LESSON 1

This lesson talks about how an individual should be impartial in making judgment
through the use of reason. The 7 steps of moral reasoning is presented to you as a
guide for you to make impartial decisions. How feeling affect our moral reasoning is also
presented.

TEACHING POINTS

Reason and Impartiality

The minimum requirements of morality are reason and impartiality. "Moral

judgments must be backed up by good reason and impartiality. "Morality requires the
impartial consideration of each individual's interests." Moral judgments, or resolving a
dilemma of moral judgments must be backed by good reason.
Reason and impartiality refer to a mental activity following the basic principle of
consistency, the lack of contradiction between one idea and another. It is a process of
deriving necessary conclusion from premises, avoiding all forms of deception or fallacy
of reasoning. It avoids ad hominem, by not attacking the personality of the opponent
and instead directing one's argument against one’s idea. Examples of argumentum ad
hominem are # 1, 4, 8 and 9 in the Activity phase of this Lesson. Reason avoids ad
misericordiam, appeal to pity, since appearing miserable does not improve an
argument. Reason does not resort to ad verecundiam, appeal to authority, one's power
and influence cannot make a wrong right. Examples of argumentum ad verecundiam
are # 2. 5. 6. 7 and 10. In other words, good reasons include consistent and coherent
reasons.
A logical, impartial, objective reason avoids ambiguities like equivocation, circular
reasoning, amphibology, etc. Coherent reasoning is needed to establish truth and
meaningfulness of moral judgments. "Morality requires impartial consideration of each
individual's interest." In arriving at a sound moral judgment you must listen to everyone
trying to speak. Biases and prejudices must be placed between brackets, suspended.
Everyone's message, silent or verbal, should be allowed to be unveiled. Everyone has
always something to tell. No one has a monopoly of the truth. A moral subject must be
seen from various perspectives and standpoints.

7 Steps of Moral Reasoning

 The following are sample methods of arriving at an ethical or moral decision, the
7 steps of Scott Rae's moral reasoning (1996) and a 7 steps of moral reasoning model
developed the Josephson Institute of Ethics.
First, gather the facts, information. "The simplest way of clarifying an ethical
dilemma is to make sure the facts are clear. Ask: Do you have all the facts that are
necessary to make a good decision? What do we know? What do we need to know?"
Second, determine the ethical issues, similar to “statement of the problem.”
“.... The competing interests are what create the dilemma. Moral values and virtues
must support the competing interests in order for an ethical dilemma to exist. If you
cannot identify the underlying values/ virtues then you do not have an ethical dilemma.
Often people hold these positions strongly and with passion because of the value/virtue
beneath them.”
Third, determine what virtues/principles have a bearing on the case. This is
similar to identifying the relevant factors internal and external). “In an ethical dilemma
certain values and principles are central to the competing positions. Identify these.
Determine if some should be given more weight than others. Ask what the source for
the principle is - constitution, culture, natural law, religious tradition... These supplement
biblical principles.”
Fourth, list the alternatives or develop a list of options. “Creatively determine
possible courses of action for your dilemma. Some will almost immediately be discarded
but generally the more you list the greater potential for coming up with a really good
one. It will also help you come up with a broader selection of ideas.”
Fifth, compare the alternatives with the virtues/principles. “This step
eliminates alternatives as they are weighed by the moral principles which have a
bearing on the case. Potentially the issue will be resolved here as all alternatives except
one are eliminated. Here you must satisfy all the relevant virtues and values - so at least
some of the alternatives will be eliminated (even if you still have to go on to step 6).
Often here you have to weigh principles and virtues - make sure you have a good
reason for each weighing.”
Sixth, consider the consequences or test the options. “If you disclose the
information directly possible consequences include; - family feel alienated, cultural
values have been violated - family may take patient to another hospital - patient may
'give up' - patient might be happy they are finally being told the truth.” If you continue
withholding information possible consequences include; - patient continues to be fearful
and anxious about the treatment - patient finds out somehow and trust is compromised -
family are happy cultural values are being respected.
In general, the following may be used to test the options: (Davis, 1999)
 Harm test: Does this option do less harm than the alternatives?
 Publicity test: Would I want my choice of this option published in the
newspaper?
 Defensibility test: Could I defend my choice of this option before a
congressional committee or committee of peers?
 Reversibility test: Would I still think this option was a good choice if I were
adversely affected by it?
 Colleague test: What do my colleagues say when I describe my problem and
suggest this option as my solution?
  Professional test: What might my profession's governing body for ethics say
about this option?
 Organization test: What does my company's ethics officer or legal counsel say
about this?
Seventh, make a decision. "Ethical decisions rarely have pain-free solutions - it
might be you have to choose the solution with the least number of problems/painful
consequences. Even when making a "good" decision you might still lose sleep over it!"

The second model was developed by the Josephson Institute of Ethics:

