Ethics - is like those rules, but for everyone in the world, helping people know what’s right and

wrong.
It is like the rules of the game that everyone agrees on, so everyone knows how to play fairly. It helps
people understand how to behave nicely with each other.

Morals - are like the personal rules each person follows based on what they believe is good or bad.
So, if someone doesn’t share, we might say they’re not being nice, which means they’re not following
good morals. These are like the special rules that each person chooses to follow in the game. They are
based on what each person thinks is right or wrong. For example, one person might think it's very
important to always be kind, so they always help others when they fall down. That’s their moral rule.

So, ethics are like big rules for everyone, and morals are the rules each person believes in.

Unethical - If someone breaks the big game rules (ethics), we say they’re being "unethical." It’s like
cheating in the game—it’s not fair or right for everyone.
Immoral - If someone doesn’t follow their own special rules (morals), we say they’re being "immoral."
For example, if someone believes it’s important to always tell the truth but then lies, they’re not
following their own moral rule.
Amoral - This is like someone who doesn’t care about the game rules at all. They might not think
about whether something is right or wrong—they just do whatever they want.
Moral Judgment/Moral Reasoning - This is when you think really hard about what’s right or wrong in
a situation. It’s like when you pause in the game to figure out the best, fairest move to make.
Moral judgment - is when you decide what the fairest or kindest thing to do is.
Moral reasoning - figuring out *why* one choice is better than another. It’s thinking through all the
possibilities and reasons before you make your decision.

So, moral judgment is about making the choice, and moral reasoning is about thinking through why
that choice is the best one.

Professional Ethics - Special rules they have to follow at work.

Summary:
So, ethics are like big, shared rules for everyone, and morals are the personal rules each person
chooses to follow. Being ethical means playing the game fairly, and being moral means following your
own special rules about what’s right and wrong.

Descriptive ethics - is like being a reporter. Imagine someone going around and simply observing how
people behave and what they believe is right or wrong, without saying whether it’s good or bad. iIt is
about describing what people do—like a reporter just telling you the facts. About about seeing and
describing.

Normative ethics - is about asking, "What *should* people do?" It’s like being a coach, who tells you
the best way to play the game, based on what they think is the right or fair way. It is about guiding
what people should do—like a coach helping you understand the best way to play the game. About
guiding and deciding what’s right.

Moral issue - is a situation where you need to think about what’s right and wrong. It’s like when
you’re faced with a choice that has to do with fairness, honesty, or kindness.
Example: Imagine you see something you really want in a store, but you don’t have enough money to
buy it. The thought of taking it without paying might cross your mind, but you know that stealing is
wrong. This situation is a moral issue because it involves making a decision about right and wrong
behavior.

Moral decision - is when you actually make a choice about what to do in a moral issue. You’re
deciding how to act based on what you believe is right.
Example: In the store scenario, if you decide not to take the item because you know it’s wrong to
steal, you’ve made a moral decision. You’ve chosen to do what you believe is the right thing.

Moral judgment - is when you look at someone else’s actions and decide if they were right or wrong.
It’s like being a referee in a game, deciding if a player followed the rules or not.
Example: If your friend steals something and you think to yourself, “That’s not right; stealing is
wrong,” you’ve made a moral judgment. You’ve judged their action based on what you believe is right
and wrong.

Moral dilemma - is a tough situation where you have to choose between two things, and neither
choice seems completely right or easy. It’s like being stuck between a rock and a hard place, where
both options have serious consequences.
Example: Imagine a mother who can’t afford food for her child. She might think about stealing food to
feed her hungry child. The dilemma here is that stealing is wrong, but letting her child go hungry feels
wrong too. She has to choose between two difficult options, and that’s what makes it a moral
dilemma.

Summary:
Moral issues - are situations where you need to figure out what’s right or wrong.
Moral decisions - are the choices you make in those situations.
Moral judgments - are when you decide if someone else’s actions were right or wrong.
Moral dilemmas - are really tough situations where you have to choose between two options, both of
which have their own set of challenges or problems.

LAW
Law as a Guide to Ethics - laws are often seen as rules that guide us on how to behave ethically. In the
Philippines, for example, people must follow national laws, and in specific places like Cebu, they also
follow local laws. These laws are put in place by authorities and must be followed by everyone.

