression.










The alternative to Euthanasia is true compassion: providing people in such
circumstances with support, human help and warmth, and palliative care to help alleviate
the pain.
Limits of the duty to provide treatment: the preceding arguments does not mean that
we have a duty to provide all possible treatments in order to prolong somebody’s life,
including our own. It is always wrong intentionally to kill a human person, but sometimes
morally right to choose not to use certain means to preserve someone’s life. In such cases
the choice that the person is making is not to bring about the death of somebody, but to
refuse a given treatment, for which there may be good reasons. (e.g., Chemotherapy).
A proper love for life does not require one to make use of all available means of
preserving it, but only of those means that are considered “ordinary” or “proportionate.”
Depending on circumstances of time and place.
Respect for human life in a transcendent perspective: from a secular standpoint, some
people may view suffering as the ultimate evil that should be avoided at all costs. This
perspective may lead to the appeal of euthanasia, as it offers a way to end suffering. On
the other hand, religious believers generally do not see unavoidable suffering as
meaningless or the ultimate evil. They often have doctrines that explain why living with
suffering is not inherently evil.
A person who believes in God will consider that as long as God keeps them alive, their
life must still hold some meaning, even if they cannot fully comprehend it. They would
also acknowledge that the reasons why God brought them (or anyone) into existence are
deeply mysterious. Therefore, it is not surprising that the believer finds it mysterious that
God sees meaning and value in every part of their lifespan, even the most miserable and
reduced moments.
Respect for the freedom of others
Respecting the capacity of humans to make choices and be the architects of their own
lives is essential for their dignity. Paternalism refers to the belief that individuals or
institutions have a responsibility to ensure that others act in a way that will promote their
well-being, even if these individuals would prefer to make different choices if given the
freedom to do so. It draws a parallel between this approach and how parents often make
decisions for their young children to protect their interests and well-being.
Paternalism may not be the most justified or appropriate approach in many situations.
Several reasons are provided to support this viewpoint:
Potential for self-deception: People who act paternalistically may believe that they are
serving the interests of others, but they might also be influenced by their own biases and
interests, which can lead to self-deception.
Deficit of knowledge: Paternalists often lack sufficient knowledge about an individual's
unique circumstances, values, preferences, and long-term plans. This lack of
understanding can hinder their ability to accurately assess what is genuinely beneficial for
someone else.





Importance of self-determination: Allowing individuals to exercise control over their
own lives is considered a significant good. Depriving them of the opportunity to make
responsible decisions and shape their lives interferes with their self-fulfillment and
autonomy.
Inability to fully assess consequences: It is difficult to rationally compare and weigh the
various consequences of different actions, which makes it challenging to make a
comprehensive moral assessment.
Respect for human dignity: Recognizing the right of individuals to be the architects of
their own lives and pursue their own freely chosen commitments is a fundamental aspect
of respecting human dignity. Attempting to take over their lives and make decisions for
them goes against this principle.
However, while paternalism is questioned when it affects an individual's autonomy, it
may be justified when it comes to protecting innocent third parties from harm caused by
others. For instance, enforcing laws against drunk driving is not considered paternalistic
but a responsibility of public authorities to safeguard public safety.
Other offenses against human dignity: They include enslaving people; using embryos
and aborted fetuses as material for experimentation or as a source of tissues and organs
for the benefits of others; exploitation of illegal immigrants and other workers who find
themselves in especially weak positions; domination of women; and treating others
(especially subordinates and employees) disrespectfully in everyday affairs and
relationships.
RELIGION AND THE ULTIMATE SIGNIFICANCE OF HUMAN ACTIONS





Religion involves being in harmony with a higher source of meaning and value that
transcends human existence. While different religions may have varying beliefs about
God and ways of aligning human intelligence, will, and freedom with God's, they all
emphasize the significance of being in harmony with Him.
Religious activity has positive consequences in other areas of life. Numerous studies
indicate a link between religion and well-being, suggesting that religious people tend to
be happier and experience better mental and physical health.
It is crucial to approach religious beliefs and practices rationally and critically to evaluate
their soundness and truthfulness. We shouldn’t blindly follow the religion one was
brought up in or joining popular religious groups without critical examination.
The task of individuals is not simply to choose a religion based on personal preference
but to evaluate the credibility of different worldviews. If one finds a worldview that is
believed to be true, it is encouraged to accept it and make a commitment to shape one's
life in accordance with it.
Practice of religion











