Part III: Ethical Frameworks and

Principles

Part III: Ethical Frameworks and Principles

Course Learning Outcomes:

a) Use ethical frameworks or principles to analyze moral

experience;
b) Make sound ethical judgments based on principles, facts,
and stakeholders affected.

Guide Questions:

1. What are the overarching frameworks that dictate the way we make our
individual moral decision?
2. What is my framework in making my decision?

CONTENTS:
A. Cultural Relativism
B. Teleological Ethics
C. Deontological Ethics and Rights Theories
D. Virtue Ethics
E. Justice as Fairness
F. Situation Ethics

53
 Part III: Ethical Frameworks and
Principles
A. Cultural Relativism
With the advent of globalization and information technology, cultural
diversity became more immanent. People became more aware of the diverse
cultures in the world with just a click of their computer mouse. They could
now easily visit or explore the cultures of the world because of the
advancement of transportation and technology. They have increasingly
become aware of cultural diversity and the influence of such awareness to
their understanding, decisions and values. Nevertheless, they have been
constantly confronted with the difficult moral questions of whether to just
simply become neutral to other cultures’ moral practices even if they are
against their values or not, and whether to simply adapt other cultural
practices or not. They are challenged with the phenomenon of Cultural
Relativism.

Cultural Relativism refers to the understanding or belief that

everything should be judged only according to one’s own respective culture. A
cultural relativist believes that there is no superior or inferior culture; no
culture is better than the other. That is, all cultures are unique with their own
strengths and weaknesses, benefits and detriments.

In past centuries in
Northern Luzon, the Some Cultural Facts
lowlanders’ In the United States, for example, if we nod our head
discrimination of the up and down, we mean yes, and if we shake it back and
forth, we mean no. In Bulgaria, however, nodding
Igorots could have been means no, while shaking our head back and forth
a product of their belief means yes! In the United States, if we make an “O” by
that Igorots are animals putting our thumb and forefinger together, we mean
because they have tails “OK,” but the same gesture in certain parts of Europe
(bahag or g-string) and signifies an obscenity. “Thumbs up” in the United
States means “great” or “wonderful,” but in Australia it
live in the mountains, means the same thing as extending the middle finger
therefore, are inferior to in the United States. Certain parts of the Middle East
their culture. But after and Asia would be offended if they see you using your
the intermarriages and left hand to eat, because they use their left hand for
interactions brought bathroom hygiene. Beglians count through their
fingers starting from the thumb to the index finger
about by the while Filipinos start counting the opposite way.
development of roads
and bridges, both Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.24926/8668.2401
lowlanders and highlanders
became aware of their need to understand each other not from their own

54
 Part III: Ethical Frameworks and
Principles
respective culture. They have learned to put themselves “into the shoe of the
other” or to understand the other by using the other’s mind. Besides, other
university students may be amused and make fun of the UP students’
“oblation run” but they could never understand unless they study how such
practice relate to UP’s “way of life.” Likewise, UPians may not understand
other universities ’cultural celebrations if they will not study the institutional
history.

Here are some of the strengths and weaknesses of Cultural Relativism:

Strengths Weaknesses
Its fails to accept that not all beliefs
It recognizes cultural and human
and cultural or social practices are
differences.
equally admirable.
It promotes respect and tolerance to
It leads to mediocrity, moral
diversity or cultural-sensitivity and
indifference and end of moral progress.
uniqueness.
It produces a peaceful and harmonious It promotes social anarchy because
society despite mass migration and each culture claims and stands for “a
differences. true culture.”
It rejects moral absolutism, It upholds democracy, consensus and
imperialism and superior ideologies. fairness to other ideologies.
It recognizes the natural sociality,
It seems culture has the sole influence
conformity and interdependency
on human life and morality.
among peoples.
It strengthens personal responsibility: It weakens social responsibility as if
each is fully responsible for his own humans cannot do anything to change
moral actions and beliefs. culture.
It advocates true multiculturalism and It leads to deterioration or corruption
adjustments for changing factors in of moral values, institutions and
society. societies.
It promotes humility and acceptance
It promotes skepticism and atheism.
of limitation or probability of things.
It recognizes that language is not It discourages common language for
neutral because culture determines unity and common standards to judge
language. moral beliefs or actions.
It supports non-judgmental attitude It makes the job of ethics as purely
that foster dialogue, cooperation and descriptive (non-prescriptive), thus,
learning. ineffective.
It allows one culture solve its own It rejects any interference by one
moral problems and grow naturally in culture in the morality of another.

55
 Part III: Ethical Frameworks and
Principles
its morality.
It accepts other ethical theories that It fails to determine other ethical
can bring a good life. theories that can bring a good life.

Thus, Cultural Relativism is not absolute. There will always be an

occasion where people will somehow judge another culture as inferior
through their own cultural beliefs and practices. Somewhere, somehow, there
are some cultural practices that are condemned, even if they are the most
valueable or practiced, because they violate some basic human rights. For
example, a common practice in areas of India and Pakistan is dowry deaths,
where a husband and his relatives murder the husband’s wife because her
family has not provided the dowry they promised when the couple got
married (Kethineni & Srinivasan, 2009).

