Ethics Reviewer

Unit One: Peace Education Lesson 1. A Holistic Understanding of Peace and Violence
- Over the past many years, peace workers have increasingly challenged this conventional view of peace and
have declared that “peace is not simply a lack of war or nonviolence; peace means the eradication of all
facets of injustice” (Cheng and Kurtz, 1998). There is a consensus that we need to have a comprehensive
view of peace if we are to move toward a genuine peace culture. Indeed, peace researchers and educators
now seem satisfied to split the concept of peace in two, stating that the meaning of peace can be captured by
the idea of a negative peace and the idea of a positive peace. Negative peace refers to the absence of war or
physical/direct violence, while positive peace refers to the presence of just and non-exploitative relationships,
as well as human and ecological well-being, such that the root causes of conflict are diminished. The
non-exploitative relationships mentioned above refer not only to relationships between humans but also to
those between humans and nature. Peace with nature is considered the foundation for “positive peace”
(Mische, 1987).

Lesson 2. Types of Violence and Promotion of Peace

- What is a culture of peace? The Declaration (UN, 1998) states that “a culture of peace is a set of values,
attitudes, traditions, modes of behavior and ways of life that reflect and inspire: • respect for life and for all
human rights; • rejection of violence in all its forms and commitment to the • prevention of violent conflict
by tackling their root causes through dialogue and negotiation; • commitment to full participation in the
process of equitably meeting the needs of present and future generations; • promotion of the equal rights
and opportunities of women and men; • recognition of the right of everyone to freedom of expression, •
opinion and information; • devotion to principles of freedom, justice, democracy, tolerance, solidarity,
cooperation, pluralism, cultural diversity, dialogue and understanding between nations, between ethnic,
religious, cultural and other groups, and between individuals.
Keeping the self and the family whole, in view of the various forms of brokenness that surround them, is a foundation of a
peace culture. Respect for human dignity, fundamental freedoms, democratic participation, the fulfillment of basic needs
and economic equity are also major concerns in this framework because the aforementioned are roots of peace. Likewise,
intercultural understanding or the acceptance and respect for the “different other” as well as caring for the environment
contribute to peace. In view of the continuing threat of armed conflicts in the country, the cessation of armed hostilities is a
major concern as well as the reallocation of scarce resources from “arms to farms” or from buying/stockpiling weapons to
undertaking activities that would redound to people’s benefit.

Unit Two: Introduction to Ethics Lesson 3: What is ‘ethics’?

