Ethics apply in our daily lives and professions

Ethics

1. Ethics - Lesson 1-5
Ethics (University of Perpetual Help System DALTA)
Scan to open on Studocu
Studocu is not sponsored or endorsed by any college or university
Ethics - Lesson 1-5
Ethics (University of Perpetual Help System DALTA)
Scan to open on Studocu
Studocu is not sponsored or endorsed by any college or university
Downloaded by CARLOS SEMPERTEGUI ([email protected])
lOMoARcPSD|41059105

2. Lesson 1
Introduction to Key Concepts:
What is Ethics?
Moral vs. Non-Moral Standards
What are Dilemmas?
Foundation of Morality: Freedom-Responsibility for One’s Act and to Others
(Week 2 and 3)
Course Code: GE 107 Program: BSIS
Course Title: Ethics Date Performed:
Prepared By: Mr. Christian A. Sto. Domingo
Ms. Agnes Sarabia
Date Submitted:
Objectives:
In this lesson, students will be able to
●Define and understand what is ethics;
●Differentiate between moral and non-moral standards;
●Identify the six characteristics of moral standards;
●Understand and give examples of moral dilemma; and
●Understand the importance of freedom in our ability to make moral decisions
Intended Learning Outcome:
●Differentiate between moral and non-moral problems.
●Describe what a moral experience is as it happens in different levels of human existence.
●Describe the elements of moral development and moral experience.
●Understand and internalize the principles of ethical behavior in modern society at the level of the
person, society, and in interaction with the environment and other shared.
Content:
INTRODUCTION
What would you do if a person close to you, terminally ill and in unbearable pain, asked you to help her
die? Regardless of what the law says, would you agree? What would be the reasons behind the
decisions? Would you say a life defined only by pain is not worth living, or would you on the contrary think
that even if the person is in pain, her life is still valuable and her experiences meaningful?
In such difficult situations, people usually appeal to moral principles; they would argue that assisted
suicide is right or that it is wrong, or that maybe it should be acceptable in certain cases. Such dilemmas
and the questions that surround them are the basis of a specific field of philosophy called Ethics. The aim
of Ethics or moral philosophy is to explain what we mean by morality and moral terms such as “good”,
“right”, “wrong”, etc, and also explain what moral standards we should adopt. This is an essential aspect
of philosophy, in so far as most of the decisions we make and actions we decide to perform are informed
by moral principles.
WHAT IS ETHICS?
Morality understood in an everyday sense broadly means having some kind of systems of values,
deciding what is right or wrong for oneself. Ethics however takes a much more systematic and critical
approach to the question. The focus of ethics is indeed the notion of right and wrong, but what it attempts
to explain is why people make certain moral decisions, how we create moral systems which tell us how to
act; some ethical theories also aim to tell us what moral standards we should choose and how we could
achieve the good life. While non philosophers see morality as a set of rules to obey and principles to
follow, moral philosophers want to know how those rules can be justified and what is the logic behind
moral judgment.
MORAL STANDARDS vs. NON-MORAL STANDARDS
Morality may refer to the standards that a person or a group has about what is right and wrong, or good
and evil. Accordingly, moral standards are those concerned with or relating to human behavior, especially
the distinction between good and bad (or right and wrong) behavior.
Moral standards involve the rules people have about the kinds of actions they believe are morally right
and wrong, as well as the values they place on the kinds of objects they believe are morally good and
morally bad. Some ethicists equate moral standards with moral values and moral principles.
Non-moral standards refer to rules that are unrelated to moral or ethical considerations. Either these
standards are not necessarily linked to morality or by nature lack ethical sense. Basic examples of non-
moral standards include rules of etiquette, fashion standards, rules in games, and various house rules.
Page 1 of 32
Downloaded by CARLOS SEMPERTEGUI ([email protected])
lOMoARcPSD|41059105

3. Technically, religious rules, some traditions, and legal statutes (i.e. laws and ordinances) are non-moral
principles, though they can be ethically relevant depending on some factors and contexts.
The following six (6) characteristics of moral standards further differentiate them from non-moral
standards:
1. Moral standards involve serious wrongs or significant benefits.
Moral standards deal with matters which can seriously impact, that is, injure or benefit human beings. It is
not the case with many non-moral standards. For instance, following or violating some basketball rules
may matter in basketball games but does not necessarily affect one’s life or wellbeing.
2. Moral standards ought to be preferred to other values.
Moral standards have overriding character or hegemonic authority. If a moral standard states that a
person has the moral obligation to do something, then he/she is supposed to do that even if it conflicts
with other non-moral standards, and even with self-interest.
Moral standards are not the only rules or principles in society, but they take precedence over other
considerations, including aesthetic, prudential, and even legal ones. A person may be aesthetically
justified in leaving behind his family in order to devote his life to painting, but morally, all things
considered, he/she probably was not justified. It may be prudent to lie to save one’s dignity, but it probably
is morally wrong to do so. When a particular law becomes seriously immoral, it may be people’s moral
duty to exercise civil disobedience.

There is a general moral duty to obey the law, but there may come a time when the injustice of an evil law
is unbearable and thus calls for illegal but moral noncooperation (such as the antebellum laws calling for
citizens to return slaves to their owners).
3. Moral standards are not established by authority figures.
Moral standards are not invented, formed, or generated by authoritative bodies or persons such as
nations’ legislative bodies. Ideally instead, these values ought to be considered in the process of making
laws. In principle therefore, moral standards cannot be changed nor nullified by the decisions of particular
authoritative body. One thing about these standards, nonetheless, is that its validity lies on the soundness
or adequacy of the reasons that are considered to support and justify them.
4. Moral standards have the trait of universalizability.
Simply put, it means that everyone should live up to moral standards. To be more accurate, however, it
entails that moral principles must apply to all who are in the relevantly similar situation. If one judges that
act A is morally right for a certain person P, then it is morally right for anybody relevantly similar to P.

This characteristic is exemplified in the Gold Rule, “Do unto others what you would them do unto you (if
you were in their shoes)” and in the formal Principle of Justice, “It cannot be right for A to treat B in a
manner in which it would be wrong for B to treat A, merely on the ground that they are two different
individuals, and without there being any difference between the natures or circumstances of the two
which can be stated as a reasonable ground for difference of treatment.” Universalizability is an extension
of the principle of consistency, that is, one ought to be consistent about one’s value judgments.
5. Moral standards are based on impartial considerations.
Moral standard does not evaluate standards on the basis of the interests of a certain person or group, but
one that goes beyond personal interests to a universal standpoint in which each person’s interests are
impartially counted as equal.

Impartiality is usually depicted as being free of bias or prejudice. Impartiality in morality requires that we
give equal and/or adequate consideration to the interests of all concerned parties.
6. Moral standards are associated with special emotions and vocabulary.
Prescriptivity indicates the practical or action-guiding nature of moral standards. These moral standards
are generally put forth as injunction or imperatives (such as, ‘Do not kill,’ ‘Do no unnecessary harm,’ and
‘Love your neighbor’). These principles are proposed for use, to advise, and to influence to action.
Retroactively, this feature is used to evaluate behavior, to t praise and blame, and to produce feelings of
satisfaction or of guilt.

If a person violates a moral standard by telling a lie even to fulfill a special purpose, it is not surprising if
he/she starts feeling guilty or being ashamed of his behavior afterwards. On the contrary, no much guilt is
felt if one goes against the current fashion trend (e.g. refusing to wear tattered jeans).
Page 2 of 32
Downloaded by CARLOS SEMPERTEGUI ([email protected])
lOMoARcPSD|41059105

4. WHAT ARE DILEMMAS?
Moral dilemmas, at the very least, involve conflicts between moral requirements. It is a situation that
challenges an agreeable solution. Consider the cases given below.
In Book I of Plato’s Republic, Cephalus defines ‘justice’ as speaking the truth and paying one’s debts.
Socrates quickly refutes this account by suggesting that it would be wrong to repay certain debts—for
example, to return a borrowed weapon to a friend who is not in his right mind. Socrates’ point is not that
repaying debts is without moral import; rather, he wants to show that it is not always right to repay one’s
debts, at least not exactly when the one to whom the debt is owed demands repayment. What we have
here is a conflict between two moral norms: repaying one’s debts and protecting others from harm. And in
this case, Socrates maintains that protecting others from harm is the norm that takes priority.
Nearly twenty-four centuries later, Jean-Paul Sartre described a moral conflict the resolution of which was,
to many, less obvious than the resolution to the Platonic conflict. Sartre (1957) tells of a student whose
brother had been killed in the German offensive of 1940. The student wanted to avenge his brother and to
fight forces that he regarded as evil. But the student’s mother was living with him, and he was her one
consolation in life. The student believed that he had conflicting obligations. Sartre describes him as being
torn between two kinds of morality: one of limited scope but certain efficacy, personal devotion to his
mother; the other of much wider scope but uncertain efficacy, attempting to contribute to the defeat of an
unjust aggressor.
THE CONCEPT OF MORAL DILEMMAS
What is common to the two well-known cases is conflict. In each case, an agent regards herself as having
moral reasons to do each of two actions, but doing both actions is not possible. Ethicists have called
situations like these moral dilemmas. The crucial features of a moral dilemma are these: the agent is
required to do each of two (or more) actions; the agent can do each of the actions; but the agent cannot
do both (or all) of the actions. The agent thus seems condemned to moral failure; no matter what she
does, she will do something wrong (or fail to do something that she ought to do).
The Platonic case strikes many as too easy to be characterized as a genuine moral dilemma. For the
agent’s solution in that case is clear; it is more important to protect people from harm than to return a
borrowed weapon. And in any case, the borrowed item can be returned later, when the owner no longer
poses a threat to others. Thus in this case we can say that the requirement to protect others from serious
harm overrides the requirement to repay one’s debts by returning a borrowed item when its owner so
demands. When one of the conflicting requirements overrides the other, we have a conflict but not a
genuine moral dilemma. So in addition to the features mentioned above, in order to have a genuine moral
dilemma it must also be true that neither of the conflicting requirements is overridden (Sinnott-Armstrong
1988, Chapter 1).
COMMON TYPES OF DILEMMAS
Classic Dilemma
A classic dilemma is a choice between two or more alternatives, in which the outcomes are equally
undesirable, or equally favorable. The dilemma does not typically involve a moral or ethical crisis, but the
person or character’s life may change as a result of their decision. Some examples of classic dilemmas
include:
●Deciding where to go for dinner on a first date
●Uncertainty about which job offer to take
●Wondering whether or not to make the move to a new city
Classic dilemmas are more than simple choices, because they usually prompt the person to think about
the outcomes of the choices.
Ethical Dilemmas
An ethical dilemma arises when a person is forced to decide between two morally sound options, but they
may conflict with the established boundaries of a business, a governmental agency, or the law. Some
ethical dilemmas may involve following the truth versus being loyal to a friend; following the laws or rules
versus having compassion for an individual’s plight; and concerns about an individual person versus the
larger impact on a community. An ethical dilemma differs from a moral dilemma because it very much
involves following rules rather than one’s conscience, although one’s conscience can certainly move an
individual to consider breaking the rules.
Ethical dilemmas are especially important in the medical and criminal justice fields, and in careers such as
social work and psychology. In addition, most public servants have to undergo ethics training to address
common dilemmas they may come across while working with the public. Recent advancements in science
have also brought forward interesting and uncharted ethical dilemmas. Some examples of ethical
Page 3 of 32
Downloaded by CARLOS SEMPERTEGUI ([email protected])
lOMoARcPSD|41059105

5. dilemmas include:
●A secretary discovers her boss has been laundering money, and she must decide whether or not
to turn him in.
●A doctor refuses to give a terminal patient morphine, but the nurse can see the patient is in agony.
●A teacher, who is also the volleyball coach, asks her athletes to give her their cell phone numbers
so she can get in touch with them quickly; however, according to district policy, teachers are not
supposed to have contact with students on their phones.
●While responding to a domestic violence call, a police officer finds out that the assailant is the
brother of the police chief, and the police chief tells the officer to “make it go away”.
●A government contractor discovers that intelligence agencies have been spying on its citizens
illegally, but is bound by contract and legalities to keep his confidentiality about the discovery.
Moral Dilemmas
A moral dilemma is a situation in which a person is torn between right and wrong. A moral dilemma
involves a conflict with the very core of a person’s principles and values. The choice the person makes
may leave them feeling burdened, guilty, relieved, or questioning their values. A moral dilemma often
forces the individual to decide which option he or she can live with, but any outcomes are extremely
unpleasant no matter what. Moral dilemmas are often used to help people think through the reasoning for
their beliefs and actions, and are common in psychology and philosophy classes. Some examples of
moral dilemmas include:
●The classic “lifeboat dilemma”, where there are only 10 spaces in the lifeboat, but there are 11
passengers on the sinking ship. A decision must be made as to who will stay behind.
●A train with broken brakes is speeding towards a fork in the tracks. On the left, there is a woman
crossing with her two children; on the right, there is a man doing routine maintenance on the
tracks. The engineer must decide which side to aim the speeding train towards.
●A husband learns he has a terminal illness and he decides to ask his wife for assistance in ending
the pain before it gets too bad.
●A friend discovers her best friend’s boyfriend is cheating. She must decide whether to tell her
friend or keep it a secret.
THREE LEVELS OF MORAL DILEMMAS
There is no such thing as absolute ethical standards. It is indeed on a case to case basis and sometimes
follows no logic. There can be may rules, guidelines, rights granted by an organization, the government or
by society or religious gurus. But it remains undecided and complex for each and every situation.
There can be many perspectives to look into a particular situation or series of events or occurrences. The
perspectives are:
1. Individual Level–moral dilemma at a personal level. One is torn between choosing between the lesser
of two evils: this is referred to as moral dilemma. When an individual can choose only one from a number
of possible actions, and there are compelling ethical reasons for the various choices.
Example: An unemployed mother may be conflicted between wanting to feed
her hungry child, and then recognizing that it would be wrong for her to steal.
Another example is a son may be torn between choosing to terminate or
prolong the life of a comatose family member.
2. Corporate or Organizational – known as ethical dilemma at an organizational/company/corporate level.
At an organizational level, judgment could be affected by what guides their values in terms of what is seen
as being accepted by the organizations and the professions they are in.
Example: 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.
3. Systemic Level –ethical dilemma where the larger society or the government or maybe the whole
country is involved
Example 1: The legislators of the Philippine Congress are confronted with the issue of either passing or
rejecting the divorce bill.
Example 2: The universal health care
FOUNDATION OF MORALITY: FREEDOM-RESPONSIBILITY FOR ONE’S ACT AND TO OTHERS
Page 4 of 32
Downloaded by CARLOS SEMPERTEGUI ([email protected])
lOMoARcPSD|41059105