Non-tenability of Cultural Relativism in Ethics:

The Asian-Filipino Way
While recognizing the strengths of Filipinos who know they
Cultural Relativism for loosening stringent and are doing wrong but do not
absolute attitudes and opening conservative want to change easily find
excuses like "ako'y tao
minds toward others, it is very critical to lamang" (I'm but
respond to the weaknesses of Cultural human), "ganyan lamang
Relativism. Acknowledging strengths should all ang buhay" (life is like
the more encourage courageous solutions to the hat), "bahala na" (come
weaknesses of Cultural Relativism. These what may), or "eveybody is
doing it." 
weaknesses could be answered by considering
other ethical theories. In this age of "passing the
buck," another excuse
Because of globalization that somehow for shrinking personal
ironically opened and vastly exposed cultural responsibility is the
Filipinism, "I am not the
diversity, people have recognized cultural one".
variations over time periods, between
individuals, organizations, structures, countries Gorospe, V., SJ. Retrieved
and continents. Cultures are seen to reflect the from http://thefilipinomind
moral and ethical standards and beliefs that .blogspot.com/2006/04/our
determine decision, actions and interactions. -christian-god-religion-
and-common.html
Moral practices are basically peculiar to a
society and as society change its culture and
practices also change.

56
 Part III: Ethical Frameworks and
Principles

Using a changing culture as a basis for decisions and actions is not

enough and quite dangerous. The need for enduring belief and values as
bases can bring more convincing and strong actions. Though humans have
different languages, they can use their capacity for language to create a
globalizing language that all children can learn and use to study other
cultures.

As social beings who have

invented technologies such as the
internet, televisions, airplanes, Some Socio-cultural Facts
bullet trains, they have In China, South Korea, and other parts
of Asia, dog meat is considered a
successfully created globalization.
delicacy, and people sometimes kill dogs
Globalization has allowed to eat them (Dunlop, 2008). As one
different people of diverse observer provocatively asked about
cultures to constantly check and eating dog meat, “For a Westerner,
balance their beliefs and eating it can feel a little strange, but is it
standards. People may have morally different from eating, say, pork?
experienced reluctance in judging The dogs brought to table in China are
other cultural practices but deep not people’s pets, but are raised as food,
within them is the possibility of like pigs. And pigs, of course, are also
intelligent and friendly” (Dunlop,
considering others’ cultures as
2008). Should we accept the practice of
inferior to them. People are eating dog meat on its own terms? Is it
naturally inclined to the good and any worse than eating pork or
right so that they must have made slaughtering cattle in order to eat beef?
a choice whether theirs is better If an Asian immigrant killed and ate a
than the others though not dog in the United States, should that
necessarily considering them as person be arrested for engaging in a
inferior. This has been the practice the person grew up with?
problem of many Filipino
Retrieved from
indigenous peoples who have felt https://doi.org/10.24926/8668.2401
inferior to the foreigners because
of their cultural practices and so they
have blindly adapted the foreigners’ culture.

However, some assumptions, beliefs and philosophies behind the

indigenous practices that were abandoned could be actually far better and
practical than that of the foreigners’.

According to Vitaliano Gorospe, SJ, “there is a conflict between what

Filipinos say as Christians and what they do as Filipinos; between their actual

57
 Part III: Ethical Frameworks and
Principles
Filipino behavior and their ideal Christian behavior; in short, between what
is and what ought to be.”

Gorospe have observed that in the Filipino culture, which is the

product of the long colonization of the Spaniard, is based on "group-
centeredness" or "group-thinking." The group determines for the individual
what is right or wrong so has not yet attained moral independence and
maturity. The individual is guided by the basic questions: "What will my
family, or my relatives and friends, or my barkada think or say?" "What
will others say" usually determines Filipino moral behavior; it is
"conscience from the outside."

Gorospe accuses that Filipinos have a

conflict between individual and social morality, Recent studies of college
between internal and external morality. He students provide additional
evidence that social contact
believes that Filipinos should internalize the can help overcome cultural
norms of morality so that he can mature as differences and prejudices.
individual and form his own moral conscience Because many students are
from the inside. But using cultural relativism, randomly assigned to their
roommates when they enter
Gorospe may have misinterpreted the Filipinos.
college, interracial
It must be understood that Christianity is a roommates provide a
western religion imposed to them. “natural” experiment for
studying the effects of social
Gorospe’s example: parents tell their interaction on racial
prejudice. Studies of such
daughter who is being courted: "Iha, please
roommates find that whites
entertain your boyfriend at home. Do not go with black roommates
outside. What will the neighbors say? report lowered racial
Nakakahiya naman." He believes that “shame prejudice and greater
or hiya makes the parents and the girl conform numbers of interracial
friendships with other
to the social expectations of the neighbors lest
students. (Laar, Levin,
they become the object of chismis or gossip.” Sinclair, & Sidanius, 2005;
But this could be understood differently by Shook & Fazio, 2008).
saying that Filipinos are highly social and
cultural-sensitive. Filipinos just like other Retrieved from
Asians recognize that their society is greater https://doi.org/10.24926/8
than them and that they value group harmony 668.2401
and community. They could not just be so individualistic in their decisions
and actions just like the Westerners. Gorospe could have interpreted Filipino
values from the American or Western perspective.  

58
 Part III: Ethical Frameworks and
Principles
Consider the Japanese when moral problem arise. “Japanese minimize
conflict by resolving disputes amicably. Lawsuits are uncommon; in one case
involving disease and death from a mercury-polluted river, some Japanese
who dared to sue the company responsible for the mercury poisoning were
considered bad citizens” (Upham, 1976). This could be attributed to the high
regard to group harmony and community just like the Filipinos.

But another Filipino cultural norm cited by Gorospe, the "Don't be

caught" based on shame or fear of the authority figure such as parent,
teacher, priest or policeman is quite distrubing. As many students would say:
"What's wrong with cheating if I am not caught?" If this explains why
Filipino drivers only obey traffic rules because there is a policeman on duty,
then Gorospe is correct in saying that Filipino norm of moral behavior is
purely external.

