MODULE 1 (WHAT IS ETHICS?

1.1 WHAT IS ETHICS?

Ethics or moral philosophy can be provisionally described as the empirical study of moral decisions. It is a
discipline concerned with what is morally good and evil, right and wrong. The word often refers to any
scheme or philosophy of universal ideals or beliefs.

The concept is derived from the Greek word “ethos” which may mean tradition, habit,character, or attitude.
This is not only about the nature of specific courses of action, but it is alsoabout the goodness of people
and what it means to lead a decent life. (Leandro, Jr & Gubia-on,2018)

Moreover, ethics is a systematic analysis of the nature of human actions. It is concernedabout the
correctness and wrongness of the act. An act is deemed to be right or wrong, based on the intent,
circumstances, or character of the act itself. As a philosophy, is a very important discipline because it
involves critical thinking, as it explores and describes fundamental beliefs, standards, ideals, and traditions.
This is thus a higher level of human discipline.

As a branch of philosophy, ethics is divided into normative and meta-ethics. The purpose of normative
ethics, which concerns human behavior in general, is to address our questions about the essence of
human behavior. Normative ethics, by definition, examine whether or not a particular act should or should
not be carried out.

There are two fields of normative ethics: moral philosophy and applied ethics or practical ethics. Moral
philosophy deals with moral ideas such as what human beings "must do or how human beings should be."
This also deals with our moral obligation, the meaning of the act, or the purpose of the act. On the other
hand, applied ethics is a philosophy that discusses strong and basic moral issues linked to abortion.

Meta-ethics is a discipline that relies on meaning. It is a science that is seeking to address non-moral
questions about morality. Those refer to questions about the nature of moral statements, the purpose and
significance of moral facts, and concerns about the interpretation and justification of moral statements.

1.2 IMPORTANCE OF ETHICS

Ethics is a set of rules that allows us to say right from wrong, good from the bad. Ethics can provide true,
specific guidance to our lives. Ethical principles such as fairness, trustworthiness, responsibility help direct
us to cope more effectively with ethical dilemmas by removing actions that do not adhere to our sense of
right and wrong–our own moral interests–without compromising others.

Furthermore, ethics is all about decisions. We are continually faced with issues that affect the quality of our
lives. We are certain that the choices we make have consequences for ourselves and the others. We are
cautious of the responsibility that we have for our actions. Why should other individuals have a lack of
ethics? Bazerman and Ann Trebrunsel (2011) identify the blind spots as the differences between who you
want to be and who you are. Hence, most of us want to do the right thing, but internal and external factors
are in the way.

However, ethicists put less emphasis on studying philosophic principles and, instead, emphasize the
importance of establishing good habits of character – needs of doing the right thing in the right place and
time in the right way.

The virtues of intelligence, bravery, patience, and justice guide ethical decision-making as they provide the
basis for rational decisions when faced with an ethical dilemma. We ought to be ethical, as it determines
who we are both personally and as a society. There must be moral principles that should be observed by all.
Some people will lie; many may not do what they assume they will do, and others may behave irresponsibly
and participate in harmful conduct.

According to Leano Jr. & Gunta-on (2018), the study of ethics should consider making it possible for an
individual to fully understand what his conscience is, how he has gained it, how far he is willing and able to
respect his outward manifestations with protection, and how well he ca strengthen it and make it even
smarter. Added to it, a person can gain a better insight into his claimsto society as well asthe obligations he
owesto society. He must learn to distinguish between the respects in which all persons are highly
dependent and those who are responsible for his or her own life and will focus on freedom of initiative.
Eventually, it will at least allow certain observations, for understanding, self-sacrifice, and obligation, which
will enable us to make these decisions.

From the standpoints of the authors mentioned above, several views on the importance of ethics were
profounded and these are the following: (1) through ethics people can determine the difference between
right from wrong, good and bad; (2) people can eliminate actions that do not conform to what is right; (3)
people will be very careful to the actions and decisions to make; (4) people will not be disturbed of the
internal and external factors of not doing the right thing; (5) establish good habits of characters of a person;
(6) come up to rational decisions in facing an ethical dilemma; (7) it makes a person responsible in the
family, school and society; (8) a person becomes sensitive to the needs of others more than himself or
herself; and (9) reminds a person to fully need conscience in decision making and a person can
acknowledge the actions made.

1.3 THE DIFFERENCES OF MORAL AND NON-MORAL STANDARDS AND CHARACTERISTICS OF

MORAL STANDARDS

Countries and nations rich or poor, developed and underdeveloped have their own set of laws, policies,
cultures, traditions, customs, and beliefs. It may be acceptable to other countries but not acceptable to
others. Some principles and values have social consequences, whereas some do not. It is a matter of
moral indifference, that is, a matter of taste in one society may be a matter of moral meaning in another.
For this reason, people need to recognize the difference between moral principles and non-moral ones, to
define the basic ethical values that can direct our actions. Moral standards compel us to behave
accordingly, although we have no right to insist on others on non-moral values based on the explanation
above.

Moral standards refer to the guidelines we have on the types of acts that we find to be morally permissible
and morally unacceptable. It primarily deals with issues that can either potentially threaten or greatly benefit
human beings. Some ethicists placed moral ethics on par with social values and moral principles. (Leandro,
Jr & Gubia-on, 2018)

Moral standards normally promote the common good, that is, the welfare and well-being of human beings,
animals, and the environment. Moral standards are a blending of norms and values. Therefore, norms plus
values pertain to moral standards. Norms as standards are basic guidelines regarding human acts. Values,
though, are universal convictions as to what is acceptable, desirable, and beneficial or not.

(1) Moral standards entail serious harm or benefit. Examples of this are the following: theft, the murder of
innocent people, respect others, a feeding program for the poor, etc. The first two examples cause harm
and the next two examples produce benefits and the action has done is helpful to human beings.

2) Moral standards are not determined by authority figures. Moral values should always be upheld, even
though they are at odds with self-interest. Cheating on examination is an example wherein the students
should not cheat during exams as a rule in an educational institution and in doing such an act, cheating, is
wrong. It’s not because students are afraid of the teacher, instructor, or professor but the students know
that is a wrongful act.

(3) Moral standards should be adopted over other values, including self -interest. Moral standards should
always be retained even if they are at stake with self-interest.

(4) Moral standards are focused on objective considerations. The basis of considerations and decisions
must not be favorable only to a particular person or group. Anyone who commits mistakes and wrongful
acts then is punished accordingly. It must be an unbiased or impartial consideration.

(5) Moral standards are perceived to be universal. We want everyone to live up to these norms and feel
resentful when somebody doesn't live up to them. Moral standards believed to be universal as it is
applicable anywhere and anytime. For instance, lying. Telling the truth is a universal standard. Hence, we
should not lie.

