ETHICS- is the good things that we should do and the bad things that we should avoid, the right

ways in which we could or should act and the wrong ways of acting.
TECHNICAL VALUATION- derive from the Greek word “techne” the English words techniques
and technical which are often used to refer to a proper way (or right way) of doing things but may not
necessarily be an ethical.
DESCRIPTIVE ETHICS- concerned with how people ought to act, what sort of person one ought
to be or what sort of policies ought to be implemented.
UTILITARIANISM-it is moral theory that focuses on the results, or consequences of our actions,
and treats intentions as irrelevant.
COMMON GOOD- considering what is good for the community as well as our own good.
ETERNAL LAW- it is a variety of law that refers to what God wills for creation, how each
participant in its intended to return to him.
FELICIFIC CALCULUS-is a common currency framework that calculates the pleasure that some
actions can produce. In this framework, an action can be evaluated on the basis of intensity or
strength of pleasure: duration or length of the experience of pleasure.
ETHICAL EGOISM- prescribes that we should make our own ends, our own interests, as the single
overriding concern. We may act in a way that is beneficial to others, but we should do that only if it
ultimately benefits us.
CULTURE- is the integrated pattern of human knowledge belief and behavior that depends upon the
capacity for learning and transmitting knowledge to succeeding generations.
MORAL JUDGEMENT- when one is an observer who makes an assessment on the actions or
behavior.
MORALS-used to refer specific beliefs or attitudes that people have or to describe acts that people
perform.
GREATEST HAPPINESS-it is a formulation of utilitarian that we ought to do which produces the
greatest happiness and least pain for the greatest number of people.
AESTHETIC- derived from the Greek word ”aesthesis” (sense or feeling) and refers to the
judgements of personal approval or disapproval that we make about what we see, hear, smell, or
taste.
PRINCIPLE- rationally established grounds by which one justifies and maintains her moral
decisions and judgement.
LAW-it is a system of rules that are created and enforced through social and governmental
institutions to regulate behavior. It has been defined as the science of Justice or the Art of Justice.
FALSE- Aristotle hailed as a doctor of the Roman Catholic Church. A Dominican friar who was the
preeminent intellectual figure of the scholastic period of Middle Ages, contributing to the doctrine of
the faith more than any other figure of his time.
FALSE- the Principle of utility refers to pleasure is only good if and only if, they produce more
unhappiness than happiness.
TRUE- Efficient cause is something which brings about the presence of another being.
FALSE- Plato is a German philosopher who was credited the notion of the idea of a supreme and
absolutely transcendent good has shaped and defined the Christian Doctrine of Aquinas while
inspired by divine revelation.
TRUE- becoming is a transition towards an embodiment of the desired change which will
demonstrate a transformative movement.
TRUE- Jeremy Bentham argued that our actions are governed by two sovereign masters- which he
calls “pleasure and pain”
FALSE- Utilitarianism can lead us to selfish acts
FALSE- Mill points out that legal rights take precedence over moral rights
TRUE- In Aquinas view, we human beings has a desire to do with sexual intercourse and the care of
one’s offspring.
TRUE- John Stuart Mill reiterates moral goods as happiness, and consequently happiness as
pleasure.
Ethics
Chapter IV
VIRTUE ETHICS
Chapter 4
Virtue Ethics
Introduction
Virtue ethics is a philosophy developed by Aristotle and other ancient Greeks. It is the quest to
understand and live a life of moral character. This character-based approach to morality assumes that
we acquire virtue through practice. So, virtue ethics helps us understand what it means to be a
virtuous human being.
Example Scenario
An online news accounts narrates key officials from both the legislative and executive branches of
the government voicing out their concern on the possible ill effects of too much violence seen by
children on television. The news estimates that by the time children reach 18 years old, they have
watched around 18,000 simulated murder scenes. This prompted then Department of Education
Secretary Bro. Armin Luistro to launch the implementation guidelines of the Children’s Television
Act of 1997 in order to regulate television shows and promote more child friendly programs.
According to the news article, the DepEd held a series of consultations with various stakeholders to
address the issue of exposure of children to TV violence. They also implemented the rules and
guidelines for viewing safety and created a television airtime for shows conducive to children.
Luistros claim seems to be based on a particular vision of childhood development. Children at a
young age have not yet achieved full personal growth and mental development. This situation makes
them particularly vulnerable to possible undesirable effects of seeing violent images presented on
television. When they see violence on television on a regular basis, they may consider such violent
acts as normal and part of the daily occurrences in life. Much worse is that they might tend to believe
that such acts, since committed by adults are permissible. In this situation the saying “Life imitates
art” becomes uncomfortably true.
Mature individuals are aware that it is vital for children to go through the process of building
personality, identity or character. How does the continuous exposure to violence on television affect
the character that children develop? Is it possible that constant watching of violence on television
affect that children develop? Is it possible that constant watching of violence on television result
aggression among children? What is the role of the child’s environment in her capacity to develop in
to a good individual? Perhaps it is best to look closely at how good moral character is developed
among individuals. What elements are involved in order to achieve this?
One theory that can possibly provide a comprehensive understanding of how an individual can
develop moral character is virtue of ethics.