It could be argued that Gorospe is wrong in his assumptions, precisely

because Filipinos are just practical and flexible. They are ready to break rules
for the sake of greater values. One cannot just stop there and wait for the
green light if there are practically no other cars and passengers to cross or
pass by. Likewise, because the traffic structures as substitute to the presence
of a policeman are Western cultural symbols. Filipinos are more relational
and appreciative to actual persons. Those structures re not originally theirs;
they are imposed on them to follow. If it is not theirs, it is hard for them to
follow. Thus, through the history of colonialization, the conflict between
being a real cultural Filipino (Asian) and the ideal mature Christian
(Western) Filipino have continued.

Christian Filipinos were treated like parrots that recite

incantations/prayers and learned by rote, like robots that observe religious
holidays, church rites and other symbols of Catholicism without really
understanding what they mean or stand for, and like priests who follow the
Catholic Church institution, its rules and teachings. Filipinos where not
really taught to mature and to freely live or emulate the supposed ideas and
life of Jesus. Putting Gorospe’s observations on the problematic Filipino
cultural practices in their proper cultural context is not enough. Filipino
culture has changed; it has adapted the Western culture so it must consider
the western moral standards. Filipino culture could enter into a social
contract with Western culture for enhancement. Filipinos as social beings
must adapt check and balance of their culture with Western moral standards.
It is better that outsiders also question Filipino Cultural practices for

59
 Part III: Ethical Frameworks and
Principles
improvement. What could happen more if there is no outsider’s moral
standard that condemns the Nazi party’s Holocaust? What could happen to
those who accept the Holocausts as good? What could happen to Africa’s
practice of female genital cutting if there is nobody to question it? If it
continues to happen, what could happen to Africa’s future generations?

B. Teleological Ethics
Also known as Consequentialism,
 Learning outcome: Teleological ethics is derived from
the Greek word telos, or end, since
a) To appreciate and use the
the end result of the action is the sole
framework of teleological ethics
determining factor of its morality.
in evaluating moral dilemmas,
The goodness of an act is based on
b) to consider pragmatism as a
the end or consequence (telos);
way of assessing an ethical
problem, and
It is common for us to determine our
c) to use practical ethics in
moral responsibility by weighing the
defining the consequences of
consequences of our actions.
our human actions.
According to consequentialist
normative theories, correct moral
conduct is determined solely by a cost-benefit analysis of an action's
consequences. In consequentialism, an action is morally right if the
consequences of that action are more favorable than unfavorable.

Consequentialist normative principles require that we first tally both

the good and bad consequences of an action. Second, we then determine
whether the total good consequences outweigh the total bad consequences. If
the good consequences are greater, then the action is morally proper. If the
bad consequences are greater, then the action is morally improper.

Consequentialist theories became popular in the 18th century by

philosophers who wanted a quick way to morally assess an action by
appealing to experience, rather than by appealing to gut intuitions or long
lists of questionable duties. In fact, the most attractive feature of
consequentialism is that it appeals to publicly observable consequences of
actions. Most versions of consequentialism are more precisely formulated
than the general principle above. In particular, competing consequentialist

60
 Part III: Ethical Frameworks and
Principles
theories specify which consequences for affected groups of people are
relevant.

Three subdivisions of consequentialism emerge:

1. Ethical Egoism: an action is morally right if the consequences of

that action are more favorable than unfavorable only to the agent performing
the action. There are two kinds of egoism namely, Psychological egoism and
ethical egoism.

Psychological egoism asserts that action is good since the

consequence of the action is beneficial to the person who performs the act.
Psychological egoism is a theory of human psychology which asserts that
each person does in fact pursue his or her own self-interest alone. It is theory
of human nature that every human action is motivated by self-interest.
People are incapable of being unselfish because they are so constituted
to always look out only for their own self-interest. For example, a mother
sends her children to school. Is the act of sending her child to school
consummates an altruistic or egoistic act? But what are the consequences if
the mother will not send her child to school. The act of not sending the child
to school looks like to the disadvantage of her child. But psychological egoism
will evaluate the act of not sending her child to school an act more
disadvantageous to the mother because she will not gain anything if her child
will be a liability to her and to the family. Further, the mother will be in pain
seeing her child a jobless moron or a goblin while other children of the
neighborhood are successful honorable members of the society. Thus, the act
of sending a child to school is an act for the interest of the mother for the first
place.

James Rachel (2002) in his book The Elements of Morality cites

Thomas Hobbes’s (1588-1679) who affirms that psychological egoism is true.
For Hobbes, altruistic act is an illusion because human nature is self-
interested or human acts are dictated by human desires. In his thesis, people
do charitable works because in the first place they will get recognition or
receive the reward of heavenly bliss. We will always do an action because it
makes us feel good. Hence, people sometimes seem to act altruistically, but it
is not hard to discover that the ‘unselfish’ behavior is actually connected to
some benefit for the person who does it. Further, because of pity, man can do
altruistic acts. However, for Hobbes, pitiful acts are demonstration of one’s
power over the weak. Hobbesian man is not a God-seeker but a power-seeker.

61
 Part III: Ethical Frameworks and
Principles
Man is engaged in an endless pursuit of power which ends only in death. So,
by nature, men seek to possess and enjoy power. What is the importance of
this? Why do men seek power? The primary reason is to ensure the
preservation of their lives. Power is the tool used by men to protect their
selfish interests, the most important of which is to preserve their own lives.

Psychological Egoism claims psychological altruism is impossible.

People can act to benefit the interests of others but only when there is
something in it for themselves; that they will get something out of it for
themselves is the sole reason they benefit others. Accordingly, people are
never even partially motivated to help others for their own sake. In the end,
people care nothing for others; they care only about themselves. People can’t
care for others for their own sake.

