Module VI

Synthesis:Making Informed Decisions

I. Lesson Objectives

After reading this chapter, you should be able to:

a.) Identify the different factors that shape an individual in her moral
decision-making;
b.) Internalize the necessary steps toward making informed moral decisions;
and
c.) Apply the ethical theories or frameworks on moral issues involving the self,
society, and, the non-human environment.

II. Introduction

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 major ethical theories r
frameworks : utilitarianism, natural law, Kantian deontology, and virtue ethics are
never final nor definite in application. Each represent the best attempts of the best
thinkers in history to give fully thought-out answers to the questions “ What ought I
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. ( 1 ) The 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 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 these
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.

Ethics teaches us that moral valuation can happen in the level of the personal, the
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-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 is a
question of ethical value that is concerned mainly with her own
 52

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.

The second level where moral valuation takes place is societal. Society in this
context mean 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 a 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, laws, fields of knowledge, and customs of community. 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. Ethics will assist one in thinking
through such difficulties.

The latter part of the 20th 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 do” into the realm of human beings’
responsibilities toward their natural world. The environmental crisis that currently
beset our world, seen in such phenomena as global warming and endangerment and
extinction of some species, drive home the need to think ethically about one’s
relationship to her natural world.

Ethics allows one to rationally deliberate in determining a person’s ethical

responsibility to herself, society and environment. This brings life to the moral agent,
the one who eventually must think about her choices and make decisions on what she
ought to do. 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.

III. Lesson/Unit/Study Guide/Notes

The Moral Agent and Contexts

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
 53

herself in ethical thought and decision- making? Who one is, in the most fundamental
sense, is another major topic in the act of philosophizing. The Greeks were known for
the saying “ know thyself “. Ramon C. Reyes a Filipino philosopher in his essay “ Man
and Historical Action “ 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 material factors in the present that one did
not have a choice in. Humans are members of the species Homo Sapiens and therefore
possess the capacities and limitations endemic to human beings everywhere.

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

and factors outside of one’s choosing. One did not choose her own parents, and yet
her personality, character traits, and her overall way of doing things and thinking
about things have all been shaped by the character of her parents and how they
brought her up. People around such as siblings, relatives, classmates, and eventually
workmates help shape the character of an individual.

A third cross-point for Reyes is the societal: “ who one 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 “
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, their
own systems of beliefs and values, and even their own notions of right and wrong .
The third cross-point interacts with the physical and the interpersonal factors that the
individual and her people are immersed or engaged in.

The fourth cross-point according to Reyes 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. Christianity, for good or bad, has formed Philippine society and
culture, and most probably the individual Filipino, whether she may be a Christian
herself or not. The historical cross-point also interacts with the previous three.

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 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. Ethics plays a big role of forming
 54

one’s self. What one ought to do in one’s life is not dictated by one’s physical,
interpersonal, social, or historical conditions.

Using Reyes’ philosophical lens, we can now focus on one of the major issues in
ethical thought: What is the relationship between ethics and one’s own culture?
Culture and Ethics

A common opinion many people hold is that one’s culture dictates what is right or
wrong for an individual. For such people, 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 inescapable, that is, one has to look into the standards of her society to
resolve all her ethical questions with finality. How one relates to oneself, society and
other elements with the natural world are all predetermined by her membership in
her society and culture.

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. Such example is
hospitality, where it is manifested differently among Filipinos and Chinese. Thus, to
simply say that there is a “ Filipino way “ of doing things, remains a matter for
discussion. 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 cultures honor hospitality.

The America philosopher James Rachels provided a clear argument against the
validity of cultural relativism in the realm of ethics. Rachel defines cultural relativism
as the position that claims there is no such thing as objective truth in the realm of
morality. The argument of this position is that since different cultures have different
moral 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 within the culture in question. However, Rachel questions the logic of this
argument: first, that cultural relativism confuses a statement of fact, which is merely
descriptive, with a normative statement. Rachel provides a counter argument by
analogy: just because some believed that the earth was flat, while some believe it is
spherical, it does not mean that 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
reduction ad absurdum argument. It is an argument which first assumes that the claim
in question is correct, 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
 55

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 Nazi’s believed that they were doing the right thing. Secondly, if
cultural relativism was correct , then one cannot even criticize the Nazi’s 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 accept the moral progress
which may happen. The fact that many societies now recognize women’s rights may
not necessarily represent a better situation for these women and children at present.
Furthermore, Rachels argues that recognizing and respecting differences in cultures
do not necessarily mean that there is no such thing as objective truth in morality. He
also reiterated that cultural relativism can recognize and respect cultural differences
and still maintain the right to criticize beliefs and practices that she thinks are wrong,
if she performs proper rational deliberation.