(6) Moral standards are correlated with different feelings and vocabulary. If anyone doesn't live up to the
norm or standards, he will feel guilty, bad, and wrong. The same is true when someone else does not live
up to the expectations, norms, and standards, others may feel disgusted at this person. Non-moral
standards, on the contrary, apply to laws which are not related to social or legal considerations. Perhaps
these criteria are not inherently related to morality or, by their very definition, lack of ethical sense.
Examples of non-moral standards are the following: etiquette, statutes, code of professional ethics, etc.
(Leandro, Jr & Gubia-on, 2018)

1.4 HOW MORAL STANDARDS ARE FORMED

Morals are shaped by the beliefs of an individual. Values are the basis of the capacity of an individual to
distinguish between right and wrong. Morals build on this to form concrete, context- driven rules that
regulate the actions of an individual. They are formed from the experience of a person's life and are subject
to opinion. There are certain moral standards that all of us hold in our actions in society. There are various
factors on how moral standards are influenced: (1) the moral values or principles that we conform with, in
our rearing; (2) the character and manners that imbibed with us by means of birthright; (3) the religious
values that our forefathers taught us; (4) the values we learned from school; (5) the moral conduct, ways
and habits of those people around us; (6) the direct and implied cultural norms; (7) our life experiences; and
(8) our critical thinking in these experiences.

MODULE 2 (WHAT ARE MORAL DILEMMAS)

2.1 DEFINITION OF MORAL DILEMMAS

Various authors presented their respective definition of moral dilemma or ethical dilemma and these are the
following:

In the definition of Kvalnes (2019), a moral dilemma is a situation in which a decision- maker must give
preference to one moral principle over another. Dilemmas occur when, confronted with a challenging
situation (e.g. equal treatment for some versus job protection for others), two or more of that kind of values
disagree with the understanding of the decision-maker, or when one assesses the moral option of another.
A person experienced with a dilemma must decide whether the moral duty will be given priority; "whatever
action is taken will offend an important moral value."

In addition, Kvalnes explained that (2019) a moral dilemma may arise as a result of a prior personal
mistake. It's called a self-inflicted dilemma. In a strict sense, a moral dilemma is a situation in which moral
values are of equal importance. In a broader sense, there may be moral dilemmas in which a person has
strong moral reasons for acting which are described to be as remarkable, nonetheless, not equally strong
moral reasons for acting in another way.

According to Kurie & Albin (2007), a moral dilemma is a situation in which people assume that they should
morally do one thing and that they should morally do another thing, and occasionally a third thing or even a
fourth thing, but they're not doing any of these mutually contradictory choices together.

The above definitions characterized moral dilemma or ethical dilemma as:

(1) Making an option to one moral value over the other;

(2) A situation where moral values are equally significant;

(3) A scenario where a person has a strong moral reason in action, but not equally strong moral reason in
acting in another way;

(4) A state where a person should morally do one, two, or more and have difficulty in deciding any of those
conflicting choices.

Every human being, experience struggling to make a decision especially if there is an urgency to make a
choice. Weighing what is good and moral. Thinking which is the best between and among choices, and
perhaps at stake or in a hot sit when choosing. The choice may be favorable to some, however, not
favorable to others. It gets individual stress of judging as to whether the decision is good or not in travailing
circumstances. A moral dilemma or ethical dilemma applies to our personal life, in a job, in a profession,
education, and some others. In any decision, an individual must analyze every aspect, scrutinize the pros
and cons, and after several evaluations then finally decide. That is the most challenging part, nonetheless,
makes an individual more mature in handling obstinate situations.
2.1 THREE LEVELS OF MORAL DILEMMAS

1. ORGANIZATIONAL ETHICAL OR MORAL DILEMMA

As discussed by Lamberto et. al(2013), an organizational ethical dilemma refers to a situation that causes
an organization to respond negatively or positively to an ethical issue that affects staff, shareholders, and
society, as well as corporate ethics and customers. It includes also the leaders' ethical actions in preserving
financial reporting integrity.

2. INDIVIDUAL MORAL DILEMMA

As mentioned by Smith (2018), individual ethical or moral dilemma pertains to a situation where individuals
confront with a number of factors such as peer pressure, personal financial position, an economic and
social status which may influence all individual ethical standards.

3. STRUCTURAL MORAL DILEMMA

The structural moral dilemma is that selecting a proper system of responsibilities and relationships, which is
a continuing universal challenge.

MODULE 3 (FREEDOM AS FOUNDATION FOR MORAL ACTS)

3.1KANT’S PHILOSOPHY ON FREEDOM AND MORALITY, THE PRINCIPLES OF JUSTICE AND

FAIRNESS

1. KANT’S PHILOSOPHY ON FREEDOM

Kant's definition of freedom is the right to control one's actions based on reason, not desire. All of this can
be simplified to the definition of autonomy. The term Autonomy derives from the Greek term, which
translates into self-legislator. The principle, then, is not to live by the animalistic rules forced on them from
birth, but rather to live by the laws that you enforce on yourself. Therefore, from Kant's point of view,
libertarian freedom is not absolute, but in fact, it is the subjugation of oneself to one's wish.

There is only one inherent right, "says Kant," freedom (independence from being limited by the option of
another) to the degree that it can coexist with the freedom of each other following universal law". Kant
opposes any other justification for the state, in particular by arguing that the welfare of people can not be
the foundation of state power.

He claims that the state can not legally enforce any specific definition of happiness on its people. It will be
for the dictator to see people as infants, believing that they are incapable of grasping what is beneficial or
detrimental to themselves.

Freedom is not the only reason for the ideals that underlies the state. In Theory and Practice, Kant makes
equality the first of three concepts, such asthe freedom of a human being as a member of a state, the
dignity of each person as a subject, and the freedom of any member of the commonwealth as a resident.

2. KANT’S PHILOSOPHY ON MORALITY

Kant based his ethical philosophy on the idea that reason should be used to decide how people will behave.
He did not attempt to recommend concrete action but advised that reason should be used to decide how to
behave. Below are the main Kant’s philosophy on morality.

1. GOOD WILL AND DUTY

Kant based the idea of obligation on ethical law. Kant started his ethical philosophy by arguing that the only
virtue that can be uncontroversially good is good will. No one virtue has this position, since any other virtue
may be used to accomplish unethical ends (for example, the virtue of loyalty is not good if one is loyal to
the evil person). Good will is unique as it is always good and retains its moral values even though it fails to
achieve its moral intentions. Kant found good will to be a common moral concept that openly wishes to use
certain virtues for moral purposes.
2. PERFECT AND IMPERFECT DUTIES

Having applied the categorical imperative, duties emerge because failure to perform them will either result
in a contradiction of conception or a contradiction of will. The former are categorized as perfect tasks, and
the latter as imperfect. The perfect duty is always true. There seems to be a perfect duty to tell the truth, so
we must never lie. Imperfect duty requires flexibility. Beneficence is an imperfect duty because we are not
obligated to be absolutely helpful at all times, but should choose the times and places in which we are. Kant
believes that perfect duty is more important than an imperfect duty: when a conflict of duty arises, perfect
duty must be carried out.

3. CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE

Categorical imperative command unconditionally. Irrespective of our wishes or desires, a categorical

imperative binds us as everyone has a responsibility not to lie, regarless of conditions and even though it is
in our interest to do so. A hypothetical imperative is one that we must fulfill if we are to satisfy our desires or
command conditionally on your having a relevant [Link] imperatives are legally binding because
they are founded on reason, about an individual and not subjective evidence. In addition to hypothetical
imperatives, these bind us to the degree that we are part of a community or society to which we owe an
obligation, we can not get out of the categorical imperative and we can not opt out of being moral agents.
We owe an obligation to reason because we are rational agents; thus, rational moral principles extend to all
rational agents at all times.

4. UNIVERSALIZABILITY

When anyone acts, it's a maxim, or a principle. For Kant, an act is only permissible if one can have the
principle that allows an action to be the universal law by which everybody acts. Maxims fail this test if, when
universalized, they create either a contradiction in conception or a contradiction in the will. A contradiction
in conception arises because, if the principle is to be universalized, it fails to make sense, since the "limit
will inevitably ruin itself as soon as the universal law has been created." The maxim is not rational because
it is theoretically impractical to universalize. We could not think of a world where this maxim has been
universalized. The maxim may also be unethical because it causes an inconsistency in the will when it is
universalized. This does not mean a logical contradiction, but that the universali zation of the maxim
contributes to a state of affairs that no rational being would want.

5. HUMANITY AS AN END IN ITSELF

The second interpretation of Kant's Categorical Imperative is to view life as an end in itself: “ Act in such a
way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of another, always at the same
time as an end and never simply as a means.”(Immanuel Kant, Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals

MODULE 4 (WHAT IS CULTURE? HOW DOES IT DEFINE OUR MORAL BEHAVIOR?)

4.1 WHAT IS CULTURE?

According to Kohak (1984), culture is at the root of human alienation from the environment. It's not just a
compilation of artifacts or reflection of people's preferences and appreciation of beauty. He added that
culture is derived from the Latin word, “cultus”, which means giving respect to the sacredness of all.
Originally, culture is not contrary to nature but is commonly accepted as a human being's role in it.

Cole (2019) defined culture as a concept that refers to a broad and diverse collection of often intangible
areas of social life. According to sociologists, culture consists of ideals, beliefs, language systems,
communication, and behaviors that people have in common and that can be used to describe them as a
group. Culture also encompasses material objects which are special to that community or society. Culture
is distinct from the social structure and economic aspects of society, but it is related to them both by
educating and updating them on an ongoing basis.

4.2 THE INFLUENCES OF CULTURE IN MORAL DEVELOPMENT

Leano & Gubia-on (2018), Baring ( shared five points in how culture influences the moral development of
the people and these are the following:
1. Culture is always social and communal by which the relationship of the people towards one
another and their experience as people are the culture’s meadow.

Culture is social and communal in character where the peopl e established and develop their relationships
with each other and learned from their experiences with them in the community. Laws, norms, values, and
attitudes serve as a binding force to enhance their relationships. From that perspective then culture
influence the moral development of the members of the community. Yes, culture passes from one
generation to the other and probably maintains or changes the systems, principles, and values due to
transformation in society but still retains the traditional ways that the community has.

2. The culture defines the normative principles and behaviors of society.

This refers to the definition of the principles and behaviors to be maintained, preserved, and changed for
the benefit and best interest of the members of the community. From the relationship and experience of the
members of the community where the community itself would be able to form certain normative principles
and behaviors to be relayed and to be taught to the members of that community. This scenario influences
the culture of that community in moral development.

3. A culture, as best exemplified in the experience of the people, develops restrictions and sets
boundaries and limitations as they live and relate with one another.

The restrictions and boundaries will serve as the protection and security of the members of the community.
Laws, rules, principles, and norms will be the guidelines for the members of the community to behave
accordingly, and if not then they will be subject to the punishment or sanction embedded in their culture.
This shows that there will be an awareness of the moral development of the members of the community.

4. As culture helps in generating the character and identity of its people, it also includes their moral
character.

Culture shapes the character and identity of the people in the community through the norms, standards,
rules, regulations, and laws. If the community is traditional or modern in character then that is the way the
members of the community will learn and experience but of course, not all have good implications.

5. The culture identifies the authorities or the governing individuals or groups.

The authorities serve as the maker, interpreter, and implementer of the laws, rules, and regulations that
they have in the community. Whatever form, a system of governance that they have the roles and duties to
play in the community and their moral judgment is important in moral issues in the community. In the family,
the parents have the moral authority over their children which is also essential for the moral development of
the members of the family as the parents are the first who have authority to their children, who have taught
and learned from them.

Obviously, culture greatly influences the moral development of an individual. Based on the discussions
above, several points were given emphasis. As culture considered to be as social and communal in nature,
then the people within the community able to establish and develop their relationships through learnings
and experiences in the community. Their relationships are bound by the rules, regulations, principles norms,
laws, and standards that the community has. There are defined principles and behaviors that need to be
kept, promoted, and rejected for the best interest of the members of the community. Restrictions and
boundaries will serve as the security of the people which will be passed to them so that are aware of them.
Moreover, culture helps in generating the identity and moral development of the members of the community
through the standards, norms, rules, principles, and laws. The maxims to be followed by them. T he
authorities direct the community for the proper enforcement of the rules, regulations, and laws for the
welfare of everyone.

4.3 CHARACTERISTICS OF FILIPINO CULTURE

Dumaraos (2018) expounded some of the characteristics of the Filipinos that set the m apart from any other
culture and society:
1. The Filipino people are very resilient.

Despite the negative experience of the Filipinos particularly during calamities and catastrophes, Filipinos
able to manage and handle a difficult situation lightly. They can still smile and always manage to rise above
the challenge.

2. Filipinos take pride in their families.

Filipinos first and foremost priority is the family. Thus, whether you are part of the immediate family or you
belong to the third and fourth generation you are cherished as a family member. Even the closest friends
are regarded as a family too.

3. Filipinos are very religious.

There are so many religions in the Philippines, nowadays, different denominations and yet they value their
beliefs. For the Roman Catholicsu they pay their respect to the different cross, images of Sto. Nino, the
Litte Christ, and other religious articles can be found in the house. Every almost all religion, they go to
Church every Sunday and sometimes twice or three times a week.

