I.

Criteria for Ethical Discussion

 Ethical issues involve actions that affect human life or well-being, like war, abortion, poverty, or
inequality.
 These actions carry serious consequences and are often debated.
 Sometimes it’s hard to tell if an issue belongs to ethics—that’s why judgment is needed.

II. Moral Agent

 A moral agent is a person who can think, choose, and act based on what they believe is right or
wrong.
 That person is responsible for their choices.
 We are encouraged to use reason over emotion when making moral decisions.
 After acting, the person is held accountable for the outcome.

III. Human Act vs. Act of Man

 Human Act:  Act of Man:

o Done knowingly and freely. o Done without thinking or control.
o Has intent, reason, and choice.
o Often instinctive or biological.
o Examples: helping others, lying, studying.
o Examples: breathing, blinking, scratching.
o The person is responsible for these acts.
o These do not involve moral responsibility.
Key Point: All human acts are acts of man, but not all acts of man are human acts—only human
acts involve moral choice and responsibility.

DEFINITION OF ETHICS

 matters such as the good thing that we should pursue and the bad thing that we should avoid;
 the right ways in which we could or should act and the wrong ways of acting.
 It is about what is acceptable and unacceptable in human behavior.
 It may involve obligations that we are expected to fulfill, prohibitions that we are required to
respect or ideals that we are encouraged to meet.

“Ethics as a subject for us to study is about determining the grounds for the values with particular and
special significance to human life.”

This is also known as valuation. Kinds of Valuation: AESTHETICS & ETHICS

1. DEFINITIONS OF FOUR KINDS OF ETHICS

A. A descriptive study of ethics reports how people, particularly groups, make their moral valuation
without making any judgment either for or against these valuations. This kind of study is for social
scientist, historian, sociologist, and anthropologist.
B. A normative study of ethics, as is often done in philosophy or moral theology, engages the
question: what practices are right and wrong. And what our obligations to other people or
future generations are. Focus: What people should do. It evaluates which actions are right or
wrong.

Normative ethics has to do with HUMAN ACTION. We focus on human action for it is
ACTION that we or MAN usually reacts to, whether for him that ACTION is acceptable or
not, not good or better, right or wrong.
C. Metaethics talks about the nature of ethics and moral reasoning. Discussions about whether ethics
is relative and whether we always act from self-interest are examples of meta-ethical discussions. Itis
the study of moral thought and moral language. It asks what morality actually is. The
metaethicist is interested in whether there can be knowledge of moral truths, or only moral feelings
and attitudes, and asks how we understand moral discourse as compared with other forms of speech
and writing.

D. Applied Ethics attempts to deal with specific realms of human action and to craft criteria for
discussing issues that might arise within those realms. The contemporary field of Applied Ethics arouse
in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Applied ethics is a branch of ethics devoted to the treatment of
moral problems, practices, and policies in personal life, professions, technology, and government.
Focus: Real-life issues and situations.

2. CLARIFICATIONS AND TERMINOLOGY

Recognizing the notions of good and bad, and right and wrong, are the primary concern of ethics
(normative ethics).

FIRST POINT OF CLARIFICATION

A. AESTHETICS. There are instances that our value judgment is not considered as part of ethics,
like, you find a movie “good” or a song “bad,” or you know of a “good” sawsawan for sinugbang
tuna, or it is “wrong” to wear barong tagalog tuck in, all these are not part of ethics. These are
under aesthetics.

“The word “aesthetics” is derived from the Greek word aesthesis (“sense” or “feeling”) and refers
to the judgments of personal approval or disapproval that we make about what we see, hear, smell,
or taste. In fact, we often use the word “taste” to refer to the personal aesthetic preferences that we
have on these matters, such as “his taste in music” or “her taste in clothes.”

B. ETIQUETTE. “There are instances considered as trivial in nature, like how to knock at the door
politely, it’s wrong to barge at one’s office, use of please as gauge of politeness, mangulangot is
wrong if done in public, all these are part of etiquette, which is concerned with right and
wrong actions, but not grave enough to be part of ethics. (about social rules and politeness.)

C. TECHNICAL VALUATION. “There are technical valuation, like, learning how to bake, there are
the right way to do first in baking, there are rules in basketball, so there right ways in playing.

“We derive from Greek word techne the English word “technique” and “technical” which are often
used to refer to a proper way (or right way) of doing things, but a technical valuation (or right and
wrong technique of doing things) may not necessarily be an ethical one as these examples show.