Specific Objectives
At the end of the lesson, the students should be able to:
1. Discuss the meaning and basic principle of virtue ethics.
2. Distinguish virtuous acts from non virtuous acts; and
3. Apply Aristotle ethics in understanding the Filipino character.
Lesson
HAPPINESS AND
1 ULTIMATE
PURPOSE
Virtue ethics is an approach to ethics that takes the notion of virtue (often conceived as excellence)
as fundamental. Virtue ethics is primarily concerned with traits of character that are
essential to human flourishing, not with the enumeration of duties
VIRTUE is the ethical framework that is concerned with understanding the good as a matter of
developing the virtuous character of person.
 Focused on the formation of one’s character brought about by determining and doing virtuous acts.
 The two major thinkers of Ancient Greece, Plato and Aristotle , had discourses concerning virtue.
 Aristotle book entitled Nicomachean Ethics is the first comprehensive and programmatic study of
virtue of Ethics.
 Aristotle discourse of ethics departs from the Platonic understanding of reality and conception of
the good. Both Plato and Aristotle affirm rationality as the highest faculty of a person and having
such characteristic enable of a person to realize the very purpose of her existence.
 But at the end they differ in their appreciation of reality and nature, which in turn results in their
contrasting stand on what the ethical principle should be.
 For Plato the real is outside the realm of any human sensory experience, but somehow grasped by
one’s intellect.
 For Aristotle REAL is found within our everyday encounter with objects in the world. What
makes nature intelligible is its character of having both form of matter.
 The truth and the good cannot exist apart from the object and are not independent of our
experience.
 When one speaks of the truth for example how beautiful Juan Luna’s Spoliarium is, she cannot
discuss its beauty separately from the particular painting itself. Same is true with understanding of
good.
 One sees the ethical theory of Aristotle as engaging the good in our day to day living.

HAPPINESS AND ULTIMATE PURPOSE

ARISTOTLE’S METHAPHYSICS
-every matter looks for its form
- He was concerned with understanding the principle of change from potentiality to
actuality through reason (logos)

-In the change intervene four causes:

 Material cause: matter
 Efficient cause: agent
 Formal cause: form/shape
 Final cause: purpose
Aristotle – “every act that a person does is directed toward a particular purpose, aim on what the
Greeks called TELOS.
 There’s a purpose why one does something.
 Every pursuit of a person hopes to achieve a good. One eats for the purpose of the good that it
gives sustenance to the body.
 Chosen career aiming for a good that is to provide a better future for her family.
 A person will not do anything which is not beneficial to her.
 Even a drug user thinks that substance abuse will cause her good
 Drug is good, but drug addict would want to believe that such act is good.
 For Aristotle Good is considered to be the telos or purpose for which all acts seek to achieve.
 One must understand that an individual does actions and pursuits in life and correspondingly each
of theses activities has different aims.
 Aristotle is aware that one does an act not only to achieve a particular purpose , but believes
purpose can be utilized for a higher goal activity. Which can be used to achieve an ever higher
purpose and so on.
 When one diligently writes down notes while listening to a lecture given by the teacher, she does
this for the purpose of being able to remember the lessons of the course.
 This purpose of remembering, becomes an art to achieve a higher aim which is to pass the
examinations given by the teacher.
 It is important to Aristotle that one becomes clear of the hierarchy of goals that the different acts
produce in order for a person to distinguish which actions are higher than other.