4. Filipinos are very respectful.

Filipinos used po and opo, words that usually at the end of the sentences when addressing the elders.
They also pay respect to someone older than them through pagmamano which means raising the backs of
the hands of their elders to their forehands as a sign of respect.

5. Filipinos help one another.

Filipinos are known to bayanihan or comunity spirit where everyone helps each other to make the task
easier without expecting in return.

6. Filipinos values traditions and culture.

Filipino traditions and culture are very important for Filipinos. They spent time on celebrations such as
birthday parties, reunions, festivals, etc. They dedicate every gathering for continuing a good relationship
with each other even over lavish food.

7. Filipinos have the longest Christmas celebration.

In the Philippines, Chrismas songs started to play in the malls, restaurants, respective homes from
September and last until the second week of January the next year. They hang a parol and assembling the
Chrismas tree with the decoration of balls in different colors, toys, and others. Children and adults, any
generation are excited to sing Christmas carols to every house. They have misa de gallo and noche buena
for the celebration of Christmas with the family.

8. Filipinos love art and architecture.

The gigantic and tall buildings everywhere signify Filipinos creativity in art and architecture. They love to
design, think, and have a passion for aesthetic value which is unique and different.

9. The Filipinos are hospitable people.

The visitors whether foreigners or Filipinos are very much welcome for the Filipinos during festivities and
even no occasions that when they arrive at the place, the Filipinos entertain them wholeheartedly. Offer the
best food, utensils, and the place to stay. The visitors will feel at home.

4.4 WEKNESSES OF FILIPINO CHARACTER

1. Extreme Personalism

The Filipinos always try to give an interpretation of the actions or they take things personally. They say
thank you with "but" (compliment-criticism-compliment)
2. Extreme Family Centeredness

The Filipinos have very high family protection whether in good or poor condition and circumstance
(consentidor) (overprotected)

3. Lack of Discipline

The Filipinos have a rather relaxed attitude, but bad time management (famous Filipino time). They are
impatient and unable to postpone incentives or rewards. They want to take shortcuts or the 'palusot'
scheme and careless.

4. Passivity and Lack of Initiative

They 're demanding someone's accomplishment, so they're not displaying the same flag just because of
race. They are rather complacent (relax) but they often have a sense of urgency. The Filipinos have a
positive personality, but a lack of self-confidence and a deep desire to achieve their goals. They are strong
at the beginning, but they have no sense of consistency (sometimes no direction at all or no strategy at all).
Besides, they are too patient without any plan (matiisin) "Bahala na System"-no matter what, come what
may, at least we tried (paconsuelo) attitude. They may have questions and discussions or disagreement
first, rather than analyzing the situation before planning and action.

5. Colonial Mentality

Filipinos have what we call patriotism vs active awareness mentality. They appreciate too much other
nationality and foreign products than native ones (local vs imported) They even lack love and appreciation
for what they have. Furthermore, they have Open outside but Side-open or Close inside character (it's ok
and best to receive more than to share)

6. Kanya-kanya Syndrome

Filipinos have self-serving attitude that generates feeling of envy and competitiveness towards others
(status vs prestige).They have personal ambition but insensitive to common will (people and own country).
There is also a crab mentality attitude (Hilahan and Inggitan System)instead of being happy to what are the
accomplishments of others they try to pull them down. Finally, they lack of appreciation resulting unhealthy
competition.

7. Lack of Self Analysis and Reflection

Filipinos are superficial and dreamy. They lack self-evaluation and reflection of the situation.

MODULE 5 (CULTURAL RELATIVISM)

5.1 DEFINITION OD CULTURAL RELATIVISM

Below are the definitions of cultural relativism of the various authors Cultural relativism means that we do
not judge a society by our own criteria of what is right or wrong, odd or natural. Rather, we will make an
effort to understand the cultural traditions of other communities in their own cultural context.

Cultural relativism is the desire to consider a culture on its own terms and not to make conclusions based
on the norms of one's own community. The goal of thisis to foster the awareness of the cultural traditions
that are not usually part of one's own culture. (Philosophy Home, 2009.

The concept of cultural relativism also means that any opinion on ethics is subject to the perspective of
each person within their particular culture. In a holistic understanding of the term cultural relativism, it tries
to promote the understanding of cultural practices that are unfamiliar to other cultures such as eating
insects, genocides or genital cutting.

4.1PROS OR ADVANTAGES OF CULTURAL RELATIVISM

Below are the advantages of cultural relativism:

1. It creates learning opportunities that could make humanity stronger.

The cultural difference allows people to learn as they can compare their respective cultures and from those
differences, they can improve their lives.

2. It eliminates the concept of separate, but equal.

Across culture, there are groups of people who have common beliefs and values, but who face prejudice,
injustice, and differences depending on the classes they belong to. This will eliminate the idea of being
different yet equal by cultural relativism.

3. It creates a system of niche expertise.

People will concentrate on the things they do better when cultural relativism is stressed. There will no
longer be a need to strengthen the points of weakness since the weakness of one individual is the strength
of another. Individuals will have to reflect on their strengths instead of their weaknesses.

4. It encourages respect.

Different cultures have different backgrounds and perspectives to support civilization. With cultural
relativism, these interactions and viewpoints contribute to the common good, as it helps us to benefit and
learn from each particular viewpoint in their way.

4.2 THE CONS OR DISADVANTAGES OF CULTURAL RELATIVISM

Below are the disadadvantages of cultural relativism

1. There will be actions taken that would be defined by some as “violent,” “unsafe,” or “wrong.”

Since each person can set his or her moral code of conduct, there will be those who choose to perform acts
that the majority of people will interpret as wrong. Murder, robbery, child abuse, all of these will become
legally viable acts if that person's morality described them as being good.

2. It is based on a concept that people are perfect.

We may all like to think that we're perfect but the fact is that we're all far from it. The theory of cultural
relativism is based on the premise that society can be perfect. Perhaps we're going to be one day, but that
day is certainly not today.

3. It creates a personal bias.

Cultural relativism is a worthy goal. Societies have a natural prejudice against them, which pushes certain
people down to lift people. All cultural relativism does move accountability from a group perspective to an
individualistic perspective. Promoting a particular set of morals is the focal point rather than the promotion
of a collective set of morals.

4. It eliminates the idea that reform or change can be a good thing.

Any of the greatest thinkers and teachers to be followed in history will all be deemed wrong in a system of
cultural relativism. Then there is no need to change hearts and minds, as they are all held to their
standards. Extend that in the workplace, and suddenly unsafe working conditions, low to no pay, and
sexual slavery all become reasonable choices.

