MODULES IN ETHICS

(GE 8)

Name: Semester / S.Y.:

Course: Section:

The module is one of the requirements of GE 8 – Ethics. Hence, students are required to
submit the material(s) with complete answers in partial fulfillment of the course. More
so, it is one’s obligation/responsibility to read the syllabus and/or the course delivery plan
to keep up with the unit or topic intended for each week to follow the course calendar
accordingly.

Please sign on the designated space below if you fully understand the ideas provided.

Signature over printed name

(Student)

Date received:

Date completed / submitted:

Checked and Received by:

ATTY. PHOEBE KRIS D. SISON

Professor

1
 COURSE OUTLINE

Chapter 1 Basic concept of Morality

Unit 1. Moral and Nonmoral standards
Unit 2. Foundation of Morality

Chapter 2 The Moral Agent

Unit 1. Culture and Moral Behavior
Unit 2. Cultural Relativism
Unit 3. The Moral Agent: Developing virtue as habit
Unit 4. Stages of Moral Development

Chapter 3. The Act

Unit 1. Feelings and moral decision making
Unit 2. Reason and impartiality
Unit 3. Moral Courage

Chapter 4. Moral disposition Framework

Unit 1. Virtue Ethics
Unit 2. Kant and Rights theorist
Unit 3. Utilitarianism
Unit 4. Justice and Fairness
Unit 5. State and Citizen: Taxation

Chapter 5. Modern Issues (Ethics through Thick and Thin,

and Ethics & Religion)
Unit 1. Globalization and Pluralism
Unit 2. Challenges of Fillinialls
Unit 3. Religion and Ethics

2
 Module 1
Introductory Activity on Rules

Student Activity: Class discussion (reflect on the following questions and answer them)
1. What are rules?
2. What rules do you find constricting?
3. Why are there rules?

Unit 1. Why should we follow rules?

Rules are created to have a society that is regulated. Not having rules to follow will make our
society chaotic and everybody would do whatever it is that they want to do. For instance, if there are no
traffic rules, there will be no order in our streets and all can go their way. This may lead to accidents and
we may not be able to come to our destination.

Rules are also created to maintain uniformity and facilitate smooth working society. The simple
wearing of IDs and uniform is essential in the security of the students and the entire school. This ensures
that only those who are concerned are inside the school premises. On the other hand, student will just
focus on their uniform if there is no regulation on maintaining their grades. Thus, rules are important
and must be followed to maintain smooth regulation and smooth interpersonal relationship, making way
to equality.

For us to live harmoniously, there is always a tradeoff between our rights and our responsibility.
Since we have an inherited freedom, it allows us to do whatever we want to do. However, our freedom
is incomplete, since if we have complete or absolute freedom it is a possibility that we will get in the way
of the freedom of others.

To appreciate freedom, imagine yourself living in a world without freedom, where you cannot
decide for yourself. Where you cannot eat whenever you are hungry. You may want to become a doctor,
but someone decided that you become a farmer. Imagine you wanted to marry someone but you were
not allowed. Imagine not being able to choose your religion. Not having the freedom to say what we
want to say and the government stopping us another kind of freedom to imagine not having. These are
circumstances where freedom would be essential. Freedom is a matter of life and death.

Having said the following, freedom is essential, but it is necessary to have limitations over it.
Order in different systems is necessary for proper implementation and organized system of
procedures.

Individual Activity:

1. Examine the present rules and regulations in your school.

2. Identify 10 important rules and regulations.
3. Which of the following is considered as essential? Which are not?
4. What would happen if any of the rules were removed?
5. Give the advantages and disadvantages of having these rules?
6. If you are the school administration, what policy or rule would you include, and which
would you remove?

3
Assessment:

Recitation: Find out if students recall and understand the nature of rules and why they are
important.

Meta-Cognitive Report

Name Section

Readings: Are uniforms really needed in Schools

https://opinionfront.com/facts-against-school-uniforms

There is an ongoing debate on the need of uniforms in school. Proponents and opponents, both have
valid points to back their claims on this contentious issue.

1. (3) Things that I significantly learned from the readings

2. (3) Things that are still unclear to me

3. I used to think that….

4. (3) questions that I want to ask about the readings

4
Unit 2. What is Ethics?
The term Ethics is often referred to a set of standards of right and wrong established by a group and imposed
on members of that group as a means of regulating and setting of limits on their behavior.
There are two subdivisions of ethics. Theoretical ethics is concerned with appraising the logical foundations
and internal consistencies of ethical systems. Normative ethics are practical guidelines or norms regarding which
actions are right and which are wrong
Theoretical ethics studies why we should act and feel a certain way while normative ethics tells us how we
should act situations.
Determinism claims that all events, including human actions are caused by previous events (predetermined)
and that free will is an illusion. If there is no free will, then of course, there is no such thing as moral responsibility.
Ethical Subjectivism states that what is morally right and wrong is simply a matter of opinion. What may be
right for you may be wrong for others depending on our respective feelings. Ethical subjectivism is not an ethics
of tolerance for individual difference. Tolerance is a universal moral principle and ethical subjectivists reject the
existence of universal moral principles. Ethical subjectivism is not the same as observing that people disagree on
moral issues. The existence of disagreement, does not imply that there is no objective truth.
Cultural Relativism
It is the metaethical theory that morals standards and values are created by groups of people or cultures and
that morality is nothing more than socially approved customs. This is not the same as excusing a behavior or
tolerance for multicultural diversity.
The divine command theory states that an act is moral because God commands it.
Natural Law states that morality is autonomous; that is, it is independent of religion and God’s commands.
Aquinas has had four types of laws:
1. Eternal law is the uncreated reason of God that guides the universe as it moves toward a goal or end.
2. Divine law directs human and other creatures to their supernatural end, which consists of a vision of God
and eternal blessedness.
3. Natural law or moral law is the special way that rational creatures such as humans, participate in eternal
law and are thereby directed toward their earthly happiness.
4. Human law is at the bottom, like legislation and cultural norms.

Conscience provide knowledge about right and wrong, motivates us to do what is right and demands that we
act in accord with it. There are three main forces that shape our conscience; heredity, learning or environmental
factors and conscious moral direction. Conscience involves both moral sentiments and reason.
Lawrence Kohlberg identifies three levels of moral development, each having two stages.
Utilitarianism is a consequentialist theory. An action is right or wrong depending on the consequences of that
action. The happiness of the community is the proper goal of our actions. The principle of utility also known as
the greatest happiness principles states that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness,
wrong as they tend to produce reverse of happiness. Happiness is identified with pleasure, unhappiness with pain.
The only intrinsic good is pleasure.
John Stuart Mill claimed that the pleasures of being human are of superior quality to the pleasures of being
non-human or animal; because the pleasure of the intellect are superior to the pleasures of the body. Mill believes
that protecting people’s autonomy or liberty rights is the best way of maximizing happiness in a society. Mill’s “no
harm” principle, also known as non-maleficence, prohibits individuals and governments from interfering with
someone’s actions except to prevent harm.
Deontology is a popular approach which believes that for an action to have amoral worth, it must be done
from the sense of duty.
Immanuel Kant wanted to establish a groundwork or foundation for morality that would explain why we ought
to behave morally. He claimed that reason provides the foundation of morality. A hypothetical imperative tells us
that we ought to do something if we want to achieve a certain result. A categorical imperative state that we ought
5
to do something regardless of the consequences. Kant’s categorical imperative states that we should be willing to
universalize moral maxims and that we should never treat a person only to an end.
Virtue ethics emphasizes character or right being over right action. A virtue is an admirable character trait
or disposition to act in a manner that benefits oneself and others. A vice is a character trait or disposition to act
in a manner that harms oneself and others. Virtue is essential to the achievement of Eudaimonia or psychological
well-being and inner harmony.
Aristotle divides the human psyche into the rational and non-rational elements. In a virtuous person,
reason oversees the non-rational elements. Therefore, wisdom is the greatest virtue and ignorance is the greatest
vice.
Aquinas regarded reason as the most important human faculty. However, he thought that we could not
be virtuous without God’s help. Therefore, faith is the greatest virtue and pride is the greatest vice. The doctrine
of the means states that virtue in general, entails moderation or seeking the middle path.

Student Activity: Essay

The Importance of Studying Ethics and its implication in my course.

Unit 3. Moral and Non-Moral Standards

What distinguishes moral from non-moral issue?

Case: A manufacturer of vehicle parts were contracted by military to design, test and manufacture
aircraft brakes. A specification was determined for the aircraft brakes. An external auditor was
contracted to check if specifications are met and write a report for it. Unfortunately, the specification
was not met and did not comply with the specification. The Officers wanted the auditor to falsify the
test data and the reports.
If you are the external auditor, what should you have done?