- Etymologically the term “ethics” is derived from the Greek word “ethos” which means character, habit, customs,
ways of behavior, etc. Ethics is also called “moral philosophy”. The word “moral” comes from the Latin word
“mores” which signifies customs, character, behavior.
- Ethics can have an overarching standpoint in dealing with diverse issues, problems, debates, etc., such as: •
Personal life: e.g. questions about one’s basic values and morals in life • Work and professional life: principles
and practices as ethical standards or standards of behaviors that direct all actions in an institution. • Social and
political life: issues of social justice, political rights.
- Therefore, ethics, as a science, may be defined as the systematic study of the morality of human actions from the
point of view of their rightfulness or wrongfulness, as means for the attainment of the ultimate good or happiness.
- At its simplest, ethics is a system of moral principles which may affect or influence how a person or group directs
his/her life from decision making to ultimately living life. It is concerned with what is good for individuals and
society, which can also be described as moral philosophy. In essence, ethics addresses fundamental questions of
life such as: How should I live my life? What is the meaning of life? What moral standards should I live by? What
is the right or moral thing to do? Whose standards or principles are right or wrong?
- Ethics also involves the process of questioning, discovering, contextualizing and defending our values, principles
and purpose. It’s about finding out the basis, foundations and reasons of what we believe and live by which can
define who we are and how we face life’s challenges and uncertainties.
- Ethics is often used in the context of an organization and institution that follows a set of standards, rules,
regulations, guidelines and systems aimed to protect, maintain, secure and ensure the welfare of its management,
employees and even customers for that matter. It refers to a code of conduct or ethical standards, which are often
formalized in terms of comprehensive sets of rules to guide the actions of individuals in a workplace. Such as in
respect of confidentiality of patients’ personal information in a healthcare facility or the Code of Conduct and
Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees which they are ought to live by.
- Morality Is more often used in the context of personal life, often in relation to how a person conducts himself
personally and socially. Sometimes, it is a set of rules or standard of behaviors concerning matters of greater
importance which is usually guided by the church teachings and the wisdom of the elders. However, violations of
such can bring disturbance to individual conscience and social disapproval or disagreement.
- In principle, both ethics and morality are based on accepted standards of behavior personally and socially. These
standards have developed over time and come from a variety of sources including: • The influence of religious
writing and interpretations. • The influence of philosophical thought. • The influence of community (societal)
values.
 - One of the first tasks of moral philosophy is to be clear on what makes an action moral and differentiate between
moral and non-moral judgments.
- “Should” has a prudential use, which means that it is based on careful consideration, something that has been
thought about, but also a moral use, in so far as it makes implicit reference to some kind of guideline of behavior
or principle. A non-moral action doesn’t involve the consideration of principles.
- The main difference thus, between moral and non-moral issues is that moral issues are based on values. A fact is
a descriptive statement about the world, but could also be what the law says, what religions say or what takes
place in nature. A value, however, is never intended to be descriptive: it is a judgment about the world and implies
the acceptance or rejection of norms of behavior, and the understanding of terms such as right or wrong.
Philosophers investigate the relationship between facts and values, which means how we view the world and the
moral principles we adopt. An immoral action is considered morally wrong. A moral action is an action which is
considered morally right or good. A morally neutral action is one that is independent from moral judgment; for
example the prudential use of the verb should when we say you should eat more fruits. An amoral action is one
performed by someone who is not morally aware, that is, doesn't have any concepts or understanding of right and
wrong.
- A moral agent is a being who is capable of moral decisions; with this capacity comes responsibility for the moral
or immoral behavior chosen. While a moral agent is one who is capable of moral choice, a moral patient, however,
is not capable of making a moral decision but still partakes in the moral realm. Thus, most of us would not give a
second thought to killing a wasp buzzing by a window, but we wouldn’t hurt a newborn baby. A baby is part of the
moral world, in so far as we have moral responsibilities towards it. This distinction will be particularly important
when you look at practical ethics and the issues of abortion and euthanasia.
- Your values are the standards of behavior and ways of doing things that you think are correct in the way you live
and work. When your actions and decisions align with your values, then you show others that you have integrity.
When you act in a way that goes against your values, you can feel unhappy and bad about yourself, you can
make mistakes, and you may find yourself behaving unethically.
Lesson 4: Scope of Ethics
- Ethics deal with voluntary actions. We can distinguish between human actions and actions of humans: human
actions are those actions that are done by humans consciously, deliberately and in view of an end. Actions of
humans may not be wilfully, voluntarily, consciously and deliberately done but all the same they are done by
humans (e.g. sleeping, walking, etc.). It is the intention which makes the difference between human action and
human action. In ethics we deal only with human actions.
- The whole study of ethics can be divided into General Ethics (nature of moral activity, norm of morality, foundation
of morality, end of morality, etc) and Special Ethics (applies the principles of general ethics to the various actions
of human activity). However, when we consider the ethical theories, philosophers today usually divide them into
three general subject areas: metaethics, normative ethics and applied ethics. Metaethics investigates the origin
and meaning of ethical concepts. It studies where our ethical principles come from and what they mean. It tries to
analyze the underlying principles of ethical values; Normative ethics tries to arrive at moral standards that regulate
right and wrong conduct. It is a more practical task. It is a search for an ideal litmus test of proper behaviour;
Applied ethics involves examining specific controversial issues, such as abortion, infanticide, animal rights,
environmental concerns, homosexuality, and so on. In applied ethics, using the conceptual tools of metaethics
and normative ethics, one tries to resolve these controversial issues.
- It is one of the oldest foundations of ethical standards and greatly influences human actions, decisions and will.
Religion is believed to carry the good news as a manifestation of the divine which determines the good and the
bad, the holy and unholy and the righteous and sinful. There are numerous religions followed by people and each
religion talk about the nature of right and wrong. Religion is the basis of an individual that he follows from his
childhood and is deeply rooted in his behaviors. He understands about the fair and unfair, badness and goodness
of actions and the consequences of these actions.
- Culture reflects the moral values and ethical norms governing how people should behave and interact with