Week 8: UNIVERSAL VALUES

6.1 WHAT IS UNIVERSAL VALUE?

The word "value" means something that a person or a group believes has a value that merits being sought,
promoted, or privileged. This can be a thing (money, food, art), a state of mind (peace, protection, certainty),
or a behavior that results from those things or states of mind (protecting innocent people, telling the truth,
being creative).
6.2 SCHWARTS CONCEPT OF UNIVERSAL VALUES

S. H. Schwartz, along with several colleagues in the field of psychology, carried out empirical research
analyzing whether there are universal values and what those values are. Schwartz described 'values' as
'conceptions of what is important that affect the way people choose action and evaluate events.' (Sen, 1999)

6.3 UN CHARTER OF UNIVERSAL VALUES

In the lecture by Secretary-General Kofi Annan on Global Ethics, entitled “Do We Still Have Universal
Values?”, delivered at Tübingen University, Germany, he stressed this quotation, “The values of peace,
freedom, social progress, equal rights and human dignity, enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations
and in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, are no less valid today than when, over half a century
ago, those documents were drafted by representatives of many different nations and cultures.” Progress,
equal ritghts, human dignity are accutely needed in this age of globalization. In the Millenium Declaration
according ot Annan, “all states reaffirmed certain fundamental values as being essentials to international
relations in the twenty-first century”: freedpm, equality, solidarity, tolerance, respect for nature and shared
responsibility.”

6.4 BASIC UNIVERSAL HUMAN VALUES

Hereunder are some of the basic univeral human values:

(1) Happiness – it refers to good fortune; pleasure; contentment; joy. (6) Under the notes on Aristtle’s
Nicomachean Ethics, “happiness or flourishing or living well is a complete and sufficient good. This implies
that it is desired for itself, that it is not desired for the sake of anything else, that it satisfies all desire and
has no evil mixed in with it, and that it is stable.

(2) Peace – is a freedom from disturbance; tranquility. It is a state or period in which there is no war or a
war has ended. A state of mutual harmony between people or groups, especially in personal relations:
Example: Llive in peace with your neighbors.

(3) Freedom – is the state of being free or at liberty, freedom from control, interference, obligation,
restriction, hampering conditions, etc.; power or right of doing, thinking, speaking, etc., according to choice.

(4) Safety - isthe state of being safe; freedom from the occurrence or risk of injury, danger, or loss.

(5) Intelligence – is a capacity for learning, reasoning, understanding, and similar forms of mental activity;
aptitude in grasping truths, relationships, facts, meanings, etc.

(6) Respect - os a formal expression or gesture of greeting, esteem, or friendship: deference to a right,
privilege, privileged position, or someone or something considered to have certain rights or privileges;
proper acceptance or courtesy; acknowledgment: respect for a suspect's right to counsel; to show respect
for the flag; respect for the elderly.

(7) Equality – is the state or quality of being equal; correspondence in quantity, degree, value, rank, or
ability: promoting equality of opportunity in the workplace.

(8) Justice – is the quality of being just; righteousness, equitableness, or moral rightness: to uphold the
justice of a cause.

(9) Nature – is the material world, especially as surrounding humankind and existing independently of
human activities.

(10) Health – is the general condition of the body or mind with reference to soundness and vigor: good
health; poor health. soundness of body or mind; freedom from disease or ailment to have one's health; to
lose one's health.

6.5 THE HUMAN DIGNITY

Dignity is the state or quality of being worthy of honor or respect. "A man of dignity and unbending principle"
is an example. It refers to bearing, conduct, or speech indicative of self- respect or appreciation of the
formality or gravity of an occasion or situation. It is the importance and value that a person has, that makes
other people respect them or makes them respect themselves. Dignity is earned and cannot be taken away
from anyone. It must be preserved so that the respect of others is maintained. Any act or action to be done
by an individual will be reflected in his or her personality. Only one big mistake can ruin a good reputation
for anyone. People must be very careful of his or her action and words to be said.

MODULE 7 (THE FILIPINO WAY)

Filipino Moral Characters: Strengths and Weaknesses

Filipino cultural morality especially that which concerns social ethics, centers on ideally having a “smooth
interpersonal relationship (SIR) with others (De Guzman et al. 2017). The definition of “smooth
interpersonal relationship” in Philippine culture is principally supported by and anchored on the following
Filipino values and Filipino traits and values (De Guzman et al. 2017 and Arcega et al., 2018).

Filipino Values

Values are those aspects in life that include customs, traditions, etc., which the people regard as necessary
and important in their dealings with one another (Agoncillo et al., 2010). One of the Filipino values is
‘pakikisama’ or sense or togetherness. It refers to doing somebody a good deed, such as helping a relative
or neighbor build a house without asking for compensation, or helping someone looking for a job and so on
(Agoncillo et al., 2010). It is not only practiced in neighborhood but also at work and school. Helping other
people even in small little way may show ‘pakikisama.’ Like offering help if someone cannot carry a bunch
of documents or buy goods that an office-mate or classmate sells to support his/her relative in medication
or education (Arcega et al., 2018). According to De Guzman et al. 2017, ‘pakikisama’ is having and
maintaining ‘good public relations.’ This is usually being practiced to avoid clash with other people o r a
certain group.

Just like other Filipino values, ‘pakikisama’ can work either positi vely or destructively. To elude open
displays of conflicts, clashes, and confrontations, Filipinos, because of ‘pakikisama,’ may submit to group
opinion, overgenerous praise one another, using metaphorical language rather than candid terms,
concealing negative feelinsg or unhappy spirits underneath a pleasant demeanor, smiling even when things
go wrong, avoiding to say ‘no,’ and refraining from venting anger or losing temper (De Guzman et al. 2017).

‘Utang na loob’ or dept or gratitude is very important to Filipinos. It is recognizing and returning the favor to
that person in the same measure who help them in times of need (Agoncillo et al., 2010). According to
Arcega et al., (2018), Filipinos may have ‘utang na loob’ if other people help them during sickness,
medication, sending their children to school, finding a job, or they were saved in a life threatening situation.
Once Filipinos surpass those challenges in life, they will return to the person whom they have debt of
gratitude to give back the favor they received or they will help that person in times of need. However ‘utang
na loob’ may not be good if the person is forced to do somethings even against his/ her will or against the
law just to pay the debt of gratitude. The person will do this to avoid being reproved or having
confrontations, clashes and conflicts with the person whom they have ‘utang na loob.’

‘Hiya’ or ‘kahihiyan’ or sense of shame is another Filipino values (Agoncillo et al., 2010). ‘Hiya’ may be
observed to Filipinos in accepting the food that are offered to them. Even though they are hungry, they will
feel sense of shame accepting the food given to them or they will say that they are not yet hungry. They
also feel ‘hiya’ in approaching higher authorities like school principal, teachers/ professors, deans, and
executives. They will look someone whom they think have the courage to approach higher authorities
(Arcega et al., 2018). On the other hand, ‘kahihiyan’ maybe observed in the Filipino families. They try to
avoid doing things that may dishonor their family’s name and reputation. If problems arise in th e family, as
much asthey could, they will hide it within the family because for them, the stink of a member will be the
stink of the whole family (Arcega et al., 2018). Sense of shame maybe observed also during family’s
occasion like wedding, baptism and feast (Agoncillo et al., 2010). Others will borrow money from relatives
or other people offering 5/6 or with higher interest rates just to be used in the occasion. They will spend so
much not to receive bad comments from other people that they cannot afford to spend money for the event.
At the end, they need to settle their obligations or else the interests will get higher (Arcega et al., 2018).

