Unit I

WHAT IS ETHICS AND WHAT ARE THE ETHICAL DIMENSIONS OF HUMAN

EXISTENCE

INTENDED LEARNING OUTCOME

▪ Exemplify the ethical dimension of human existence at various levels – personal, societal,
environmental, and cultural.
▪ Describe what ethics is, how it is framed and practiced, and what is its value to society and the
person.

INTRODUCTION

Ethics serves as the cornerstone of understanding the moral fiber that holds human existence together,
transcending personal choices to societal norms, environmental responsibilities, and cultural identity. This
module is designed to explore the ethical dimensions of human existence at multiple levels—personal, societal,
environmental, and cultural—emphasizing how ethics shapes and informs our interactions, decisions, and
shared humanity.
Through this module, learners will delve into foundational concepts that distinguish ethics, values, and
morality, providing clarity on their interrelation and distinct roles in guiding human behavior. It also sheds light
on the notion of values as pivotal principles shaping individual and collective perspectives. Lastly, the module
will explore various sources of authority that influence ethical decision-making, from personal conscience to
societal frameworks and beyond.
By engaging with this module, learners will gain a deeper appreciation for ethics as a critical lens for
navigating life's complexities, fostering a mindset rooted in integrity, respect, and responsibility.

pg. 1
 LESSON 1: Define Ethics vs Values vs Morality

What is Ethics?
Ethics, at its core, deals with the
fundamental question of what is right and
wrong, good and bad, or acceptable and
unacceptable in human behavior. It
encompasses the principles or standards of
conduct that guide individuals and societies in
decision-making. Ethics provides the moral
compass by which individuals navigate complex
situations, ensuring harmonious relationships
and fostering a sense of justice and fairness.

The term ethics originates from the Greek

word ethika (ἠθικά), meaning “character” or
“custom.” This reflects its deep connection to
human behavior and the shared norms of
society. Ethics, as a branch of philosophy,
systematically explores and defends concepts of
right and wrong behavior. Often referred to as
Moral Philosophy, ethics establishes norms
(standards or patterns) by which interactions
among individuals are regulated. It asks
profound questions about how humans ought to
act and what goals they should strive to achieve.

Ethics extends beyond personal behavior to encompass societal and environmental

considerations. It examines the interplay between individual actions, societal expectations, and our
obligations to the world around us. For example, ethical considerations might involve environmental
stewardship, respect for cultural diversity, or upholding human rights.

Why Do We Need to Study Ethics?

The study of ethics is essential for fostering a thoughtful and intentional life. It encourages individuals to
critically examine their own beliefs, actions, and decisions, thereby gaining deeper self-awareness. This self-
reflection helps answer crucial questions:
What kind of person am I?
What kind of person should I strive to be?
How can I make choices that align with my values and benefit society?

By studying ethics, individuals also develop the ability to articulate their values clearly and justify their
actions to others. For example, when faced with an ethical dilemma at work—such as whether to report
unethical behavior—a person equipped with ethical reasoning can assess the situation, weigh competing
values, and make a principled decision.

Ethics goes beyond abstract principles; it focuses on the quality of decisions rather than their quantity.
While we make countless choices daily, ethics teaches us to deliberate carefully and aim for decisions that
uphold fairness, respect, and integrity.

In this sense, ethics serves as a tool that distinguishes between good and bad decisions. It helps us
understand the factors influencing our choices, such as:
Values: The ideals we hold dear, like honesty, freedom, or compassion.
Principles: Fundamental truths or doctrines that shape our actions, such as justice or equality.

pg. 2
 Beliefs: Personal convictions about what is true or important.
Norms: Societal rules or standards that influence behavior.

Ethics manifests in many aspects of life:

1. Obligations: Duties or responsibilities expected of us, such as keeping promises or respecting others’
rights.
Example: A doctor is ethically obligated to prioritize patient welfare.
2. Prohibitions: Actions we are required to avoid, such as lying or stealing.
Example: Employees are prohibited from misusing company resources.
3. Encouragements: Standards we are encouraged to meet, such as being kind or generous.
Example: A leader is encouraged to foster inclusivity and fairness within their team.

By integrating these principles into everyday life, we create a more harmonious and equitable society.
Studying ethics equips individuals with the tools to navigate moral complexities, enabling them to contribute
positively to their communities and the world at large.

Ethics, Values, and Morality

What is the difference between Ethics, Values, and Morality?

The terms ethics, morals and values tend to feel very similar, but they are not quite the same. To further
explain these, keep reading for explanations and examples to learn how they are different.
Ethics is a branch of philosophy that “involves systematizing, defending and recommending concepts of
right and wrong behaviour.
Values tend to influence attitudes and behaviour. Values reflect a person’s sense of right and wrong.

The Major Differences Between Ethics vs Values

Ethics Values

Ethics refers to a system of moral principles Values are associated with the thought process, a
person’s sense of what is wrong and what is right.

Ethics aligns with a professional setup Values are associated with personal aspects of a
person
Ethics has 3 major areas of study – Meta-Ethics, Different types of values are moral values, social
Normative Ethics, Applied Ethics. values, aesthetic values, religious values, political
values.
Ethics will be consistent within a professional setup Values vary from person to person, it need not be
but would vary between 2 different organizations or consistent.
institutions.
Ethics are determined by an institution, organization Values formed in a person are determined by family
and varied professions. Ethics that are followed by values, religion, culture, community etc.
medical professionals will be different from ethics
followed in the public administration domain
Ethics could act as a constraint. The action that needs Values could act as a catalyst for the necessary
to be taken in an organization could be consistent motivation in a person.
with the values of a person. However, there could be
chances that it cannot be executed as it may not align

pg. 3
with the ethical standards of the profession,
organization or institution.

Ethics is a branch of philosophy that “involves systematizing, defending and recommending concepts of
right and wrong behaviour.
Morals or Morality can be a body of standards or principles derived from a code of conduct from a
particular philosophy, religion, or culture, or it can derive from a standard that a person believes.

The Major Differences Between Ethics vs Morality

Ethics Morality

The word Ethics originated from the Greek The word Morals originated from the Latin word Mos.
word ethos. The meaning of ethos is a character The meaning of Mos is custom.
Legal guidelines and professional rules govern ethics. When it comes to the acceptability of Morality it
The acceptability of ethics is confined within a transcends the norms laid down by culture.
particular space and time frame.

Ethics are dependent on the prism of others. Morality is seen from the perspective of an individual.
If the contexts are different then the ethics could be Change in Morality depends on the change in the
different, hence there is some degree of flexibility in beliefs of an individual.
ethics.

Ethics are followed because society has decided that Morality is followed because a person believes that it
it is the right course of action is the right course of action.

A person who follows the ethical principles need not There could be situations where ethics are violated by
necessarily have strong moral values, in fact, there a moral person to maintain to uphold his moral values.
are even possibilities that he may not have any
morals.
Ethics is something usually associated in the field of Morality has a religious connotation
law, medicine or business. Ethics does not have a
religious connotation.

VALUES
Values are the foundation of an individual person’s ability to judge between right and wrong. Values include a
deep-rooted system of beliefs that guide a person’s decisions. They form a personal, individual foundation that
influences a particular person’s behavior.

Examples of Values
There are examples of values everywhere in your daily life. For example, if your value system is founded
upon honesty, you would probably choose to study for a difficult test rather than cheating for a passing grade.
However, if you value achievement and success over honesty, you may decide to cheat on the exam instead.
This relates to which value is “worth more” to the individual.

Other examples of values include:

• a person who values integrity admits that they stole a piece of candy
• someone who values friendship drops everything to help a friend
• people who value a healthy lifestyle make sure they have time to work out in the morning
• a person who values success works late nights to achieve a promotion
• someone who values commitment may be more willing to go to marriage therapy than to file for divorce

These values form our personality types. They also help us make decisions that affect the course of our
lives. When these values are shared by others in our community and become the society’s norms, they are known
as morals.
pg. 4
MORALS
Morals, also known as moral values, are the system of beliefs that emerge out of core values. Morals are specific
and context-driven rules that govern a person’s desire to be good. They can be shared by a larger population, but
a person's moral code may differ from others' depending on their personal values.

Examples of Morals
We make moral decisions based on personal values all the time. An example of a moral in the example
above is determined by a person's value of honesty: cheating is bad. Someone who values success more than
honesty may behave by another moral: cheating is fine.

Additional examples of morals include:

• It is bad to steal candy (based on a value of honesty).
• Helping a friend is a good thing to do (based on a value of friendship).
• It is bad to skip a workout (based on a value of a healthy lifestyle).
• Working late at night is a good thing to do (based on a value of success).
• Saving your marriage is a good way to move forward (based on a value of commitment).

Moral dilemmas occur when morals conflict with each other. For example, what if a daughter couldn’t
afford the life-saving medicine her dying mother needed, but she had access to the medicine storeroom?

Her core values might tell her stealing is wrong. However, her morality would tell her she needs to protect
her mother. As such, the daughter might end up doing the wrong thing (stealing, as judged by her values) for the
right reasons (saving her mother, as judged by her morals).

While Morals are concerned with individuals feeling "good" or "bad," Ethics determine what behaviors
are "right" or "wrong." Ethics dictate what practical behaviors are allowed, while morals reflect our intentions.
Consider morals as the rulebook and ethics as the motivator that leads to proper or improper action.

ETHICS
Ethics are determined by an institution, organization and varied professions. You're most likely to see a code of
ethics in the business or legal fields. These areas are much more black-and-white than personal values or morals
since they set rules for employees and citizens in a society.

Examples of Ethics
• Doctors are held to a strict code of ethics when they swear the Hippocratic Oath. They are bound to the
rule "do no harm," and can be held accountable if they do cause harm to their patients.
• An organization like PETA, which stands for “People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals," pursues legal
action against those who do not treat animals in an ethical way.
• Employees often sign a code of ethics, which includes keeping important matters confidential and not
stealing from the workplace — both of which would be offenses subject for dismissal.
• Defense lawyers are ethically bound to defend their clients to the best of their ability, even if they are
morally opposed to their clients' crimes. Breaking this ethical code could result in a mistrial or
disbarment.
• A student who helps another student cheat on a test is breaking their school's ethics. Even though they
are doing it for a moral reason (helping a friend), they are committing an ethical violation and can be
punished.

Ethics are basically an institution's attempt to regulate behavior with rules based on a shared moral code.
Violating ethics has the same consequence as breaking a rule, while violating one's morals results in personal
guilt and shame instead of a societal consequence.