Student Activity: Consider the following situations and determine whether the statement is moral or
non-moral
1. Eating while you are having a class.
2. Throwing a garbage in a trash bin.
3. Picking up the balls after the try out.
4. Using you right hand when opening a door.
5. Praying before taking a bath.
6. Removing your shoes while entering the house.
7. Turning the plate around when someone dining is leaving.
8. Returning the cap to the bottle.
9. Wearing black during wake.
10. Waking up a person who is snoring.

6
 Moral or Non-moral
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.

Unit 4. Moral vs Non-Moral Standards

Moral standards are norms of actions believed to be right or wrong. These are set of rules accepted by
the society. These standards are values placed on the kinds of objects believed to be good and bad. Something
may be considered as moral depending on what the society says which includes family, friends, school, music,
television and even the social media.

Moral standards involved serious injuries or benefits, like theft, rape, murder, child abuse, assault, fraud,
slander etc. It is moral standards if it is not established by law or legislation. Moral standards rest on the adequacy
of the reasons that are taken to support and justify them. Moral standards are preferred to other interest like if a
person has a moral obligation to do something like telling the truth or do something good for others even if it
conflicts with other non-moral values or self-interest.

Moral standards are based on impartial considerations. If it does not evaluate the interest of an individual
or group. This is based on a universal standpoint in which everyone’s interest is impartially counted as equal. This
is associated with special emotions and a special vocabulary. This means that if you act contrary to a moral
standard you will normally feel guilty, ashamed or remorseful or feels bad about yourself.

Non-moral actions or events are areas of interest where moral categories cannot be applied. For example,
wondering whether one should eat santol, wear a tie of a specific shade of color, or part your hair on the left side
of the head are all usually considered non-moral issues. Yet there are circumstances where such actions could
have moral consequences. But, statements in the sciences (so-called "factual statements") are about nonmoral
issues as well.

Immoral actions or events are those areas of interest where moral categories do apply and such as kind
as to be evil, sinful, or wrong according to some code or theory of ethics. An immoral action then can be defined
as a violation of a rule or code of ethics like telling a lie. Any action could be considered immoral based on one
rule, code, or theory.

On the other hand, to be considered moral or even nonmoral on another rule, code, or theory. Such
examples are common from the point of view of sociological or moral relativism. Though most persons do not
clearly distinguish between morals (descriptive ethics) and ethics (prescriptive ethics), the foregoing is a
compelling reason to do so.

Amoral actions are those areas of interest exhibiting indifference to and not abiding by the moral rules or
codes of society. What may be considered an amoral action by one person could be considered nonmoral (or even
immoral) by a specific society, depending upon the moral code of the society.

If a person tells a lie without concern for the moral concepts of a society of what is good and bad, then he
has acted amorally. We must notice how such a view makes the use of "amoral" intentional. For example,
a sociopath, sometimes called a person without a conscience, and a very young child are called "amoral" because
such people have no feeling or understanding of the concepts of right and wrong.

If a person tells a lie without concern for the moral rules of society and it is a "white" lie and "white" lies
are permissible in that society, then he is acting amorally. Nevertheless, the action is by the rules of that society

7
nonmoral or morally permissible. The "white" lie told in a society where such actions are against the moral code
would be considered an immoral action and would be called "wrong."

It should be noted that "amoral" is sometimes used in ordinary language in the same way that "nonmoral"
is used. Many dictionaries indicate the terms are synonymous. E.g., the American Heritage Dictionary (4th ed.
2000) defines "unmoral" as "1. Having no moral quality; amoral. 2. Unrelated to moral or ethical considerations;
nonmoral." In this course, based on the reasons stated above, the distinction between "amoral" and "nonmoral"
is observed.

To summarize "Amoral" in dictionaries is sometimes defined with reference to value-free situations

(neither moral nor immoral). This definition of "amoral" makes it a synonym of "nonmoral." For example, physics
would be an amoral discipline in this sense of the term. Nevertheless, in this course we will not follow this ordinary
language practice. Instead, we will mark a theoretical difference between the two terms as described above.

"Amoral" is also used (in philosophy) in contrast to nonmoral and immoral. Amoral actions would include
nonintentional (but not necessarily unintentional) actions. "Nonmoral" actions would be those actions where
moral categories (such a right and wrong) cannot be applied (such as matters of fact in scientific descriptions). A
nonintentional action such as reflex or an accident would be ordinarily a nonmoral action.

An unintentional action resulting from ignorance is sometimes called "nonmoral" and other times called
"immoral" depending upon the code of the society as to whether a person is morally responsible for knowledge.
From this point of view, amoral actions would be without concern or intention as to moral consequences.

Taking a sip of water can be described as nonmoral as well as amoral in the usual dictionary definitions.
Nevertheless, in this course of study we term such an action "nonmoral." If, however, the water sipped contains
a poison and the subject intentionally sips it with indifference to the wrongness of suicide, then the action would
not be described as nonmoral but would be properly called amoral.

Student Activity: Case of the Samurai

A business man decided to surprise his wife with a gift that is intended to be placed in board of their
bed. He thought it would be nice to place a samurai on it, so he decided to buy one. In time with their
anniversary, he wanted to surprise her wife and went home earlier than usual. He thought her wife is
still away from home and he wanted to place his gift before she comes home. He entered their house
and went straight to their bedroom bringing with him his samurai gift. To his surprise his wife was there,
on top of another man having sexual intercourse. He immediately got the samurai and killed his wife.

What would be his moral obligation to his wife?

Would his action be considered moral or non-moral and why?
What would make his action moral or non-moral?

Student Activities: List of Basketball Rules

1. Get a copy of basketball rules.

2. Identify which rules are considered as moral and non-moral
3. What makes them moral and non-moral?

8
 Meta-Cognitive Report

Name Section

Film Viewing: Alive

The movie is a 1993 American biographical survival drama film based on Piers Paul Read’s 1974 book
Alive: The story of the Andes

1. (3) Things that I significantly learned from the movie

2. (3) Things that are still unclear to me

3. I used to think that….

4. (3) questions that I want to ask about the readings

Philosophy literally means love of wisdom. It comes from the Greek words. Philia - meaning love or
friendship and Sophia - meaning wisdom. Is concerned with three areas
1. epistemology – study of knowledge
2. metaphysics – the study of the nature of reality
3. ethics – the study of morality

Metaphysics
The study of what exists, the nature of what exists, cause and effect, freedom, and determinism (the
doctrine or belief that everything, including every human act, is caused by something that there is no real free
will
The study of morality, good, bad, right, wrong, human conduct and behavior in a moral sense, and moral
issues. What are morals? It may be define good, right, and wrong. Goodness – decency, kindness, honesty,
integrity, righteousness. Right – correct, true, accurate, exact, precise. Wrong – incorrect, mistaken, erroneous,
not right, immoral, dishonest, unethical.
The Argument that we should not use people as means. It is wrong to use people as means to other
people’s ends. The Argument from wrongness of Killing
Amorality is having no moral sense or being indifferent to right and wrong. The immoral person
knowingly violates human moral standards, the amoral person may also violate moral standards because he or
she has no moral sense.
Two approaches to the study of morality. The scientific, or Descriptive, approach is used in the social
sciences, and is concerned with how human beings do, in fact, behave. The Philosophical approach is divided
into two parts
a. Normative or prescriptive Ethics – deals with norms or standards

9
 b. Meta-ethics or Analytical Ethics – this approach is analytical in two ways (meta- means go beyond).
This analyzes language, the rational foundations of ethical systems, or the logic and reasoning of various
ethicists.
The Philosophical approach is divided into two parts
a. Normative or prescriptive Ethics – deals with norms or standards
b. Meta-ethics, or Analytical Ethics – Looks at the logic of ethical Theorists
There are four aspects related to Morality
1. Religious Morality – is concerned with human beings in relationship to supernatural beings (aka..theists).

2. Morality and nature – concerned with human beings in relationship to nature.

3. Individual morality – concerned with human beings in relation to themselves.

4. Social morality – noted as the most important aspect of morality is concerned with human beings in
relation to other human beings

Where does morality come from?

Objective – that is outside of human beings.
Subjective – strictly within human beings
Or is morality a combination of the two?
There are 3 ways of looking at values when they are taken as being totally objective
They come from Supernatural Beings
There are moral laws somehow embedded within nature itself
The world and objects in it have value with or without the presence of valuing human beings.
The Super natural theories are the belief that values come from some higher supernatural being, or beings,
or principle – the Good (Plato); the gods (the Greeks and Romans); Yahweh or God (Jews); God and His son Jesus
Christ (The Christians); Allah (the Muslims); and Brahma (the Hindus), just to name a few. Think 10
Commandments or the Five Pillars of Islam.
This was criticized by people. Albert Einstein – said “I do not believe in morality of the individual, and I consider
ethics to be an exclusively human concern with no superhuman authority behind it.” It’s possible that supernatural
exists, and this belief is based on faith, with no conclusive proof of the existence of a supernatural being, or
principle. Which of the values from which of these supernatural beings do we use, since there are a variety in
many parts of the world? People are not saying that we should stop searching for truth from these sources, but it
does mean that it is difficult to establish with any certainty that morality comes from this source or sources.
While the natural law believes that morality somehow is embodied in nature that there are “natural laws.”
Tomas Aquinas argued for this Natural Law theory was also central to the ethical theory of Immanuel Kant. Some
hold the theory that values are totally subjective: that morality and values reside strictly within human beings and
that there are no values or morality outside of them. Others believe that the world and the objects in it embody
values whether or not there are any human beings around to perceive and appreciate them.
Values are both subjective and objective, determined by three variables.
1. The first variable is the thing of value, or the thing valued (a car).
2. The second is a conscious being who values, the valuer (the auto-body repairman).
3. The context or situation in which the valuing takes place (on the street, in the showroom, at a car show).