1. Stop and Think. Ethica decision are important that we need to avoid giving rash
answers; this prepares us for more thoughtful discernment, and can allow us to
mobilize our intellectual discipline.
2. Clarify Goals. Before choosing any decisions, we need to clarify first our short-
term and long-term aims. It is necessary to determine which of our many wants
and don't wants” are affected by the decision (are they the most important?)
3. Determine Facts. Be sure you have adequate information to support an
intelligent choice. In order to determine the facts, first resolve what you know,
then what you need to know. One must be opened and prepared for additional
information and to verify assumptions and other uncertain information. In addition
to this, one must:
a. Consider the reliability and credibility of the people providing the facts;
b. Consider the basis of the supposed facts. If the person is giving you the
information says that person personally heard or saw something, evaluate
that person in terms of honesty, accuracy, and soundness of memory.
4. Develop Options. Once you know what you want to achieve and have made
your best judgment as to the relevant facts. If it is really an important ethical
concern, talk to someone you trust so that you can broaden your perspective and
think of new choices. If you can think of only one or two possible solutions, you
are probably not thinking hard enough.
5. Consider the Consequences. Filter your choices to determine if any of your
options will violate any core ethical values, and then eliminate any unethical
options. Identify who will be affected by the decision and how the decision is
likely to affect them.
6. Choose. Make a decision. If the choice is not immediately clear, try:
a. Talking to people whose judgment you respect.
b. Think of a person of strong ethical/moral character that you know or know
of, and ask yourself what they would do in your situation.
c. If everyone found out about your decision, would you be proud and
comfortable?
d. Follow the Golden Rule: treat others the way you want to be treated, and
keep your promises.
7. Monitor and Modify. Ethical decision-makers monitor the effects of their
choices. If they are not producing the intended results, or are causing additional
unintended and undesirable results, they re-assess the situation and make new
decisions.
 Having uphold reasoning and impartiality in morality, we can now identify what
criteria moral judgments should meet to be considered adequate. Although there is no
complete list of adequacy criteria or moral judgments, moral judgments should be
logical, based on facts and based on valid moral principles. If one is lacking from these
features, a moral judgment is less than ideal.
1. Moral Judgment Should Be Logical. This implies several things. First, our
judgments should follow from the evidence. The connection between 1) the
standard, 2) the behavior or policy, and 3) the moral judgment should be such
that 1 and 2 logically entail 3. Forming logical moral judgments also means
ensuring that our moral judgments are consistent with our other beliefs.
2. Moral Judgment Should Be Based on Facts. Adequate moral judgments
cannot be made in a vacuum. We must gather as much relevant information as
possible before making them. The information supporting the moral judgment,
the facts, should be relevant, that is, actually relate to the judgment; complete, or
inclusive of all significant data; and accurate or true.
3. Moral Judgments Should Be Based on Valid Moral Principles. We know that
moral judgments are based on moral standards. At the highest level of moral
reasoning, these standards embody and express global moral principles. Sound
moral judgments are based on valid moral principles. Valid here refers to
qualities that give the principle inner strength and a capacity to resist challenge
or attack.

Moral Courage

Most of us have the basic understanding of moral courage as the ability 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 of such an act.
The concept of courage, therefore, involves deliberation or careful thought.

We relate moral courage with our concept of courageous people as those who
perform courageous acts, but we can raise the question, what makes an act
courageous? In James Donald Wallace’s book Virtues and Vices (1986), Wallace
defines courageous acts by using six conditions, each of which is necessary, and which
taken together are sufficient, that is, to recognize an act as courageous.
1. The person believes that it is dangerous to do the act.
2. The person believes that doing the act is worth the risks it involves.
3. The person believes that it is possible for an individual to do or not to do the act.
4. The danger the person sees in doing the act is sufficiently formidable that most
people would find it difficult in the circumstances to do it.
5. The person is not coerced into doing the act by threats of
punishment
6. The person is under self-control, at least in the sense of not
being in a frenzy, stupor, or intoxication.
After analyzing the six conditions provided by Wallace, Mike W.
Martin, in Everyday Morality (2007), added another condition.
 7. The people at least believed they were doing well, and we admire them for their
effort to pursue what is good.
Martin gave as an example Field Marshal Rommel (the desert Field Marshal Erwin Rommel aka “The
Desert Fox” (1891 – 1944)
fox) who was a fearless soldier for Hitler's side during World War II. [Link]
Martin concluded that though Field things-you-may-not-know-about-
erwin-rommel
Marshal Rommel was mistaken in believing his acts were good,
there was no doubt that he believed it was his duty as a soldier to act as he did.

Critique: Creative Responsibility

When a moral problem comes one's way, which may be communicates as a silent
or verbal message, or through a happening or an incident, the serious response would
be a process of moral reasoning. One may use the aforementioned reasoning models.
One may automatically apply classic or traditional frameworks or norms. One may be
legalistic or situationist But one significant guide to the moral reasoning process is what
ethicist like Fr. Gorospe (1974) termed as "creative responsibility," which has the
following characteristics:
.... First, a creative and fitting response involves some form of positive human
action... Second, to give a fitting human response in some form of positive action
inevitably means "create" a response. The creative responsibility is something to be
discovered and created and is best envisioned in concrete cases....
Third, a creative response means one has to choose from among many
possible fitting responses. It is impossible to find only one possible fitting response
to a human situation....! Fourth, in order that creative response of the individual be
authentic that person must be in constant dialogue with the community and culture
in which that individual lives. Creative responsibility is not only individual but
collective; it is co-responsibility.
Creative responsibility is responding silently or verbally to a call and address an
ethical problem creatively by considering all possible points of view, thinking outside the
box, using relevant frameworks. There are always available norms or rules to follow, but
one should apply them creatively apply them in the light situations and conditions and
be ready to bend the rule where there is no other remedy in sight. It is easier to
understand this concept from a wider point of view, like that of a ruler or government.
For instance, the response of government to the problem of drugs, like adopting the
policy of killing (murdering) the drug addict, upon the assumption that the individual is
dangerous and useless being, is uncreative and irresponsible
One technique of coming up with a creative response is applying the
phenomenological method of suspending judgment, placing former knowledge, biases,
prejudices, etc. between brackets, letting the thing to show itself as itself.

Feelings in Decision-making

Feeling. In general, is an emotional state or reaction,

experience of physical sensation like feeling of joy, feeling of
warmth, love, affection tenderness, etc. How do they affect
moral decision-making? “Several studies conclude that up to
90 percent of the decisions we made are based on emotion.
We use logic to justify our actions to ourselves and to others.” Researches also show
that "actual emotional states can influence the process of moral reasoning and
determine moral judgment."
Feelings are instinctive and trained response to moral dilemma. They can be
obstacles to making right decisions but they can also help
[Link] in making the tight decisions.
difference-between-feelings-and-
emotions/ Are there advantages of emotional decision
making? According to recent research, feelings or
emotions have positive effects on decision making. Some are identified as follows:
 A totally emotional decision is very fast in comparison to a rational decision. This
is reactive (and largely subconscious) and m be useful when faced with
immediate danger, or in decisions of minimal significance.
 Emotions may provide a way for coding and compacting experience, enabling
fast response selection. This may point to why expert's “gut" level decisions have
high accuracy rates.
 Decisions that start with logic may need emotions to enable the final selection,
particularly when confronted with near equal options.
 Emotions often drive us in directions conflicting with self-interest.

Emotional decision making can also come with a number of negatives.