Like ‘hiya,’ the Filipino value of ‘amor propio’ is derived from the concept of ‘face.’ Although commonly
translated as self-respect or self-esteem, ‘amor propio’ has been characterized as the high degree of
sensitivity that makes a person intolerant to criticism and causes him to have an easily wounded pride
(“Amor Propio.” n.d). Concerning this Filipino value, some observe that Filipinos learn to withstand a loss of
face in some situations, particulalrly when they perceive themselves to be a fault, but it is devastating to be
publicly criticized, insulted, belittled, or humiliated or to lose one’s self-respect (“Amor Propio.” n.d).
According to De Guzman et al., (2017), ‘amor propio’ comes from the person’s tendency to protect is or her
dignity and honor. Because of pride or amor proprio, for instance, a person may refuse offers even if he/she
wants to accept them.

Filipino Traits

Trait is a distinguishing feature or character of a person or a group of people (Agoncillo et al., 2010). One of
the common traits among Filipino is hospitality or keeping the strangers feel warm and welcome. Filipinos
are known by other nations through this trait because they really make an effort to welcome their guests. It
is not only applied to foreigners but it also applied to everybody. New kitchen utensils, bed sheets and
pillow covers, bath towels etc., are used by their guests. They also cook delicious foods for them. They
want their guests happy, contented and comfortable (Arcega et al., 2018). This trait however, makes
Filipinos prone to being abused or maltreated (De Guzman et al., 2017).

Family isthe unit of society and consists, at least very recent times, of the parent, grandparents, and the
children (Agoncillo et al., 2010). Filipinos are also known for having close family ties. As much as possible,
they want to live in a house together with their grandparents, parents, children and grandchildren. Father is
the head and the provider of the family. All of his salary will be given to his wife to budget all the expenses
and needs of the family. He will fix anything that are damaged in their house. On the other hand, mother is
the light of their home. She will guide their children in their assignment and school activities. She will do the
house chores like going to market, cleaning the house, cooking dishes, washing and ironing the clothes
and etc (Arcega et al., 2018).

On the other hand, this Filipino trait may not be good sometimes if daughters and sons who have heir own
family still live under their parents’ custody. Their aging parents who should be enjoying their retirement
age, still support their children and grandchildren in many ways such as providing them basic needs,
shoulder the payment of utilities, or even support grandchildren in their studies because the former either
have no capacity to support their family, have no stable job, are immature parents or used to be dependent
to parents even they have their own family.

Respect for the elders is also observed to the Filipinos. They obey elderly and consider their suggestions in
major life decisions like choosing a course in college, marriage, burial, changed of residents and others.
Saying po and opo as well as mano po are taught to children as sign of respect to elders. Children are also
taught not to interrupt or mingle with the elders while they are having conversations. Calling kuya or ate the
person who is older in age even they are not biologically related is also a a way f showing respect (Arcega
et al., 2018). When excessive, nonetheless, respect to elders make one dependent or irrationally obedient
to parents or elders (De Guzman et al. 2017). These Filipino social values are important to maintain
harmony in Filipino relationships in social institutions such as family, school, and community. The ‘smooth
interpersonal relationship,’ together with Filipino ‘pakikipagkapwa-tao,’ has been deemed as a central core
of essential cultural traits that form and define an almost stereotypic Filipino character and mora behavior
(De Guzman et al. 2017).

MODULE 8 (HOW IS MORAL CHARACTER DEVELOPED?)

Moral Character and its Development

Moral character refers to the existence or of virtues such as integrity, courage, fortitude, honesty, and
loyalty. To say that a certain person has a good moral character means that he/she is a good person and a
good citizen with a sound moral compass (De Guzman et al., 2017). It can be conceptualized as an
individual’s disposition to think, feel, and behave in an ethical versus unethical manner, or as the subset of
individual differences relevant to morality (Cohen & Carnegie, 2014). Development of moral character can
be explained by the following approaches: virtues, disposition, and circular relations of acts and character,
and theoretical perspectives (De Guzman et al., 2017 and [Link]).

Moral Character and Virtues

Etymologically, the term “character” comes from the ancient Greek term charaktêr, which initially referred to
the mark impressed upon a coin. The term charaktêr later came to refer more generally to any distinctive
feature by which one thing is distinguished from others. Along this general line, in contemporary usage
character often refers to a set of qualities or characteristics that can be used to differentiate between
persons. It is used this way, for example, commonly in literature. In philosophy, however, the term character
is typically used to refer to the particularly moral dimension of a person. For example, Aristotle most often
used the term ēthē for character, which is etymologically linked to “ethics” and “ morality” (via the Latin
equivalent mores) (Timpe, 2002).

The Circular Relation of Acts and Character

The other side of the relation between moral character and action is the effect of action on character. Three
aspects of action relevant to this are repetition of action and its effect on the person, the type of action, and
intention and responsibility (Mitchell, 2015).

A. Repetition of Action and its Effect on the Person

Actions can be repetitive or automatic in (at least) three different ways: by habit, by education, and by
habitus (Mitchell, 2015). When an action is constantly repeated, over time it can become a habit. For
example, the physician who automatically writes a prescription for contraception for patients who ask and
no longer thinks it through has acquired a habit. Another type of automatic action is a skill (education).
Actions become skills through repetition and experience. For example, the baker automatically stops
kneading the bread dough when it reaches a certain elasticity. These actions are done without consciously
thinking through all the steps and reasoning and judgments. A third way actions become automatic is
through what Aquinas calls habitus, that is, inclination or disposition, an inclination, a willingness, to
respond charitably to anyone in need as the situation arises. For example, I see a person without a coat
shivering in the middle of winter and give them my coat, and on and on (Mitchell, 2015).

B. The Type of Action

Because human beings are body/soul unities, actions of the body are actions of the self. Digestion of food
is certainly an action, as is jumping when startled or yawning when tired. Aquinas calls these acts of a
human being (actus humanus) and distinguishes them from human acts(actus humanis) (Mitchell, 2015).
Human acts are rational acts and are more closely associated with character than are acts of human
beings, because the former actions come from the whole person. Laughing at funny thingsis a moral act, in
contrast to laughing because one is being tickled, which is an act of a human being. In the former, there is
choice. One can choose to laugh or not. Laughing that is ridicule is a bad moral act. Laughing at oneself
can be good (e.g., humbling). In fact, training oneself to not laugh at racist jokes or sexual innuendos is
considered by many to be a moral responsibility (Mitchell, 2015).