Aristotle (384-322 BCE)

- Telos (end/purpose)- the key idea in Aristotle’s natural law is the there is an unchanging
order (principle) to the changing physical world. By understanding this order we can learn
what is natural what is natural for something or someone to do, or be. Or become(it’s purpose
or telos).
- Supreme good is found when things fulfill their purpose.
- Aristotle’s theory of causes distinguished between efficient and final causes

Aristotle discusses the general criteria in order for one to recognize the highest good of man.
 FIRST THE HIGHEST GOOD OF A PERSON MUST BE FINAL
o As a final end it is no longer utilized for the sake of arriving at a much higher end.
o The purpose of remembering lesson in the course , that is why one writes down notes, is not the
final end because it is clear that such purpose is aimed at achieving a much higher goal.
 SECOND THE ULTIMATE TELOS OF A PERSON MUST BE SELF SUFFICIENT.
o Satisfaction in life is arrived at once this higherst good is attained.
o Nothing else is sought after and desired, once this self-sufficient goal is achieved, since this is
already considered as the best possible good in life.
o The goal of remembering the lesson in the course is not yet the best possible good because a
person can still seek for other more satisfying goals in her life.
HIGHEST GOAL FOR ARISTOTLE
o What goal is both final and self sufficient? It is interesting to note that for Aristotle, the question
can only be adequately answered by older individuals

because they have gone through enormous and challenging life experiences which helped them gain
a wealth of knowledge.
o Other individuals would agree that the highest purpose and the ultimate good of a man is
happiness or for the Greeks, EUDAIMONIA means happiness (Greeks)
o Wealth, Power, and Pleasures are not chosen for themselves but for the sake of being a means to
achieve happiness. If one accumulates wealth, for example, she would want to have not just richness
but also power and other desirable thing as well such as honor and pleasure.
o Happiness for Aristotle is the only self-sufficient aim that one can aspire for. No amount of wealth
or power can be more fulfilling than having achieved the condition of happiness.
o Not for richness or fame.
o Even though older individuals agree that happiness is the highest end and good that human aspire
for.
o For Aristotle what defines human beings is her function or activity of reason. This function makes
her different from the rest of beings.
o Dancer, Waiter, Doctor etc.

Lesson
VIRTUE AS
2 EXCELLENCE

One needs to understand the very structure of a person’s soul which must be directed by her rational
activity in an excellent way.
For Aristotle the human soul is divided into two parts
Irrational element- this part of the man is not realm, where virtue is exercised because as the term
suggests, it cannot be dictated by reason.
It consists the Vegetative and Appetitive Aspects

For Aristotle the soul has 3 aspects:

-Vegetative soul- shared by all living things
- Appetitive soul- passions, appetites and emotions
-Intellectual Soul- possessed only by humans
The VEGETATIVE ASPECTS function as giving nutrition and providing activity of physical
growth in person.

 The APPETETIVE ASPECTS works as a desiring faculty of man, that naturally runs counter to a
reason and most of the soul. Sexual Impulse for example is strong in person that one tends to ignore
reasonable

Rational Faculty- man exercise excellence in him. One can rightly or wrongly apply the use of
reason in this part.
o Where a person can attain excellence in the intellectual faculty
o Attains through teaching
o This faculty is further divided into two aspects

Moral- which concerns the act of doing and

Intellectual- which concerns the act of knowing.

One rational aspect where a person can attain excellence is in the intellectual faculty of the soul,
excellence is attained through teaching.

 Two ways by which one can attain intellectual excellence: PHILOSOPHIC AND PRACTICAL

WISDOM- creativity, curiosity, love of learning, perspective, discernment, open- mindedness.

COURAGE- bravery, persistence, integrity, vitality
HUMANITY- social intelligence, love, kindness
MODERATION- forgiveness, humility, self-control, prudence
TRANSCENDANCE- love of beauty, excellence, gratitude, humor, hope, spirituality
JUSTICE- teamwork, fairness, leadership

PHILOSOPHIC WISDOM- deals with attaining knowledge about the fundamental principles and
truths that govern the universe (ex. General theory on the origin of things) Understand meaning of
life

 PRACTICAL WISDOM- Excellence in knowing the right conduct in carrying out a particular
act. In other words one can attain a wisdom that can provide us with a guide on how to behave in our
daily lives.

o The condition of being excellent can be attained by a person through the intellectual aspect of the
soul; this situation does not make her into a morally good individual.

o For SOCRATES moral goodness is already within the realm of intellectual excellence
Knowing the good implies the ability to perform morally virtuous acts.

o For ARISTOTLE however having intellectual excellence does not necessarily mean that one
already has the capacity of doing the good.

o Knowing the good that needs to be done is different from doing the good that one needs to
accomplish.

