Final

CHAPTER VI

SI SYNTHESIS: MAKING INFORMED

DECISIONS

Chapter Objectives

After reading this chapter, you should be able to:

1. identify the different factors that shape an individual in her moral decision-making;

2. internalize the necessary steps toward making informed moral decisions; and

apply the ethical theories or frameworks on moral issues involving the self, society, and

the non-human environment.

3.

INTRODUCTION

What is the value of a college-level class in Ethics? We have been introduced to four

major ethical theories or frameworks: utilitarianism, natural law ethics, Kantian deontology,

and virtue ethics. None of them is definitive nor final. What then is the use of studying them?

Each represents the best attempts of the best thinkers in history to give fully thought-out

answers to the questions "What ought I to do?" and "Why ought I to do so?"This quest has

not reached its final conclusion; instead, it seems that the human condition of finitude will

demand that we continue to grapple with these questions. The story of humanity appears

to be the never-ending search for what it means to be fully human in the face of moral

choices.

The preceding chapters clarified several notions: (1) These questions of what the

right thing to do is and why are questions that all human beings-regardless of race,

age, socioeconomic class, gender, culture, educational attainment, religious affiliation, or

political association will have to ask at one point or another in their lives; (2) Neither the

laws nor rules of one's immediate community or of wider culture or of religious affiliation can

sufficiently answer these questions, especially when different duties, cultures, or religions

intersect and conflict; (3) Reason has a role to play in addressing the questions, if not in

resolving them. This last element, reason, is the power that identifies the situations in which

rules and principles sometimes conflict with one another. Reason, hopefully, will allow one

to finally make the best decision possible in a given situation of moral choice.
chanter V: Synthesis: Making Informed Decisions9 9

enables us to

acter from those

ons and questions

ly translate into

the distinctions

one is to wear, it

Chapter 1 pointed out one of the capacities reason provides us-it enables

distinguish between human situations that have a genuinely moral character from

that are non-moral (or amoral). It shows us that aesthetic considerations and au

of etiquette are important facets of human life, but they do not necessarily translate

genuine ethical or moral value. However, reason also reminds us that the distin

are not always easy to identify nor explain. The choice of clothing that one is to w

general, seems to be merely a question of aesthetics, and thus one is taste. In many to

centers in the Philippines in the twenty-first century, people wear a wide variety of cloth

styles and such a situation does not seem to attract attention. Yet in some cultures, w

a woman wears (or does not wear) may bring upon harsh punishment to her according

the community's rules. Afghanistan in the 1990s was ruled by the Taliban, and women we

expected to wear the full-body burqa; a woman caught in public with even a small area

her body exposed could be flogged severely. How is one to make an intelligent, sensible

decision when confronted by such possible quandaries in specific situations?

10

The ethical or moral dimension compared to the realms of the aesthetic ord

etiquette is qualitatively weightier, for the ethical or moral cuts to the core of what makes

one human. Mistakes in aesthetics ("crimes," as it were, against the "fashion police") or in

etiquette (which can be considered "rude" at worst) can be frowned upon by members of

one human society or another, but need not merit the severest of punishments or penalty

Reason, through proper philosophizing, will aid an individual (and hopefully her wider

community) to make such potentially crucial distinctions.

societal (both local and global), and in relation to the physical environment. Personal can

be understood to mean both the person in relation to herself, as well as her relation to

other human beings on an intimate or person-to-person basis. Ethics is clearly concerned

with the right way to act in relation to other human beings and toward self. How she takes

care of herself versus how she treats herself badly (e.g. substance abuse, suicide, etc.) is a

question of ethical value that is concerned mainly with her own person. Personal also refers

to a person's intimate relationships with other people like her parents, siblings, children

friends, or other close acquaintances. When does one's relationship lead to personal growth

for the other? When does it ruin the other? For most people, it is clear enough that there are

right and wrong ways to deal with these familiar contacts. Ethics can help us navigate what

those ways can be.

TF second level where moral valuation takes place is societal. Society in this

context means one's immediate community (one's neighborhood, barangay, or town, the

larger sphere (one's province, region, or country), or the whole global village defined as

the interconnection of the different nations of the world. One must be aware that there

are many aspects to social life, all of which may come into play when one needs to make

decision in a moral situation. All levels of society involve some kind of culture, which may

be loosely described as the way of life of a particular community of people at a given period of time.
Culture is a broad term: it may include the beliefs and practices a certain group of

people considered valuable and can extend to such realms as art (e.g, music, literature,

performance, and so on), laws (e.g., injunctions against taboo practices), fields of knowledge

leg., scientific, technological, and medical beliefs and practices at a given point in time), and

customs of a community (e.g., the aforementioned rules of etiquette). Ethics serves to guide

one through the potentially confusing thicket of an individual's interaction with her wider

world of social roles, which can come into conflict with one another or even with her own

system of values.