others.It is a pattern of behaviors and values that are transferred from one generation to another, those that are
considered as ideal or within the acceptable limits. No wonder therefore that it is the culture that predominantly
determines what is wrong and what is right. It is the culture that defines certain behavior as acceptable and others
as unacceptable. Human civilization in fact has passed through various cultures; wherein the moral code was
 redrafted depending upon the epoch that was. What was immoral or unacceptable in certain cultures became
acceptable later on and vice versa. This implies the rules, standard, values that are transmitted from generations
to generations. These are the standard code of conduct to be followed by an individual that is permissible and
acceptable to the community to which he belongs to from his childhood. Human civilization is a cumulative of
cultural experience that an individual passes through during his lifetime.
- Laws are procedures and code of conduct that are laid down by the legal system of the state. They are meant to
guide human behavior within the social fabric. The major problem with the law is that the law cannot cover all the
ethical expectations and especially with ever changing outer environment the law keeps on changing but often
fails to keep pace. In business, complying with the rule of law is taken as ethical behavior, but organizations often
break laws by evading taxes, compromising on quality, service norms etc.
Lesson 5: Why be moral?
- Why are moral rules needed? For example, why do humans need rules about keeping promises, telling the truth
and private property? This answer should be fairly obvious. Without such rules people would not be able to live
amongst other humans. People could not make plans, could not leave their belongings behind them wherever
they went. We would not know who to trust and what to expect from others. Civilized, social life would not be
possible.
- Why be moral?
• Sociological: Without morality social life is nearly impossible.
• Psychological: People care about what others think of them. Reputation and social censure. Some people care about
doing the right thing.
• Theological: Some people care about what will happen after death, to their soul or spirit. For many religions, there is an
afterlife that involves a person being rewarded or punished for what they have done.
Definitions to clarify:
• Mores- customs and rules of conduct
• Etiquette – rules of conduct concerning matters of relatively minor importance but which do contribute to the quality of
life. Violations of such rules may bring social censure.
o Etiquette deals with rules concerning dress and table manners and deals with politeness. Violations would bring
denunciations for being rude or gross.
o Friendships would not likely break up over violations of these rules as they would for violating rules of morality, e.g., lies
and broken promises! They are made up by people to encourage a better life. In each society there are authorities on
these matters and there are collections of such rules.
• Morality- rules of right conduct concerning matters of greater importance. Violations of such can bring disturbance to
individual conscience and social sanctions.
• Law- rules which are enforced by society. Violations may bring a loss of or reduction in freedom and possessions.
Lesson 6: Ethics and Other Sciences:
- In our analysis of the definition and nature of ethics, it was presented that as a science, ethics is concerned with
an end or ideal or standard for what is good and right.
- Although ethics is sometimes regarded as a practical science, it is not a ‘practical science’ as medicine,
engineering or architecture in as much as it is not directed towards the realization of a definite result. Ethics is
often said to be the fruit of all the sciences since it ultimately perfects the human person, by ordering all other
sciences and all things else in respect to an ultimate end that is absolutely supreme. The table below shows a
simple illustration of the focus of other sciences in comparison with ethics:
Lesson 7: Moral Commitments and the Discipline of Ethics
- Morality is a precondition for ethics, in two ways. First, morality, as a shorthand way of referring to all our
transactions with each other, is the subject matter of ethics, just as our transactions with the physical world form
the subject matter of science. Second, ethics is an activity, and any activity requires certain moral commitments of
those who take part in it. We cannot do anything well without moral commitments to excellence, or anything for
any length of time without the moral virtue of perseverance. The doing of ethics also has moral commitments
appropriate to it. These commitments, to reason and to the moral point of view, can rightly be demanded of any
person who would take ethics seriously. In any troubling case, we have first of all an obligation to think about it, to
examine all the options available to us. We must not simply act on prejudice, or impulsively, just because we have
the power to do so. We call this obligation the commitment to reason. The commitment to reason entails a
willingness to subject one's moral judgments to critical scrutiny oneself, and to submit them for public scrutiny by
others; further, to change those judgments, and modify the commitments that led to them, if they turn out (upon
reflection) not to be the best available. This commitment rules out several approaches to moral decision-making,
including several versions of "intuitionism" (a refusal to engage in reasoning about moral judgment at all, on
grounds that apprehension of moral truth is a simple perception, not open to critical analysis), and all varieties of
"dogmatism" (an insistence that all moral disagreements are resolved by some preferred set of rules or doctrines;
that inside that set there is nothing that can be questioned, and that outside that set there is nothing of any moral
worth). Second, we have an obligation to examine the options from an objective standpoint, a standpoint that
everyone could adopt, without partiality. We want to take everyone who has a stake in the outcome
("stakeholders," we will call them) into account. Since this consideration for other persons is the foundation of
morality, we call this perspective universality, or as Kurt Baier called it in a book of that name, the moral point of
view. The commitment to the moral point of view entails a willingness to give equal consideration to the rights,
interests, and choices of all parties to the situation in question. This commitment to impartial judgment has one
essential role in the study of ethics: once we have decided that all persons are to count equally in the calculations,
that each is to count as one and as no more than one, we have the unit we need to evaluate the expected benefit
and harm to come from the choices before us, to weigh the burdens placed and the rights honored. We also know
that if anyone's wants, needs, votes or choices are to be taken seriously and weighed in the final balance, then
everyone's wants etc. of that type must be weighed in equally; that is, if anyone is to be accorded respect and
moral consideration, then all must be. We can derive most of the moral imperatives that we will be using from this
single commitment. By way of example, the familiar "Golden Rule," that we ought to treat others as we would
have them treat us, is a fine preliminary statement of those commitments. With regard to anything we plan to do
that will affect others, we ought not just to go ahead without reflection; we ought to ask, how would we like it if
someone did this to us? That consideration is perfectly adequate as a satisfaction of the moral commitments that
precede ethics. In general it may be said that if we will not agree to submit our decisions to reason, and to attempt
to see the situation from the point of view of all who are caught up in it, ethics is impossible.