Thus, the challenge of ethics is not the removal of ones culture because that is
what makes one unique. Instead, one must dig deeper into her own culture in order
to discover how her own people have most meaningfully explored possibly universal
human questions or problems within the particularity of her own people’s native
ground. Thus, hospitality, for example, may be a species-wide question. But how we
Filipinos observe and express hospitality is an insight we Filipinos must explore
because it may be in our own practices 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 historical 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 I do? “

Ethics, therefore, should neither be reduced to own’s own cultural standards, nor
should it simplistically dismiss one’s own 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 naïve assumption that
the 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 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.

Religion and Ethics

 56

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. Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism are four of the
largest religious groups in the world at present, based on population. The Philippines
is predominantly Roman Catholic, yet many other religions continue to flourish in the
archipelago. Beyond all the differences, however, religion in essence represents a
group’s ultimate, most fundamental concerns regarding their existence. For followers
of a particular religion, the ultimate meaning of their existence, as the existence of
the whole 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.

A critical, philosophical question that can be asked, vis-à-vis ethics, is “ What

exactly does sacred scripture command?” This is a question of interpretation since
even the same passage from a particular religious tradition can have many different
interpretations from religious teachers even from within the same tradition.
According to Ramon C. Reyes, interpretation of a particular passage or text is the
product of an individual’s embodiment and historicity . Any reading or interpretation
is also influenced by the situation 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 authorities claim their religion teaches.

Second, one must determine what justifies the claim of a particular religious
teaching when it commands its followers on what they “ ought to do “. Relevant to
this is Plato’s philosophical question in his dialogue Euthypro. 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 their 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 there 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
, massacred Muslims, Jews, and even fellow Christians to recapture the Holy City of
Jerusalem. A contemporary example is when terrorists or extremists use religion to
justify acts of violence they perform on fellow human beings. The problem here is not
that religion misleads people; the problem is that too many people perform heinous
acts simply because they assumed they were following the teachings of their
supposed religion, without stopping to think whether these actions are harmful. The
philosophical-minded
 57

individual therefore is tasked to be critical even of her own set of beliefs and practices
and to not simply follow for the sake of blind obedience.

These critical questions about one’s culture and religious beliefs show us the need
for maturity or growth in one’s morality, both in terms of intellect and character. The
responsible moral agent then is one who does not blindly follow eternally-imposed
rules, but one who has a well-developed “ feel “ for making informed moral decisions.

Moral Deliberation

There is a big difference between a young child’s reasoning on the right thing to
do and the manner a morally mature individual arrives at an ethical decision. This
necessary growth, which is a maturation in moral reasoning, has been the focus of
study of many theorists. One of them is the American moral psychologist Lawrence
Kohlberg who theorized that moral development happens in six stages, which he
divided into three levels. The first level is pre-conventional which corresponds how
infants and children think. The consequences of one’s actions divided into two stages.
The first stage of reasoning centers around obedience and the avoidance of
punishment : to a young child’s mind, an action is “ good “ if it enables one to escape
from punishment , “ bad” if it leads to punishment. Later, a child enters the second
stage of reasoning and learns to act according to what she thinks will swerve her self-
interest; thus, what is “ good “ at this age is what the child thinks can bring her
pleasure. Kohlberg used the term re-conventional to refer to these two stages since
at this age, a young child basically thinks only in terms of the pain ( punishment ) or
pleasure ( reward ) brought about as a consequence of her actions. Thus, her
concentration is on herself and what she can feel, instead of her society’s conventions
on what is right or wrong.