 We make quick decisions without knowing why, and then create rational reasons
to justify a poor emotional decision.
 Intensity of emotions can override rational decision-making in cases where it is
clearly needed.
 Immediate and unrelated emotions can create mistakes by distorting and
creating bins in judgments. In some cases this can lead to unexpected and
reckless action.
 Projected emotions can lead to errors because people are subject to systemic
inaccuracy about how they will feel in the future

It may be said that an analogy between legal and moral statement may be made to
show that moral statements may treated like a factual statement. In criminal law, the
allegation that "Juan's act of stealing is wrong" may be established by evaluating the act
in the light of the elements of the crime of stealing under the law. For instance, the law
provides that stealing is taking the property of another without the latter's consent. So if
there is an evidence that Juan has taken a property, that the property belongs to
someone else, that the taking is without consent, then it can be decided that a crime of
theft is committed; in other words, the statement has been verified.
What then would prevent one in applying the same procedure in establishing the
truth or falsehood of a moral statement? For instance, the moral principle or rule is
"stealing is wrong" that it is explained by moral or ethics teachers that the statement is
meant to be referring to an act of taking someone else property without the owner's
consent. May not

Moral statements as expressions of feelings

 Are moral statements or values mere expressions of feelings or as claimed by
the linguistic philosophers? According to some linguistic philosophers called (emotivists)
the statement “stealing is wrong” is not a statement of fact, it is an expression of a
desire or emotion. The rule or maxim “Stealing is wrong" means “I desire that you do not
steal." An emotional statement is not verifiable like factual statement. “Pedro stole my
car” is verifiable, can be established by evidence. But “Pedro's act of gating my cat is
morally wrong” which is equivalent to "I desire that Pedro should not steal“ is not
verifiable. The following explains this ethical thery:

Emotivism… is the view that moral judgments do not function as

statements of fact but rather as expressions of the speaker’s or writer’s feelings.
According to the emotivist, when we say “You acted wrongly in stealing that
money,” we are not expressing any fact beyond that stated by “You stole that
money.” It is, however, as if we had stated this fact with a special tone of
abhorrence, for in saying that something is wrong, we are expressing our
feelings of disapproval toward it. Emotivism was expounded by A. J.
Ayer in Language, Truth and Logic (1936) and developed by Charles Stevenson
in Ethics and Language (1945). The emotivist thus goes further by saying that
ethical statements being emotional expressions are not verifiable. Emotional
expressions are not assertions of what is true or false. They are like expressions
of tastes. There is no dispute or there can be no dispute on matters of taste. “De
gustibus non disputandum est.” One cannot argue with one’s taste, emotion.

It may be said that an analogy between legal and moral statement may be made
to show that moral statements may treated like a factual statement. In criminal law, the
allegation that “Juan’s act of stealing is wrong” may be established by evaluating the act
in the light of the elements of the crime of stealing under the law. For instance, the law
provides that stealing is taking the property of another without the latter’s consent. So if
there is an evidence that Juan has taken a property, that the property belongs to
someone else, that the taking is without consent, then it can be decided that a crime of
theft is committed; in other words, the statement has been verified.
What then would prevent one in applying the same procedure in establishing the
truth or falsehood of a moral statement? For instance, the moral principle or rule is
“stealing is wrong” that it is explained by moral or ethics teachers that the statement is
meant to be referring to an act of taking someone else property without the owner’s
consent. May not someone’s act of stealing be verified by finding out if the actor has
indeed taken someone’s property with the latter’s consent? And that, therefore, one’s
act may be judged as wrong?
The emotivist will still argue that such argument only proves that a certain
individual act has characteristic that can be described as stealing. It does not make the
statement “stealing is wrong” as a factual statement, which is correct, since all maxims
or rules are non-factual and only the particular instances evaluated on the basis of
these rules would be considered as factual.

Managing Feelings
 Aristotle wrote: “Anyone can get angry – that is easy – 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. (Book II, Nicomachean Ethics). In other words
your anger should not be displaced. The moral person manages their feelings well.
LESSON 2

TEACHING POINTS

Reason and Will

The moral person is endowed with an intellect and will. The will is what
"disposes" what the "the intellect proposes." Reason conducts the study, research,
investigation, and fact-finding. It uses logic, the principle of consistency, avoids
fallacious reasoning to come up with a truthful and accurate proposition. In a research
study, the product or work of reason is the body of facts gathered, organized,
synthesized and evaluated. The job of the will is to make a decisive conclusion.
The will is the faculty of the mind that is associated with decision making. It's the
one that says yes or no. This author says this, that author says that, all others are
saying the same thing. Now, decide with your will what you yourself should say or think.
Decision making which is an activity of the will can be developed. Early in life,
like children, one should already be given the opportunity to exercise one’s will, like
being trained to make choices from alternative. Do you want to eat or not? Rice or
bread? Coffee or tea? This is true of societies where a culture of choice give
opportunities for the development of the will. A culture of spoon feeding does not
develop the will. Banking education, a method of teaching where the teacher simply
deposits facts and concepts and withdraw the same periodically during quizzes and
tests without encouraging the students to think and reflect, does not promote the
development of the will.
Jean Paul Sartre, the French Philosopher, and the most popular existentialist
was saying that an individual person is nothing until that individual person starts making
decisions. What ultimately constitutes who a person is are that person’s decisions. The
essence of being a person equals an individual’s bundle of decisions. Apparently, the
mark of the maturation of culture is manifested through the development of a culture of
moral strength or virtue, or will power, its free will.
"Free Will" is the "capacity of rational agents to choose a course of action from
among various alternatives." Free will is the ability to choose between different possible
courses of action unimpeded, the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants. It
is the power of self-determination. When the will is free, there is freedom.
To Hornedo (1972), the stuff of the free will is a multi-dimensional power, energy,
or strength. People are free to the degree that they have energy, that physically free to
the degree that they are physically strong; materially or economically free to the degree
that they are materially or economically strong, and so on.
Emphasis is made on what freedom is, and not on what it is not. To say that one
is free when there is an absence of obstacle is to give a picture of a weak person who
cannot walk to get out one’s room despite an open door. Freedom must not only be
understood as the absence of obstacle; it must be an autonomous energy. It is useless
talking about being free to
move, walk, if you have not strength to move or walk. It is useless saying you are free to
go to Manila by bus, if you have no money for your fare. Freedom implies power,
energy, and strength in all human dimensions, as the stuff of freedom. A free person is
one who is physically healthy and strong, psychologically normal, financially stable. It is
useless shouting in the streets for "economic freedom" if one is economically weak. In
terms of morality, moral strength is moral freedom. Morally strong people would not
allow a tyrant to thrive or last long. In the words of Jose Rizal is the statement, "there
can be no tyrants where there can be no slaves."