6. According to Mahatma Gandhi, “Freedom is not worth having if it does not include the freedom to make
mistakes.” There are plenty of definitions of freedom; e.g. freewill, liberty, rights, freedom of choice,
freedom of speech, and autonomy. In its simplest term, freedom is the power or right to act, speak, or
think as one wants without hindrance or restraint.
When it comes to morality, freedom is not just doing whatever one wants, it’s about what one ought/must.
As the famous line from a movie states, “With great power comes great responsibility”.
Immanuel Kant, a soft determinist, said that in order to make a moral decision we must have freedom.
Kant believed that the ability to make moral decisions lay within the existence of freedom; stating that if
we are not free to make our own decisions those decisions could not be moral as we were never free to
make that decision in the first place. Kant thought that a person could be blamed for an action if they
could have acted differently, for example if a person's family is held at gunpoint and they are forced to
open a safe they cannot be blamed as they did not have a choice.
If we are to have free will we must have the ability to make a decision that is unhindered; Kant believed
that we must have free will if we are to be held morally responsible for our actions, if God did not give us
free will then our decisions cannot be considered immoral or moral as we would have had to act in the
way we did. Thus we cannot be held responsible; a good moral action cannot be praised as you had no
other option, whilst an immoral action cannot be punished as once again there was no free choice.
John Locke who was also a soft determinist as he believed that morality and the ability to make moral
decisions developed throughout your lives. Locke believed that the mind was a tabula rasa, a blank slate
that is shaped and filled by the person's life experience and that ultimately creates a person's morality.
However the sensory data that creates this moral framework within the mind is already determined;
therefore using Locke's idea freedom is not required in order to make a moral decision it is the determined
experiences you live through that create your morality and result in you making immoral or moral
decisions.
Another soft determinist was David Hume who believed in a limited form of free will, he ultimately
believed that nature was in control of human destiny. That freedom was also subject-based, meaning that
you are free to make a moral decision and free to follow through with that action, He went on to argue that
determined events create human free will and that each individual is free to respond in their own way to
those determined events, the morality of the choice the person makes is down to them.
Hume believed that nothing occurred by chance or luck but we do have the free will, even if limited, to
make our own decisions A libertarian would state that human's decisions and actions are strictly
uncaused; that no choices we make are determined and that we are completely free to make our own
choices, these can either be moral or immoral, thus we are completely responsible. Libertarianism is
incompatible with determinism, this is because they believe determinism is incorrect as everyone is free to
all act differently in the exact same event, not all of humans would act morally in such an event.
Page 5 of 32
Downloaded by CARLOS SEMPERTEGUI ([email protected])
lOMoARcPSD|41059105

7. Icebreaker:
Icebreaker Activity:
A. Show to the students the comic strip and ask them what do they think about Moral Dilemma
S
B. Story of Robinhood
Pose the question: Robinhood stole from the rich and gave those to the poor. “Is it right to steal from the
rich in order to give/feed the poor?’’
C. Shipwreck situation
This is a classic case in ethics theory. Give the following information to the students: Imagine that you are
involved in a shipwreck situation - a ship has started to sink in the middle of the ocean. Five people have
jumped into a life-boat that has been designed for a maximum of two people only, and the life-boat is also
starting to sink. (Assume that you’re the one who got the lifeboat, and it’s your call…you decide. You’re
the only one who knows how to swim; no life-vest available either) The five people involved are you, a
friend, a businessman, the president of the country, and a pregnant woman. What should you do? Throw
out some of the passengers in order to save the rest. Which ones should you throw out? Or save them
all? Or stick to the principle of "do not kill", which means that you would let everybody just get drown?
Page 6 of 32
Downloaded by CARLOS SEMPERTEGUI ([email protected])
lOMoARcPSD|41059105

8. (The instructor can invite contributions from the class and even take a vote, and then illustrate how
different theoretical approaches (e.g. utilitarianism and deontology) will lead to different solutions that are
both valid in terms of the particular approach.
D. Trolley or Train problem
Another classic example of a moral dilemma is the Trolley problem. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=yg16u_bzjPE
You were standing next to track 1. A trolley is moving down track 1. The trolley was
unable to stop itself (the brakes have failed, the engineer is dead, or whatever), and if
allowed to continue it would run over and kill five people tied further down the track. You
were standing next to a lever that can divert the direction of the trolley. If you pull the
lever, the trolley would be diverted to track 2 and the people tied to track 1 would be
saved. Unfortunately, there was one person tied to track 2 and if you pull the lever and
divert the trolley he would be killed instead. Would you pull the lever or not?
Comprehension Question:
1. What is ethics? What is the significance of studying ethics in your life?
2. What are the characteristics of moral standards? Cite differences between moral & non-moral
standards.
3. What is a moral dilemma? Were you ever involved in a situation where you had a moral dilemma?
What happened? What did you have to do?
Enrichment Activity:
A. Ask the students to see the following video and to identify the concepts they learn from the video
Video 1: Moral Standards and Non-Moral Standards https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SVYcETMuJg8
Video 2: What are Moral Dilemmas? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwOQ7ZqDWN4
B. Case Discussion on Moral Dilemma: Ask the students: What is the moral dilemma of Lindsay in this
case study?
Lindsay is a deeply religious person; hence, she considers killing humans absolutely wrong.
Unfortunately, it is found out that Lindsay 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 Lindsay continues with her
pregnancy, then there is a big possibility that she will die. According to experts, the best way to save
Lindsay’s life is to abort the fetus, which necessarily implies killing the fetus. If we do not abort the fetus,
then Lindsay, as well as the fetus, will die.
(Answer: In the above example of a moral dilemma, Lindsay 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, Lindsay is faced with a
huge moral dilemma).
Assessment:
Answer individually and write it on paper:
A. One day while at work, Jim, a delivery truck driver was flagged down due to a traffic violation. The
traffic enforcer asks for his license and gave him a ticket for swerving. This is the third traffic violation for
Jim in one month; he knows that if the company discovers about this, he will be suspended for five days
as per company policy. He will not receive a salary for the days that he will be suspended, which will cut
his budget for his family’s food. So, he decided to slip P300 under his license as a bribe to the traffic
enforcer.
1. Do you think Jim did the right thing? Why or why not?

2. If you were the traffic enforcer, what would you do?
3. What is the moral dilemma in this situation? What is the ethical thing to do for Jim& the traffic enforcer?

B. Roger Smith, a quite competent swimmer, is out for a leisurely stroll. During the course of his walk he
passes by a deserted pier from which a teenage boy who apparently cannot swim has fallen into the
water. The boy is screaming for help. Smith recognizes that there is absolutely no danger to him if he
Page 7 of 32
Downloaded by CARLOS SEMPERTEGUI ([email protected])
lOMoARcPSD|41059105

9. jumps in to save the boy; he could easily succeed if he tried. Nevertheless, he chooses to ignore the boy's
cries. The water is too cold and he is afraid of catching a cold -- he doesn't want to get his good clothes
wet either. "Why should I inconvenience myself for this kid," Smith says to himself, and passes on.
(https://www.friesian.com/valley/dilemmas.htm )
1. Does Smith have a moral obligation to save the boy?
2. If you were Mr. Smith, what would you do then?
Assignment:
Research on the following topic/s:
Part 1: The Moral Agent
A. Culture in Moral Behavior
●Culture and Its Role in Moral Behavior
●What is Cultural Relativism? Why is it not Tenable in Ethics?
●Asian and Filipino Understanding of Moral Behavior
References:
www.woodhouse.ac.uk › gfx › uploads › pres_01072015132715
https://ourhappyschool.com/node/824
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-dilemmas/#ConMorDil
http://mbagyanpot.blogspot.com/2011/03/kohlbergs-3-levels-business-ethics.html
https://www.storyboardthat.com/articles/e/dilemma?fbclid=IwAR3mIXHnAUw9LXsAUVsQPD-
hYKdmr5ajiVUW_EbQJ_bLpphWKLRdjr_1dUU
Lesson 2
Part 1: The Moral Agent
Culture in Moral Behavior:
What is Cultural Relativism? Why is it Not Tenable in Ethics?
Asian and Filipino Understanding of Moral Behavior
(Week 4 and 5)
Course Code: GE 107 Program: BSIS
Course Title: Ethics Date Performed:
Prepared By: Mr. Christian A. Sto. Domingo
Ms. Agnes Sarabia
Date Submitted:
Objectives:
In this lesson, students will be able to
●Define what Cultural Relativism is about;
●Explain how culture shape moral behavior; and
●Examine what an Asian and Filipino understanding of moral behavior.
Intended Learning Outcome:
●Differentiate between moral and non-moral problems.
●Describe what a moral experience is as it happens in different levels of human existence.
●Explain the influence of Filipino culture on the way students look at moral experiences and solve
moral dilemmas.
Content:y
INTRODUCTION
Page 8 of 32
Downloaded by CARLOS SEMPERTEGUI ([email protected])
lOMoARcPSD|41059105

10. Culture describes a collective way of life, or way of doing things. It is the sum of attitudes, values, goals,
and practices shared by individuals in a group, organization, or society. Cultures vary over time periods,
between countries and geographic regions, and among groups and organizations. Culture reflects the
moral and ethical beliefs and standards that speak to how people should behave and interact with others.
Cultural norms are the shared, sanctioned, and integrated systems of beliefs and practices that are
passed down through generations and characterize a cultural group. Norms cultivate reliable guidelines
for daily living and contribute to the health and well-being of a culture. They act as prescriptions for correct
and moral behavior, lend meaning and coherence to life, and provide a means of achieving a sense of
integrity, safety, and belonging. These normative beliefs, together with related cultural values and rituals,
impose a sense of order and control on aspects of life that might otherwise appear chaotic or
unpredictable.
CULTURE
(adapted from Ethics: Foundations of Moral Valuation by Bulaong Jr., Calano, Lagliva et al., page 12-13,
105)
Our exposure to different societies and their cultures makes us aware that there are ways of thinking and
valuing that are different from our own, that there is in fact a wide diversity of how different people believe
it is proper to act. Therefore, what is ethically acceptable or unacceptable is relative to, or that is to say,
dependent on one’s culture. This position is referred to as cultural relativism.
There is something appealing to this way of thinking because cultural relativism seems to conform to what
we experience, which is the reality of differences in how cultures make their ethical valuations. Second, by
taking one’s culture as the standard, we are provided a basis for our valuations. Third, this teaches us to
be tolerant of others from different cultures, as we realize that we are in no position to judge whether the
ethical thought or practice of another culture is acceptable or unacceptable.
The first three points in the following paragraphs are a brief restatement of some of James Rechels
criticism of cultural relativism:
First, the argument of cultural relativism is premised on the reality of difference. Because different cultures
have different moral codes, we cannot say that any one moral code is the right one. But is it a case of the
presence of disagreement means there are no right or wrong answers. Isn’t it a common experience to be
confronted by a disagreement between persons and then to have the conflict clarified later as to who is
right or wrong?
Second, under cultural relativism, we realize that we are in no position to render any kind of judgment on
the practices of another culture. But what if the practice seems to call for comment? What if a particular
African tribe thought it is advantageous and therefore right for them to wipe out a neighboring people
through a terrible practice of genocide? Are we in no position to judge any of this as wrong?
Third, under cultural relativism, we realize that we are in no position to render judgment on the practices
of even our own culture. If our culture was the basis for determining right and wrong, we would be unable
to say that something within our cultural practice was problematic, precisely because we take our culture
to be the standard for making such judgments. But what if we are not satisfied by this conclusion?
CULTURE & ETHICS
A common opinion many people hold is that one’s culture dictates what is right or wrong for an individual.
For such people, the saying “when in Rome, do as Romans do”by St. Ambrose applies to deciding on
moral issues.
The American philosopher James Rachels (1941-2003) provided a clear argument against the validity of
cultural relativism in the realm of ethics. Rachels defines cultural relativism as the position that claims
there is no such thing as objective truth in the realm of morality. He posits three absurd consequences of
accepting the claim of cultural relativism.
Rachels concludes his argument by saying that he understands the attractiveness of the idea of cultural
relativism for many people, that is, it recognizes the differences between cultures. However, he argues
that recognizing and respecting differences between cultures do not necessarily mean that there is no
such thing as objective truth in morality. He argues instead that though different cultures have different
ways of doing things, cultures may hold certain values in common.
Page 9 of 32
Downloaded by CARLOS SEMPERTEGUI ([email protected])
lOMoARcPSD|41059105