The other kind of egoism is Ethical Egoism. James Rachels (2002)

explains that Ethical Egoism is the radical idea that the principle of self-
interest accounts for all of one’s moral obligations. Sometimes one’s interests
may happen to coincide with the interests of others—in that by helping
oneself, one will coincidentally help them, too. The benefit to others is not
what makes an action right, however. An action is right only insofar as it is to
one’s own ‘advantage.’ According to ethical egoism, however, we have no
duties to others; in fact, each person ought to pursue his or her own selfish
interests exclusively. A person ought to do what really is in his or her best
interests, over the long run. According to Ayn Rand (1905-1982), altruism
leads to a denial of the value of the individual (and his projects and goods).
Rand argues that if a man accepts the ethics of altruism, his first concern is
not how to live his life, but how to sacrifice it. Each person has one life to live,
but altruism rejects the value of the individual, whereas ethical egoism views
the individual’s life as having supreme value, then ethical egoism is the moral
philosophy we ought to accept.

Ethical Egoism is a consequentialist ethical theory that contends that

we act morally when we act in a way that promises our own best long-term
interests. Ethics is concerned on personal needs which are relatively different
from any other persons.

2. Ethical Altruism: an action is morally right if the consequences

of that action are more favorable than unfavorable to everyone except the
agent.

62
 Part III: Ethical Frameworks and
Principles

3. Utilitarianism: an action is
morally right if the consequences
of that action are more favorable Motto of Utilitarianism:
than unfavorable to everyone. “Greatest happiness for the
greatest number of people.”
All three of these theories focus
on the consequences of actions for
different groups of people. But like all
normative theories, the above three theories are rivals of each other. They
also yield to different conclusions.

Utilitarianism developed in England in the 18th and 19th centuries. Its

main proponents were Jeremy Bentham (1748 – 1832) and John Stuart
Mill (1806 – 1873). The philosophy of utilitarianism is anchored on the
doctrine that “the only motives of human actions are pleasure and pain, the
former prompting us to perform an act, the latter compelling us to avoid an
action.” A utilitarian’s only motive of action is pain and pleasure, “seek good
and avoid pain.” There are two kinds of utilitarianism. First, act
utilitarianism is the position that an action is moral if it produces the
greatest happiness for the most people. Second, rule utilitarianism is the
ethical position that we should act so that the rule governing our actions
produce the greatest happiness for the most people.

JEREMY BENTHAM: For Bentham, a person is selfish and acts to

fulfill his/her happiness. Man acts to gain pleasure or to avoid pain. Man is
selfish and will not act unless to procure his own pleasure. Pleasure is
equated with happiness and the first principle of ethics is the right and
desirable goal of human action as happiness, that is, pleasure and avoidance
of pain.

It, therefore, follows that the rightness or wrongness of an action has

to be judged by its consequences and by the ability of the act to produce
pleasure or remove pain. An action that produces a mixture of pleasure and
pain has to be judged according to the quantity of pleasure or pain.
Whichever is greater will determine moral character of the action. He calls
the property of any act that produces pleasure or happiness “utility”, hence,

63
 Part III: Ethical Frameworks and
Principles
utilitarianism. In developing his calculus, Bentham distinguishes act
utilitarianism from rule utilitarianism.

Jeremy Bentham presented one of the earliest fully developed systems

of utilitarianism. Two features of his theory are noteworthy. First, Bentham
proposed that we tally the consequences of each action we perform and
thereby determine on a case by case basis whether an action is morally right
or wrong. This aspect of Bentham’s theory is known as act-utilitarianism.
Second, Bentham also proposed that we tally the pleasure and pain which
results from our actions. For Bentham, pleasure and pain are the only
consequences that matter in determining whether our conduct is moral. This
aspect of Bentham’s theory is known as hedonistic utilitarianism. Critics
point out limitations in both of these aspects.

First criticism, according to act-utilitarianism, it would be morally

wrong to waste time on leisure activities such as watching television, since
our time could be spent in ways that produced a greater social benefit, such
as charity work. But prohibiting leisure activities doesn’t seem reasonable.
More significantly, according to act-utilitarianism, specific acts of torture or
slavery would be morally permissible if the social benefit of these actions
outweighed the disbenefit.

A revised version of utilitarianism called rule-utilitarianism

addresses these problems. According to rule-utilitarianism, a behavioural
code or rule is morally right if the consequences of adopting that rule are
more favourable than unfavourable to everyone. Unlike act utilitarianism,
which weighs the consequences of each particular action, rule-utilitarianism
offers a litmus test only for the morality of moral rules, such as “stealing is
wrong.” Adopting a rule against theft clearly has more favourable
consequences than unfavourable consequences for everyone. The same is
true for moral rules against lying or murdering. Rule-utilitarianism, then,
offers a three-tiered method for judging conduct. A particular action, such as
stealing a neighbour’s car, is judged wrong since it violates a
moral rule against theft. In turn, the rule against theft is morally
binding because adopting this rule produces favourable
consequences for everyone. John Stuart Mill’s version of
utilitarianism is rule-oriented.

Second criticism, according to hedonistic

utilitarianism, pleasurable consequences are the only factors

64
 Part III: Ethical Frameworks and
Principles
that matter, morally speaking. This, though, seems too restrictive since it
ignores other morally significant consequences that are not necessarily
pleasing or painful. For example, acts which foster loyalty and friendship are
valued, yet they are not always pleasing. In response to this problem, G.E.
Moore proposed ideal utilitarianism, which involves tallying any
consequence that we intuitively recognize as good or bad (and not simply as
pleasurable or painful). Also, R.M. Hare proposed preference utilitarianism,
which involves tallying any consequence that fulfils our preferences.

Hedonism is a philosophy on pleasure. “Hedone” in Greek means

“pleasure” as the norm of action. There are two proponents of hedonism
namely, Aristippus and Epicurus: For Aristippus, happiness is based on
sensual pleasure. Sensual pleasure as motive of life – short term pleasure;
motto: “drink and be merry for tomorrow you will die.” For Epicurus,
happiness is based on rational pleasure. Intellectual pleasure is longer in
effect such as tranquility of the soul like friendship and education. In sum, an
act is neither theoretical, legalistic nor experimental; instead, it is only
valuable with practical and pleasure value. The counterargument: Practical
ethics leads to hedonistic tendencies, relativistic, no universality and can be
ambiguous or even antinomian; it lacks rational discernment.

Bentham is credited with founding the

doctrine of utilitarianism. In brief, Bentham
argued that “action is right if it will produce the
greatest happiness for the greatest number.”
He believed that by calculating pleasures and
pains, one can tell which action is right and
which is wrong. In concrete, Bentham’s
principle of utility translates itself into what he
called a “felicific calculus,” that is, a “happiness
calculator, or counter” which is a way of
balancing the pros and cons of an envisaged act. Pleasure and pain then is
reducible to quantifiable units and the morally good act is the net effect or
outcome of maximum pleasure minus minimum pain.

The emphasis of J. Bentham is the Quantity of Pleasure which are

quantified as follows using the Modified Pleasure Calculus. There are Seven
Variables of Pleasure Calculus: 1) Intensity: How intense is the Pleasure and

65
 Part III: Ethical Frameworks and
Principles
Pain? 2) Duration: How does Pleasure and Pain last? 3) Certainty: What is
the probability of Pleasure and Pain to occur? 4) Propinquity: How far off
in the future is Pleasure and Pain? 5) Fecundity: What is the probability
that Pleasure and Pain will lead to another Pleasure and Pain? 6) Purity:
How sure is Pleasure or Pain truly experienced? And 7) Extent: How many
persons are affected by Pleasure and Pain?

For instance, wealth is proved or quantified by having a huge amount

of money. Intelligence is proved or quantified by highest correct answers in
an exam. A product is quantified by the largest amount ne can get or
accumulate. A quantitative research is proved to be valid by analyzing data
through numbers.

Application of the felicific calculus.

For example, if one is invited to attend a dance party and birthday

party that will happen on the same day at the same time, then one may use
the felicific calculus to measure the pleasure and pain from the two
alternatives of action. The intensity element will ask the variability of the
stronger pleasure and the lesser pain one may derive from attending a dance
party or a birthday party. Maybe the pleasure that is taken in the birthday
party is more intense because the foods prepared by the celebrant, are more
delicious; but one should also take into account the side effects of fatty foods
into one’s blood pressure. In duration, it asks the length of time of pleasure
or pain one may derive from the two alternatives. Maybe, the dance party will
have a longer pleasure because it may end in a longer time. But one should
also take into account the length of pain one may experience in a dance party
because it is possible that nobody will dance with him/her until the end of the
program.

In certainty or the “sureness” of pleasure, it asks the probability of the

occurrence of pleasure and pain because it is not always a good option to
choose from uncertainty. The element of propinquity deals with the
circumstances of “nearness” and “remoteness” of pleasure and pain to be
achieved. This can be illustrated with the case of an employee who is granted
a one-month vacation leave on the following fiscal year with the full benefits
and complete allowances from the company. If the employee accepts the
offer, what month will the s/he spends his/her vacation? What month will
s/he select? The rule of propinquity demands that the opportunity should be
taken in the nearest time possible because one may not have the access of

66
 Part III: Ethical Frameworks and
Principles
pleasure as s/he pleases when other circumstances will occur. Hence, the first
month of the year should be selected. This is also true in applying a job. Also,
to be considered is fecundity, or the capacity to engender further pleasure;
and purity, or the relative absence of any admixture of painful countereffects.
Finally, extent, or the number of people affected is considered. Extent brings
into balance the happiness of other people involved, hence, the more, the
merrier.

Further, if more than one of the elements are involved in an action, all
the other amounts of pleasure and pain must be accounted for. One is
therefore reminded that even a seemingly innocuous act might turn out to
have “systemic” effects (to the environment, or to conditions elsewhere, etc.).

JOHN STUART MILL: Mill defended the Bentham’s doctrine of

“Greatest happiness for greatest number of people.” He accepted the greatest
happiness principle of Bentham and agreed with him that man seeks pleasure
and avoids pain, and that happiness is the goal of human life, which is
identified with pleasure. JS Mill adds a qualitative dimension to Bentham’s
purely quantitative one. Mill’s Greatest Happiness Principle is still
hedonistic, since it “…holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend
to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of
happiness.” Mill asserts that by ‘happiness’ is intended pleasure, and the
absence of pain; by ‘unhappiness,’ pain, and the privation of pleasure.” But
Mill’s version modifies Bentham’s utilitarianism. Mill observes that “It is
quite compatible with the principle of utility to recognize the fact, that some
kinds of pleasure are more desirable and more valuable than others. Of two
pleasures, if there be one to which all or almost all who have experience of
both give a decided preference, irrespective of any feeling of moral
obligation to prefer it, that is the more desirable pleasure.”

Mill differentiates the pleasures of animals with those of humans; of

those who are intelligent with those who are ignorant: “…it is an
unquestionable fact that those who are equally acquainted with, and
equally capable of appreciating and enjoying, both, do give a marked
preference to the manner of existence which employs the higher faculties
[….] Few human creatures would consent to be changed into any of the
lower animals, for a promise of the fullest allowance of a beast’s pleasures;
no intelligent human being would consent to be a fool, no instructed person
would be an ignoramus, no person of feeling and conscience would be
selfish and base, even though they should be persuaded that the fool, the

67
 Part III: Ethical Frameworks and
Principles
dunce, or the rascal is better satisfied with his lot than they are with theirs.”

Mill would assert that character formation is necessary in the

cultivation of high quality pleasures: “Utilitarianism, therefore, could only
attain its end by the general cultivation of nobleness of character, even if
each individual were only benefitted by the nobleness of others, and his
own, so far as happiness is concerned, were a sheer deduction from the
benefit.” Moreover, subordinate rules are what we would normally call
“common sense morality”.

Mill identifies the main deficiency of people who are “not happy”:
“Next to selfishness, the principal cause which makes life unsatisfactory is
want of mental cultivation. A cultivated mind…finds sources of
inexhaustible interest in all that surrounds it; in the object of nature, the
achievements of art, the imaginations of poetry, the incidents of history, the
ways of mankind past and present, and their prospects in the future.” For
Mill, therefore, the “greatest” in “greatest happiness principle” does not just
refer to the quantity of happiness (or pleasure) but also to a higher quality or
kind of happiness (or pleasure) that everyone affected, regardless of status,
could experience as the consequences of the action in question. Applied to
the body politic, utilitarianism and its objective of “the greatest happiness for
the greatest number” should be the goal of all laws and the ultimate criterion
of all institution. Thus, he maintained that pleasures do not only differ
“quantitatively” but also “qualitatively.”

The emphasis of J.S. Mill is the Quality of Pleasure and pleasure

differs qualitatively. His Motto is, “A good man would rather be a human
being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied.” “A person would rather be Socrates
dissatisfied than a fool satisfied.” And if the fool, or the pig, is of a different
opinion, it is because they only know their own side of the question. The
other party to the comparison knows both sides.” And aside from the
qualitative classification of pleasure, Mill stresses on the social character of
happiness. One has to seek the greatest happiness for the greatest number of
people. The end of moral action is not merely one’s own happiness but the
greatest amount of happiness for all.

Quality is important in terms of durability,

elegance, and longevity of anything important. For
instance, qualifying an intellectual capacity is based not
on numbers but on justification of intelligence through
creativity and innovativeness. Qualifying a product

68
 Part III: Ethical Frameworks and
Principles
means the inherent value or worth of such product – a quality of time, of
peace and of tranquility, of enjoyment. A qualitative research deals with
analysis based on worth and value of the experiences in proving validity.
This picture depicts that an old
man who has lived a long life and
enjoying music in old age, signifies
happiness.

C. Deontological Ethics and Rights Theories

Deontology came from the
Learning competencies: Greek word “deon,” which
means ‘duty’ or
a) To illustrate how the framework of responsibility. Deontological
Kantian ethics be applied in daily theories assert that the
undertakings, morality of an action
depends on its intrinsic
b) Differentiate legal from a moral right, nature, its motives, or its
rules or principles and not
c) To identify and explain the universal on its consequences.
values and principles and how they are
used in making moral decision.
Duty theories base morality on specific, foundational principles of
obligation. These theories are sometimes called deontological, from the
Greek word deon, or duty, in view of the foundational nature of our duty or
obligation. They are also sometimes called non-consequentialist since these
principles are obligatory, irrespective of the consequences that might follow
from our actions. For example, it is wrong to not care for our children even if
it results in some great benefit, such as financial savings.

1. Immanuel Kant
An example of a deontological ethics is the Kantian ethics, giving more
preference on the performance of duty and intention of the act rather than its
consequences.

69
 Part III: Ethical Frameworks and
Principles

In his book, “Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals,” Kant

propounds that a person who fruitfully resists the temptation of desire has
willpower (willpower means a combination of determination and self-
discipline that enables somebody to do something despite the difficulties
involved) while the individual who gives in and acts to satisfy the desire does
not have willpower.

          This concept of willpower brings to mind the following model of human
action: The agent begins with a group of beliefs and desires that are motives
or reasons to action.  Motives to action are like forces that get the body into
action.  The agent, however, must (or at least should) evaluate the desires to
determine whether they should or shouldn’t be satisfied.  The agent’s reason
acts as the evaluator.  When reason acts as evaluator, reason is also
considered governor, because it is the last thing that determines the will (will
means the part of the mind with which somebody consciously decides things;
the use of the mind to make decisions about things; the determination to do
something or a desire or inclination to do something), which in turn
determines action. Before a particular desire can be acted on by the agent, the
act of willing to attempt to satisfy the desire must first exist.   The agent
needs to choose or decide to either act or not act on the desire. Only then
does the body act.  Hence, we could imagine human action schematically in
the following manner:

Beliefs + desires → evaluation of reason → Act of will to

satisfy desire (deciAion) → Action to satisfy desire.

          In any event that reason is not acting as evaluator, the model turns into
something like this:

  Beliefs + desires → Act of will to satisfy desire

(decision) → Action to satisfy desire.

          Immanuel Kant acknowledged that desires often conflict. There are
instances that acting to satisfy one desire will ensure that we cannot satisfy
another desire. Let us say for example that you have the desire to go out with
friends this coming Saturday to dance and party.  Satisfying now this desire
would mean sacrificing your other desire to jump to bed early and maximize
the highly recommended hours of sleep of 7 to 8 hours a day.  Take again for

70
 Part III: Ethical Frameworks and
Principles
example the given situation, you have the desire to play DOTA or to have an
EB with someone else you have been chatting lately over the net after your
class this afternoon; however, you also have the desire to read something
about Immanuel Kant’s life so that you will not be getting a failing score in
your quiz in this subject next meeting.  In such instances where we have with
us conflicting desires, we must decide which desire to satisfy.

