PASSI CITY COLLEGE

Passi City, Iloilo

SCHOOL OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM

Module in Ethics GE ( 08)
First Semester AY 2021-2022

MODULE 3
TOPIC Utilitarianism and Natural Law

Module Overview:

Happiness as the Foundation of Morality The world lives on

utilitarian terms. Many governments are guided by utilitarian
principles. These principles emphasize on welfare, benefits, and the
good of the majority . But there are also issues that we need to be
concerned about. The fact that there is a growing gap between the
rich and the poor tells us that something must be wrong with it.

MODULE OUTCOMES
At the end of this modular unit, the students must have:
1. Support that Happiness as a Foundation of Morality
2. Distinguished the act and rule of Utilitarianism ;
3. developed the love as a Natural law of a Person
DISCUSSION:
Utilitarianism and Natural Law

In the ideal sense, many leaders tell their people that ice is the
principle with which their decisions are based. In the real scheme of
things, leaders choose what is best for the greatest number. Thus,
others suffer. Utilitarianism is a moral theory that grounds the
rightness or wrongness of an act based on its effects rather than on
the act per se. It asserts that the moral value of an act is something
that we can find in its consequences. Consequences are to be
morally evaluated based on the tendency to bring pleasure or
happiness. As such, the motive or reason behind the act in itself is
insufficient to determine the goodness or wrongness of an act. Moral
judgment regarding an act will have to be rendered after an act
shall have produced good or bad consequences, whether or not it
results to or happiness, John Stuart Mill writes, "the creed which

JOSHUA D. ALARBA Page 1

Ethics- GE 8 MODULE 3
accepts as the foundation of morals, utility, or the greatest
happiness principle, holds that pleasure customs wrong as they tend
to produce the reverse of happiness." " Based on the principle of
utility, human action by its own nature does not possess any moral
qualification. If an action makes one happy, then it is pain and by
unhappiness, pain and the privation of pleasure. Acts should good.
Mill adds that by happiness is meant intended pleasure and the
absence be considered in terms of their benefits or advantages.
These will then result to pleasure or happiness. An act is bad if it
results to losses or disadvantages. The reason is that these bring
pain or suffering Thus, pleasure, as a consequence of an act,
determines whether or not produces a benefit or happiness, then
the act has some moral worth. An act an act is worth doing. If the
result or effect of an act is desirable because it suffering is therefore
undesirable and as such, it is not worth doing. What is always worth
doing is that which results that produces any disadvantage or to the
greatest pleasure of the greatest number. All individuals in society
aim at achieving some pleasure. As such, it is very important that
each person is conscious that others also deserve their happiness .
If one gets some kind of pleasure and others do not, then one has to
examine if one is really happy. For instance, if a father is happy that
he has bought one of his children a new pair of shoes, but then if his
other children feel disadvantaged because they do not have theirs,
then he has to examine if he is really supposed to be pleased when
in fact his other children are not happy. The basic idea, in this
sense, is to always see to it that as much as possible, one attains
the maximum utility or happiness or else a person's act is rendered
useless. The importance of this principle is that such is operative
and certainly, appeals a lot to one's common sense. Take for
instance the act of donating money to schools. If one donates
money to schools, then one sends children to an environment that
will develop them to become better citizens. Thus, there is an
obvious perception of efficiency and the prudent use of resource.
Therefore, it is something beneficial. On the other hand, if one gives
money to beggars , it has no immediate effect on the well-being of
the beggar. Worst, it can even tolerate his condition and perpetuate
the beggar's poverty. In this sense, giving alms is not advantageous
and is therefore, undesirable. From a utilitarian perspective, the
value of an act is judged after one it provides them. This good can
be material, economic, social or political sees practical results.
There are things that people desire because of the good in nature.
JOSHUA D. ALARBA Page 2