11. CULTURAL RELATIVISM
(Adapted from: THE CHALLENGE OF CULTURAL RELATIVISM , Chapter 2. THE ELEMENTS OF
MORAL PHILOSOPHY by James Rachels p.14-30)
Different cultures have different moral codes. What is thought right within one group may horrify the
members of another group, and vice versa. Should we eat the bodies of the dead or burn them? If you
were a Greek, one answer would seem obviously correct; but if you were a Callatian, the other answer
would seem equally certain. There are many examples of this.
Consider the Eskimos of the early and mid-20th century. The Eskimos are the native people of Alaska,
northern Canada, Greenland, and northeastern Siberia, in Asiatic Russia. Today, none of these groups
call themselves “Eskimos,” but the term has historically referred to that scattered Arctic population. Prior to
the 20th century, the outside world knew little about them. Then explorers began to bring back strange
tales.
The Eskimos lived in small settlements, separated by great distances, and their customs turned out to be
very different from ours. The men often had more than one wife, and they would share their wives with
guests, lending them out for the night as a sign of hospitality. Moreover, within a community, a dominant
male might demand—and get—regular sexual access to other men’s wives. The women, however, were
free to break these arrangements simply by leaving their husbands and taking up with new partners—free,
that is, so long as their former husbands chose not to make too much trouble. All in all, the Eskimo custom
of marriage was a volatile practice that bore little resemblance to our custom.
But it was not only their marriages and sexual practices that were different. The Eskimos also seemed to
care less about human life. Infanticide, for example, was common. Knud Rasmussen, an early explorer,
reported meeting one woman who had borne 20 children but had killed 10 of them at birth. Female
babies, he found, were especially likely to be killed, and this was permitted at the parents’ discretion, with
no social stigma attached. Moreover, when elderly family members became too feeble, they were left out
in the snow to die. In Eskimo society, there seemed to be remarkably little respect for life.
Most of us would find these Eskimo customs completely unacceptable. Our own way of living seems so
natural and right to us that we can hardly conceive of people who live so differently. When we hear of
such people, we might want to say that they’re “backward” or “primitive.” But to anthropologists, the
Eskimos did not seem unusual. Since the time of Herodotus, enlightened observers have known that
conceptions of right and wrong differ from culture to culture. If we assume that our ethical ideas will be
shared by all cultures, we are merely being naïve
Cultural Relativism
To many people, this observation—“Different cultures have different moral codes”—seems like the key to
understanding morality. There are no universal moral truths, they say; the customs of different societies
are all that exist. To call a custom “correct” or “incorrect” would imply that we can judge that custom by
some independent standard of right and wrong. But no such standard exists; every standard is culture-
bound. The sociologist William Graham Sumner (1840–1910) put it like this:
The “right” way is the way which the ancestors used and which has been handed down... The notion of
right is in the folk- ways. It is not outside of them, of independent origin, and brought to test them. In the
folkways, whatever is, is right. This is because they are traditional, and therefore contain in themselves
the authority of the ancestral ghosts. When we come to the folkways we are at the end of our analysis.
This line of thought, more than any other, has persuaded people to be skeptical about ethics. Cultural
Relativism says, in effect, that there is no such thing as universal truth in ethics; there are only the various
cultural codes, and nothing more.
Cultural Relativism challenges our belief in the objectivity and universality of moral truth. The
following claims have all been made by cultural relativists:
1. Different societies have different moral codes.
2. The moral code of a society determines what is right within that society; that is, if the moral code of a
society says
that a certain action is right, then that action is right, at least within that society.
3. There is no objective standard that can be used to judge one society’s code as better than another’s.
There are no
moral truths that hold for all people at all times.
4. The moral code of our own society has no special status; it is but one among many.
5. It is arrogant for us to judge other cultures. We should always be tolerant of them.
These five propositions may seem to go together, but they are independent of one another, meaning that
some of them may be true even while others are false. Indeed, two of the propositions appear to be
Page 10 of 32
Downloaded by CARLOS SEMPERTEGUI ([email protected])
lOMoARcPSD|41059105

12. inconsistent with each other. The second says that right and wrong are determined by the norms of a
society; the fifth says that one should always be tolerant of other cultures. But what if the norms of one’s
society favor intolerance? For example, when the Nazi army invaded Poland on September 1, 1939, thus
beginning World War II, this was an intolerant action of the first order. But what if it conformed to Nazi
ideals? A cultural relativist, it seems, cannot criticize the Nazis for being intolerant, if all they’re doing is
following their own moral code.
Given that cultural relativists take pride in their tolerance, it would be ironic if their theory actually
supported the intolerance of warlike societies. However, their theory need not do that. Properly
understood, Cultural Relativism holds that the norms of a culture reign supreme within the bounds of
the culture itself. Thus, once the German soldiers entered Poland, they became bound by the norms of
Polish society—norms that obviously excluded the mass slaughter of innocent Poles. “When in Rome,”
the old saying goes, “do as the Romans do.” Cultural relativists agree.
The Cultural Differences Argument
Cultural Relativists often employ a certain form of argument. They begin with facts about cultures and end
up drawing a conclusion about morality. Thus, they invite us to accept this reasoning:
(1) The Greeks believed it was wrong to eat the dead, whereas the Callatians believed it was right to eat
the dead.
(2) Therefore, eating the dead is neither objectively right nor objectively wrong. It is merely a matter of
opinion, which varies from culture to culture.
Or:
(1) The Eskimos saw nothing wrong with infanticide, whereas Americans believe infanticide is immoral.
(2) Therefore, infanticide is neither objectively right nor objectively wrong. It is merely a matter of opinion,
which varies from culture to culture.
Clearly, these arguments are variations of one fundamental idea. They are both examples of a more
general argument, which says:
(1) Different cultures have different moral codes.
(2) Therefore, there is no objective truth in morality. Right and wrong are only matters of opinion, and
opinions vary from culture to culture.
We may call this the Cultural Differences Argument. To many people, it is persuasive. But is it a good
argument—is it sound? It is not. For an argument to be sound, its premises must all be true, and the
conclusion must follow logically from them. Here, the problem is that the conclusion does not follow from
the premise—that is, even if the premise is true, the conclusion might still be false. The premise concerns
what people believe— in some societies, people believe one thing; in other societies, people believe
something else. The conclusion, however, concerns what really is the case. This sort of conclusion does
not follow logically from that sort of premise. In philosophical terminology, this means that the argument is
invalid.
Consider again the example of the Greeks and Callatians. The Greeks believed it was wrong to eat the
dead; the Callatians believed it was right. Does it follow, from the mere fact that they disagreed, that there
is no objective truth in the matter? No, it does not follow; it could be that the practice was objectively right
(or wrong) and that one of them was simply mistaken.
To make the point clearer, consider a different matter. In some societies, people believe the earth is flat. In
other societies, such as our own, people believe that the earth is a sphere. Does it follow, from the mere
fact that people disagree, that there is no “objective truth” in geography? Of course not; we would never
draw such a conclusion, because we realize that the members of some societies might simply be wrong.
There is no reason to think that if the world is round, everyone must know it. Similarly, there is no reason
to think that if there is moral truth, everyone must know it. The Cultural Differences Argument tries to
derive a substantive conclusion about a subject from the mere fact that people disagree. But this is
impossible.
This point should not be misunderstood. We are not saying that the conclusion of the argument is false;
for all we have said; Cultural Relativism could still be true. The point is that the conclusion does not follow
from the premise. This means that the Cultural Differences Argument is invalid. Thus, the argument fails.
What Follows from Cultural Relativism
Even if the Cultural Differences Argument is unsound, Cultural Relativism might still be true. What would
follow if it were true?
Page 11 of 32
Downloaded by CARLOS SEMPERTEGUI ([email protected])
lOMoARcPSD|41059105

13. In the passage quoted earlier, William Graham Sumner states the essence of Cultural Relativism. He says
that the only measure of right and wrong is the standards of one’s society: “The notion of right is in the
folkways. It is not outside of them, of independent origin, and brought to test them. In the folk- ways,
whatever is right, is right.” Suppose we took this seriously. What would be some of the consequences?
1. We could no longer say that the customs of other societies are morally inferior to our own. This,
of course, is one of the main points stressed by Cultural Relativism. We should never condemn a society
merely because it is “different.” This attitude seems enlightened, so long as we concentrate on examples
like the funerary practices of the Greeks and Callatians.
7
However, we would also be barred from criticizing other, less benign practices. For example, the Chinese
government has a long history of repressing political dissent within its own borders. At any given time,
thousands of political prisoners in China are doing hard labor, and in the Tiananmen Square episode of
1989, Chinese troops slaughtered hundreds, if not thousands, of peaceful protesters. Cultural Relativism
would preclude us from saying that the Chinese government’s policies of oppression are wrong. We could
not even say that a society that respects free speech is better than Chinese society, for that would also
imply a universal standard of comparison. The failure to condemn these practices does not seem
enlightened; on the contrary, political oppression seems wrong wherever it occurs. Nevertheless, if we
accept Cultural Relativism, we have to regard such practices as immune from criticism.
2. We could no longer criticize the code of our own society. Cultural Relativism suggests a simple test
for determining what is right and what is wrong: All we need to do is ask whether the action is in line with
the code of the society in question. Sup- pose a resident of India wonders whether her country’s caste
system—a system of rigid social hierarchy—is morally correct. All she has to do is ask whether this
system conforms to her society’s moral code. If it does, there is nothing to worry about, at least from a
moral point of view.
This implication of Cultural Relativism is disturbing because few of us think that our society’s code is
perfect—we can think of ways in which it might be improved. Moreover, we can think of ways in which we
might learn from other cultures. Yet Cultural Relativism stops us from criticizing our own society’s code,
and it bars us from seeing ways in which other cultures might be better. After all, if right and wrong are
relative to culture, this must be true for our own culture, just as it is for all other cultures.
3. The idea of moral progress is called into doubt. We think that at least some social changes are for
the better. Throughout most of Western history, the place of women in society was narrowly defined.
Women could not own property; they could not vote or hold political office; and they were under the
almost absolute control of their husbands or fathers. Recently, much of this has changed, and most
people think of it as progress.
But if Cultural Relativism is correct, can we legitimately view this as progress? Progress means replacing
the old ways with new and improved ways. But by what standard do we judge the new ways as better? If
the old ways conformed to the standards of their time, then Cultural Relativism would not judge them by
our standards. Sexist 19th-century society was a different society from the one we now inhabit. To say
that we have made progress implies that present-day society is better—just the sort of transcultural
judgment that Cultural Relativism forbids.
Our ideas about social reform will also have to be reconsidered. Reformers such as Martin Luther King Jr.
have sought to change their societies for the better. But according to Cultural Relativism, there is only one
way to improve a society: to make it better match its own ideals. After all, the society’s ideals are the
standard by which reform is assessed. No one, however, may challenge the ideals themselves, for they
are by definition correct. According to Cultural Relativism, then, the idea of social reform makes sense
only in this limited way.
These three consequences of Cultural Relativism have led many people to reject it. Slavery, we want to
say, is wrong wherever it occurs, and one’s own society can make fundamental moral progress. Because
Cultural Relativism implies that these judgments make no sense, it cannot be right.
Why There Is Less Disagreement Than It Seems
Cultural Relativism starts by observing that cultures differ dramatically in their views of right and wrong.
But how much do they really differ? It is true that there are differences, but it is easy to exaggerate them.
Often, what seemed at first to be a big difference turns out to be no difference at all.
Consider a culture in which people believe it is wrong to eat cows. This may even be a poor culture, in
which there is not enough food; still, the cows are not to be touched. Such a society would appear to have
values very different from our own. But does it? We have not yet asked why these people won’t eat cows.
Suppose they believe that after death the souls of humans inhabit the bodies of animals, especially cows,
Page 12 of 32
Downloaded by CARLOS SEMPERTEGUI ([email protected])
lOMoARcPSD|41059105