C. Intention and Responsibility

Two important aspects of the revelatory nature of action are responsibility and intention. Human beings
own their actions and the consequences of them. This even applies to actions that are accidental rather
than willed and chosen. The will is the rational power of human beings to act. It isthe ability to choose what
is good (or what one thinks is good) directed by reason (Aquinas, 1948 and Wojtyla, 1979).

MODULE 9 (STAGES OF MORAL DEVELOPMENT)

The Six Stages of Moral Development

Lawrence Kohlberg, (born October 25, 1927, Bronxville, New York, U.S.—died January 17, 1987, Boston,
Massachusetts), American psychologist and educator known for his theory of moral development. Kohlberg
was the youngest of four children of Alfred Kohlberg, a successful silk merchant of Jewish ancestry, and
Charlotte Albrecht Kohlberg, a Protestant and a skilled amateur chemist. When the couple divorced in 1932
after 11 years of marriage, each of the children was required by a court order to choose which parent he or
she would live with. The two younger children chose their father and the older ones chose their mother
(Doorey, 2020).

Lawrence Kohlberg’s stages of moral development, a comprehensive stage theoryof moral development
based on Jean Piaget’s theory of moral judgment for children (1932) and developed by Lawrence Kohlberg
in 1958. Cognitive in nature, Kohlberg’s theory focuses on the thinking process that occurs when one
decides whether a behaviour is right or wrong. Thus, thetheoretical emphasis is on how one decides to
respond to a moral dilemma, not what one decides or what one actually does (Sanders, n.d.). Piaget
described a two-stage process of moral development (Scott, & Cogburn, 2020). Kohlberg extended Piaget's
theory, proposing that moral development is a continual process that occurs throughout the lifespan. His
theory outlines six stages of moral development within three different levels.

The Heinz Dilemma

Kohlberg based his theory on a series of moral dilemmas presented to his study subjects. Participants were
also interviewed to determine the reasoning behind their judgments of each scenario (American
Psychological Association, 2018). One example was "Heinz Steals the Drug." In this scenario, a woman
has cancer and her doctors believe only one drug might save her. This drug had been disco vered by a local
pharmacist and he was able to make it for $200 per dose and sell it for $2,000 per dose. The woman's
husband, Heinz, could only raise $1,000 to buy the [Link] tried to negotiate with the pharmacist for a
lower price or to be extended credit to pay for it over time. But the pharmacist refused to sell it for any less
or to accept partial payments. Rebuffed, Heinz instead broke into the pharmacy and stole the drug to save
his wife. Kohlberg asked, "Should the husband have done that?" Kohlberg was not interested so much in
the answer to whether Heinz was wrong or right but in the reasoning for each participant's decision. He
then classified their reasoning into the stages of his theory of moral development (American Psychological
Association, 2018).

Theoretical Framework

The framework of Kohlberg’s theory consists of six stages arranged sequentially in successive tiers of
complexity. He organized his six stages into three general levels of moral development (Sanders, n.d.).

Level 1: Preconventional level

At the preconventional level, morality is externally controlled. Rul es imposed by authority figures are
conformed to in order to avoid punishment or receive rewards. This perspective involves the idea that what
is right is what one can get away with or what is personally satisfying. Level 1 has two stages.

Stage 1: Punishment/obedience orientation

Behaviour is determined by consequences. The individual will obey in order to avoid punishment.

Stage 2: Instrumental purpose orientation

Behaviour is determined again by consequences. The individual focuses on receiving rewards or satisfying
personal needs.

Level 2: Conventional level

At the conventional level, conformity to social rules remains important to the individual. However, the
emphasis shifts from self-interest to relationships with other people and social systems. The individual
strives to support rules that are set forth by others such as parents, peers, and the government in order to
win their approval or to maintain social order.

Stage 3: Good Boy/Nice Girl orientation

Behaviour is determined by social approval. The individual wants to maintain or win the affection and
approval of others by being a “good person.”

Stage 4: Law and order orientation

Social rules and laws determine behaviour. The individual now takes into consideration a larger perspective,
that of societal laws. Moral decision making becomes more than consideration of close ties to others. T he
individual believes that rules and laws maintain social order that is worth preserving.

Level 3: Postconventional or principled level

At the postconventional level, the individual moves beyond the perspective of his or her own society.
Morality is defined in terms of abstract principles and values that apply to all situations and societies. T he
individual attempts to take the perspective of all individuals.

Stage 5: Social contract orientation

Individual rights determine behaviour. The individual views laws and rules asflexible tools for improving
human purposes. That is, given the right situation, there are exceptions to rules. When laws are not
consistent with individual rights and the interests of the majority, they do not bring about good for people
and alternatives should be considered.

Stage 6: Universal ethical principle orientation

According to Kohlberg, this is the highest stage of functioning. However, he claimed that some individuals
will never reach this level. At this stage, the appropriate action is determined by one’s self-chosen ethical
principles of conscience. These principles are abstract and universal in application. This type of reasoning
involves taking the perspective of every person or group that could potentially be affected by the decision.

Kohlberg’s theory was highly influential, especially in psychology and education. No otheraccount had
provided such a detailed explanation of children’s moral development. Moreover, during a time when most
psychologists were behaviorists, Kohlberg’s work broke new ground by concentrating on cognitive
phenomena. His theory also received much criticism, however, most notably from the American
psychologist Carol Gilligan, who argued that it ignored the distinct patterns of moral development exhibited
by girls (Doorey, 2020).

MODULE 10 (REASON AND IMPARTIALITY AS REQUIREMENTS FOR ETHICS)

Reason and Impartiality

Humans have not only feelings but also reason, and reason plays a vital role in Ethics. In fact, moral truths
are truths of reason; that is, a moral judgement is true if it is espoused by better reasons than the
alternatives (De Guzman et al. 2017).

Reason is the ability of the mid to think, understand, and form judgments y a process of logic. It is an
innate and exclusive human ability that utilizes new or existing information as bases to consciously make
sense out of thing while applying logic. It is also associated with thinking, cognition, and intellect (“Reason
and Impartiality as Minimum Requirement for Morality”). In the article “Kant and Hume on Morality,” Reason
and experience are required for determining the likely effects of a given motive or character trait, so reason
does play an important role in moral judgment.

As stated in the article “Reason and Impartiality as Minimum Requirement for Morality,” impartiality is
manifesting objectivity. It is the quality of being unbiased and objective in creating moral decision –
underscoring that a (morally) impartial person makes moral decisions relative to the welfare of the majority
and not for specific people alone. According to De Guzman et al. (2017), impartiality involves the idea that
each individual’s interest and point of view are equally important. Also called evenhandedness or fair-
mindedness, impartiality is a principle of justice holding that decisions ought to be based on objective
criteria, rather than on the basis of bias, prejudice, or preferring the benefits to one person over another for
improper reasons.