Ethical dilemmas occur when an institutional set of ethics conflicts with one's personal moral code.

pg. 5
 Relation of Ethics with other sciences

How is Ethics different and related with other sciences?

Ethical science is particularly concerned with the study of man and human conduct and is, therefore,
especially related to all those sciences dealing with the study of human nature and human living.

1. Ethics and Logic – Logic is the science of right thinking. Ethics is the science of right living. But right living
presumes right thinking. Doing follows thinking. To think right means to do right. Both ethics and logic
aim at rectitude (righteousness or correctness).
2. Ethics and Psychology – Both deal with study of man, human nature, and human behavior. But the
difference is that Psychology is not interested in the correctness of the human behavior, unlike ethics. It
studies how man behaves, ethics studies how man ought to behave. Ethics is concerned with the moral
obligation, psychology is not.
3. Ethics and Sociology - Ethics deals with the moral order which includes the social order. Whatever does
violence to the social order, does violence also to the natural and the moral order. Society depends on
ethics for its underlying principles: Sociology deals with human relations in a society, but human relations
are based on proper order, and proper order comes only with the proper observance of moral laws and
principles which regulate the actions of men in a community.
4. Ethics and Economics – Man is also an economic being because he has to support himself by earning a
living. Economics deals with such topics as wages, labor, production, and distribution of wealth. But what
will determine the relations of employer and employee? This and all other relations in business must be
based on justice and charity which, after all are moral principles. In order that peace and happiness will
prevail in the community, the actions of man must be governed by the invariable principles of morality.
5. Ethics and Education – Education develops the whole man: his moral, intellectual and physical
capabilities. Since man is primarily a rational moral being (endowed with reason and will, that separates
man from other creatures), the primary objective of education should be the “moral development of the
will”, hence, his true perfection. This is recognized in our constitution when it mentioned “moral
character” as the first and primary aim of all education. “All schools should develop good moral character,
personal discipline, civic consciousness, etc.” With greater reason and emphasis, we can even say that
ethics is life because it is the very science and art of human living, one that gives life its direction, goal,
worth, and meaning. Knowledge is good, bodily health and strength are good, but first and above all –
good character.

pg. 6
 According to Socrates, “the unexamined life is not worth living for man.” Now, Ethics is the very
investigation of the meaning of life. That is why Plato calls and considers ethics the supreme science, the science
par excellence, as it is the science that deals with the Summum Bonum, the supreme purpose of human living.

LESSON 2: Value

Kinds of Valuation
One point of clarification is to recognize that there are instances when right or wrong??
we make value judgments that are not part of ethics. Not all judgments about
what is good, bad, right, or wrong necessarily pertain to ethics. Ethics, as a good or bad??
subject, focuses on determining the grounds for values with particular and
special significance to human life.

Aesthetic Valuation
Examples:
▪ “I went to a movie house, and the film was good because I enjoyed it.”
▪ “The song that they just played on the radio was bad because it had an unpleasant tone.”
▪ “The right dip for a chicken barbecue is either vinegar or soy sauce with lime.”
▪ “It is wrong to wear rubber shoes or sneakers with a Barong Tagalog top.”

These judgments fall under the domain of aesthetics. The term "aesthetics" is derived from the Greek word
aesthesis, meaning "sense" or "feeling." Aesthetic valuation refers to the personal approval or disapproval we
make about what we see, hear, smell, or taste. For example, we speak of "taste in music" or "taste in fashion."
Aesthetic: The branch of philosophy concerned with the nature and appreciation of art, beauty, and good
taste.

Etiquette
Examples:
▪ “It is right to knock politely first on someone’s door before you get in.”
▪ “It is wrong to just let yourself into an office even if the door is open.”
▪ “I approve of a child who knows how to ask politely and say please.”
▪ “I would say that it is bad behavior to butt into those who are having conversations.”

These judgments are under the concerns of etiquette.

Etiquette: A set of conventional rules of personal behavior in polite society. It is often in the form of an ethical
code that defines the expected and accepted social behaviors observed by society.

Technical Valuation
Examples:
▪ “I am told that the correct way of baking is to mix the dry ingredients first before adding liquids.”
▪ “In playing basketball, it is wrong to walk more than two steps without dribbling the ball.”

These examples are not concerned with ethics but rather fall under the domain of technique.
Technique: A way of thinking, a skill, or an ability in a particular field aimed at performing tasks in the most
efficient and effective way.

Ethics and Valuation

Recognizing the characteristics of aesthetic, etiquette, and technical valuations allows us to distinguish
them from ethical concerns. Ethical valuations involve judgments in the sphere of human actions characterized
by significant gravity and concern for human well-being. Matters concerning life and death, such as poverty,
inequality, or sexual identity, are typically included in discussions of ethics because they impact human life
profoundly.

pg. 7
Reasoning in Ethics

Why do we suppose that a certain way of acting is right, and its opposite is wrong? What reasons do we
give to decide or judge that a particular way of acting is right or wrong?
A person’s fear of punishment or desire for reward can motivate them to act in a certain way. However,
such motivations are not determinants of the ethical rightness or wrongness of an action. Beyond rewards and
punishment, moral valuations—our decisions and judgments—can be based on principles.

Principles: Rationally established grounds by which one justifies and maintains their moral decisions and
judgments.

Moral Valuation

Moral valuation is asking the question of “what is worthy of your

respect”. That’s why it is also important to study ethics and philosophy.
Without a foundation of philosophy, one’s life actions will be wasted in
futility without knowing meaning nor purpose nor true deep-rooted
happiness. Morality is defined in sets of value clusters that superseded each
other in terms of importance. This unique structure has helped humanity
rise above the animals to civilization.

moral issue- A situation that calls for moral valuation

moral dilemma- When an individual can only choose from a number of possible actions, and
there are compelling ethical reasons for the various choices (i.e. between two goods, of between
the lesser of two evils)
moral decision- When one is placed on a situation and confronted by the choice of what act to
perform
moral judgment- When a person is an observer, who makes an assessment on the actions or
behavior of someone

LESSON 3: Sources of Authority

Ethics is often grounded on the idea that standards of valuation are imposed by higher authorities. In this
lesson, we will explore three prominent sources of authority: the authority of the law, the authority of religion,
and the authority of culture.

Law
The law serves as a guide to ethical behavior. In the Philippines, Filipinos are obligated to obey the laws
of the land as outlined in the country’s criminal and civil codes. Many acts, such as murder, rape, and theft, are
universally considered unethical and are explicitly forbidden by law. The legal system enforces compliance
through sanctions administered by designated individuals and institutions
Using the law as a foundation for ethics offers the benefit of providing an objective standard that is
obligatory and applicable to all. This universality makes the law a compelling authority for ethical valuation.

Advantages of Law as a Basis of Ethics:

▪ Offers an objective and universally applicable standard.
▪ Provides clear guidelines on actions that are prohibited.

Limitations:
▪ The law is primarily prohibitive, focusing on what to avoid rather than what to pursue.

pg. 8
Religion
Religion is another influential source of ethical authority, offering not only a set of commands but also a
Supreme Being that inspires and compels obedience. Many individuals rely on their religious upbringing to
inform their moral decisions, referring to divine teachings to determine right and wrong. Religion goes beyond
prohibitions and often provides ideals to aspire to, such as compassion, justice, and love.

Divine Command Theory: This theory asserts that ethical values are rooted in divine commands. An individual
is morally obligated to obey their God, Allah, or Supreme Being because they recognize the authority of their
Creator.

Advantages of Religion as a Basis of Ethics:

▪ Provides both prohibitions and aspirational ideals.
▪ Instills moral guidance through a transcendent authority that inspires devotion.

Limitations:
▪ Interpretations of divine commands may vary among religions and individuals.
▪ Ethical decisions based solely on religion may conflict with secular principles.

Culture
Culture shapes ethical perspectives through the values, traditions, and norms of a society. Exposure to
diverse cultures demonstrates that ethical standards can vary widely, reflecting the idea of cultural relativism.

Cultural Relativism: This concept suggests that what is considered ethically acceptable or unacceptable is
relative to one’s cultural context. Different societies have distinct ways of thinking and valuing, and what is
deemed moral in one culture may not be in another.

Advantages of Culture as a Basis of Ethics:

▪ Promotes understanding and tolerance of diversity.
▪ Reflects the lived experiences and collective wisdom of a community.

Limitations:
▪ Cultural relativism can lead to moral disagreements and conflicts.
▪ It may hinder the establishment of universal ethical standards.

pg. 9
SYNTHESIS

▪ Ethics is a branch of philosophy concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior. It derives
from the Greek word ethika, meaning "character" or "custom," and seeks to determine what is good or
bad, acceptable or unacceptable in human conduct. Ethics helps individuals critically evaluate their
actions, choices, and decisions, ultimately improving the quality of decisions made. It involves obligations
we are expected to fulfill, prohibitions we must respect, and ideals we are encouraged to pursue. Closely
related to ethics are values and morality, though they are distinct. Values are personal beliefs that
influence attitudes and behavior, while morality refers to the system of principles derived from these
values, often guided by cultural, religious, or personal standards. Ethics, on the other hand, is broader,
encompassing systematic approaches to right and wrong behavior, often aligned with professional or
societal standards. For instance, a doctor adheres to ethical codes like "do no harm," even when personal
moral beliefs might conflict with professional obligations.
▪ Ethics also intersects with other sciences. It shares a relationship with logic (the science of right thinking)
since right thinking leads to right action. While psychology studies human behavior as it is, ethics
examines how it ought to be, focusing on moral obligation. Sociology studies human relations within
society, and ethics provides the moral principles underpinning these relations. Economics benefits from
ethical principles like justice and fairness in employer-employee relations, ensuring peace and happiness
in communities. Education aims to develop moral character, aligning with ethics' role in guiding human
living. Socrates emphasized this by asserting, "The unexamined life is not worth living," highlighting
ethics as the supreme science that seeks the ultimate purpose of human existence.
▪ In distinguishing ethics from values and morality, ethics is seen as institutional or professional guidelines
that vary across contexts, while values are personal and shaped by family, culture, and religion. Morality,
deeply connected to values, often transcends societal norms and reflects an individual’s beliefs. For
example, while ethics in a professional setup ensures consistency and adherence to rules, personal values
or moral beliefs may lead individuals to question or violate these ethical standards when they conflict.
Understanding these differences provides clarity in navigating the complexities of human decisions and
behavior.