The Courage To Be

“Purity of heart is to will one thing,” says Kierkegaard. But to "will one thing"
needs courage. According to Paul Tillich (1952), “courage is self-affirmation 'in-spite-of,'
that is in spite of that which tends to prevent the self from affirming itself.” Courage is
“the affirmation of being in spite of non-being.” This implies affirming, accepting
oneself in spite of one's defects, lack, or imperfections, affirming the world we live in in
spite all that it lacks. In specific terms, courage is affirming, allowing the drug addict or
drug dependent to live in spite of one’s drug addiction. “Our greatest glory is not in
never falling, but in rising every time we fall.” Courage is not giving up because of
setbacks and failures. It is keeping right on keeping on. In politics, courage is affirming
or accepting one's people in spite of their ignorance, poverty. Political will means the
courage to promote the greatest good of the greatest number in spite of their
selfishness, greed, and unruly behavior. Commitment, engagement, fidelity, authentic
existence are all forms of “affirmation of being in spite of non-being." Courage is
affirming the world in spite of its tragedies. The last line in Desiderata says it so, “with all
its sham, drudgery and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful
world.”
LESSON 3

PRESENTATION

This lesson introduces you to the basic concepts of the leading ethical
frameworks. An ethical framework guides an individual in answering these two
questions: "What I ought to do?" and “Why I ought to do so"? So ethical frameworks
serve as guideposts in moral life.
As you read along the lessons below, try to figure out what ethical framework you
adhere to, if there’s any.

An ethical framework is a set of codes that an individual uses to hide a person’s

behavior. It is just another term for "moral standards" as discussed in the early part of
this text. It is what people use to distinguish right from wrong in the way they interact
with the world. It is used to determine the moral object of an action. An ethical
framework guides an individual in answering these two questions: "What I ought to do?"
and “Why I ought to do so"? So ethical frameworks serve as guideposts in moral life.
The various dominant mental frames may be classified as follows:
1) virtue or character ethics of Aristotle;
2) natural law or commandment ethics of St. Thomas and others;
3) deontogical and duty framework of Immanuel Kant;
4) utilitarianist, teleological and consequentialist approach; and
5) Love and justice framework.
They will be introduced here but will be discussed more in detail in the
succeeding lessons.

Virtue or Character Ethics of Aristotle

Virtue ethics asks, who is the ethical person? For Aristotle, the
ethical person is virtuous, one who has developed good character or has
developed virtues. One attains virtues when an individual actualizes that
individual’s potentials or possibilities, the highest of which is happiness,
Happiness is the joy of self-realization, self-fulfilment, the experience of
having actualized one's potentials.

Aristotle
Retrieved from
[Link]
rld/europe/[Link]
Natural Law or Commandment Ethics of St. Thomas
For St. Thomas, what is right is what follows the natural law, the rule which says,
“do good and avoid evil.” In knowing the good as distinguished from evil, one is guided
by the Ten Commandments which is summed up as loving God and one's fellowmen.

Deontological and Duty Framework of Immanuel

Kant
Kant's framework is deon or duty or
deontological framework. Deontology centers on “the
rights of individuals and the intentions associated with
particular behavior... equal respect... given to all
persons.” The "deontological approach is based on
universal principles such as honesty, fairness, justice
and respect for persons and property." It is based on
the categorical imperative, that is, people must act
such that their maxim will be Immanuel Kant (1724–1804) the maxim of all. This
acting based on a maxim that [Link] can be the maxim of
all is a duty, an obligation of every individual.
Acting out of duty (deon) is acting out of good will or intentions. Treating man as an end,
not a means to an end is acting with good will or intentions. Kant also maintained that
each person has worth or dignity that must be respected.
Utilitarianist, Teleological and Conceptualist Framework
The utilitarianist teleological approach focuses on consequences. “The decision maker is
concerned with the utility of decision. What really counts is the net balance of good consequences over
bad.” The rightness of an action depends on the said net balance of good consequences.

Love and Justice Framework

What is ethical that which is just and that which is loving. Justice is
giving what is due to others (justice) while is giving even more that what is due
to others.

[Link]
essay-love-justice-in-search-of-a-kingdom-ethic/

Aristotle: Mean Between Two Extremes

Virtue or character ethics

Imagine a person who is always knows what to say, can diffuse a tensed
situation, deliver tough news gracefully, confident without being arrogant, brave but not
reckless and generous but never extravagant. This is the type of person that everybody
wants to be around and and to be like. Someone who seems to have mastered the art
of being a person. This may sound like an impossible feat, but Aristotle believed that,
while rare, these people do exist. And they are what we all should aspire to be: virtues.
How?
The following excerpts clarifies what virtue ethics is:

An ethical act is the action that a virtuous person would do in the same
circumstances. Virtue ethics is person-based rather than action-based. It looks at
the virtue or moral character of the person carrying out an action rather than at
ethical duties and rules or the consequences of particular actions.

Virtue ethics does not only deal with the rightness or wrongness of individual
actions. It provides guidance as to the sort of characteristics and behaviors a good
person will seek to achieve. In that way, virtue ethics is concerned with the whole of
a person's life, rather than particular episodes or actions. A good person is
someone who lives virtuously - who possesses and lives the virtues.

Virtue ethics uses the following as a framework for ethical decision making. This is how
it is done:

In the Virtue framework, we try to identify the character traits (either positive or
negative) that might motivate us in a given situation. We are concerned with what
kind of person we should be and what our actions indicate about our character. We
define ethical behavior as whatever a virtuous person would do in the situation,
and we seek to develop similar virtues.
Obviously, this framework is useful in situations that ask what sort of person
one should be. As a way of making sense of the world, it allows for a wide range of
behaviors to be called ethical, as there might be many different types of good
character and many paths to developing it. Consequently, it takes into account all
parts of human experience and their role in ethical deliberation, as it believes that
all of one's experiences, emotions, and thoughts can influence the development of
one's character.