Of specific interest for the individual living in the twenty-first century is the interplay

between her membership in her own society and her membership in the larger human,

that is, the global community. In an age defined to a large extent by ever-expanding

globalization, how does one negotiate the right thing to do when one's own culture clashes
with the outside community's values? Again, ethics will assist one in thinking through such

difficulties. This will be discussed further as this chapter progresses.

The latter part of the twentieth century gave birth to an awareness among many

people that community" does not only refer to the human groups that one belongs to, but

also refers to the non-human, natural world that serves as home and source of nurturance

for all beings. Thus, ethics has increasingly come to recognize the expansion of the question

"What ought I to do?" into the realm of human beings' responsibilities toward their natural

world. The environmental crises that currently beset our world, seen in such phenomena

as global warming and the endangerment and extinction of some species, drive home the

need to think ethically about one's relationship to her natural world.

Applying rational deliberation to determine a person's ethical responsibility to

herself, society, and environment is the overall goal of a college course in Ethics. We shall

explore all of these later in this chapter. In order to do this, we must first attempt to explore

the self that must undertake this challenge. We are talking about the moral agent, the one

who eventually must think about her choices and make decisions on what she ought to do.

We cannot simply assume that ethics is an activity that a purely rational creature engages

in. Instead, the realm of morality must be understood as a thoroughly human realm. Ethical

thought and decision-making are done by an agent who is shaped and dictated upon by

many factors within her and without. If we understand this, then we shall see how complex

the ethical situation is, one that demands mature rational thinking as well as courageous

decision-making.

THE MORAL AGENT AND CONTEXTS

ones

The one who is tasked to think about what is "right" and why it is so, and to choose

to do so, is a human individual. Who is this individual who must engage herself in ethical

thought and decision-making? Who one is in the most fundamental sense, is another main,

topic in the act of philosophizing. The

ancient Greeks even had a famous saying

for it: "Epimeleia hé auto, usually translated

into English as "Know thyself" In response

the Filipino philosopher Ramon C. Reyes

(1935-2014), writing in his essay "Man and

Historical Action, succinctly explained

that "who one is" is a cross-point. By this,

he means that one's identity, who one is

or who I am, is a product of many forces

and events that happened outside of one's

choosing. Reyes identifies four cross-points:

the physical, the interpersonal, the social,

and the historical. Who one is, firstly, is a

function of physical events in the past and

Ramon Castillo Reyes (1935-2014)

material factors in the present that one did

Ramon Castillo Reyes was born in 1935 in not have a choice in. You are a member of

the Philippines. He attended the Ateneo de Manila the species Homo sapiens and therefore

University in Quezon City where he eamed his possess the capacities and limitations

Bachelor of Arts degree in 1956. He obtained his PhD in

endemic to human beings everywhere.

Philosophy from the Université Catholique de Louvain

in Belgium in 1965. Reyes retumed to the Philippines

You inherited the genetic material of both

and was a teacher in the Department of Philosophy of

your biological parents. Your body has been

the Ateneo de Manila University from 1965 to 2013

shaped and continues to be conditioned by

where he taught Ethics, Modem Philosophy, and the given set of environmental factors that

Contemporary Philosophy to generations of Ateneo are specific to your corner of the globe. All of

students. He was awarded the Metrobank Most these are given; they have happened or are

Outstanding Teacher Award in 1987. Reyes was one

of the pioneers in the Philippines of the philosophical

approach known as existential phenomenology. His

You did not choose to be a human being,

book Ground and Norm of Morality: Ethics for College

nor to have this particular set of biological

Students, first published in 1988, has served as the parents, nor to be born in and/or grow up

textbook for thousands of students in the country in such a physical environment (i.e, for

"Doc Reyes," as he was fondly called by students and Filipinos to be born in an archipelago with

colleagues, died in 2014.

a tropical climate situated near the equator

along the Pacific Ring of Fire, with specific

set of flora and fauna, which shape human

life in this country to a profound degree).