REFERRENCES

▪ Decety, J. (2018). The development of children's preferences for equality and equity across 13
individualistic and collectivist cultures. Developmental Science.
▪ Surbhi, S. (2019). Ethics, values and practice. South African Dental Journal, 74(6), 292–293.

pg. 10
 Unit II
UTILITARIANISM and NATURAL LAW

INTENDED LEARNING OUTCOME

▪ Distinguish the two utilitarian models: the quantitative model of Jeremy Bentham, and the qualitative
model of John Stuart Mills
▪ Identify the natural law in distinction from/in relation to, the other types of law mentioned by Thomas
Aquinas: eternal law, human law, and divine law.

INTRODUCTION

Utilitarianism and Natural Law, while originating from distinct philosophical traditions, share intriguing
structural similarities. Both ethical frameworks presuppose the existence of an objective moral order,
suggesting that in every situation, a universal right and wrong course of action can be discerned. This shared
assumption allows for the possibility that individuals guided by either Utilitarian principles or Natural Law
might arrive at the same moral decision in specific circumstances.
This module explores these influential theories and their implications for moral reasoning. By examining
the foundations and applications of Utilitarianism, the enduring principles of Natural Law, and the essence and
varieties of law, this module seeks to provide a comprehensive understanding of how these philosophies shape
our ethical and legal landscapes. Through this exploration, students will gain insight into how universal
principles can intersect with pragmatic considerations to guide human conduct.

LESSON 1: UTILITARIANISM: BALANCING HAPPINESS AND CONSEQUENCES IN MORAL

DECISIONS

Utilitarianism is a theory of morality that advocates actions that

foster happiness or pleasure and oppose actions that cause unhappiness or
harm. When directed toward making social, economic, or political decisions,
a utilitarian philosophy would aim for the betterment of society as a
whole.

UTILITARIAN:
from Latin words “utile bonum” or “utilis” - meaning usefulness

pg. 11
Definitions:
• Utilitarianism is an ethical theory that argues for the goodness of pleasure and the determination of
right behavior based on the usefulness of the action’s consequences.
• Utilitarianism maximizes the total amount of pleasure over displeasure for the greatest number, even
at the expense of some individual rights.
• “Do whatever produces the greatest good for the greatest number”
• Utilitarian principle disregards the importance of motive, because it is personal, hence it is difficult to
evaluate the morality.

Utilitarianism is the view that, when faced with a moral dilemma, we ought to act according to which of our
options causes the greatest amount of overall wellbeing or happiness, and the least amount of suffering. Rule
utilitarianism specifically looks at which rules, heuristics or policies are able to do this, rather than looking at
each action individually.

Here is an example, especially in these times of pandemic and that experts are formulating vaccines.
In the context of medicine, this means we should aim to create healthcare policies which promote the best
standard of health for the greatest number of patients.

An important aspect to this approach is that these policies do not always create the best possible benefit
for the patient. In some cases, the guidelines will be ineffective. For example, a given treatment may be
recommended in general cases of patients with an illness, but in the case of a particular patient we know it
would be harmful. It’s just that having this policy in place for all patients is worthwhile overall. How we respond
to such scenarios poses a problem for the rule utilitarian.

As with the emerging theory of capitalism in 18th and 19th Century England, we could speak of "pleasures"
as "pluses (+)” and "pains" as "minuses (-)”. Thus, the utilitarian would calculate which actions bring about
more pluses over minuses (or the least amount of minuses, etc.). In considering actions that affect numbers of
people, we must also account for their extent.

For Mill, it is not the quantity of pleasure, but the quality of happiness. Bentham's calculus is unreasonable
-- qualities cannot be quantified (there is a distinction between 'higher' and 'lower' pleasures). Mill's
utilitarianism culminates in "The Greatest Happiness Principle."

The Principle of UTILITY

The Principle of Utility is based on the idea that our

actions are motivated by the desire to avoid pain and to seek
pleasure or happiness. Essentially, it suggests that we are
governed by these two "sovereign masters"—pleasure and
pain—guiding our choices and behavior. We naturally
gravitate toward what brings us pleasure and away from what
causes us pain.

However, the principle extends beyond simply seeking

pleasure. It asserts that pleasure is good only if it contributes
more to happiness than unhappiness. In other words, we must
consider not just the pleasure itself, but whether our actions
lead to greater overall happiness. Jeremy Bentham equates
happiness with pleasure, viewing the pursuit of happiness
through the lens of maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain.

pg. 12
 Proponents of Utilitarianism

Jeremy Bentham
▪ Utility = the usefulness of the consequences of
one’s actions.
▪ Based on the Theory of Life: the natural preference
for pleasure over pain.
▪ Bentham’s Utilitarian Principle: The greatest good
is the greatest pleasure for the greatest number.

It is helpful to see Bentham's moral philosophy in

the context of his political philosophy, his attempt to find
a rational approach to law and legislative action. He
argued against "natural law" theory and thought that the
classical theories of Plato and Aristotle as well as notions
such as Kant's Categorical Imperative were too outdated,
confusing and/or controversial to be of much help with
society's ills and a program of social reform. He adopted
what he took to be a simple and 'scientific' approach to
the problems of law and morality and grounded his
approach in the "Principle of Utility."

John Stuart Mill

▪ Human beings naturally seek happiness and avoid
pain.
▪ An act is moral if it promotes happiness, immoral
if it causes pain.
▪ According to Mill: the more people who
experience happiness, the greater the overall
happiness.

Contrary to Bentham, John Stuart Mill

argues that quality is more preferable than
quantity. An excessive quantity of what is
otherwise pleasurable might result in pain.
Example is our experience in excessive eating or
exercising. Eating the right amount of food can be
pleasurable, excessive eating may not be. Same is
true with exercising. (But how about loving? Eh!)

The Principle of THE GREATEST NUMBER

“Promote the greatest happiness” is a principle exhorting us to maximize the quantity of happiness.
Bentham stated the “fundamental axiom” that “it is the greatest happiness of the greatest number that is the
measure of right and wrong”, and “the obligation to minister to general happiness, was an obligation paramount
to and inclusive of every other.”
There is a balancing to perform between the “greatest happiness” for each individual and that of all the
others individuals “the greatest number.”

pg. 13
 “Promote happiness for the greatest
number” tells us to seek the widest distribution of
happiness. But these two principles don’t
necessarily jive—they can flatly contradict. The two
parts of the “greatest happiness for the greatest
number” principle reflect two separates but
conceptually related aspects. First, happiness is each
person’s moral goal. Second, people and their lives
are of equal worth. Mainstream heretical
utilitarianism chokes on both ideas. We should aim
to keep losses small and gains broad, to create a
stable system of institutions where everyone in
pursuit of happiness is able to take a lot, and is
required

Justice and Moral Rights

Let’s say you have a deep hatred for your neighbor. One day an envious rage
takes over so you pick up a rock and throw it at his new car, hoping to shatter
the window. You miss. No one sees the action, and the rock rolls harmlessly
into the pavement. It seems likely you’ve acted immorally by trying to destroy
his property. But it would be odd to say any injustice was done. Your neighbor
hasn’t suffered anything from your failed attempt.

Justice is about living with other people, while morality is about living with
yourself. Justice is about right relation to others as measured against the mores
of society, while morality is about right relation to right itself, as measured
against your own beliefs.

pg. 14
 According to Mill:
▪ JUSTICE– respect for rights directed toward society’s pursuit for greatest happiness of the greatest
number
▪ RIGHTS– valid claim on society and are justified by utility

Mill expounds that the abovementioned rights referred to the interest that serve general happiness. The
right to due process, the right to free speech or religion, and others are justified because they contribute to the
general good. This means that the society is made happier if its citizens are able to live their lives knowing that
their interests are protected and that society (as a whole) defends it.

We are treated justly when our legal and moral rights are respected. Mill enumerates different kinds of
goods that he characterized as rights and are protected by law. Mill understands that legal rights are neither firm
nor natural, but rights are subject to some exceptions.

Mill creates a distinction between legal rights and their justification. He points out that when legal rights
are not morally justified in accordance to the greatest happiness principle, then these rights need neither be
observed nor be respected. At an instance of conflict between moral and legal rights, Mill points out that moral
rights take precedence over legal rights.

While it can be justified why others violate legal rights, it is an act of injustice to violate an individual’s
moral rights. For Mill, some moral rights can be overridden and can only be justifiable for the sake of the greater
general happiness. Mill’s moral rights and considerations of injustice are not absolute, but are only justified by
their consequences to promote the greatest good of the greatest number.

He explains his understanding of justice. For Mill, justice can be interpreted in terms of moral rights
because justice promotes the greater social good.

LESSON 2: NATURAL LAW: EXPLORING MORALITY ROOTED IN HUMAN NATURE AND

REASON

Natural law is important because it is applied to moral, political, and ethical

systems today. It has played a large role in the history of political and philosophical
theory and has been used to understand and discuss human nature.
One example of natural law includes the idea that it is universally accepted and
understood that killing a human being is wrong. However, it is also universally
accepted that punishing someone for killing that person is right. The idea
demonstrates that without the requirement of legislation, such beliefs are something
that human beings understood inherently as wrong, without the requirement of law.
In this lesson, you are expected to understand the basic principles of Natural
Law, understand Thomas Aquinas’ ethical teachings, how he related it to the
neoplatonic teachings, and the different varieties of law.

Motivation: Watch this video: The fable of the Old Man and the Scorpion,
[Link]

What is Natural Law?

Natural law is a philosophical theory asserting that humans possess certain

inherent rights, moral values, and responsibilities based on human nature. Unlike
customs or societal preferences, natural laws are universal and not influenced by
culture or individual desires. It reflects how humans naturally act based on their
intrinsic nature, providing a universal framework for discerning right from wrong.
According to St. Thomas Aquinas, natural law is crucial for making moral decisions,
as it allows all rational individuals to arrive at the same conclusion through reason
and synderesis.

pg. 15
 The Philippine legal system is grounded in natural law, viewing it as an objective standard of morality
based on a correct understanding of human nature. This universal truth transcends positive laws, which must
align with it. Traditional ethics views natural law as the fundamental standard of morality, suggesting that
everything has a specific nature and purpose. Aquinas believed that good acts align with human nature, while
bad acts contradict it. The phrase agere sequitur esse (action follows being) emphasizes that actions are good
when they reflect their true nature and purpose.
The concept of natural law originated among the Jews, Greeks, and Romans, particularly influenced by
Stoic philosophy and Judaism. It gained prominence within the Christian tradition, where thinkers synthesized
philosophy and biblical teachings to develop a universally applicable moral theory. The most developed version
of natural law is that of St. Thomas Aquinas, who further refined the theory and made it central to Catholic
thought.