14. so that a cow may be someone’s grandmother. Shall we say that their values differ from ours? No; the
difference lies elsewhere. The difference is in our belief systems, not in our value systems. We agree that
we shouldn’t eat Grandma; we disagree about whether the cow could be Grandma.
The point is that many factors work together to produce the customs of a society. Not only are the
society’s values important, but so are its religious beliefs, its factual beliefs, and its physical environment.
Thus, we cannot conclude that two societies differ in value just because they differ in custom. After all,
customs may vary for a number of different reasons. Thus, there may be less moral disagreement than
there appears to be. Consider again the Eskimos, who killed perfectly healthy infants, especially girls. We
do not approve of such things; in our society, a parent who kills a baby will be locked up. Thus, there
appears to be a great difference in the values of our two cultures. But suppose we ask why the Eskimos
did this. The explanation is not that they lacked respect for human life or did not love their children. An
Eskimo family would always protect its babies if conditions permitted. But the Eskimos lived in a harsh
environment, where food was scarce. To quote an old Eskimo saying: “Life is hard, and the margin of
safety small.” A family may want to nourish its babies but be unable to do so.
As in many traditional societies, Eskimo mothers would nurse their infants over a much longer period than
mothers in our culture—for four years, and perhaps even longer. So, even in the best of times, one mother
could sustain very few children. Moreover, the Eskimos were nomadic; unable to farm in the harsh
northern climate, they had to keep moving to find food. Infants had to be carried, and a mother could carry
only one baby in her parka as she traveled and went about her outdoor work. Finally, the Eskimos lacked
birth control, so unwanted pregnancies were common.
Infant girls were more readily killed for two reasons. First, in Eskimo society, the males were the primary
food providers— they were the hunters—and food was scarce. Males were thus more valuable to the
community. Second, the hunters suffered a high casualty rate, so the men who died prematurely far out-
numbered the women who died young. If male and female infants had survived in equal numbers, then
the female adult population would have greatly outnumbered the male adult population. Examining the
available statistics, one writer concluded that “were it not for female infanticide… there would be
approximately one-and-a-half times as many females in the average Eskimo local group as there are
food-producing males.”
Thus, Eskimo infanticide was not due to a fundamental disregard for children. Instead, it arose from the
recognition that drastic measures were needed to ensure the group’s survival. Even then, however, killing
the baby would not be the first option considered. Adoption was common; childless couples were
especially happy to take a fertile couple’s “surplus.” Killing was the last resort. I emphasize this in order to
show that the raw data of anthropology can be misleading; it can make the differences in values between
cultures seem greater than they are. The Eskimos’ values were not all that different from our own. It is
only that life forced choices upon them that we do not have to make.
Some Values Are Shared by All Cultures
It should not surprise us that the Eskimos were protective of their children. How could they not be? Babies
are helpless and cannot survive without extensive care. If a group did not protect its young, the young
would not survive, and the older members of the group would not be replaced. Eventually the group would
die out. This means that any culture that continues to exist must care for its young. Neglected infants must
be the exception, not the rule.
Similar reasoning shows that other values must be more or less universal across human societies.
Imagine what it would be like for a society to place no value on truth telling. When one person spoke to
another, there would be no presumption that she was telling the truth, for she could just as easily be lying.
Within that society, there would be no reason to pay attention to what anyone says. If I want to know what
time it is, why should I bother asking anyone, if lying is commonplace? Communication would be
extremely difficult, if not impossible, in such a society. And because societies cannot exist without
communication among their members, society would become impossible. It follows that every society
must value truthfulness. There may, of course, be situations in which lying is thought to be okay, but the
society will still value honesty in most situations.
Consider another example. Could a society exist in which there was no prohibition against murder? What
would this be like? Suppose people were free to kill one another at will, and no one disapproved. In such
a “society,” no one could feel safe. Everyone would have to be constantly on guard, and everyone would
try to avoid other people—those potential murderers— as much as possible. This would result in
individuals trying to become self-sufficient. Society on any large scale would thus collapse. Of course,
people might band together in smaller groups where they could feel safe. But notice what this means:
They would be forming smaller societies that did acknowledge a rule against murder. The prohibition
against murder, then, is a necessary feature of society.
There is a general point here, namely, that there are some moral rules that all societies must
Page 13 of 32
Downloaded by CARLOS SEMPERTEGUI ([email protected])
lOMoARcPSD|41059105

15. embrace, because those rules are necessary for society to exist. The rules against lying and murder
are two examples. And, in fact, we do find these rules in force in all cultures. Cultures may differ in what
they regard as legitimate exceptions to the rules, but this disagreement exists against a broad background
of agreement. Therefore, we shouldn’t over- estimate the extent to which cultures differs. Not every moral
rule can vary from society to society.
Judging a Cultural Practice to Be Undesirable
In 1996, a 17-year-old named Fauziya Kassindja arrived at Newark International Airport in New Jersey
and asked for asylum. She had fled her native country of Togo, in West Africa, to escape what people
there call “excision.” Excision is a permanently disfiguring procedure. It is sometimes called “female
circumcision,” but it bears little resemblance to male circumcision. In the Western media, it is often
referred to as “female genital mutilation.”
According to the World Health Organization, excision is practiced in 28 African nations, and about 135
million females have been painfully excised. Sometimes,b excision is part of an elaborate tribal ritual
performed in small villages, and girls look forward to it as their entry into the adult world. Other times, the
practice is carried out in cities on young women who desperately resist.
Fauziya Kassindja was the youngest of five daughters. Her father, who owned a successful trucking
business, was opposed to excision, and he was able to defy the tradition because of his wealth. Thus, his
first four daughters were married with- out being mutilated. But when Fauziya was 16, he suddenly died.
Fauziya then came under the authority of her aunt, who arranged a marriage for her and prepared to have
her excised. Fauziya was terrified, and her mother and oldest sister helped her escape.
In America, Fauziya was imprisoned for nearly 18 months while the authorities decided what to do with
her. During this time, she was subjected to humiliating strip searches, denied medical treatment for her
asthma, and generally treated like a criminal. Finally, she was granted asylum, but not before her case
aroused a great controversy. The controversy was not about her treatment in America, but about how we
should regard the customs of other cultures. A series of articles in The New York Times encouraged the
idea that excision is barbaric and should be condemned. Other observers were reluctant to be so
judgmental. Live and let live, they said; after all, our culture probably seems just as strange to outsiders.
Suppose we say that excision is wrong. Are we merely imposing the standards of our own culture? If
Cultural Relativism is correct, that is all we can do, for there is no culture- independent moral standard to
appeal to. But is that true?
Is There a Culture-Independent Standard of Right and Wrong?
Excision is bad in many ways. It is painful and results in the permanent loss of sexual pleasure. Its short-
term effects can include hemorrhage, tetanus, and septicemia. Sometimes it causes death. Its long-term
effects can include chronic infection, scars that hinder walking, and continuing pain.
Why, then, has it become a widespread social practice? It is not easy to say. The practice has no obvious
social benefits. Unlike Eskimo infanticide, it is not necessary for group survival. Nor is it a matter of
religion. Excision is practiced by groups from various religions, including Islam and Christianity.
Nevertheless, a number of arguments are made in its defense. Women who are incapable of sexual
pleasure are less likely to be promiscuous; thus, there will be fewer unwanted pregnancies in unmarried
women. Moreover, wives for whom sex is only a duty are less likely to cheat on their husbands; and
because they are not thinking about sex, they will be more attentive to the needs of their husbands and
children. Husbands, for their part, are said to enjoy sex more with wives who have been excised.
Unexcised women, the men feel, are unclean and immature.
It would be easy, and perhaps a bit arrogant, to ridicule these arguments. But notice an important feature
of them: They try to justify excision by showing that excision is beneficial— men, women, and their
families are said to be better off when women are excised. Thus, we might approach the issue by asking
whether excision, on the whole, is helpful or harmful.
This points to a standard that might reasonably be used in thinking about any social practice: Does the
practice promote or hinder the welfare of the people affected by it? But this looks like the sort of
independent moral standard that Cultural Relativism forbids. It is a single standard that may be brought to
bear in judging the practices of any culture, at any time, including our own. Of course, people will not
usually see this principle as being “brought in from the outside” to judge them, because all cultures value
human happiness.
Page 14 of 32
Downloaded by CARLOS SEMPERTEGUI ([email protected])
lOMoARcPSD|41059105

16. Why, Despite All This, Thoughtful People May Be Reluctant to Criticize Other Cultures
Many people who are horrified by excision are nevertheless reluctant to condemn it, for three reasons.
First, there is an understandable nervousness about interfering in the social customs of other peoples.
Europeans and their descendants in America have a shameful history of destroying native cultures in the
name of Christianity and enlightenment. Because of this, some people refuse to criticize other cultures,
especially cultures that resemble those that were wronged in the past. There is a difference, however,
between (a) judging a cultural practice to be deficient and (b) thinking that we should announce that fact,
apply diplomatic pressure, and send in the troops. The first is just a matter of trying to see the world
clearly, from a moral point of view. The second is something else entirely. Sometimes it may be right to “do
some- thing about it,” but often it will not be.
Second, people may feel, rightly enough, that we should be tolerant of other cultures. Tolerance is, no
doubt, a virtue—a tolerant person can live in peace with those who see things differently. But nothing
about tolerance requires us to say that all beliefs, all religions, and all social practices are equally
admirable. On the contrary, if we did not think that some things were better than others, then there would
be nothing for us to tolerate.
Finally, people may be reluctant to judge because they do not want to express contempt for the society
being criticized. But again, this is misguided: To condemn a particular practice is not to say that the culture
on the whole is contemptible. After all, the culture could still have many admirable features. Indeed, we
should expect this to be true of most human societies—they are mixtures of good and bad practices.
Excision happens to be one of the bad ones.
Back to the Five Claims
Let us now return to the five tenets of Cultural Relativism that were listed earlier. How have they fared in
our discussion?
1. Different societies have different moral codes.
This is certainly true, although there are some values that all cultures share, such as the value of truth
telling, the importance of caring for the young, and the prohibition against murder. Also, when customs
differ, the underlying reason will often have more to do with the factual beliefs of the cultures than with
their values.
2. The moral code of a society determines what is right within that society; that is, if the moral code of a
society says that a certain action is right, then that action is right, at least within that society.
Here we must bear in mind the difference between what a society believes about morals and what is
really true. The moral code of a society is closely tied to what people in that society believe to be right.
However, that code, and those people, can be in error. Earlier, we considered the example of excision— a
barbaric practice endorsed by many societies. Consider three more examples, all of which involve the
mistreatment of women:
• In 2002, an unwed mother in Nigeria was sentenced to be stoned to death for having had sex out of
wedlock. It is unclear whether Nigerian values, on the whole, approved of this verdict, given that it was
later over- turned by a higher court. However, it was overturned partly to appease the international
community. When the Nigerians themselves heard the verdict being read out in the courtroom, the crowd
shouted out their approval.
• In 2005, a woman from Australia was convicted of trying to smuggle nine pounds of marijuana into
Indonesia. For that crime, she was sentenced to 20 years in prison— an excessive punishment. Under
Indonesian law, she might even have received a death sentence.
• In 2007, a woman was gang-raped in Saudi Arabia. When she complained to the police, the police
discovered in the course of their investigation that she had recently been alone with a man she was not
related to. For that crime, she was sentenced to 90 lashes. When she appealed her conviction, this
angered the judges, and they increased her sentence to 200 lashes plus a six-month prison term.
Eventually, the Saudi king pardoned her, although he said he supported the sentence she had received.
Cultural Relativism holds, in effect, that societies are morally infallible—in other words, that the morals of
a culture can never be wrong. But when we see that societies can and do endorse grave
injustices, we see that societies, like their members, can be in need of moral improvement.
3. There is no objective standard that can be used to judge one society’s code as better than another’s.
There are no moral truths that hold for all people at all times.
Page 15 of 32
Downloaded by CARLOS SEMPERTEGUI ([email protected])
lOMoARcPSD|41059105

17. It is difficult to think of ethical principles that hold for all people at all times. However, if we are to criticize
the practice of slavery, or stoning, or genital mutilation, and if such practices are really and truly wrong,
then we must appeal to principles that are not tethered to any particular society. Earlier I suggested one
such principle: that it always matters whether a practice promotes or hinders the welfare of the people
affected by it.
4. The moral code of our own society has no special status; it is but one among many. It is true that the
moral code of our society has no special status. After all, our society has no heavenly halo around its
borders; our values do not have any special standing just because they happen to be ours. However, to
say that the moral code of one’s own society “is merely one among many” seems to imply that all codes
are the same—that they are all more or less equally good. In fact, it is an open question whether a given
code “is merely one among many.” That code might be among the best; it might be among the worst.
5. It is arrogant for us to judge other cultures. We should always be tolerant of them.
There is much truth in this, but the point is overstated. We are often arrogant when we criticize other
cultures, and tolerance is generally a good thing. However, we shouldn’t tolerate everything. Human
societies have done terrible things, and it is a mark of progress when we can say that those things are in
the past.
FILIPINO VALUES AND MORALITY
According to Bulaong et al. (2018) early in our upbringing, we were taught about certain valuable traits
that we say are characteristics of Filipinos, such as respect for the elderly, close family ties, a sense of
hospitality, and also of solidarity with others at times of distress. We proudly say that we value these
quantities of Filipinos.
Generalizations concerning supposed Filipino traits sometimes end up as empty stereotypes, especially
since one may be hard put to think if any other culture does not exhibit such traits. For instance, in the
case of what many assume is a trait that Filipinos possess, namely hospitality, can we say that Chinese
are not hospitable? Most probably, they are hospitable too, but they may exhibit such hospitality in
radically different ways. Thus, to simply say that there is a “Filipino way” of doing things, including a
“Filipino way” of thinking about what the right thing to do and why, remains a matter of discussion. Is there
really a Filipino morality that may be distinct from a Chinese morality?
We hear claims from time to time that “Americans are individualistic; Filipinos are communal” a supposed
difference that grounds, for some people, radically sets of moral values. But one may ask: is there really
any radical difference between one’s culture’s moral reasoning and another’s? Or do all cultures share in
at least some fundamental values and the differences are not on the level of value but on the level of its
manifestation in the context of different socio-historical dimensions? One culture, because of its particular
history, may construct hospitality in a particular way and manifest it in its own customs and traditions. Yet,
both cultures honor hospitality.
Icebreaker:
Icebreaker Activity:
A. Form a group composed of three (3) members. Each group will identify and list down cultural
differences between Filipinos, Japanese, and American such as concept of time, role of women,
greetings/ showing respect, on courtship and marriage, etc.
B. Students will do a role play depicting different Filipino values/ understanding of morality such as
“pakikisama, utang-na-loob, hospitality, “bahala na.”
Comprehension Question:
1. How does culture shape moral behavior?
2. What is Cultural Relativism? What are its strengths and weaknesses?
3. Are there an Asian and Filipino understanding of moral behavior?
Enrichment Activity:
1. Class Discussion – What are the criticism on Cultural Relativism? Explain.
2. Brainstorm and come up with a list of common Filipino values. Consider the strengths and weaknesses
of these.
3. Class Discussion: Are clothes a matter of pure aesthetic taste, or it a subject in a discussion of ethics?
Why? How about other forms of adornment such as tattoos and piercings? What about nudity? How do
Page 16 of 32
Downloaded by CARLOS SEMPERTEGUI ([email protected])
lOMoARcPSD|41059105