Stated similarly, virtue ethics is "the ethics of behavior" which "focuses on the
character of the persons involved in the decision or action. The person in question has
good character, and genuine motivation and if the intentions, an individual is behaving
ethically." The rightness or wrongness of one’s action, or the goodness or badness of
one's personality depends on the individual character, motivations and intentions.
Virtue ethics, "is an ethics whose goal is to determine what is essential to being a
well-functioning or flourishing human person. Virtue ethics stresses an ideal for humans
or persons. As an ethics of ideals or excellences, it is an optimistic and positive type of
ethics."

Basic Types of Virtue (Excellence)

Aristotle gave two types of virtue. These are 1) intellectual virtues and 2) moral
virtues. Intellectual virtues refer to excellence of the mind while moral virtues refer to a
person's dispositions to act well. Intellectual virtues include ability to understand, reason
and judge well while moral virtues dispose a person to act well.
In the context of Aristotle, virtue is an attained, actualized or self-realized
potential or possibility. It can serve as a moral framework. When people has the
potential or possibility of becoming a musician, they try to train and study to become a
musician following a musician's virtue as a framework.
Aristotle (384-323 BC) posited an ethical system that may be termed “self
realizationism.” In Aristotle's view, when a person acts in accordance with an
individual’s nature and realizes one’s full potential, that person do good and be
content. At birth, a baby is not a person, but a potential person. To become a
"real" person, the child's inherent potential must be realized. Unhappiness and
frustration are caused by the unrealized potential of a person, leading to failed
goals and a poor life. Aristotle said, "Nature does nothing in vain." Therefore, it
is imperative for people to act in accordance with their nature and develop their
latent talents in order to be content and complete. Happiness was held to be the
ultimate goal. All other things, such as civic life or wealth, are merely means to
the end. Self-realization, the awareness of one's nature and the development of
one's talents, is the surest path to happiness.

The material world is in state of actualizing, realizing what it is potential for.

Everything has its potency for something, its nature. Nature unfolds naturally, it has no
obligation to be so. It has no intellect and will. But a person has an obligation to be what
they meant or in potency to be. It’s their obligation to develop their talent and virtues.
The highest good or end, telos, of a person is the fullness of their self-development or
actualization. The concomitant result of this development or actualization of their
potentials is what Aristotle termed as happiness or the experience of happiness. In
short, virtue means excellence and virtue ethics is excellence ethics.

Virtue as a Mean
For Aristotle, virtue is the Golden Mean between two extremes. The virtue of
courage is a mean between two extremes of deficiency and extreme, namely,
cowardice and foolhardiness, respectively. Too little is cowardice and too much courage
is foolhardiness

Virtue Ethics in Other Traditions

Confucius emphasized two virtues, jen (or ren) and li Jen means humaneness,
human-heartedness and compassion. Li means propriety, manners or culture.
Hinduism emphasizes five basic moral virtues: non-violence, truthfulness,
honesty, chastity, freedom from greed. It also emphasizes mental virtues: calmness,
self-control, self-settledness, forbearance, faith and complete concentration, hunger for
spiritual liberation. (George, V,2008)
Buddhism also has its intellectual and moral virtues. From the eight-fold path are
the intellectual virtues of right understanding and right mindfulness and the moral virtues
of right speech, right action and right livelihood.
Jesus Christ preached the virtues of love, mercy and compassion, hunger for
justice, patience, kindness, gentleness, self-control. St. Thomas Aquinas taught the
theological virtues faith, hope and love. Christian tradition teaches four cardinal moral
virtues, namely: prudence, justice, temperance and fortitude.
St. Thomas being an eclectic philosopher, integrated into the former’s own
philosophy anything that is good conceived by Aquinas’ predecessors like Aristotle. But
St. Thomas enriched his thoughts with his own insights or learning. The attainment of
the highest good, which is happiness, includes its diffusion. “Bonum difusivum est.”
Goodness as goodness necessarily diffuses itself. A person's virtue diffuses itself in a
right action. Goodness shares itself, like a light that shines before all human beings.
One more point regarding various potentials of people which when actualized
becomes virtues is Hans George Gadamer's re-interpretation of Aristotle definition of
man as a "homo logos," a speaking animal. In other words, in the light Aristotle's
wisdom, the virtue of being human is being a speaking animal, meaning, and a person’s
attainment of a meaningful, refined, and civilized language. Gutter language is vice;
beautiful, meaningful and refined language is virtue. One who has a virtue of a refined
language speaks rightfully.
The virtuous person did not inherit their virtues. Neither were these virtues simply
passed on to an individual automatically. An individual’s personhood of virtue is a
product of deliberate, consistent, continuous choice and practice of living the virtue or
virtues.

Questions Raised About Virtue Ethics

Here are some questions raised about virtue ethics:

1. How do we determine which traits are virtues and whether they are virtues in all
circumstances, Are the virtues for the Christian culture, the Muslim, Buddhist and
Hindu cultures?
2. Mac Intyre, a contemporary philosopher, believes that virtues depend the same with
those of at least partly on the culture of society. A warlike society will value heroic
virtues whereas a peaceful society may think of generosity as a more important
virtue.
3. Who is more courageous - the person who wants to run away does not or that one
who does not even want to run away? This be something to do with the degree of
effort and discipline required to be virtuous.

[Link] Aquinas: Natual Law

Aquinas thought morality was important for everyone, and that being a good person was a vital
part of God’s plan for each of us. But Aquinas also knew that not everyone had been exposed to the
Bible, or had even heard of God. How could people follow God’s moral rules – also known as divine
commandments – if they didn’t even know about the person who made the commandments? So Aquinas
theorized that God made us pre-loaded with the tools we need to know what’s Good. This idea became
known as the natural law theory.