Three important aspects that are common to many religions: worship, prayer, and upright
living. These practices are interrelated and contribute to the religious experience.
Worship is the act of expressing gratitude, respect, and reverence for God, who is seen as
perfect goodness and love in monotheistic religions. It is considered a strict obligation for
individuals who have knowledge of God to honor and acknowledge their dependence on
Him. Worship is not limited to internal feelings but also involves external expression and
participation in public rituals with fellow believers.
Prayer is seen as a means to establish a personal relationship with God beyond mere
worship. it is seen as a way to develop a close relationship with God, and it is not
something that can be achieved effortlessly. The passage emphasizes the importance of
regular and disciplined prayer as a means of spiritual progress, as relying solely on
sporadic or whimsical prayers often leads to a superficial relationship with God.
Upright living refers to the moral aspect of religious practice. All major monotheistic
religions teach that God is just and righteous, and therefore, being close to God requires
living in accordance with His standards of right and wrong. Incorporating the moral
teachings of one's religion into daily life is considered the most basic form of obedience
to God.
Religious freedom
A fundamental human right because coercion, pressure, or the lack of freedom can
prevent individuals from genuinely seeking religious truth. It is necessary to respect
people's activities as seekers of religious truth and allow them to live in accordance with
their own judgments and beliefs in ultimate matters. It is essential for authentic religious
commitment and upholding the dignity and integrity of individuals as free and rational
beings.
Religious freedom is not limited to believers; it also extends to atheists and agnostics.
Forcing individuals to act in religious ways that contradict their beliefs or compelling
them to follow religious practices they do not share goes against the aspect of honesty
and integrity that is part of the good of religion.
The passage also recognizes that religious freedom serves to protect religion itself. By
allowing for questioning and dialogue, religious beliefs are kept from becoming stagnant,
dogmatic, or hypocritical.
However, the passage acknowledges that there are limits to religious freedom. When
religious practices endanger human rights, public peace, public morality, or other
essential aspects of the common good, authorities may have legitimate reasons to
override religious convictions. Examples given include practices such as harmful rituals,
denying education to children, or preventing necessary medical interventions.
The impact of religion on ethical behavior
A belief in an all-wise and provident God is a great help for acting ethically in two main
ways. It provides a very significant additional motivation for acting ethically and it







steadies us in situations in which we might be tempted to act unethically “for the greater
good.”
Religion and the significance of human actions: Behaving ethically requires effort and
self-control, as individuals need to examine their urges, desires, and emotions to avoid
destructive actions. Why this effort is necessary:
Ethical behavior contributes to personal fulfillment and the fulfillment of others.
Acting ethically is seen as a rational pursuit that leads to positive outcomes and the wellbeing of individuals and communities. However, there is a realistic possibility that many
aspects of the fulfillment and achievements one hopes to attain through ethical actions
may never be realized.
Factors are discussed that can hinder the realization of ethical goals; First, the
precarious nature of the human condition, unexpected events or circumstances can thwart
one's efforts, regardless of their ethical conduct. Second, luck plays a significant role in
human affairs, and despite upholding high values, individuals may not always experience
favorable outcomes, while others who engage in opportunistic behavior may prosper.
Third, people may fail to reciprocate the efforts of ethical individuals, taking advantage
of trust or acting in self-interest.
It is still reasonable and necessary to continue pursuing ethical actions. Enduring and
striving to do one's best is the most reasonable response to the frustrations and setbacks
encountered in life. However, it recognizes that there are limits to how much
discouragement individuals can bear, and many people may give up acting constructively
and reasonably in the face of repeated disappointments.
Religious teachings are presented as a source of motivation and certainty for believers,
providing reassurance that their efforts are not wasted, even if immediate results seem
discouraging. Two main doctrines of religion in this context. First, acting ethically
pleases God and strengthens one's relationship with the divine, while unethical actions
damage that relationship. Second, the Catholic faith (similar teachings exist in other
religions) asserts that all efforts to promote human well-being and communal values will
bear fruit, even if they appear to fail in observable ways. In an eternal and universal
kingdom, individuals will find that their efforts have been transformed and fulfilled
beyond their earthly expectations.
In critical situations where ethical norms are challenged, religious beliefs can play a
significant role in helping individuals uphold those norms. While ethical principles can
be understood and followed by people regardless of their religious beliefs, there are
extreme circumstances where the temptation to abandon ethics may arise.
This is where religious faith can provide guidance and support for ethical decisionmaking. By placing trust in God's care for the world, individuals can find strength to act
ethically, even in the face of extreme circumstances. Religious faith fosters a perspective
that goes beyond human action alone. It acknowledges the reality of human suffering and
limitations, and emphasizes the humility to respect and cherish what is good.
XO TOFUNMI