Lesson 8: Principles of Ethics

- Ethics is about human beings. The values that we have appealed to quite uncritically in the preceding
stories--values of food for the hungry, of fair treatment, of neighborhood peace and respect for rights--are not
arbitrary or merely conventional. We can discover their foundations in the life of the human being, and derive
them from fundamental aspects of human nature. The human being, and human nature, are endlessly complex, of
course; yet the human being is universally recognizable to others of the species, and their preferences are very
generally predictable. So if we avoid the complexities of the outer limits of human potentiality, it should be possible
to say enough about the fundamentals of human morality just from the easily discoverable truths about the human
being. In the course of the discussion, we will make some initial attempts to foreshadow the major ethical
orientations which philosophers have, through our history, adopted, as reflective of these most basic moral
principles. Then what are human beings about? Given the normative premise, that moral principles must be
appropriate to human life if they are to govern human life, three basic, simple, readily observable facts about
human beings determine the structure of our moral obligations:
1. People Are Embodied- People are animals. They have bodies. They are matter; they exist in time and space and are
subject to physical laws. These bodies are organic processes, requiring regular sustenance internally, and suffering all
manner of slings and arrows of violent change externally. They experience pain, deprivation, and danger. They are prone
to periodic failure unpredictably and to ultimate failure inevitably; they are mortal. Then people have needs that must be
satisfied if they are to survive. They need at least food, water, and protection from the elements and natural enemies. That
means that they must control the physical environment to make from it the means to those ends. Failure to do so will lead
quickly to pain and suffering. These are inevitable in any case; in this way we are reminded of our mortality. The first and
immediate implication for ethics is that, if we have any reason to care about human beings, then the relief of that suffering
and the satisfaction of those needs should be our first concern. In philosophical terms, human need and vulnerability to
harm give rise to duties of compassion (for suffering), nonmaleficence(avoiding harm), and more generally, beneficence:
working to satisfy human need, maximize human happiness, optimize human interests in all respects.In general, the moral
reasoning that takes help and harm to human beings as the primary determinant of the rightness of action is called
"utilitarianism," following John Stuart Mill's description of that reasoning. (Mill, Utilitarianism, 1859).
2. People Are Social Social animals regularly live in large groups of their own kind (i.e., in groups containing several to
many active adult males); individuals raised apart from such groups exhibit behavior that is, and they are themselves,
abnormal for the species. Whatever problems, therefore, that people have with their physical environment, they will have
to solve in groups. They will soon discover that this necessity produces a new set of problems; they must cope with a
social environment as well as the physical one. That social environment produces two further needs: for a social structure
to coordinate social efforts, and for a means of communication adequate to the complex task of such coordination. The
need for communication is fulfilled by the evolution of language. The implication for ethics is that, given that there are so
many of us, we must take account of each other in all our actions. We come saddled by nature with obligations, to the
group in general and to other members of the group in particular, that we cannot escape or evade. Normal people (not
psychopaths) seem to know this without being told. By nature human beings try, most of the time, to do good and avoid
evil, in advance of knowing just what counts as good or evil. The attempt to do good, to others as to oneself, involves the
adoption of "the moral point of view," or a stance of impartiality with regard to the distribution of benefits and burdens.
Fairness, or justice, demands that we subject our actions to rule, and that the rule be the same for all who are similarly
situated. What will make an act "right," ultimately, is not just that it serves individual happiness but that it serves the whole
community; people are equal, and since equality is itself a value (derived from "equal dignity") the society must deal with
them equally unless good reason is given for differential treatment. A philosopher who has made Justice central to his
theory of society is John Rawls; Rawls points out that the duty of justice may require us to favor just those persons who
would not succeed in getting their claims recognized if personal power, or even majority benefit, were to determine the
distribution. (Rawls, A Theory of Justice, 1970).
3. People Are Rational Normal adult human beings are able to consider abstract concepts, use language, and think in
terms of categories, classes and rules. Since Immanuel Kant, we have recognized three categories of thought that
characterize the way human beings deal PAGE 36 with the objects and events of the world. These are times (when did
something happen? in the past, the present, the future; and how long did it take? duration); space(where is some object?
or how far away is it? location, bulk, distance); and causation (how did something happen? What brought it about?
antecedents, agencies, powers, consequences). "Rationality," of course, in our ordinary discourse, means a good deal
more than the basic ability to think in terms of when, where and how. Ordinarily we use the word to distinguish calm and
dispassionate decision making from "emotional" or disorganized decision making; we use it to distinguish people capable
of making good decisions from people who are not. But for our purposes here, we need go no further with the word. The
creature that is "rational" will think, on occasion, in general terms, about classes and laws, extending over time, space,
and possibility, while the creature that is "not rational" will think, if at all, only about particular (individual) objects or events.
Since people are rational, they can make rational choices. When people think about action they think in terms of classes
of acts as well as individual acts. As far as we know, we are alone among the animals in possession of this ability. And
since people can conceive of classes of acts for which alternatives exist, they can make laws to govern acts in the future,
specifying that the citizens (or whoever may be bound by the law) ought to act one way rather than another: for instance
that no one ought to take things that do not belong to them, and that such takings, henceforth to be called "theft," shall be
collectively punished. General obligations can be formulated and articulated for a whole society. Collectively (acting in
their groups), people make collective choices, especially choices of rules, rather than relying on instinct; and they are then
collectively responsible for those choices and individually responsible for abiding by them. Rationality's implication for
ethics is that, as freedom of choice is the characteristic that sets humans apart from the other animals, if we have any
duty to respect human beings at all, it is this choice that we must respect. Persons are categorically different from the
things of the physical world: they have dignity, inherent worth, rather than mere price or dollar value; they are bearers of
rights and subjects of duties rather than mere means to our ends or obstacles to our purposes. Our duty of respect for
persons, or respect for persons as autonomous beings, requires that we allow others to be free, to make their own
choices and live their own lives; especially, we are required not to do anything to them without their consent. Just as
utilitarianism makes human happiness central to ethics, and the Rawlsian account of fairness makes justice central, a
complete theoretical account of ethics can follow from the value of human autonomy. The philosopher most identified with
the centrality of autonomy and moral agency to ethical theory is Immanuel Kant (Kant, Foundations of the Metaphysics of
Morals, 1785).
4. The Human Condition- In summary: By 3, above, humans have minds, or as the philosophers call it, a rational nature;
and by 1, above, humans have an apparently limitless capacity for physical and psychological suffering. Rationality and
suffering are not found together anywhere else; possibly the angels have the first, and surely all beasts possess the
second, but only human beings appear to be able to reflect upon their own suffering and contemplate the suffering of
others of their kind, and that sets them apart from all creation. By virtue of rationality, human persons possess dignity and
command respect. Ultimately, that respect entails the willingness to let other people make their own choices, develop their
own moral nature, and live their lives in freedom. By virtue of that abysmal capacity for suffering, the human condition
cries out for compassion and compels attention to human well-being and the relief of pain. And by 2, above, this condition
is shared; we are enjoined not only to serve human need and respect human rights, but to establish justice by
constructing a political and legal structure which will fairly distribute the burdens and benefits of life on this earth in the
society of humans. These most general concepts: human welfare, human justice, and human dignity--are the source and
criteria for evaluation of every moral system authored by human beings. The same concepts are the source of every
moral dilemma. Attention to human welfare requires us to use the maximization of human happiness (for the greatest
number of individuals) as our criterion of right action; attention to the needs of groups, and of social living, requires us to
set fairness for all above benefit for some as our criterion; yet duty can require that we set aside both the feelings of the
groups and the happiness of the individual in the name of respect for human dignity. To protect the welfare of many it is
often necessary to limit the liberty of the individual (the liberty to operate dangerous or noisy vehicles without a license, for
instance). On the small scale as well as the large, to respect the liberty of persons is not always to further their best
interests, when they choose against those interests (for instance, by taking addictive drugs or by spending themselves
into debt). To maintain a rough equality among persons, it is often necessary to put unequal demands on the interests of
some of them (by progressive taxation, for example). To preserve the community, it is sometimes necessary to sacrifice
the interests of the few--but that course seems to discount the worth of the few, and so to violate justice.

Lesson 9: Moral Standards and NonMoral Standards

- Moral standards involve the rules people have about the kinds of actions they believe are morally right and wrong,
as well as the values they place on the kinds of objects they believe are morally good and morally bad. Some
ethicists equate moral standards with moral values and moral principles.
- Non-moral standards refer to rules that are unrelated to moral or ethical considerations. Either these standards
are not necessarily linked to morality or by nature lack ethical sense. Basic examples of nonmoral standards
include rules of etiquette, fashion standards, rules in games, and various house rules.
- The following six (6) characteristics of moral standards further differentiate them from non-moral standards: a.
Moral standards involve serious wrongs or significant benefits, b. Moral standards ought to be preferred to other
values, c. Moral standards are not established by authority figures, d. Moral standards have the trait of
universalizability, e. Moral standards are based on impartial considerations, f. Moral standards are associated with
special emotions and vocabulary.

■THE QUESTION ON THE NORM OF MORALITY

-Pivotal Questions that science of ethics revolve: What is morality and what is the meaning of life
1. With reference to man's nature, what means the term good in ethics?
- Good in ethical terms refers to an action that is morally commendable which is quite contrary with bad which
somehow refers to actions that are condemnable.
2. What means "agere sequitur esse?"
- A Latin quote that means “a thing acts in accordance with its nature” can mean somehow that your actions reflect
the kind of person that you are or that you are trying to be.
3. What is the proximate norm and what is the ultimate norm of morality in human acts?
- The proximate norm of morality in one’s act is Human Nature whilst the ultimate norm is Divine Nature.
4. Why is it often said that human nature and human life is a many splendored thing?
 - It is said that human nature and human life is a splendored thing for we are creatures that are related to the
creator and the bridge that connects us is called religion therefore human nature is considered as a religious
aspect.
5. When we say that human nature is the proximate norm of morality, how should we take human nature? What aspects
of the same must be considered?
- Human Nature should be taken in all its essential aspects or relationships like the religious, political, social,
physical, economic, etc..

