GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS FOR STUDENTS

This instructional material is composed of eight (8) modules that will introduce you to the world
of Ethics. Faculty members who prepared this instructional material purposely chose only eight
topics which are the most relevant topics when learning about Ethics.
Each module is divided into four sections: (1) objectives, (2) lesson/s, (3) tieback, and
Checkpoint. Objectives are the goals set in the module. Lessons are information that are
directed towards the achievement of objectives. Tiebacks are only guide questions that students
do not necessarily have to answer; they can also be short sentences that summarize the
module. Lastly, checkpoint is a set of activities or performance tasks that you must accomplish.
Answer sheets are provided per module. These answer sheets must bear your name, course,
section, subject you enrolled in, and instructor.
FOR STUDENTS WITH INTERNET CONNECTIVITY, you are tasked to answer the activities or
performance tasks in accordance to the instruction of your professor.
FOR STUDENTS WHO DO NOT HAVE INTERNET CONNECTIVITY AND RECEIVED THIS
INSTRUCTIONAL MATERIAL VIA COURIER SERVICES, you are tasked to accomplish the
activities or performance tasks at your own pace. If the sheets provided are not enough, use
another sheet of paper.

Module 1: What is Philosophy?

Objectives
By the end of this lesson, you should be able to:

 Understand the necessity of ethical thinking, especially in considering reasons behind

human behavior;
1 Ethics
 Distinguish moral decision-making from non-moral Gerlieones.
C. Ogatis, MA

What is Philosophy?
 The word philosophy comes from Greek roots ―philo and ―sophia- meaning, the love
of wisdom. Philosophy is wisdom of love. (Emmanuel Levinas 1905 – 1995).

 The principles of explanation that underlie things without exception, the elements
common to gods, men, animals and stones. See: William James‘ Philosophy and Its
Critics

 The knowledge of things in general by their ultimate causes, so far as natural reason can
attain such knowledge.- usual to Socratic textbooks
 Philosophy expresses a certain attitude, purpose, and temper of conjoined intellect and
will, rather a discipline whose boundaries can be really marked off. – William James

Purpose of Philosophy
1. it helps us to reclaim a public and private sense of thinking, reasoning, and perception
2. it helps as resume our human condition as agent of truth
3. Philosophy reminds us that our worldview is determined by environment, people, race, class,
developmental stage of culture.

Task:
We must distinguish the following:
 1. individually formed world-view
2. culturally world-view
3. naturally worldview (it is a matter of a coherent conviction which determines the current affair
of life)

Areas of Philosophy

Metaphysics encompasses the study of what is sometimes termed ―ultimate reality.‖ As such,
metaphysics raises questions about reality that go beyond sense experience, beyond ordinary
science. Metaphysical questions involve free will, the mind–body relationship, supernatural
existence, personal immortality, and the nature of being.
Epistemology, from the Greek for ―knowledge,‖ is the branch of philosophy that asks
questions about knowledge, its nature and origins, and whether or not it is even possible.
Epistemological questions involve standards of evidence, truth, belief, sources of knowledge,
gradations of knowledge, memory, and perception.
Ethics, from the Greek word ethos, encompasses the study of moral problems, practical
reasoning, right and wrong, good and bad, virtues and vices, character, moral duty, and related
issues involving the nature, origins, and scope of moral values.
Social and political philosophy are concerned with the nature and origins of the state
(government), sovereignty, the exercise of power, the effects of social institutions on individuals,
ethnicity, gender, social status, and the strengths and weaknesses of different types of

2 societies.
Ethics Gerlie C. Ogatis, MA
Logic the study of the rules of correct reasoning.
Axiology, the study of values.
Aesthetics, the study of perceptions, feelings, judgments, and ideas associated with the
appreciation of beauty, art, and objects in general.
Ontology, the study of being and what it means to ― Exist ?

Why Study Philosophy?

“Surely, Life Is Not Merely a Job”

Why do we go through the struggle to be educated? Is it merely in order to pass some
examinations and get a job? Or is it the function of education to prepare us while we are young
to understand the whole process of life? Having a job and earning one‘s livelihood is necessary
—but is that all? Are we being educated only for that? Surely, life is not merely a job, an
occupation; life is wide and profound, it is a great mystery, a vast realm in which we function as
human beings. If we merely prepare ourselves to earn a livelihood, we shall miss the whole
point of life; and to understand life is much more important than merely to prepare for
examinations and become very proficient in mathematics, physics, or what you will.
(Jiddu Krishnamurti, from ―The Function of Education,‖ quoted in Daniel Kolak and Raymond
Martin, The Experience of Philosophy (Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth, 1990), pp. 20–21.)

