The Moral Person Ethics Topic 3.....pptx

Hii

1. THE MORAL PERSON

2. Do animals have the capacity to make moral judgments? While some animals may exhibit behaviors that resemble empathy or cooperation, their actions are largely driven by instinct. In contrast, human beings possess a distinct ability that sets us apart, i.e., our power to reason. But our uniqueness does not end with rational thought. We are also called moral persons, individuals capable of ethical decision-making and moral judgment.

3. This unit explores what it truly means to be a moral person. What qualities define a moral person? What enables us to distinguish right from wrong? And where do our moral standards originate? These are the essential questions we must consider as we begin to understand the foundations of human morality.

4. Necessary Outcomes 1. Explain the moral person as a bearer of life, dignity, and rights; describe the elements of moral development and moral experience; and analyze how culture influences moral behavior, including the formation of Filipino moral identity. 2. Reflect on ethical values aligned with peace, justice, and equality (SDGs 10 & 16), and evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of cultural relativism concerning ethical decision-making based on personal and cultural moral experiences. At the end of this unit,students will be able to:

5. Scenario Imagine you’re walking home and you see a lost puppy shivering in the rain. You have two choices: walk past and do nothing, or pick it up and try to help. No one is watching. There’s no reward. Yet something inside you tells you what the right thing to do is.

6. Now ask yourself: why do you feel that way? What part of you makes that decision? Is it instinct, emotion, or something deeper?

7. This simple moment reveals a powerful truth: as humans, we don’t just act, we judge what is right or wrong. And that judgment is what makes us moral persons.

8. 1. Moral Personality The moral personality focuses on the nature of the person as a (a) bearer of life , rights, and dignity; (b) as agent and patient ; and (c) as accountable.

9. A. Life, Dignity, and Rights a.1. Life: Beginning, Sustainability, and End The concept of life, particularly in the context of moral philosophy, is intrinsically tied to the notion of personhood. The question of when personhood begins is not merely biological but also deeply philosophical, as it touches on issues of consciousness, potentiality, and the capacity for moral agency.

10. The sustainable aspect of life involves the recognition of the moral obligations society holds towards ensuring that individuals can live with dignity and purpose. This includes addressing fundamental needs like healthcare, education, and environmental sustainability, which are essential for maintaining a quality life.

11. The end of life, on the other hand, raises questions about the moral considerations surrounding death, euthanasia, and the right to die with dignity.

12. a.2. Dignity: As Gravitas, Integrity, Status, or Human Dignity Dignity is a multi-faceted concept that has evolved significantly over time. In the classical sense, dignity referred to a kind of gravitas or seriousness that was expected of individuals in positions of power or influence.

13. This understanding of dignity as gravitas is closely linked to the notion of integrity, which involves maintaining moral consistency and coherence in one’s actions and decisions. Integrity, in this sense, is not just about personal virtue but also about upholding the ethical standards expected by society.

14. In contemporary discussions, dignity has expanded to include notions of status and human dignity . Status-based dignity refers to the respect and honor accorded to individuals based on their social roles or achievements.

15. However, human dignity transcends these particular statuses and is often seen as inherent to all human beings , regardless of their social standing. This view of dignity as an inherent quality of all human beings is rooted in the Kantian tradition, which argues that every person deserves respect simply by virtue of being a rational moral agent.

16. a.3. Rights Rights are entitlements (not) to perform certain actions, or (not) to be in certain states; or entitlements that others (not) perform certain actions or (not) be in certain states.

17. Kinds of Rights (i) Contractual Rights Rights that we acquire when we enter into an agreement (formal or informal) or a contract with some other persons or institutions. (ii) Legal Rights Rights that we acquire when we become citizens of a certain country or state. (iii) Moral Rights Rights acquired when one becomes a moral person or a member of the moral community.

18. a.4. Relationship of Moral life, Dignity, and Rights The relationship of moral life, dignity, and rights can be observed in various ethical frameworks and human rights doctrines. For example, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) asserts that "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights" (United Nations, 1948). This statement encapsulates the idea that dignity is the foundation of rights, and a moral life is one that respects and upholds these rights.

19. In practical terms, when individuals lead a moral life that respects the dignity of others, they inherently support the protection of rights. Conversely, when rights are protected and upheld, the dignity of individuals is safeguarded, allowing them to pursue a moral life free from fear and oppression.

20. B. Moral Agent & Patient One of the defining characteristics of a moral person is the capacity to engage both as a moral agent and as a moral patient . This dual role highlights the relational and reciprocal dimensions of morality. Ethics is not only about the ability to do what is right but also to receive what is rightfully due as a person of dignity and value.

21. b.1. Moral Agent A doer , a person who can discern the rightness and wrongness of his/her actions (human act) . The moral agent's capacity to act based on his/her intentions and mental states (freedom, knowledge, and will) is called agency.

22. The agency of the moral person refers to their ability to make choices based on rational deliberation. This includes the freedom to choose , the knowledge of moral principles, and the will to act according to them. Thus, the moral agent is accountable and responsible for the ethical implications of their actions. They deserve either praise or blame , depending on the nature and outcomes of their behavior.

23. b.2. Moral Patient A recipient of such actions that should be done to them. Receiver of morally evaluable actions. The concept of moral patienthood emphasizes that morality is not just about what one does, but also about how one treats others, those who are affected by one's actions. A moral patient is not passive in a negative sense, but a vital participant in the moral landscape, whose well-being, rights, and dignity must be acknowledged.