Meaning of Natural law and Other Laws

Based on the phrase "natural law ethics," what is ethical is what the natural law
says. What is natural law? Natural law is the "ordinance of Divine Wisdom, which is
made known to us by reason and which requires the observance of the moral order." It
may also be defined to be “The eternal law as far as it made known by human reason.”
By the eternal law we mean all that God necessarily decrees from eternity. That part of
the eternal law which reason reveals as directive of human acts, we call the natural
law…
 Eternal law is what God wills for creation. We are part of God's creation and so
we are part of Gods eternal law. We may not be able to understand the eternal law fully
given our limitations. However, by reason we have a grasp or a sense of the eternal
law. This is natural law.
St. Thomas Aquinas wrote: ...
There is in people an inclination to good, according to
the nature of one’s reason, which nature is proper to that
individual; thus a person has a natural inclination to know the
truth about God, and to live in society; and in this respect,
whatever pertains to this inclination belongs to the natural
law; for instance to shun ignorance, to avoid offending those
among whom one has to live, and other such things
regarding the above inclination. (Summa Theologica, l-2
Question 94, Article 2)
Thomas Aquinas (1225
– 1274), a Catholic Let us relate natural law to other kinds of law:
philosopher of
the Middle Ages,
Rev. Charles Coppens, SJ. explains the various kinds of law
revived and developed according to St. Thomas:
the concept of natural
law from ancient Greek
philosophy. A law decreed by Almighty God is a divine law: one
[Link]
Thomas_Aquinas established by people is a human law. Those laws for
human conduct which God, having once decreed creation,
necessarily enacts in accordance with that decree, constitute the natural law:
those which God or man freely enacts are positive law Now, between the natural
law und positive laws, there are these four points of difference: I. The natural
law unlike positive laws, does not depend upon the free will of God: its
requirements flow from the intrinsic difference between right and wrong, which ix
determined by the very essences of things. Hence, under this law, certain acts
are not evil primarily because they are forbidden, but they are forbidden because
in themselves they are evil. 2. Consequently, the natural law is the same at all
times, in all places, and for all persons; but this is not true of positive laws, which
may be changed with changing circumstances, or, if the law-giver so wills it, even
without change of circumstances. 3. The natural law emanates from God alone;
but positive laws may be enacted by men. 4. The natural law is promulgated
through the light of reason: positive laws require for their promulgation a sign
external to man.

In summary, we have an eternal law, God's law for the whole creation, which we
cannot fully grasp given our limitation. But with our gift of reason we have a grasp of
that eternal law, that is natural law, Divine law is decreed by God while human law is
decreed by man.

Natural Law as a Universal Formula

As an ethical framework, the natural law or maxim may be applied as implicitly

illustrated in the following:
 A universal formula which contains in brief an expression of the whole natural
law is this: "Keep the moral order," or "Observe right order in your actions."
Some writers state it simply as. “Do good and avoid evil.” Now, the right order of
human acts consists evidently in their proper direction to man’s last end, which
is, subjectively, one’s perfect beatitude and, objectively, God Himself. God must
direct His free creatures to their last end, hence God commands them to
observe the moral order and forbids them to depart from it…
So what is natural and ethical for a human person is to “keep the moral order,” to
“observe right order,” to “do good and avoid evil” to preserve one’s being. Suicide and
murder work against preservation of human life, therefore, are a violation of the natural
law.
St. Thomas Aquinas grounded the directedness of nature in God. All of creation
is directed toward their final end, God Himself. To direct us to God, the LORD gave the
divine law. The divine law given to us in the Ten Commandments of the Old Testament
and the new commandment of “love God...” and “love your neighbor...” by Jesus Christ
in the New Testament in which St. Thomas synthesized faith and reason. Aquinas
believed that natural law is part of the divine law, that the “natural law shares in the
eternal law.” All of creation is directed
Analogous to logical reasoning, it may be applied as follows: Premise: Stealing
is immoral and an evil to be avoided. Second Premise: The act of taking people’s
property without their consent is stealing. Conclusion. Therefore, the act of taking
someone's property, which I actually intend to do, is immoral and an evil to be avoided,
which I should do avoid.

Law Defined

St. Thomas explained that the natural law is promulgated through the light of
reason. Positive laws require for their promulgation a sign external to man. Laws that
are enacted are called positive laws. St. Thomas defined law in general as “an
ordinance of reason which is for the common good, and has been promulgated by one
having charge of the community.” For a law to be a law, it must have the four requisites,
namely, a) ordinance (order, command) of reason, b) for the common good, c)
promulgation, and d) by one who has charge of the community. Based on the
definition, an unreasonable law is not law; a law that favors one to the prejudice of
another or does not equally protect all is not a law; a law that is not promulgated or
published or made known to all, is not a law; and a law that is enacted by unauthorized
persons is not a law.
A law must be a product of reason not purely of emotion. When the heart rules
the mind, we can be highly unreasonable. A law is promulgated for the common good
because we are meant to be social, we belong to a community. A law that favors the
male gender at the expense of the female gender cannot be a law. A law must be
promulgated by one whose primary task is to care for the people, the community. The
primary task of our lawmakers is to care for and protect their people by legislating laws
for the common good. The law must be made known or communicated to all people to
ensure correct understanding and compliance. A law that is promulgated does not take
effect immediately. In the Philippines, laws take effect after fifteen days following the
completion of the publication in the Official Gazette or a newspaper of general
circulation unless it is otherwise provided.
([Link]
[Link], Retrieved 6-18-19)

Kant and Right Theories

While the natural law theory as advanced by Thomas Aquinas states that
morality comes from us but only because we were made by God, who preloaded us with
moral sensibilities, many other thinkers have argued that humanity’s moral code doesn’t
come from some supernatural force. Eightenth century German philosopher Immanuel
Kant, for one, thought religion and morality were a terrible pairing, and if anything, the
two should be kept apart. Instead Kant argued, in order to determine what’s right, you
have to use reason.

Kant's Deontological Ethics

Kant's Ethics is now referred to as deontological. The term deontological has its
root from the Greek “deon” which means “duty:” Hence deontological ethics focuses on
"duty, obligation, and rights" instead of consequences or ends. An act that proceeds
from the will which wills it because it can be the will of all is a right action. Willing and
doing the will of all is a duty, regardless of the consequences. The following clarifies
Kant's duty-based approach:

The duty-based approach, sometimes called deontological ethics, argued that

doing what is right is not about the consequences of our actions ultimately have
no control) but about having the proper intention in performing the action. The
ethical action is one taken from duty, that is, it is done precisely because it is our
obligation to perform the action. Ethical obligations are the same for all rational
creatures (they are universal), and knowledge of what these obligations entail is
arrived at by discovering rules of behavior that are not contradicted by (something
over which we reason.
Kant's famous formula for discovering our ethical duty is known as the
“categorical imperative.”It has a number of different versions, but Kant believed
they all amounted to the same imperative. The most basic form of the imperative
is:
“Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it
should become a universal law.” So, for example, lying is unethical because we
could not universalize a maxim that said “One should always lie.” Such a maxim
would render all speeches meaningless. We can, however, universalize the
maxim, “Always speak truthfully,” running into a logical contradiction. (Notice that
the duty-based approach says nothing about how easy or difficult it would be to
carry out these maxims, only that it is our duty as rational creatures to do so.) In
acting according to a law that we have discovered to be rational according to our
 own universal reason, we are acting autonomously (in a self- regulating fashion),
and thus are bound by duty, a duty we have given ourselves as rational
creatures. We thus freely choose (we will) to bind ourselves to the moral law. For
Kant, choosing to obey the universal moral law is the very nature of acting
ethically. (Mackinon, B. and Fiola A., 2015)

The example, borrowing money with no intention to pay back, cannot be

universalized and therefore cannot be ethical. If this becomes universalized, there will
be no more lenders and all banks will close.