The Prejudices of Practical Men

 If we are not to fail in our endeavour to determine the value of philosophy, we must first free our
minds from the prejudices of what are wrongly called ―practical‖ men. The ―practical‖ man, as
this word is oft en used, is one who recognizes only material needs, who realizes that men must
have food for the body, but is oblivious of the necessity of providing food for the mind. If all men
were well off , if poverty and disease had been reduced to their lowest possible point, there
would still remain much to be done to produce a valuable society; and even in the existing world
the goods of the mind are at least as important as the goods of the body. It is exclusively among
the goods of the mind that the value of philosophy is to be found; and only those who are not
indifferent to these goods can be persuaded that the study of philosophy is not a waste of time. .
. . Philosophy is to be studied, not for the sake of any definite answers to its questions, since no
definite answers can, as a rule, be known to be true, but rather for the sake of the questions
themselves; because these questions enlarge our conception of what is possible, enrich our
intellectual imagination and diminish the dogmatic assurance which closes the mind against
speculation; but above all because, through the greatness of the universe which philosophy
contemplates, the mind also is rendered great, and becomes capable of that union with the
universe which constitutes its highest good.

(Bertrand Russell, The Problems of Philosophy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1912),
selections from Chapters 1, 14, and 15.)

It Is a Shameful Question
3 Ethics Gerlie C. Ogatis, MA
The idea that devoting time to philosophy distracts us from ―practical‖ concerns is an old one.
And, of course, the very suggestion that philosophy is not as useful or practical as other
subjects or activities is itself a philosophical idea that requires justification. In the following
passage, the prolific philosophical historian Will Durant challenges the notion that being useful is
supremely important: Th e busy reader will ask, is all this philosophy useful? It is a shameful
question: We do not ask it of poetry, which is also an imaginative construction of a world
incompletely known. If poetry reveals to us the beauty our untaught eyes have missed, and
philosophy gives us the wisdom to understand and forgive, it is enough, and more than the
world‘s wealth. Philosophy will not fatten our purses, nor lift us to dizzy dignities in a democratic
state; it may even make us a little careless of these things. For what if we should fatten our
purses, or rise to high office, and yet all the while remain ignorantly naive, coarsely unfurnished
in the mind, brutal in behavior, unstable in character, chaotic in desire, and blindly miserable? . .
. Perhaps philosophy will give us, if we are faithful to it, a healing unity of soul. We are so
slovenly and self-contradictory in our thinking; it may be that we shall clarify ourselves, and pull
ourselves together into consistency, and be ashamed to harbor contradictory desires or beliefs.
And through unity of mind may come that unity of purpose and character which makes a
personality, and lends some order and dignity to our existence.
 CHECKPOINT
Activity
1. State your own opinion or view why there is a need to study philosophy?
2. What are the concerns of practical men based on your own observation of how an
ordinary life is lived by everyone? In relation to it, why philosophy is a shame for others?
Answer Sheet:

4 Ethics Gerlie C. Ogatis, MA

 REFERENCE/S:

(Will Durant, The Mansions of Philosophy (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1929).
Module 2: Ethics

Objectives:

By the end of this subject, you should be able to:

• Determine what for them is worth pursuing as human acts and compare this with the
pursuits of others.
• Realize what for them is most valuable from a list of values.

Ethics

Ethics or moral philosophy is branch of philosophy that involves systematizing, defending, and
recommending concepts of right and wrong conduct.[1] The term ethics derives from the
Ancient Greek word ἠθικός ethikos, which is derived from the word ἦθος ethos (habit, ―cus-
tom‖). The branch of philosophy axiology comprises the sub-branches of ethics and aesthetics,
each concerned with values.

As a branch of philosophy, ethics investigates the questions ―What is the best way for people
to live?" and ―What actions are right or wrong in particular circumstances?" In practice, ethics
seeks to resolve questions of human morality, by defining concepts such as good and evil, right
and wrong, virtue and vice, justice and crime. As a field of intellectual enquiry, moral philosophy
also is related to the fields of moral psychology, descriptive ethics, and value theory.