Ethics- GE 8 MODULE 3
The standard that one sets before doing something therefore is that
it should serve the one and only desirable end or goal of any act
which is the satisfaction of human pleasure. Utilitarianism, in this
regard, is to be interpreted, not in a metaphysical sense, but from
the practical point of view of enhancing the levels of satisfaction
among people the desired result of any act, the act which produces
the highest amend of This above point of view is all about
maximizing pleasure. Since pleasure satisfaction, should be the
most desirable act, , the idea or pleasure o pleasure can be
connected to the idea of human welfare or the well being at people
in society. If human welfare is the good which morality is
concerned , then surely the morally desirable act is the one, which
maximizes human The above means that people are satisfied with
the kind of gourds the government provides, most especially in the
area of basic services, Politics barely simply means giving in to what
people desire from their government The role and function of
government are defined by the amount or quantity welfare it
provides to the population. Utilitarianism as a political theory has
"demanded that customs and authorities which had oppressed
peoples for centuries be tested against the standard of human
improvement." The well-being of the individual is the measure or
standard of all things, and as such, whatever is good should always
be good for the well-being of the individual. This well being,
however, is not be equated with holistic welfare. It is essentially a
material type of welfare. An individual, for instance, pursues the
desire of having a tenured job Because of the good that it results to.
A tenured job provides secure and gainful Employment, including
important benefits, opportunities and privileges for the person to
enjoy, such as good pay, health insurance and other incentives. On
the other hand, from a social point of view, the employment of
people have several merits, such as more taxes collected which can
be used by any government for the improvement of a country's
infrastructure, funds for education and there welfare benefits, which
produce goods that perform useful functions for the attainment of
society's greater well-being or welfare. The point is that That is good
for the individual can also be good for society. Consequently, it
individual suffers, society too can be affected by such burden. In
addition, pursue "Happiness, welfare, or well-being is something
that we in our own lives, and in the lives of all those we love... No
matter how secular we are, we cannot deny that happiness is
valuable, since it is something that we value in our lives."
JOSHUA D. ALARBA Page 3

Ethics- GE 8 MODULE 3
The Utilitarian Calculus

Utilitarianism judges the rightness or wrongness of an act through a

utilitarian calculus," or the "measurement of pleasure or
happiness.” To be able to strengthen the point that pleasure is the
basic moral good such pleasure should be measurable. There has to
be a standard of measurement, some sort of a norm to be able to
put forward the idea that pleasure is the greatest good. If pleasure
is immeasurable, then it cannot be the standard, since what people
think and feel about pleasure or happiness differ. Levels of
satisfaction should be measurable since from a utilitarian
perspective, it is ultimately necessary to determine which things are
practical or doable. Theoretically, there are seven elements in the
principle of utility, proposed by Jeremy Bentham, which serve as
norms used to measure pleasure, and these are intensity (degree of
pleasure), duration (length of time one experiences the pleasure),
probability (the most certain effect is what is desired), proximity
(frequency of the pleasure), fecundity (capacity to result to more
pleasures), extent (more people can experience the pleasure), and
purity (absence of painful counter-effects). The above categories are
to be considered before one acts and the most desirable act is the
one that attains the highest among the elements mentioned The
emphasis here therefore is that levels of satisfaction should be
quantifiable. In assessing moral worth, the maximum level of
satisfaction is always the most desirable. It is the most desirable
because it is what provides the most in terms of the utility of an act.
But Mill improves the above categories, suggesting that they are
crudely based on the quantitative measure of human pleasure. He
proposes the importance of knowing the quality of one's happiness.
Thus, Mill sees the above standard as limited. Humans also
experience pleasure in higher realms, for instance in the humanities
and the arts. For Mill, Bentham's standard seems to consider human
nature only in a limited way, like some sort of a pleasure seeking
mind or machine. It is a kind of hedonism that seems to be crudely
mechanical. He explains that happiness or pleasure should not only
be about quantity or the amount of pleasure. It also matters what
kind of pleasure or happiness one gains. He says, "If I am asked,
what I mean by difference of quality in pleasures, or what makes
one pleasure more valuable than another, merely as a pleasure,
except its being greater in amount, there is but one possible
answer. Of two pleasures, if there be one to which all or Almost all