Thomas Aquinas

St. Thomas Aquinas, a Dominican friar and intellectual leader of the medieval scholastic period,
significantly shaped Christian philosophy. His seminal work, Summa Theologiae, delves into theology, ethics, and
the nature of God. The work is divided into three parts: (1) God’s nature and attributes, (2) human life and its
pursuit of happiness, and (3) the role of Jesus as the Savior.
There are three parts of his voluminous work. (1 st part) Aquinas speaks of God, and although we
acknowledge that our limited human intellect cannot fully grasp Him, we nevertheless are able to say something
concerning His goodness, his might, and His creative power. (2nd part) Deals with man or the dynamic of human
life. This is characterized by our pursuit of happiness, which we should realize rest ultimately not on any
particular good thing, but in the highest good which is God Himself. Our striving to this ultimate happiness will
not in itself bring us to this blessed state. Salvation is only possible through the presence of God’s grace, and that
grace has become perfectly incarnate in the person of Jesus. (3rd part) Focuses on Jesus as our Savior.

The second part of his work centers on human life and it’s striving toward God. Aquinas’ ethics would
require us to explore his discussion of other matters, such as how in our pursuit to happiness, we direct our
actions towards specific ends.

Aquinas thought morality was important for everyone, and that being a good person was a vital part of
God’s plan for each of us. Aquinas’ theorized that God made us pre-loaded with the tools we need to know what
is good. This idea became known as the natural law theory. He argued that God created the world according to
natural laws, predictable, goal-driven systems whereby life is sustained, and everything functions smoothly. And
as part of this natural order, God made certain things that were good for his various creatures. God instilled all
of his creatures with an intuitive desire for the things that he designed to be best for them, known as the SEVEN
BASIC GOODS.

- The first thing that all living things just naturally want, Aquinas said, is self-preservation – the drive to sustain life. Aquinas
1. LIFE thought God built all creatures with a survival instinct, and when we find ourselves in danger, we don’t have to stop and
ponder the options before getting ourselves to safety.

2. REPRO - Some beings are able to do this on their own, but since we need to coordinate matters with a partner, God kindly
DUCTION instilled us with a sex drive, and made the process feel good, to make sure that we do it.

– This is not just about school and lessons in morality. But even non-human animals need to teach their babies how
3. EDUCATE to hunt and avoid predators. Otherwise, the offspring they worked so hard to create aren’t going to survive long
OFFSPRING
enough to reproduce themselves, which, of course, is the goal of everything.

4. SEEK - Aquinas thought we are built with an instinctual desire to know God. He believed we seek him in our lives,
GOD whether we’ve been exposed to the idea of God or not.
- taking a page out of Aristotle’s book, Aquinas also said that humans are naturally social animals, so it’s part of our
5. LIVE IN basic good to live in community with others. While short periods of solitude can be good, he believed that we’re
SOCIETY basically pack animals, and our desire for love and acceptance, and our susceptibility to peer pressure, are all
evidence of this.
6. AVOID - Aquinas said we recognize the basic good of not offending everybody. Aquinas said we feel shame and guilt when we
OFFENSE do things that cause our group to turn against us, and that was another basic good.

7. SHUN
- We’We’re natural knowers, inquisitive, and we want to be right. This is another trait we share with non-human animals, because
IGNOR pg. 16
ANCE knowledge promotes survival, and ignorance can mean starving to death or ending up as someone else’s dinner.
 Aquinas argued that these basic goods are part of human nature, and humans can understand them
through reason. He believed that people don't need religious teachings to recognize the natural law—our
instincts and reason guide us to act in accordance with it.

The Theory of Natural Law

Natural law is not reliant on human understanding, political systems, or legislation. It suggests that
humans inherently know the difference between right and wrong. This understanding is innate and can be
discovered through reason and instinct, without the need for formal instruction or lawmaking systems. The
theory was first explored by ancient philosophers like Aristotle and Plato, then expanded by thinkers such as
Aquinas, who integrated it with Christian theology.

In sum, natural law provides a universal standard of morality, rooted in human nature and discoverable
through reason. It asserts that right actions align with this natural order, making it a timeless guide for ethical
behavior.

The Greek Heritage

Neoplatonic Good
God creates. This does not only mean that he brings about beings, but it also means He cares for, thus
governs the activity of the universe and of every creature. This central belief of the Christian faith, while inspired
by divine revelation, has been shaped and defined by an idea stated in the work of the ancient Greek philosopher
Plato. He is credited for giving the subsequent history of philosophy in one of its most compelling and enduring
ideas: the notion of a supreme and absolutely transcendent good. In his work The Republic, it is often supposed
that Plato is trying to envision the ideal society. The idea of the good – a good which is prior to all being and is
even the cause of all being – will become a source of fascination and inspiration to later thinkers / scholars
(labeled as Neoplatonists) even to this day.

Aristotelian Being and Becoming

Aristotle proposes four concepts which provide a way of understanding any particular being under
consideration. Any being, according to Aristotle, can be said to have four causes.
First, we recognize that any being we can see around is corporeal, possessed of a certain materiality or physical
“stuff”. We can refer to this as the material cause. A being is individuated – it becomes the unique, individual being
that it is – because it is made up of a particular stuff. Yet, we realize that this material takes on a particular shape.
This “shape” that makes a being a particular kind can be called its form. Thus, each being also has a formal cause.

Any being comes from another being which is prior to it. Thus, there is something which brings about the
presence of another being. This can be referred as the efficient cause. Also, since being has an apparent end or
goal, one can speak of the final cause of each being. Identifying these four causes – material, formal, efficient, and
final – gives a way to understand any being.

St. Thomas Aquinas, Natural Law, and the Common Good

St. Thomas Aquinas, a medieval Roman Catholic scholar, reconciled the political philosophy of Aristotle
with Christian faith. In doing so, he contended that a just ruler or government must work for the "common good"
of all.
Before the time of Jesus, the Greeks developed concepts about how the world worked and human beings
behaved. Aristotle, who died in 322 B.C., was an Athenian philosopher who wrote about science, ethics, politics,
and almost every other realm of knowledge.
Throughout his writings, Aristotle did not teach that the Greek gods or religion controlled the world and
its people. Instead, his observations led him to conclude that nature was purposeful and driven by natural laws
that human reason could discover. These natural laws provided a way to explain the world and the place of
humans within it. In one of Aristotle’s works called The Politics, he reasoned, "man is by nature a political animal."
By this, he meant that people were naturally destined to live in groups, which required some sort of ruler
or government. According to Aristotle, only by living in a community "to secure the good life" could human beings
pg. 17
achieve such virtues as courage, honesty, and justice. In his time, this human community was a city-state like
Athens.
Applying his scientific method of observation and analysis of evidence, Aristotle studied the governments
of 158 city-states in the Greek world. He classified rule by a king (monarchy) and the superior few (aristocracy)
as "good" governments. He judged rule by the few rich (oligarchy) and the many poor (democracy) as "bad"
governments.
Aristotle concluded that the best government was one that "mixed" the features of oligarchy and
democracy. For example, all the citizens would choose some government officials by lottery. But only some
citizens with a certain amount of property or wealth could qualify for other offices. Aristotle thought this form of
government provided the best chance for political stability. As Aquinas puts it, the law must regard properly the
relationship to universal happiness. A law, therefore, is concerned with the common good. In a way, making of a
law belongs either to the whole people or to a public person who has care for the common good or is tasked with
the concern for the good of the community or of the whole people.

Thomas Aquinas combined Reason and Faith

Aquinas was born in 1225, the son of a noble family in the kingdom of Sicily, which included part of the
mainland of Italy around Naples. His family sent him at age 5 to the Benedictine monastery of Monte Casino to
train as a monk.
Later, Aquinas attended the University of Naples where he first encountered the writings of Aristotle.
Against his family’s wishes, he joined the Dominican order at 18, taking a vow of poverty.
In 1245, Aquinas traveled to the University of Paris where a great debate was going on about Aristotle’s ideas.
The young Aquinas studied under Albert the Great who sided with those who believed Aristotle’s view of the
world was compatible with that of Christianity.
Aquinas came to think that one should believe only what is self-evident (e.g., human beings use reason)
or can be deduced from self-evident propositions (e.g., human reason can discover truth).
Aquinas became a Dominican teacher of religion at the University of Paris and in Italy. He continued to study the
works of Aristotle and the Muslim commentaries on them.
Aquinas wrote his own commentaries on Aristotle, which included reasoned propositions based on certainties
revealed by God. He also wrote summaries of Catholic doctrine that also attempted to combine reason and faith.

You might still remember this in our lesson in Understanding the Self. According to St. Thomas Aquinas,
Man is composed of two parts:
1. Matter: In this context, matter is derived from the Greek word hyle, which means the fundamental
substance or "stuff" that makes up everything in the universe. According to Aquinas, matter is the
physical and material aspect of human beings (and all things). It refers to the body, or the physical
composition of a person. Matter is essentially the "potential" part that can be shaped or given form.
2. Form: The term form comes from the Greek word morphe, meaning the essence or the defining
characteristic of a thing. For Aquinas, form represents the soul or the non-material aspect of a human
being. It is what gives a person their specific identity and purpose. Form is the "actuality" that gives
matter structure and meaning. For human beings, the form is the rational soul, which distinguishes
humans from other creatures.

Aquinas’ view of human beings is rooted in the idea that man is a composite of both matter and form.
The body (matter) without the soul (form) would be an inanimate object, while the soul (form) without the body
(matter) would be incomplete as a human being. This dual nature (body and soul) allows humans to engage in
physical and intellectual activities, as the soul gives purpose to the body. Thus, Aquinas sees humans as beings
with both a material (physical) and a spiritual (rational) aspect, which work together to form a complete, unified
being.
While human beings are good because they are created by God, the goodness possessed by human beings
remain imperfect.” For Aquinas, only God in the fullness of His being and goodness in perfect; all other beings are
participating in this goodness, and are good to that extent, but are imperfect since they are limited in their
participation”
Beings are created by God in a particular way. Each being is created as a determinate substance, as a
particular combination of form and matter. The unique way that we have been created can be called our nature.

pg. 18
This nature, in participation to God’s goodness, is both good and imperfect. Coming from God, it is good. It has
limitations, but it has yet to be perfected. It is of key importance that human beings have this capacity for
REASON, as our prime characteristics as beings, and placed in our human nature toward perfection.