18. different cultures view nudity?
4. Research about Asian philosophy (Confucianism, Hinduism, Buddhism)
Assessment:
1. Seatwork – Essay
What is Cultural Relativism? What are its strengths and weaknesses?
2. Write a Reflection Paper on Filipino values and understanding of morality on the following: (choose
one). Analyze how society’s problems were rooted from these Filipino culture
“pakikisama”
“political dynasty”
corruption and bribery
vote-buying during election
Assignment:
Research on the following topic/s:
Part 1: The Moral Agent
B. The Moral Agent: Developing Virtue as Habit
●How is a Moral Character Developed?
●Moral Development
●The Stages of Moral Development
References:
*Rachels, James. THE ELEMENTS OF MORAL PHILOSOPHY.
*Bulaong Jr., Calano, Lagliva, et al. Foundations of Moral Valuation. 2018
https://courses.lumenlearning.com/boundless-management/chapter/ethics-an-overview/
https://www.khanacademy.org/test-prep/mcat/society-and-culture/culture/a/cultural-relativism-article
Lesson 3
Part 1: The Moral Agent
Developing Virtue as Habit:
How is a Moral Character Developed?
Moral Development
The Stages of Moral Development
Reasons and Impartiality as Requirements for Ethics
(Week 6 and 7)
Course Code: GE 107 Program: BSIS
Course Title: Ethics Date Performed:
Prepared By: Mr. Christian A. Sto. Domingo
Ms. Agnes Sarabia
Date Submitted:
Objectives:
In this lesson, students will be able to
●Explain how is moral character developed;
●Discuss the stages of moral development;
●Discuss why should culture not be the ultimate determinants of values;
●Identify Asian and Filipino morals; and
●Discuss if there is a Filipino understanding of right and wrong
Intended Learning Outcome:
●Differentiate between moral and non-moral problems.
●Describe what a moral experience is as it happens in different levels of human existence.
●Describe the elements of moral development and moral experience.
●Use ethical frameworks or principles to analyze moral experiences.
●Understand and internalize the principles of ethical behavior in modern society at the level of the
person, society, and in interaction with the environment and other shared.
Content:
INTRODUCTION
The word "character" is derived from the Ancient Greek word "charaktêr", referring to a mark impressed
upon a coin. Later it came to mean a point by which one thing was told apart from others. There are two
approaches when dealing with moral character: Normative ethics involve moral standards that exhibit right
and wrong conduct. It is a test of proper behavior and determining what is right and wrong. Applied
Page 17 of 32
Downloaded by CARLOS SEMPERTEGUI ([email protected])
lOMoARcPSD|41059105

19. ethics involve specific and controversial issues along with a moral choice, and tend to involve situations
where people are either for or against the issue.
Moral character or character is an evaluation of an individual's stable moral qualities. The concept
of character can imply a variety of attributes including the existence or lack of virtues such
as empathy, courage, fortitude, honesty, and loyalty, or of good behaviors or habits. Moral character
primarily refers to the assemblage of qualities that distinguish one individual from another—although on a
cultural level, the set of moral behaviors to which a social group adheres can be said to unite and define it
culturally as distinct from others. Psychologist Lawrence Pervin defines moral character as "a disposition
to express behavior in consistent patterns of functions across a range of situations". Similarly, the
philosopher Marie I. George refers to moral character as the “sum of one’s moral habits and dispositions.”
MORAL DEVELOPMENT
(Adapted from Moral Deliberation, Ethics: Foundations of Moral Valuation by Bulaong Jr., Calano, Lagliva
et al.) p.108
There is a big difference between a young child’s reasoning on the right thing to do and the manner a
morally mature individual arrives at an ethical decision. This necessary growth, which is maturation in
moral reasoning, has been the focus of study of many theorists. One of them is the American moral
psychologist Lawrence Kolberg (1927-1987) who theorized that moral development happens in six
stages, which he divided into three levels. The first level is what he called pre-conventional and it
corresponds to how infants and young children think. This pre-conventional level, whose reasoning is
centered on the consequences of one’s actions, is divided into two stages.
The first stage of reasoning centers around obedience and the avoidance of punishment: to a young
child’s mind, an action is “good” if it enables one to escape from punishment; “bad” if it leads to
punishment. Later, a child enters the second stage of reasoning and learns to act according to what she
thinks will serve her self-interest; thus, what is “good” at this stage is what the child thinks can bring her
pleasure.
The second level of moral development according to Kolberg is the conventional since this is the stage in
which older children, adolescents, and young adults learn to conform to the expectations of society. This
is the time when one learns to follow the conventions of her group. This second level is divided into two
stages: the third and fourth stages of moral development.
The third stage is when one begins to act according to what the larger group she belongs to expect of her.
The individual here assumes that what will benefit her best is when the other members of her group
approve of her actions. The general tendency at this age is to conform first to the values of one’s
immediate group, such as her family, playmates, or later on, barkada.
The fourth stage is achieved when a person realizes that following the dictates of her society is not just
good for herself but more importantly, it is necessary for the existence of society itself. The individual at
this stage values most the laws, rules, and regulations of her society, and thus her moral reasoning is
shaped by dutifulness to the external standards set by society.
The third and highest level of moral development for Kolberg is what he calls post-conventional since
the morally responsible agent recognizes that what is good or right is not reducible to following the rules of
one’s group. Instead, it is a question of understanding personally what ought to do and deciding, using
one’s free will, to act accordingly. This level, which is also divided into two stages (the fifth and the sixth),
represents the individual’s realization that the ethical principles she has rationally arrived at take
precedence over even the rules or conventions that her society dictates. Moral maturity therefore is seen
in an agent who acts on what she has understood, using her full rationality, to be what is right, regardless
of whether the act will bring the agent pleasure or pain and even regardless of whether the act is in
accordance with one’s community’s laws or not. An agent has attained full moral development if she acts
according to her well-thought-out rational principles.
KOHLBERG’S SIX STAGES OF MORAL DEVELOPMENT
Out of the many theories one that is very interesting is Kohlberg’s 3 level theory. The theory approaches
ethics from a justice standpoint where different cultures, different countries can have different approaches.
It is also based on a life cycle of human development from Pre-conventional states to the Conventional
states to the Post Conventional states. With each level, the power of thinking increases and the ability to
think and articulate from different perspectives and viewpoints increases.
Kohlberg (1958) agreed with Piaget's (1932) theory of moral development in principle but wanted to
develop his ideas further.
Page 18 of 32
Downloaded by CARLOS SEMPERTEGUI ([email protected])
lOMoARcPSD|41059105

20. He used Piaget’s storytelling technique to tell people stories involving moral dilemmas. In each case, he
presented a choice to be considered, for example, between the rights of some authority and the needs of
some deserving individual who is being unfairly treated.
One of the best known of Kohlberg’s (1958) stories concerns a man called Heinz who lived somewhere in
Europe.
Heinz’s wife was dying from a particular type of cancer. Doctors said a new drug might
save her. The drug had been discovered by a local chemist, and the Heinz tried
desperately to buy some, but the chemist was charging ten times the money it cost to
make the drug, and this was much more than the Heinz could afford.
Heinz could only raise half the money, even after help from family and friends. He
explained to the chemist that his wife was dying and asked if he could have the drug
cheaper or pay the rest of the money later.
The chemist refused, saying that he had discovered the drug and was going to make
money from it. The husband was desperate to save his wife, so later that night he broke
into the chemist’s and stole the drug.
Kohlberg asked a series of questions such as:
1. Should Heinz have stolen the drug?
2. Would it change anything if Heinz did not love his wife?
3. What if the person dying was a stranger, would it make any difference?
4. Should the police arrest the chemist for murder if the woman died?
By studying the answers from children of different ages to these questions, Kohlberg hoped to discover
how moral reasoning changed as people grew older. The sample comprised 72 Chicago boys aged 10–16
years, 58 of whom were followed up at three-yearly intervals for 20 years (Kohlberg, 1984).
Each boy was given a 2-hour interview based on the ten dilemmas. What Kohlberg was mainly interested
in was not whether the boys judged the action right or wrong, but the reasons given for the decision. He
found that these reasons tended to change as the children got older.
People can only pass through these levels in the order listed. Each new stage replaces the reasoning
typical of the earlier stage. Not everyone achieves all the stages.
Level 1
Pre-conventional
(up to age 9)
Stage 1 Obedience & Punishment
This stage is mostly manifested by
children. Elders teach them to
follow a certain conduct in the
absence of which they are
punished. This is an elementary
state of mind of the child who tries
to follow the best way in his/her own
realm. Very few of them remain in
this state when they grow up. But in
certain situations most elders still
shift back to this stage.
Stage 2 Instrumental and Relativist
Similar, but right and wrong is now
determined by what we are
rewarded for, and by doing what
others want. Any concern for others
is motivated by selfishness.
Level 2
Conventional
(most adolescents
& adults)
Stage 3 Interpersonal concordance
Being good is what pleases others.
The child adopts a conformist
attitude to morality. Right and wrong
are determined by the majority.
Stage4 Law and Order orientation
Being good now means doing your
duty to society. To this end, we obey
laws without question and show a
respect for authority. Most adults do
not progress past this stage.
Level 3
Post-conventional
(10 to 15% of the
over 20s)
Stage 5 Social Contract
Right and wrong are now
determined by personal values,
although these can be over-ridden
by democratically agreed laws.
When laws infringe our sense of
justice we can choose to ignore
them.
Stage 6 Universal Ethical Principle
We can now live in accordance with
deeply held moral principles which
are seen as more important than
the laws of the land.
Page 19 of 32
Downloaded by CARLOS SEMPERTEGUI ([email protected])
lOMoARcPSD|41059105

21. Icebreaker:
Icebreaker Activity:
1. At the start of the class discussion, bring out students’ understanding of contributory elements to their
character.
2. Ask the students about moral development and what level/stage of moral development they consider
themselves at.
Comprehension Question:
1. How is moral character developed?
2. What are the stages of moral development?gf
Enrichment Activity:
Student Activity:
Draw a chart of their life’s journey using cartolina to show incipient moments in their lives and where they
are now in their moral development.
Group Presentation:
Three cases/ stories featuring moral agents at different stages of moral development. Groups identify the
stages of the agents in each of the three cases and justify their answer.
Assessment:
Quiz: What are the six stages of moral development according to Kolberg? Briefly explain each stage.
Assignment:
Research on the following topic/s:
Part 2: The Act
●Feelings and Moral Decision-making
●Reason & Impartiality as Minimum Requirements for Morality
●Moral Courage
Page 20 of 32
Downloaded by CARLOS SEMPERTEGUI ([email protected])
lOMoARcPSD|41059105

