ABSTRACTION
Ethymology and Meaning
of Ethics
The term "ethics" comes
from the Greek word "ethos"
meaning "custom" used in
the works of Aristotle, while
the term "moral" is the Latin
equivalent. Based on the
Greek and Latin etymology
of the word "ethics", ethics
deals with morality. When
the Roman orator Cicero
exclaimed, "O tempora o
mores" (Cicero, 1856) (Oh,
what time and what morals),
he may
have been trying to express
dismay of the morality of his
time.
Ethics or moral
philosophy, is a branch of
philosophy which deals with
moral standards, inquires
about the rightness or
wrongness of human
behavior or the goodness or
badness of personality, trait
or character. It deals with
ideas, with topics such as
moral standards or norms of
morality, conscience, moral
values and virtues. Ethics is
a study of the morality
of human acts and moral
agents, what makes an act
obligatory and what makes a
person accountable.
"Moral" is the adjective
describing a human act as
either ethically
right or wrong, or qualifying a
person, personality,
character, as either
ethically good or bad.
Moral Standards or Moral Frameworks and Non-Moral Standards
Moral standards are norms or prescriptions that serve as the frameworks for determining what ought to
be done or what is right or wrong action, what is good or bad character.
The following can be classified as moral standards:
•Do not lie.
• Don't steal.
• Don't cheat others.
• Don't kill.
Moral standards are either consequences standards (like Stuart Mill's utilitarianism) or non-consequence standards (like
Aristole's virtue, St. Thomas' natural law, or Immanuel Kant' good will or sense of duty)..
The consequence standards depend on results, outcome. An act that results in the general welfare, in the greatest good
of the greatest number,is moral. To take part in a project that results in the improvement of the
majority of people is, therefore, moral.
The non-consequence standards are based on the natural law. Natural law is the law of God revealed through human
reason. It is the "law of God written in the hearts of men." To preserve human life is in accordance with the natural law,
therefore it is moral.
The non-consequence standard may also be based on good will or intention, and on a sense of
duty. Respect for humanity, treatment of the other as a human person, an
act that is moral, springs from a sense of duty, a sense of duty that you wish
will apply to all human persons.
Non-moral standards are social rules, demands of etiquette and good manners. They are guides of action which should
be followed as expected by society. Sometimes they may not be followed or some people may not follow them. From time
to time, changes are made regarding good manners or etiquette. In sociology, non-moral standards or
rules are called folkways. In short, non-moral actions are those where moral categories cannot be applied.
Examples of non-moral standards are rules of good manners and right conduct, etiquette, rules of behavior set by
parents, teachers, and standards of grammar or language, standards of art, standards of sports
set by other authorities.
An indicator whether or not a standard is moral or non-moral lies in it compliance as distinguished from its non-compliance.
Non-compliance with moral standards causes a sense of guilt, while non-compliance with a
non-moral standard may only cause shame or embarrassment.
Classification of the Theories of Moral Standards
Garner and Rosen (1967) classified the various moral standards
formulated by moral philosophers as follows:
1) Consequence (teleological,from tele which means end, result, or consequence) standard states that
an act is right or wrong depending on the consequences of the act, that is,
the good that is produced in the world.It can also be a basis for determining whether or not a rule is a right rule. So it states
that the rightness or wrongness of a rule depends on
the consequences or the good that is produced in following the rule.
2) Not-only-consequence standard (deontological), holds that therightness or wrongness of an action or rule depends on
sense of duty, natural law, virtue and the demand of the situation or circumstances. The rightness or wrongness of an
action does not only depend or rely on the consequence of that action or following that rule.
3) Natural law and virtue ethics are deontological moral standards because their basis for determining what is right or
wrong does not dependon consequences but on the natural law and virtue.
Situation ethics, too, is deontological because the rightness or wrongness of an act depends on situation and
circumstances requiring or demanding exception to rule.
Rosen and Garner are inclined to consider deontology, be it rule or act deontology, as the better moral standard because it
synthesizes or includes all the other theory of norms.
Under this theory, the rightness or wrongness of an action depends on (or is a function of) all the following:
a) consequences of an action or rule, what promotes one's greatest good,
or the greatest good of the greatest number;
b) consideration other thanconsequences, like the obligatoriness or the act based on natural law,
its being one's duty, or its promoting an ideal virtue.
Deontology also considers the object, purpose, and circumstances or situation of the moral issue or dilemma.
What Makes Standards Moral?
The question means what obliges us to follow a moral standard?
For theists, believers in God's existence
- moral standards are commandments of God revealed to man through prophets. According to the Old Testament,
the Ten Commandments were revealed by God to Moses. One who
believes in God vows to Him and obliges himself/herself to follow His Ten
Commandments.
-God is the ultimate source of what is moral revealed to human persons.
How about non-theists?
For non-theists, God is not the source of morality. Moral standards are based on the wisdom of sages like Confucius
or philosophers like Immanuel Kant.
In China, B. C., Confucius taught the moral standard, "Do unto others what you like others to do unto you" and persuaded
people to follow this rule because it is the right way, the gentleman's way.
Immanuel Kant, the German philosopher, formulated a criterion for determining what makes a moral standard moral. It is
stated as follows: "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a
universal law." (1993) In other words, if a maxim or standard cannot pass this test, it
cannot be a moral standard.
The Origin of Moral Standards: Theist and Non-Theist.
“ What makes moral standards moral is how do moral standards arise or come into existence?”
The theistic line of thought states moral standards are of divine origin while 20th century thinkers claim state that they
simply evolved. The issue is: Are moral standards derived from God, communicated to man through
signs or revelation, or did they arise in the course of man's evolution?
With the Divine source concept, moral standards are derived from natural law, man's "participation" in the Divine law. The
moral principle, "Do good and avoid evil" is an expression of natural law
Are these theist and non-theist (evolutionary) origin of moral standards reconcilable?
Saiods
The evolutionist claims that altruism, a sense of morality, can beobserved from man's fellow primates- the apes and
monkeys and, therefore,it can be said that the altruism of human persons evolved from the
primates. He satisfactorily argued that
- moral standards can be observed from the primates
- Neither can it be scientifically established that the theist view,that man's obliging himself to avoid evil, refrain from
inflicting harm on his fellowman, is a moral principle implanted by God in the hearts of men.
- the concept of creation and evolution are not necessarily contradictory.
- creation may be conceived as a process of evolution. Hence, the biblicalstory of creation could have happened in billions
of years instead of six days.