The second level of moral development according to Kohlberg is the conventional

since this is the age in which older, adolescents, and young adults learn to conform to
the expectations of society. This is the time when one learns to follow the conventions
of her group. This second level is divided into two stages: the third and fourth stages
of moral development. The third stage is when one begins to act according to what
the larger group she belongs expects of her. The individual here assumes that what
will benefit her best is when the other members of her group approve of her actions.
The general tendency at this age is to confirm first to the values of one’s immediate
group, such as her family, playmates, or later on, barkada. Older children and
adolescents eventually begin to value the expectations of the larger group they belong
to, whether it be their school, religion, or state. The fourth stage is achieved when a
person realizes that following the dictates of her society is not just good for herself
but more importantly, it is necessary for the existence of society itself. The individual
at this stage values most of the laws, rules, and regulations of her society, and thus
her moral reasoning is shaped y dutifulness to the external standards set by society.
 58

In Kohlberg’s reasoning , people who merely follow the rule and regulations of
their institution, the laws of their community or state, the doctrine of their religion-
een if they seem to be the truly right thing to do- are trapped in this second or
conventional level, which is still not yet the highest. For Kohlberg it is a psychological
theory, that attempts to describe the stages of a person’s growth in moral thinking.
The morally mature individual, for Kohlberg, must outgrow both ( 1) the pre-
conventional level, whose pleasure-and-pain logic locks one into self-centered kind of
thinking, an egoism, as well as ( 2 ) the conventional leel, which at first glance looks
like the sensible approach to morality. The second level might, de facto, be the way
that many ( if not most ) adults think about morality, that it is simply a question of
following the right rules. The great insight of Kohlberg, however, is that a truly morally
mature individuals must outgrow eve the simple following of supposedly right rules.

The third and highest level of moral development for Kohlberg is what he calls
post-conventional since the morally responsible agent recognizes that what is good
or right is not reducible to following the rules of one’s group. Instead, it is a question
of understanding personally what one ought to do and deciding., using one’s free will,
to act accordingly. This level, which is also divided into two stages , represents the
individual’s realization that the ethical principles she has rationally arrived at take
precedence over even the rules or conventions that her society dictates. An agent has
attained full moral development if she acts according to her well-thought-out rational
principles. In the earlier stage of this level of moral development in the fifth stage, the
moral agent sees the value of the social contract, namely, agreements that rational
agents have arrived at whether explicitly or implicitly in order to serve what can be
considered the common good are what one ought to honor and follow. This notion of
common good is post-conventional in the sense that the moral agent binds herself to
what tis theoretical community of rational agents has identified as morally desirable,
whether the agent herself will benefit from doing so or not.

The sixth and highest stage of moral development that exists even beyond the
fifth stage of the social contract is choosing to perform actions based on universal
ethical principles that one has determined by herself. One realizes that all the
conventions of society are only correct if they are based on these universal ethical
principles; they must be followed only if they reflect universal ethical principles.
The significance studying the different ethical theories and frameworks becomes clear
only to the individual who has achieved, or is in the process of achieving, moral
maturity. For someone who is still in Kholberg’s pre-conventional or conventional
stages, moral valuation remains a matter of seeking reward or avoiding punishment,
or at best, a question of following the dictates of other people.

Feelings in Moral Deliberation

Emotions or feelings have long been derided by purely rationalistic perspectives

as having no place in a properly executed moral decision. This prejudice, however,
 59

needs to be re-examined thoroughly. Although some emotions or feelings can derail

one from a clear-minded decision in an ethical situation, it is also not possible that
human choice can be purged of all feelings; the moral agent, after all, is neither robot
nor computer. A more realistic attitude toward decision-making is to appreciate the
indispensable role emotions have on an agent’s act of choosing. Aristotle precisely
points out that moral virtue goes beyond the mere act of intellectually identifying the
right thing to do. Instead, it is the condition of one’s character by which the agent is
able to manage her emotions or feelings. Aristotle reiterated that, cultivating one’s
character lies in learning to manage one’s feeling. In Aristotle’s Book II of the
Nicomachean Ethics, “ Anyone can get angry-that us easy… but to do this to the right
person, to the right extent, at the right time, with the right motive, and in the right
way, that is not for everyone, nor is it easy .“ Doing the right thing for Aristotle is being
able to manage one’s feelings so that she is actually driven or propelled to do what
she already sees ( intellectually ) as right.

