Ethics: Moral Standard vs Non-moral Standard Angelito L. Martinez Assistant Professor, HAU review • Ethics (ethos) = character/culture • Greek tradition – Good life (Eudaimonia) • Judeo-Christian tradition (following Jesus Commandments) • Doing what is right + being happy (challenge) • Morality vs Ethics (ethics is the science of morals, while morality is the practice of ethics) • Types of Ethics : Normative, Metaethics, and Applied Ethics Moral vs. non-moral standard • Why the need to distinguish moral standards from nonmoral ones? • Difference • Example ❑It is important to note that different societies have different moral beliefs and that our beliefs are deeply influenced by our own culture and context. ❑For this reason, some values do have moral implications, while others don’t. Let us consider, for example, the wearing of hijab. ❑For sure, in traditional Muslim communities, the wearing of hijab is the most appropriate act that women have to do in terms of dressing up. ❑In fact, for some Muslims, showing parts of the woman’s body, such as the face and legs, is despicable. ❑ However, in many parts of the world, especially in Western societies, most people don’t mind if women barely cover their bodies. ❑As a matter of fact, the Hollywood canon of beauty glorifies a sexy and slim body and the wearing of extremely daring dress. ❑The point here is that people in the West may have pitied the Muslim women who wear hijab, while some Muslims may find women who dress up daringly despicable. ➢ Different cultures have different moral standards. What is a matter of moral indifference, that is, a matter of taste (hence, non-moral value) in one culture may be a matter of moral significance in another. ➢ Now, the danger here is that one culture may impose its own cultural standard on others, which may result in a clash in cultural values and beliefs. ➢ When this happens, as we may already know, violence and crime may ensue, such as religious violence and ethnic cleansing. How can we address this cultural challenge? Moral Standards and their Characteristics • Moral standards are norms that individuals or groups have about the kinds of actions believed to be morally right or wrong, as well as the values placed on what we believed to be morally good or morally bad. • Moral standards normally promote “the good”, that is, the welfare and well-being of humans as well as animals and the environment. • Moral standards, therefore, prescribe what humans ought to do in terms of rights and obligations. According to many scholars, moral standards have the following characteristics, namely: 1) moral standards deal with matters we think can seriously injure or benefit humans, animals, and the environment, such as child abuse, rape, and murder; 2) moral standards are not established or changed by the decisions of authoritative individuals or bodies. Indeed, moral standards rest on the adequacy of the reasons that are taken to support and justify them. For sure, we don’t need a law to back up our moral conviction that killing innocent people is absolutely wrong; 3) moral standards are overriding, that is, they take precedence over other standards and considerations, especially of self-interest; 4) moral standards are based on impartial considerations. Hence, moral standards are fair and just; and 5) moral standards are associated with special emotions (such as guilt and shame) and vocabulary (such as right, wrong, good, and bad). Non-moral Standards • Non-moral standards refer to standards by which we judge what is good or bad and right or wrong in a non-moral way. Examples of non-moral standards are standards of etiquette by which we judge manners as good or bad, standards we call the law by which we judge something as legal or illegal, and standards of aesthetics by which we judge art as good or rubbish. Hence, we should not confuse morality with etiquette, law, aesthetics or even with religion. • As we can see, non-moral standards are matters of taste or preference. Hence, a scrupulous observance of these types of standards does not make one a moral person. Violation of said standards also does not pose any threat to human well-being. • Finally, as a way of distinguishing moral standards from non-moral ones, if a moral standard says “Do not harm innocent people” or “Don’t steal”, a non-moral standard says “Don’t text while driving” or “Don’t talk while the mouth is full”. What are Moral Dilemmas? • A dilemma is a situation where a person is forced to choose between two or more conflicting options, neither of which is acceptable. As we can see, the key here is that the person has choices to make that will all have results she does not want. For example, a town mayor in Porac faces a dilemma about how to protect and preserve a virgin forest and at the same time allow miners and loggers for economic development in the town. • It must be noted, however, that if a person is in a difficult situation but is not forced to choose between two or more options, then that person is not in a dilemma. The least that we can say is that that person