Connection Between Law and Ethics - At first, it seems logical to think that laws help us behave
ethically. After all, laws forbid things like murder and theft, which are clearly wrong. Laws also have
consequences (punishments) to make sure people follow them. This makes some people think that
being ethical is as simple as following the law.

Problems with This View:

Law vs. Ethics: But the passage points out that just following the law might not always be the same as
being ethical.
Laws are Prohibitive: Laws mostly tell us what not to do (e.g., "Don’t steal," "Don’t kill"). They stop us
from doing bad things but don’t necessarily tell us to do good things. For example, the law doesn’t tell
you to help someone in need; it just tells you not to harm them.
Ethics Goes Beyond Law: There can be actions that are legally allowed but still feel wrong to us. For
instance, a company might follow the law by offering only short-term contracts to workers, which
avoids giving them benefits and job security. Legally, this is fine, but ethically, it seems unfair and
wrong because it exploits the workers.

Conclusion: The passage suggests that while we should generally obey the law, ethics is more than
just following legal rules. There are times when doing the right thing means going beyond what the
law requires.

In summary, the passage is exploring the idea that ethics and law are related but not the same. The
law gives us rules to follow, but being ethical might sometimes mean doing more than just obeying
those rules—it might involve making choices based on fairness, kindness, and doing what’s right,
even if the law doesn’t require it.
RELIGION
Divine Command Theory is the belief that ethical rules and values come directly from God (or a
higher power). According to this theory, people are morally obligated to follow God's commands
because God is the ultimate authority on what is right and wrong.

Many people find this idea appealing because it aligns with their religious upbringing. For example,
commandments like "Thou shall not kill" and "Thou shall not steal" seem to naturally fit with what we
think is morally right. Religion not only forbids certain behaviors but also encourages positive actions,
like forgiveness and charity, which go beyond mere legal obligations.

Advantages of Divine Command Theory:

Clear Guidance: Religion provides clear rules and ideals to follow, which makes it easy for people to
know what is expected of them.
Inspiration and Authority: God, as the Supreme Being, can inspire and compel people to obey these
rules, as they believe their actions affect their ultimate destiny.

Problems with Divine Command Theory:

Multiplicity of Religions: There are many different religions, each with its own set of rules and ethical
standards. This can lead to conflicting moral demands. For example, some religions have dietary
restrictions that others do not. This raises the question of whether we should judge others who follow
different religious rules or try to convert them to our own beliefs.
Differences Within a Religion: Even within the same religion, people might disagree on which
teachings to follow or how to interpret sacred texts. This can lead to confusion about which moral
rules are the "correct" ones.
Non-Religious People: Not everyone follows a religion. If morality is based solely on religious
teachings, then non-religious people might be seen as having no moral code, which is problematic.

Conceptual Challenge – Plato’s Euthyphro Dilemma:

The Dilemma: This philosophical problem is introduced through Plato's dialogue between Socrates
and Euthyphro. The question is: "Is something holy (or morally right) because God commands it, or
does God command it because it is holy (or morally right)?”
Implications:
- If something is right just because God commands it, then morality seems arbitrary—God could
command anything, and it would be considered right, even if it seems wrong to us (e.g., God could
command killing, and it would be morally right just because He said so).
- On the other hand, if God commands something because it is inherently right, then it suggests
that moral standards exist independently of God. This would mean that people could determine right
and wrong without needing to refer to God's commands, which challenges the idea that religion is the
sole source of morality.

Conclusion
Not a Rejection of Faith: The passage emphasizes that questioning Divine Command Theory is not the
same as questioning one’s belief in God or faith. Instead, it’s an invitation to think more deeply about
the relationship between faith and ethics.
Looking Beyond Divine Command Theory: The passage suggests that there may be more nuanced and
less problematic ways to connect faith with ethics, rather than simply equating moral right and wrong
with what one believes God commands. The passage hints at exploring other theories, like the Natural
Law theory of Thomas Aquinas, which might provide a more balanced and thoughtful integration of
faith and ethics.