Ethics Foundations of Moral Valuation

An individual is also the product of an interpersonal cross-point of many events

ad factors outside of one's choosing. One did not choose her own parents, and yet her

bersonality, character traits, and her overall way of doing things and thinking about things

Lave all been shaped by the character of her parents and how they brought her up. All

of these are also affected by the people surrounding her siblings, relatives, classmates,

playmates, and eventually workmates. Thus, who one is-in the sense of one's character

personality-has been shaped by one's relationships as well as the physical factors that

ect how one thinks and feels. Even Jose Rizal once argued that what Europeans mistook

Filipino "laziness" was actually a function of the tropical climate and natural abundance

in the archipelago: Filipinos supposedly did not need to exert themselves as much as

Europeans in their cold climates and barren lands were forced to do.

A third cross-point for Reyes is the societat:"who one is' is shaped by one's society.

The term "society" here pertains to all the elements of the human groups-as opposed to

the natural environment-that one is a member of Culture" in its varied aspects is included

here. Reyes argues that "who one is" is molded in large part by the kind of society and

culture—which, for the most part, one did not choose-that one belongs to. Filipinos have

their own way of doing things (e.g., 'pagmamano), their own system of beliefs and values
(e.g., closely-knit family ties, etc.), and even their own notions of right and wrong (e.g, a

communal versus an individualistic notion of rights). This third cross-point interacts with

the physical and the interpersonal factors that the individual and her people are immersed

into or engaged in.

The fourth cross-point Reyes names is the historical, which is simply the events that

one's people has undergone. In short, one's people's history shapes who one is right now.

For example, the Philippines had a long history of colonization that affected how Philippine

society has been formed and how Philippine culture has developed. This effect, in turn,

shapes the individual who is a member of Philippine society. A major part of Philippine

history is the Christianization of the islands during the Spanish conquest Christianity, for

good or bad, has formed Philippine society and culture, and most probably the individual

Filipino, whether she may be Christian herself or not. The historical cross-point also interacts

with the previous three. Each cross-point thus crosses over into the others as well.

However, being a product of all these cross-points is just one side of who one

is." According to Reyes, "who one is" is also a project for one's self. This happens because

a human individual has freedom. This freedom is not absolute: one does not become

something because one chooses to be. Even if one wants to fly, she cannot unless she finds

a way to invent a device that can help her do so. This finite freedom means that one has the

capacity to give herself a particular direction in life according to her own ideal self. Thus, for

Keyes, "who one is" is a cross-point, but in an existential level, he argues that the meaning of

one's existence is in the intersection between the fact that one's being is a product of many

forces outside her choosing and her ideal future for herself. We can see that ethics plays a

vig role in this existential challenge of forming one's self. What one ought to do in one's life is not
dictated by one's physical interpersonal, social, or historical conditions, What on

ought to do is also not abstracted from one's own specific situation. One always comes fra

somewhere. One is always continuously being shaped by many factors outside of one's ow

free will. The human individual thus always exists in the tension between being conditioner

by external factors and being a free agent. The human individual never exists in a vacuum

if she were a pure rational entity without any embodiment and historicity. The moral age.

is not a calculating unfeeling machine that produces completely objective and absolutek

correct solutions to even the most complex moral problems.

Using Reyes's philosophical lens, we can now focus on one of the major issue

in ethical thought: What is the relationship between ethics and one's own culture? The

following section focuses on this philosophical question.

den

CULTURE AND ETHICS

A common opinion many people hold is that one's culture dictates what is right

wrong for an individual. For such people, the saying 'when in Rome, do as the Romans do

by St. Ambrose applies to deciding on moral issues. This quote implies that one's culture is

nescapable that is, one has to look into the standards of her society to resolve all her ethical

questions with finality. How she relates to herself, her close relations, her own society, with

other societies, and with the natural world are all predetermined by her membership in her

society and culture.

inescapab

Generalizations concerning supposed Filipino traits sometimes end up as empty

stereotypes, especially since one may be hard put to think if any other culture does not

exhibit such traits. For instance, in the case of what many assume is a trait that Filipinos

possess, namely hospitality, can we say that Chinese are not hospitable? Most probably, they

are hospitable too, but they may exhibit such hospitality in radically different ways. Thus, to

simply say that there is a "Filipino way of doing things, including a "Filipino way" of thinking

about what the right thing to do and why, remains a matter for discussion. Is there really a

Filipino morality that may be distinct from a Chinese morality? We hear claims from time

to time that "Americans are individualistic; Filipinos are communal a supposed difference

that grounds, for some people, radically different sets of moral values. But one may ask: Is

there really any radical difference between one culture's moral reasoning and another's? Or

do all cultures share in at least some fundamental values and that the differences are not

on the level of value but on the level of its manifestation in the context of different socio

historical-cultural dimensions? One culture, because of its particular history, may construct

hospitality in a particular way and manifest it in its own customs and traditions. Yet, both

re individualistu cifferent sets of moral reasoning and ar

c l ues and that the dm

hospitality in a particlensions? One culture manifestation in the

cultures honor hospitalin way and manifest it in use of its particular h

✓ The American philosopher James Rachels (1941-2003) provided a clear argumen

against the validity of cultural relativism in the realm of ethics. Rachels defines culte

relativism as the position that claims that there is no such thing as objective truth in