LESSON 3: THE ESSENCE and VARIETIES OF LAW: UNDERSTANDING LAW'S

FOUNDATIONS AND DISTINCTIONS

Essence

As discussed in previous lesson, human beings are created by God in a particular way. Each being is
created uniquely from other creations because beings have this capacity for reason. As rational being, we have
free will. Through our capacity for reason, we are able to judge between possibilities and to choose to direct our
actions in one way or the other. our actions are directed toward attaining ends or goods that we desire. There
are many possible desirable ends or goods, and we act in such ways as to pursue them.

While it is possible to first suppose that something is good only to realize later that doing so was a
mistake. So, it is important for reason to always be part of the process. It is necessary is to think carefully of what
really is in fact good for us.

In thinking about what is good for us, it is possible that we end up thinking exclusively of our own good.
Aquinas said it will not do; we cannot simply act in pursuit of our own ends or good. We are not isolated being
beings, but being who belong to a community and we consider what is good for the community as well as our
owns good. This is called the common good.

Since we must consider not only our own good but also
that of others, we cannot act in just any which way. There would
have to be some kind of measure to our acts. We recognize the
proper measure or the limits in our actions that would allow us to
direct our acts in such a way that we can pursue ends. Both our
own and also that of others, together. The determine of the proper
measure of our acts can be referred to as law.

For example: A motorist cannot just drive in any way he

likes, but must respect traffic rules (e.g. he must place a maximum
speed he can travel on a particular road). Such a limit or such a rule
is something good, for both him and for others as it helps prevent
motor accidents. As Aquinas puts it, law must regard properly the
relationship to universal happiness.

Therefore, a law is concerned with the common good. In a way, making a law belongs either to the whole
people or to a public person who has care for the common good or is tasked with the concern for the common
good of the community or of the whole people. These laws are done in view of what would be best for the
community.
It is also necessary for these rules or laws to be communicated clearly to the people involved in order to enforce
them and to better ensure compliance. This is referred to as promulgation

Varieties
Eternal law is comprised of those laws that govern the nature of an eternal universe; as Susan Dimock
(1999, 22) puts it, one can “think of eternal law as comprising all those scientific (physical, chemical, biological,
psychological, etc.) ‘laws’ by which the universe is ordered.”

Divine law is concerned with those standards that must be satisfied by a human being to achieve eternal
salvation. One cannot discover divine law by natural reason alone. Refers specifically to the instances where we
have the precepts or instructions of divine law are disclosed only through divine revelation.

pg. 19
 Natural law is comprised of those precepts of the eternal law that govern the behavior of beings
possessing reason and free will. The first precept of the natural law, according to Aquinas, is the somewhat
vacuous imperative to do good and avoid evil. Here it is worth noting that Aquinas holds a natural law theory of
morality: what is good and evil, according to Aquinas, is derived from the rational nature of human beings. Good
and evil are thus both objective and universal.
But Aquinas is also a natural law legal theorist. On his view, a human law (that is, that which is
promulgated by human beings) is valid only insofar as its content conforms to the content of the natural law; as
Aquinas puts the point: “Every human law has just so much of the nature of law as is derived from the law of
nature. But if in any point it deflects from the law of nature, it is no longer a law but a perversion of law”. To
paraphrase Augustine’s famous remark, an unjust law is really no law at all.

In summary,

Eternal Law:

The unchanging order of the universe, encompassing all scientific laws that govern nature, such as physical,
biological, and psychological processes. It reflects the divine plan for creation and is constant and universal.

Divine Law:

Moral and spiritual laws revealed by God through sacred texts or direct revelation, guiding humans toward
eternal salvation. Unlike eternal law, it cannot be discovered through reason alone and is necessary for
spiritual fulfillment.

Natural Law:

A subset of eternal law governing the behavior of rational beings (humans). It is based on human nature and
reason, with the basic principle of "do good and avoid evil." Natural law is objective, universal, and provides
the foundation for valid human laws, which must align with it to be considered just.

Structure of Natural Law

The natural law theory of Aquinas is that while

it is clearly rooted in a Christian vision, it
grounds a sense of morality not on that faith
but on human nature.

Is natural law helpful for making moral

decisions?

This means it is universal, so everyone

everywhere is able to work out the right thing
to do. Therefore, according to Aquinas, Natural
Law is very useful for moral decisions as all
right-thinking people can come to the same
conclusion using their reason and synderesis.

pg. 20
In Common with other Beings
We have to consider how we, human beings, are both unique and at the same time participating in the
community of the rest of the creation. This means that there is in our nature a desire to preserve one’s own being.
Examples are:
- A cat cowers and then tries to run away when it feels threatened.
- A Makahiya leaf folds inward and protects itself when touched.
- A human covers one’s eyes to avoid painful sun rays
- Murder is a clear example of violation to natural law
Therefore, all acts that promote continuation of life are to be lauded as ethical because they are in line with
the natural law.

In Common with other Animals

Aquinas goes on to say that there is in our human nature, common with other animals. It is a desire that
has to do with sexual intercourse and the care for offspring. Creatures, animals or humans, periodically engage in
sexual intercourse at a specific time and this could result in offspring. That natural inclination to engage in such
act to reproduce is instinctive, for the preservation and reproduction of life.
In line with ethics, the connection of sexual act and productiveness gives rise to notions of what is
acceptable and unacceptable in varying degree of contentiousness.
With regard to sexual act, moral judgments get more volatile. Using various contraception or homosexual
acts are considered deviant because sexual acts take place but inhibit procreation. Some ethical issue in some
parts of the world: abortion (violation of preservation of life), abuse of the young, forcing them to young labor,
deprivation of their basic needs, abuse physically or emotionally (violation of taking care of offspring)

Uniquely Human
After two inclinations, Aquinas presents a third reason: that we have inclination to do good according to
the nature of our reason. We have natural inclination to know about God and to live in society.

pg. 21
SYNTHESIS

▪ Utilitarianism is a moral philosophy that advocates for actions that maximize happiness or pleasure for
the greatest number, while minimizing harm. Rooted in the Latin "utile bonum" (useful good), it
emphasizes the consequences of actions, seeking to generate the most positive results. The theory
focuses on the "greatest happiness principle," which aims to balance pleasure and pain for the largest
number of people.
▪ Key figures like Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill contributed to the theory. Bentham emphasized
maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain, advocating for a "scientific" approach to ethics, while Mill
introduced the idea of higher and lower pleasures, suggesting that quality of happiness is more important
than quantity.
▪ In rule utilitarianism, policies are deemed effective if they lead to the greatest benefit, even if they don't
benefit everyone equally. Mill also extended the theory to include justice, asserting that individual rights
contribute to societal happiness.
▪ Utilitarianism encourages us to consider the consequences of our actions, providing a framework for
moral decisions and policies that aim to create the greatest good.
▪ Natural law, as a philosophical theory, posits that human beings possess inherent rights, moral values,
and responsibilities rooted in human nature itself, rather than cultural or individual preferences. Its
universality allows for moral decisions to be made through reason, as everyone can discern the right
course of action. An example of natural law can be found in the universal understanding that killing is
wrong, while punishing someone for such an act is right, showing that these principles are inherent in
human nature, not dependent on legislation. The theory has deep roots in various traditions, particularly
in the works of philosophers like Aristotle and Plato, and has been significantly developed by St. Thomas
Aquinas, who believed that human beings, created by God, inherently understand the difference between
right and wrong through reason.
▪ Aquinas’s interpretation of natural law is grounded in his belief that humans, as rational beings, have a
moral compass built into their nature. According to Aquinas, human beings are instinctively drawn
toward seven basic goods: life, reproduction, the education of offspring, the pursuit of God, living in
society, avoiding offense, and seeking knowledge. These basic goods form the foundation of moral
actions, and right acts are those aligned with these goods. Aquinas argued that the natural law is
universally applicable, meaning that anyone, regardless of culture, can use reason to deduce what is
morally right or wrong. He emphasized that moral laws do not require religious teachings or external
authorities to be understood, as they are intrinsic to human nature.
▪ Furthermore, Aquinas’s natural law theory incorporates the idea that humans must consider not only
their own good but also the common good, a notion central to the practice of law. Laws are seen as
measures that guide human actions toward achieving the common good and are valid only if they
conform to the natural law. Aquinas also outlined different types of laws: eternal law, divine law, natural
law, and human law. Eternal law governs the universe, divine law relates to spiritual salvation, and
natural law governs rational beings, like humans. Human law, in turn, must align with natural law to be
just; if it deviates, it is considered a perversion of law.

REFERRENCES

▪ Tarsney, C. J., & Thomas, T. (2020). Non-Additive Axiologies in Large Worlds.

▪ Portmore, D. W. (2020). Chapter 5: Dual-Ranking Act-Consequentialism: Reasons, Morality, and
Overridingness.
▪ Durkheimian Utilitarianism and Legal Moralism. (2023). OpenEdition Journals. Retrieved from
[Link]

pg. 22
 Unit III
DEONTOLOGY

INTENDED LEARNING OUTCOME

▪ Discuss the basin principles of Deontology.

INTRODUCTION

This module delves into the fundamental concepts of Deontology, a moral theory primarily associated
with Immanuel Kant, that emphasizes duty, obligation, and the intrinsic worth of rational will. It introduces
learners to key principles such as Duty and Agency, which explores how individuals are bound by moral
obligations and the role of personal agency in ethical decision-making. The module also examines Autonomy,
highlighting the principle of self-determination in making ethical choices, asserting that individuals must act in
accordance with their rational will. Additionally, Universalizability is explored, a cornerstone of Kantian ethics,
which posits that moral laws should be applicable consistently to all, ensuring fairness and equality in ethical
reasoning. By understanding these concepts, learners will gain insights into how human beings navigate their
moral duties and obligations within the framework of rationality, while ensuring that their actions are guided by
universal ethical principles.

LESSON 1: DUTY AND AGENCY: EXPLORING MORAL OBLIGATIONS AND THE ROLE OF
THE INDIVIDUAL

DEONTOLOGY (from Greek δέον, deon, "obligation, duty", or being necessary).