■DEFECTIVE NORMS OF MORALITY

1. According to hedonism, what is a morally good action?
- A morally good action according to hedonism, gives worldly pleasure and happiness to a man.
2 According to utilitarianism, what is the norm of morality?
- According to utilitarianism, the norm of morality is occupying the usefulness of an action conducted for the sake
of an individuals’ temporal happiness.
3. What is common to both hedonism and utilitarianism?
- The most common thing about hedonism and utilitarianism is that both of them explain the emotional basis and
aspects of human actions quite well.
4. Explain one defect of utilitarianism as an ethical theory.
- It tends to make morality proportional from each other instead of making it objective. Not every good action can
bear a fruit of goodness, as well as it goes to the actions that are rooted in unpleasantry.
5. According to Herbert Spencer, what is life?
- He describes life as a never-ending loop of adjustments of internal and external relations of one’s self in
co-existing with other individuals in a society.
6. What does Kant mean by the categorical imperative?
- According to him, reason command and commanding of reasons are absolute and unconditional which intertwines
with us for all times.
7. According to Kant, on what is morality grounded?
- Our morality is grounded with our reasons, which is the source of our moral laws and obligations.
8 What did Kant mean by "universalization without contradiction" as a test for the morality of an action? What example
does he give to illustrate this test for the morality of an action?
- According to him an action can be universalized if it can be practiced by all men at all times without bringing
about its own negation or abolition and took the case of breaking a promise as an example to illustrate this test
for the morality of an action.
9 What is moral positivism?
- It basically tells us that all the laws of a state are the basis or source of all moral laws.
10. Give the points of differences between christian and communist ethics.
- Communism is dominated by matter while Christians are dominated by the spirit.
- Communism proposes earthly goals for man whilst Christians are for other worlds.
- Communism claims that the end justifies the means whilst the Christians believe quite the contrary.
- Communism views morality evolutionalistically while Christians believe that it is absolute and eternal.
- Communism uses force, conflicts, and revolution for their attainment of goals while Christians teach love, right
living, prayer, as the road to happiness in heaven.

■SPECIFIC DETERMINANTS OF MORALITY

1. What three things must be considered to judge an act right or wrong?
- These three things are: (1)Specific Determinants, (2) the end of an agent, and (3) the end of the agent.
2. What does the '"end of, an act?"
- It determines the morality or of an action, whether or not it reached its purpose.
3 What does the '"end of an agent?"
- It simply means the purpose of the action that will be made.
4. Explain the difference between the end of an act and the end of the agent.
 - The difference between these two is that the end of an act determines if the purpose of the action that has been
made has achieved its purpose while the end of an agent determines the objective of the act that will be made.

5. Why is it necessary to consider the intention of the doer in order to morally evaluate an act?
- It is necessary to consider the intention of the doer to morally evaluate the act because their intention plays the
biggest factor for it explains the behavior and choices that they have made throughout the execution of their
actions.
6. Explain the moral principle that moral goodness demands or requires fullness of being.
- Moral goodness demands or requires fullness of being because even if the act is good, but the intentions are
quite contrary, then the acts and intentions differ from each other therefore if an act is good, the intentions of the
doer should also be good.
7. Give an example of an act that is good in itself but becomes bad because of the malicious intent of the doer.
- An example could be an employee requesting a certain amount of money to further the research about the
project that they are conducting, but just as the budget was released, she goes on spending it on her personal
gains.
8. Give an example of an act that is morally good or indifferent in itself but which becomes bad because of the
circumstances under which it was done.
- An example scenario would be a death sentence. For example, a criminal accused of drug-related offenses had
been sentenced to death. Yes, justice was served, but the sentence was carried out by taking the life of a human
with a gun(which still exists in China) which I think is just inhumane for drug-related offenses.
9. What is the difference between a mitigating and a justifying circumstance?
- The difference between these two is that justifying is doing or bending some aspects in order for an action to be
viewed morally right while justifying circumstance is laying one’s cards in order to mitigate the gravity of a crime.
10. Explain the difference between justifying and exempting circumstance. Give examples to illustrate the difference.
- The difference between justifying and exempting circumstances is that justifying is doing or bending some
aspects in order for an action to be viewed morally right while exempting circumstances is making the doer of the
act be free from the responsibilities and punishment. An example of justifying circumstance is countering
arguments for every evidence that is thrown into an accused account and exempting circumstance is freeing the
abuse from all of the possible responsibilities and punishment if they were to be found guilty over a case that
they were battling.