JOSHUA D. ALARBA Page 4

Ethics- GE 8 MODULE 3
who have experience of both give a decided preference, irrespective
of any feeling of moral obligation to prefer it, that is the more
desirable pleasure."" The above suggests that humans have various
preferences because human beings have a higher nature. Humans
aim at achieving higher forms of contentment. This contentment is
the chief human good. The point however, for a utilitarian, is that
the ultimate basis of all morality is pleasure. The individual chooses
and acts in view of such end, regardless of his or her circumstance.
It is a kind of moral upbringing that intends to give weight to a life
that one finds enjoyment in. The best life, in this sense, is the kind
of life where pleasure is found. According to Will Kymlicka, for a
utilitarian, "the experience of pleasure is the chief human good. It is
the one good which is an end-in-itself, to which all other goods are
means." Mill says: "According to the greatest happiness principle,
the ultimate end, with reference to and for the sake of which all
other things are desirable, is an existence exempt as far as possible
from pain, and as rich as possible as enjoyments, both in point of
quantity and quality."" For Mill, the foundation of utilitarian morality
is that an act must produce the greatest amount of pleasure or
happiness and minimize and if possible eliminate pain or suffering.
The rule of thumb is that any act is moral if it produces pleasure, it
is not moral when it results to pain. Mill emphasizes, based on the
above, that human enjoyment or satisfaction should be both in
terms of quantity and quality. Now, any act can have various
effects. In this regard, one must, in a way, strike a certain balance
about what one seeks (individual pleasure, and its effects on others.
This is because other people are also looking for their own
happiness. If one is to promote human happiness, it is necessary to
find balance or harmony. This harmony “is to be secured to the
greatest extent possible and secured to all mankind." Mill adds that
“pleasure and freedom from pain are the only things desirable as
ends; and that all desirable things,are desirable as such for the
pleasure inherent in themselves, or as means to the promotion of
pleasure and the prevention of pain.' Act and Rule Utilitarianism It is
impossible to account for all the consequences of an act. On one
consequences hand, the notion of "act utilitarianism" necessitates
that all the of human action should result to maximum utility or
general happiness. All acts should therefore possess the attribute of
greatest benefit. Utilitarian ethics proceeds from the fact that an act
is one that results to maximum utility. An act is done, therefore,
because it promotes or satisfies the greatest happiness (the
JOSHUA D. ALARBA Page 5

Ethics- GE 8 MODULE 3
maximum in terms of degree) for the greatest number (the
maximum in a population or group of people). But of course, this is
not the case all the time as certain acts have repercussions beyond
the immediate effects that are felt. For instance, a parent who
chooses to work abroad gives an immediate impact to the finances
of a family. However, the losses in terms of the need to guide
children as they grow up, the absence of a parent in difficult
situations like when a child gets sick, and others are things not seen
immediately. What "act utilitarianism" calculates is simply the
economic or material benefit. Other factors are not considered in
the equation. On the other hand, the notion of "rule utilitarianism,"
as opposed to "act utilitarianism," considers the idea that an act, as
a matter of principle, is one which belongs to the kind of acts, which
by way of common experience, always results to or provides the
maximum utility or promotes general happiness. This means that
one is no longer required to consider all the merits and demerits of
an act. Rather, in doing something, the act, as a matter of rule,
must be something that belongs to the standard norm. These are
the acts that have been proven to be beneficial by experience. It is
an act that is good in the sense that it is proven to be beneficial for
the greatest number. What matters here is the rule or standard
norm. The difference between the two is that "act utilitarianism"
prescribes actions which are done in order to achieve maximum
pleasure while "rule utilitarianism” prescribes rules or standards
which are followed so as to achieve the same maximum utility. On
one hand, “act utilitarianism” relies on common sense. Sense
observation calculates the effects and implications of certain
actions. On the other hand, rule utilitarianism" provides some sort of
standard for human behavior, the basis of which is the past. Actions
that have resulted to maximum utility or the greatest satisfaction in
people as proven by past experiences will thereby serve as standard
norms or ground rules to guide Maximum Utility and Individual
Preferences A serious evaluation of utilitarianism should be based
on two grounds, maximum utility and individual preferences. The
idea that utilitarianism is fundamentally concerned with human
welfare and how such could be maximized is to be taken with a little
caveat. The reason is that ultimately, whenever we talk of morality,
we are actually talking about human beings. The danger with the
notion of maximum utility lies in the real possibility of sacrificing
one individual for the sake of the satisfaction of the majority. This
undoubtedly violates the very dignity of persons. Rawls, for instance
JOSHUA D. ALARBA Page 6