is just experiencing a problematic or distressful situation. • Thus, the most logical thing to do for that person is to look for alternatives or solutions to address the problem. • When dilemmas involve human actions which have moral implications, they are called ethical or moral dilemmas. • Moral dilemmas, therefore, are situations where persons, who are called “moral agents” in ethics, are forced to choose between two or more conflicting options, neither of which resolves the situation in a morally acceptable manner. Consider the following example: • Efreminda is a deeply religious person; hence, she considers killing humans absolutely wrong. Unfortunately, it is found out that Efreminda is having an ectopic pregnancy. As is well known, an ectopic pregnancy is a type of pregnancy that occurs outside the uterus, most commonly in the fallopian tubes. In other words, in ectopic pregnancy, the fetus does not develop in the uterus. Now, if this happens, the development of the fetus will definitely endanger the mother. Thus, if Efreminda continues with her pregnancy, then there is a big possibility that she will die. According to experts, the best way to save Efreminda’s life is to abort the fetus, which necessarily implies killing the fetus. If we do not abort the fetus, then Efreminda, as well as the fetus, will die. • In the above example of a moral dilemma, Efreminda is faced with two conflicting options, namely, either she resorts to abortion, which will save her life but at the same time jeopardizes her moral integrity or does not resort to abortion but endangers her life as well as the fetus. Indeed, Efreminda is faced with a huge moral dilemma. According to Karen Allen, there are three conditions that must be present for situations to be considered moral dilemmas. • First, the person or the agent of a moral action is obliged to make a decision about which course of action is best. Here, the moral agent must choose the best option and act accordingly. In the case of the example of above, Efreminda may opt to abort the fetus as the best course of action. • Second, there must be different courses of action to choose from. Hence, as already pointed out above, there must be two or more conflicting options to choose from for moral dilemmas to occur. • And third, no matter what course of action is taken, some moral principles are always compromised. This means that, according to Allen, there is no perfect solution to the problem. And for this reason, according to Benjiemen Labastin, in moral dilemmas, the moral agent “seems fated to commit something wrong which implies that she is bound to morally fail because in one way or another she will fail to do something which she ought to do. In other words, by choosing one of the possible moral requirements, the person also fails on others.” Types of Moral Dilemmas • There are several types of moral dilemmas, but the most common of them are categorized into the following: • 1) epistemic and ontological dilemmas, • 2) self-imposed and world-imposed dilemmas, • 3) obligation dilemmas and prohibition dilemmas, and • 4) single agent and multi-person dilemmas. Epistemic moral dilemmas • Involve situations wherein two or more moral requirements conflict with each other and that the moral agent hardly knows which of the conflicting moral requirements takes precedence over the other. In other words, the moral agent here does not know which option is morally right or wrong. For instance, I ought to honor my promise to my son to be home early, but on my way home I saw a sick old man who needs to be brought to the hospital. Where does my actual duty lie? We cannot deny that there are conflicting duties (moral requirements) here, but we need to note that we want a fuller knowledge of the situation: Is an important purpose being served by my getting home early? How serious is the condition of the sick old man? Indeed, I could hardly decide which option is morally right in this situation. However, one option must be better than the other; only, it needs fuller knowledge of the situation―thus the term “epistemic” moral dilemmas. Ontological moral dilemmas • Involve situations wherein two or more moral requirements conflict with each other, yet neither of these conflicting moral requirements overrides each other. This is not to say that the moral agent does not know which moral requirement is stronger than the other. The point is that neither of the moral requirements is stronger than the other; hence, the moral agent can hardly choose between the conflicting moral requirements. For instance, a military doctor is attending to the needs of the wounded soldiers in the middle of the war. Unfortunately, two soldiers urgently need a blood transfusion. However, only one bag of blood is available at the moment. To whom shall the doctor administer the blood transfusion? For sure, we could not tell whether administering a blood transfusion to Soldier A is more moral than administering a blood transfusion to Soldier B, and vice versa. Self-imposed moral dilemma • Is caused by the moral agent’s