The Scope and Meaning of Ethics

Definitions of Ethics - The name Ethics is derived from the greek word ethos, which means characteristic way of acting.
1. Ethics is the practical science of the morality of human actions
2. Ethics is the scientific inquiry into the principles of morality.
3. Ethics is the science of human acts with the reference to right and wrong.
4. Ethics is the study of human conduct from the standpoint of morality.
5. Ethics is the study of the rectitude of human conduct.
6. Ethics is the science which lays down the principles of right living.
7. Ethics is the practical science that guides us in our actions so that we may live rightly and well.
8. Ethics is a normative and practical science, based on reason, which studies human conduct and provides a norm for its
natural integrity and honesty.
9. According to Socrates, ethics is the investigation of life.
Definition of Terms
Science-systematic study or a system of scientific conclusions clearly demonstrated, derived from early established principles and duly
coordinated.
Morality-The quality of right or wrong in human conduct.
Human acts-acts done with knowledge and consent.
Morality and the Other Phases of Human life
-life is a "many-splendored thing".
-Morality is the basic element of human life and cannot be separated from the other phases of human activity.
 - Ethics and Education-Education develops the whole man; his moral, intellectual and physical capacities. Since
man, however, is primarily a rational moral being (endowed with reason and will, which marks him above brute
creation), the primary objective of education should be the development of these powers in man, which consists
of his true perfection. This is recognized in our constitution when it mentions "moral character" as the first and
primary aim of all education. "All schools should develop good moral character, personal discipline, civic
consciousness, etc."

- Morality and Low-Morality and Law are intimately related. Right and wrong, good and bad in human actions
presuppose a law or rule of conduct. Furthermore, the laws of the state are restatements, specifications or
interpretations of an anterior natural moral low. Legal only covers the external acts of man while moral governs
even the internal acts of man, such as the volitional and the intentional activities of the will and mind.

- Ethics and Art- Ethics stand for moral goodness; art for beauty. But as transcendentals the beautiful and good are
one. Evil always implies ugliness or defects and the good is always beautiful since it is the very object of desire
and therefore, like beauty, pleases and perceived

- Ethics and Politics-Man owes allegiance to the state. Politics aims at good government for the temporal welfare
of the citizens. But between the temporal welfare of the citizens. But between the temporal and spiritual and
eternal welfare there is no conflict. The two are inseparable in man's present state of existence, where the
material and the spiritual, the body and the spirit form one person. Politics has often become very dirty and the
reason is precisely because it is divorced from ethics.

- Religion and Ethics-Lastly, we have the closest relation between two phases of human activity: religion and ethics.
True ethics can never be separated from God because Ethics implies morality and morality presupposes a
distinction between right and wrong in human actions.

The Importance of Ethics

1. Ethics means right living and good moral character.
2. Education is the harmonious development of the whole man.
3. According to Socrates, "the unexamined life is not worth living for man"
Fundamental Concepts
Morality-the goodness or badness in a human act. It is not an imagined quality merely supposed to be found in human
acts.
Norm of Morality-Basis of distinction between right and wrong
1. The standard of right and wrong in human acts.
2. The mason why certain acts are morally right and why certain actions are wrong
Human Acts
By human acts in ethics, we mean
1. The (free) voluntary acts of man
2. Acts done with knowledge and consent.
3. Acts which are proper to man as man, because, of all animals, he alone has knowledge and freedom of will.
4. Acts that, we are conscious, are under our control and for which we are responsible
5. Human acts are those of which man is master, which he has the power of doing or not doing as he pleases
Work Ethics- a set of moral principles or values on work.
- discipline dealing with what is good and bad and with moral duty and obligations
WHAT DOES UNETHICAL BEHAVIOR MEAN?

To Self:

a. loss of trust

b. loss of one's good name

c. loss of confidentiality

d. loss of self-esteem

e. censured communication

f. lack of commitment

To the Client:

a. client not given quality service

b. loss of client

To the Organization:
a. Mission/Goal of organization not realized
HOW CAN WE MAKE AN ETHICAL WORKING
ENVIRONMENT

1. Make decisions to commit to ethics.

2. Recognize that you are a role model by definition, by
your actions, by your values.
3. Assume the responsibility for instilling ethical
behavior.
4. Determine what you consider ethical practice.
5. Articulate your values.
6. Train your staff.
7. Encourage open communication.
8. Be consistent.

Definition of Terms
Work Etiquette: the conduct or procedure required by
good breeding or prescribed by authority to be observed
in social or official life.
Work Virtues: refers to the perfection of our actions; in
the level of grace.
Work Attitude: expressive state of readiness to respond
positively or negatively.
Work Morality: rightness or wrongness of an act.
Work Legalities: related to man-made laws.
Work Manners: mode of presentation