Ethics- GE 8 MODULE 3
writes, “each person possesses an inviolability founded on justice
that even the welfare of society as a whole cannot override.” To
examine the above premise, we could use the issue of mining.
Mining brings in big capital investments to a country or any locality
and thus, it pumps in huge capital inflows or money to the economy
of a country. The investment can result to employment and taxes.
From a political end, such is good because it improves the
government's fiscal position, enabling the actual implementation of
some social and infrastructure projects, which will be beneficial to
the greater majority of the populace. The argument of those who
are in favor of mining is that those who protest against it are a
minority, a “noisy minority," who, from the perspective of
capitalists, are the sort of people who do not see progress as
positive. Mining, however, poses a grave threat to the environment
and to the well- being of communities which are affected by mining
activities. There is a danger to the lives of people and a serious
hazard to the environment , for instance, in the case of possible
accidents like an accidental spill. In trying to sort out this moral
dilemma, bureaucrats and public officials usually use the argument,
"the greatest good for the greatest number," or simply, the
maximization of utility: But this is not fair. According to Rawls,
“justice denies that the loss of freedom of some is made right by a
greater good shared by others." The idea of maximum utility can be
seen from the point of view of a cost benefit analysis. The costs are
not to be seen only from a monetary or economic perspective, but
also in terms of human life and environmental degradation. To
argue for the good of mining, one must assert that it has an overall
utility that maximizes the benefit that accrues to society. Of course,
in economic terms, it can be said that mining promotes a great
amount of good. Thus, to argue that mining is good because of its
benefits is utilitarian through and through. The notion of maximum
utility or the idea of the greatest benefit for the greatest number,
which is notably the strength of utilitarianism, however, is also its
weakness. The reason is that if we analyze the above, sacrifices will
have to be made in order to attain the maximum utility. If we
maximize the overall benefit for society in terms of the above
example, then we have to accept the effects of mining to the
environment and to the host communities. To speak of such means
to speak of human lives sacrificed. From the point of view of justice,
however, this is unacceptable. Thus, maximum utility is a
contradiction to the idea of utilitarianism that a person's well-being
JOSHUA D. ALARBA Page 7