SECOND POINT OF CLARIFICATION

The Terms Ethics and Morals

 The term morals may be used to specific beliefs or attitudes that people have or to describe
acts that people perform. Sometimes it is said that an individual’s personal conduct is referred
to as his morals, and if he falls short of behaving properly, this can be described as immoral.
However, we also have terms such as “moral judgment” or “moral reasoning,” which suggest a
more rational aspect.
  The term ethics can be spoken of as the discipline of studying and understanding ideal human
behavior and ideal ways of thinking. It is acknowledged as an intellectual discipline belonging
to philosophy. However, acceptable and unacceptable behaviors are also generally described
as ethical and unethical. In addition, with regards to the acceptable and unacceptable ways of
behaving in a given field, we have the term professional ethics (legal ethics, medical ethics,
media ethics, etc).

THIRD POINT OF CLARIFICATION

TERMINOLOGIES - ISSUE, DECISION, JUDGMENT, & DILEMMA

 It can be called a moral issue, like, imagine a situation wherein a person cannot afford a
certain item, but then the possibility presents itself for her to steal it. This is a matter of ethics
(and not just law) insofar as it involves the question of respect for one’s property. We should
add that “issue” is also often used to refer to those particular situations that are often the
source of considerable and inconclusive debate (thus, we would often hear topics such as
capital punishment and euthanasia as moral issues).
 Moral decision is a situation confronted by the choice of what act to perform. I choose not to
take something I did not pay.
 When a person is an observer who makes an assessment on the actions or behavior of
someone, she is making a moral judgment. For instance, a friend of mine chooses to steal
from a store, and I make an assessment that it is wrong.
 Going beyond the matter of choosing right over wrong, or good over bad, and considering
instead the more complicated situation where in one is torn between choosing one of two
goods or choosing between the lesser of two evils: this is referred to as a moral dilemma. We
have moral dilemma when an individual can choose only one from a number of possible
actions, and there are compelling ethical reasons for the various choices. A mother may be
conflicted between wanting to feed her hungry child, but then recognizing that it would be
wrong for her to steal is an example of moral dilemma.

IV. Tool To Be Used in Ethical Discussion: Reason

What reasons do we give to decide or to judge that a certain way of acting is either right or
wrong?

A person’s fear of punishment or desire for reward (Punishment and reward) can provide him a reason for
acting in a certain way.

The point of this part of the lesson is REASON IS THE ONLY TOOL to be used and none others.
We all have to be rational.
In a certain sense, fear of punishment and desire for reward can be spoken of as giving someone
a “reason” for acting in a certain way. But the question then would be: Is this reason good enough?
That is to say, this way of thinking seems to be a shallow way of understanding reason
because it does not show any true understanding of why cheating on an exam is wrong or why
looking after a member of my family is in itself a good thing. The promise of rewards and the
fear of punishments can certainly motivate us to act, but are not in themselves a determinant
of the rightness or wrongness of a certain way of acting or of the good or the bad in a
particular pursuit.

Asking why brings us to a higher level of thinking. Perhaps one can rise above the particulars of a specific
situation, going beyond whatever motivation or incentive is present in this instance of cheating (or not
doing so). In other words, our thinking may take on a level of abstraction, that is, detaching itself from the
particular situation and arriving at a statement like, “Cheating is wrong,” by recognizing proper reasons for
not acting in this way. Beyond rewards and punishments, it is possible for our moral valuation – our
decisions and judgments – to be based on a principle. Thus, one may conclude that cheating is wrong
based on a sense of fair play or a respect for the importance and validity of testing. From this, we
can define principles as rationally established grounds by which one justifies and maintains her moral
decisions and judgments.

We can maintain principles, but we can also ask what good reason for doing so. Such reasons
may differ. So, for example, what makes death in a hazing a tragedy? One person may say that life is
sacred and God-given. Another person may declare that Human life has a Priceless dignity. Still another
may put forward the idea that taking another’s life does not contribute to human happiness but to human
misery instead. How exactly do we arrive at any of these claims? This is where We turn to theory. A
moral (ethical) theory, is a systematic attempt to establish the validity of maintaining certain
moral principles. Insofar as a theory is a system of thought or of ideas. It can also be referred
to as framework. We can use this term, “framework,” as a theory of interconnected ideas, and at the
same time, a structure through which we can evaluate our reasons for valuing a certain decision or
judgment.

No. Criteria Ancient Ethics Modern Morality

1. Basic Question What is the good life? What is What should one/I do? The
happiness and human question of the good life plays,
flourishing? at best, a sub-ordinate role.

2. What is the Self-centred: The person’s own Other-related: The interests of

Object of interests dominate. other people are most central.
Concern?

3. What is most Pursuit of Goals: Personal Universal moral obligations &

important? perfection, personal projects, rules: Individuals should seek
and personal relationships. for impartiality (and hence they
alienate themselves from their
own personal projects).

4. What is Agent: Most important are the Actions & Consequences: Most
examined? acting person and his/her important is the correctness of
character (agent-centred the action & consequence
ethics). (action & consequences
centred ethics).

5. Central Notions Virtues: aretaic notions for Norms: prescriptive notions

example good, excellence, concerning rules, duties,
virtue (aretaic language). obligations for example must,
should (deontic language).

6. Rationality is Rationality is seen as a capacity Rationality is “mainly” seen as

seen as? of context-sensitive insight and the capacity to (rationally)
decision-making. deduce inferences from
abstract propositions.

7. The Goals of The goals of human actions are The goals of human actions are
human actions objective (notion of happiness: individually defined by the
for example thinking, pleasure). people (subjectivism). No God,
no nature.
 8. Scope of Morality Adult male citizens with full Men, women, children, animals,
citizenship. environment.

9. Individual and The individual is in unity with The individual and the
Community the community (harmony). community are rather
disconnected from each other.

MORAL STANDARD
(fundamental HUMAN value)
Characteristics:
1. It has to do with matters or human actions that can seriously injure or benefit human (welfare, well-
being, or life), animals, or environment; like, child abuse, rape, murder. An action is good if it benefits
human, animals or environment. It is for the “common good.”
This characteristics is equivalent to criteria #3: It concerns with human welfare, well-being, LIFE, animals,
and environment

2. It is not established nor changed by authoritative individuals or bodies. It implies its rightness is innate.
Through reason, it can be defended as universal and good for humankind. Some say, its rightness or
goodness is “innate in the universe.” Like, killing of innocent people is absolutely wrong, massacre or
genocide is unethical or wrong and this does not need law to support it, reason alone is already adequate
to defend that massacre is unethical.

3. It is overriding, it takes precedence over other standards and considerations, especially self-interest. It
implies universal.

4. Based on impartial considerations. Hence, it is fair and just. Again, it implies universal.

5. It is objective and universal. Objective here is synonymous with universal, for it is not based on
considerations of cultures and faiths. It is not based on self-interest.

6. It uses special emotions (shame, guilt) and vocabulary (good, right, or ethical action and bad, wrong or
unethical action)

External Source of Authority.

A) Ethics and Law B) Ethics and Religion C) Ethics and

Culture.

A) LAW AS A SOURCE OF AUTHORITY

Law is one’s guide to ethical behavior. Laws from Philippine national level to barangay level
constrained Filipinos to obey and follow. The term positive law refers to the different rules and
regulations that are posited or put forward by an authority figure that require compliance. Many of
the law coincide with what one considers as unethical, like, murder, theft, etc. The advantage of law
as basis of ethics is the benefit of providing us with an objective standard that is obligatory and
applicable to all.
 We should realize that law is only prohibitive in nature. It constraints us from performing acts that
we should not do. The law does not tell us what to pursue, only what to avoid. The law does not
tell us what to do. If the law provide us on the don’ts, sana, it should guide us the dos.
Ethics exist beyond the law. If one can make a negative value judgment on an action but there
is law violation, that is a point toward saying that the law is not a good basis for ethics. Ethics is
not simply the obedience to law.

B) RELIGION AS A SOURCE OF AUTHORITY

It tells all Christian to obey God in all things. As a foundation for ethical values, this is referred to
as the divine command theory. The divinity called God, Allah or Supreme Being commands and
one is obliged to obey his Creator. There are persons and texts that one believes are linked to the
Divine.
Many of us are brought up with our religious upbringing that is why we have a strong inclination to
refer to our religious background as the backup for our ethical values. “Thou shall not kill.” thou
shall not steal.” These are clear codes of prohibitions that seem to coincide with our sense of what
ethics should rightly demand. This is better than law because religion is not only prohibitive,
but also provides ideals to pursue, like, to forgive those who sinned against us or be charitable to
those who have less. Notice that these are what man is ideally should do, not only prohibition just
like that of a law. Thus, someone may say - Ethics is following your religion.
There are problems that exist if religion is the only basis of ethics. One, on the practical level,
there are multiple religions and it is very possible that there exist conflicting code of what is right or
what is wrong or ethical standards.
Two, on the conceptual level: Let us try to understand these questions:
Is killing inherently wrong in itself or it is wrong because God commanded it?
“Let us clarify: our calling into question of the divine command theory is not a calling into question
of one’s belief in God; it is not intended to be a challenge to one’s faith. Instead, it is an invitation to
consider whether there may be more creative and less problematic ways of seeing the
connection between faith and ethics, rather than simply equating what is ethical with whatever
one takes to be commanded by God.
Remember: Ethics exists beyond law and religious orientation

RELIGION AND ETHICS

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.

C) CULTURE AS A SOURCE OF AUTHORITY

Focus on Diversity of Culture - Our exposure to different societies and their cultures makes us
aware that there are ways of thinking and valuing that are different from our own, that there is in
fact a wide diversity of how different people believe it is proper to act.
From reality of diversity of culture, there are different ways of valuations, meaning there is no
single universal standard, thus what is ethically acceptable or unacceptable is relative to, or that
is to say, dependent on one’s culture, this is called as cultural relativism.
Definition of Cultural Relativism
1) appealing for it conforms to our experience, which is the reality of the differences in how cultures
make their ethical valuations.
2) By taking one’s own culture as the standard, we are provided a basis for our valuations / judgment on
what is right or wrong action.
3) This teaches us to be tolerant of others from different cultures, as we realize that we are in no position
to judge whether the ethical thought or practice of another culture is acceptable or unacceptable. In turn,
our own culture’s moral code is neither superior to nor inferior to any other, but they would provide us the
standards that are appropriate and applicable to us.
Summary: Ethics is not simply obedience to law, not simply being faithful to one’s
religious affiliations, and be true to one’s cultural background. Ethics exist beyond law,
religion, and culture.
The Difficulty of Defining Culture - It is becoming difficult to determine what exactly defines
one’s culture.
My father is from Pampanga and my mother is from Leyte, and I was brought up in Manila: What is
my culture?
In an increasingly globalized world, the notion of a static and well-defined culture gives way to a
greater flexibility and integration. One result of this is to call into question an idea like cultural
relativism, which only makes sense if one could imagine a clear-cut notion of what can be defined
as my culture.
The concept of Cultural Relativism is problematic in the field of Ethics
We can conclude this criticism of cultural relativism by pointing out how it is a problem in our study
of ethics because it tends to deprive us of our use of critical thought. On the positive side,
cultural relativism promotes a sense of humility, urging us not to imagine that our own culture is
superior to another. Such humility, however, should go hand in hand with a capacity for a rational,
critical discernment that is truly appreciative of human values. Unfortunately, what happens in
cultural relativism is that it basically renders us incapable of discerning about the values we may
wish to maintain as we are forced to simply accept whatever our culture gives us. It keeps us from
exploring whether there are values that are shared between cultures; it keeps us from comparing
and judging the valuations that are made by different cultures. As previously mentioned, this
presumes that we can determine culture in the first place, which becomes increasingly
questionable in a transcultural world.

Rational Critical thinking can help in solving the limitation of cultural relativism. Look for
values shared by cultures.
CRITICISM on CULTURAL RELATIVISM WHEN APPLIED IN ETHICS
CULTURE AND ETHICS

Commonly, many people hold this idea that one’s culture dictates what is right or wrong for an
individual.

Filipinos’ generalizations about themselves usually end up empty since it is difficult to determine if
other cultures do not have the same trait. Filipinos believe that they are hospitable, does it mean
other cultures are not? They are but they show it differently. 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.

James Rachels, American philosopher, gave a clear argument against the validity of cultural
relativism in the world of ethics. Rachels defines cultural relativism as the position that claims that
there is no such thing as objective truth in ethics or morality. The argument of cultural relativism is
that since different cultures have different moral / ethical codes, then there is no correct moral /
ethical code that all cultures must follow. The implications is that each culture has its own
standard of right or wrong, its validity confined within the culture in question. 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.

He posits three absurd consequences of accepting the claim of cultural relativism.

1. No Criticism of Other Cultures

If cultural relativism is true, then we can’t say any culture is wrong—even if it does horrible things.

2. No Criticism of One's Own Culture

You also couldn’t criticize your own society if it does something unjust.

3. No Moral Progress

Cultural relativism would mean no improvement in moral values.

Rachel agrees that we should respect cultural differences, but that doesn't mean morality is
purely relative. Some moral values are shared across all cultures, like the idea that murder
is wrong. We can still criticize wrong actions, as long as we use careful reasoning and moral
reflection.

Ethics should not be limited to or judged only by one’s cultural standards, but neither should it reject a person’s
cultural beliefs and practices outright. Culture can offer insights that help a person understand what is truly
ethical. However, it is important not to enter ethical situations with the naive idea that problems will always be
solved just by following tradition or personal belief. Instead, individuals must actively challenge themselves to
grow in their understanding and judgment. Developing moral maturity is essential in facing ethical issues with
clarity and properly ordered values.