Where does morality come from?

Values, then, would seem to come, most often from a complex interaction between conscious human beings
and “things” in specific contexts. By looking at the origins of the human being and social groups, we can see that
complex interaction start to evolve. As we look at that process we will see that morality has risen largely from
human needs and desires and that it is based upon human emotion and reason.
Morality is not necessarily based on law

10
 There is a relationship because much of our morality has become embodied in our legal codes. Where do
morality and legality part, when is acting illegally moral?
Difference between morality and law
1. Morality provides the basic reasons for any significant laws
2. But even if laws were abolished tomorrow. Most people would not go out and steal, rape, and kill people
3. Law needs morality just as morality needs law
4. Law is a public expression of a society that provides sanctions for social morality

Morality and Religion

Morality need not and should not be based solely on religion alone for the following reasons. It is difficult
to prove conclusively the existence of a supernatural being. Religious people can be immoral, and nonreligious
people can be moral too. It is difficult to provide a rational foundation for religion, which makes it difficult to
provide such a foundation for morality. If religion were to be the foundation of morality, which religion would
provide this foundation and who would decide?
Why should we be moral?
The question focuses not on one individual. But on why human beings (as a whole) should be moral? Various
reasons for why have been posited;
1. Because a supernatural being said we should be moral
2. Enlightened self-interest.
3. To know yourself better
4. Tradition and Law have been given as a reason to be moral

Adhering to morals enables human beings to live their lives peacefully, happily, creatively and meaningfully
as possible. It’s easy to see that if we want to be free from the fear of being mutilated, stolen from, lied to, cheated,
severely restricted or imprisoned we need morals for our society. Not just the individual, but our society!

Student Activity: Identify whether the following are moral or non-moral.

Tick the appropriate circle

Situation Moral Non-moral

1. Placing of curtain in the windows

O O
2. Parking on a non-parking zone O O

3. Removing of slippers when entering the room O O

4. Washing of hands before shaking hands with friends O O

5. Painting the car black O O
6. Leaving your dog unattended O O
7. Sorting your dress based on colors O O
8. Eating avocado at night O O
9. Wearing black on a summer day
O O
10. Intentionally blocking the door
O O
11
Unit 6. Moral Dilemma
Vignette

Theresa Ann Campo Pearson, an infant known to the public as “Baby Theresa,” was born in
Florida in 1992. Baby Theresa had anencephaly, one of the worst genetic disorders.
Anencephalic infants are sometimes referred to as “babies without brains,” but that is not
quite accurate. Important parts of the brain— the cerebrum and cerebellum—are missing, as
is the top of the skull. The brain stem, however, is still there, and so the baby can still breathe
and possess a heartbeat. In the United States, most cases of anencephaly are detected during
pregnancy, and the fetuses are usually aborted. Of those not aborted, half are stillborn. About
350 are born alive each year, and they usually die within days. Baby Theresa’s story is
remarkable only because her parents made an unusual request. Knowing that their baby would
die soon and could never be conscious, Theresa’s parents volunteered her organs for
immediate transplant. They thought her kidneys, liver, heart, lungs, and eyes should go to
other children who could benefit from them. Her physicians agreed. Thousands of infants need
transplants each year, and there are never enough organs available. But Theresa’s organs were
not taken, because Florida law forbids the removal of organs until the donor is dead. By the
time Baby Theresa died, nine days later, it was too late—her organs had deteriorated too much
to be harvested and transplanted.

To read more of the case follow the link

Ref: http://people.brandeis.edu/~teuber/philtheresa.html

Student Activity:

1. Were the parents right or wrong to volunteer their baby’s organs for transplant?
2. What reasons, or arguments, can be given on each side?
3. What can be said to justify the parents’ request or to justify opposing their request?

12
Dilemma
A moral dilemma arises when a person must make a decision that may inadvertently go against a personal
view. This may be a situation that questions what a person would do to a temporary situation which may have a
long-term impact. This usually does not give you a lot of time to think for its immediacy, but a choice must be
made.
You will know when you are trapped in a moral dilemma when you are faced with two or more possible
responses, of which you can do. When the choices are both morally correct and that you must choose one, or you
cannot perform all of the possible actions but have to choose which of the said actions to perform. And since the
choices that you have, have moral implications you cannot choose all. This follows that no matter what you
selected as your action will make you compromise a moral standard. In short, there will always be someone or
something that will suffer no matter which course of action you select.
One dilemma put forward is usually happening when there is a hostage crisis. When the hostage takers
would say they would kill one and let others be free. The question is, is it right to save many people and kill one?
There has been a long debate on the said because it is a situation that is contrary to the morality of murder and
salvation.
Moral dilemmas are ever where, it is found in workplace especially those that involves lives, like military,
doctors, drivers etc. These people are in a way handling the lives of others and or determines if people shall live
or not on a regular basis whether intentional or unintentional. Nevertheless, moral dilemmas are also found at
lesser degrees in the schools where students will have to choose one from another that may question their moral
actions.
We must note that moral choices are temporary, these are fluid and changeable. That the problem may
only occur if the person must repeatedly make a choice. Again, moral dilemma is a situation where one
experiences internal conflict when one has to choose between a set of actions and have moral reasons for these
actions. This is a situation in which you cannot find any action you choose to be right and wrong at the same time
and find it difficult to choose.
What if you found out that a thief is stealing the money of a very rich drug lord, so he can feed his family.
How would you react? You know that stealing is wrong and that you can rattle him out. But you know that he
stole the money from a bad person and that this person is greedy. And that not stealing from him will not make
him very poor. And what he may be doing may not really make him that rich. That he is just doing it for his family.
If you are in this situation, how would you react and decide on the choice that each of the character might make.
It cannot also be taken for granted that a moral dilemma can be a conflict between what a person wants
and what a person thinks he should do. This goes back to a famous question on who you should save when your
mother and you wife is drowning. So, who should you save?

Student Activity: Study the following dilemma and discuss your justification with your answers

1. The Mining Crew. Gregorio is part of a four-person mining expedition. The four of them are trapped in
the mine. One of the crew got injured and he will die without medical attention. Greg were able to
contact the rescue team and learned it will be 36 hours before the first drill can reach the place they
are trapped in. Greg calculated that they have just enough oxygen for three people to survive for 36
hours, but not enough for four people. One must be sacrificed for them to survive. What should Greg
do to save the majority if not all of them?

2. Antonio is a doctor. One of his patients, was diagnosed with HIV. He is about to receive a blood
transfusion prior to being released from the hospital. He has told Ken, in the confidence of their doctor-
patient relationship, that after he gets his transfusion, and his medicine from Ken, he intends to infect
as many people as possible with HIV starting that evening. Anton is bound by doctor-patient

13
 confidentiality, there is no legal way to stop this man from carrying out his plan. Anton even warned
the police, but they would not be able to arrest him, since his medical information is protected. What
would you do if you are Anton?

3. Rudy is on board a ship, when suddenly there is a fire on board, and the ship must be abandoned. The
lifeboats are carrying many more people than they were designed to carry. The lifeboat he’s in is sitting
dangerously low in the water – a few inches lower and it will sink. The seas start to get rough, and the
boat begins to fill with water. A group of old people are in the water and ask Rudy to throw them a
rope, so they can come aboard the lifeboat. It seems to Rudy that the boat will sink if it takes on any
more passengers. Should Rudy refuse to throw the rope to save himself and the other lifeboat
passengers?

Rationalization:

1.

2.

3.

Freedom as Foundation for Moral Acts

Student Activity: The Boy Atheist

A fifteen-year-old boy became an atheist because he did not believe anymore that God existed. He was sad
that life was meaningless, and that death would mean the end of him forever. For a while, he was consoled by
the thought that because there was no God, there also was no moral law and he could do anything he wanted.
The ironic thing he discovered was that nothing seemed to be worth doing anymore.

Write for a few minutes on what you think of this teen’s experience.