wrongdoings. For example, David is running for the position of the town mayor. During the campaign period, he promised the indigenous peoples in his community to protect their virgin forest just to gain their votes, but at the same time, he seeks financial support from a mining corporation. Fortunately, David won the elections, yet he is faced with the dilemma of fulfilling his promised to the indigenous peoples and at the same time allows the mining corporation to destroy their forest. Indeed, through his own actions, David created a situation in which it is impossible for him to be discharged from both obligations. World-imposed moral dilemma • Means that certain events in the world place the agent in a situation of moral conflict. William Styron’s famous Sophie’s Choice is a classic example. “Sophie Zawistowska has been asked to choose which of her two children, Eva or Jan, will be sent to the gas chamber in Auschwitz. An SS doctor, Fritz Jemand von Niemand, will grant a dispensation to only one of Sophie’s children. If she does not choose which one should live, Dr. von Niemand will send both to their death. Sophie chooses her daughter Eva to go to the gas chamber. Her son, Jan, is sent to the Children’s Camp.” Obligation dilemmas • Are situations in which more than one feasible action is obligatory, while prohibition dilemmas involve cases in which all feasible actions are forbidden. The famous “Sartre’s Student” is a classic example. It reads: • The famous Sophie’s Choice, as mentioned above, is a classic example of prohibition dilemmas. Single agent dilemma • The agent “ought, all things considered, to do A, ought, all things considered, to do B, and she cannot do both A and B”. In other words, the moral agent is compelled to act on two or more equally the same moral options but she cannot choose both. For instance, a medical doctor found out that her patient has HIV. For sure, the medical doctor may experience tension between the legal requirement to report the case and the desire to respect confidentiality, although the medical code of ethics acknowledges our obligation to follow legal requirements and to intervene to protect the vulnerable. In multi-person dilemma, on the other hand, “…the situation is such that one agent, P1, ought to do A, a second agent, P2, ought to do B, and though each agent can do what he ought to do, it is not possible both for P1 to do A and P2 to do B.” According to Benjiemen Labastin, “the multi-person does not inasmuch as agents X, Y and Z may possibly have chosen conflicting moral choices – that is, person X chooses A instead of B and C and person Y chooses B instead of A and C, so on and so forth. Multi-person dilemma • Occurs in situations that involve several persons like a family, an organization, or a community who is expected to come up with consensual decision on a moral issue at hand. A family may be torn between choosing to terminate or prolong the life of a family member. An organization may have to choose between complying with the wage law by cutting its workforce or by retaining its current workforce by paying them below the required minimum wage. The multi-person dilemma requires more than choosing what is right, it also entails that the persons involved reached a general consensus. In such a manner, the moral obligation to do what is right becomes more complicated. On the one hand, the integrity of the decision ought to be defended on moral grounds. On the other hand, the decision must also prevent the organization from breaking apart”. Freedom • How does freedom become the foundation of moral acts? What is Freedom? • Freedom is the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint. • Freedom stands for something greater than just the right to act however I choose—it also stands for securing to everyone an equal opportunity for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. • Certainly freedom does mean the right to do as one pleases—to think, believe, speak, worship (or not worship), move about, gather, and generally act as you choose—but only until your choices start to infringe on another person’s freedom. • This still leaves a great deal of latitude. There is a long list of things that one can say, and say freely, for example, that excludes shouting “Fire!” in a crowded theater. Four Essential Human Freedoms • The first is freedom of speech and expression—everywhere in the world. • The second is freedom of every person to worship God in his own way—everywhere in the world. • The third is freedom from want—which, translated into world terms, means economic understandings which will secure to every nation a healthy peacetime life for its inhabitants— everywhere in the world. • The fourth is freedom from fear—which, translated into world terms, means a world-wide reduction of armaments to such a point and in such a thorough fashion that no nation will be in a position to commit an act of physical aggression against any neighbor—anywhere in the world. Culture • is defined as a way of life; it is the totality of the social environment in