Understanding the ultimate reality
may mean the absence of doubt or
skepticism.
d. Philosophizing may be based on
the background of the
Philosopher
Thales who predicts the world is made
up of water might have concluded this
so given he grew up in Miletus, a
coastal city.
Philosophy, Ethics and
Freedom
I.
-
-
-
Philosophy
Evert Dela Pena: Discovering truths
from our own rationality or thinking.
Mariano Artigas: knowledge of all
things through human reasoning to
understand the ultimate reality.
Louis P. Pojman & James Fieser
(2012): An enterprise that begins with
wonder at the marvels and mysteries
of the world. It leaves no aspect of life
untouched by its inquiry. An example
is Socrates’ famous line: An
unexamined life is not worth living.
Rational Argument
a. Etymology
Greeks are the proponents of
Philosophy. It came from the Greek
word philo and sophia meaning love
of wisdom.
b. Philosophy before Science
1. Philosophy seeks for the essence
of TRUTH in an open-ended,
argumentative, debatable manner
bounded by reasons. It takes place
in the mind. The laboratory is the
mind. On the other hand, Science
tries to find FACTS through
experimentation drawing its
conclusion from a pre-existing
fact.
Questioning is Philosophy.
c. Understanding the Ultimate
Truth/Reality/Alatea
Phi “φ” – symbol for Philosophy.
Represents “generic acts”
II.
a.
Ethics
Ethics vs. Morals
(1) Ethics
 are guidelines
towards a moral life.
 Etymology: Ethos
meaning character
 It deals with how we
ought to live with
the idea of good and
with the concepts
such as right and
wrong.
(2) Morality
 Is all about our
conscience.
 Etymology: Mores
meaning custom
 The standards of
behavior of a person
are called a moral
principle.
 An ethical way may
not be moral.
 Moral Dilemma: In
the middle between
what is right v. what
is wrong.
b.
c.
d.
Nature of Man
(3) Man is naturally good.
(4) St. Thomas Aquinas: We
came from something that is
purely good.
Divisions of Ethics
1. Descriptive Morality –
seeking actual beliefs (what
should I do?)
2. Moral Philosophy/Ethical
Theory – understanding
moral principles (why should
I be moral?)
3. Applied Ethics – applying
theories and beliefs to moral
problems (e.g. stand on
abortion)
Morality vs Religion, Law and
Etiquette
1. Religion. Morality differs
from religion by seeking
reasons rather than authority,
to justify its principles.
Morality in religion is found
on revelation.
2. Law. Morality digs deeper
into the essence of our social
existence. Ang saklaw ng law
ay iyong nakikita sa mata ng
batas o tao. Legal authority
may or may not be moral.
“You cannot have a law
against every social problem,
nor can you enforce every
desirable rule”.
3. Etiquette. Morality digs
deeper into the essence of our
social existence. Ang
etiquette ay nag-eexist lang
or pabor lang sa mga cultured
e.
f.
or brought up sa ganoong
klaseng gawi. Following the
etiquette is just a polite
behavior. Morality is a right
behavior. “Etiquette doesn’t
get to the heart of what is
vitally important for personal
and social existence”.
Moral Principles
1. Prescriptivity. Moral advises
and influences action.
2. Universalizability. Moral
applies to all people who are
in a relevant similar situation
(e.g. Golden Rule)
3. Consistency. One sticks to
his/her moral judgment or
value judgment (Could I will
that everyone acts according
to this principle?) *In relation
to Universalizability
4. Overridingness. Moral has
predominant authority. (e.g.
When the law becomes
immoral, it is my moral duty
to practice disobedience)
5. Publicity. Morals must be
public to prescribe behavior.
6. Practicability. Morals are
workable and not too
idealistic. Its rules may not
lay a heavy burden on us.
Ethical Assessment
1. Action (Permissable and Not
Permissable Acts)
 Permissable are
right acts. They may
be obligatory or
optional. Obligatory
acts are what your
morality
REQUIRES you to
do so (e.g. reviewing
for a test) Optional
acts are meh. Doing
it or not doing it just
gives you the same
level of satisfaction.
Examples are
supererogatory acts
or beyond the call of
duty (ipapahamak
ang sarili).
 Not permissible are
wrong acts.
 Inherent Duty
(Deontology). E.g.
“never breaking a
promise”
2. Consequences
 Weighing down the
justice
 Utilitarianism by
Jeremy Bentham
3. Character
 Virtues and Vices
4. Motive
 Intentions.
III.
Freedom vs. Free-doom
Freedom is doing what is in your
nature. To achieve freedom, one must
stay true to oneself. Free-doom is
going beyond your true self.
St. Augustine of Hippo: There’s
no evil in this world. Free will is the
cause of evil.
Martin Heidegger: Freedom is
only to be found where there is burden
to be shouldered. Freeing yourself to
be who you are no matter who you are.
Free yourself from the fear of others
knowing who you are and respecting
yourself for who you are. Know your
nature for you to be free.
IV.
Other Information
a. Moral Subjectivism
– Bongbong (respect
of opinion)
b. Objective
Relativism – Leni
(receipt of facts)
Everything is empty – Jean
Paul Sartre
Principle of Contradiction
(Metaphysics) “Bakit maasim
ang Sampaloc” Answer:
Maasim kasi alam mong may
matamis.