Moral Problems

What must a morally mature individual do when she is confronted with a moral
problem? Moral problems require set of rational deliberations. In doing so, several
steps have to be undertaken. The first step is to determine the level of involvement
in the case at hand. We must therefore identify which activity we are engaged in,
whether we are making a judgment on a case that we are not involved in or if we truly
need to make a decision in a situation that demands that we act.

After ascertaining our involvement in the potential moral situation, we then need
to make sure of the facts. The first fact to establish is whether we are faced with a
moral situation or not. We must set aside all details that have no connection to the
situation. We must also identify whether an item in consideration is truly factual or
merely hearsay, anecdotal, or an unfounded assumption, and thus unsupportable.
This is where such things as “ fake news
“ and “ alternative facts “ have to be weeded out. Letting such details seep into our
ethical deliberation may unfairly determine or shape our ethical decision-making
process, leading us into potentially baseless choices or conclusions. The responsible
moral individual must make sure that she possesses all the facts she needs for that
particular situation, but also only the facts that she needs- no more, no less.

The third step is to identify all the people who may potentially be affected by the
implications of a moral situation or by our concrete choice of action. These people are
called the stakeholders in t particular case. Identifying these stakeholders force us to
give consideration to people aside from ourselves. The psychological tendency of
most of us when confronted with an ethical choice is to simply think of ourselves, of
what we need, or of what we want. When we identify all the stakeholders, we are
obliged to recognize all the other people potentially concerned with the ethical
problem at hand, and must think of reasons aside from
 60

our own self-serving ones, to come up with conclusions that are impartial, though still
thoroughly involved.

The next step is to determine how stakeholders are affected by whichever choice
the agent makes in the given ethical situation, as well as to what degree. Not all
stakeholders have an equal stake in a given moral case; some may be more favorably
or more adversely affected by a particular conclusion or choice compared to others.
A person’s awareness of these probabilities is necessary to gain a more
comprehensive assessment of the matter at hand in order to arrive at hopefully
stronger reasons for making a definite ethical conclusion or choice.

After establishing the facts and identifying the stakeholders and their concerns in
the matter, the ethical issues at hand will be identified. First thing is to clarify whether
a certain action is morally right or morally wrong. The second type involves
determining whether a particular action in question can be identified with a generally
accepted ethical or unethical action. An example would be on the ethical value of the
death penalty. The third type points to the presence of an ethical dilemma. Dilemmas
are ethical situations in which there are competing values that seem to have equal
worth. One has to identify the fundamental values in conflict in such a situation in
order to assess later if a workable solution to the ethical problem can be negotiated
that will somehow not end up surrendering one value for the sake of another. The
individual must try to find the best balance possible that may honor the competing
values. The individual must therefore identify the probable consequences that a
particular choice of action will bring to the stakeholders concerned in order to
determine which choice possibly is the best, given the situation. The popular “ Robin
Hood “ scenario is an example of such. Usually put in the question, “ Is it right to steal
from the rich in order to feed the poor? “ What one is confronted here is a situation
in which two competing values are in conflict with another.

The final step, is for the individual to make her ethical conclusion or decision,
whether in judging what ought to be done in a given case or in coming up with a
concrete action she must actually perform. Real ethical decisions are often very
difficult enough to make and for so many different reasons. Not all the facts in a given
case may be available to the agent for her consideration. The responsible moral
individual, however, must forge on realizing full well that cultivating one’s capacity for
mature moral choice is a continuing journey. Aristotle recognizes the importance of
continuous habituation in the goal of shaping one’s character so that she becomes
more used to choosing the right thing. A moral individual is always a human being
whose intellect remains finite and whose passions remain dynamic, and who is always
placed in situations that are unique.