Impartiality in morality requires that we give equal and/or adequate consideration to the interests of all
concerned parties. The principles of impartiality assumes that every person, generally speaking, is equally
important; that is, no one is seen as intrinsically more significant than anyone else. Other ethicists however,
suggest that some clarifications is required. From the impartial standpoint, to say that no one is seen as
intrinsically more significant than anyone else, is not to say that there is no reason whatsoever for which an
individual might demand more moral attention or better treatment than others. Many ethicists supposed that
from the impartial point of view, properly conceived, some persons count as more significant, at least in
certain ways. A virtous and respectable religious leader maybe supposed to be mor e significant than a
mere maid; so an emergency (say, a building on fire) the decent religious leader ought to be rescued first.
The reason, nonetheless, is not that the religious leader is intrinsically more significant; rather, it is that he
makes greater contribution to the society (De Guzman et al. 2017).

Why are Reason and Impartiality the Minimum Requirements for Morality ?

Is someone tells us that a certain action is immoral, we may ask why it is so, and if there is reasonable
answer, we may discard the proposition as absurd. Also if somebody utters that a particular act is wrong
and explains that it is because it does not happen to fits his taste, then we also do not count his claim as
legitimate ethical judgment. Clearly, thus reason is a necessary requirement for morality (De Guzman et al.
2017).

As stated in the article “Reason and Impartiality as Minimum Requirement for Morality,” Reason and
impartiality become the basic prerequisite for morality as one is excepted to be able to deliver clear,
concise, rightful, and appropriate judgments made out of logic and understanding in an unbiased and
unprejudiced manner while considering the general welfare to accurately concoct moral decisions.

MODULE 11 (FEELINGS AND REASON)

Feeling and Moral Decision-Making

According to Ells (2014), emotion is a response to stimuli based on past experiences which is made
instinctively while reason is a form of personal justification which changes from person to person based on
their own ethical and moral code, as well as prior experience. Some ethicists believe that ethics is also a
matter of emotion. They hold the moral judgment as thet are even deemed by some as instinctive and
trained response to moral dilemmas (De Guzman et al. 2017). Emotions is the result of logical analysis
through which we first analyze someone’s behavior, make an appropriate judgment, and then feel
whichever is called for, respect or contempt (Pillemer & Wheeler, 2010).

Feeling-based Theories in Ethics

There are at least two theories in ethics that gives focus on the role of feelings on morality. They are (1)
Ethical Subjectivism and (2) Emotivism (De Guzman et al. 2017).

1. Ethical Subjectivism. This theory basically utter runs contrary to the principle that there is objectivity in
morality. Fundamentally a meta-ethically theory, it is not about what things are good and what are things
are bad. It does not tell how we should live or what moral norms we should practice. Instead, it is a theory
about the nature or moral judgments (De Guzman et al. 2017).

2. Emotivism. As cited in the “Emotive Theory of Ethics” The term emotivism refers to a theory about moral
judgments, sentences, words, and speech acts; it is sometimes also extended to cover aesthetic and other
nonmoral forms of evaluation. Although sometimes used to refer to the entire genus, strictly speaking
emotivism is the name of only the earliest version of ethical noncognitivism (also known as expressivism
and nondescriptivism).

Criticisms on Ethical Subjectivism and Emotivism

Stated in the article “Subjectivism,” subjectivism implies the moral statements are less significant than most
people think they are – this may of course be true without rendering moral statement insignificant. More so,
Ethical Subjectivism has implications that are contrary to what we believe about the nature of moral
[Link] also implies that each of us is infallible so as long as we are honestly expressing our
respective feelings about moral issues. Furthermore, it cannot account for the fact of disagreement in
Ethics. Finally, the theory could also have dangerous implications in moral education (De Guzman et al.
2017).

Feelings Can Help in Making the Right Decision

According to Pillemer & Wheeler (2010), moral development may rest in our ability to be mindful of our own
feelings, thoughts, and values—and the context in which we are functioning. As we ponder decisions, and
more fundamentally, our principles, Pillemer & Wheeler (2010), enumerated some precepts to bear mind.
Among them are:

1. Don’t accept the problem as given.

How choices are framed can sway your choices in ways that may contradict your core beliefs. (Think of the
classic experiment about health care policy.) Generate multiple options and assess them against one
another instead of considering them in isolation.
2. Listen to both your heart and head.

Issues of right and wrong matter deeply to us, as they should. Twinges of disgust or shame may be internal
signals that we are nearing the outer bounds of acceptable behavior. But we should also reflect on the
sources of our feelings, be they negative or positive, as they may be triggered by associations that have
nothing to do with the matter at hand.

3. Watch your language.

How we name things exposes (or masks) the nature of our actions and their consequences. Firings
become layoffs, layoffs become downsizing, and downsizing becomes right-sizing. The action may be
unavoidable, but we should not sugarcoat the fact that people who once worked with or for us are now
jobless.

4. Take special care in dimly lit places.

Your actions and ultimately even your values are influenced by the company you keep.

5. Be modest about your virtue.

Most of us believe that we are more ethical than are others. Countless experiments and real life examples,
however, should remind us that people who are most self-righteous may be most likely to slip.

6. Understand why others transgress.

Some lapses may be due to moral failure, but others can be caused by external factors that have little to do
with their fundamental nature. Luck plays a role in regard to how people are tested and what resources
they can draw upon. Refrain from judging a person’s core character, positively or negatively, on the basis of
a single event.

7. Don’t give up on yourself (or on others).

An ancient proverb says, “Every saint has a past. Every sinner has a future.” Honest reflection about the
past, coupled with a measure of humility, can serve as foundation for leading a responsible life going
forward.
ESSAY

Discuss ethics and its important to you being a student, a daughter or son and as citizen of this
nation?
-Differentiate moral standard and non moral standards and cite some example
-Specify the characteristics of moral standards
How moral standards formed?
What is the definition of moral dilemma?
Cite an example of all three levels of moral dilemmas: individual, organizational and structural.
Which is the most difficult to face among three levels of moral dilemma and why?
Discuss briefly the characteristic of Kants philosophy on freedom, morality and principles of justice and
fairness
Define the following on your own words: freedom, morality, justice and fairness and relate your definition to
kant philosophy?
Define culture according to different authors we discuss in our module.
Discuss at least two influences of culture in moral development.
Give at least three characteristics of Filipino culture and cite an example to each characteristic.
Give at least three weaknesses of Filipino character and give some ways to improve it.
Identify one strength and one weakness of the Filipino character do you possess? Why?