22. References:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_character
https://www.simplypsychology.org/kohlberg.html
*Bulaong Jr., Calano, Lagliva, et al. Foundations of Moral Valuation. 2018
Lesson 4
Part 2: The Act:
Feelings and Reasons for Impartiality
Reason and Impartiality as Minimum Requirement for Morality
Moral Courage
(Week 10 and 12)
Course Code: GE 107 Program: BSIS
Course Title: Ethics Date Performed:
Prepared By: Mr. Christian A. Sto. Domingo
Ms. Agnes Sarabia
Date Submitted:
Objectives:
In this lesson, students will be able to
●Analyze the role of feelings in moral decisions;
●Illustrate how can one make reasoned and impartial decisions;
●Identify examples of moral decisions;
●Discuss reason and impartiality as minimum requirements for morality; and
●Appreciate the significance of moral courage or will in moral decision-making
Intended Learning Outcome:
●Describe the elements of moral development and moral experience
●Develop sensitivity to the common good
●Understand and internalize the principles of ethical behavior in modern society at the level of the
person, society, and in interaction with the environment and other shared
Content:
A. FEELINGS IN MORAL DELIBERATION
(adapted from Ethics: Foundations of Moral Valuation by Bulaong Jr., Calano, Lagliva et al., page 110-111)
Emotions or feelings have long been decided by purely rationalistic perspectives as having no place in a
properly executed moral decision. This prejudice, however, needs to be re-examined thoroughly. Although
some emotions or feelings can derail one from a clear-minded decision in an ethical situation it’s also not
possible that human choice can be purged of all feelings; the moral agent, after all, is neither a robot nor a
computer. A more realistic attitude toward decision-making is to appreciate the indispensable role emotions
have on an agent’s act of choosing. Aristotle precisely points out that moral virtue goes beyond the mere act
of intellectually identifying the right thing to do. Instead, it is the condition of one’s character by which agent is
able to manage her emotions or feelings. Note that Aristotle doesn’t say, “Remove all feelings”. Instead he
sees that cultivating one’s character lies in learning to manage one’s feelings.
The emotions are, as much as reason itself, part of what makes one a human being. There’s a popular
Filipino saying: “tulak ng bibig; kabig ng dibdib” (literally, “the mouth says one thing, but the heart drives you to
do another thing.”.). This saying can mean what an individual says, and in that sense what an individual’s
mind or intellect dictates what one ought to do, can sometimes be overcome by what her feelings actually
drive her to do. Thus, part of the genius Aristotle is his realization that’s possible that there can be a
disconnection between intellectual knowledge of the good and the actual ability of an individual to perform
accordingly. The latter is mainly a function of character formation, that is, of habituating the proper
management of one’s feelings. Aristotle accepts that feelings cannot be set aside in favor of some illusory,
purely intellectual acceptance of the good. Instead, he sees moral virtue as a matter of habitually managing
one’s feelings in the rightful manner. As his famous line from Book II of the Nichomachean Ethics puts is:
“Anyone can get angry-that is easy…; but to do this to the right person, to the right extent at the right time,
with the right motive, and in the right way, that is not for everyone, nor is it easy.” Doing the right thing for
Aristotle is being able to manage one’s feelings so that she is actually driven or propelled to do what she all
sees (intellectually) as right.
The responsible moral agent the as a supposedly “dispassionate” moral decision-maker is an unrealistic ideal.
The passions or feelings do not necessarily detract from making an informed moral decision. One can even
argue that making a moral decision, because it is all about what she values, cannot but involve her most
serious feelings. What she must do then is to educate and to cultivate her feelings so they do not remain in
the pre-conventional level, that is, of self-centered feelings reducible to individualistic notions of pleasure and
pain. The morally developed or mature individual or agent therefore must have honed her intellectual capacity
Page 21 of 32
Downloaded by CARLOS SEMPERTEGUI ([email protected])
lOMoARcPSD|41059105

23. to determine the relevant elements in a moral situation, including the moral principles to explore. On top of
that, she must also have cultivated her feelings so that she neither simply gives in to childish emotions, nor
does she also dismiss the “right feelings” required for a truly informed moral decision. The mature moral agent
realizes that she is both a product of many forces, elements, and events, all of which shape her situation and
options for a decision. She also realizes that she’s not merely a puppet of external causes. Instead, a
meaningful moral decision is one that she makes in full cognizance of where she is coming from and of where
she ought to go. At this point, we are ready to identify the steps in making informed moral decisions.
B. MINIMUM REQUIREMENT FOR MORALITY: REASON AND IMP ARTIALITY
Reason and Impartiality (adapted from The Elements of Morality, James Rachels. Page 10-13)
As a start, we may note two points: first, moral judgments must be back by good reasons; and second,
morality requires the impartial consideration of each individual interests.
Moral Reasoning. When we feel strongly about an issue, it is tempting to assume that we just know what the
truth is, without even having to consider arguments on the other side. Unfortunately, however, we cannot rely
on our feelings, no matter how powerful they may be. Our feelings may be irrational; they may be nothing but
the product of prejudice, selfishness, or cultural conditioning. At one time, for example, people’s feelings told
them that members of other races were inferior and that slavery was God’s plan.
Thus, if we want to discover the truth, we must let our feelings be guided as much as possible by reason. This
is the essence of morality. The morally right thing to do is always the thing best supported by the arguments.
This is not a narrow point about a small range of moral views; it is a general requirement of logic that must be
accepted by everyone, regardless of their position on any particular issue. The fundamental point may be
stated simply. Suppose someone says that you ought to do such-and-such. You may legitimately ask why you
should do it, and if no good reason can be given, you may reject the advice as arbitrary or unfounded.
In this way, moral judgments are different from expressions of personal taste. If someone says, Ï like coffee,’’
she does not need to have a reason--- she is merely stating a fact about her preferences, and nothing more.
There is no such thing as “rationally defending” one’s like or dislike of coffee. So long as she is accurately
reporting her taste, what she says must be true. On the other hand, if someone says that something is morally
wrong, he does need reasons, and if his reasons are legitimate, then other people must acknowledge their
force. By the same logic, if he has no good reason for what he says, then he is simply making noise, and we
may ignore him.
Of course, not every reason that may be advanced is a good reason. There are bad arguments as well as
good ones, and much of the skill of moral thinking consists in discerning the difference.
The Requirement of Impartiality. Almost every important moral theory includes the idea of impartiality. This
is the idea that each individual’s interests are equally important, no one should get special treatment. At the
same time, impartiality requires that we not treat the members of particular groups as inferior, and thus it
condemns forms of discrimination like sexism and racism.
Impartiality is closely connected with the idea that moral judgments must be backed by good reasons.
Consider the racist who thinks that white people deserve all the good jobs. He would like all the doctors,
lawyers, business executives, and so on, to be white. Now we can ask for reasons; we can ask why this is
thought to be right. Is there something about white people that makes them better fitted for the highest-paying
and most prestigious positions? Are they inherently brighter or more industrious? Do they care more about
themselves and their families? Would they benefit more from such employment? In each case, the answer is
no; and if there is no good reason for treating people differently, then discrimination is unacceptably arbitrary.
The requirement of impartiality, then, is at bottom nothing more than a rule against treating people arbitrarily. It
forbids treating one person worse than another when there is no good reason to do so. But if this explains
what is wrong with racism, it also explains why, in some cases, it is not racist to treat people differently.
The Minimum Conception of Morality
We may now state the minimum conception: Morality is, at the very least, the effort to guide one’s conduct by
reason---that is, to do what there are the best reasons for doing---while giving actual weight to the interests of
each individual affected by one’s decision.
This gives us a picture of what it means to be a conscientious moral agent. The conscientious moral agent is
someone who is concerned impartially with the interests of everyone affected by what he or she does; who
carefully sifts facts and examines their implications; who accepts principles of conduct only after scrutinizing
them to make sure they are justified; who is willing to “listen to reason’’ even when it means revising prior
convictions; and who, finally, is willing to act on the results of this deliberation.
Page 22 of 32
Downloaded by CARLOS SEMPERTEGUI ([email protected])
lOMoARcPSD|41059105

24. THE 7-STEP MORAL REASONING MODEL
1. Determine the Facts
●Don’t jump to conclusions without the facts
●Questions to ask: Who, what, where, when, how, and why
●However, facts may be difficult to find because of the uncertainty often found around ethical issues
●Some facts are not available
●Assemble as many facts as possible before proceeding
●Clarify what assumptions you are making
2. Determine the Precise Ethical Issue
●Don’t jump to solutions without first identifying the ethical issue(s) in the situation
●Define the ethical basis for the issue you want to focus on
●There may be multiple ethical issues – focus on one major one at a time.
3. Identify the Major Principles, Rules, and Values
●Obligations should be thought of in terms of principles and rights involved
A) What obligations are created because of particular ethical principles you might use in the situation?
Examples: Do no harm; Do unto others as you would have them do unto you; Do what you would have
anyone in your shoes do in the given context.
B) What obligations are created because of the specific rights of the stakeholders? What rights are
more basic vs. secondary in nature? Which help protect an individual’s basic autonomy? What types of
rights are involved – negative or positive?
C) What concepts of justice (fairness) are relevant – distributive or procedural justice?
●Did you consider any relevant cognitive barriers/biases?
●Formulate the appropriate decision or action based solely on the above analysis of these obligations.
4. Specify the Alternatives; and
5. Compare Values and Alternatives
●Be sure you have not been unnecessarily forced into a corner
●You may have some choices or alternatives that have not been considered
●If you have come up with solutions “a” and “b,” try to brainstorm and come up with a “c” solution that
might satisfy the interests of the primary parties involved in the situation.
6. Assess the Consequences
●Think about potential positive and negative consequences for affected parties by the decision (Focus
on primary stakeholders to simplify analysis until you become comfortable with the process)
●What are the magnitude of the consequences and the probability that the consequences will happen
●Short term vs. Long term consequences – will decision be valid over time
●Broader systemic consequences – tied to symbolic and secrecy
Symbolic consequences – Each decision sends a message.
Secrecy consequences – What are the consequences if the decision or action becomes public?
●Did you consider relevant cognitive barriers/biases?
●Consider what your decision would be based only on consequences – then move on and see if it is
similar given other considerations
7. Make a Decision
●Consider potential actions based on the consequences, obligations, and character approaches
●Do you come up with similar answers from the different perspectives?
●Do the obligation and character help you “check” the consequentialist preferred action?
●How can you protect the rights of those involved (or your own character) while still maximizing the
overall good for all of the stakeholders?
●What arguments are most compelling to you to justify the action ethically? How will you respond to
those with opposing viewpoints?
C. MORAL COURAGE
Moral courage is the courage to take action for moral reasons despite the risk of adverse consequences.
Courage is required to take action when one has doubts or fears about the consequences. Moral courage
therefore involves deliberation or careful thought. Reflex action or dogmatic fanaticisms do not involve moral
courage because such impulsive actions are not based upon moral reasoning. Moral courage may also
require physical courage when the consequences are punishment or other bodily peril. Moral courage has
been seen as the exemplary modernist form of courage.
Page 23 of 32
Downloaded by CARLOS SEMPERTEGUI ([email protected])
lOMoARcPSD|41059105

25. Developing Will and Moral Courage
1. Develop and practice self-discipline
One way to develop moral courage and will is to develop and practice self-discipline. The concept self-
discipline involves the rejection of instant gratification in favor of something better. Ethically applied, it may
refer to the giving up of instant pleasure and satisfaction for a higher and better goal such as executing a
good rational moral decision.

Developing will and moral courage involves developing self-control. It includes nurturing the ability to stick to
actions, thoughts, and behavior, which lead to moral improvement and success. It encompasses endowing
the inner strength to focus all the energy on a moral goal and persevere until it is accomplished.

2. Do mental strength training
This method is never reserved for a few special people. One of the most simple and effective methods under
this mental strength training involves declining to satisfy unimportant and unnecessary desires.

Everybody is normally confronted and tempted by an endless stream of cravings and temptations, many of
which are not actually important or desirable. By practicing to refuse to gratify every one of them, a person
gets courageous and stronger.
Saying no to useless, harmful or unnecessary desires and deeds, and behaving contrary to one’s (bad)
habits, fortify and refine a person’s mindset. By persistent practice, one’s inner power grows, in the same way
working out one’s muscles at a gym increases one’s physical strength. In both cases, when a person needs
inner power or physical strength, they are available at his/her disposal.

The following are some examples. Some of them are not necessarily ethically related:

- Don’t open the internet for a day or two.
- Drink water or juice, in spite of your desire to have a beer or liquor.
- Avoid chatting with your gossipy friend.
- For a week, go to sleep one hour earlier than usual.
- Resist the desire to gamble.

Trainings like these add to the storehouse of one’s inner strength. By following a methodical method of
training, a person can reach far, have more control over oneself and one’s life, realize ethical goals, improve
his/her life, and achieve satisfaction and peace of mind.

3. Draw inspiration from people of great courage
People usually admire and respect courageous persons who have won great success by manifesting self-
discipline and will power. These include people in all walks of life, who with sheer will power and moral
courage, overcame difficulties and hardships, have improved their moral life, advanced on the spiritual or
moral path, and became worthy of imitation.

History is filled with outstanding examples of moral courage whom we rightly celebrate: Dr. Martin Luther
King, Jr., Mahatma Gandhi, Aung San Suu Kyi, and especially Jesus Christ and His apostles. When we see
individuals put their comfort, safety, security, reputation, or even life on the line for a cause they believe in, or
for an ideal that matters more than personal wellbeing, we witness moral courage and will in action.