Therefore, rational faculty of a person tells us that she is capable of achieving two kinds of virtues:
moral and intellectual.
A morally virtuous man for Aristotle is someone who habitually determines the good and does the
right actions. Moral virtue is acquired through habit.
Being a good basketball player for example involves constant training and endless hours of shooting
and dribbling the ball in the right way until one habitually does the right same with….

A moral person habitually chooses the good and consistently does good deeds. It is in this constant
act of choosing and doing the good that a person is able to form her character.
Lesson
MORAL
3 VIRTUE AND
MESOTES

Developing a practical wisdom involves learning from experiences.

Knowledge is not inherent to a person.
Knowing the right thing to do when one is confronted by a choice is not easy.
One needs to develop this knowledge by exercising the faculty of practical reason in her daily life.
In attaining practical wisdom, she may initially make mistakes on how reason is applied to a
particular moral choice or action. But through these mistake, she will be able to sustain practical
wisdom to help steer another’s ability to know morally right choices and action.
This is why when it came to life choices, one can seek the advice of elders in the community.
Based on Aristotle, a morally virtuous person is concerned with achieving her appropriate action in a
manner tt is neither excessive nor deficient. In other words, virtue is the middle or the intermediary
point in between extremes. One has function in a state that her personality manifests the right amount
of feelings, pasions and ability for a particular act.
Generally, feelings and passions are neutral which means that, in themselves, they are neither
morally right nor wrong.
But the rightness or wrongness of feelings, passions, and abilities lies in the degree of their
application in a given situation. It is right to get angry at an offensive remark but it is not right to get
angry at an offensive remark but it is not right to get angry at everyone just because you were
offended by someone.
A morally virtuous person targets the mesotes. For Aristotle the task of targeting the mean is always
difficult because very situation is different from one another.
As pointed out by Aristotle the mean is simply into and understanding the situation and assessing
properly every particular detail relevant to the determination of the mean once can be angry with
someone but the degree and aid of reason dictates how humans should show different anger toward a
child and a mature individual.
 MESOTES determines whether the act applied is not excessive or deficient.

In relation to the news article, the government and its agencies responsible for protecting and
assisting the young in their personal development should act in view of the middle measure, the
government could have dismissed the issue or could have banned television shows portraying
violence.
But such extremes censure the citizen’s freedom of expression and artistic independence, which can
result in another issue. Wisely the government acted on the side of the middle measure by going
through a series of consultation to address the issue of television violence-implementing the rules and
guidelines for viewing safety, dedicating 15% of television airtime for child friendly shows, and
enforcing a television violence rating code that tool into account the sensibilities of children. It seems
that the government acted in a manner that is not deficient and excessive.
MORAL VIRTUE
1ST the condition arrived at by a person who has a character identified out of her
habitual exercise of particular action. One’s character is seen as a growth in terms of the continuous
preference for the good.
2nd in moral virtue the action done that normally manifests feelings and passions is chosen because it
is the middle. The middle does not fall short or is excessive of the proper proportion by which these
feelings or passions should be expressed. Aristotle adds that the middle is relative to us. This does
not imply that mesotes totally depends on what the person identifies as the middle. But Aristotle
middle is not relative to the person but to the situation and the circumstance that one is in. This
means that in choosing the middle, one is looking at the situation and not at oneself in identifying the
proper way that feelings and passions should be dispensed.
3rd the rational faculty that serves as a guide for the proper identification of the middle is practical
wisdom. The virtuous person learns from her experiences and therefore develops that capacity to
know the proper way of carrying out her feelings, passions and develops the capacity to know the
proper, specifically practical wisdom aid in making a virtuous person develop this habit of doing the
good.
A moral person in this sense is also someone whose is wise. Aristotle clarifies further that not all
feelings, passions, and actions have a middle point. When one murder someone, there is nothing
excessive or deficient in the act: murder is still murder. Further , there is no intermediary for Aristotle
in the act because there is no proper way that such act can be committed.
-Aristotle also provides
example of particular
virtues and the
corresponding excesses
and deficiencies of these.
This table shows some of
the virtues and their
vices.