          As rational individuals, it is expected on our part that we have to let our
reason decide between conflicting desires (but sometimes, as individuals with
organic or earthly bodies with organic or earthly desires and needs, we
oftentimes find ourselves consumed in satisfying our base desires. I am not
saying this as an excuse but we should at least now how to master our desires
as rational individuals…I hope you still remember “the mark of virtue” of
Aristotle).  No particular action will be done until our will has been
activated.  Hence, our will is considered to be the master of our
actions.  According to Immanuel Kant, if we are rational, then our will must
not be the slave of our desires by merely doing the request or command of
our desires.  Our will instead can cooperate with our reason to master
whatever desires we have.

        The only thing that is good without qualification or restriction is a

good will. A good will alone is good in all circumstances and in that
sense is an absolute good or unconditioned good.  The goodness of a
good will is not derived from the goodness of the results which it
produces.  A good will continues to have its own uniqueness goodness
even where, by some misfortune, it is unable to produce the results at
which it aims. As Kant would say in the  Groundwork, “it would still
shine like a jewel for its own sake as something which has its full value
in itself” (see your reading for further emphasis on this point of Kant
on the good will and its result).

        In going further with his discussion on the good will, Kant in
the Groundwork tried to discuss the function of reason.  According to
Kant, reason has been imparted to us as a practical power─that is, as
one which is to have influence on the will; the true function of reason
must be to produce a will which is good, not as a means to some
further end, but in itself….(see your reading for further emphasis on
this point of Kant on the function of reason).  For Kant, reason in
action has for him two main functions, the first of which has to be
subordinated to the second.  The first function is to secure the

71
 Part III: Ethical Frameworks and
Principles
individual’s own happiness (a conditioned good), while the second is
to manifest a will that is good in itself.

        However, despite these discussions made by Kant, a question

comes to mind─that is, if one thing that is good without qualifications
is a good will, then what makes will good and what makes it bad?

Kant was a supporter of what we have called commonsense morality.

He thought that the moral views common to most people are pretty
much correct. Therefore, he would think that a person with a good will
would not commit major moral offenses such as murder or robbery,
would not commit minor moral offenses such as maliciously gossiping
about people, and would help people in need.

        Kant took these things for granted. But he recognized that a
person might have a good will and not to be able to actually do any of
the things a good person would do, or refrain from doing the things a
good person would not do, similarly, someone might do all the things
that a good person would do and refrain from doing all the things that
a good person would not do, and yet not have a good will. For example,
someone may contribute to charity only because it’s in his self-
interest, perhaps a politician who believes that he will gain votes by
(publicly) contributing to charity. Kant does not think that his
contributing money shows that he has a good will.

        What about performing actions that normally would be

considered an indication that someone lacks a good will? Suppose
someone acts n a way that is deeply offensive or insulting to someone
else. Would that necessarily show that he or she lacks a good will? No-
not if he or she did not intent to offensive or insulting.

        Kant points out that we cannot tell whether someone has a good
will by looking only at what that person does or does not do, or only at
the effects or consequences of his actions.  One’s intentions are the key
to whether one has good will. It is what one wants to accomplish –
what one wills – that counts (for the Utilitarian philosopher Jeremy
Bentham, it is the consequence of the act that counts while for
Immanuel Kant, it is not the consequence of the act that counts but the
intention of the person doing the act). A person has a good will if he or
she tries to do what is right and tries to avoid doing what is wrong. But

72
 Part III: Ethical Frameworks and
Principles
the trying must be a genuine trying a summoning of all one’s capacities
to work hard toward doing what is right and to refrain from doing
what’s wrong (if by this time you now have in mind this question of
what is right and what is wrong, then such question will be answered
as we proceed with our discussion).

        Kant says that the concept of duty contains the concepts of a good
will but it probably would be more accurate to say that the concept of a
good will entails the concept of duty (a duty is an obligation of
behavior or conduct in relation to others or even to God which has a
stronger claim on a person than (he)r self-interest). One has a good
will if one tries to do one’s duty. But  Kant emphasized that for a will to
be truly good, it must try to do its duty from purely moral motive,
rather than from a self-interested movie. The purely moral motive is
the desire to do one’s duty out of respect for the moral law. A person
with a good will respects the moral law and tries to act dutifully
because he or she desires to act in ways that conform to what (he)r
duties are.

        In introducing the concept of duty, Kant came up with 3

propositions about morality rooted on duty:

(1) A human action is morally good, not because it is done from

immediate inclination─still less because it is done from self-
interest─but because it is done for the sake of duty (Consider the
implication of this situation, what if for example in this particular
room at around 7 pm in the evening, I saw you desperately in need for
immediate medical attention but then the problem is I am not
disposed this time to help; likewise, I have a business deal to attend to
at 7:15 pm to have this 4 million pesos account deal to be safely
deposited to my account.);

(2) An action done from duty has moral worth, not from the
results  it attains or seeks to attain, but from a formal principle or
maxim─the principle of doing one’s duty whatever that duty may be
(This simply re-states the first proposition in a more technical
way.  We  have already seen that a good will cannot derive its
unconditioned goodness from the conditioned goodness of the results
at which it aims, and this is true also of the morally good actions in
which a good will acting for the sake of duty is manifested.);

73
 Part III: Ethical Frameworks and
Principles

(3) Duty is the necessity to act out of reverence for the law
(What is this law? This law speaks a a law which is valid for all rational
beings as such independently of their particular desires. This law is
better understood with the Categorical Imperative of Kant as a test of
maxim by helping us evaluate whether or not a maxim is possible to
become a universal law.).