The Value of Studying Ethical Theories or Frameworks

What then is the role of ethical theories or frameworks in the continuing

cultivation of one’s capacity for moral choice? These ethical theories or
 61

frameworks may serve as guideposts, given that they are the best attempts to
understand morality that the history of human thought has to offer. As guideposts,
they can shed light on many important considerations, though of course not all, in
one’s quest to answer the twin questions of “ What ought I to do?” and “ Why ought I
to do so? “

Utilitarianism pays tribute to the value of impartiality, arguing that an act is good
if it will bring about the greatest good for the greatest number of those affected by
the action, and each one of those affected should be counted as one, each equal to
each. Utilitarianism, arguably, puts more value on the notion of
“ common good “ compared to any of the other ethical frameworks we have
covered.

The natural law theory, on the other hand, puts more emphasis on the supposed
objective, universal nature of what is to be considered morally good, basing its
reasoning on the theorized existence of a “ human nature “. This theory has the
advantage of both objectivity and a kind of intuitiveness. The latter pertains to the
assumption that whatever is right is what feels right, that is, in the innermost recesses
of one’s being or of one’s conscience because what is good is imprinted in our very
being in the form of natural inclinations.

Kantian deontology puts the premium on rational will, freed from all other
considerations, as the only human capacity that can determine one’s moral duty. Kant
focuses on one’s autonomy as constitutive of what one can consider as moral law that
is free from all other ends and inclinations-including pain and pleasure as well as
conformity to the rules of the group. This shows Kant’s disdain for these rules as being
authorities external to one’s own capacity for rational will.

From valuing all human beings to intuiting what is universally good and to
practicing one’s autonomy in determining what ought to do, all of these explore the
possible roles of reason and free will in identifying what ought to do in a given moral
situation. What Aristotle’s virtue ethics in the end for the habituation of one’s
character to make any and all of these previous considerations possible. To weigh the
collective happiness of human beings, to choose to act on what one’s innermost
nature dictates, and to practice one’s autonomy regardless of all other considerations
especially those that impinge on one’s will: these are lofty goals for
human reason and will. But what can possibly sustain or brace a moral agent so that
she is able to maintain the effort to implement such rigorous demands on the part of
reason? Aristotle’s answer is he solid resolve of one’s character, which can only be
achieved through the right kind of habituation.

The responsible moral individual must test the cogency and coherence of the
ethical theory or framework in question against the complexity of the concrete
experience at hand. In such a spirit of experimentation, the moral individual is able to
play of the theories against one another, noting the weakness in one for a particular
case and possibly supplementing it with the strengths of another.
 62

Self, Society, and Environment

In the realm of the self, as noted earlier, one has to pay attention not just on how
one deals with oneself, but also on how one interacts with other individuals in
personal relations. One may respond to the demand for an ethically responsible “ care
for the self “ by making full use of the different theories or frameworks.
John Stuart Mill’s utilitarianism, though seemingly a hedonistic theory given emphasis
on maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain, elevates the human element above the
animalistic and above the merely selfish. Mill builds on the earlier version of
utilitarianism, the one espoused by Jeremy Bentham, which first posited that what
makes an action good is that it brings about the greatest happiness for the greatest
number. Greatest happiness for Bentham then means quantity, but not just for
oneself since the other half of his maxim refers to “ the greatest number “ that points
to the extent or number of people affected by this happiness.

Thomas Aquinas’ natural law theory states as its first natural inclination of the
innate tendency that all human beings share with all other existing things; namely,
the natural propensity to maintain oneself in one’s existence. Any action therefore
that sustains and cultivates one’s biological or physical existence is to be called bad or
evil. Aquinas thus specifies that taking care of one’s being is a moral duty that one
owes to herself and to God. The moral philosophy of Aquinas calls on a person to go
beyond what she thinks she wants and to realize instead what her innermost nature
inclines her to do, which is the promotion of life, of the truth, and of harmonious
coexistence with others.

Kant’s deontology celebrates the rational faculty of the moral agent, which sets
it above merely sentient beings. Kant’s principle of universalizability challenges the
moral agent to think beyond her own predilections and desires, and to instead
consider what everyone ought to do. His principle of humanity as end in itself teaches
one to always treat humanity, whether in her own self or in any other individual, as
the end or goal of all human actions and never merely as the means. Kant goes beyond
simply telling people to not use others as instruments. There is nothing intrinsically
wrong with using a human being as a means or a tool for one’s own purposes because
human interaction is not possible without that happening. What Kant is concerned
with is when someone merely uses a human being whether another person or herself,
and forgets to treat that human being as the goal or purpose of an action in and of
herself, and forgets to treat that human being as the goal or purpose of an action in
and of herself.