Summary:
The passage critiques the idea that ethics can be entirely based on religious commands (Divine
Command Theory). It raises practical and conceptual challenges to this view, such as the existence of
multiple religions with different ethical standards and the philosophical problem of whether
something is right because God commands it or if God commands it because it is right. The discussion
encourages readers to explore more complex and less problematic ways of understanding the
connection between religion and ethics, suggesting that faith and morality can be connected in ways
that are deeper and more thoughtful than simply following religious commands.

CULTURE
Cultural relativism - is the belief that what is considered morally right or wrong is dependent on one’s
culture. It suggests that there are no universal moral standards, only cultural ones.

Diversity in Cultures: Our exposure to different cultures reveals that there are many ways of thinking,
valuing, and acting that differ from our own.

Alignment with Experience: Cultural relativism seems to match our experience of living in a world
with diverse cultures and moral standards.
Cultural Basis for Ethics: By basing ethics on one’s culture, cultural relativism provides a clear
framework for moral judgments.
Tolerance: It promotes tolerance, as it discourages judging other cultures by our own standards.
Instead, it encourages understanding and accepting that different cultures have their own valid moral
codes.

Implications:
Disagreement Doesn’t Mean No Right Answer:
- Cultural relativism assumes that because cultures disagree on what’s right or wrong, there are no
universally correct answers. However, just because people disagree doesn’t mean there isn’t a right
or wrong answer. For example, in a disagreement between two people, the truth might become clear
after further discussion or investigation.

Problematic Practices:
- Cultural relativism prevents us from judging practices in other cultures, even when those
practices are harmful. For instance, if a culture practices genocide or is violently repressive toward
women, cultural relativism would suggest we have no right to judge these actions as wrong. However,
most people would find it difficult to accept that such harmful practices should be beyond criticism.

Judging Our Own Culture:

- Cultural relativism also makes it difficult to criticize practices within our own culture. If we believe
our culture defines what is right, we might feel powerless to challenge traditions we find problematic,
like arranged marriages. This could lead to accepting harmful practices simply because they are part
of our culture, even if we personally disagree with them.

Fluidity of Culture in a Globalized World:

- One of the biggest challenges to cultural relativism is the difficulty of defining what "culture" is,
especially in our increasingly globalized world. Cultures are not static; they are fluid and often blend
with other cultures. For example, if someone has a father from one culture, a mother from another,
and lives in yet another cultural setting, it’s hard to say which culture should determine their moral
values. This fluidity makes the idea of cultural relativism, which depends on a clear definition of
"culture," less applicable.

Conclusion:
Critical Thinking is Necessary: While cultural relativism encourages humility and respect for other
cultures, it can also limit our ability to think critically about moral issues. It may prevent us from
evaluating and comparing the values of different cultures or even questioning the values of our own
culture.
Culture and Ethics: The passage doesn’t dismiss culture’s role in shaping ethics but suggests that we
need to think more deeply about how our cultural background can inform our ethical decisions in a
meaningful and thoughtful way. The discussion invites further exploration of how culture can
contribute to ethical thinking without falling into the traps of cultural relativism.

Summary:
The passage critiques cultural relativism, which holds that moral standards are relative to one’s
culture and that there are no universal moral truths. While cultural relativism promotes tolerance and
respect for different cultures, it also has significant drawbacks. It makes it difficult to criticize harmful
practices in other cultures, prevents us from questioning our own culture’s values, and struggles with
the reality that culture is not a fixed or clearly defined concept, especially in a globalized world. The
discussion encourages a more nuanced approach to understanding the relationship between culture
and ethics, one that allows for critical thinking and the recognition of shared human values.

SENSES OF SELF
Subjectivism is the belief that moral values are based on individual opinions or feelings. According to
this view, each person determines what is morally right or wrong based on their own perspectives. In
other words, "If I believe something is good, then it is good because I say so."

Personal Independence: Subjectivism is appealing because it aligns with the idea of personal
independence. It suggests that no one else has the right to tell us what to believe or how to act, as
our own judgments and experiences are paramount.

Critiques of Subjectivism:
"No one can tell me what is right and wrong."
- It’s true that no one can force another person to accept a certain moral judgment if they disagree
with it. However, this statement can’t be taken as an absolute truth. We’ve all had experiences where
we believed something to be true, only to later realize we were mistaken. Similarly, in ethics, we can
be wrong and might need correction from others.

"No one knows my situation better than myself."

- It’s true that an individual knows their situation best because they directly experience it. However,
this doesn’t mean that others can’t offer valuable insights or advice. Many human experiences are
common, and others might have relevant knowledge or perspectives that can help in making better
decisions.

"I am entitled to my own opinion."

- While everyone has the right to their own opinion, this doesn’t mean that all opinions are equally
valid or immune to criticism. Some opinions, like racist or sexist beliefs, are harmful and based on
incorrect assumptions. Just because someone is entitled to their opinion doesn’t mean that opinion is
beyond critique or that it should be accepted without question.

"It is good if I say that it is good."

- This statement gets to the heart of the issue with subjectivism. It suggests that something is good
just because an individual says it is. However, this raises the question: "What is the basis for saying
something is good?" If the only basis is personal preference, then subjectivism doesn’t provide a solid
foundation for determining what is truly right or wrong. It fails to offer any criteria beyond personal
opinion, making it difficult to justify moral decisions.

Conclusion:
- Subjectivism is Untenable: The main critique of subjectivism is that it relies entirely on individual
feelings or preferences to determine what is morally right or wrong. While it acknowledges that
individuals are the ones making moral decisions, it doesn’t provide a meaningful basis for evaluating
those decisions. In ethics, people often seek reasons or principles to guide their moral judgments, and
subjectivism doesn’t offer these. Instead, it leaves individuals with only their personal opinions, which
can be arbitrary and inconsistent.

Summary:
Subjectivism is the ethical theory that moral judgments are based solely on individual opinions or
feelings. While this idea appeals to a sense of personal independence, it has significant flaws. It
suggests that no one else can tell us what is right or wrong, but this overlooks the possibility that we
can be mistaken and might benefit from others’ insights. It also implies that any opinion is valid, but
this fails to account for harmful or baseless opinions. Ultimately, subjectivism doesn’t provide a solid
foundation for making moral decisions, as it relies entirely on personal preference without offering
any objective criteria for evaluating what is truly right or wrong.

Psychological egoism - is the belief that every action a person takes is driven by self-interest, even if it
appears to be altruistic (focused on helping others). According to this theory, when people perform
acts of kindness or generosity, they are ultimately doing so to satisfy their own desires or needs,
whether they realize it or not.

Daily Actions: Many of our everyday actions are clearly driven by self-interest, like watching a movie
because we enjoy it or choosing a college course because we believe it will benefit us.
Altruistic Actions: Even actions that seem selfless, like helping a friend with a thesis or volunteering to
build houses, are seen by psychological egoists as self-serving. For example, someone might help a
friend to impress them or volunteer to relieve guilt or feel good about themselves.

Simplicity: The theory is simple because it offers one explanation (self-interest) for all human
behavior. This simplicity makes the theory attractive to some people.
Plausibility: It’s plausible because self-interest is an obvious motivation behind many actions. It seems
believable that this could also be the motivation behind seemingly selfless actions.

Challenge of Disproving: Psychological egoism is considered irrefutable because any attempt to

disprove it can be countered by claiming that the person making the objection is also motivated by
self-interest. For example, if someone argues against the theory, a psychological egoist might say that
the person is just trying to appear morally superior, which serves their self-interest.

Should We Accept It?: Just because a theory is irrefutable doesn’t mean we have to accept it as true.
The passage gives an analogy: If someone insists that a person’s actions are all driven by an
unconscious desire (like an Oedipal complex), the claim is irrefutable because the person making the
claim can interpret everything as supporting their theory. However, that doesn’t mean the theory is
true or that the person being analyzed has to accept it.

Moral Intuition: According to psychological egoism, all actions, whether selfish or generous, are
motivated by self-interest and are therefore of equal moral value. This challenges our moral intuition
that generosity is better than selfishness. For instance, if someone donates to charity, psychological
egoism would argue that they are just as self-serving as someone who spends money on themselves.