It is the normative ethical theory that the morality of an action should be based on whether that action
itself is right or wrong under a series of rules, rather than based on the consequences of the action. It is sometimes
described as duty-, obligation- or rule-based ethics. Deontological ethics is commonly contrasted to
consequentialism, virtue ethics, and pragmatic ethics. In this terminology, action is more important than the
consequences.
The moral theory that evaluates actions that are done because of duty is called deontology. It refers to
the study of duty and obligation. The main proponent of deontology is Immanuel Kant (1724-1804). He was a
German Enlightenment philosopher who wrote one of the most important works on moral philosophy,
Groundwork towards a Metaphysics of Morals (1785). In this work, Kant brings attention to the fact that we human
beings, have the faculty called Rational will, which is the capacity to act according to principles that we determine
for ourselves.
Some of the main questions that Kant’s ethics focuses on are questions of right and wrong: What makes
an action right or wrong? Which actions are we required by morality to perform? Do consequences matter? Is it
ever permissible to do something morally wrong in order to achieve good consequences? Is it important to do
actions with good intentions? And what are good intentions? Some of Kant’s answers to some of these questions
are complex, but as we will see, he doesn’t think that consequences matter and thus good consequences cannot
justify wrong actions. He also thinks that intentions are important to the ethical evaluation of actions.

Example: Suppose you were a doctor and you have just discovered that your patient has stage four breast cancer
however you can't tell her the truth right away because you are aware that she also has a serious heart condition
doing so might just give her a heart attack and possibly even kill her, what should you do?
From the point of view of consequentialist ethics, take note consequentialist ethics lying to the patient
and telling the truth to her loved ones instead is the best thing to do by doing so you avoid the negative
consequence of her having a heart attack or dying. However, from the point of view of deontological ethics, telling
the patient the truth is the right thing to do even if doing so might result in her having a heart attack or dying in
deontological ethics therefore we have to consider first which actions are right and wrong before making any
moral decision if an action is right in itself then we have the moral duty to do it whereas if an action is wrong in
itself then we have the moral duty to act accordingly.

pg. 23
 DUTY

Kant’s ethical philosophy is distinctive because it focuses on duty—what we are morally obligated to
do—rather than consequences or emotions. For Kant, morality is about following universal rules that define right
and wrong. These rules are derived from reason and apply to everyone, no matter the situation.

Understanding Right and Wrong

Right and wrong are categories in ethics that tell us what actions we must or must not perform.
• Right actions: Things we are morally required to do. For example, helping someone in need is the right
thing to do.
• Wrong actions: Things we are morally forbidden from doing. For example, stealing or lying is wrong.

Kant’s ethical system focuses on the categorical imperative, a guiding principle that helps us determine
what is right or wrong. Let’s break this concept down further.

What is the Categorical Imperative?

The term “categorical imperative” might sound complicated, but it simply means a rule or command that
applies to everyone, everywhere, at all times, regardless of circumstances. For Kant, morality is like math—it
follows universal principles that don’t change depending on our feelings or the outcomes of our actions.
Unlike other types of rules, which may depend on personal goals or external authorities, the categorical
imperative is unconditional. It doesn’t say, “Do this if you want that.” Instead, it simply says, “Do this because it
is the right thing to do.”

Why is Rationality Important in Morality?

Kant believed that morality must be based on reason, not emotions or instincts. Humans have a unique
ability to think, reflect, and make decisions based on principles. This is what sets us apart from animals, which
act purely on instinct.

For example:
▪ Animals: A hungry dog will eat food immediately if it sees it. It doesn’t stop to think, “Should I leave this
for someone else?”
▪ Humans: A hungry person might see food but pause to think, “Should I take this? Who does it belong to?
Will my action harm someone else?”

This ability to pause, think, and evaluate our actions based on principles is what makes morality possible for
humans.

An Example: The Duty to Tell the Truth

Kant believed one of the most important moral duties is to tell the truth. He argued that lying is wrong
because it breaks trust, which is essential for relationships and society to function.
Imagine this situation:
▪ A friend shares a secret with you and asks you not to tell anyone. Later, someone asks you about the
secret. What should you do?
o According to Kant: You have a duty to keep the promise, even if telling the secret might lead to a
“better” outcome, like avoiding a problem. For Kant, the duty to tell the truth is more important
than the consequences of lying.

This strict approach might feel challenging, but it reflects Kant’s belief that moral rules must be followed
no matter the situation.

pg. 24
 AGENCY

Agency refers to the ability of a person to act based on their own intentions, decisions, and moral
principles, rather than simply reacting to their surroundings or impulses. It is the power to choose actions freely
and responsibly.

Agency vs. Impulse

Let’s break this down with an example:
▪ Imagine you are studying late at night, but you feel very sleepy. Your impulse is to close your books and
go to bed. However, your rational mind reminds you of your goal—to prepare for a quiz tomorrow. You
decide to stand up, stretch, and have some coffee to stay awake.
o What happened here? Your rational will overcame your impulse. You acted based on your long-
term goal, not just on what felt good in the moment.
This ability to deliberate, make decisions, and act based on reasons is what we call agency.

The Role of Autonomy

When we talk about agency, we also talk about autonomy, which means acting according to your own
principles and not being controlled by others. An autonomous person makes decisions based on what they
believe is right, rather than being influenced by peer pressure, fear, or bribes.

An Example: Choosing Honesty Over Cheating

Imagine you are taking a difficult exam, and someone offers you a bribe to cheat. What do you do?
▪ If you accept the bribe: You are allowing external pressures (the temptation of money or an easy
solution) to control your actions.
▪ If you refuse the bribe: You are exercising your agency and autonomy by choosing to act honestly, based
on your moral principles.

By rejecting the bribe, you demonstrate that you are not a mere puppet of external forces. You act freely
and rationally, guided by what you know is right.

Why Does This Matter?

Understanding duty and agency is important because they help us see that morality is not just about
following rules or avoiding punishment. It’s about using our ability to think, reflect, and make choices that respect
others and uphold universal principles.
Kant’s philosophy reminds us that we are not just driven by emotions or instincts. We have the power to
shape our actions and the world around us through reason. This power gives us responsibility—to act in ways
that are fair, truthful, and respectful of everyone’s dignity.

LESSON 2: AUTONOMY: THE PRINCIPLE OF SELF-DETERMINATION IN ETHICAL

DECISION-MAKING

What is Autonomy?
In ethical decision-making, autonomy refers to the capacity of an individual to act according to their own
principles and values, free from external control or influence. For Kant, autonomy is central to human dignity
and moral responsibility. It signifies our ability to make rational choices and govern ourselves based on universal
moral laws that we establish through reason.

Breaking Down the Concept

Kant introduces the idea of autonomy in contrast to heteronomy. To understand these terms, let’s
explore their roots:
1. Autos: Greek for "self."
2. Nomos: Greek for "law."
3. Heteros: Greek for "other."
pg. 25
By combining these words:
▪ Autonomy means self-law—the ability to give oneself moral laws and act according to them.
▪ Heteronomy means other-law—acting according to laws or principles imposed by external forces, such
as societal norms, peer pressure, or personal desires.

Kant’s Definition of Autonomy

Kant explains autonomy as follows:

The will is not only subject to the law but also subject to the law in such a way that it gives the law to itself.
(Ak 4:431)

This means that the autonomous will is both:

1. The lawgiver: It establishes the moral principles it will follow.
2. The subject of the law: It follows those same principles, acting in accordance with them.

In simpler terms, a person is autonomous when they decide for themselves what is morally right, based on
reason, and then act accordingly. They are not merely obeying someone else's orders or societal rules—they are
following a law they have rationally chosen to accept.

AUTONOMY VS. HETERONOMY

Autonomy Heteronomy
Acting based on principles you create using Acting based on external pressures, desires, or societal
reason. expectations.

Rooted in rational thought and self- Influenced by emotions, peer pressure, or authority figures.
determination.

Reflects moral responsibility and freedom. Reflects dependence on external factors.

Example of Autonomy
Imagine a student deciding whether to copy from a classmate during an exam:
▪ If the student thinks through the situation rationally, considers the moral principle of honesty, and
decides not to cheat, they are acting autonomously.
▪ If the student cheats because they feel pressured to pass or because “everyone else is doing it,” they are
acting heteronomously.

The Role of Autonomy in Ethics

Kant believed autonomy is essential for moral responsibility because:

1. Freedom to Choose: To be morally responsible for our actions, we must have the freedom to choose
what we do. If we are coerced or manipulated, our actions cannot truly be moral or immoral.
2. Human Dignity: Autonomy reflects our unique ability as humans to think and act rationally. It is what
gives us dignity and makes us more than just beings driven by instincts or external influences.
3. Accountability: Because we are capable of making our own decisions, we are also accountable for them.
Autonomy ensures that our actions are truly our own, not simply the result of external forces.

Autonomy in Everyday Life

Autonomy is not just a philosophical concept—it’s something we encounter and practice daily. Here are
some real-life examples:

pg. 26
 1. Standing by Your Beliefs: Imagine being pressured by friends to skip school. Acting autonomously
means reflecting on your values, such as responsibility and discipline, and choosing to attend school
regardless of peer pressure.
2. Making Career Choices: Autonomy involves choosing a career path based on your passions and goals,
not merely following family expectations or societal trends.
3. Challenging Injustice: Speaking up against unfair treatment, even when others remain silent,
demonstrates autonomy. You act based on your principle of justice, not on fear or conformity.

Why Autonomy Matters in Ethical Decision-Making

Autonomy plays a crucial role in ethical decision-making for several reasons:

1. Promotes Integrity: When we act autonomously, we align our actions with our values and principles,
fostering integrity and authenticity.
2. Encourages Rationality: Autonomy requires us to think critically and rationally, ensuring our decisions
are well-considered.
3. Enables Moral Progress: By acting autonomously, we are not bound by outdated norms or pressures.
We have the freedom to challenge harmful practices and advocate for better ones.

LESSON 3: UNIVERSALIZABILITY: THE CONCEPT OF CONSISTENT MORAL LAWS FOR ALL

UNIVERSALIZABILITY

One thing that is common in the discussion in ethics talks about God.
Divine Command Theory for example talks about the deity regardless of religion.
Natural Law Theory by Thomas Aquinas says that morality comes from us but only because we are made by
God who preloaded us with moral sensibilities.

But moralities Moral Code does not come from Supernatural force as per Emanuel Kant. According to
him, Morality and Religion should be kept apart. Kant argued that in order to determine what’s right, you have
to use reason.
Because he knew that if we look to religion for our morality, we are not all going to get the same answer.
But Kant thought that morality was a constant, in almost mathematical sense. Two plus two equals four whether
you’re a Christian, Buddhist, or Atheist.
He pointed out that, most of the time, whether or not we ought to do something isn’t really a moral choice
– instead, it’s just a contingent of our desires.
Example: If you desire to get money, then you get a job. If you desire to get 90 grades then you study hard.
-All of these are Hypothetical Imperatives – Commands that you should follow if you want something. According
to Kant, hypothetical imperatives are about prudence, rather than morality. So, if you don’t want money, you can
always choose not to work. If you don’t want good grades, you can choose not to study.

But Kant viewed morality not in terms of hypothetical imperatives but through what he called
Categorical Imperatives – commands you must follow, regardless of your desires. These are our moral
obligations, and Kant believed that they’re desire from pure reason. He said it didn’t matter whether you want to
be moral or not – the moral law is binding on all of us. And he said you don’t need religion to determine what that
law is, because what’s right and wrong is totally knowable by just using your intellect.

To figure out how faculty of reason can be the cause of an autonomous action, we need to learn a method
or a specific procedure that will demonstrate autonomy of the will. First, we make a distinction about kinds or
moral theories: substantive moral theory and formal moral theory.
A substantive moral theory promulgates the specific actions that comprise that theory. It identifies the
particular duties in a straightforward manner that the adherents of the theory must follow. The Divine
Command Theory is a form of deontology because, according to it, the rightness of any action depends upon
that action being performed because it is a duty, not because of any good consequences arising from that action.
If God commands not to covet a neighbor's goods, this theory holds that it would be immoral to do so, even if
pg. 27
coveting provides the beneficial outcome of a drive to succeed or do well. However, one thing that clearly
distinguishes Kantian deontologism from divine command deontology is that Kantianism maintains that man, as
a rational being, makes the moral law universal, whereas divine command maintains that God makes the moral
law universal.
In contrast to substantive moral theory, a formal moral theory does not supply the rules or commands
straightaway. It does not tell you what you may oy may not do. Instead, it provides us the “form” or “framework”
of the moral theory. To provide the “form” of a moral theory is to supply a procedure and the criteria for
determining, on one’s own, the rules and moral commands. Formal moral theory will not give us a set of
instructions on how to make a list of duties or moral commands.
Kant then argues that the consequences of an act of willing cannot be used to determine that the person
has a good will; good consequences could arise by accident from an action that was motivated by a desire to cause
harm to an innocent person, and bad consequences could arise from an action that was well-motivated. Instead,
he claims, a person has a good will when he 'acts out of respect for the moral law'. People 'act out of respect for
the moral law' when they act in some way because they have a duty to do so. So, the only thing that is truly good
in itself is a good will, and a good will is only good when the willer chooses to do something because it is that
person's duty, i.e. out of "respect" for the law. He defines respect as "the concept of a worth which thwarts my
self-love".

Kant's three significant formulations of the categorical imperative are:

Act only according to that maxim by which you can also will that it would
become a universal law.

Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own
person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means, but always at
the same time as an end.

Every rational being must so act as if he were through his maxim always a
legislating member in a universal kingdom of ends.

Explanation to Kant's three significant formulations of the categorical imperative

1. This particular formulation emphasizes the idea that an action is morally permissible if and only if the
principle or maxim behind it can be willed to become a universal law without leading to a contradiction.
Example:

Let's say lying to spare someone's feelings became a universal law. In such a world, trust and
communication would break down because nobody could rely on others to tell the truth. If everyone lied
whenever it seemed convenient, the practice of lying would become ineffective, and ultimately, the very purpose
of lying to spare feelings would be defeated. Therefore, according to Kant's Categorical Imperative, lying in this
scenario would be morally impermissible because the maxim behind it cannot be consistently universalized
without leading to a contradiction.

In essence, the Categorical Imperative prompts individuals to consider the universalizability of their
actions' underlying principles, ensuring that moral rules or maxims can be applied consistently to all individuals
without leading to logical contradictions.

2. This formulation of the Categorical Imperative emphasizes the importance of treating humanity with
respect and dignity. It instructs individuals to always consider people as ends in themselves, rather than
merely as instruments or means to achieve some other end. In essence, it's about recognizing the intrinsic
value of every human being and ensuring they are not exploited or used solely for the benefit of others.

Example:
Let's say you run a business and are considering whether to implement cost-cutting measures that
involve laying off employees without proper compensation. To apply this formulation of the Categorical
Imperative, you would assess whether your actions treat your employees as ends in themselves or merely as
means to maximize profits.
pg. 28
 According to the Categorical Imperative, this would be morally impermissible because it violates the
principle of treating humanity as an end in itself.

3. This formulation emphasizes the idea that individuals should act as if they are legislators in a universal
kingdom of ends, where moral principles are determined by rational beings themselves. In other words,
it encourages individuals to consider whether their actions would be acceptable if everyone were to
follow the same moral principles.

Example:
Imagine you're considering whether to cheat on a test to improve your grades. To apply this formulation
of the Categorical Imperative, you would examine the maxim or principle behind your action, which might be
something like "It's acceptable to cheat if it helps me achieve my goals."
If everyone were to follow this principle, cheating would become widespread, undermining the fairness
and integrity of the educational system. In a universal kingdom of ends where rational beings legislate moral
principles, cheating to achieve personal goals would not be acceptable because it contradicts the principle of
fairness and honesty that rational beings would establish.

Kant argued that the only absolutely good thing is a good will, and so the single determining factor of
whether an action is morally right is the will, or motive of the person doing it. If they are acting on a bad maxim,
e.g. "I will lie", then their action is wrong, even if some good consequences come of it. In his essay, On a Supposed
Right to Lie Because of Philanthropic Concerns, arguing against the position of Benjamin Constant, Des réactions
politiques, Kant states that "Hence a lie defined merely as an intentionally untruthful declaration to another man
does not require the additional condition that it must do harm to another, as jurists require in their definition
(mendacium est falsiloquium in praeiudicium alterius). For a lie always harms another; if not some human being,
then it nevertheless does harm to humanity in general, inasmuch as it vitiates the very source of right
[Rechtsquelle]. All practical principles of right must contain rigorous truth. This is because such exceptions would
destroy the universality on account of which alone, they bear the name of principles. Kant claims that the
universalized maxim “could never be valid as a universal law of nature and be consistent with itself, but must
necessarily contradict itself”. However, Kant rejects maxims in two ways: the universalized maxim becomes
either (1) self-contradictory, and (2) the act and its purpose become impossible.

SYNTHESIS

▪ Deontology, derived from the Greek word deon (meaning duty or obligation), is an ethical theory that
assesses the morality of actions based on their adherence to rules, rather than their consequences.
Grounded in the works of German philosopher Immanuel Kant, deontological ethics emphasize that
morality is guided by rational principles that define what is inherently right or wrong. Central to this
approach is the concept of duty, which dictates that moral actions must align with universal principles,
regardless of the outcomes they produce.
▪ Kant's philosophy hinges on the categorical imperative, a universal law derived from reason. This
principle ensures actions are morally permissible if they can be consistently universalized without
contradiction. It also asserts that individuals must treat others as ends in themselves, recognizing their
intrinsic dignity rather than using them as mere means to an end. Kantian ethics reject the notion that
consequences can justify morally wrong actions, highlighting that moral worth lies in the good will—the
intention to act out of duty rather than personal gain.
▪ Key components of Kantian ethics include agency, the rational ability to act based on principles rather
than impulses, and autonomy, the self-determined capacity to legislate moral laws. These concepts
distinguish humans from animals, emphasizing reflective and principled decision-making. Furthermore,
Kant's notion of universalizability challenges individuals to evaluate whether their actions could be
universally applied without undermining moral order.
▪ For example, Kant argued that lying is inherently wrong because universalizing such a maxim would
erode trust and communication. Similarly, in decision-making scenarios—such as a doctor revealing a
terminal diagnosis—deontological ethics prioritize truth-telling as a moral duty, even if it leads to
undesirable consequences. By centering morality on rational will, duty, and universal principles,
deontology offers a framework for ethical decision-making that values principles over pragmatism.

pg. 29
REFERRENCES

▪ Johnson, R., & Cureton, A. (2022). Kant's moral philosophy. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia
of Philosophy (Fall 2022 Edition). Retrieved from
[Link]
▪ Thompson, M. (2020). Immanuel Kant and deontology. PhilArchive. Retrieved from
[Link]
▪ Columbia University Institutional Review Board. (2020). Categorical imperatives and the case for
deception: Part I. IRB Blog. Retrieved from [Link]
board/irb-blog/2020/categorical-imperatives-and-the-case-for-deception-part-i/

pg. 30
 Unit IV
VIRTUE ETHICS

INTENDED LEARNING OUTCOME

▪ Analyze the strengths and weaknesses of the various ethical frameworks and their value to
human life and society.

INTRODUCTION

In exploring the foundations of ethical behavior, it is essential to understand the interconnected concepts
of virtues, values, happiness, and humanity's ultimate purpose. Virtues are moral qualities that guide us toward
living a good life, while values are the principles we hold dear and that shape our choices. This chapter delves
into the relationship between virtues and values, highlighting how they work together to define ethical behavior
and cultivate moral character. Additionally, it examines the profound significance of happiness, not merely as a
fleeting emotion but as the ultimate purpose of human existence. By understanding virtue ethics and its
principles, identifying virtuous actions, and reflecting on the role of happiness in achieving fulfillment, we can
better grasp what it means to lead a life of purpose and integrity.

LESSON 1: THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN VIRTUES AND VALUES

VIRTUE
Virtue is the quality of doing what is right and avoiding what is wrong, or it is any admirable quality or
attribute of a person. To understand the principles of virtue ethics, we first need to comprehend what virtue itself
means. Virtue can depend on what society and individuals determine to be morally good, which may differ across
cultures and even between individuals and their societies.

Aristotle, one of the earliest philosophers to examine virtue ethics, explained that virtue is "the mean" or
the average of two extremes. On one extreme, there is a deficiency of the trait, while on the other, there is an
excess. For instance, courage as a virtue is flanked by cowardice (deficiency) and rashness (excess).

A virtue is an excellent trait of character—a disposition deeply ingrained in its possessor. This goes
beyond a mere habit, such as being a tea-drinker. Virtue encompasses a mindset that shapes how a person
notices, values, feels, desires, chooses, acts, and reacts. To possess a virtue is to embody a distinctive range of
considerations as reasons for action.

For example, an honest person is not just someone who avoids cheating or dishonest dealings for fear of
being caught or because honesty is "the best policy." Instead, an honest person recognizes “To do otherwise
would be dishonest” as a reason for their actions. Similarly, honesty does not mean brutal honesty or tactlessness;
it involves knowing when and how to communicate truths effectively.