Aristotle’s virtue ethics teaches one to cultivate her own intellect as well as her
character to achieve eudaimonia in her lifetime. For Aristotle, one’s ethical or moral
responsibility to herself is one of self-cultivation. Aristotle is quite forgiving when it
comes to individual actions, knowing full well the difficulty of
“ hitting he mark “ in a given moral situation. The realm of the personal also extends
to one’s treatment of other persons within one’s network of close relations.
Utilitarianism’s recognition of the greatest happiness principle shows that even in
 63

interpersonal interaction, what must rule is not one’s own subjective notion of what
is pleasurable.

Natural law theory, through its recognition of the inviolable value of human life
whomever it belongs to, immediately offers an ethic of interpersonal relationships.
Coupled with this, the value that Aquinas gives to the production and care for
offspring, as well as to the promotion of the truth and the peaceful and orderly social
life, provide guidance on how one ought to relate with her close relations.

Kant’s deontology recognizes the principle of humanity as end in itself and as a

cornerstone of ethical decision-making because this theory recognizes the full
autonomy of every single rational agent. Thus, one must not abuse either oneself, nor
one’s fellow human beings by treating them as mere means.

Finally, Aristotle’s Virtue Theory teaches that one must always find and act on the
mesotes whether in treating oneself or any other human being. This mesotes points
to the complexity of knowing what must be done in a specific moral situation, which
involves identifying the relevant feelings that are involved and being able to manage
them. It happens too often in one’s personal relationship with others, whom one is
close to, that “ feelings “ get in the way of forming meaningful, constructive bonds.

Social Life: In the Philippine Context and in the Global Village

One’s membership in any society brings forth the demands of communal life in
terms of the group’s rules and regulations. Philippine society, for example, is made up
of many ethnolinguistic groups, each with its own possibly unique culture and set of
traditions. The demands of the nation-state, as seen in the laws of the land,
sometimes clash with the traditions of indigenous culture. One example is the issue
of land ownership when ancestral land is at stake.

Mill’s utilitarian doctrine will always push for the greatest happiness principle as
the prime determinant of what can be considered as good action, whether in the
personal sphere or in the societal realm. Thus, Filipinas cannot simply assume that
their action is good because their culture says so. Instead, the fundamental question
ought to be , “ Will this action bring about the greatest happiness for the greatest
number?” An individual must therefore think carefully whether her action, even if her
culture approves of it, will truly benefit everyone affected by it. The notion of the “
greatest number “ can also go beyond the borders of one’s own perceived territory.

Thomas Aquinas, on the other hand, in his natural law theory, has a clear
conception off the principles that should guide the individual in her actions that affect
her larger society. Once more, human life, the care and education of children, and the
promotion of truth and harmonious social living should be in the mind of an individual
when she performs actions directed to the larger whole. For
 64

Aquinas, no harmonious social life will be possible if individuals that comprise such a
society do not value human life, telling the truth and peaceful coexistence.
Immanuel Kant argues for the use of the principles of universalizability and of
humanity as end in itself to form a person’s autonomous notion of what she ought
to do. According to Kant’s framework, if a person is to follow any of these
heteronomous laws, it must not be in any way contrary to it. Kant is not saying that a
person ought not to follow any heteronomous laws. Instead, she must make sure that
if she were to follow such a law, that she understands why it is truly the right thing to
do. More positively, citizens of a particular ought to make sure that the laws and rules
that they come up with are actually in line with what universalizability moral duty will
prescribe.