Three major areas of study within ethics recognised today are:

5 Ethics Gerlie C.and

1. Meta-ethics, concerning the theoretical meaning Ogatis, MA
reference of moral
propositions, and how their truth values (if any) can be determined
2. Normative ethics, concerning the practical means of determining a moral course
of action
3. Applied ethics, concerning what a person is obligated (or permitted) to do in a
specific situation or a particular domain of action

Defining Ethics

Rushworth Kidder states that ―standard definitions of ethics have typically included such
phrases as 'the science of the ideal human character' or 'the science of moral duty'".

Richard William Paul and Linda Elder define ethics as ―a set of concepts and principles that
guide us in determining what behavior helps or harms sentient creatures‖.

The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy states that the word ethics is ―commonly used
interchangeably with 'morality' ... and sometimes it is used more narrowly to mean the moral
principles of a particular tradition, group or individual.

Paul and Elder state that most people confuse ethics with behaving in accordance with social
conventions, religious beliefs and the law and don't treat ethics as a stand-alone concept.

The word “ethics” in English refers to several things. It can refer to philosophical ethics or moral
philosophy—a project that attempts to use reason in order to answer various kinds of ethical
questions.

As the English philosopher Bernard Williams writes, attempting to explain moral philosophy:
What makes an inquiry a philosophical one is reflective generality and a style of argument that
claims to be rationally persuasive. And Williams describes the content of this area of inquiry as
addressing the very broad question, ―how one should live.‖
 Ethics can also refer to a common human ability to think about ethical problems that is not
particular to philosophy. As bioethicist Larry Churchill has written: ―Ethics, under-stood as the
capacity to think critically about moral values and direct our actions in terms of such values, is a
generic human capacity.

Ethics can also be used to de-scribe a particular person‘s own idiosyncratic principles or habits.
For example: ―Joe has strange ethics.

The English word ethics is derived from an Ancient Greek word êthikos, which means ―relating
to one‘s character‖. The Ancient Greek adjective êthikos is itself derived from another Greek
word, the noun êthos meaning ―character, disposition.

Meta-ethics

Meta-ethics asks how we understand, know about, and what we mean when we talk about what
is right and what is wrong.[12] An ethical question fixed on some particular practical question—
such as, ―Should I eat this particular piece of chocolate cake?"—cannot be a meta-ethical
question. A meta-ethical question is abstract and relates to a wide range of more specific
practical questions. For example, ―Is it ever possible to have secure knowledge of what is right
and wrong?" would be a meta-ethical question.

Meta-ethics has always accompanied philosophical ethics. For example, Aristotle implies that
less precise knowledge is possible in ethics than in other spheres of inquiry, and he regards
ethical knowledge as depending upon habit and acculturation in a way that makes it distinctive
from other kinds of knowledge.

Studies of how we know in ethics divide into cognitivism and non-cognitivism; this is similar to
the contrast between descriptivists and non-descriptivists. Non-cognitivism is the claim that
when we judge something as right or wrong, this is neither true nor false. We may for example
be only expressing our emotional feelings about these things.[13] Cognitivism can then be seen
6 asEthics
the claim that when we talk about right and wrong,Gerlie
we are C. talking
Ogatis, MA
about matters of fact.

The ontology of ethics is about value-bearing things or properties, i.e. the kind of things or stuff
referred to by ethical propositions. Non-descriptivists and non-cognitivists believe that ethics
does not need a specific ontology, since ethical propositions do not refer. This is known as an
anti-realist position. Realists on the other hand must explain what kind of entities, properties or
states are relevant for ethics, how they have value, and why they guide and motivate our
actions.

Normative ethics

Normative ethics is the study of ethical action. It is the branch of ethics that investigates the set
of questions that arise when considering how one ought to act, morally speaking. Normative
ethics is distinct from meta-ethics because it examines standards for the rightness and
wrongness of actions, while meta-ethics studies the meaning of moral language and the
metaphysics of moral facts.[12] Normative ethics is also distinct from descriptive ethics, as the
latter is an empirical investigation of people‘s moral beliefs. To put it another way, descriptive
ethics would be concerned with determining what proportion of people believe that killing is
always wrong, while normative ethics is concerned with whether it is correct to hold such a
belief. Hence, normative ethics is sometimes called prescriptive, rather than descriptive.
However, on certain versions of the meta-ethical view called moral realism, moral facts are both
descriptive and prescriptive at the same time.

Traditionally, normative ethics (also known as moral theory) was the study of what makes
actions right and wrong. These theories offered an overarching moral principle one could appeal
to in resolving difficult moral decisions.