Explanation
Consider a person who knows what to say, can diffuse tense situations, delivers tough news gracefully, is
confident without being arrogant, brave but not reckless, and generous but not extravagant. These rare
individuals embody what Aristotle calls virtuous.

Virtue ethics emphasizes an individual’s character rather than adherence to specific rules. It asserts that
being a good person inherently leads to the right actions. A virtuous person inherently knows how to handle
themselves, interact with others, exercise good judgment, and act appropriately.

pg. 31
The right actions always represent the midpoint between two extremes. For example:
▪ Courage:
o Cowardice --- Courage --- Recklessness
o Example: Witnessing a mugging, a courageous person assesses the situation. If intervention does
not put themselves or the victim in unnecessary danger, acting is courageous. Otherwise, calling
the police may be the appropriate action.
▪ Honesty:
o Failing to speak up --- Honesty --- Brutal honesty
o Example: Honesty means delivering hard truths gracefully, offering constructive criticism, or
breaking bad news gently.
▪ Generosity:
o Stinginess --- Generosity --- Prodigality
o Example: Generosity involves giving when it is appropriate and recognizing when restraint is
necessary.

How to Learn Virtue?

Aristotle suggested that character develops through habituation. Repeatedly performing virtuous actions
fosters the integration of virtues into one’s character. But why strive to be virtuous? The answer lies in
eudaimonia, which means living a well-lived life. A life of eudaimonia is marked by human flourishing, striving,
and achieving fulfillment. This happiness arises from accomplishment and personal growth rather than passive
indulgence.

Eudaimonia represents the satisfaction of knowing you have achieved something meaningful and pushes
you to become a better version of yourself.

VIRTUE ETHICS
Virtue ethics relies on virtues (qualities considered morally good) to make ethical decisions. Unlike other
ethical frameworks, it focuses on developing a person’s character rather than adhering to rules or evaluating
consequences.

Comparison with Other Ethical Approaches

▪ Consequentialism: Focuses on the outcomes of actions (e.g., utilitarianism).
▪ Deontology: Centers on duties, rules, and autonomy.
▪ Natural Law: Emphasizes natural inclinations.
Virtue ethics is distinct because it does not provide specific principles or rules to guide actions. Instead, it
relies on practical wisdom to help the moral agent seek the good.

Core Questions in Virtue Ethics

Virtue ethics explores questions such as:
▪ How should I live?
▪ What is the good life?
The framework emphasizes character formation through virtuous acts. Aristotle’s discourse on ethics
differs from Plato’s by rooting the good within everyday experiences rather than abstract forms. While Plato
viewed the truth and good as transcendent and independent of human experience, Aristotle believed they are
intertwined with tangible reality, where form and matter coexist.

In conclusion, virtue ethics fosters moral development by emphasizing character over rigid rules, guiding
individuals to lead fulfilling, virtuous lives rooted in practical wisdom and personal growth.

pg. 32
 LESSON 2: HAPPINESS AND ULTIMATE PURPOSE

HAPPINESS AND ULTIMATE PURPOSE

For Aristotle, every act that a person does is directed toward a particular purpose, aim, or what the Greeks
called telos. There is a purpose why one does something. According to him, a person’s action manifests a good
that he/she aspires for. Every pursuit of a person hopes to achieve a good. A person will not do anything that is
not beneficial to her. For Aristotle, the good is considered to be the telos or purpose for which all acts seek to
achieve.

With the condition that there is a hierarchy of telos, Aristotle then asks about the highest purpose, which
is the ultimate good of a human being. Aristotle discusses the general criteria in order for one to recognize the
highest good of a man. First, the highest good of a person must be final. As a final end, it is no longer utilized for
the sake of arriving at a much higher end. Second, the ultimate telos of a person must be self-sufficient.
Satisfaction in life is arrived at once this highest good is attained. Nothing else is sought after and desired, once
this self-sufficient goal is achieved. According to Aristotle, older individuals would agree that the highest purpose
and the ultimate good of a man is happiness, or for the Greeks, eudaimonia(happiness).

One can therefore say that happiness seems to fit the first criterion of being the final end of a human being.
For it is clear that condition for having wealth, power , and pleasures are not chosen for themselves but for the
sake of being a means to achieve happiness.

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. The true measure of well-being,
for Aristotle, is not by means of richness or fame but by the condition of having attained a happy life.

For Aristotle, what defines human beings is her function of activity of reason. This function makes her
different from the rest of beings. What defines a person is her function or activity of reason. A person’s action
to be considered as truly human must be an act if always be in accordance to reason. The function of human
being is to act following the dictates of her reason. What distinguishes a good person from other human beings
is her rational activity that is performed well and or excellently. A good individual therefore stands closer to
meeting the conditions of happiness because her actions are of higher purpose.

Explanation
Aristotle posits that all human actions are driven by the pursuit of some "good." Everything we
do is aimed at achieving an end or goal that we perceive as beneficial to us. These goods, such as
health, fitness, security, pleasure, education, and others, are sought after in our daily lives.

Pursuit of Happiness
▪ Why do we pursue these goods? Aristotle argues that all our actions—whether seeking
exercise, education, or security—are ultimately aimed at achieving happiness.
▪ Example: Why do you exercise? To be fit and healthy. Why do you seek knowledge? To be
happy.

The Central Question: If everything we do is for happiness, why, then, do we experience unhappiness
at times?

Aristotle's Insight:
▪ Just because we pursue things we believe will make us happy does not guarantee happiness.
▪ Not all actions lead to happiness: Some pursuits may lead us to temporary satisfaction, but
not true happiness.
▪ The mistake of misjudging happiness: Sometimes, humans mistakenly desire things that
ultimately lead to unhappiness.

pg. 33
Key Ideas:
▪ Happiness is not fully in our control: While we may think we are choosing what will make us
happy, Aristotle argues that much of what leads to happiness is not a matter of choice. Instead,
happiness is something we must learn to recognize and understand over time.
▪ Diverse Paths to Happiness: Aristotle acknowledges that different people find happiness in
different ways. Some may want to be doctors, others prefer farming; some desire city life, while
others cherish rural living. Yet, across these differences, humans share common elements in
their pursuit of happiness.
▪ Universal Truths: Despite individual preferences, certain things are universally true for all
people—health and happiness are desirable for everyone, and sadness is an inevitable part of
the human experience.

Aristotle's philosophy challenges us to reflect on what truly leads to happiness. It is not simply
the pursuit of goods, but the understanding of what will genuinely lead to a fulfilling life. Learning what
makes us happy is essential to living a meaningful existence.

What actions lead us to happiness?

REASON ACTION GOOD

Buying liquors instead

of paying the rent Food | Shelter | Education
Or Sex is more
important than

Aristotle emphasizes the importance of thoughtful action in the pursuit of happiness. He believes
that making mistakes often comes from giving in to wrong reasons, which is why it is crucial to carefully
consider our actions.

Virtue and Happiness

▪ Virtue as the Key to Happiness: The actions or activities that consistently lead us to happiness
are those aligned with virtue. Aristotle suggests that by living a virtuous life, we are more likely
to attain true happiness.
▪ Quote: "Being good at being a person means being a good person. Living well is what makes you
happy."

Happiness and Moral Action:

▪ Moral Foundation of Happiness: For Aristotle, happiness is not just about seeking pleasure or
material gains but is deeply rooted in ethical or moral action. Engaging in good deeds and making
virtuous choices are essential for achieving true happiness.
▪ Consequences of Bad Actions: Acting in unethical or immoral ways will lead to unhappiness,
as these actions contradict the pursuit of virtue.

Character Over Conditions:

▪ Emphasis on Character: Aristotle stresses that our character—our internal dispositions and
choices—matters more than our external conditions or circumstances. It is not our situation, but
how we choose to respond to life, that determines our happiness.

pg. 34
Proof of a Well-Lived Life:
▪ Actions Reveal Our Pursuit of Happiness: The way we choose to live implicitly shows our
understanding of what will bring us happiness. The decisions we make and the actions we take
reflect our values and the kind of life we believe will lead to fulfillment.

Aristotle encourages us to live virtuously, as our choices and actions shape our happiness.
Happiness is a product of moral integrity, and our character plays a significant role in achieving a life of
true fulfillment. Through ethical actions, we are more likely to attain lasting happiness.

pg. 35
SYNTHESIS

▪ Virtues and values form the foundation of ethical behavior and human flourishing. Virtues are the
qualities that enable individuals to act rightly and develop moral character, while values guide decision-
making by reflecting what a person or society deems important. Aristotle’s virtue ethics introduces the
concept of the “golden mean,” which describes virtue as the balance between deficiency and excess—for
instance, courage lies between cowardice and recklessness. Virtues shape who we are, influencing how
we think, feel, and act in a morally upright manner.
▪ Happiness, or eudaimonia, is identified by Aristotle as the ultimate purpose of human life. Every action is
directed toward achieving some good, and happiness represents the highest good, being both self-
sufficient and final. It is not simply about fleeting pleasure or material gain but about leading a life guided
by reason and virtue. Aristotle emphasizes that true happiness stems from moral action, self-
improvement, and fulfilling one’s unique human potential.
▪ Together, virtues and values guide individuals toward actions that lead to true happiness. A virtuous life,
achieved through the consistent practice of moral habits and good judgment, aligns with Aristotle’s vision
of a well-lived life. By cultivating virtues and making choices rooted in ethical values, individuals can
navigate life’s complexities and find lasting fulfillment.

REFERRENCES

▪ Bloomfield, P. (2016). The Virtues of Happiness: A Theory of the Good Life. Oxford University Press.
▪ Brooks, A. C. (2024, October 24). Are You a Platonist or an Aristotelian? The Atlantic.
▪ Virtue Ethics. (2019). In Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
▪ The Philosophy of Happiness in Life. (2019). [Link].

pg. 36
 JAMES MICHAEL P. AMRINTO is a Licensed Professional
Teacher and an Instructor I at Southern Leyte State
University - Maasin City Campus. He completed his
Bachelor of Secondary Education Major in Social Studies
at Southern Leyte State University - Tomas Oppus
Campus. James Michael is currently pursuing a Master of
Arts in Educ ation Major in Social Sciences at the same
institution. He was born in Sitio Begining, Brgy.
Polahongon, Mahaplag, Leyte.

His dedication to education and professional

development continues to shape his contributions in the
academic community.

pg. 37