Main Reference:
Pojman, L. P., & Fieser, J. (2011). Cengage
Advantage Books: Ethics: Discovering
Right and Wrong. Cengage Learning
Ethical Relativism
-
“Respect for individuals entails respect for
their culture. Understand cultural diversity.”
I.
-
-
II.
-
III.
-
-
Definition
The doctrine that the moral rightness
and wrongness of actions vary from
society to society and there are no
absolute moral standards binding on
all men at all times. (John Ladd)
It debunks ethnocentrism. The idea
that all of reality is on the lens of one’s
own cultural beliefs and values.
(Example: Western values being
imposed to African tribes. Note: It is
also equivalent to sexism/racism. So,
today we condemn ethnocentric and
moral objectivistic views. Moral
objectivism is the idea that there are
universal and moral objective
principles applicable to all of
humankind)
Nihilism vs. Relativism
Nihilism: No valid moral principles
exist; morality is only fiction.
Relativism: Morality is justified by
either the individual’s subjective
virtue or conventional/cultural virtue.
Subjective Ethical Relativism
Morality depends on the individual
It is in the eye of the beholder
Taste or Aesthetic judgments = Lack
of inhibition
Notions of good/bad and right/wrong
cease to have interpersonal evaluative
meaning.
Questions raised:
IV.
-
-
-
(1) What do you feel right after?
(2) Are you fine about it?
(3) Who are you to judge?
Limitations:
a. If followed, morality would have
a minimal aim of preventing a
Hobbesian state of nature where
people are barbaric and brutish.
b. Strengthen moral solipsism.
Isolated individuals make up
separate universes. HOWEVER,
NO MAN IS AN ISLAND.
c. It is possible that our view of
personality (in a subjectivist pov)
might contradict to our familial
and communal/societal values.
d. It comes from a vacuum.
Conventional Ethical Relativism
(CER)
Conventionalism
All moral principles are valid relative
to the culture.
Recognizing the importance of our
social environment in generating
customs and beliefs is the achievement
of ethical relativism.
TWO THESES (exposed by John
Ladd):
a. Diversity Thesis: morality varies
from one society to another.
Hence, it is important to
understand cultural relativism.
b. Dependency Thesis: morality of a
person depends on the society or
culture he or she belongs to.
Trying to see things from an
independent, noncultural pov would be
like taking out our eyes to examine
their contours and qualities. In short,
we need the perspective of others to
build a view of the “great arc” of
human potentials.
Morality is a product of social history.
V.
CER Part I: Advertising the Value of
Tolerance
“Sometimes, people need to master the art of
not giving a fuck” – Harvey (2023)
Melville Herskovits’ Intercultural
Tolerance:
(1) Morality is relative to its culture
(2) If morality is relative to its culture,
then there is no independent basis for
criticizing the morality of any other
culture but one’s own.
(3) If there is no independent way of
criticizing any other culture, then we
ought to be tolerant of the moralities
of other cultures.
(4) Therefore, we ought to be tolerant of
the moralities of other cultures.
However, it is also important to note
that the principle of tolerance must not
be absolute. For an act should cease to
be moral once the group of people
who performs it also not tolerate it.
The act in question, therefore, should
be condemned. (???)
VI. Criticism or Limitations of CER
a. Undermines important values
(1) We cannot legitimately
criticize anyone who
espouses what we might
regard as heinous
principles/restricts moral
criticisms. (e.g., genocide
may be as moral as their
opposites)
b.
-
-
c.
-
d.
-
(2) Going against dominant
cultural standards is deemed
wrong. Truth is with the
crowd and error with the
individual.
(3) Neither law nor civil
disobedience has a firm
foundation. Why should I
obey a law that my group
doesn’t recognize as valid?
Leads to Subjectivism
If a person belongs to multiple
societies with conflicting moralities,
then that person must be judged both
wrong and not wrong whatever he/she
does.
Morality has the possibility to lose its
action-guiding function.
Choosing a subculture to depend on
may lead to counterintuitive results. It
does not justify what you did, it just
leads to your subjectivistic principle.
(Re: Slippery Slope. A fallacy of
objecting to a proposition on the
erroneous grounds that, if accepted, it
will lead to a chain of events that are
absurd or unacceptable)
Exaggerates Moral Diversity
CER exposes cultural diversity. If
cultural diversity constitutes to many
societies with radically different moral
codes, then, to concede a complete
cultural relativism, establishing a
neutral stand or objectivism is needed
to defend a form of universalism.
Has weak dependency
Application of moral principles
depends on particular cultural
predicament.
-
VII.
-
-
We differ ONLY in beliefs, not in
substantive moral principles.
Nonmoral factors debate on the facts
of the matter.
Therefore, relativist is limited in
maintaining the stronger dependency
where validity of the principles is a
product of the culture and that
different cultures will invent different
valid principles.
Indeterminacy of Language or
Translation Theory by Willard V.
Quine
states that language are often so
fundamentally different from each
other that we cannot accurately
translate concepts from one to another.
(e.g. the use of words semantically, it
may mean literally but also
figuratively)
Language molds moral principles.
Limitation:
(1) it is found that
EXPERIENCE molds
morality. General moral
principles constitute to a
common human experience
which are then communicated
transculturally. Thus, The
Indeterminacy of Language
should be relativized to
objective morality.