14
 Student Activity: Answer the following:

1. What is true freedom?

2. What is the difference between freedom of indifference and freedom of excellence?

3. What is the relationship between moral action and freedom?

Unit 7. Freedom of Action

Morality can only be meaningful when people are able to act freely and voluntarily. When one is devoid
of freedom based on their choices doing morally good does not make sense. To say that an act is morally good or
not, one must freely choose the act. If it is not a product of choice, then if would be difficult to judge the action.
One thing that makes us different from animal is our capacity to think. That also makes us different from robots
that are now being introduced as part of our daily activities. But robots do not think and therefore cannot think
freely and make own decision. Since they cannot act freely they are not responsible for their own action. Actions
can only be judged as morally good or right if the actor has control over his action, if he acts on his own volition.
But since humans has the capacity of choice he must be responsible for his actions in a world governed by laws
on hereditary and environmental factors.
To illustrate, let us consider the security guards in a bank who were charged with negligence after
preventing a bank robbery. They came up in defense saying that the robbers came in so fast, that they were unable
to get their ammunition. The robbers have accomplices inside the bank, who distracted them that made moving
in of the robbers easy. The guard stated that they were doing the routines but were unable to prepare for the
inside man. The robbers threatened to kill then and then tied them and placed them inside the stockroom. They
were not able to call for help because they were secluded. They said that they tried everything in their capacity
to prevent the robbery, but they were helpless.
If the guards did all the precautionary measures, it would not be fair to hold them responsible for the
robbery. The blame could not be pinned on them because under the circumstances, they have no power to ignore
the threat they are at. They could not do what a security guard could have done if they have seen it coming. They
did not have the freedom to act since they were secluded.

15
Student Activity:

1. Cite a situation when you are unable to do what you wanted to do

2. Recall the reason why you were prevented from doing such
a. I wanted to play but
.
b. I would have love to see the movie
last night but
.
c. I would like to eat but
.
d. I wanted to buy but
.
e. I tried to but
.

Student Activity:

Burumchara, Bangladesh – Mubarra Khatum is too poor to own a radio, so he had no warning last
week that a cyclone would rip through his small town, destroying his home and wiping out his family.
By the time he and his wife realized how high the tide had risen, they had no way to escape except by
climbing onto their roof. But as the water surged, the roof gave way under their weight, dumping Mr. Khatum,
his wife and three sons into the current.
His wife clutching their 18 month old son, was quickly swept away. The two other boys, 3 and 5, clung
to Mr. Khatum’s neck.
“They were holding me so tightly I could not breath,” he said, choking back tears. “Finally, I had to
remove their hands so I could live.”
“Oh God,” he wailed, “I killed my own sons, I killed my own sons”
Mr. Khatum, a salt merchant, survived by wrapping his legs around a coconut tree.
If you are in the position of Mr. Khatum, what should you have done?

16
Unit 8. Freedom of choice

Student Reading: Mistaken Identity

A special police group was instructed to do the raid in a place. The intelligence was conclusive
that in a house, the drug operators were manufacturing and packing the drugs. They have been assured
of the place and what time to do the operation. The instruction was to eliminate everyone inside the
house. When they got to the place, they did as instructed; killing everyone inside the house.
The following day the police learned that those inside the house were innocent farmers who
were just asked to sleep over the house to guard it. The police said that should they have known, they
should have disregarded the instruction.

This case shows the additional component of freedom. Since the police were given wrong
information about what they were doing, they have no absolute freedom on what to do. There were no
chance to decide given the situation since they were misled by information which they thought were
accurate. In most cases our freedom to choose is hindered by inaccurate or misleading information.

Activity Reading: Brothers playing to death

Two brothers were playing around. One is 6-year-old and the other is 3-year-old. While playing, the 6-
year-old boy carried his brother holding his younger brother upside down and accidentally broke the
neck of his younger brother. This caused the death of the younger boy. Will the 6-year-old boy be
responsible for his action? Who is to blame? What is the extent of his responsibility?

Freedom of choice also means consideration of the mental capacity. If a person lacks the capacity
to decide then he may not be considered responsible for all his actions. Like for example, children who
cannot fully understand the consequences of their actions may not be responsible for their actions,
hence they have no moral responsibilities for what they do. The appreciation of once action is necessary
to cover responsibility. This also means that a person with intellectual disabilities (formerly called mental
retardation) may not be responsible for their actions and therefore should always be guided by
guardians. That is why in the Philippines, minors are not imprisoned and are not held liable for their
actions, but they are placed in an institution who could help them be guided in their social roles. Children
or persons with mental disabilities and other psychological limitations are not held responsible for their
choices for they lack maturity to decide or judge the moral significance of their actions.
However, freedom of choice can be reversed and even reduced by compulsive forces or undue
influence. For example, a teen-ager who is influenced by his parents via persuasion or pressure to commit
an immoral or illegal action should not be held responsible for their actions.
There are two components of human agency. One is the freedom to choose and the other is the
freedom to act. The freedom to choose indicates will and personal choice or own volition. Freedom to
act involves power and capacity that corresponds to action. We should understand that choice and
actions are two crucial components of human agencies.

17
Student reading: I unintentionally killed my son

Father and son were playing and horsing around. While the father is carrying his son on his
shoulder, he suddenly slipped off making him imbalanced. This resulted to the falling of his son which
resulted to his son’s death.

1. Is the father responsible for the death of his son even if it is unintentional?
2. Who or what should be blame for the circumstance?
3. What is the degree of the responsibility?

Meta-Cognitive Report

Name Section

Film Viewing: The Purge

1. (3) Things that I significantly learned from the movie

2. (3) Things that are still unclear to me

3. I used to think that….

4. (3) questions that I want to ask about the readings

18
 Module 2. The Moral Agent

Unit 1. Culture and Moral Behavior

"Culture is the sum of all the forms of art, of love, and of thought, which, in the course of centuries, have
enabled man to be less enslaved." ~ Andre Malraux

Vignette: Pakidala o pasalubong

A family in the Philippines was puzzled when the coffin of their deceased mother arrived from the US sent
by their sister. The tiny corpse was jammed so tightly into the box that their mother’s face was flattened against
the glass lid. When the family opened the coffin, they found a letter pinned to their mother’s chest.

Dearest Brothers and Sisters,

I am sending you our mother’s remains for burial there. Sorry I could not come along as the expenses
were so high.
You will find under Mama’s body 12 cans of Libby’s corned beef and 12 cans spam. Just divide these
among yourselves. On Mama’s feet is a brand-new pair of Reeboks (size 8 for Junior). There are four pairs of
Reeboks under Mama’s head for Miloy’s sons. Mama is wearing six Ralph Lauren T-shirt, one for Manong Roy and
the rest for my nephews. Mama is wearing one dozen Wonder Bras and two dozens Victoria’s Secret panties to be
distributed among my nieces and cousins. Mama is also wearing eight pairs of Dockers pants. Kuya, Diko, please
take one each and give the rest to your boys. The swiss watch Ate Asked for is on Mama’s left wrist. Auntie Sol,
Mama is wearing the earrings, ring and necklace you asked for. The six pairs of Chanel stockings that Mama is
also wearing are for the teen age girls. I hope they like the color.

Your loving Sister,

Nene

Ref: Malaya, May 7, 2002 by Dahli Aspillera

Student Activity: Lessons learned from the Pakidala o pasalubong

1. What motivated the sister Nene to include packages in the corpse?

2. What is the cultural implication of such action?

3. What value system operates on this situation?

4. Is this action absurd or practical? Why?

19
Culture’s Influences to Moral Behavior
What invisibly ties people is their culture. This refers to the pattern of human activity. The art, literature,
language, and religion of a community represent its culture. Our cultural values and beliefs manifest themselves
through our lifestyle. Our moral values represent our culture. The importance of culture lies in its close
association with the ways of thinking and living. Differences in cultures have led to a diversity in the people from
different parts of the world.
The development of our attitude is related to culture and how we approach our lives is influenced by our
cultural values. Behaviorist have defined culture as the ultimate system of control where people screen their
norms. Our cultural values serve as the founding principles of our life. They shape our thinking, behavior, and
personality.
As the famous saying goes “Culture affects perception, it influences our behavior, it shapes our
personality”. Research has shown that our culture does play a role in the way our brain processes information and
reacts to stimuli. Culture affects perception, and perceptions drive behavior. That's one reason why culture is so
important. Whatever culture we belong to or associated with has a direct impact on our behavior. Our behavior
is shaped by our environment which has a cultural influence.

In the Philippines and other Asian countries, males are discouraged from crying and it is an odd gesture.
We have been thought to respect the elders and giving them away to nursing institution is a taboo. We have been
educated to respect religious objects and so we do. So, if the values of a certain culture do not teach men to
respect women, it will naturally reflect in their behavior. Like some beliefs that women are of weaker sex and that
they are incapable of facing tough dilemma. This implies that what culture teaches us affects the way we socially
interact. While some person in other culture are found to be more open in communicating even if to some
strangers, some are not. The difference between ideologies their cultures have, are thus evident in their social
behavior.