ACTIONS AND MAXIMS

Kant believed that people acts as they do for the reason (whether
or not they are immediately conscious of the reason or engage in
deliberation before acting). For example, suppose that Marc and
Andrew each contribute PHP 100,000 to charity. According to Kant,
each has a reason for his or her action. Let’s assume that we know
their reasons. Marc approves of the goals of the charity and wants to
help in accomplishing its goals.  Andrew knows that the names of large
contributors will be publicized; he wants to impress his business
associates and customers, which he thinks will improve his business.

Kant believed that when people act for a reason, they’re

following a maxim – a kind of personal rule of action. Of course,
people do not always consciously formulate maximum and then
deliberately follow them. Rather, people often act as though they
formulate and follow maxims. However, Kant seemed to assume that
we can discover what maxim will follow, even if we did not consciously
formulate and follow it. Given Marc and Andrew's reasons for
contributing to charity, we might express the maxims they were
following as M1 (Marc’s Maxim) and M2 (Adrew’s maxim.)

M1. I will contribute to charity when I approved of the Charity’s

goal, and I want to help it achieve its purpose.
M2. I will contribute to charity when I think that doing so will
help improve my business and I want to improve my business.

A maxim takes the form “I will do action X in circumstances C

for purpose P.” It is a personal principal of action, a kind of
prescription of how a person will act in certain circumstances to

74
 Part III: Ethical Frameworks and
Principles
achieve what he or she wants. Thus, a maxim must specify: (1) what I
will do, (2) the concrete circumstances in which I will do it, and (3)
why I will do it.

According to Kant, an action done from duty has moral worth

based only on the maxim that the agent follows, which specified the
action, the circumstances and the motive. But surely an action cannot
have moral worth if the agent is following a bad maxim, such as “I will
kill people whenever it is advantageous to me.” Presumably an action
has moral worth if and only if the maxim being followed is a morally
acceptable maxim. But what makes a maxim morally acceptable or
morally unacceptable?

Before turning to this question, however, let us reflect a bit more

on the maxims and behavior of Marc and Andrew. Did Marc or Andrew
do anything wrong in contributing to charity? If they were following
morally unacceptable maxims, then they were doing something wrong,
but if they were following morally acceptable maxims, they were not
doing anything wrong. Whether they did anything wrong, then it all
depends on whether their maxims are morally acceptable. Surely
neither did anything wrong. However, Kant would say that Andrew’s
action lacked moral worth because the maxim he followed was purely
self-interested. (Lacking moral worth, their actions do not merit
praise; but it does not follow that because they lack moral worth, they
merit condemnation instead) so once again, we face the task of
distinguishing between morally acceptable and morally unacceptable
maxims.

Thus, whether we are talking about the moral worth of actions or

the rightness and wrongness of actions, we need to distinguish
between morally acceptable and morally unacceptable maxims.  We
require a test of maxims that will enable us to distinguish between
those that are and those that are not morally acceptable to act on.

Kant did not think that we need to invent a totally new test to
determine the rightness and wrongness of maxims. He believed that
there is a test that most ordinary people apply and that has been
endorsed by most of the world’s major religions, including
Christianity.  This test is the so-called Golden Rule: Treat people the
way you want to be treated. However, he did think that the Gold Rule

75
 Part III: Ethical Frameworks and
Principles
needed to be made more precise in order to be applied correctly. He
called his reformulation of the Golden Rule the Categorical Imperative.
It’s an imperative because it takes the form of a rule.
It’s categorical because it applies in all circumstances, regardless of an
agents’ desires and because it binds all rational agents.

5 FORMULATIONS OF THE CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE:

(1) The Formula of Universality  or the Principle of Universal Law  

"Act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it
should be come a universal law."

(2) The Formula of the Law of Nature

"Act as if the maxim of your action were to become through your will as a
universal law of nature without contradiction."

(3) The Respect for People Formulation or The Principle of an End in Itself

"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."

(4) The Formula on Autonomy or The Principle of Freedom (Freedom of Will

as Rational Agents)
"So act that your will can regard itself at the same time as making universal
law through its maxim."

(5) The Formula of the Kingdom of Ends

"So act as if you were through your maxims a law-making member of a
kingdom of ends."

Can your maxim be universalized without contradiction?

Can your maxim show respect to yourself as a person and to other
persons as well?

If your answer is NO, then your maxim cannot become a moral law.
In the application of the rule on contradiction, you have to consider if in the

76
 Part III: Ethical Frameworks and
Principles
process your happiness or your own survival or existence or humanity's
survival would be at sake or compromised. At this point, it is important to
point out that for Immanuel Kant, committing suicide to escape the
challenges and sufferings in life is not morally acceptable because this maxim
can never be universalized without contradiction aside from the fact that
committing suicide will not also show respect to oneself as a person since the
self is sacrificed to achieve an end which is to run away from those challenges
and sufferings.

Take note that in the kingdom or in the World of Ends, one has either
a price or a dignity or intrinsic value or unconditioned value. If it has a price,
then something else can be put in its place as equivalent. If it is exalted above
all price and so admits of no equivalent, then it has a dignity.

Autonomy or Freedom is the ground or the cornerstone of the dignity

of human nature and of every rational nature. Dignity must be viewed as the
result of people who are free and autonomous moral and rational agents
mutually respecting each other.  

77