Ethics- GE 8 MODULE 3
is also another person's concern. Justice, Rawls says, does not allow
that the sacrifices imposed are outweighed by the larger sum of
advantages enjoyed by many. on a few In order to explain this
point, we can think for instance of individual preferences.
Individuals, in view of their desire to gain the best possible benefit,
have individual preferences. This results to a problem. Rawls
argues, there is a conflict of interests since persons are not
indifferent as to how the greater benefits produced by their
collaboration are distributed, for in order to pursue their ends they
each prefer a larger to a lesser share."' We choose on the basis of
what makes us feel satisfied or pleased. But there's the rub, since
our preferences may not be good for others. For instance, if a
student says that he prefers to watch a movie rather than study his
lessons, then his parents will not be happy. But if they force him to
study, he will not be happy. In the same token, communities
affected by mining will not be through in order to generate jobs,
then some will have own happy because of the bad effects of
mining, but since more people prefer that investments come to
sacrifice themselves and suffer from the bad consequences of
mining, It can be argued therefore that the notion of the "greatest
happiness for the greatest number" suffers from misjudging
individual preferences. People make choices, from a utilitarian
perspective, not because they intend to increase the benefit of
others, but because they simply want to maximize their advantages.
Utilitarianism underestimates the power of the ego of the
individual . In terms of satisfying it, there is no limit, there are no
boundaries. It is impossible to satisfy any human being Thus, if
satisfaction becomes the basis of morality, then it is doomed to fail.
This is because one prefers his or her greater satisfaction than that
of others. He or she chooses himself or herself before he or she
chooses others. He or she will first desire his or her own happiness
before that of others. For instance, any businessman enters into
some kind of business because he can profit from the same, not
because he desires the satisfaction of the majority. He can of course
satisfy the majority, but such a stance might entail great costs, and
hence, can be detrimental to his business.

Natural Law

The Natural Law as Moral Law Peter Singer asks, what if one sees a
young child who just fell on a pond, possibly drowning, and that
person who has seen the situation of the child has an urgent need to
JOSHUA D. ALARBA Page 8

Ethics- GE 8 MODULE 3
attend to an appointment, suggesting that he will miss his
appointment if he helps the child who might drown? Singer's answer
is that the person should help the child, for although he is not
related to that child there are morally plausible reasons for doing so.
For instance, people should at least reach out to strangers. He uses
this example to explain why it seems unfair to extend millions of
dollars more to the victims of 9/11 while millions of children in Africa
die each year due to the lack of vaccines. Singer responds to the
moral issue above on utilitarian terms. He argues that there are
very good consequences from helping others. The problem,
however, is that what if these counter-benefits do not exist? We
need a better moral doctrine that answers why humans should belp
others who are in need. This we find in the natural law. The natural
law tells us to do the good and to avoid evil. Helping the child is the
good thing to do. The natural law, as a moral prescription of what
the person is ought to do and be is a moral demand that emanates
from the inner nature of the person. What is the nature of this moral
demand? Does it not infringe on the nature of human freedom?
Traditionally, people see the law as an imposition from outside. It is
viewed as an obstacle. The law, being a restriction, is seen as a
hindrance to greater self-realization. Thus, for a moral law to truly
be an inner moral demand, it must not be seen as an outside
dictate. It must be understood as an inner prescription from within.
to do the good and forbids them to do evil. In relation to this, he
says that it is St. Thomas tells us that the moral law is something
that orders humans human reason that ultimately makes these
orders. Thus, the law is something that pertains to reason. What is
the meaning of this? For St. Thomas, the nature of the person as a
creature implies a certain subjection to an inner order and freedom.
He writes: Since all things subject to divine providence are
measured and ruled by the eternal law, all things partake to some
extent of the eternal law - to the extent, namely, that it is imprinted
on them, they derive their inclinations to proper acts and ends. The
inner harmony of human nature is the common ground and order
that unites human freedom and the law. The natural law reconciles
with the freedom of the human being because it manifests the idea
of self-realization or self-perfection. It makes the human being fully
the person that he or she is. St. Thomas adds, "the proper effect of
law is to lead its subjects to the proper virtue. Since virtue is what
makes its subjects good, it follows that the proper effect of law is to
make its subjects good.” Furthermore, he says that the “good is
JOSHUA D. ALARBA Page 9

Ethics- GE 8 MODULE 3
what all things seek. Hence, it is the first precept of law: good is to
be done and pursued, and evil is to be avoided." Seen as such, it
can be considered as a moral principle that intends to help the
human being attain his or her fullest self-realization by way of
attaining the good as the proper end for each person. But evil
diminishes this possibility. Thus, "good has the nature of an end,
and evil the nature of the contrary.** The reason is that since the
natural law proceeds from God, then, it must have a natural
inclination towards God. The Stoics, for instance, thought of God as
immanent in or even identical with nature.? God in this sense is
alone the source of the law. To live in accordance to one's nature
therefore means to live in accordance with this immanence. Since
God is in nature, God puts order into nature. This order is the order
of reason. To follow God or the natural law means to follow this
rational order.

