ETHICS
Ryan C. Buado
Social Science
Department
2
Chapter 2: Basic Concepts in Ethics
A. Rules and Relevance of Following Rules (3
Characteristics) p. 3
1. Rules as Effective Tools
14 Types of Rules
1. Laws are systematized rules that are created and adopted by
a country, community or organization to govern the actions of
people.
3
2. Policies are flexible temporary rules or courses of
action determined by a government, organization or
individual to respond to real situations. (By-Laws)
3. Principles are absolute, fundamentally applicable and
often open-ended official guidelines that are used to form
laws, regulations and other rules.
4
4. Moral or Ethical Principles [ethics (Greek: ethos) or
morals (Latin: mores)] are universal codes of conduct based
on ethical theories that guide people to do the good or right
and avoid the bad or wrong.
5. Norms (Standards) are expected, controlled or traditional
behaviors through social processes by a society or cultural
group from its members for control.
6. Regulations are rules that are created based on the laws
and adjusted on a flexible basis by government departments
to have effects on the laws.
5
7. Requirements are temporary rules needed to be accomplished
set by an authority, institution or organization.
8. Codes of Conduct are set of rules that summarizes norms,
religious rules (decorum), proper actions (gestures) and
responsibilities (work).
9. Guidelines are rules that are open to significant and flexible
interpretations based on situations or circumstances.
6
10. Formal Rules are documented and communicated rules,
e.g., laws, so that there is no excuse such as the ignorance
of the law; once laws are formalized it is the responsibility
of the citizen to strictly follow them.
11. Promulgated Rules are well communicated written rules
to those to whom they will be applied. Laws, regulations
and contracts should first be sufficiently promulgated.
7
12. Unwritten Rules are informal or undocumented rules
but could be orally communicated.
13. Unspoken Rules are “silent” or informal rules that are
understood without being written and communicated.
14. Customs are widely accepted or regular way of
behaving specific to particular society, place and time.
8
2. Rules as geared towards Happiness
3. Rules as Standards
9
Nature and Benefits of R.U.L.E.S. (p.7)
A. Rules REGULATE Behaviors
B. Rules UNFOLD Freedom
C. Rules as LOVE for Justice
D. Rules as EXERCISE of Authority
E. Rules as STANDARDS of Values
10
B. Moral Experience and Moral Standards vs. Non-Moral Standards
(p. 20)
Moral Experience
There are difficult times when, one has to choose what is wrong because
it follows a rule but with the intention of making everything right in the
end. Some continuously do the right or good even if it often brings
misfortune and suffering. This kind of experience is often called a moral
experience. Moral experience is the experience of the good.
A moral experience is choosing the most preferred or higher good,
values, principles, rules, standards over other goods, values, rules and
standards. Sometimes it is choosing something for the sake of a greater
rule, principle or value.
11
Moral Principles or Moral Values as Moral Standards
Not all situations of choosing between rules are moral
experiences. Requirements, fashion standards and
etiquettes that may bring difficult experiences are
examples of rules that are not considered components of
moral experiences. Choosing between rules of games is
not also considered a moral experiences because such
rules do not have a higher level quality unlike moral rules
or principles.
12
Deciding on what moral principles to prioritize over others
is the essence of moral experiences. It is choosing the
highest moral standard over other moral standards. It is no
longer the simple experience of the good, but the difficult
choosing of the better or greatest good. It can also be
choosing the societal standard over personal standard or
vice versa in view of greater values.
13
The ethical rules or moral principles (moral values) are
called moral standards precisely because they are most
valuable or with the highest quality of rules. Rules can be
standards but not all rules are standards. So, the rules that
are not moral principles are non-moral standards. This is
why there are laws that are not necessarily moral.