At the turn of the 20th century, moral theories became more complex and are no longer
concerned solely with rightness and wrongness, but are interested in many different kinds of
moral status. During the middle of the century, the study of normative ethics declined as meta-
ethics grew in prominence. This focus on meta-ethics was in part caused by an intense linguistic
 focus in analytic philosophy and by the popularity of logical positivism. In 1971 John Rawls
published A Theory of Justice, note-worthy in its pursuit of moral arguments and eschewing of
meta-ethics. This publication set the trend for renewed interest in normative ethics.

Virtue Ethics

Virtue ethics describes the character of a moral agent from meta-ethics because it examines
standards for the rightness and wrongness of actions, while meta-ethics studies the meaning of
moral language and the metaphysics of moral facts.[12]

Socrates, Aristotle, and other early Greek philosophers. Socrates (469–399 BC) was one of the
first Greek philosophers to encourage both scholars and the common citizen to turn their
attention from the outside world to the condition of humankind. In this view, knowledge bearing
on human life was placed highest, while all other knowledge were secondary. Self-knowledge
was considered necessary for success and in-herently an essential good. A self-aware person
will act completely within his capabilities to his pinnacle, while an ignorant person will flounder
and encounter difficulty. To Socrates, a person must become aware of every fact (and its
context) relevant to his existence, if he wishes to attain self-knowledge. He posited that people
will naturally do what is good, if they know what is right. Evil or bad actions are the result of
ignorance. If a criminal was truly aware of the intellectual and spiritual consequences of his
actions, he would neither commit nor even con-sider committing those actions. Any person who
knows what is truly right will automatically do it, according to Socrates. While he correlated
knowledge with virtue, he similarly equated virtue with joy. The truly wise man will know what is
right, do what is good, and therefore be happy.

Aristotle (384–323 BC) posited an ethical system that may be termed ―self-realizationism. In
Aristotle‘s view, when a person acts in accordance with his nature and realizes his full potential,
he will do good and be content. At birth, a baby is not a person, but a potential person. To
become a ―real‖ person, the child‘s inherent potential must be realized. Unhappiness and
frustration are caused by the unrealized potential of a person, leading to failed goals and a poor
life. Aristotle said, "Nature does nothing in vain.‖ Therefore, it is imperative for people to act in
7 Ethics
accordance Gerlie talents
with their nature and develop their latent C. Ogatis,
inMA
order to be content and
complete. Happiness was held to be the ultimate goal. All other things, such as civic life or
wealth, are merely means to the end. Self-realization, the awareness of one‘s nature and the
development of one‘s talents, is the surest path to happiness.

Aristotle asserted that man had three natures: vegetable (physical/metabolism), animal
(emotional/appetite) and rational (mental/conceptual). Physical nature can be assuaged through
exercise and care, emotional nature through indulgence of instinct and urges, and mental
through human reason and developed potential. Rational development was considered the most
important, as essential to philosophical self-awareness and as uniquely human. Moderation was
encouraged, with the extremes seen as degraded and immoral. For example, courage is the
moderate virtue between the extremes of cowardice and recklessness. Man should not simply
live, but live well with conduct governed by moderate virtue. This is regarded as difficult, as
virtue denotes doing the right thing, to the right person, at the right time, to the proper extent, in
the correct fashion, for the right reason.

Stoicism

The Stoic philosopher Epictetus posited that the greatest good was contentment and serenity.
Peace of mind, or Apatheia, was of the highest value; self-mastery over one‘s desires and
emotions leads to spiritual peace. The unconquerable will is central to this philosophy. The
individual‘s will should be independent and inviolate. Allowing a person to disturb the mental
equilibrium is in essence offering yourself in slavery. If a person is free to anger you at will, you
have no control over your internal world, and therefore no freedom. Freedom from material
attachments is also necessary. If a thing breaks, the person should not be upset, but realize it
was a thing that could break. Similarly, if someone should die, those close to them should hold
to their serenity because the loved one was made of flesh and blood destined to death. Stoic
philosophy says to accept things that cannot be changed, resigning oneself to existence and
enduring in a rational fashion. Death is not feared. People do not ―lose‖ their life, but instead
return, for they are returning to God (who initially gave what the person is as a person). Epicte-
 tus said difficult problems in life should not be avoided, but rather embraced. They are spiritual
exercises needed for the health of the spirit, just as physical exercise is required for the health
of the body. He also stated that sex and sexual desire are to be avoided as the greatest threat
to the integrity and equilibrium of a man‘s mind.