Decision-Making: Psychological egoism suggests that our actions are predetermined by our self-
interest, which undermines the idea of free will or the ability to choose what is morally right. This
makes the theory unhelpful for someone trying to decide how to act ethically because it implies that
our choices don’t really matter; we will always act in our self-interest.

Cynical View: Psychological egoism leads to a cynical view of human nature, suggesting that people
are inherently selfish and that any appearance of kindness is just a disguise for self-interest.

Limitations: The theory is criticized for being too simplistic and for dismissing the possibility of
genuine altruism. It also fails to provide useful guidance for making moral decisions, as it reduces all
actions to self-interest and doesn’t acknowledge the complexity of human motivations.

Summary:
Psychological egoism is the belief that all human actions are motivated by self-interest, even those
that seem altruistic. While the theory is simple and plausible, it is also irrefutable, meaning it’s
difficult to disprove. However, this doesn’t mean the theory is true or that we should accept it.
Psychological egoism challenges our moral intuition by equating selfish and generous actions and
implies that our decisions don’t really matter because they are predetermined by self-interest. As a
result, the theory is seen as too cynical and ultimately unhelpful for those who seek to understand or
improve their moral behavior.
Ethical Egoism vs. Psychological Egoism

Psychological Egoism: This is a descriptive theory claiming that all human actions are motivated by
self-interest. According to psychological egoism, when people act, they are always pursuing their own
benefit, even if it seems like they're acting altruistically.

Ethical Egoism: This is a normative theory suggesting that individuals *ought* to act in their own self-
interest. It doesn't assert that all actions are self-serving by nature, but rather that one's primary
concern should be one's own well-being. Ethical egoism posits that even if acting in the interest of
others can be beneficial, it should only be done if it ultimately benefits oneself.

In Plato's *Republic*, the Myth of Gyges serves to challenge ethical egoism:

The Myth: Gyges, a shepherd, finds a ring that makes him invisible. Using this power, he seduces the
queen, kills the king, and takes over the kingdom. Plato uses this story to explore the nature of justice.
Glaucon's Argument: In the story, Glaucon argues that people would act unjustly if they could do so
without being caught, suggesting that people are just only because they fear the consequences of
being caught. The myth challenges the idea that justice is valued for its own sake, implying that if
people could act without consequences, they would prioritize their self-interest over ethical concerns.

Socrates responds to Glaucon's challenge by arguing that justice is beneficial in and of itself. He
explains:
Internal Harmony: True justice involves a harmonious soul where reason, will, and appetite are
properly ordered. A just person has control over their desires and acts in a balanced and reasoned
manner.
The Tyrant: In contrast, a person who acts purely on self-interest without internal harmony becomes
a tyrant. This figure, obsessed with desires, lacks self-control and ultimately lives a life of misery
despite apparent power.

Socrates suggests that acting solely based on self-interest (as in ethical egoism) leads to internal
disorder and societal harm. He argues that living ethically—acting with both one's own well-being and
the well-being of others in mind—results in a more fulfilling and harmonious life.

Ethical Implications:
Cris's Case: If those responsible for Cris’s death got away with murder, it raises questions about
justice and accountability. Ethical egoism might suggest that individuals should prioritize their own
well-being, but this can lead to societal harm if everyone adopts this view.

Desirability of Acting with Impunity: Socrates’ view suggests that acting with impunity, or without
regard for others, can lead to internal chaos and societal harm. This challenges the appeal of ethical
egoism, highlighting the need for a balance between personal interests and ethical considerations.

Utilitarianism: Focuses on the consequences of actions, aiming to maximize overall happiness. It

evaluates actions based on their ability to produce the greatest good for the greatest number,
contrasting with ethical egoism which focuses on individual self-interest.

Virtue Ethics: Emphasizes character and moral virtues. According to Aristotle’s virtue ethics, ethical
behavior stems from developing virtues such as courage, temperance, and justice, which contribute
to human flourishing and well-being.

In summary, while ethical egoism promotes self-interest, Plato’s story and Socrates’ argument suggest
that a purely self-interested approach can be detrimental to both individuals and society. Other
ethical theories, like utilitarianism and virtue ethics, offer alternative ways of considering morality and
the balance between personal and collective well-being.