24. b.3. The Interconnectedness of Agent and Patient The moral life involves a dynamic interplay between these roles. At different moments, each person plays both parts, sometimes we act; other times, we are acted upon. A moral person, therefore, must cultivate both moral responsibility (as an agent) and moral sensitivity (as a patient).

25. This dual recognition forms the foundation for ethical principles such as reciprocity, empathy, human rights, and justice. It calls for a moral vision where no one is reduced to a mere object of action, and everyone is acknowledged both as a doer and as one who is affected by deeds.

26. C. Moral Accountability Moral accountability lies at the heart of ethical reflection and moral judgment. It refers to the condition or quality of being held answerable for one’s moral actions —a central trait of what it means to be a moral agent. When we say that a moral agent is accountable, we imply that the person is not only capable of making moral decisions but is also deserving of praise or blame depending on the consequences and ethical value of their actions.

27. Accountability involves moral evaluation. When a person performs a good action, we give praise; when they perform a wrongful act, we assign blame. This evaluation stems from the presumption that the action was freely chosen, knowingly, and willfully.

28. In this regard, by virtue of being a moral agent, we can’t separate the concept of responsibility. Responsibility can be interpreted in two overlapping but distinct ways:

29. ● Causal Responsibility – This addresses the question: Who caused the action or outcome? In this sense, responsibility is tied to the idea of causation. If someone initiates a harmful act, even unintentionally, they may be causally responsible. ● Moral or Normative Responsibility – This is rooted in the ideas of duty, obligation, or moral norms . It answers the question: Whose duty was it to act (or refrain from acting) ? Even if one did not cause an outcome directly, failure to act where there was a moral duty can still render a person morally responsible.

30. Now, we can say that accountability and responsibility are inseparable, as they are deeply interconnected. In simple terms, responsibility refers to the personal obligation of the moral agent . Because the moral agent is responsible for their actions, they are also accountable for them. Meaning, they deserve either blame or praise from others, depending on the nature of their actions.

31. This can be summarized in a simple formula: My action → My responsibility → Therefore, I am accountable.

32. D. Peace, Justice, and Inequality (SDG 10 & 16): A Challenge to Moral Personhood In the context of Sustainable Development Goal 10 (Reduced Inequalities) and SDG 16 (Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions) the concept of moral personhood is not only foundational in ethics but central to understanding how inequalities and systemic injustices devalue the dignity, rights, and agency of persons in society.

33. Let us consider specific examples to illustrate how these challenges undermine moral personhood. 1. Structural Discrimination and Dehumanization Challenge: Systemic discrimination based on race, gender, ethnicity, disability, or class denies individuals equal access to opportunities, effectively stripping them of their status-based and inherent dignity.

34. ● Moral Impact: Persons are treated not as bearers of dignity and rights, but as lesser beings. This erodes the foundation of moral personhood. ● Example: Indigenous communities often face barriers in accessing legal representation or education, violating both their legal rights and moral status as equal members of society.

35. 2. Denial of Moral and Legal Rights Challenge : In many countries, marginalized populations lack access to justice, citizenship, or legal protections. ● Moral Impact: This prevents them from functioning as moral agents (able to make choices and claim accountability) and as moral patients (deserving of protection and care).

36. ● Example: Stateless persons and refugees often lack legal rights to work, own property, or access healthcare, undermining their capacity to live with dignity.

37. 3. Weak and Corrupt Institutions Challenge: Fragile institutions fail to deliver justice, ensure accountability, or uphold human rights, leading to a culture of impunity. ● Moral Impact: Without accountability, those in power are not held responsible for actions that harm others, undermining the moral principle that agents must be answerable for their deeds.

38. ● Example: In areas where law enforcement is corrupt, citizens cannot rely on systems to defend their dignity or rights.

39. 4. Loss of Agency Due to Poverty and Exploitation Challenge: Extreme poverty forces individuals into survival mode, where moral agency is constrained by desperation. ● Moral Impact: When people must choose between survival and ethical living (e.g., accepting exploitative work or joining armed conflict), their moral agency is compromised.

40. ● Example: Migrant workers may face coercion into unsafe labor due to lack of options, reflecting a violation of their agency and dignity.

41. 5. Inequality in Access to Education and Information Challenge: Educational disparities limit individuals’ ability to develop moral reasoning and participate meaningfully in democratic or social life. ● Moral Impact: This weakens one’s development as a moral agent, limiting the capacity to discern, deliberate, and act ethically in society.

42. ● Example: Youth in conflict zones or impoverished regions often lack access to civic education, leading to generational cycles of disenfranchisement. ( Kawalan ng Karapatan )

43. 6. Political Violence and Insecurity Challenge: Ongoing conflict, state violence, and lack of rule of law deprive individuals of basic security and dignity. ● Moral Impact: People become mere objects of violence, stripping them of their moral patienthood and reducing them to expendable casualties.

44. ● Example: In war-torn areas, children are recruited as soldiers, turning them into victims and agents of violence without genuine moral agency.

45. 7. Cultural and Ideological Polarization refers to the process by which societies, communities, or groups become deeply divided along cultural values, beliefs, and political or ideological lines. Challenge: Deep political or ideological divides often lead to moral exclusion—where certain groups are seen as outside the circle of moral concern. ● Moral Impact: This destroys empathy and the principle of reciprocity between agents and patients, leading to hate crimes, scapegoating, or dehumanization.

46. Example: Religious minorities being targeted by nationalist rhetoric or policy, violating their dignity and moral rights.