Epictetus

Abstinence is highly desirable. Epictetus said remaining abstinent in the face of temptation was
a victory for which a man could be proud.

Contemporary virtue ethics

Modern virtue ethics was popularized during the late 20th century in large part as a response to
G. E. M. Anscombe's "Modern Moral Philosophy". Anscombe argues that consequentialist and
deontological ethics are only feasible as universal theories if the two schools ground themselves
in divine law. As a deeply devoted Christian herself, Anscombe proposed that either those who
do not give ethical credence to notions of divine law take up virtue ethics, which does not
necessitate universal laws as agents themselves are investigated for virtue or vice and held up
to ―universal standards, or that those who wish to be utilitarian or consequentialist ground their
theories in religious conviction. Alasdair MacIntyre, who wrote the book After Virtue, was a key
contributor and proponent of modern virtue ethics, although MacIntyre supports a relativistic
account of virtue based on cultural norms, not objective standards. Martha Nussbaum, a
contemporary virtue ethicist, objects to MacIntyre‘s relativism, among that of others, and
responds to relativist objections to form an objective account in her work ―Non-Relative
Virtues: An Aristotelian Approach‖. Complete Con-duct Principles for the 21st Century blended
the Eastern virtue ethics and the Western virtue ethics, with some modifications to suit the 21st
Century, and formed a part of contemporary virtue ethics.

Hedonism

8 Ethics
Hedonism posits that the principal ethic is maximizingGerlie C. Ogatis,
pleasure and MAminimizing pain. There are
several schools of Hedonist thought ranging from those advocating the indulgence of even
momentary desires to those teaching a pursuit of spiritual bliss. In their consideration of
consequences, they range from those advocating self-gratification regardless of the pain and
expense to others, to those stating that the most ethical pursuit maximizes pleasure and
happiness for the most people.

Cyrenaic Hedonism

Founded by Aristippus of Cyrene, Cyrenaics supported immediate gratification or pleasure.

―Eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die. Even fleeting desires should be indulged, for
fear the opportunity should be forever lost. There was little to no concern with the future, the
present dominating in the pursuit for immediate pleasure. Cyrenaic hedonism encouraged the
pursuit of enjoyment and indulgence without hesitation, believing pleasure to be the only good.

Epicureanism

Epicurean ethics is a hedonist form of virtue ethics. Epicurus ―presented a sustained argument
that pleasure, correctly understood, will coincide with virtue‖. He rejected the extremism of the
Cyrenaics, believing some pleasures and indulgences to be detrimental to human beings.
Epicureans observed that indiscriminate indulgence sometimes resulted in negative
consequences. Some experiences were therefore rejected out of hand, and some unpleasant
experiences endured in the present to ensure a better life in the future. To Epicurus the
summum bonum, or greatest good, was prudence, exercised through moderation and caution.
Excessive indulgence can be destructive to pleasure and can even lead to pain. For example,
eating one food too often will cause a person to lose taste for it. Eating too much food at once
will lead to discomfort and ill-health. Pain and fear were to be avoided.

Living was essentially good, barring pain and illness. Death was not to be feared. Fear was
considered the source of most unhappiness. Conquering the fear of death would naturally lead
to a happier life. Epicurus reasoned if there was an afterlife and immortality, the fear of death
 was irrational. If there was no life after death, then the person would not be alive to suffer, fear
or worry; he would be non-existent in death. It is irrational to fret over circumstances that do not
exist, such as one‘s state in death in the absence of an afterlife.

Postmodern Ethics

The 20th century saw a remarkable expansion and evolution of critical theory, following on
earlier Marxist The¬orists to locate individuals within larger structural frameworks of ideology
and action.

Antihumanists such as Louis Althusser and Foucaultand structuralists such as Roland Barthes
challenged the possibilities of individual agency and the coherence of the notion of the
'individual' itself. As critical theory developed in the later 20th century, post-structuralism sought
to problematize human relationships to knowledge and 'objective' reality. Jacques Derrida
argued that ac-cess to meaning and the 'real' was always deferred, and sought to demonstrate
via recourse to the linguistic realm that ―there is nothing outside context‖ ("il n'y a pas de hors-
texte" is often mistranslated as ―there is nothing out-side the text‖); at the same time, Jean
Baudrillard theorised that signs and symbols or simulacra mask reality (and eventually the
absence of reality itself), particularly in the consumer world.