EXCESS MIDDLE DEFICIENCY

Impulsiveness Self-Control Indecisiveness
Recklessness Courage Cowardice
Profanity Liberality Meanness
In the table Aristotle identifies the virtue of courage as the middle, in between the vices of being
coward and reckless. Cowardice is a deficiency in terms of feelings and passions. This means that
one lacks the capacity to muster enough bravery of carrying herself appropriately in a given
situation. Recklessness, on the other hand is an excess in ones feelings and passions. In this regard
one acts with a surplus of guts that she is being to act daringly enough but able to weigh up possible
implications of such act that she precedes with caution.

Chapter V
MAKING INFOMED
DECISIONS
Chapter V
Making Informed Decisions
Introduction
What is the value of a college-level class in Ethics? We have been introduced to four major ethical
theories of frameworks: utilitarianism, natural law ethics, Kantian Deontology and virtue ethics.
None of them is definitive nor final. What then is the use of studying them? Each represents the best
attempts of the best thinkers in history to five fully thought out to the answers to the question “what
ought I do so?” this quest has not reach its final conclusion; instead, it seems that the human
condition of finitude will demand that we continue to grapple with these question. The story of
humanity appears to be the never ending search for what it means to be fully human in the face of
moral choices.
The preceding chapters clarified several notions: 1. These question of what the right thing to do is
and why are question that all human beings-regardless of race, age, socioeconomic class, gender,
culture, educational attainment, religious affiliation, or political association will have to ask at one
point or another in their lives. 2. Neither the laws nor rules of one’s immediate community or of
wider culture or religious affiliation can sufficiently answer these question, especially when different
duties, culture and religion intersect and conflict. 3. Reason has a role to play in addressing these
questions, if not in resolving them. This last element, reason , is the power that identifies the situation
in which rules and principles sometimes conflict with one another. Reason hopefully will allow one
to finally make the best decision possible in a given situation of moral choice.
Specific Objectives
At the end of the lesson, the students should be able to:
 Identify the different factors that shape an individual in her moral decision making
 Internalize the necessary steps toward making informed moral decisions
 Apply the ethical theories of framework on moral issues involving the self-society and the non-
human environment

LESSON 1 : THE MORAL AGENT AND CONTEXT

MORALITY IS NOT PROPERLY THE DOCTRINE OF HOW WE MAY MAKE
OURSELVES HAPPY, BUT HOW WE MAY MAKE OURSELVES WORTHY OF
HAPPINESS. – IMMANUEL KANT

Along the same vein as Kant, some philosophers believe personhood requires moral agency, the
capacity to make moral decisions based on the perception of right and wrong. Stated simply, it's the
ability to judge between good and bad, moral and immoral. Building on this definition, a moral
agent is a being who is conscious of the concepts of right and wrong.
Chapter 1 pointed out one of the capacities reason provides us – It enable us to distinguish between
human situations that have a genuinely moral character from those that are non-moral (for amoral). It
shows us that
 Aesthetic consideration and questions of etiquette are important facets of human life, but they
do not necessarily translate into genuine ethical or moral value.
 Reason also reminds us that the distinctions are not always easy to neither identify nor explain.
 The choice of clothing that one is to wear in general seems to merely question of aesthetics and
thus one is taste.
 In many urban centers in the Philippines in the first century, people wear a variety of clothing style
and such a situation does not seem to attract attention.
 Some cultures what a woman wears may bring upon harsh punishment to her according to the
community rule Afghanistan in the 1990s was ruled by the Taliban and women were expected to
wear the full body burqa: a woman caught in public even the small area of her body exposed will be
flogged severely.
 Mistake can be frowned upon by members of one human society or another but need not merit the
severest of punishments or penalty.
 Ethics is clearly concerned with the right way to act in relation to other human beings and toward
self. How she takes care of herself versus how she treats herself badly , substance abuse , suicide etc.
 Is a question of ethical clue that is concerned mainly with her own person