4. Repeatedly do acts that exhibit moral courage and will
Practice makes perfect. If one wishes to nurture the moral courage and will in him, he must strive doing the
acts that manifest them whenever opportunity allows it. The following are some examples:

standing up to a bully on the playground
picking up litter
doing homework or chores without being reminded
refusing to listen to or repeat gossip
practicing what you preach, even when no-one is looking or knows
turning in a toy or a wallet to the Lost and Found
(for teens) calling home for a ride from a party where alcohol is being served
(for teachers) giving all students an equal voice regardless of race, socioeconomic status, religion, gender or
sexual orientation
becoming company whistle blower risking job loss, financial cost, and or legal repercussion
reporting a crime
participating in a peaceful protest

5. Avoid deeds that show lack of moral courage and will
This involves evading acts that show irresponsibility, cowardice, apathy, rashness, imprudence, ill will, and
wickedness. Here are some examples:

Page 24 of 32
Downloaded by CARLOS SEMPERTEGUI ([email protected])
lOMoARcPSD|41059105

26. walking away from someone in need
taking more than your fair share
laughing at someone's misfortune or accident
grabbing the spotlight from someone who has earned it
placing too much reliance on the letter rather than the spirit of the law
remaining silent in the face of wrong-doing or injustice
rationalizations or justifications for action/lack of action
being inconsistent or capricious with rules and standards for one’s children
choosing sides after seeing which way the wind is blowing
breaking a promise
lying or cheating
Icebreaker:
Icebreaker Activity:
1. Recall examples of Moral dilemma. Discuss how you might evaluate different moral situations and how you
would decide or reason about it:
2. Students are given three situations – from medical ethics, end-of-life involving a dying parent; payment of
facilitation fee to a customs officer by an employee—and are asked to role play three moral experiences.
Students show how they respond emotionally and/or rationally.
Comprehension Question:
1. What is reason? What is impartiality? Why reasons and impartiality are requirement for morality?
2. What situation in your life where you use your feelings over reason in making a big decision in your life?
Enrichment Activity:
1. Discuss a decision wherein your consider your feelings in making a moral decision
2. Discuss a situation or problem wherein you consider your reason in making a moral decision.
3. Role play three cases, highlighting in one case an emotional response, and in the other a rational response
Assessment:
Quiz –Essay: What is moral reasoning? Do you consider both your rationality and feelings in making
decisions?
Assignment:
Research on the following topic/s:
Part 3: Frameworks and Principles Behind our Moral Disposition
●Natural Law
●Deontology
●Utilitarianism
●Virtue Theory
References:
Ethics: Foundations of Moral Valuation by Bulaong Jr., Calano, Lagliva et al., page 110-111)
https://prezi.com/ciywpijkcwq0/7-step-ethical-decision-making-powerpoint/
https://research.ku.edu/sites/research.ku.edu/files/docs/EESE_EthicalDecisionmakingFramework.pd
f
Lesson 5
Part 3: Frameworks and Principles Behind our Moral Disposition:
Natural Law
Deontology
Utilitarianism
Virtue Theory
(Week 13 and 15)
Course Code: GE 107 Program: BSIS
Course Title: Ethics Date Performed:
Page 25 of 32
Downloaded by CARLOS SEMPERTEGUI ([email protected])
lOMoARcPSD|41059105

27. Prepared By: Mr. Christian A. Sto. Domingo
Ms. Agnes Sarabia
Date Submitted:
Objectives:
In this lesson, students will be able to
●Identify the major moral theories and frameworks; and
●Explain the role of moral theories and mental frames and why they are important;
Intended Learning Outcome:
●Differentiate between moral and non-moral problems
●Describe the elements of moral development and moral experience
●Use ethical frameworks or principles to analyze moral experiences
●Make sound ethical judgments based on principles, facts, and the stakeholders affected
Content:
THE VALUES OF STUDYING ETHICAL THEORIES OR FRAMEWOR KS
(adapted from Ethics: Foundations of Moral Valuation by Bulaong Jr., Calano, Lagliva et al., page 115-
116)
What then is the role of ethical theories or frameworks in the continuing cultivation of one’s capacity for
moral choice? Given the remark at the beginning of this chapter of this chapter that none of the ethical
frameworks we have studied is final and complete, how then should one make use of them for the
development of her faculty for moral valuation?
These ethical theories or frameworks may serve as guideposts, given that they are the best attempts to
understand morality that the history of human thought has to offer. As guideposts, they can shed light on
many important considerations, though of course not all, in one’s quest to answer the twin questions of
“What ought I to do?” and “Why ought I to do so?” Individually, they can clarify many important aspects of
morality.
Utilitarianism pays tribute to the value of impartiality, arguing that an act is good if it will bring about the
greatest good for the greatest number of those affected by the action, and each one of those affected
should be counted as one, each equal to each. Utilitarianism thus puts every single stakeholder at par
with everyone else, with no one being worth more than any other. Whether president or common citizen,
rich or poor, man or woman, young or old, everyone has as much worth as anyone else. Utilitarianism,
arguably, puts more value on the notion of common good” compared to any of the other ethical
frameworks we covered.
The Natural law theory, on the other hand, puts more emphasis on the supposed objective, universal
nature of what is to be considered morally good, basing its reasoning on the theorized existence of a
“human nature.” This theory has the advantage of both objectivity and kind of intuitiveness. The latter
pertains to the assumption that whatever is right is what feels right, that is, in the innermost recesses of
one’s being or of one’s conscience (and not just in some shallow emotional level) because what is good is
imprinted in our very being in the form of natural inclinations.
Kantian deontology puts the premium on rational will, freed from all other considerations, as the only
human capacity that can determine one’s moral duty. Kant focuses on one’s autonomy as constitutive of
what one can consider as moral law that is free from all ends and inclinations- including pain and pleasure
as well as conformity to the rules of the group. This shows Kant’s disdain for these rules as being
authorities external to one’s own capacity for rational will
.
From valuing all human beings to intuiting what is universally good and to practicing one’s autonomy in
determining what one ought to do, all of these explore the possible roles of reason and free will in
identifying what one ought to do in a given moral situation. What Aristotle’s virtue ethics in the end
indicates is the need for habituation of one’s character to make any of all of this previous consideration
possible. To weigh the collective happiness of human beings, to choose to act on what one’s innermost
nature dictates, and to practice one’s autonomy regardless of all other consideration especially those that
impinge on one’s will: these are lofty enough goals for human reason and will. But what can possibly
sustain or brace a moral agent so that she is able to maintain the effort to implement such rigorous
demands on the part of reason? Aristotle’s answer is the solid to implement such rigorous demands on
the part of reason? Aristotle’s answer is the solid resolve of one’s character, which can only be achieved
through the right kind of habituation.
VIRTUE ETHICS – ARISTOTLE
Virtue as Excellence
(adapted from Ethics: Foundations of Moral Valuation by Bulaong Jr., Calano, Lagliva et al., page )
Page 26 of 32
Downloaded by CARLOS SEMPERTEGUI ([email protected])
lOMoARcPSD|41059105

28. Achieving the highest purpose of a human person concerns the ability to function according to reason and
to perform an activity well or excellently. This excellent way of doing things is called virtue or arête by the
Greeks. Aristotle is quick to add that virtue is something that one strives for in time. One does not become
an excellent person overnight: “For one swallow doesn’t make a summer, nor does one day; and so too
one day, or a short time, does not make a man blessed and happy…” This means that being virtuous
cannot be accomplished by a single act. It is commendable if a minor participant in a crime becomes a
whistle-blower, exposing all the grave acts that were committed by his cohorts. But one should be care in
judgment of calling immediately that individual as being a “person of virtue.” Being an excellent individual
works on doing well in her day-to-day existence.
What exactly makes a human being excellent? Aristotle says that excellence is an activity of the human
soul and therefore, one needs to understand the very structure of a person’s soul which must be directed
by her rational activity in an excellent way. For Aristotle, the human soul is divided into two parts: the
irrational element and rational faculty. The irrational element of man consists of the vegetative and
appetitive aspects. The vegetative aspect functions as giving nutrition and providing the activity of
physical growth in person. As an irrational element, this part of man isn’t in the realm where virtue is
exercised because, as the term suggests, it cannot be dictated by reason. The vegetative aspect of the
soul follows the natural processes involved in the physical activities and growth of a person. Whereas, the
appetitive aspect works as a desiring faculty of man. The act of desiring in itself is an impulse that
naturally runs counter to reason and most of the time refuses to go along with reason. Thus, this aspect
belongs to the irrational part of the soul. Sexual impulse, for example, is so strong is a person that one
tends to ignore reasonable demands to control such impulse. However, unlike the vegetative aspect, the
desiring faculty of man can be subjected to reason. Aristotle says, “…Now, even this seems to have a
share in the rational principle, as we said; at any rate in the continent man it obeys the rational principle…”
Desires are subject to reason even though these don’t arise from the rational part of the soul.
In contrast, the rational faculty of man exercises excellence in him. One can rightly or wrongly apply the
use of reason in this part. This faculty is further divided into two aspects: Moral, which concerns the act of
doing, and Intellectual, which concerns the act of knowing. These two aspects are basically where the
function of reason is exercised.
One rational aspect where a person can attain excellence is in the intellectual faculty of the soul. As
stat6ed by Aristotle, this excellence is attained through teaching. Through time, one learns vast
experiences in life where she gains knowledge on this things. One learns and gains wisdom by being
taught or learning. There are two ways by which one can attain intellectual excellence: philosophic and
practical. Philosophic wisdom deals with attaining knowledge about fundamental principles and truths that
govern the universe (e.g., general theory on the origins of things). It helps one understand in general the
meaning of life. Practical wisdom, on the other hand, is an excellence on knowing the right conduct in
carrying out a particular act. In other words, one can attain wisdom that can provide us with a guide on
how to behave in our daily lives.
Although the condition of being excellent can be attained by a person through the intellectual aspect of the
soul, this situation doesn’t make her into a morally good individual. However, Aristotle suggest that
although the rational functions of a person( moral and intellectual) are distinct from each other, it’s
necessary for humans to attain the intellectual virtue of practical wisdom in order to accomplish a morally
virtuous act.
HAPPINESS AND ULTIMATE PURPOSE
Aristotle begins his discussion of ethics by showing that every act that a person does is directed towards a
particular response, aim, or what the Greeks called telos. There is a purpose why one does something,
and for Aristotle, a person’s action manifests a good that she aspires for. Every pursuit of a person hopes
to achieve good. One eats for the purpose of the good that it gives sustenance to the body. A person won’t
do anything which is not beneficial to her. Even a drug user “thinks” that substance abuse will cause her
good. This does not necessarily mean that using drugs is good but a “drug addict” would want to believe
that such act is good. Therefore, for Aristotle, the good is considered to be the telos or purpose for which
all acts seeks to achieve.
One must understand that an individual does actions and pursuits in life and correspondingly each of
these activities has different aims. Aristotle is aware that one an act not only to achieve a particular
purpose but also believes such purpose can be utilized for a higher goal or activity, which then can be
used to achieve an even higher purpose and so on. In other words, the different goods that one pursues
form a hierarchy of teloi (plural form of telos).
When one diligently writes down notes while listening to ac lecture given by the teacher, she does this for
the purpose of being able to remember the lessons of the course. This purpose of remembering, in turn,
becomes an act t achieve a higher aim which is to pass the examinations given by the teacher, which
Page 27 of 32
Downloaded by CARLOS SEMPERTEGUI ([email protected])
lOMoARcPSD|41059105

29. then becomes a product that can help the person attain the goal of having a passing mark in the course. It
is important for Aristotle that one becomes clear of the hierarchy of goals that the different acts produce in
order for a person to distinguish which actions are higher than the other.
With the condition that there’s a hierarchy of telos, Aristotle then asks about the highest purpose, which is
the ultimate good of a human being. Aristotle discusses the general criteria in order for one to recognize
the highest good of man. First, the highest good of a person must be final. As a final end, it is no longer
utilized for the sake of arriving at a much higher end. In our example above, the purpose remembering the
lessons in the course, that is why one writes down notes, is not the final end because it is clear that such
purpose is aimed at achieving a much higher goal. Second, the ultimate telos of a person must be self-
sufficient. Satisfaction in life is arrived at once this highest good is attained. Nothing else is sought after or
desired, once this self- sufficient goal is achieved, since this is already considered the best possible good
in life. Again, in the example given about, the goal of remembering the lessons is not yet the best possible
good because a person can still seek for other more satisfying goals in her life.
So what is the highest goal for Aristotle? What goal is both final and self-sufficient? It is interesting to note
that for Aristotle, the question can only be adequately answered by older individuals because they’ve gone
through enormous and challenging life experiences which helped them gain a wealth of knowledge on
what is the ultimate purpose of a person is. According to Aristotle, older individuals would agree that the
highest purpose of a person is and the ultimate good of man is happiness, or for Greeks, Eudaimonia.
One can therefore say that happiness seems to fit the first criterion of being the final end of a human
being. For it is clear that condition for having wealth, power, and pleasures are not chosen for themselves
but for the sake of being a means to achieve happiness. If one accumulates wealth, for example, she
would want to have not just richness but also power and other desirable things as well, such as honor and
pleasures. But all of these ends are ultimately sake for the final end which is happiness. In itself,
happiness seems to be the final end and the highest good of a person since no other superior end is still
being desired for.
INTRODUCTION TO AQUINAS
Adapted from https://books.openedition.org/obp/4422?lang=en
Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274) was an intellectual and religious revolutionary, living at a time of great
philosophical, theological and scientific development. He was a member of the Dominican Friars, which at
that time was considered to be a cult, and was taught by one of the greatest intellects of the age, Albert
the Great (1208–1280). In a nutshell Aquinas wanted to move away from Plato’s thinking, which was
hugely influential at the time, and instead introduce Aristotelian ideas to science, nature and theology.
Aquinas wrote an incredible amount — in fact one of the miracles accredited to him was the amount he
wrote! His most famous work is Summa Theologica and this runs to some three and half thousand pages
and contains many fascinating and profound insights, such as proofs for God’s existence. The book
remained a fundamental basis for Catholic thinking right up to the 1960s! But do not worry we will only be
focusing on a few key ideas! Specifically books I–II, questions 93–95.
Motivating Natural Law Theory: The Euthyphro Dilemma and Divine Command Theory
The likely answer from a religious person as to why we should not steal, or commit adultery is: “because
God forbids us”; or if we ask why we should love our neighbour or give money to charity then the answer
is likely to be “because God commands it”. Drawing this link between what is right and wrong and what
God commands and forbids is what is called the Divine Command Theory (DCT).
There is a powerful and influential challenge to such an account called the Euthyphro dilemma after the
challenge was first raised in Plato’s Euthyphro. The dilemma runs as follows: Either God commands
something is right because it is, or it is right because God commands it. If God commands something
because it is right, then God’s commands do not make it right, His commands only tell us what is right.
This means God simply drops out of the picture in terms of explaining why something is right.
If on the other hand something is right because God commands it then anything at all could be right;
killing children or setting fire to churches could be morally acceptable. But if a moral theory says this then
that looks as if the theory is wrong.
Most theists reject the first option and opt for this second option — that God’s commands make something
right. But they then have to face the problem that it make morality haphazard. This “arbitrariness problem”
as it is sometimes called, is the reason that many, including Aquinas, give up on the Divine Command
Theory.
So for Aquinas what role, if any at all, does God have when it comes to morality? For him, God’s
commands are there to help us to come to see what, as a matter of fact, is right and wrong rather than
Page 28 of 32
Downloaded by CARLOS SEMPERTEGUI ([email protected])
lOMoARcPSD|41059105