Robert Holmes writes that for the Stoics the natural law suggests to
men and women what it means to live rationally and adds that
moral conduct is rational conduct and conversely that immoral
conduct is simply irrational conduct." Stoic thought tells us that we
must do our duty as a result of our natural relations with others. For
instance, a mother does a moral good to her child because of their
relation. The same holds true for other people, who have a certain
relation with each other as members of a community of beings. It
can thus be said "by virtue of our possessing reason, whose function
is to tell us what to do and what to refrain from doing and that is
essential in all human beings, there is a common law governing all
human beings everywhere." The Dynamism of the Natural Law The
natural law connotes the dynamism of human reality. What then are
the attributes of the natural law? First, it holds that morality is part
of the natural order of things. 10 Since each person is a dynamic
reality, the natural law must also manifest this dynamism. People
have a natural inclination in accordance with the nature they have
in common with other substances." This means that the natural law
seeks the preservation of life. It aims to cultivate life and enhance
its dynamic existence. Secondly, an eternal law governs all persons
everywhere, always, and without exception. It tells persons to act in
pursuit of the good in this world since it is what is proper to their
nature and to their reason. Since each person is a concrete existing
reality, the natural law must reflect his or her situation. Persons,
having such an inclination towards God, seek the truth of God by

JOSHUA D. ALARBA Page 10

Ethics- GE 8 MODULE 3
living out the good in society. Every law is directed to the common
welfare of people and derives the force and nature of the law
accordingly." The natural law therefore tells people to pursue the
good in human life and society. But the natural law must also be
distinguished from the laws of nature. The natural law is not about
the physical state of things. The laws of nature proceed from the
mechanical disposition of the way natural things behave.

This mechanical behavior manifests the physical state of things. The

natural law, while it concerns the human being, does not refer to the
evolution of each human being in space and time. Rather, it is about
the moral development of the human person on the basis of his or
her moral nature. St. Thomas says: "The light of natural reason, by
which we discern what is good and what is evil, which pertains to
the natural law, is nothing else than an imprint on us of the divine
light.""'4 The natural law is a proof of the participation of the person
to the eternal law of the Creator. Thus, the natural law endows
humans with their dignity as persons. It is not something formal, nor
abstract. If God is perfection, then it follows that humans possess
the attribute of perfection being God's creatures. The natural law
makes manifest the reality of the human person as a creature. The
natural law tells us who we are and what we must do as persons.
Thus, it is the understanding of what it means to be human at all. St.
Thomas believes that as beings or creatures, we share in the
perfection of God as our Creator. We participate in God as His
creation. God's perfection is in us. There is a trace of the divine
providence in each person and in all of God's creation. The divine
providence for St. Thomas is the ultimate good. God is one and one
alone. Now, since God is goodness, we share in this goodness. For
St. Thomas, all men, at the moment of birth bear the imprint of the
Creator, enabling them to follow a law, which the Creator in His
divine wisdom has decreed that all men follow for their well-being
and happiness on earth. This capacity in humans "doing what is
good and avoiding evil" is called synderesis. The above also means
that in sharing this goodness, the good is also communicated
because we are a "substance-in-relation." We relate not only
vertically with God our creator, but we also co-relate horizontally
with other beings. Thus, since our nature is that of the good, we are
oriented towards the good. Moral action in this sense is inclined
towards an end. This end is the finality of human action. We achieve

JOSHUA D. ALARBA Page 11

Ethics- GE 8 MODULE 3
this end by following our rational nature for only through it can a
person have a natural predisposition towards the good.