The second level where moral valuation takes place is societal. Society in this context means ones
immediate community (one’s neighborhood, barangay, or town) the larger sphere (one’s province,
region, or country) or the whole global village defined as the interconnection of the different nations
of the world.
 All level of society involves some kind of culture which may be loosely described as the way of
life of a particular community of people at a given period of time.
 Culture is a broad term it may include the beliefs and practices a certain group of people
considered valuable and can extend to such realms as art (music, literature, arts and
performance)laws (injunctions against taboo practices) fields of knowledge (e.g. scientific,
technological and medical beliefs and practices at a given point in time) and customs of a
community.
THE MORAL AGENT AND CONTEXT
The one who is tasked to think about what is right and why it is so and so to choose and do so, is
individual human. Who is this individual who must engage herself in ethical thought and decision
making? Who one is in the most fundamental sense is another major topic in the act of
philosophizing.
Greeks has a famous saying for it: “Epimeleia he auto” usually translated into English as “know
thyself”. In response to this age-old philosophical challenge the Filipino philosopher RAMON C.
REYES (1935-2014) writing in his essay Man and Historical Action explained the “who he is” is a
cross point. By this he means that one’s identity, who one is or who I am, is product of many forces
and events that haened outside of one choosing. Reyes identifies four cross points the physical, the
interpersonal, the social and historical.
Biography
RAMON C. REYES (1935-2014)
attended the Ateneo de Manila University in Quezon City
Bachelor of Arts degree in 1956
PhD in Philosophy from the University Catholique de Louvain in Belgium 1965
Techer in ADMU from 1965 to 2013 Ethics and Modern Philosophy and Contemporary
Philosophy
Most Outstanding Teacher Awarded by Metrobank 1987
Book- Ground and Norm of Morality; Ethics for College Students published in 1988.

PHYSICAL EVENTS
 Past material factors that one did not have the choice in. You are member of the species Homo
Sapiens and therefore possess the capacities and limitation endemic to human being everywhere.
 Inherited by genetic material of both biological parents.
 All of these are given they have happened or are still happening whether you want it or not.
 You did not choose to be a human being nor to have this particular set of biological parents nor to
be born in and grow up in such physical environment.
 Filipinos born in archipelago , tropical climate, with specific flora and fauna which shape human
life in this country to a profound degree
 Individual is also a product of an interpersonal cross point of many events and factors outside of
ones choosing. One did not choose her own parent and yet personality, character traits and her
overall way of doing things and thinking about things have all been shaped by the character of her
parents and how they brought her up.
 A third cross point for Reyes is the societal “who one is” is shaped by ones society. The term
society here pertains to all the elements of the human

groups- as opposed to the natural environment- that one is a member of. “Culture” in its varied
aspects is included here.
 The fourth cross point Reyes names is the historical which is simply the events that one’s people
has undergone. The effect of colonization that affects how Philippines society has been formed and
how Philippine culture has developed. This effect in turn shapes the individual who is a member of
the Philippine society.
 WHO ONE IS also a project for one’s self.
 We can the ethics plays a big role in this existential challenge of forming one’s self.
CULTURE AND ETHICS

Culture dictates what is right or wrong for an individual. As people saying when in Rome do as the
Romans do by ST. AMBROSE.
This quote implies that one culture is inescapable that is one has to look into the standards of her
society to resolve all her ethical questions with finality. Filipino traits sometimes end up as empty
stereotypes, especially since one may be hard put to think if any other culture does not exhibit such
traits.
We hear claim from time to time that “Americans are individualistic; Filpinos are communal,”
supposed difference that grounds for some people radically different sets of moral values.
But one may ask is there really any radical difference between one cultures moral reasoning or
another?
The American Philosopher JAMES RACHELS (1941-2003) provided a clear argument against
the validity of cultural relativism

CULTURAL RELATIVISM- the idea that a person beliefs, values and practices should be
understood based on that persons own culture rather than be judged against the criteria of another.


Also Rachels defines cultural relativism as the position that claims that there is no such thing as
objective truth in the realm of morality. The argument of this position is that since different cultures
have different moral codes, then there is no one correct moral code that all cultures must follow.
The implication is that each culture has its own standards of right or [Link] culture confined
within the culture.
o FIRST if cultural relativism was correct, then one cannot even criticize the practices or beliefs of
another culture anymore as long as the culture thinks that what is doing is correct.
o SECOND if cultural relativism was correct then one cannot even criticize the practices or beliefs
of ones culture. If that is the case, the black South African citizen under the system of Apertheid a
policy of racial segregation that privileges the dominant race in the society, could not criticize that
official state position.
o THIRD if cultural relativism was correct then one cannot even accept that moral progress can
happen. If that is the case then the fact that many societies now recognize women’s rights and
children’s rights does not necessarily represent a better a situation than before when we societies
refused to recognize that women and children had rights.
Rachel’s ends his article on cultural relativism by nothing that someone can recognize and
respect cultural differences and still maintain the right to criticize beliefs and practices that she thinks
are wrong, if she performs proper rational deliberation.