Post-structuralism and postmodernism argue that ethics must study the complex and relational
conditions of actions. A simple alignment of ideas of right and particular acts is not possible.
There will always be an ethical remainder that cannot be taken into account or often even
recognized. Such theorists find narrative (or, following Nietzsche and Foucault, genealogy) to be
a helpful tool for understanding ethics because narrative is always about particular lived
experiences in all their complexity rather than the assignment of an idea or norm to separate
and individuated actions.

Zygmunt Bauman says Postmodernity is best described as Modernity without illusion, the
illusion being the belief that humanity can be repaired by some ethic principle. Postmodernity
can be seen in this light as accepting the messy nature of humanity as unchangeable.
9 Ethics Gerlie C. Ogatis, MA
David Couzens Hoy states that Emmanuel Levinas's writings on the face of the Other and
Derrida's meditations on the relevance of death to ethics are signs of the ―ethical turn‖ in
Continental philosophy that occurred in the 1980s and 1990s. Hoy describes post-critique ethics
as the ―obligations that present themselves as necessarily to be fulfilled but are neither forced
on one or are enforce-able‖ (2004, p. 103).

Hoy‘s post-critique model uses the term ethical resistance. Examples of this would be an
individual‘s resistance to consumerism in a retreat to a simpler but perhaps harder lifestyle, or
an individual‘s resistance to a terminal illness. Hoy describes Levinas‘s account as ―not the
attempt to use power against itself, or to mobilize sectors of the population to exert their political
power; the ethical resistance is instead the resistance of the powerless"(2004, p. 8).

Hoy concludes that:

The ethical resistance of the powerless others to our capacity to exert power over them is
therefore what imposes unenforceable obligations on us. The obligations are unenforceable
precisely because of the other‘s lack of power. That actions are at once obligatory and at the
same time unenforceable is what put them in the category of the ethical. Obligations that were
enforced would, by the virtue of the force behind them, not be freely under-taken and would not
be in the realm of the ethical. (2004, p.184)

In present-day terms the powerless may include the un-born, the terminally sick, the aged, the
insane, and non-human animals. It is in these areas that ethical action in Hoy‘s sense will apply.
Until legislation or the state apparatus enforces a moral order that addresses the causes of
resistance these issues will remain in the ethical realm. For example, should animal
experimentation become il-legal in a society, it will no longer be an ethical issue on Hoy‘s
definition. Likewise one hundred and fifty years ago, not having a black slave in America would
have been an ethical choice. This later issue has been absorbed into the fabric of an
enforceable social order and is therefore no longer an ethical issue in Hoy‘s sense.
 CHECKPOINT

Activity
A. Is Stoic sense of apathy ethical? Why or why not? Explain your view further.
B. Discuss the strengths and limits of Hedonism and Epicureanism based on how you
analysed and understood these ethical theories.

Answer Sheet:

10 Ethics Gerlie C. Ogatis, MA

 REFERENCES:
1. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy ―Ethics‖
2. Random House Unabridged Dictionary: Entry on Axiol-ogy.
3. Kidder, Rushworth (2003). How Good People Make Tough Choices: Resolving the
4. Diliemmas of Ethical Living. New York: Harper Collins. p. 63. ISBN 0-688-17590-2.
5. Paul, Richard; Elder, Linda (2006). The Miniature Guide to Understanding the
Foundations of Ethical Reasoning. United States: Foundation for Critical Thinking Free
Press. p. np. ISBN 0-944583-17-2.
6. John Deigh in Robert Audi (ed), The Cambridge Dictio-nary of Philosophy, 1995.
7. Definition of ethic by Merriam Webster‖. Merriam Web-ster. Retrieved October 4, 2015.
8. Williams, Bernard. Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy. p.2.
9. Williams, Bernard. Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy. p.1.
10. Are We Professionals? A Critical Look at the Social Role of Bioethicists.‖. Daedalus. 1
999. pp. 253–274.
11. David Tanguay (January 24, 2014). ―Buddha and Socrates share Common ground‖.
Soul of Wit. Archived from the original on July 22, 2014. Retrieved July 22, 2014.
12. What is ethics?". BBC. Archived from the original on October 28, 2013. Retrieved July
22, 2014.
13. http://www.iep.utm.edu/non-cogn/
14. Miller, C. (2009). The Conditions of Moral Realism. The Journal of Philosophical
Research, 34, 123-155.

11 Ethics Gerlie C. Ogatis, MA