The Duty Framework

Correspondingly, the duty-based approach can be applied as a framework for
ethical decision making:
In the Duty framework, we focus on the duties and obligations that we have in
a given situation, and consider what ethical obligations we have and what things
we should never do. Ethical conduct is defined by doing one's duties and doing
the right thing, and the goal is performing the correct action.
This framework has the advantage of creating a system of rules that has
consistent expectations of all people: if action is ethically correct or a duty is
required, it would apply to every person in a given situation. This even-
handedness encourages treating everyone with equal dignity and respect.
This framework also focuses on following moral rules or duty regardless of
outcome, so it allows for the possibility that one might have acted ethically, even if
there is a bad result
Therefore, this framework works best in situations where there is a sense of
obligation or in those in which we need to consider why duty or obligation
mandates or forbids certain courses of action. However, this framework also has
its limitations. First it can appear cold and impersonal, in that it might require
actions which are known to produce harms, even though they are strictly in
keeping with a particular moral rule. It also does not provide a way to determine
which duty we should follow if we are presented with a situation in which two or
more duties conflict. It can also be rigid in applying the notion of duty to everyone
regardless of personal situation.

Kant’s theory of right

According to Kant, the “universal principle of right” is that “an action is right if it
can coexist with everyone's freedom in accordance with a universal law, or if on its
maxim the freedom of choice of each can coexist with everyone's freedom in
accordance with a universal law” (6:230). In other words, your exercise freely whatever
rights you have on your property but only in accordance with universal law. Universal
law means a maxim that can be the maxim of all. You can use, dispose, enjoy its fruits,
but only in such a way that you do not violate the rights of others. This exercise of a
right bearing in mind the obligation to respect the right of others is tantamount to good
faith or good will.
Kant also offers direct contrasts between right and virtue. He thinks both relate to
freedom but in different ways: right concerns outer freedom and virtue concerns inner
freedom (being master of one’s own passions). Right concerns acts themselves
independent of the motive an agent may have for performing them, virtue concerns the
proper motive for dutiful actions. In another formulation he says that right concerns
universality as a formal condition of freedom while virtue concerns a necessary end
beyond the mere formality of universality, thus appearing to tie the distinction to the first
two formulas of the categorical imperative in the Groundwork.

Legally and Morally Right

It appears that in Kant, what is legal must be at the same time moral. An action is
legally right if it is at the same time in accordance with universal law, that is, in
accordance with the categorical imperative. In another context, what is legal is not
necessarily moral. For instance, what is legal is limited to compliance with law, be it
laws of a state or country; but being moral may not be just following the law, but doing
more than what the law requires like responding to the need of another. Paying
employees their minimum wage is legal; but paying more than their minimum wage
because of care and concern of their needs is more than what is legal.

Good will
Kant says, “Nothing can possibly be conceived in the
world, or even out of it, which”can be called good without
qualification, except a good will.” Kant's criteria or framework
of what is right or wrong is “good will”. An act is said to be right
or wrong depending on whether it is done with or without good
will. The rightness or wrongness of an action depends on
one's good will or intentions. The usual criticism, or weakness
cited, regarding this concept is that “The road to hell is paved Retrieved from
[Link]
with good intentions.” Is good will enough? good-respect-for-humanity

Categorical Imperative
Kant holds that the fundamental principle of our moral duties is
a categorical imperative. It is an imperative because it is a command addressed to
agents who could follow it but might not (e.g., “Leave the gun. Take the cannoli.”). It
is categorical in virtue of applying to us unconditionally, or simply because we
possesses rational wills, without reference to any ends that we might or might not have.
It does not, in other words, apply to us on the condition that we have antecedently
adopted some goal for ourselves.
To serve the will as a principle Kant has two (2) versions of the categorical
imperative. The first version states “I ought never to act except in such a way that I
could also will that my maxim should become a universal law.” If one cannot wish or
want that a certain rule or maxim becomes the maxim of all, that it is not right to follow
it. For instance, one cannot will that "thou shalt steal" becomes a rule to be followed by
all because others may ultimately and steal one’s property. One cannot wish that
“killing” becomes the maxim of all because one would not of course wish that someone
will come to kill that person. This is the principle which motivates a good will, and which
Kant holds to be the fundamental principle of all of morality.
 The second version is as follows: “Always treat humanity, whether in your own
person or that of another, never simply as a means but always at the same time as an
end.” Treating the another merely as a means to an end means equating an individual
to a mere instrument, a tool, an object which is cast aside after use, or can be sold or
exchanged when no longer needed, or has value only for as long as it is useful. Such
act makes one a "user." In contemporary philosophy, like Marcel or Buber's term, it is
treating the other as an IT, a thing. That's why they call the act as “thing-ization.” In the
parable of "Hope for the Flowers" by Trina Paulus, Stripe's climbing the caterpillar's
pillar to reach to top, where all that could be seen as a reward of climbing are other
caterpillar's pillars, was no other way than stepping on other caterpillars as a means of
moving up higher.
Ought implies can. This means that If and only if we can or are free to act in
certain ways can we be commanded to do so. This is one more moral principle ascribed
to Kant, derived from two passages in one’s works. One is stated as follows: "For if the
moral law commands that we ought to be better human beings now, it inescapably
follows that we must be capable of being better human beings." Another one states as
follows:
“The action to which the ‘ought’ applies must indeed be possible under natural
conditions.” The Situation Ethics author, Joseph Fletcher, used this maxim several
times to illustrate one’s situationism. In full statement the saying would be, “If I ought to
do something, then I can do it.” By way of logical analysis, the statement means, one's
ability to do something is a necessary condition for a person’s being obliged to do it. In
Fletcher's terms, “you are obliged to do only what you can where you are.”
“I can” may also be interpreted to mean one's degree of freedom, if by freedom
we understand as what Hornedo said about it, “the autonomous energy of being.” Since
the degree of one's freedom is the degree of one's responsibility. Hornedo says, the
stuff of freedom is energy or strenght. It follows that the degree of one's obligation is
also the degree of one's freedom. One can no more be responsible than what one can
freely, and voluntarily do.