Natural law is the participation of the eternal law or God's plan for
all of creation, in rational beings. It is by virtue of the natural law
that we discern what is good and evil. By acting in accordance with
the natural law we act rightly in our relations to other persons and
things. For St. Thomas, the natural law is the eternal moral law, or
God's law. God has written unto the very nature of each person the
eternal law, telling each person to direct herself towards the good.
This good is what is proper for each person because each person is
a creature of God. To be a person, therefore, is to share in God's
goodness. There is, for St. Thomas, in this sense, a predisposition in
each person towards the good." According to Emerita Quito, "there
is only one total truth, and that is God the Supreme Being There is
only one total good, and that is God or the Supreme Being." The
perfection or self-realization of each person is to be found in the way
he or she relates with others and with God. Each person has to enter
into a dialogue with others and the world. This means that one sees
the dynamism of his or her creature-hood. Such a kind of dynamism
is to be found in the ordering of the person towards the good. It
draws the person towards the light of the divine being, telling him or
her that to be good means to follow the dictates of an inner moral
demand that brings him or her closer to the divine. But how do we
know the good? Now, the good, which is the ultimate end of each
individual proceeds from his or her conscience. Our conscience tells
us to follow what is right. It directs us to do what is moral. Based on
the natural law, what is moral for each person is to follow the will of
God. God is good, and thus, the natural law commands us to do
what is good. Persons should therefore orient themselves towards
their very nature as a creature of God. While objects also follow the
natural course of events, for they are subject to the laws of nature,
the idea is that objects or things do not have freedom. fre. The drive
to do the good is something that flows from our inner nature They
simply follow what nature determines for them. Humans, however,
are free. The drive to do the good is something that flows from our
inner nature

a free home. This inner freedoat can be considered as the natural

order of the universe. It is one that God or the Creator has originally
decreed for all his creatures. But it is at the same time a dynamic
reality The dynamism of the natural law means that it must also
JOSHUA D. ALARBA Page 12

Ethics- GE 8 MODULE 3
reflect the changing realties of the world. It cannot fall prey to
obsolete norms, which are unrealistic and impossible in view of the
changes in man's historical existence, addresses us through history
History is also God's time, for in it one finds The nature of God is
also a historical one, for the real God is a God whe the self
realization of man. Thus, the natural law is not a static formulation
but a real one, which is reflective of man's changing conditions. The
above means that the natural law exhibits a certain kind of
openness to the world . It is receptive to dialogue. It does not
prescribe a fixed or static principle or rule. It accommodates
differences and enables ways to commonality among peoples in
pursuit of the good of humanity. It is therefore fully human since it
finds a common ground in the dignity of each person. It is this
dignity, a dignity that is fully informed by the perfection endowed by
God that serves as basis for the eternal moral law in each man. find
a Love as the Natural Law of the Person Love is the natural law of
the person. Love is the natural law of our humanity. To be a human
person, therefore, means to love. Now, one asks, what is love? How
is it expressed? Love is expressed in its communicability, In love,
the person expresses not only what he or she feels or shares what
he or she possesses. In love, the person shares his or her full self.
Since it has been established that the natural law tends towards
that which results to the person's fullness by way of that person's
self-realization, there is no other way of making such a real
possibility except through love. Love, in this sense, is the diffusion
of the person into the other, making the other part of his or her
person. The human person completes his or her self-realization in
the other, the other also being a creature of God. Thus, through the
natural law and by means of love, we can speak of a communion of
persons and of a community of beings. But the important thing here
is to be able to examine the meaning of this love beyond
abstraction. We need to find its significance in a world that is in
constant conflict and a world where real people suffer. When we say
thatlove needs to be expressed, we do not only mean that love is
something that is of written in flowery words which seek to motivate
the human spiot. Love, as a basic law of our humanity, should be
found in what we do. Love, if expressed fully and committed as an
act is "justice in terms of its minimum, and charity in terms of its
maximum." Justice, which one realizes in the judicieus performance
of the functions of the institutions people create to establish order in
society, is also a concrete manifestation of God's love. God has
JOSHUA D. ALARBA Page 13