People’s expectations from us define our culture, we shape our behavior and personality to suit the
cultural expectations. Our religion, traditions, customs, are all part of our culture and play a major role in shaping
our personalities. We conceive things depending on how we learned to react to situation as dictated by our
culture- these are closely linked to our cultural values. It is also noted that our education and our nature play an
important role in the development of our personality. Thus, it is not surprising that people who were brought in
the same culture are often found to share certain personality traits.

Our value system also greatly influences our personalities. Thus, we Filipinos are taught to be collective in
our decisions and actions. We all based our decisions on what the family decides and follow a patriarchal system.
Filipino children are dependent to parents and we see the superiority of a father figure. Thus, it is not surprising
that it is deeply inculcated in us the idea that boys and girls are not treated equal. Which in this modern world
should not anymore be the belief, since no person is superior that others, for we are created equal. It is also
because of our machismo culture that person with different sexual orientation or the LGBT groups are not as much
as accepted. We may have tolerated them but most parents you ask would not want as much as possible to have
an LGBT child. Again, this belief should NOT anymore be embraced for we are all created by GOD no matter what
orientation we are in.

John Rawls suggested that that we may possess an analogous moral capacity that accounts for our
competence in deploying moral rules. James briefly reviews Eliot Turiel's work on the ability of kids to distinguish
between conventional rules, which must be learned, and moral rules, which might come built in. It is said that
children across wide spectrum of background, exhibit the ability to distinguish moral from the conventional rules.
It may also be possible that children learn rules from their environment.
It could be noted that there is a variation of moral development across culture and time. One culture’s
good can be other culture’s evil. Like cannibalism, which has been practiced by several groups in every part of the
globe. Anthropologist Peggy Reeves Sanday has found that 34% of cultures in one cross-historical sample. Blood
sports which may cause killings, were watch by many people with excitement. Killing for pleasure has also been
documented among head hunting cultures in which decapitation is considered as recreation. Many societies
practice extreme form of public torture and humiliation as seen in Europe in the late 17th century. While other
culture is engaging in painful form of body modification, such as genital infibulation, scarification or even foot
binding -which involves the deliberate and excruciating crippling of girls in China which was practiced for over a
thousand years. The differences are not limited to this but is also paralleled in attitudes towards sex and marriage.
Anthropologist has found out that over 80% permit polygamy, arranged marriage and early marriage.

20
 If there are differences on morals among culture, there are also similarities. Cultures would not last long
if there is the promotion of attacks among neighbors or discouragement of procreation. However, there are also
groups, who may have prohibit attacking the next hut but encourages attack on the other village. Some
encourages selective infanticide, use of corporal punishment and physical labor or sexual slavery. These difference
and similarities are demanding explanation. If morality is objective should we also have consensus are people.

A possible theory that we can account for is the five-foundations theory of Jonathan Haidt, that aims to
account for the dimension of the differences in morality and helps explain cross-cultural regularities in moral
judgment as well as moral disagreement. However, this does not try to establish a natural capacity to correct
judgment. The idea that morality is culturally-conditioned response implies moral relativism. Prinz tries to clear
up what he sees as misconception about moral relativism. People often resist relativism because of the thought
that its implication is unacceptable.

As a response to the belief that relativism entails that anything goes. Prinz says that relativist concedes
that to promote values, those should be true to those who possessed them. But if we trained our children to be
ruthless killers, they might kill us or get killed. A self-destructive value cannot last.

Another allegation is that relativism entails that anything goes. As a response to this, Prinz says that
relativists concede that if you were to inculcate any given sets of values, those values would be true for those who
have them.

Another accusation is that relativism entails that we have no way to criticize Hitler. As a response, Hitler’s
actions were partially based on false beliefs, rather than values like racism, moral absolutism and the likelihood
of world domination. Hitler’s values were not that his values were false, but they are pernicious. Relativism does
not entail that we tolerate tyranny or murder, because we have the moral obligation to protect ourselves.

Another assertion is that relativism demands that moral debates are senseless; since everyone is right. As
a reaction to this misconception, one cannot prevent appealing to moral common ground. Another claim is that
relativism does not allow moral progress. As a reaction to this, we may say that it is partially correct in the sense
that moral values do not become truer; some sets of values are more consistent and more conducive to social
stability.

Student Activity: Filipino Pamahiin

Enumerate several Filipino Pamahiin and cite its implication to moral standards or ethical practices.

Pamahiin
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.

Implication
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

21
 6.
7.
8.
9.
10.

Student Activity: Cultural Artifacts

Bring any cultural artifacts (objects, food specialty, artworks, etc.) especially from your region and
state its significance in you culture and practices.

1. Describe the origin of the artifact.

2. Explain its significance to one’s culture.
3. How does this artifact influence how you behave?

Unit 2. Cultural Relativism

Morality differs in every society and is a convenient term for socially approved habits.
Ruth Benedict, PATTERNS OF CULTURE (1934)

Examine the different practices in different countries

1. CZECH REPUBLIC: smacking women with a special whip at Easter. On Easter Monday men go
from house to house lightly whipping the women with braided willow branches called
'pomlázka' ('korbáč' in Slovak) to, apparently, imbue them with fertility
2. NETHERLANDS: congratulating the entire family on someone's birthday. In Dutch tradition, you
congratulate the relatives on someone's birthday, as well as the person whose birthday it is.
And for the birthday party, everyone sits in a giant circle for tea and cake.
3. POLAND: applauding when the plane lands. Nobody seems to know exactly why this is a
characteristic peculiar to Polish people. Maybe it's just because the ground is pretty awesome.
4. JAPAN: Following a giant penis through the streets. The festival of Kanamara Matsuri dates back
to the 17th century. Revellers dress as penises, eat penis-shaped sweets and create giant iron
penises to carry through the streets of Kawasaki. It honours the legend of a woman who had a
demonic toothed vagina that ate men's penises, and it remained undefeated until a metal-
worker built a metal penis that broke the demon's teeth.
5. SCOTLAND: Wearing skirts and reciting poetry once a year. On 25 January people all over
Scotland (and in other parts of the UK) tune up their bagpipes and get gussied up in their finest
tartan to celebrate Burns Night, which commemorates the life of legendary Scots poet Robert
Burns. Festivities include ceilidh (pronounced "kaylee") dancing, and platefuls of haggis (offal
in sheep intestine, in case you were wondering).
6. AUSTRIA: Pulling fingers. In Austria, Fingerhakeln - or competitive finger-pulling - is a serious
sport, with very strict rules. Finger-athletes aim to drag their opponent across the table by just
the finger. Fingerhakeln is also played in Bavaria in Germany.
7. DENMARK: Throwing cinnamon at single people. If, by the time you turn 25, you're unmarried,
you can expect your friends to ambush you with a cinnamon shower all day. That's bad enough,
but if you're still single at 30, they cover you in pepper.
8. GERMANY: following a sock-garland to your birthday party. if you reach 25 without getting
married in Germany, your friends will string a garland of socks from your house to the venue of
your birthday, and every few socks you'll be encouraged to have an alcoholic drink.

22
 9. RUSSIA: having a sit-down before leaving on a trip. Whether it's a family excursion or just one
person's journey, entire Russian households will sit down for a few minutes before the trip to
ward against bad luck (also a good idea if you're prone to leaving your keys at home).
10. FRANCE: buying funny hats for your unmarried friends. 25 November is St Catherine's Day in
France, and all unmarried 25-year-old women (or "Catherinettes") are given elaborate green
and yellow hats, which they must wear all day.

Ref:https://www.buzzfeed.com/robynwilder/bizarre-national-customs-from-around-the-
world?utm_term=.ukpwBNgbR#.mwMXMqzRy

What do you think contributed to the differences in the practice?

Meta-Cognitive Report

Name Section

Readings: Cultural Relativism

1. (3) Things that I significantly learned from the selection

2. (3) Things that are still unclear to me

3. I used to think that….

4. (3) questions that I want to ask about the readings

Student Activity: Sharing Diversity

Share into class the different beliefs of your region or country. Do you have similar or contrasting
beliefs? (For instance, have you eaten a dog? Is it morally acceptable to eat one?)

There no such thing as universal truth in ethics; there are only various cultural codes and nothing more. It
challenges the belief in the objectivity and universality of moral truth. There are five propositions as Rachels
espoused that are independent of one another which some of them may be true while others are false. The
following claims have all been made by cultural relativists:
1. Different societies have different moral codes.
2. The moral code of a society determines what is right within that society; that is, if the moral code of a
society says that a certain action is right, then that action is right, at least within that society.

23
3. There is no objective standard that can be used to judge one society’s code as better than another’s. There
are no moral truths that hold for all people always.
4. The moral code of our own society has no special status; it is but one among many.
5. It is arrogant for us to judge other cultures. We should always be tolerant of them.