Ethics.Foundations of Moral Valuation

within the

moral codes)

objective truth

some believe

alm of morality. The argument of this position is that since different cultures have different

oral codes, then there is no one correct moral code that all cultures must follow. The

Implication is that each culture has its own standard of right or wrong, its validity confined

hin the culture in question. However, Rachels questions the logic of this argument: first,

cultural relativism confuses a statement of fact (that different cultures have different

ral codes), which is merely descriptive, with a normative statement(that there cannot be

ctive truth in morality). Rachels provides a counter-argument by analogy: Just because

e believed that the Earth was flat, while some believe it is spherical, it does not mean

there is no objective truth to the actual shape of the Earth.

Beyond his criticism of the logic of cultural relativism, Rachels also employs a reductio

d absurdum argument. It is an argument which first assumes that the claim in question is

orrect, in order to show the absurdity that will ensue if the claim is accepted as such. He

uses this argument to show what he thinks is the weakness of the position. He posits three

absurd consequences of accepting the claim of cultural relativism. First, if cultural relativism

was correct, then one cannot criticize the practices or beliefs of another culture anymore

as long as that culture thinks that what it is doing is correct. But if that is the case, then the

Jews, for example, cannot criticize the Nazis' plan to exterminate all Jews in World War II,

since obviously, the Nazis believed that they were doing the right thing. Secondly, if cultural

relativism was correct, then one cannot even criticize the practices or beliefs of one's own
culture. If that is the case, the black South African citizens under the system of apartheid, a

policy of racial segregation that privileges the dominant race in a society, could not criticize

that official state position. Thirdly, if cultural relativism was correct, then one cannot even

accept that moral progress can happen. If that is the case, then the fact that many societies

now recognize women's rights and children's rights does not necessarily represent a better

situation than before when societies refused to recognize that women and children even

had rights

Rachels concludes his argument by saying that he uriderstands the attractiveness of

the idea of cultural relativism for many people, that is, it recognizes the differences between

cultures. However, he argues that recognizing and respecting differences between cultures

do not necessarily mean that there is no such thing as objective truth in morality. He argues

instead that though different cultures have different ways of doing things, cultures may hold

Certain values in common. Rachels posits that if one scrutinizes the beliefs and practices

of different cultures, however far apart they are from each other, no culture, whether in

the present world or in the past, would promote murder instead of prohibiting it. Rachels

argues that a hypothetical culture that promotes murder would immediately cease to exist

because the members would start murdering each other. Rachels ends his article on cultural

relativism by noting that someone can recognize and respect cultural differences and still

aintain the right to criticize beliefs and practices that she thinks are wrong, if she performs

proper rational deliberation.

105

Chapter V:Synthesis: Making Informed Decisions

s in the name

society and

can disregar

read thinkota

This, however, should not be taken as a reconciliation of all differences in th

of some abstract universal value system. The cultural differences between one socie

another in terms of norms, practices, and beliefs are not trivial matters that one candie

They are actually part of who one is and cannot be set aside. One should instead thu

common human condition, a set of existential situations that human beings share and
are fleshed out through a group's unique set of historical experiences and manifestaw

group's particular cultural constructions.

as share and the

and manifested ina

ause that is what

er to discover

Thus, the challenge of ethics is not the removal of one's culture because that

makes one unique. Instead, one must dig deeper into her own culture in order to dis

how her own people have most meaningfully explored possibly universal human ques

or problems within the particularity of her own people's native ground. Thus, hospital

for example, may be a species-wide question. But how we Filipinos observe and ex

hospitality is an insight we Filipinos must explore because it may be in our own practic

that we see how best we had responded to this human question. It may be best because

we responded specifically to the particularity of our own environmental and histories

situation. One can then benefit by paying attention to her own unique cultural heritage

because doing so may give her a glimpse into the profound ways her people have grappled

with the question of What ought to do?"

Ethics, therefore, should neither be reduced to one's own cultural standards, nor

should it simplistically dismiss one's unique cultural beliefs and practices. The latter can

possibly enlighten her toward what is truly ethical. What is important is that one does not

wander into ethical situations blindly, with the naive assumption that ethical issues will be

resolved automatically by her beliefs and traditions. Instead, she should challenge herself to

continuously work toward a fuller maturity in ethical decision-making. Moral development

then is a prerequisite if the individual is to encounter ethical situations with a clear mind

and with her values properly placed with respect to each other. We shall discuss moral

development further but let us now focus on the relationship between one's religion and

the challenge of ethical decision-making.

