Winston C.

Quilaton
Emmanuel Servants of the Holy Trinity (ESHT)
3rd Year AB Philosophy
Seminar on Special Questions in Ethics
Dr. James Piscos

Module 1 Assignment

1. Demonstrate the similarities and differences of ethics and morality using an example. Explain
your answer. (15)

ETHICS MORALITY
DIFFERENCES SIMILARITIES DIFFERENCES
Principles that assist each Both terms are used A belief in what can or should
person or group of people to interchangeably. be right or bad.
make good or bad decisions.
It means character Both terms indicate a fine line It means custom
to know the good and bad acts
in an individual.
Individual factors, as well as Both terms help an individual Social and cultural factors
legal and professional issues to be a better person.
Universal principle Both terms are desirable to a Limited only to a particular
person. place or culture
Applicable to business They are interconnected to Not applicable to business
each other

Ethics and Morality can be used interchangeably by most people because they are the same
in determining the action of an individual. In simple terms, they indicate a fine line to know the
good and bad acts in an individual. They also help and individual to be a better person for a reason
that any of us are desiring to be good and not to commit evil. They are also desirable to a person
wherein other animals do not have the idea if what they are doing is good or bad. Only humans
have the ability to choose between the two if what they are doing is ethical or moral. They are in
fact interconnected to each other because morality and ethics meet each other in the behavior of a
person, whether the action is good or bad. That is why, there should be no conflicts to differentiate
the two in general. In some courts, they do not try to differentiate the two because they do not mind
it whether the accused is ethical or moral but rather used the terms good or bad.

On the other hand, if someone tries to differentiate the two, it would be difficult to decipher
but there are certain fields that can be observed between the two. For example in terms of origin,
ethics come from a Greek word "ethos" meaning "character" and morality Latin word "mos"
meaning "custom". Ethics are principles that assist each person or group of people to make good
or bad decisions however morality are set of beliefs in what can or should be right or bad. It simply
specifies the do's and don'ts of the locality. What distinguishes morality from ethics is that morality
may be practiced as a habit, without having to think about it. Simply obey or follow the directions
of individuals who claim moral standing within a specific tradition. Perhaps a world of habitually
good people is preferable than one of habitually evil people. Another important distinction is that
ethics are individual factors, as well as legal and professional issues. It needs critical thinking and
reflection whether the action is ethical or unethical with the assistance of professional advisers.
Morality is only founded on social and cultural factors and sometimes do not need critical thinking
because the moral acts are based on what has been agreed in the locality. While some cultures have
their own set of values which is only acceptable in their culture but not moral to other cultures,
thus, it becomes limited. The ethical considerations must be then considered because it resolves
beyond the limitations in culture, time, place, nationality, etc. Furthermore, ethics can relate to all
elements of business conduct (business ethics) and is applicable to the actions of people as well as
large companies. In contrast, morality in some major cases, are unapplicable because moral codes
can be different from company to company. If moral standings between companies are not being
set aside, conflicts will probably occur and it is not healthy when having partnerships.

2. Show the different parts of the human act and provide an example to illustrate that point. (15)

The anatomy of human act is conditioned into four (4) parts: Object, Intention, and Circumstance,
and Effects of Consequences.

a) Object – It answers the whatness of the act – the action that is done. This is merely a
recount of what happens, with no discussion on standards or acceptability. For Saint
 Thomas, the morality of a human act is largely determined by the object, which is logically
selected by someone who consciously uses their will and mind. Other than intention,
circumstance, and effects of consequences, the object is the major indication for
determining whether an action is good or evil. The object encompasses the desire for
perceiving good. If an activity is wicked rather than the desire for good, it is not moral.
Homicide, euthanasia, abortion, and suicide, according to the Second Vatican Council, are
some examples of immoral acts.
b) Intention - It is the act's purpose. It provides an answer to the question, "Why did I do it
or didn't I do it?" What is the purpose behind the act? Is the act self-serving and harmful to
others, or is it self-serving and harmful to others? “The end is the primary objective of the
intention and reflects the action's purpose,” it reads. A good intention does not equate to a
good deed (such as lying). This means ends do not justify the means. The intention is a
motion of one's will toward a goal that is concerned with the activity's aim. For example,
a suicide bomber's purpose for committing suicide was to intentionally murder people in
the name of a group such as ISIS.
c) Circumstances - We'll look at the act's time and place in this section, as well as the people
involved. All of the act's "environmental" criteria are also included in the circumstances.
Circumstances are just secondary to a moral act. They influence whether human actions
are morally good or bad. They can also reduce or raise a person's accountability. For
example, maybe it is not the will of the suicide bomber to do the crime. He just accepted
the task because he was threatened by ISIS to kill his or her family if he will not follow.
When he did the crime, it failed because none of the people was hit by the bomb. Thus, it
can reduce person's accountability.
d) Effects of Consequences - These are the inevitable consequences of one's acts or
omissions. The consequence, or what happens soon after something happens, determines
whether or not it will happen again. Consequences might be both positive or negative in
nature. For example, the suicide bombing is evil but if no one was hurt except the doer of
the action, there is a possibility that suicide bombing will happen again to accomplish the
task. In the meantime, after knowing the circumstances behind the action and that the
suspect was found out to be a victim of threat, others will acknowledge him for sacrificing
himself to save his families or the other way around.
[Link] are the implications of fighting evil rather than avoiding them in today's times? (10)

Avoiding evil is the same as postponing or ignoring a problem in the hopes that it would
resolve itself over time. Prevent chatting to prostitutes, for example, to avoid being enticed to have
sexual encounters with them, which would be a sin of betraying your wife. While the aim of not
committing a sin is admirable, the method of treating the problem by avoiding evil is not. The evil
will continue to exist, and the longer you fight, the more likely temptations will consume your
thoughts. "The more you detest, the more you love," as the saying goes. In these days, the right
approach to deal with evil is to fight it. It also entails "accommodating" the difficulty. It
necessitates a high level of collaboration and minimal conflict. Prostitutes, in the example
provided, are the ones who are generating the evil of desire for flesh. We should not exclude them
from society and treat them as though they were sinners to be avoided. Maybe they took the job
since they did not have any other way to support their family. "To cling on a desperate possibility,"
as the quote goes, is their only option. Why not combat evil by accommodating it? Speaking with
sinners is not a sin. Sinners, like the woman who was a prostitute before Jesus, require assistance.
All of us and even Jesus was tempted by the evil but he confronted evil by accommodating the
person who is doing the evilness.