History tells us that the Greeks believed it was wrong to eat the dead, whereas the Callatians believed it
was right to eat the dead. Which implies, eating the dead is neither objectively right nor objectively wrong. It is
merely a matter of opinion, which varies from culture to culture. Another is that the Eskimos saw nothing wrong
with infanticide, whereas Americans believe infanticide is immoral.
Which implies that, infanticide is neither objectively right nor objectively wrong. It is again merely a matter
of opinion, which varies from culture to culture. Clearly, these arguments are variations of one fundamental idea.
From her we can derive that different cultures have different moral codes. Thus, there is no objective truth in
morality. Right and wrong are only matters of opinion, and opinions vary from culture to culture.
Ethics aims at a doctrine that could be universal. However, those who believe that there are universal,
cross-cultural standards for what is right and wrong cannot agree among themselves. People are different from
one another and people of one part of the world often seem very different from other parts of the world.
Philosophers wonder the extent of our differences as due to socialization, conditioning, environment and
education. And how similar are we alike at birth (Blocker, 1999).
The recent sensitivity to cultural relativism and evils of ethnocentrism cause us to rethink our moral
systems. Cultural relativism does not mean that we give up morality (Pojman, 2000). Cultures differ; however,
we must be cautious in condemning the unfamiliar (Pojman, 2000 and Mahler, 2013). Let us look at some different
worldviews and how these shape people’s choices in determining what ought to be moral and why.
Relativism does tell us, however, that we are mistaken when we think we are in possession of the one
true morality. We can try to pursue moral values that lead to more fulfilling lives, but we must bear in mind that
fulfillment is itself relative, so no single set of values can be designated universally fulfilling. The discovery that
relativism is true can help each of us individually by revealing that our values are mutable and parochial. We
should not assume that others share our views, and we should recognize that our views would differ had we lived
in different circumstances. These discoveries may make us more tolerant and more flexible. Relativism does not
entail tolerance or any other moral value, but, once we see that there is no single true morality, we lose one
incentive for trying to impose our values on others.

Meta-Cognitive Report

Name Section

Film Viewing: My Name is Khan (Bollywood)

1. (3) Things that I significantly learned from the movie

2. (3) Things that are still unclear to me

3. I used to think that….

4. (3) questions that I want to ask about the readings

24
 Cultural Relativism is the belief that ethical system varies from culture to culture. These are all equally
important and that no system is superior than the other. This is based on the idea that there is no ultimate
standard for good and evil. This means that any opinion with regards to morality is subjective based on each
person’s cultural perspective. Thus, there is no one moral or ethical perspective that is absolutely right or wrong.

Pluralism, Tolerance and acceptance are all term associated with cultural relativism. This made it possible
for almost anything to be justified on the grounds of relativism. Like standing on top a tall building, which gives
you a perspective of the view from the top that taken another step may mean your death. This perspective clarifies
in us why certain actions are considered as ethically right or wrong for a particular culture.

For instance, modern women love wearing black choker – usually black lace worn on neck. But would you
still wear it if you have known that it is previously a symbol of prostitute? Most people before would call it strange
or even oppressive, but women today may call in fashion.

What Cultural Relativism have taught us?

We may have seen in previous readings that cultural relativism may have its limitations for there are some
disagreements which may result to your rejection of the theory. But there are several points to consider in dealing
with cultural relativism. It is safe to say that cultural relativism has taught us that there is no absolute standard in
the practices from different cultures.
Some cultural conventions are peculiar to norm. While some group of people find it shocking for family
members to eat the flesh of their dead, but some would consider it as saying that the spirit of the dead dwell in
them. This practice is a product of the culture agreed upon by the members of a group. Similarly, today, we may
say that a woman should not display their breast in public, but we see in tv while watching halftime show of a
super bowl in 2004 we see Justine Timberlake ripping off the costume of Janet Jackson exposing her breast in
front of millions of audiences. Again, in some culture it is more appropriate to for women not to wear upper
garments exposing their breast.
Another more controversial issue that involves cultural relativism is the practices of marriage. In
monogamous marriage, our society dictates in us that the ideal is to fall in love and be married to only one – and
that we are expected to live together faithfully with each other. Columnist Dan Savage advice in his column the
negative consequences of monogamy. He said that it causes boredom, despair, lack of variety, and even sexual
death which results to persons not experiencing happiness which is the goal of marriages. Some practices a more
radical from of marriage which is polyamory, the practice of having a more than one long term partner. But most
people on our society would disapprove this form of deviation.
In understanding relativism, we must keep an open mind. We must understand that there are types of
acceptable behavior that we may find outrageous and some even challenging. Our history would prove that we
have considered homosexuality as immoral that some have developed homophobia or that they feel
uncomfortable being with gays. It is now gradually being engrave in our system that the LGBT people are just like
ordinary human beings, that there is nothing wrong with being gay. Cultural relativism has helped us understand
that they are just people who happens to be attracted with the same sex. This does not make them a lesser human
being.
As exhibited in the film “My name is Khan”, Sharuk Khan was taught that there are only two types of
people. They are not distinguished by race, sex, socio economic status, age or even governmental position. They
are only distinguished as good or bad, nothing else. We may have the belief that what we have been brought up
with is the best culture. Cultural relativism would help us realize that this can broaden our mind.

25
 Student Activity: Try to look at these pictures. What do you see?

Do you see an old lady or a young lady? Do you see this as half full or half empty?

In the pictures above, what do you see? We may be looking at the same thing, but we see it differently.
This means that we subjectively interpret an objective stimulus. People see objects in different perspective ang
that we may be interpreting. The interpretation of what we see is based on how we see objects in our own
perspective and no one can say that what we see is wrong, probably how we see it is. Like having to look at it
upside down not knowing it was, may have a different perception.
In the example above, one may see an old lady, and another the young one. Some may see both, but
others may see none. Sometimes you must direct them for them to see what you are pointing out. Sometimes it
is a matter of viewpoint where others may see the glass half empty while others my see it half full. Most of the
time people who are optimistic see the glass half full while the pessimist would see it half empty.
This may imply that we see things based on which lens we are using. If you are using the lens of mother
you may see a situation different, while assuming the lens of a daughter or son, you may also see it in another
perspective. And there is no one correct way of looking at things.

Sometimes societies observe distinct practices, because they find themselves in unique
circumstances or they hold different beliefs about the world (Blocker, 1999). Slavery in the past might
be beneficial to the ruling class; but not to the slaves.
Ethics aims at a doctrine that could be universal. However, those who believe that there are
universal, cross-cultural standards for what is right and wrong cannot agree among themselves. People
are different from one another and people of one part of the world often seem very different from other
parts of the world. Philosophers wonder the extent of our differences as due to socialization,
conditioning, environment and education. And how similar are we alike at birth (Blocker, 1999).
Every society will have its conventions, whether as customs, manners and morals. How can we
justify one set of conventions as opposed to others? In this chapter, we will see the various views about
what is ethical based on different theories. For this chapter, we shall look at the cultural aspects shaping
the moral agent such as their views about the world.
The recent sensitivity to cultural relativism and evils of ethnocentrism cause us to rethink our
moral systems. Cultural relativism does not mean that we give up morality (Pojman, 2000). Cultures
differ, however, we must be cautious in condemning the unfamiliar (Pojman, 2000 and Mahler, 2013).
Let us look at some different worldviews and how these shape people’s choices in determining what
ought to be moral and why.
26
 “When in Rome do as the Romans do.” is a version of ethical relativism that considers action as
morally right within a society because they are approved by law, custom or other conventions of a certain
society. There are arguments against this view concerning human rights, public good, duties to respect
people and virtues (Martin and Schinzinger, 2005). The contrasting view is ethical absolutism that asserts
that what is morally true in one situation is acceptable or true everywhere else. This view fails on many
variables and one of them could be justified exceptions.
This unit looks at ethical rationalism or contextualism, terms borrowed from Martin and
Schinzinger (2005). According to this view, moral judgments should be made in relation to factors that
vary from situation to situation that makes it difficult to formulate rules that are simplistic nor absolute.
Moral judgments are contextual in that they are made in relation to comprehensive factors such as
customs of cultures. This is also associated to ethical pluralism, the view that there is more than one
justifiable moral viewpoint. Some interpretations of ethical pluralism are crucial in asserting cultural
diversity with respect to legitimate differences among individuals and groups.
Without abdicating that there are moral truths, principles belonging to core morality, it is reason
that can discover these principles. We are to judge right or wrong based on the best reasoning we can
bring forth, with empathy (Pojman, 2000).