RELIGION AND ETHICS

There are many religions in the world. Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism are four of
largest religious groups in the world at present based on population. The Philippines is predominantly
Roman Catholic, yet many other religions continue to flourish in the archipelago. Beyond all the
differences, however, other religions continue to flourish in the archipelago. Beyond all the
differences however other religions continue to flourish in the archipelago.
Many religions followers assume that what their religion teaches can be found either in their sacred
scripture (eg BIBLE for CHRISTIANS, the Qur’ans for Muslim or body of writings (eg Vedas
including Upanishads and other text for HINDUS; the Tao Te Ching , Chuang-tzu and other Taoist
classics for Taoist or in other form .
 Religious teachings is relative to the individuals particular situation (implying no objective and
universal truth about the situatedness of the reader. This implies that the moral agent in question must
still, In full responsibility, challenge herself to understand using her own powers of rationality, but
with full recognition on her own situatedness and what is religious authorities claim their religion
teaches.

 Second one must determine what justifies the claim of a particular religious teaching when it
commands its followers on what they “ought to do” whether in general or in specific situations.
Relevant to this is Plato philosophical question in his dialogue Euthyphro which was mentioned in an
earlier chapter: is the pious loved by the gods because it is loved by the gods? “Philosophers have
modified this question into a moral version: when something is “morally good,” is it because it is
good in itself and that is why God commands it, or is it good because God simply say so

LESSON 2: MORAL DELIBERATION

There is a big difference between a young childs reasoning on the right thing to do and the manner
a morally mature individual arrives at an ethical decision. This necessary growth, which is a
maturation in moral reasoning, has been the focus of study of many theorist. One of them is the
American moral psychologist Lawrence Kohlberg (1927-1987) who theorized the moral
development happens in six stages which he divided into three levels.

a. FIRST STAGE – PRE-CONVENTIONAL in this stage there is two level

1. Obedience Vs. Avoidance and Punishment

o it corresponds to how infants and young children think
o Reasoning is centred on the consequences of action.
o Obedience vs avoidance of punishments to a young child’s mind.

2. Reasoning and learns to act what she thinks (Naively Egoistical)

o If an action is good they can avoid punishment ; if its bad it lead to punishment
o Pleasure and punishement

b. SECOND STAGE CONVENTIONAL In this age in which older children, adolescent and young
adults learn to conform to the expectation
of the society.
3. Good boy and Good Girl Orientation
o One follows conventions of her group.
o Begins to act according to what the larger group she belongs to expects of her.
o The general tendency at this age is to conform fist to the values of ones immediate group , such as
her family playmates or later on barkada.

4. Law and Social Order

o When a person relizes that following the dictates od her society is not just good for herself but
more importantly it is necessary for the existence of society itself.
o The individual at this stage values most the laws, rules, and regulation of her society and thus her
moral reasoning is shaped by dutifulness to the external standards set by society.

c. POST CONVENTIONAL – in this stage is divided into two stages represents individual
realization that the ethical principles she has rationally arrived at take precedence over even the rules
or conventions that her society dictates.

5. Legalistic Social Contract

o Namely agreement that rational agents have arrived at whether explicitly or implicitly in order to serve
what can be considered the common good are what one ought to honor and follow.

o This notion of common good is conventional in the sense that the moral agent binds herself to what
this theoretical community of rational agents has identified as morally desirable, whether the agent herself
will benefit from doing so or not.
o What is good or right is what honours the social contract; what contradicts it is bad.

6. Universal ethical Principles

o Perform action based on universal ethical principles that one has determined by herself. One
realizes that all conventions (laws, rules and regulations) of society are only correct if they are based
on these universal ethical principles.
o Full maturity post conventional thinking since this stage recognizes that in the end the question of
what one ought to do goes back to the individual moral agent and her own rationality.
The significance of studying different ethical theories and framework becomes clear only to the
individual who has achieved or is in the process of achieving, moral , maturity.
FEELINGS IN MORAL DELIBERATION
Emotions or feelings have long been derided by purely rationalistic perspective as having no place in
properly executed moral decision. This prejudice, however, needs to be re-examined thoroughly.
Although some emotion or feelings can derail one from a clear minded decision in an ethical
situation, it is also not possible that human choice can be purged of all feelings; the moral agent, after
all, is neither robot nor computer.
Aristotle points out that moral virtye goes beyond the mere act of intellectual identifying the right
thing to do. Instead , it is the condition of ones character by which the agent is able to manage her
emotions or feelings. Note that Aristotle does not say “Remove all feelings”
Tulak ng bibig kabig ng dibdib is the popular Filipino saying, the mouth says one thing but the
heart drives you to do another thing.
There can be a disconnect between intellectual knowledge of the good and the actual ability of an
individual to perform accordingly.