RELATED ACTIVITIES FOR MORE READINGS:

Activity No. 3 Interview: Virtue Ethics and Right Theory

Death is an inevitable part of human existence that all people must face, and for
most of us, the time and place of this death is unknown. But what if someone did know
the time and place? What if that someone was a doctor or a nurse, or the very person
that was going to experience death? Is euthanasia the way to go? Take for example an
elderly, eighty-year-old woman who was suffering from dementia. The woman was sent
to a nursing home and had expressed a want to possibly be euthanized when she
thought the time was right. Would her action be ethical if we judge it based on the
frameworks of Virtue Ethics and Right Theory?
To answer the question, you must select 5 adults and take their on the case above. You
formulate your question/s to elicit the needed responses. Educate them if you must about virtue ethics
and right theory for them to properly respond on your questions. Present your findings via Powerpoint
presentation. It is important that the answer of the respondents must reflect the principles set forth by
Virtue Ethics and Right Theory. Follow the format below in presenting your output
 I. Introduction – The introduction contains a topic sentence, a thesis
statement, then three to five reasons, details and/or facts supporting your
research followed by a conclusion. It should be relatively brief, concise and
clear.
II. Analysis – This part contains the assertions (our points of view), examples
(evidence that supports these points of view), explanations (justifications of
these points of view), and significance (discussions of why these points of
view matter). This is not the transcript of the interview.
III. Summary – A summary states the main point of the text/interview as you see
it. A summary is written in your own words.
IV. Conclusion – This part contains the topic sentence. Fresh rephrasing of
thesis statement. Supporting sentences. Summarize or wrap up the main
points in the body of the essay. Explain how ideas fit together. Closing
sentence. Final words. Connects back to the introduction. Provides a sense of
closure.
V. Proof of Interview – Show your evidence that you interviewed whether face
to face or through chat. Transcript of the interview must be presented as well.

Use the rubric as your guide.(50 pts)

Rubric
Indicators Expert (50) Accomplished Capable (25) Beginner (10)
(38)
Discussion of the Very Clear Clear Acceptable Needs
subject matter Improvement
Application of the Very Clear Clear Acceptable Needs
concepts to the Improvement
question
Quality Writing Piece was written Piece was written Piece had little Piece had no style
in an extraordinary in an interesting style and voice; or voice; gives no
style and voice; style and voice; gives some new information
very informative somewhat information but and very poorly
and well-organized informative and poorly organized organized
organized manner
Grammar Usage Virtually no Few spelling, A number of So many spelling,
and Mechanics spelling, punctuation, or spelling, punctuation, or
punctuation, or grammatical errors punctuation, or grammatical errors.
grammatical errors grammatical errors
is present
*Case Analysis
Identify what ethical action a moral agent should do using the frameworks from Natural Law of
St. Thomas, Duty Ethics of Kant, and Value Ethics of Aristotle. (10 pts for each ethical framework)
Express and substantiate your thoughts through a 3 to 5 – sentence essay. Use the rubric as your
guide.

Indicators Expert (15) Accomplished (10) Capable (5) Beginner (2)

Discussion of the Very Clear Clear Acceptable Needs Improvement
subject matter
Application of the Very Clear Clear Acceptable Needs Improvement
concepts to the
question
Quality Writing Piece was written in an Piece was written in an Piece had little style Piece had no style or
extraordinary style and interesting style and and voice; gives some voice; gives no new
voice; very informative voice; somewhat information but poorly information and very
and well-organized informative and organized manner poorly organized
organized

Grammar Usage and Virtually no spelling, Few spelling, A number of spelling, So many spelling,
Mechanics punctuation, or punctuation, or punctuation, or punctuation, or
grammatical errors grammatical errors grammatical errors is grammatical errors.
present

Situation 1. Death Penalty by lethal injection (15 pts)

More than 70% of the world’s countries have abolished capital punishment in law
or practice. However, the death penalty continues to exist in many parts of the world,
especially in countries with large populations and those with authoritarian rule. In recent
decades, there has been a clear trend away from capital punishment, as many
countries have either abolished the death penalty or discontinued its use. (Source:
[Link]
In the Philippines, it is a case of imposing death penalty, then abolishing it until the
present when the bill reinstating the death penalty stalled in the Senate in April 2017,
where it did not get enough votes.
What is an ethical stand on death penalty?
Aristotle’s Value
ethics

St. Thomas
Aquinas’ Natural
Law ethics

Kant’s Duty Ethics

Situation 2 – Organ Trade and Organ Trafficking (15 pts)

Here is a comment from a man who traded his kidney: “I can barely provide for
my wife and children,” “I just wanted to earn some money and give it to them.” He said
he was promised 120, 000 pesos, or about $2,800, for his kidney.

Was selling his kidney ethical?

Aristotle’s Value
ethics

St. Thomas Aquinas’

Natural Law ethics

Kant’s Duty Ethics

Situation 3 – Abortion (15 pts)

Julie is 21 years old. She was impregnated by her boyfriend. If here parents come to
know of this, she claims they will disown her. She is expected to graduate at the end of
the year which is exactly the month of her expected delivery. Her boyfriend has
abandoned her and refuses to accept responsibility. Julie plans to have abortion which
she thinks is the only solution to her problem.

Is her plan of abortion ethical?

Aristotle’s Value
ethics

St. Thomas Aquinas’

Natural Law ethics
Kant’s Duty Ethics

Situation 4. Same sex marriage (15 pts)

James and Martin fell in love with each other. They planned to marry each other next
year in Thailand if the pandemic is over.

Is same sex marriage also known as gay marriage ethical or moral?

Aristotle’s Value
ethics

St. Thomas
Aquinas’ Natural
Law ethics

Kant’s Duty Ethics