30. determine what is right and wrong. That is, Aquinas opts for the first option in the Euthyphro dilemma as
stated above. But then this raises the obvious question: if it is not God’s commands that make something
right and wrong, then what does? Does not God just fall out of the picture? This is where his Natural Law
Theory comes in.
Natural Law Theory
Aquinas’s Natural Law Theory contains four different types of law: Eternal Law, Natural Law, Human Law
and Divine Law. The way to understand these four laws and how they relate to one another is via the
Eternal Law, so we’d better start there…
By “Eternal Law’” Aquinas means God’s rational purpose and plan for all things. And because the Eternal
Law is part of God’s mind then it has always, and will always, exist. The Eternal Law is not simply
something that God decided at some point to write.
Aquinas thinks that everything has a purpose and follows a plan. He, like Aristotle, is a teleologist (the
Greek term “telos” refers to what we might call a purpose, goal, end/or the true final function of an object)
(see Chapter 3; not to be confused with a telelogical ethical theory such as Utilitarianism) and believes
that every object has a telos; the acorn has the telos of growing into an oak; the eye a telos of seeing; a
rat of eating and reproducing etc. (notice this links to his view on sex, see Chapter 10). If something fulfils
its purpose/plan then it is following the Eternal Law.
Aquinas thinks that something is good in as far as it fulfills its purpose/plan. This fits with common sense.
A “good” eye is one which sees well, an acorn is a good if it grows into a strong oak tree.
But what about humans? Just as a good eye is to see, and a good acorn is to grow then a good human is
to…? Is to what? How are we going to finish this sentence? What do you think?
Aquinas thinks that the answer is reason and that it is this that makes us distinct from rats and rocks.
What is right for me and you as humans is to act according to reason. If we act according to reason then
we are partaking in the Natural Law.
If we all act according to reason, then we will all agree to some overarching general rules (what Aquinas
calls primary precepts). These are absolute and binding on all rational agents and because of this Aquinas
rejects relativism.
The first primary precept is that good is to be pursued and done and evil avoided. He thinks that this is the
guiding principle for all our decision making.
Before unpacking this, it is worth clarifying something about what “law” means. Imagine that we are
playing Cluedo and we are trying to work out the identity of the murderer. There are certain rules about
how to move around the board, how to deal out cards, how to reveal the murderer etc. These rules are all
written down and can be consulted.
However, in playing the game there are other rules that operate which are so obvious that they are neither
written down nor spoken. One such rule is that a claim made in the game cannot both be true and false; if
it is Professor Plum who is the murderer then it cannot be true that it is not Professor Plum who is the
murderer. These are internal rules which any rational person can come to recognize by simply thinking
and are not external like the other rules — such as you can only have one guess as to the identity of the
murderer. When Aquinas talks of Natural Laws, he means internal rules and not external ones.
Natural Law does not generate an external set of rules that are written down for us to consult but rather it
generates general rules that any rational agent can come to recognize simply in virtue of being rational.
For example, for Aquinas it is not as if we need to check whether we should pursue good and avoid evil,
as it is just part of how we already think about things. Aquinas gives some more examples of primary
precepts:
1.Protect and preserve human life.
2.Reproduce and educate one’s offspring.
3.Know and worship God.
4.Live in a society.
These precepts are primary because they are true for all people in all instances and are consistent with
Natural Law.
Aquinas also introduces what he calls the Human Law which gives rise to what he calls “Secondary
Page 29 of 32
Downloaded by CARLOS SEMPERTEGUI ([email protected])
lOMoARcPSD|41059105

31. Precepts”. These might include such things as do not drive above 70mph on a motorway, do not kidnap
people, always wear a helmet when riding a bike, do not hack into someone’s bank account. Secondary
precepts are not generated by our reason but rather they are imposed by governments, groups, clubs,
societies etc.
It is not always morally acceptable to follow secondary precepts. It is only morally acceptable if they are
consistent with the Natural Law. If they are, then we ought to follow them, if they are not, then we ought
not. To see why think through an example.
Consider the secondary precept that “if you are a woman and you live in Saudi Arabia then you are not
allowed to drive”. Aquinas would argue that this secondary precept is practically irrational because it treats
people differently based on an arbitrary difference (gender). He would reason that if the men in power in
Saudi actually really thought hard then they too would recognize that this law is morally wrong. This in turn
means that Aquinas would think that this human law does not fit with the Natural Law. Hence, it is morally
wrong to follow a law that says that men can, and women cannot, drive. So although it is presented as a
secondary precept, because it is not in accordance with Natural Law, it is what Aquinas calls an apparent
good. This is in contrast with those secondary precepts which are in accordance with the Natural Law and
which he calls the real goods.
Unlike primary precepts, Aquinas is not committed to there being only one set of secondary precepts for
all people in all situations. It is consistent with Aquinas’s thinking to have a law to drive on the right in the
US and on the left in the UK as there is no practical reason to think that there is one correct side of the
road on which to drive.
It is clear that on our own we are not very good at discovering primary precepts and consequently Aquinas
thinks that what we ought to do is talk and interact with people. To discover our real goods — our
secondary precepts which accord with Natural Law — we need to be part of a society. For example, we
might think that “treat Christians as secondary citizens” is a good secondary precept until we talk and live
with Christians. The more we can think and talk with others in society the better and it is for this reason
that “live in society” is itself a primary precept.
But looking at what we have said already about Natural Laws and primary and secondary precepts, we
might think that there is no need for God. If we can learn these primary precepts by rational reflection then
God simply drops out of the story (recall the Euthyphro dilemma above).
Just to recap as there lots of moving parts to the story. We now have Eternal Law (God’s plans/purpose
for all things), Natural Laws (our partaking in the Eternal Law which leads to primary precepts), Human
Laws (humans making specific laws to capture the truths of the Natural Laws which lead to secondary
precepts) and now finally Aquinas introduces the Divine Law.
The Divine Law, which is discovered through revelation, should be thought of as the Divine equivalent of
the Human Law (those discovered through rational reflection and created by people). Divine laws are
those that God has, in His grace, seen fit to give us and are those “mysteries”, those rules given by God
which we find in scripture; for example, the ten commandments. But why introduce the Divine Law at all?
It certainly feels we have enough Laws. Here is a story to illustrate Aquinas’s answer.
IMMANUEL KANT
DUTY AND aGENCY
(adapted from Ethics: Foundations of Moral Valuation by Bulaong Jr., Calano, Lagliva et al.)
The moral theory that evaluates actions that are done because of duty is called deontology. Deontology
comes from the Greek word deon, which means “being necessary”. Hence, deontology refers to the study
of duty and obligation. The main proponent of deontology is Immanuel Kant (1724- 1804). He was a
German Enlightenment philosopher who wrote one of the most important works on moral philosophy
Groundwork towards a Metaphysics of Morals (1785). In this work, Kant brings our attention to the fact
that we, human beings, have the faculty of the rational will, which is the capacity to act according to
principles that we determine for ourselves.
To consider the rational will us to point out the difference between animals and persons. On one hand,
animals are sentient organism. Sentience, meaning an organism has the ability to perceive and navigate
its external environment. Insofar as dogs and carabaos are sentient organisms. We do not see them
bumping into trees and walls unless their senses are weak. Animals constantly interact with their
surroundings. This is also true to us humans; we are also sentient. Thus both animals and persons
interact in and with the world, reacting to external stimuli and internal impulses to survive and thrive.
On the other hand, people are also rational. Rationality consists of the mental faculty to construct ideas
and thoughts that are beyond our immediate surroundings. This is the capacity for mental abstraction,
which arises from the operations of the faculty of reason. Thus, we have the ability to stop and think about
Page 30 of 32
Downloaded by CARLOS SEMPERTEGUI ([email protected])
lOMoARcPSD|41059105

32. what we are doing, we can remove ourselves mentally from the immediacy of our surroundings and reflect
on our actions and how such actions affect the world. We can imagine a different and better world, and
create mental images of how we interact with other people in that world. In the same way, an architect
“first” constructs her blueprint of a house in her mind. When the draft of the construction is drawn, she can
give instructions to masons and carpenters on how to build the actual house, which becomes the “second”
construction. This happens often in our lives such as when a young girl punts on her nice dress and
makeup, when a student writes the outline for an English essay, or when a painter makes initial sketches
on a canvas. The first construction consists of how we imagine things can be, then we implement that in
the second construction. Through the capacity for imagination and reflection, we conceive how we could
affect, possibly even change, the world we live in.
Thus, we do not only have the capacity to imagine and construct mental images, but we also have the
ability to act on -to enact and make real-those mental images. This ability to enact our thoughts is the
basis for the rational will. The rational will refers to the faculty to intervene in the world in a manner that’s
consistent with our reason. As far as we know, animals only act according to impulses, based on their
natural instincts. Thus, animals “act” with immediacy (from Latin: I + medius, or “no middle”) with nothing
that intervenes between the impulse and the action. They do not and cannot deliberate on their actions. In
fact, we may say that animals do not “act”. They only “react” to their external surroundings and internal
impulses. In contrast, we humans have reason, which intervenes between impulse and act. We have the
ability to stop and think about what we’re doing to evaluate our actions according to our principles. Simply
stated, we’re not only reacting to our surroundings and internal impulses, but we are also conceiving ways
to act according to certain rational principles.
Icebreaker:
Icebreaker Activity:
1. Students will draw a poster with slogan about different ethical issues in society (e.g. euthanasia,
abortion)
2. Think or look for a real-life example of a virtuous person? Why do you consider him/her to be so? Why
do you admire him/her?
3. Student will interview parents, teachers about positions on contentious social issues (e.g.homosexual/
gay marriage, divorce, contraceptives)
4. Identify some ethical issues in our country nowadays (e.g human right violation)
Comprehension Question:
A. What are the different moral theories or framework of moral experiences?
B.
1. What does happiness mean for Aristotle and why does he consider it as the chief good of the human
person
2. What is virtue and what is its place in the ethical theory of Aristotle?
3. What is the difference between moral virtue and intellectual virtue?
4. How can you apply Aristotle’s ethics in improving the current state of your country?
C.
1. What is the Natural Law for St. Thomas Aquinas? How does it guide the human being’s realization of
the good?
2. Does obeying the natural law mean that human beings must only conform to the divine law or laws of
nature? Explain your answer
D.
1. Why is autonomous reason the only acceptable foundation of ethics for Kant
2. How does doing one’s moral duty become autonomous and at the same time universalizable in the
Kantian principle of “man as an end in himself/herself’’?
Enrichment Activity:
1. Group Discussion: Use the above moral theories/ framework in explaining ethical issues in our society.
1. abortion
2. euthanasia/ mercy killing
3. death penalty
4. divorce
5. legalization of marijuana
Page 31 of 32
Downloaded by CARLOS SEMPERTEGUI ([email protected])
lOMoARcPSD|41059105

33. 2. Class/ Group Discussion: Form yourself into small groups. Evaluate the table of the principal virtues
and vices. Identify and reflect on your personal experiences where you may have engaged in some of the
vices listed there. What factors led to your having such dispositions in these experiences?
3. Class Discussion? Form groups of five members each. Research and discuss among yourselves the
following topics guided by the natural law of St. Thomas Aquinas. Explain how you can decide one of the
following:
Whether abortion is morally acceptable and in what circumstances
Whether contractualization of labor is morally acceptable. Why or why not.
Present the main discussion and justification among the members of the group. Then, assign a speaker to
share with the class the group reflection.
4. Read the newspapers for one week and identify a moral issue where you can use the categorical
imperative to discern the duty of the persons involved. Report your moral issue in class.
Assessment:
A. Reflection Paper: What is the bigger context or framework in which I make my individual decisions
B. Quiz- Explain the following: Aristotle – virtue ethics, mean, practical wisdom, eudaimonia,
C. Write a Critique Paper on Natural Law of Aquinas: Why is it possible to hold the Natural Law as a
framework for living a good life?
D. Quiz: Essay – What is the difference between the rights theory of Kant and virtue ethics?
Assignment:
Research on the following topic/s:
Conclusion: Ethics Through Thick and Thin, and Ethics and Religion
●Justice and Fairness
●Globalization and It’s Ethical Challenges
●Millennials and Filinnials: Ethical Challenges and Responses
References:
Ethics: Foundations of Moral Valuation by Bulaong Jr., Calano, Lagliva et al.,
Page 32 of 32
Downloaded by CARLOS SEMPERTEGUI ([email protected])
lOMoARcPSD|41059105