Aristotle’s virtue ethics prescribes mesotes as the guide to all the actions that a
person has to take, even in her dealing with the larger community of people. Virtues
such as justice, liberality, magnificence, friendliness, and rightful indignation
suggest that they are socially-oriented Aristotelian virtues. A person ought ought to
be guided by them in her dealings with either the local or the wider global society.
Within the Philippines, there are around 175 ethnolinguistic groups, each with its own
language and culture, and therefore each with its own set of beliefs and practices.
Filipino workers abroad, on the other hand, perform their jobs in other countries, and
so they must balance the need for acculturation on one hand and keeping one’s
Filipino identity on the other. Temperance once again presents itself as one
Aristotelian virtue other than, justice in dealing with the other participants in social
intercourse.

The Non-Human Environment

Questions of environmental ethics, of the ethical or moral responsibilities human

beings have toward the non-human world, only appeared in the twentieth century.
Previously, most ethical theorists focused more on interhuman relations rather than
human-to-non-human relations.

In the case of utilitarianism, some scholars point out that this hedonistic doctrine
that focuses on the sovereignty of pleasures and pains in human decision-making
should extend into other creatures that can experience pleasures and pains; namely
,animals. One of the sources of animal ethics is utilitarianism. Animals themselves
cannot become moral agents because they do not seem to have reason and free will.
Some would therefore argue that since the greatest happiness principle covers the
greatest number of creatures that experience pleasure and pain, then that number
should include animals. Humans are expected to make moral decisions and must
always take into account the potential pleasure or pain that they may inflict on
animals. There is a general call for actions that do not just benefit humans but the
whole ecosystem as well, since it is possible that nonhuman creatures might be
harmed by neglecting the ecosystem.
 65

Thomas Aquinas, on the other hand, may not necessarily talk about the physical
environment and human moral responsibility to it as such, but one can try to infer
from his philosophy that certain actions should be avoided because they do not
produce a harmonious, peaceful society.

Lastly, according to Aristotle, one becomes a better person if she learns to epand
her vision to see beyond what is merely at close hand. One must see beyond the
satisfaction of immediate economic needs and make sure that harming the
environment for the sake of such will not eventually lead to something much worse.

A Closing that is Really an Opening

The four frameworks have proven to be some of the most influential in human
thought and should serve as an introduction to other theories or to further discussions
on moral philosophy. The more productive use of these frameworks instead is to
employ them as beginning guides to one’s further exploration into the topic of
morality. Realizing the finitude of human understanding and of the capacity to make
choices, but at the same time hoping that one’s best attempt at doing what is right
mean something in the end-these are part and parcel of making informed moral
decisions.

IV. Learning Activities

How do you relate with other members of your family and friends? What
Filipino customs do you find essential in dealing with society and the rest of the
global community?

V. Assessment

In relation to local , national and international scenarios discuss the relevance of

these concepts. You may cite the pressing issues of the time in your output.
a.) Cultural Relativism
b.) Moral Agent
c.) Ethical Responsibility
d.) Culture
e.) Environment

VI. Enrichment Activities

1. The current pandemic has taught us a lot of lessons. If a global ethic is

currently emerging, does this mean that the true meaning of morality changes
over time? Explain your answer.
2. Give your comment or reaction on the following words:
 66

“People are taught to respect other cultures and traditions, but they also need to be
ready to criticize when the cultural practices or traditions infringe upon human rights or
justice.”

VII. Assignment

Reminder: These questions are very practical in such a way that they involve issues
such as the distribution of SAP, corruption, ECQ, economic recession and depression,
insurgency etc. Your observations and honest assessment are very useful in
internalizing and understanding Ethics as a course.
These are the steps in making informed decisions when confronted with moral
problems. The steps can be summarized as follows:
1. Determine your involvement in the moral situation ( your participation in the
situation ).
2. Gather the necessary facts ( give the current situation ).
3. Identify the stakeholders ( parties involved or affected ).
4. Name all the alternative choices possible and their potential effects on all
stakeholders.
( what choices/ options may be done and the possible effects to stakeholders )
5. Identify the type of ethical issue at hand ( Is it ethical or unethical? Or is there an
ethical dilemma? )
6. Make your ethical conclusion or decision ( what ought to be done? )

II. Recall a single issue in your community such as the distribution of SAP, corruption,
ECQ, economic recession and depression, insurgency etc., and apply all the six steps to
the issue you have identified. Write down your application below:
Step 1:
Step 2:
Step 3:
Step 4:
Step 5:
Step 6: