1 | ETHICS 1

UNIT 1: INTRODUCTION TO PHILOSOPHY AND ETHICS

1.0. Intended Learning Outcomes:

1. Differentiate the various perspective of Philosophy.

2. Create a timeline that presents the history of ethics as part of philosophy.
3. Formulate reflective essay about philosophizing as road to ethical
actions.

1.1. Introduction:
In the current shift of the educational system in the Philippines. Subjects
were brought down to the implementation of R.A. 10533, which also opened
for other subjects in college to be revised. During its revision, some subjects
were merged and some were also given a considerable emphasis.
In the Senior High School program, the topics about morality are
adequately tackled in various subjects such as Personal Development and
Introduction to Human Philosophy. These subjects give students an eye-opener
for them to identify that human as we are. We are responsible for doing what
is good and avoiding what is evil.
This chapter gives you back the history of philosophy and how
the branches developed, also looking at the vital role that it played in the
development of ethics.

1.2.1. History of Philosophy:

Time to Think!
In a group, make an acrostic as to how should one define
the meaning of PHILOSOPHY. You have 10 minutes to do
the activity. Goodluck!

Deepening:

Western culture began with philosophy. Greek thought flourished in

Athens in the 5th century BC. Christian thought dominated philosophy from
the Roman empire to the Enlightenment. Epistemology and ethical systems
emerged in the 18th century. By the late 1800s, language, logic, and meaning
took center stage, and the 20th century saw one of the greatest intellectual
surges ever. Philosophy is now used in science, combat, politics, and artificial
intelligence (Super Scholar, 2020).
 1 | ETHICS 2

Philosophy means "love of wisdom." Philosophers

Notes here:
aim to comprehend basic facts about themselves, the
world, and their connections to each other. Philosophy is
similar academically. Philosophy students ask, answer,
and defend their replies to life's fundamental issues.
Academic philosophy is typically split into main fields of
study to make it more orderly (Florida State University,
2020).
I. "Philosophy is the love of wisdom "
Pythagoras of Croton (born on the Greek island of
Samos, c. 580 B.C.) coined the Greek term "philosopher,"
meaning "lover of wisdom," to contrast with "wise man"
(sophist). He said he was only a wisdom-loving man, not
a wise man. Socrates, whose only wisdom was that he did
not think he knew what he did not know, did not think
himself wise when he was not (Plato, Apology 23b),
suggests that modesty invented the word "philosopher"
("lover of wisdom"), from which the word "philosophy"
("the pursuit of wisdom [by the lover of wisdom]")
came. Note that ‘Sophia' is not always translated as
'wisdom'. Socrates calls a shoemaker's expertise wise in
Plato's Apology, but we don't (Angelo, 2018).
II. Branches of Philosophy (Angelo, 2018):
Literature and studies have identified many
branches of philosophy. One might have to ask which of
them is correct. But in this topic, we will now focus our
lens of study on the branches from various pieces of
literature considering the idea presented by Angelo (2018)
in his work, where he consolidated all the concepts and
theories of literature and studies. The Branches of
Philosophy are as follows:
1. Metaphysics (ta meta ta physiká). The term of
the work in Aristotle's list that comes meta
("after") his physics texts. The first history of
philosophy by Aristotle is in the book.
1.1. Aristotle called metaphysics "First
Philosophy" or "Theology". Study of things'
first (or, final) causes (or, principles). Real or
appearance?
1.2. He further identified two ideas that where
 1 | ETHICS 3

the idea of metaphysics will be applied.

Notes here:
First is, Natural Theology which "Talk about
the gods" was what the Greeks meant by
"theology." This talk can be divided into
Natural Theology, which is the study of gods
or God without reference to revelation, and
Divine Theology (which is not philosophy),
which is the study of gods or God with
reference to revelation: demonstrations
based on revealed truths (i.e. religious
authority, e.g. sacred scripture, myths and
legends; in the Christian tradition: "faith
seeking understanding").
1.3. Moreover, the idea of asking the idea about
things beyond physical connects with the
idea of Leibniz when he asks the question,
"Why is there anything?"
2. Epistemology. Questions of trust, assurance, and
knowing. (Descartes: Is it feasible to know
anything with total certainty? because is there
anything that cannot be doubted?) Is it feasible to
know anything? Can we know everything? What
are the different types of beliefs? ("Theories of
knowing" like "correspondence" and "cohesion").
3. Axiology. This branch of philosophy talks all
about Ethics, Aesthetics, and Social. Let us then
explore each of them:
3.1. Ethics. It examines moral issues like right
and wrong, good and evil, and how we
should live. "Can you deduce ought from is?"
Hume. Reason verses morality. Greek
Sophists distinguish between nomos
(practice, custom) and physis (nature).
Responsibility. Ethics. Morals is Latin for
ethics. They mean the same.
3.2. Aesthetics. Beauty and art are the subject of
this study. What does "worth" mean? What
justifies the term "Axiology" for ethics and
aesthetics? What does "value" mean in
aesthetics? In ethics, it means "judge about
good and bad." (Is it significant?)
3.3. Social. It is the study of politics (i.e., life in
the society or state, from the Greek polis:
'city-state'; Aristotle believed that the ideal
democratic state would have 10,000 people).
 1 | ETHICS 4

4. Logic. It is the study of politics (i.e., life in the

Notes here:
society or state, from the Greek polis: 'city-
state'); Aristotle believed that the ideal
democracy state would have 10,000 people and
no logos ('important term'). (1) "The art of
thinking" (dialectic): formal and casual logic. (2)
The study of the "logic of language"—signs
versus their meanings, sense versus folly,
definition, clarity, and obscurity—only as it
impacts philosophy issues (Logic is distinct from
Philosophy of Language). (a) The study of the
query "What are the right rules for reasoning?" is
logic as a field of philosophy, and (b) applying
the rules to specific philosophical issues is logic
as an implement of philosophy. (Aristotle's
omission of logic as a field of philosophy is odd.)
5. Natural Philosophy (now called 'natural
science'). Philosophy and science philosophy ask
"Is science a philosophy?"
6. The Philosophy of X. Where any topic can be X.
The Theory of X asks, what is X? its subject's
limits? What's its purpose? Example:
6.1. Philosophy of Mathematics (Foundations
of Mathematics). Mathematics—reality or
notes on paper? Geometric point? Numbers?
6.2. Philosophy of Science. Science theory: what
is it? Are data "theory laden"? If science has
truth, what is it? Social Science Theory.
6.3. Philosophy of Religion. (the neutral study
of religion: What is religion?)
6.4. Philosophy of Language
6.5. Philosophy of Law (e.g. physis vs. nomos)
6.6. Philosophy of Education
6.7. Philosophy of Medicine (health and illness -
- by what criterion is something classified as
being one or the other?)
6.8. Philosophy of Economics (Is economics a
science?)
6.9. Philosophy of History. both critical and
theoretical philosophy of history: (a) Is there
a pattern or cycle to historical events? (b)
How do historians choose facts and theory
and create "historical periods"? “
 1 | ETHICS 5

1.2.2. History of Ethics

Time to Think!
In a group, make a timeline that would present the
proponent and development of ethics through various time.
You have 10 minutes to do the activity. Goodluck!

As Ethics is one of the essential branches of Philosophy. Therefore, it is

important to ask, “Where can we trace the origin of Ethics?” All philosophers
and researchers have their point of view on where Ethics started, but knowing
and considering articles and research that would tell us where Ethics began is
very important for us to have a clear vision of where and when Ethics
flourished. In the account presented by Singer (2021), he explained the origin
of ethics in an order that one can trace clearly.

Moral philosophy, or ethics, studies morality. The word also refers to

any morality code. Ethics addresses such issues at all levels. . . Ethical decisions
and standards are now used instead of moral ones. These uses expand ethics.
The word originally meant the study of morality, not morality itself. Ethics is
moral theory.

I. The Origin of Ethics:

A. Mythical Accounts (Introduction of Moral Codes)

How did ethics start? Ethics—the methodical study of morality—could

only have arisen when humans began to contemplate the best way to live. After
cultures evolved morality, usually in the form of common right and wrong
behavior, this thoughtful era arose. Even if they failed, such norms prompted
thought. . . The Code of Hammurabi, presented by the sun god Shamash, is on
a black Babylonian stone in the Louvre in Paris. Another example is the
Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) story of God giving Moses the Ten
Commandments on Mount Sinai (14th–13th century BCE). Plato's debate
Protagoras (428/427 348/347 BCE) recounts Zeus's compassion for the weak
humans who couldn't compete with the beasts. To compensate for these
shortcomings, Zeus gave people morality and law and justice so they could live
in bigger groups and work.
Nothing else could justify morality. The clergy gained power by
assigning virtue to God. It's still said that virtue requires faith. This view
considers ethics a subset of religion (moral theology). Plato knew morality was
 1 | ETHICS 6

made by a divine force was problematic. Plato pondered divine favor in

Euthyphro. If this were true, Plato argued, the gods would not approve of such
acts because they are good. Why do they like them? Is their support random?
Plato believed this was untenable and that morality must be autonomous of the
gods. Modern thinkers accept Plato's logic because the alternative implies that
if the gods had approved of hurting children and disapproved of aiding
neighbors, then torment would have been good and neighborliness bad.
B. Problem of Divine Origin:

Modern theists (see theism) believe that God is good and would never
accept of harming children or not aiding friends. However, the theist would
have implied that virtue exists apart from God. Without an objective measure,
saying God is good means only that God approves. Thus, even for those who
believe in God, divine creation cannot explain morality. Different account
needed.
Other religion-morality links exist. Divine revelation is the only safe
way to determine morality, even if it exists separately of God or the gods. This
view is flawed because deity teachings and their interpreters disagree on good
and evil. Without a measure for the validity of a message or interpretation,
people are no better off morally than if they decided good and evil on their own
without faith.

Religion's morality was traditionally linked to ethics. The basic reason

was that those who obey the moral law will spend forever in heaven while
others burn in hell. In more complex forms, faith inspired rather than self-
served. Religion answers the ethical query "Why should I be moral?" in its
crudest or most refined form. (See ethics and deeds.) As this essay will show,
faith is not the only option.
C. Prehuman Ethics (Nonhuman Behavior)

History cannot explain morality's roots because no human culture

existed before it had morality. Anthropology is useless because all human
cultures studied so far had their own values. (except perhaps in the most
extreme circumstances). Fortunately, another query method is possible.
Humans and their nearest cousins, the apes, live in social groups, so their
shared parent probably did too. Thus, human morality may be rooted in wild
animal group behavior and evolution.
Even wild species need social rules. If its members constantly fight, no
group can survive. Social animals usually avoid fighting each other or, if they
do, end the fight when the lesser animal submits. This resembles human
 1 | ETHICS 7

morality. However, the similarities go further. Social species, like people, may
help others at the expense of themselves. Male baboons protect the group from
attackers as they flee. Wolves and wild dogs return meat to pack members not
present at the kill. Gibbons and chimps will share food after a motion. Dolphins
push ill or wounded dolphins to the top for hours to breathe.
Evolutionary theory states that those who do not fight to live and
propagate will be removed by natural selection, making such apparent
altruism odd. However, evolutionary theory applied to social conduct shows
that evolution is not so cruel. Kin selection explains some altruism. Parent-child
expenses are the most evident.
D. Anthropology and Ethics

Many people think there are no moral universals because cultures vary
so much. This has been disproven. Of course, the basic concepts outlined so far
are handled very differently. Traditional Chinese society viewed children's
duty to their parents differently from modern Western society. However,
almost all cultures value kinship and exchange. For clear reasons, all cultures
limit slaying and injuring other members.
After this shared basis, moral differences outweigh similarities.
Variations have long fascinated humans. According to Herodotus (died 430–
420 BCE), Darius I (550–486 BCE) once called some Greeks and asked them how
much he would have to pay them to eat their fathers' corpses. The Indians
pleaded with him not to discuss the atrocity. Herodotus concluded that each
nation values its rituals.
The 19th century was the first time Westerners studied moral
differences. In The Origin and Development of the Moral Ideas (1906–08), the
Finnish anthropologist Edward Westermarck (1862–1939) compared
differences between societies in matters such as the wrongness of killing
(including killing in warfare, euthanasia, suicide, infanticide, abortion, human
sacrifice, and dueling); the duty to support children, the aged, or the poor;
forms of permissible sexual relationship; the status of women; the right to
property and what constitutes theft; the holding of slaves; the duty to tell the
truth; dietary restrictions; concern for nonhuman animals; duties to the dead;
and duties to the gods. Westermarck showed great variety in what cultures
deemed good conduct in all these areas. Recent, though less thorough, studies
have shown that human societies can thrive while having vastly diverse views
on all such issues, though some groups within a society may do better under
some sets of ideas than others.
As mentioned, ethics is not about describing various cultures' moral
systems. Anthropology and sociology handle that descriptive job. Ethics
justifies morality (or with the impossibility of such a justification). However,
 8
1 | ETHICS
ethics must take note of the changes in moral systems because it has been
argued that this variety shows that morality is simply usual and thus always
relevant to specific cultures. This view holds that morality is only true in its
society. Good and bad just mean "approved in my society" or "disapproved in
my society," so searching for an objective, logically defensible ethics is a mirage.
This view can be countered by emphasizing that most human
moralities share some traits. This logic is fallacious. Common traits are not right
just because evolutionary theory favors them. Evolution has no morality. To
say that care for kin is good because evolutionary theory supports it is to try to
infer values from facts (see below the apex of moral sense theory: Hutcheson
and Hume). However, uniform approval does not make something right. If all
human cultures enslaved any group they could capture, some freethinking
moralists could still say slavery is bad, even if they had few followers. Thus,
uniform support for family and exchange does not imply empirical
justification.

This case contrasts ethics with factual sciences. Whether human moral
norms are similar or very different, the issue of how a person should act stays
open. Telling unsure people what society says they should do won't help. Even
if told that most human cultures agree and that this consensus comes from
evolved human nature, they may still act differently. This variety does not
preclude an objective answer: perhaps most cultures did it wrong. This essay
will also discuss the potential of absolute morality, a central topic of ethics.
II. The History of Western Ethics
After discovering the origin of ethics from the perspective of various
civilizations, the western part of the world had its chance and flourishing
history of ethics. Let us then explore the vast ocean of the development of Ethics
in the Western world.
A. The Ancient Middle East and Asia
As cultures learned to write, they recorded their social ideals. The first
recorded reports of ethics are these.
B. The Middle East

The oldest ethics texts are 3,000-year-old lists of rules for Egyptian royal
sons. They usually offer wise advice on how to live happily, avoid problems,
and improve one's job by pleasing peers. There are, however, several passages
that recommend more broadly based ideals of conduct, such as the following:
rulers should treat their people justly and judge impartially between their
subjects; they should aim to make their people prosperous; those who have
 9
1 | ETHICS
bread should share it with the hungry; humble and lowly people must be
treated with kindness; one should not laugh at the blind or at dwarfs.
Why obeys these rules? Did ancient Egyptians believe in doing good
just because? As the saying goes, "Honesty is the best policy." They also stress
reputation. However, these rules were meant for the upper classes, so it's
unclear why aiding the poor would have boosted one's image. Thus, the rules'
writers must have believed that making people happy and wealthy and helping
the poor is good.
Precepts are not academic ethics. No effort is made to find basic moral
concepts to better comprehend ethics. Justice is prominently featured, but there
is no talk of how to settle disputes about justice. If the rules clash, no ethical
problems are examined. The rules contain solid insights and useful advice but
discourage academic speculation.
Other early rules of ethics have the same practical bent. "An eye for an
eye, a tooth for a tooth" is often cited as the foundation of Hammurabi's Code.
The law has no such concept. It often sentences theft and bribery to death. Even
the eye-for-an-eye law applies only if the initial victim is a noble; if it is a
commoner, the penalty is a silver fee. Different punishments were apparently
not justified. No one is defending the code's moral ideals.
Egyptians and Babylonians enslaved the Hebrews. Thus, the law of
ancient Israel, which was finalized during the Babylonian Exile, reflects both
ancient Egyptian ideals and the Code of Hammurabi. Exodus mentions "life for
life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth. "Hebraic law does not differentiate, as the
Babylonian law does, between patricians and commoners, but it
does stipulate that in several respects’ foreigners may be treated in ways that it
is not permissible to treat fellow Hebrews; for instance, Hebrew slaves, but not
others, had to be freed without ransom in the seventh year. Yet, in other
respects Hebraic law and morality developed the humane concern shown in
the Egyptian precepts for the poor and unfortunate: hired servants must be
paid promptly, because they rely on their wages to satisfy their pressing needs;
slaves must be allowed to rest on the seventh day; widows, orphans, and the
blind and deaf must not be wronged; and the poor man should not be refused
a loan. A social state tax existed. “Love thy neighbor as thyself,” a liberal form
of exchange, encapsulated this humane concern.
Semitic clan law taught essential orders one for each digit to make them
easier to recall, which led to the Ten Commandments (Sets of five or 10 laws
are common among preliterate civilizations). The Hebrew rules emphasized
God's tasks more than other regional laws. This emphasis persisted in the more
detailed laws laid down elsewhere; as much as half of such legislation was
concerned with crimes against God and ceremonial and ritualistic matters,
though there may be other explanations for some of these ostensibly religious
requirements concerning the avoidance of certain foods and the need for
ceremonial cleansings.
Proverbs and prophetic writings from ancient Israel survive alongside
complex legal documents. Like Egyptian rules, proverbs are short and lack
logic. However, they encourage righteous, God-pleasing behavior more than
 10
1 | ETHICS 0

the Egyptian rules. Though God honors the just, job advice is scarce. The Book
of Job addresses this question: why do the best people often have the worst
luck? The book offers no remedy other than trust in God, but its increased
knowledge of the issue may have led some to believe in praise and discipline
in another world as the only option.
Prophetic literature includes a lot of social and moral critique, but it
mostly denounces rather than discussing what virtue is or why there is so much
misconduct. The Book of Isaiah's early utopia—"the desert shall blossom as the
rose...the wolf also shall dwell with the lamb"—is notable. They will not harm
or ruin my holy mountain.”

C. Indian Ethics

Indian ethics began philosophically, unlike ancient Egypt and

Babylonia. The Vedas' philosophy and religious conjecture about reality
includes ethics. 1500–1200 BCE. The oldest philosophy writings in the world,
they may be the first philosophical ethics.
The Vedas are songs, but their gods are eternal truth and fact. Rita, from
which Western right is derived, is the primary truth of the world in Vedic
thought. Thus, to see through delusion and comprehend the final truth of
human life is to understand right. Enlightenment is knowing reality and living
wisely, which are the same.
Thus-derived ideals have useful uses. These uses were based on four
life goals: wealth, fulfillment of wants, moral duty, and spiritual perfection—
liberation from a mortal existence. Honesty, rectitude, charity, peace, decorum,
and inner purity pursue these aims. Falsehood, egoism, abuse, cheating, theft,
and harming living things are denounced. Because the eternal moral law is part
of the universe, to do what is praiseworthy is to act in harmony with the
universe, and accordingly such action will receive its proper reward;
conversely, once the true nature of the self is understood, it becomes apparent
that those who do what is wrong are acting self-destructively.
The Upanishads, a metaphysical text from the middle of the 1st century
BCE, modified these core principles. The Upanishads accept the Indian caste
system and its complex laws. However, ethics is not lawful. Ethical behavior
comes from within. It is part of the drive for spiritual purity, the best of the four
life aims.
This early moral theory became stiff and fixed over the ages, provoking
several responses. The Charvaka, or secular school, mocked sacred rituals,
saying the Brahmans (priestly order) created them to make money. When the
Brahmans defended animal killings by saying the slain beast gets directly to
heaven, the Charvaka asked why they didn't slay their elderly parents to get
there faster. Charvaka ethics advised people to enjoy the present rather than
wait for spiritual freedom.
Another Vedic response, Jainism, got the contrary results. Jain doctrine
emphasizes mental freedom and kindness. In pure intellectual fashion, the
Jains found all virtue in pacifism. Nonviolence applies to all living beings, not
just people. Vegetarian Jains.
 1 | ETHICS 11
1
They are often ridiculed by Westerners for the care they take to avoid
injuring insects or other living things while walking or drinking water that may
contain minute organisms; it is less well known that Jains began to care for sick
and injured animals thousands of years before animal shelters were thought of
in Europe. Western ethics distinguishes between doing and not doing. Jains do
not.
Nonviolence underpins other moral obligations. Lying can cause
mental harm. Stealing is another form of harm, but because there is no
difference between acts and inaction, even riches is seen as robbing the poor
and needy of the means to fulfill their needs. Nonviolence implies
propertylessness. Ascetics and celibates were expected of Jain clerics. However,
ordinary Jains followed a slightly less strict rule to implement the main types
of pacifism while still allowing for a normal life.
Buddhism was the other major ethical theory to emerge from the
ossified Vedic doctrine. He led a princely life with all the luxuries until he was
29. The "Four Signs"—an old man, an ill person, a body being cremated, and a
monk meditating under a tree—woke him up. He contemplated old age, illness,
and death and became a monk. He lived an austere life of abstinence for six
years before realizing, while sitting under a tree, that the answer was kindness
for all.
Buddhism has often taken on sacred symbols over the ages. However,
the Buddha strongly criticized faith. He thought religion rituals were pointless
and theology was nonsense. He avoided discussing spiritual issues like soul
life. The Buddha preached kindness and unity instead of religion. Such a life
could lead to heaven, where all living beings are free from suffering. This global
kindness ethos is akin to Jains. The Buddha offered a "middle path" between
self-indulgence and self-renunciation based on his own experience. It combines
the best of both sides. Living a life of kindness and love for all brings the
ascetic's freedom from selfish desires and a calm and contentment greater than
joy.
Buddhism's aim is bliss, which can be achieved through meditation.
Nirvana is a union of the self with the general self in which all things
participate. The Mahayana Buddhist seeker to enlightenment vows to become
a bodhisattva (buddha-to-be) and not accept final freedom until the world has
reached bliss.
Buddhism is an Indian moral theory because the Buddha taught in
India. Buddhism did not last in its homeland. Instead, it moved to Sri Lanka,
Southeast Asia, Tibet, China, Korea, and Japan. Buddhism became a rigid faith
with cults, rituals, and beliefs, like Vedic thought.

D. Chinese Ethics
Laozi (c. 6th century BCE) and Confucius (551–479 BCE) were China's
best moral thinkers. The Dao, or Supreme Principle, is Laozi's most famous
concept. The Dao is built on Chinese simplicity and honesty. Living simply,
honestly, and true to oneself and ignoring the diversions of daily life is the Dao.
Daodejing, Laozi's text on the Dao, is only aphorisms and solitary passages,
making it hard to take an ethical theory from it. Laozi was a moral cynic who
 12
1 | ETHICS 2
denied virtue and kindness, presumably because he saw them as externally
forced rather than internal. Laozi, like the Buddha, considered rank, wealth,
and beauty empty and unimportant compared to a tranquil inner life. He
stressed kindness, calm, and peace. “It is the way of the Dao to recompense
injury with kindness,” he said 600 years before Jesus.
A meeting between Laozi and Confucius is said to have confused the
younger Confucius. Confucius was more grounded in social change. As
minister of justice, his region was known for its honesty, regard for the elderly,
and care for the poor. Confucius' actual lessons had a larger impact on China
than Laozi's.
Confucius didn't arrange his advice. Sayings, aphorisms, and stories in
response to pupil queries are his lessons. They aim to make the pupil a junzi,
or "gentleman" or "superior man." In contrast to the feudal ideal of the noble
king, Confucius portrayed the better man as gentle and pensive, driven by the
desire to do good rather than profit. The idea is only shown by various cases,
some of which are trite: “A superior man’s life rises. The better man is wide
and fair, while the lesser man is petty and takes sides.
Confucius answered a disciple's plea for a single term to lead one's life
in one of his written sayings. He replied, "Is reciprocity a word?" What you
don't want done to you, don't do to others." This law appears several times in
Confucian writing and may be the highest ethical standard. However, this
general principle is not used to decide what to do when two or more specific
duties—like the duty to parents and the duty to peers, both of which are
important in Confucian ethics—conflict.
Confucius never explained why the better man picks virtue over
wealth. More than 100 years after his death, his disciple Mencius (Mengzi; c.
372–c. 289 BCE) claimed that people are innately prone to do what is good. Poor
parenting and lack of knowledge cause evil, not human nature. Xunzi (c. 300–
c. 230 BCE), another prominent Confucian disciple, believed that people
innately seek wealth and hate others. Morality prevents enmity from acting this
way. The Confucian school believed in the junzi but disagreed on whether it
should govern people's innate wants or let them be realized.
E. Ancient Greece Ethics
Western philosophy began in ancient Greece. Next, we'll examine
Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle's views. Ethical thought from earlier ages spurred
philosophy's rapid bloom. Like other cultures, 7th- and 6th-century BCE lyric
writing had moral rules but no clear ethical stance. Plato and Aristotle often
cited the seven sages, the most famous poets, and early thinkers. Only scraps
of original works and suspect later reports of this period's ideas survive.
Pythagoras (c. 580–c. 500 BCE), noted for his geometry theory, is an
early Greek scholar about whom little is known. He may have founded an
intellectual and religious order, but he wrote nothing. Pythagoreans opposed
violence and animal sacrifice for millennia, and Ovid (43 BCE–17 CE) and
Porphyry (234–305) wrote about it.
Ironically, the Sophists—whom Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle hated—
inspired moral theory. In the 5th century, this word referred to speech and
debate instructors. Sophists offered political debate triumph and city sway. The
 13
1 | ETHICS 3

most famous Sophist, Protagoras (c. 490–c. 420 BCE), taught how “to make the
weaker argument the stronger,” according to Aristotle.
. They saw themselves as teachers of cultural and cerebral skills needed
for success, and their debates about practical matters naturally led to ethical
views. The recurrent theme in the views of the better-known Sophists, such as
Protagoras, Antiphon (c. 480–411 BCE), and Thrasymachus (flourished late 5th
century BCE), is that what is commonly called good and bad or just and unjust
does not reflect any objective fact of nature but is rather a matter of social
convention. “Man is the measure of all things” is attributed to Protagoras.
According to Plato, “Whatever things seem just and fine to each city, are just
and fine for that city, so long as it thinks so.” Protagoras, like Herodotus,
moderated his ethical nihilism. He argued that moral norms are necessary for
livable life, regardless of their content. Thus, Protagoras stated that an ethical
theory did not require gods or any unique spiritual realm beyond the senses.
He said that justice means obeying society's laws, which are set by the
largest political party in its own interest. "Might makes right" encapsulates this
view. However, Thrasymachus was likely denying that right and evil are
absolute.
He probably advised his students to pursue their passions. Thus, he
represents moral doubt and ethical egoism. With such ideas circulating, other
thinkers should investigate ethics to see if some Sophists' possibly harmful
conclusions can be avoided. This response created works that have since
underpinned Western ideals. Other than above mentioned philosophers are
those who were important icon in the development of ethics in Greece:
1. Socrates
Socrates, who said "the unexamined life is not worth living," was a great
moral guide. He did not preach like the Buddha or Confucius. Socrates taught
enquiry. Socrates would ask the Sophists or their students to explain justice,
faith, sobriety, or law, then debunk their claims. Socrates' foes framed him for
ruining Athens' young because his study challenged traditional beliefs. The fee
was fair for those who valued morality over curiosity. Socrates corrupted
Athens' young, but he believed that destroying unproven ideas was essential
to find truth. He believed that virtue can be known and that the good person
knows what virtue is, unlike the Sophists, who believed in ethical ambiguity.
Source:
https://www.history.com/.image/ar
_1:1%2Cc_fill%2Ccs_srgb%2Cfl_
progressive%2Cq_auto:good%2
Cw_1200/MTU3ODc5MDg2NDM
zNTEwNzI5/death-of-socrates.jpg

2. Plato
 1 | ETHICS 14
4
He also used Socratic thought to prove
his own points by pointing out his opponents'
mistakes. In his talks, Socrates argues with
others, mainly Sophists. The early dialogues
are widely regarded as true reports of Socrates'
views, but the later ones, penned many years
after Socrates' death, use him as a spokesman
for Plato's ideas and reasoning.
Source:
The Republic, Plato's most famous
https://www.thefamouspeople.com/profiles/ima
ges/plato-3.jpg debate, challenges Socrates with the following
example: Suppose someone found the Gyges
band, which makes its user invisible. Would they still act justly? The Sophists'
claim, still heard today, is that the only reason to act justly is that one cannot
get away with acting unfairly. Plato's lengthy answer to this issue appears to
go beyond the real Socrates' stance. Plato believed that real knowledge is
knowing something broad that applies to all cases. Socrates pushed his
opponents to give a general account of virtue, modesty, and justice rather than
just detailing specific acts.
One cannot know virtue without such a broad report. What does
knowing this broad idea of virtue mean? Western philosophy is supposedly
Plato's comments. Certainly, the central issue around which all Western ethics
has revolved can be traced to the debate between the Sophists, who claimed
that goodness and justice are relative to the customs of each society—or, worse
still, that they are merely a disguise for the interest of the stronger—and the
Platonists, who maintained the possibility of knowledge of an objective Form
of the Good.
Even if one knew what virtue or justice was, why act justly if one could
profit by doing the opposite? The tale of Gyges' ring's final challenge remains
unanswered. Even if virtue is objective, one does not have an adequate cause
to do good. As seen from the debate of early ethics in other cultures, this issue
is a constant topic for all ethical thinkers. One would have such a cause if it
could be shown that virtue or justice leads, at least in the long run, to pleasure.
 15
1 | ETHICS 5

3. Aristotle
Plato created the Academy in Athens.
Aristotle, Plato's junior colleague and Western
philosophy's sole foe, studied there. Aristotle was
often scathing of Plato, but they shared a lot of
common ground. Thus, Aristotle agrees with Plato
that virtue benefits the individual and society.
Aristotle agrees that the best and most fulfilling type
of human life is pure rationality. Aristotle opposed
Plato's Forms theory. Thus, Aristotle does not claim that knowing the Form of
the Good is necessary for goodness.
Aristotle saw the world as an order with a purpose. Lower things serve
logical life, the best type of existence. Because barbarians were less logical than
Greeks and fitted to be "living tools," Aristotle supported slavery and the
slaying of wild animals for food and apparel. This viewpoint shaped human
nature and ethics.
Aristotle believed all living beings have potentialities they must grow.
This is their ideal lifestyle. ʼ the ability to think is what distinguishes humans,
according to Aristotle. Thus, human thinking is the final aim. They are living
well, in line with their real nature, and will find this the most enjoyable life.
Thus, Aristotle agreed with Plato that the life of the mind is the most
rewarding, but he was more practical in proposing that it would also include
monetary wealth and close bonds. Aristotle's case for valuing the mind so
highly differs from Plato's because he made a common error. The error is to
think that people' unique abilities are their best. The ability to think may be the
best human talent, but it is not the most unique human trait.
Aristotle's ethics rest on a more widespread error. Human nature can
show what to do. According to Aristotle, a fine tool cut well. This line of
thought makes sense if one thinks, as Aristotle did, that the universe has a
purpose and that human beings exist as part of such a goal-directed scheme of
things, but its error becomes glaring if this view is rejected and human existence
is seen as the result of a blind process of evolution. Modern biology states that
humans were not designed for a specific purpose, unlike blades, which are
made for a specific purpose. A good knife serves this purpose well. Random
natural selection shaped them. Thus, human nature alone cannot decide
morality.
Aristotle also inspired later moral theory. In his Nicomachean Ethics,
he distinguishes between true values and false ones. He uses the Golden
Mean—the Buddha's medium road between self-indulgence and self-
 16
1 | ETHICS 6

renunciation—here. Thus, bravery can range from timidity to foolhardiness.

Another example is friendship, which balances obsequiousness and surliness.
Aristotle does not intend the idea of the mean to be applied
mechanically in every instance: he says that in the case of the virtue of
temperance, or self-restraint, it is easy to find the excess of self-indulgence in
the physical pleasures, but the opposite error, insufficient concern for such
pleasures, scarcely exists. (The Buddha, who had lived detachment, would
disagree.) The idea of a norm may be good for moral education, but it cannot
teach new virtues. If one knows the trait's excesses and defects, one can
calculate the norm. One needs a past idea of the virtue to determine what is
abundant and what is faulty. Thus, defining values using the theory of the
mean would be circular.
Aristotle's megalopsychia, which is sometimes rendered as "pride,"
means "greatness of soul." This is self-confidence. Christians considered pride
a sin and modesty a virtue.
Most Western versions begin with Aristotle's justice debate. He
separates justice in redress, such as punishing a wrongdoer, from justice in
income sharing. Aristotle believed that justice required handling like cases
equally, leaving later thinkers to determine which parallels (e.g., need, waste,
skill) were relevant.
Aristotle separated theory and real wisdom. His idea of real advice goes
beyond picking the best means to achieve one's aims. Practically wise people
are also righteous. It also raises Socrates' question: How can people know good
from bad and still choose bad? Socrates denied that this could happen, saying
that those who did not choose the good must, despite looks, be unaware of the
good. Aristotle said this view was “plainly at variance with the observed facts”
and gave a thorough account of the ways one can fail to act on one's knowledge
of the good, including loss of self-control and frailty of will.

Try to Reflect!
If ethics presents the study of what is right and wrong, why
would the world never understand the value of being the
image of goodness to all?

1.3. References:
Angelo, R. (2018, January 8). The Origins and Branches of Philosophy.
Wittgenstein's Logic of Language.
https://www.roangelo.net/logwitt/philosophy-origin.html#.
Florida State University. (2020). What is Philosophy?
https://philosophy.fsu.edu/undergraduate-study/why-
philosophy/What-is-Philosophy.
Singer, P. (2021, February 2). Ethics. Encyclopedia Britannica.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/ethics-philosophy/The-Stoics.
 17
1 | ETHICS 7

Super Scholar. (2020). Home. History-of-Philosophy.

https://superscholar.org/history-of-philosophy/.

1.4. Acknowledgement:

The images, tables, figures, and information contained in

this module were taken from the references cited above.

Assess yourself!

Part I. From the discussion above, make a comparative table using the table
below to present the pros and cons of various perspective of philosophers
about philosophy.

Meaning of Philosophy 1 by…

Pros Cons

Meaning of Philosophy 2 by…

Pros Cons

Part II. Make a reflective essay that would give your insights about
“Philosophizing as Road to Ethical Actions”.