Philosophical exploration. Thatween religion and ethwrong "good" or "bad the

RELIGION AND ETHICS

Many people who consider themselves "religious" assume that it is the teachings of

their own religion that define what is truly "right" or "wrong "good" or "bad. The question
of the proper relationship between religion and ethics, therefore, is one that demands

philosophical exploration. There are many different religions in the world. Christian

Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism are four of the largest religious groups in the world

present, based on population. The Philippines is predominantly Roman Catholic, yet man

other religions continue to flourish in the archipelago. Beyond all the differences, howev

religionin essence represents a group's ultimate, most fundamental concerns regarding the

existence. For followers of a particular religion, the ultimate meaning of their existence

other religions com population. The Philour of the largest "gions in the wor

existon in essence represenflourish in the archios predominantly as groups in the world a

106

Ethics: Foundations of Moral Valuation

well as the existence of the whole of reality, is found in the beliefs of that religion. Therefore,

the question of morality for many religious followers is reduced to following the teachings

of their own religion. Many questions arise from this assertion. This is where a philosophical

study of ethics enters.

Many religious followers assume that what their religion teaches can be found either

in their sacred scripture (e.g, the Bible for Christians, the Qur'an for Muslims, etc.) or body

of writings (eg, the Vedas, including the Upanishads, and other texts for Hindus; the Tao Te

Ching, Chuang-tzu, and other Taoist classics for Taoists) or in other forms (other than written

texts) of preaching that their leaders had promulgated and become part of their traditions,

A critical, philosophical question that can be asked, vis-à-vis ethics, is "What exactly does

sacred scripture (or religious teaching) command?"This is a question of interpretation since

even the same passage from a particular religious tradition (e.g."An eye for an eye, a tooth

for a tooth" [Genesis 21:24]) can have many different interpretations from religious teachers

even from within the same tradition. Therefore, based on what Ramon C. Reyes says

concerning an individual's cross-points, one can see that the reading or interpretation of a

particular passage or text is the product of an individual's embodiment and historicity and

on the other hand, her existential ideal. This does not mean that religious teaching is relative

to the individual's particular situation (implying no objective and universal truth about the

matter) but that any reading or interpretation has a historical particularity affected by the

situatedness of the reader. This implies that the moral agent in question must still, in full
responsibility, challenge herself to understand using her own powers of rationality, but

with full recognition of her own situatedness and what her religious authorities claim their

religion teaches.

Second, one must determine whatjustifies the claim of a particular religious teaching

when it commands its followers on what they "ought to do" (whether in general or in specific

situations). Relevant to this is Plato's philosophical question in his dialogue Euthyphro, which

was mentioned in an earlier chapter: "Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or

is it pious because it is loved by the gods?" Philosophers have modified this question into

a moral version: When something is "morally good," is it because it is good in itself and that

is why God commands it, or is it good because God simply says so? If a particular preacher

teaches her followers to do something because it is what (for example) their sacred scripture

says, a critical-minded follower might ask for reasons as to why the sacred scripture says

that. If the preacher simply responds "that is what is written in the sacred scripture that

is tantamount to telling the follower to stop asking questions and simply follow. Here, the

Critical-minded follower might find herself at an unsatisfying impasse. History reveals that

here were people who twisted religious teaching that brought harm to their followers and

to others. An example is the Crusades in the European Middle Ages. European Christians,

no followed their religious leaders' teaching, massacred Muslims, Jews, and even

fellow Christians to recapture the Holy City of Jerusalem from these so-called heathens.

contemporary example is when terrorists who are religious extremists use religion to

107

Chapter VI: Synthesis: Making Infomed Decisions

olem here is not

perform heinous acts

supposed religion,

hilosophical-minded

cliefs and practices and

justify acts of violence they perform on fellow human beings. The

that religion misleads people; the problem is that too many peor

simply because they assumed they were following the teachin

without stopping to think whether these actions are harm

to not simply follow for the sake of blind obedience.

of intellect and character. The

vexternally-imposed rules,

oral decisions. The following

vastions about one's culture and religious beliefs show us tha

These critical questions about one's culture and relinia...

need for maturity or growth in one's morality, both in terms of intellect and chai

responsible moral agent then is one who does not blindly follow externally-imposed

but one who has a well-developed "feel" for making informed moral decisions. The folle

section discusses this need for developing one's feel for morality.