The responsible moral agent then as a supposedly “dispassionate” moral decision maker is an
unrealistic idea. The passions or feelings do not necessarily detract from making an informed moral
decision. One can even argue that making a moral decision , because is all about what she values,
cannot but involved her most serious feelings. What she must do is to educate and to cultivate

MORAL PROBLEMS
We must first understand that there are different types of moral problems each one requiring a
particular set of rational deliberations. We may attempt to construct an outline of what we ought to
do when confronted with the potential ethical issue.
a. FIRST STEP- determine the level of involvement in the case at hand. Do we need to make moral
decision in a situation that needs action on our part? Or are we trying to determine the right thing to
do in a particular situation being discussed? In the latter situation , we may be making a moral
judgement on a particular case. Being moral agent specifically refers to the latter situation we must
therefore identify which activity we are engaged in, whether we are making a judgement on a case
that we are not involved.
b. SECOND STEP- after ascertaining our involvement in the potential moral situation, we then need
to make sure of the facts. The first fact to establish is whether we are faced with a moral situation or
not. Are we truly confronted with a genuinely moral situation, or one that merely involves judgement
in the level of aesthetics or of etiquette.
c. THIRD STEP- identify all the people who may potentially be affected by the application of a
moral situation or by our concrete choice of action. These people are called the stakeholders in the
particular case. Identifying these stakeholders forces us to give consideration to people aside from
ourselves.

After establishing the facts and identifying the stakeholders and their concerns in the matter, we must
now identify the ethical issue at hand. These are several types of ethical problems or issues.
a. The first one is a situation in which we need to clarify whether a certain action is morally right or
wrong.
b. The second one involves determining whether a particular action in question can be identified with
a generally accepted ethical or unethical action. E.g death penalty, is death penalty tantamount to
murder?
c. The third one is to presence of an ethical dilemma. Dilemma are ethical situations in which there
are competing values that seem to have equal worth. The problem can be concerned either with a
choice between two competing moral goods or between two evils.
The final step of course is for the individual to make her ethical conclusion or decision whether in
judging what ought to be done in a given case or in coming up with a concrete action she must
actually perform. Real ethical decisions are often very difficult enough to make and for so many
different reason. The responsible moral individual, however must forge on realizing full well that
cultivating ones capacity for mature moral choice is continuously journey in her life. A moral
individual is always a human being whose intellect remains finite and whose passions remain
dynamic and who is always placed in situations that are unique.
THE VALUE OF STUDYING ETHICAL THEORIES OR FRAMEWORKS
 May serve as guide points given that there are the best attempts to understand morality that the
history of human thought has to offer, in ones quest to answer the twin question of “what ought I do?
What ought I to do so?
 UTILITARIANISM- Puts every single stakeholders at par with everyone else, with no one being
worth more than any other. Rich or poor, man or woman, young or old everyone has a much worth as
anyone else, values the “common good” compare to any other ethical frameworks we have covered

NATURAL LAW-puts more emphasis on the supposed objective, universal nature of what is to
be considered morally good, basing its reasoning on the theorized existence of a “human nature”.
This theory has the advantage of both objectivity and a kind of intuitiveness. The latter pertains to the
assumption that whatever is right is what feels right, that is.
 KANTIAN DEONTOLOGY- put the premium on rational will, freed from all other
consideration as the only human capacity that can determine ones moral duty. Kant focus on ones
autonomy as constituted of what one can consider as moral law that is free from all other ends and
inclinations-including pain and pleasure as well as conformity to the rules of the group.
What the responsible moral individual must instead perform is to continuously test the cogency and
coherence of the ethical theory or framework in question against the complexity of the concrete
experience at hand.
In the following section, let us try to show the strengths and drawbacks of each theory or
framework in application to the different realms of human action: the personal the social (both
local and global) and the environmental