Student Activity: Debate

1. Boys should be required to be circumcised.

2. Girls should NOT be circumcised?

Unit 3. The Filipino way

There is always a way on how we see things. This is dependent on the paradigm that we are looking at.
The way we see things is dependent on how we were raised. This influenced how we view our lives and ho we
view our selves. Many people are claiming that Filipinos have no sense of personal identity since our origins are
from different people practically around the globe. This goes with our culture and our sense of uniqueness.
I still remember when adults used to ask children, me not exempt from it, on what do we want to be when
we grow up. Many parents are telling their children to study so they could get a good job or go abroad. While my
half-Chinese friends are being told to study hard because they will soon be handling the business of their family.
This is two perspectives of two different culture on how we view our future. That is why many Filipinos have
relatives abroad or those living in the provinces have relatives in Manila affecting the mobility of people in the
country. This in way affected our values and what we consider as important or not.
Filipinos are accommodating and very much hospitable. We show our guest the best of what we have. I
remember in our home, whenever there are visitors, they would get the best of what we have. Brand new
porcelain and other kitchen wares is used by the visitors, they will eat the best food and use things that we as
member of the family rarely use. We always get our comfort from food, that we usually eat in practically every
occasion, like wedding, birthdays, graduation, wake and even when an individual is just leaving for abroad. That
we only drink liquor for three reasons. One is when we are happy, two is when we are sad and the third is any
other reasons.
We have also already established our values in the field of work. That we start every activity late or the
Filipino time. This is counterproductive in the sense that it is considered as a waste of time of another person,
which is disrespect to others. Filipinos also have established a negative perception of our identity and some
include “palakasan”, crab mentality and back stabbing.
Palakasan refers to work or job referral known as padrino system. This is considered as corrupt way of
getting a job, since this is having jobs without hassle, and not really considering the qualifications for a job. That
you also get promoted not because of your qualities but because you have someone to back you up. But in this
modern time, this practice is gradually diminishing for seekers of employees are objectively looking on the
qualification and basing their decisions on assessment, interviews and character investigation.
Another is crab mentality, a metaphor that refers to a basket of crab that pulls each down. Like work
place, when one is pulling each other down just to get ahead of others. Some may see this negatively, but other
27
may see the positive in it. Like one being assertive and trying his best to be the best version of himself every day.
Some may see this positive in a sense that crabs are not really pulling each other down but they are pulling others
up sacrificing their own welfare for others. This is built on the idea that we always try to help other.
Gossiping is another known trait of Filipinos because we love to chit chat and communicate with another
person. This would sometimes lead to talking about the lives of another person which may lead to slander and
belittling other people. We must respect each other’s privacy especially that whatever is happening to someone
else has nothing to do with our improvement. Talking about another person’s life would not help us improve who
we are.

Student Activity: Response to Negative Filipino traits.

a. List down negative traits of Filipinos.
b. List down ways on how to deal with the negative traits.

a. List down negative traits of Filipinos.

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.

b. List down ways on how to deal with the negative traits.

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.

Although others see the negative traits of Filipinos, it cannot be denied that we are also known for quite
several positive traits, that Filipinos exhibit with pride.
One is our being hospitable, we are usually friendly and welcoming to our guest. We treat them in our best
abilities. As mentioned earlier we even give them the best of whatever we have. Our ability to speak English is an
advantage in communicating with the foreigners. We are also resilient in a lot of sense. It is only in the Philippines
that we react positively to negative situations. Here you can see someone using his jet ski amidst flood, or even a
floating drinking session. This shows how respond to situation that seemingly negative. As the only Christian
country in Asia, we are known to be faithful. We get our strengths from the supreme being and our lives center
around Him. This in a way regulate our actions and help us act accordingly.
Another is the Bayanihan spirit, we may not need to carry a house together and transfer it to another place,
but it may be exhibit in another way. Like being united in times of crisis and being able gather help when someone
28
is needy. And the most practical way to see it is when a person rides on a jeep, when the passenger pays for his
pay, he would ask another passenger to help him pass his fare to the driver. We are also known for being thrifty,
as much as possible we try to recycle everything, from the dress that the elder siblings wore that would be passed
to younger siblings, to being committed to buy bulk for a cheaper price.

Student Activity: Response to Positive Filipino traits

A. List down positive traits of Filipinos.

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.

B. List down ways on how to improve positive traits.

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.

Student Activity: Circumcision: Good or not?

In many places outside of the Philippines, circumcision is NOT practiced for it is seen as disgraceful and
emasculating for a man to have his foreskin removed; yet the Philippines has such a different point of view.
We view it as the entry to manhood and a symbol of manliness.
1. What is your opinion on this practice?
2. Should we require boys to undergo this practice?
3. What is the implication of circumcision in our culture?
4. Would you support this or not?

29
Unit 4. Universal Values
Values may come from different aspects. They may come from parents, they may be imposed by
traditions, churches and practically all sorts of structures in society all of which may be called normative sets of
values. We can adhere to whatever values we are brought up to since human beings are the same anywhere. We
have the same desires for our children, we want them to grow up as honest, caring and compassionate human
beings.
A value could be stated as universal if it has the same value or worse for all people. Whether universal
values exist is an unproven conjecture of moral philosophy and cultural anthropology. There are certain values
that are found across culture, like primary attributes of physical attractiveness, whereas other attribute like being
slim are subject of aesthetic relativism. Something that concerns moral is subject to moral relativism, which
opposed the existence of universal moral values. Universal values can be understood in different ways. It could
be that something is universal value when everybody finds it valuable. Another is that, it is universal when people
have reason to believe at his value, like an artist would interpret the value of a piece, or the way Gandhi argued
that non-violence is a universal value.
Globalization has brought us closer together in the sense that we are all affected by each other’s actions,
but not in the sense that we all share the benefits and the burdens. Instead, we have allowed it to drive us further
apart, increasing the disparities in wealth and power both between societies and within them.
Whether one looks at peace and security, at trade and markets, or at social and cultural attitudes, we
seem to be in danger of living in an age of mutual distrust, fear and protectionism – an age when people turn in
on themselves, instead of turning outwards to exchange with, and learn from, each other. Disillusioned with
globalization, many people have retreated into narrower interpretations of community. This in turn leads to
conflicting value systems, which encourage people to exclude some of their fellow human beings from the scope
of their empathy and solidarity, because they do not share the same religious or political beliefs, or cultural
heritage, or even skin color.
According to Kofi Annan, universal values are needed more in this age of globalization than ever before.
Some people are asking if people still respect universal values. Do we still value human life, peace, freedom, justice
and equality? Are these all wishful ideas? Universal values start with the right of life, as emphasized in the universal
declaration of human rights. It also provided for a family freedom from oppression which is reflected in the
different books of different religions.
As ratified in 1948, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by the United Nation proposes that
universal human rights should be able to provide us with a healthy standard of living which includes medical
services, housing, food, clothing and the ability to access social services when necessary. Each country or society
implements these values in different ways and expressed these in different ways. It is important that human
beings have a positive understanding about universal values, that minorities should not have lesser rights. It could
be noted that there has been some improvement as a century ago, were blacks were considered as slaves, when
women cannot work or cast their votes among others, where international tribunal may have addressed this.
The world is not getting any smaller, but we are certainly a more interconnected because of globalization
and there is a growing awareness. We are consuming the resources of the earth faster than we can sustain
ourselves. That could be a source of meeting a common ground because it is easy to agree upon them when they
begin to encroach on your interest then it is difficult to necessarily implement those.

Student Activity: Differences between universal values and cultural relativism

1. Cite the differences between universal values and cultural relativism.
2. Cite the reasons for their differences.

30
 What are considered as universal values and cite as to why they are considered so?

Unit 5. Moral Development

How does character develop?