14
Moral Standards vs. Non-Moral Standards
1. Moral standards are oriented towards well-being.
2. Moral standards are practical.
3. Moral standards are binding.
4. Moral standards are universalizable.
5. Moral standards are autonomous.
6. Moral standards are impartial.
7. Moral standards are connected with emotions.
8. Moral standards are prescriptive.
Mnemonic device: WEPAPIBU
15
C. What Moral Dilemmas Are? (p. 32)
Morality
Morality in its minimum conception, “is the effort to guide one’s
conduct by reason—that is, to do what is right, there are the best
reasons for doing—while giving equal weight to the interests of
each individual who will be affected by what one does” (Rachel,
1993).
Morality happens in situations, which are called moral
dilemmas. It studies moral dilemmas in which moral experience
occur, moral standards are prioritized or chosen, and moral
arguments are developed to support a decision.
16
Moral Dilemmas
Dilemmas (two Greek words di – ‘having two of’ and lemma –
‘premise, proposition’) are difficult situations in which one
could not clearly or easily make choices or answers. Traveling
from Quezon City to Pasay City on a storm day, one may
experience being in a dilemma of whether to ride a bus or the
Metro Rail Transit (MRT). It may take time to decide because
one has to study both options first. Riding a bus may take
longer time with a danger of flooding as well as MRT could
malfunction on the way as it has been happening lately.
17
Just like standards compared to moral standards, dilemmas
are not necessarily moral dilemmas. Moral dilemmas are
complex or contradictory situations that often involve
conflicts of moral standards, moral principles or moral
values.
Simple moral dilemma is a situation of choosing between
right/good and the wrong/bad options.
18
There four crucial features of moral dilemmas are:
1. One is required to do each of two or more behaviors.
2. The two or more behaviors are based on moral standards.
3. One can do each of the two or more behaviors but one
cannot do both or all simultaneously;
4. One seems condemned to choose even the wrong/bad or fail
for doing what one ought to do.
19
Moral Dilemma Sample
A Father's Agonizing Choice (friesian.com)
You are an inmate in a concentration camp. A sadistic guard
is about to hang your son who tried to escape and wants you
to pull the chair from underneath him.
The Ethical Dilemma: He says that if you do not, he will not
only kill your son but some other innocent inmate as well.
You don't have any doubt that he means what he says. What
should you do?
20
4 Crucial Features A Father's Agonizing Choice (Situations)
1. Two (or more) behaviors To pull the chair that will kill his son or not to pull but will make the guard kill
his son and other inmates
2. Based on moral standards Protect every human life
Preserve human lives
3. Can do each behavior but cannot I can protect human life as well as preserve human lives. But I cannot
do simultaneously simultaneously do them because I have to choose either to preserve only one life
or many lives.
4. Condemned to choose even the I am condemned to either pull the chair that will kill my son or not to pull it though it
wrong/bad or fail for doing what will make the guard kill my son and other inmates. If I will kill my son, I am still
ought to be done bound to fail if the guard still kill us all.
21
Components of Human Act
Moral dilemmas always involve human act so that it is very
important to consider the four (4) components: Intention,
Means, Circumstance and End (MICE).
22
Intention pertains to the motive, purpose, goal or “end of the
agent” for which an action is done. The “end of the agent” is
different from the “end of the object.”
Means is the instrument or the action by which the intention
is carried out. It may also include or be under circumstance.
23
Circumstance consists of the important conditions of the
agent such as the time, place, process, situation and other
persons involved. This usually answers the what, when,
where, who and how.
End is the act’s form, substance, basis, direction, or object
about which the action is made. It is the “end of the object,”
consequence, outcome, actual conclusion or result.
24
D. Three Levels of Moral Dilemmas: Individual,
Organizational and Structural (p. 40)
1. Individual Dilemma. This is a personal moral problem, dealt
with and solved by the same single person. Most moral
decisions are based on individual dilemmas because every
human person has his own everyday moral experience and
moral standards to either follow or disobey. The individual
moral dilemma has the most significant impact on the
individual so that he alone must make the best decision most
likely for himself but could also be for others.
25
2. Organizational Dilemma. This is a common managerial
ethical problem that exist and are solved within an
institution or organization. Moral dilemmas in business,
medical, public and private organizations or smaller
organizations within these are solved in consideration of
organization’s moral standards found in the philosophy,
professional ethics, vision-mission, core values and
objectives of each organization.
26
3. Structural Dilemma. This is moral case on a macro level
where networks of institutions and operative theoretical
paradigms are massively involved. It is a “national” or
“global” problem on the systematic interconnection or web of
multi-sectoral organizations and institutions that demands a
managerial moral solution. This can be the double, triple or
multiple of the organizational dilemma as shown by the
illustration at the left. It is more complicated and vast that to
make a simple and immediate decision is not that easy, not
that fast. There are a lot of considerations or more conflicting
moral standards to study.
27
E. Foundation of Morality: Freedom-Responsibility for
Ones’ Act and to Others (p. 50)
Freedom as Responsibility
Freedom is the human person’s power to determine her
actions according to her judgment or reason after having
compared options or alternatives. She cannot have all the
choices. She must only choose one or more but not all.
Freedom is not absolute everything.
28
For other thinkers, freedom is structured, situated or
conditioned. This means that it is not simply what one wants
to do. Freedom is essentially a responsibility. Every freedom
has its limitation.
If the human person acts freely, then she is also not acting
other possible actions. Her free choice of doing an action is
simultaneously dropping other actions or choices. Her
choosing, her action, is a responsibility to take all the
possible consequences of the action as well as the possible
negative or positive things that may happen in the process of
and after doing so.
29
Soren Kierkegaard believed that the human person exists being
a certain kind of individual. It is freedom which is active
participation or engagement with the world and one’s own life.
The human person is caught up in a web of existence where
freedom abundantly teases an individual to strive, to consider
alternatives, to choose among options, to decide concretely and
to make commitments. Such actions are all called abilities to
respond. This “ability to respond” is aptly called freedom.
Humans should be able to respond (not just react) to every
situation. Thus, humans are both free and responsible or are
responsibly free in all their actions.
30
Moral standards necessarily express how people should be
responsible in interacting with others. These show how much
one care about other people. They inform them to be
responsible with their choices in consideration with the others.
31
Martin Heidegger further talked about this in his
“being-in-the-world,” which could also be
“being-in-freedom” or “being-in-responsibility.” Like the
human person who is practically thrown into the world as
indicated by the “in-the-world,” she is “in-freedom,”
surrounded by freedom, and exists with or within the bounds
of freedom.
32
Freedom is all around her, and within her. Whatever move
she does is her “responsibility” whereby as long as her
actions are “in-freedom” or within the “bounds” of freedom,
she must be responsible. While she is “in-freedom, she
cannot escape being “in-responsibility” not only to herself
but also anything “in-the-world.”
33
So one should be able to respond for being-in-freedom by
being both free and responsible no matter what. One should
ensure that all of one’s free actions are real manifestations or
full embodiment of responsibility. One should be responsible
of her own actions and others. This can be possible by
following moral standards.
34
Freedom as Foundation of Morality (p. 51)
All persons are born to be free, to be ethical. As they are
born to breathe, to cry, to hear, to see, to smile, to stand, to
walk, to laugh, and to think, they discover their freedom.
But as they meet other people, they begin to realize how
often their freedom gets in conflict with others’. There is
limit to their freedom so that they should be responsible in
making the good or right choices.
35
Freedom as innate quality of the human person determines
morality. Humans are born with freedom that enables them
reach their potential of becoming moral beings.
Morality as a choice between good/right and bad/wrong is
founded on freedom. Practically, morality is about choosing
moral standards from other standards or moral values from
many values. It is about choosing the good choices instead of
the evil ones. Morality is fundamentally a choice, a freedom.
36
It is impossible that one has freedom, if one cannot even make
a simple choice. Choices are necessary requirements of
morality. If one is to make a choice that comes from a good
reason but may not be good for others, then that is the beauty
of freedom.