which we conduct our lives. Yes, it is true that we cannot choose the culture we are born into but what we can possibly do is to grow and adjust to this assimilated culture. Cultures varies a lot from different countries. The culture surrounding us, mainly our home environment, mold us into who we are as a person. Social influence and to be accepted by many impress strongly on our behavior. • Our behavior in general, and morality, in particular, is affected both by culture acquired in our home and through our social experience. • The result of everything we had experienced at home, school, community, church, and society reflects what and who we are. • Strong influences are also seen in our interactions with friends, relatives, entertainment and news, and even with the social media. • The type of media we are exposed to a greater extent influences our ideas, how we think of ourselves and how others think of us. • The culture into which we are born affects our language, tastes, diet, interest, interaction and strongly influences how we perceive morality in the social world. Cultural Relativism • Acceptable behavior patterns vary from culture to culture at different time periods. One factor that contributes to the differences among people is the differences in cultural setting. Every culture promotes its own patterns and symbols, standards for acceptable behavior, attitudes, beliefs, and values about all human activities within and outside one’s own culture. The differences among cultures extend to the level of morality. • Cultural relativism is the view that particular behavior may be judged as morally right if one’s culture approves it. Morality or the perception that an action is morally right or wrong is, therefore, relative to cultures. The implication of this view is that cultures cannot be wrong and that it is incapable of making mistakes in its moral judgments. Individuals who question cultural morality based on this view can never be morally right and cultures cannot be legitimately criticized for its moral judgments. When different individuals or groups make different judgments about the same behavior/act, both may be correct. • The idea of a universal morality is the reason why many oppose cultural relativism. Many people believe that acceptance of cultural relativism would lead to the erosion of moral standards. If people are led to believe that right and wrong are relative, they would let go of all inhibitions and self-regulation and do whatever they want to do. In this scenario, moral responsibility and moral progress will be impossible. In cultural relativism, cultural practices are as morally justified as in any other culture because such practices are socially sanctioned. It is not possible for cultural relativism to be applied to moral questions. We all belong to different societies and different cultures. Since cultures differ, there is no way to determine which culture’s explanation to moral questions is the proper one. (Source: Gazzingan, L.B. et al (2018). Ethics: Muntinglupa: PandayLahi Publishing House.) The Filipino Way • We share many cultural similarities with our Asian neighbors. Our culture was influenced by a number of foreign rulers for more than 300 years. We Filipinos may be free from physical foreign bondage but in reality, what we are and probably will be still conquered by what is foreign. Social environment impacts strongly on the Filipino’s sense of self, the same influence is likewise evident in how we view morality. Religious Orientation • The Filipino people are part of a nation with strong religious inclinations. Monotheism, or the belief in one God is dominant. Our view of morality and what we value is strongly linked to our religious beliefs. Our religions have tenets, doctrines, and dogmas based on the Holy Scriptures and the interpretations of our religious leaders. We are conscientious of religious rites, obligations and practices. We abide by them because we consider ourselves faithful. • With all these ceremonies and rituals, why are most of our values and judgements of many moral issues still flawed? • Why is it a common observation to see people so good and God-fearing at one moment and irresponsible and corrupt in the next. • Fr. Jaime Bulatao (1960), coined the term “split-level” Christians for this inconsistent behavior. • There seem to be a big disparity between what we ought to do and what we are doing. • There might be a crisis in faith because most of us are failing to emulate the true values of our religious inclinations (“Our Filipino Norms of Morality,” 2008). Perception of How Others Judge Us. • As a conclusion, our own view of morality is unique because all of us are born with biological characteristics handed down to us by our parents; unique because of the upbringing each of us had at a place and period in history which affected us in a manner that is different from others. These combinations of circumstances allow us to create a version of our own moral character with a personal worldview on how we are to morally live our lives (Boylan, 2000).