Ethics- GE 8 MODULE 3
endowed us with the intellect to be able to come up with good
judgments and responsible decisions. God gave men and women
with the moral insight of fairness and the capacity to respect others.
This is something that we fulfill when we give each person equal
consideration. God's justice means that as persons, we value the
lives of others just as we value our own lives. This is something that
we find in the idea that "men and women in the eyes of God are
created equal." But human institutions, owing to their inherent
limitations, for instance, their strict adherence to rules and laws and
the promulgation of these to establish order in society may not be
able to fully provide the human person with his or her needs. There
are moments when the rules of human institutions do not see, for
instance, the immediate assistance needed by the sick, the street
child of the hapless victims of human and natural calamities. Their
survival cannot fully depend on the fulfillment of the functions of the
institution. Right then and there these people need sympathy and
love. The response is not a result of an adherence to a rule or duty.
The response is simply out of the recognition that one answers the
need of the other because the other is a real person. To love,
therefore, in terms of charity is to recognize the personhood in each
human being. It means to give value to the human person precisely
as a person.

ASSESSMENT

Answer the Following Questions:

[Link] is the basis of the natural law?

2. What is the relation between our nature and the natural law?

3. What makes the natural law dynamic?

4. Where does the natural law come from?

5. What is good according to the natural law?

6. How does a person attain the ultimate good?

7. Why is there a natural predisposition towards the good?

8. Is the natural law compatible with self-realization?

JOSHUA D. ALARBA Page 14

Ethics- GE 8 MODULE 3
9. Is the natural law eternal? Why?

10. What is the relation between love and the natural law?

II. Explain the following statements:

1. “The proper effect of law is to lead its subjects to the proper

virtue. Since virtue is what makes its subjects good, it follows that
the proper effect of law is to make its subjects good."

2. "By virtue of our possessing reason, whose function is to tell us

what to do and what to refrain from doing and that is essential in all
human beings, there is a common law governing all human beings
everywhere.'

3. "To love, therefore, in terms of charity is to recognize the

personhood in each human being. It means to give value to the
human person precisely as a person. ?

III. Practical Application

The Problem of Overpopulation

The Catholic Church argues that artificial family planning

methods are against the natural law. It only agrees to natural birth
control. But the government says that overpopulation is a huge
social problem that needs to be addressed in order to solve human
poverty. Politicians say that a huge population requires enormous
resources. Without enough government resource, human welfare is
vastly diminished. For instance, overpopulation is perceived to
cause problems in food security, education, health, and housing.
But the Church says that the problem is not in the number of
people but in the very rampant corruption among public officials.
Do you agree with the Church? Or based on the details argued by
the government, would it be morally acceptable to use artificial
methods of family planning? Does the dynamism of the natural law
mean that it has to adapt to the circumstances of the present?
Explain your answer.
JOSHUA D. ALARBA Page 15

Ethics- GE 8 MODULE 3
 The Case of the OFW

A young married woman is offered a job to work abroad as a

domestic helper. The recruiter tells her that finding a good job in the
country is difficult because of the economic slump. The income of
her husband is not enough to make both ends meet. She has an
infant. Her husband tells her not to leave. But she thinks that the
situation in the Philippines is intolerable. People do not have a life to
live and a future to look forward to, she says. Now, the government
also encourages citizens to find jobs abroad. It helps the economy.
Overseas Filipino Workers have been hailed as new heroes. Still, the
young woman's husband is reluctant. Is her husband right? Why?
From a utilitarian point of view, how should the woman decide in
this situation? What are the important factors to consider? Is it
morally right to leave her infant in favor of a job abroad? Do you
agree with the policy of the government deploying people to work
abroad? Why? Is it morally acceptable to you? Why?

JOSHUA D. ALARBA Page 16

Ethics- GE 8 MODULE 3