Freedom that offer differences, alternatives, variances,
modifications and changes only exemplify the essential
diversity of the human person.
37
So whatever moral standards or moral values left from
choosing, classifying and prioritizing are all gathered
together to define one’s morality. And if one’s morality is
dictated upon by anyone or group, it ceases to exist simply
because one’s morality is fundamentally free.
38
F. Minimum Requirement for Morality: Reason and
Impartiality (p. 58)
Minimum Requirement for Morality
Morality as a fundamental choice between good and bad
requires reason and impartiality. Thus, for one to be able to
choose especially the good or right, one must follow moral
standards which is only attributed as a product of reason and
exhibits impartiality.
39
A moral person who is conscientious or who uses reason is
one who is concerned impartially with the common interests
affected by what one does. So a person of reason is willing
to listen, to scrutinize, to revise and to undergo deliberations.
Reason is alone capable of moral judgment that is backed by
logical reasoning. It has a causal structure wherein one can
expect rational processes or actions to be judged as good or
bad. It holds one answerable for the norms or moral
standard. It also holds one answerable for one’s emotions.
40
Reason and Impartiality as Minimum Requirement for
Morality
Emotions would cause a lot of suffering without the aid of
reason. Reason’s intellectual deliberations in societies
correct the problems on emotions. These allow intellectual
objections be expressed and become incorporated in the
moral evaluative system.
41
As reason is involved in determining moral behavior it
somehow distinguishes people from non-human animals.
But it may not be best to refer to the capacity or reason
alone. Reason is just a minimum requirement of morality
just as other thinkers may consider intuition, virtue or
end as those which dictate moral behaviors.
42
Being impartial (not partial, fairness vs. biased)) is being
holistic, inclusive and complete. In morality, one must be
fair, objective, disinterested, unbiased — reasonable.
Impartiality is the essential character of reason. It is the
quality of reason that distinguishes it from subjectivity,
partiality and uncertainty of emotion. Rachels (2003) calls
this “a proscription against arbitrariness in dealing with
people.”
43
The Editorial Policies of the Australian Broadcasting
Corporation (2007) also advocated elements of impartiality
which are as follows:
∙ truth ∙ transparency
∙ rigor ∙ completeness
∙ context ∙ independence
∙ distance
∙ fairness
∙ balance
∙ accuracy
∙ neutrality
∙ objectivity
44
∙ self-awareness
∙ even-handedness
∙ range of perspectives
∙ good editorial reasons’
∙ without preconceptions
∙ absence of prejudgment
∙ inclusion of alternative view
∙ not expressing personal views
∙ not promoting particular views
∙ decision-making on news values only
∙ absence of the effects of conflicts of interest
45
With the rules of reason such as the moral standards, people
are forbidden to treat others differently (discrimination) or to
treat some differently from others with special favor or for
personal feeling.
Every treatment and application of the law differently to
others should be done with good reason so that the principle
of discrimination is applied correctly like in the law
enforcement wherein the police or the military discriminates
the criminal from the civilians. If these are done differently
with bad reason, it is unacceptable and should be rendered just
penalty.
46
“There is a white racist who holds that it is right for the best jobs
in society to be reserved of white people. He is happy with a
situation in which the major corporation executives, government
officials, and so on are white, while blacks are limited mostly to
menial jobs; and he supports the social arrangements by which
this situation is maintained. Now we can ask for reasons; we can
ask why this is thought to be right. Is there something about
white people that makes them better fitted for the highest-paying
and most prestigious? Do they care more about themselves and
their families? Are they capable of benefiting more from the
availability of such positions? In each case, the answer seems to
be no; and if there is no good reason for treating people
differently, discrimination is unacceptably arbitrary.” (p.15)
47
Impartiality as fairness requires evidence or good reason
to support behaviors or decisions for everyone especially
when few or some are left unaffected by such behaviors.
Everybody is equally important and should be considered
in making any moral decision or behavior. Impartiality is
actually synonymous with justice.