The individual’s consistent and stable moral qualities is referred to as his moral character. This imply a
variety of attributes which includes existence or the lack of something, like courage, fortitude, honesty, loyalty
and empathy. Moral character refers to the group of qualities that distinguishes an individual from another. Pervin
has define moral character as a disposition to express behavior in a consistent pattern of functions across a range
of situations. The term character came from a Greek word which refers to a mark that is impressed upon a coin.
This later came to mean a point that one thing is apart from others. To deal with moral character, one way is to
investigate normative ethics that involves moral standards that exhibit right and wrong conduct. This test proper
behavior and determining what is right and wrong. Another way is to investigate applied ethics that involve
specific and controversial issues along with moral choice that tend to involve situations where people are either
for or against the issue. It could be stated that there are major sources of influences of moral development like
heredity, early experiences, modeling, peer influence, media, school environment, general physical and social
environment.
I still remember when I taught my son to ride a bike, I took him in an open space where there are a few
distractions and a much protective space. As we go about our purpose, I realize we have a flat tire which made it
difficult to learn to drive, as I have it fixed, the ride became smoother. I also realized that what I was teaching him
was exactly what I want him to learn in school. These are courage, optimism, persistence, these character strength
or social emotional skills are critical for success not only in school but in life as well. As soon as he had the courage
and the other characteristics and a good tire, he was already cruising flawlessly. These characters are crucial in
riding a bike and in living a life. It is not to overemphasize the importance of teaching character in school, because
aside from a good quality education a good character education is essential if we want our children to have a
happy and successful life. Children who are not persistent in college may have difficulty learning to leverage from
failures and mistakes. It is important to engage in an open-minded, persistent, curious and empathetic discussions
in school.
It is important for students to develop their grit, or persistence over something you are passionate about
for a long amount of time as proposed by Dr. Angela Duckhart. The academic indicators may not be the basis for
student’s success and any person’s success. Carol Dweck of Stanford University pioneered the work of growth
mindset which is the belief that intelligence is malleable that through hard work and challenging situations you
can grow and become smarter as opposed to having a fixed mindset. A fixed mind set is the belief that you sort of
have a certain amount of intelligence and that is all you kind of have. This is important for many students of this
generation, that they feel they are smart enough but is not given an opportunity to fail and then they do very well
through early life through work life. This enables them to confront the challenges of first job failures and
eventually become successful. We approach important challenges and obstacles in life and grow from them. It is
not just a matter for school-based outcomes, it can matter for our physical well-being.
The marshmallow test by Walter Mischel tests proves to be significant in the person’s future character.
This is an experiment that gives one marshmallow to a kid and tells them that they can immediately eat them, but
if they can wait, they will be able to receive two marshmallows when the experimenter arrives. This measures
how delayed gratification could influence the future of children. Children who immediately ate the marshmallow
31
were found to have less successful in their future as opposed to those who waited, who were traced as having a
good job, stable family and more satisfactorily life. Their self-control is directly related to their academic
performance and their future success. It does matter when a person is able to delay gratification and develop a
self-control or self-discipline.

Student Activity: Moral development of famous people

Look into the biography of Nelson Mandela and Adolf Hitler and describe their moral development and how it
influenced their personality and character.

32
Unit 6. Stages of Moral Development
Lawrence Kohlberg developed the moral theory of development. This theory was based upon
cognitive development and he looked at how people develop their morals versus their overall
development emotional physical development throughout life. Kohlberg hope to discover the ways in
which moral reasoning changed as people grew. The way he did this is interesting he looked at children
because obviously that is where a lot of the most fascinating development and growth occur, and rapid
growth occurs is during the adolescent period. What Kohlberg did is he told a bunch of children many
dilemma story situations, so he told these stories to children of all ages and he asked many questions to
discover how people reasoned through these moral issues.
The dilemma Kohlberg used is called the Heinz dilemma. Heinz’ wife was dying from a cancer and
the doctor said a new drug might save her. The drug had been discovered by a local chemist. Heinz tried
desperately to buy some, but the chemist was charging ten times the money it cost to make the drug.
Heinz could not afford so Heinz can only raise half the money even after help from his family and friends.
He explained to the chemist that his wife was dying and begged and asked her if he could have the drug
for cheaper or at least pay the money that he still owed. The chemists refused he said that the drug he
discovered was going to be very profitable. Mr. Heinz was desperate to save his wife so later that night
he broke into the chemist’s office and stole the drug.
After he told this story to the children Kohlberg asked them a series of questions, like should
Heinz have stolen the drug would it change anything if Heinz did not love his wife? What if the person
dying was a stranger would it make a difference? Should the police arrest the chemist for murder if the
woman died? After compiling and analyzing all the responses and that the children gave Kohlberg
analyzed three distinct levels of moral reasoning.

Levels and Stages of Moral Development

Level 1: Pre-conventional Morality

Stage 1: Punishment- Obedience Orientation

The first stage is obedience and punishment were children avoids punishment by being obedient. This
stage includes the use of punishment so that the person refrains from doing the action and continues to
obey the rules. For example, we follow the rule because we do not want to be punished.
Stage 2: Instrumental Relativist Orientation
In this stage, the person judges the morality of an action based on how it satisfies the individual needs.
For instance, a person steals money from another person because he needs that money to buy food for
his hungry children. In Kohlberg’s theory, the children tend to say that this action is morally right because
of the serious need.

Level 2: Conventional Morality

Stage 3: Good Boy-Nice Girl Orientation

In this stage, a person judges an action based on the societal roles and social expectations before him.
This is also known as the “interpersonal relationships” phase. For example, a child gives food to street
dwellers because she thinks doing so means being nice.

Stage 4: Law and Order Orientation

This stage includes respecting the authorities and following the rules, as well as doing a person’s duty.
The society is the main consideration of a person at this stage. For instance, a MMDA constable refuses
the bribe and arrests the offender because he believes this is his duty as an officer.

Level 3: Post-conventional Morality

Stage 5 : Social Contract Orientation

In this stage, the person considers various opinions and values of different people before coming up with
the decision on the morality of the action.

33
 Stage 6 : Universal Ethical Principles Orientation
The final stage of moral reasoning, this orientation is when a person considers universally accepted
ethical principles. The judgment may become innate and may even violate the laws and rules as the
person becomes attached to his own principles of justice.

Kohlberg said that people can only pass through these levels in the order listed. So first, one has
go to new stage and replace the reasoning typical of the earlier stage. Not everyone achieves the last
stage without passing through the initial. Each of these levels splits into two levels, thus there are six
stages of morality development.
The first pre-moral stage had the first level. The first level is obedience versus punishment, this
level deals with children people of a younger age. At this basic level Authority is outside the individual
and reasoning is based on physical consequences of actions. Children see rules as fixed and absolute and
obeying the rules is a means to avoid punishment. If the child is good they are going to avoid being
punished by their parent. If they are punished, that means they must have done something wrong.
The second stage in this is called individualism and exchange, in this stage children recognize that
there is not just one right view that is handed down by the authorities. They start to understand that
different individuals have different viewpoints so after we pass through these two stages we can move
up the ladder.
At the conventional stage there are two more steps. At this stage authorities internalize but not
question. The reasoning is based on the norm of the group to which the person belongs. This stage is all
about good boy and good girl. This may sound kind of funny, but good boy and good girl means that the
child or the individual is good in order to be seen as being good by other people so now they're taking
into other people's thoughts into account so there's an emphasis on conformity. That being nice and
having considerations influence relationships.
The fourth stage of morality is maintaining social order. The child becomes aware of the wider
rules of society. Judgment concerns obeying rules in order to uphold the law and to avoid guilt. It is all
about what society says at this point. Once we are past that we can move on even further.
In the post conventional phase or stage individual judgment is based on chosen principles. We
are beyond law and order. This is thinking at an even higher level and we are having higher moral
reasoning. It is based more on individual rights and justice for the greater good. In the social contract
stage, the individual becomes aware that even though rules and laws exist for the good of the greater
number of people, there are times that this law and order still may work against the interest of people.
The issues are not always clear-cut so, for example in Heinz's dilemma, was the protection of life more
important than breaking the law against stealing? According to people that reach this level of the social
contract. The protection of life is more important than breaking the law and stealing. While level 4 states
that the rules of law are important for maintaining society. But members that reach this level realize that
society should also agree upon these standards and that sometimes the law must be broken to uphold
these higher morals.
The sixth step and the last step of moral reasoning according to Kohlberg is based on the universal
ethical principle. People at this stage develop their own set of moral guidelines which may or may not fit
the law. The principles apply to everyone such as human rights justice and equality and the person who
upholds and believes in this wholeheartedly. One has to be prepared to act and defend these principles
even if it means going against the rest of society in the process. Even if it cost consequences of
disapproval or imprisonment. Kohlberg believe that very few people reach this stage.
Can you think of a few people in history or famous people that have reached this stage? Some
would claim that Gandhi was one person that reached that stage. How many times was he put into
prison. Another was Nelson Mandela or even Martin Luther King there are so many people that believed
in these universal rights of equality for all people even if it went against the law and order of the society.
At that time, they still upheld this and they were prepared to have to pay the consequences. That the
law would put against them the restraints so they are the ones that had the highest level of morality
according to Kohlberg.

34
Student Activity: Kholberg Moral Development
In groups of three or four:
1. Read each of the four moral dilemmas;
2. Come to a group consensus regarding the three best solutions to each;
3. Rank order your three choices;
4. Are there gender differences in opinions regarding the appropriate solutions or their order?
5. Choose a spokesperson to report your choices, describe the reasoning your group used in making
them, and describe any gender differences you encountered.

1. Mrs. Cruz is 35 years old and has three children ranging in age from four to eleven. She was
recently diagnosed with a rare form of cancer. Without treatment, it is predicted that she has
less than two years to live. However, a pharmaceutical company has developed a new drug that
preliminary studies have found to be very effective in treating this form of cancer. Unfortunately,
the medication must be taken for more than a year, and it is quite expensive (about P20,000 a
month).
The family could pay for three months of treatment with the medication, and Mrs. Cruz appears
to be improving. However, they have exhausted their savings; the pharmaceutical company will
not provide the drug at a reduced cost, and the health insurance provider will not pay for it
because they have ruled this form of treatment to be “experimental.” They have tried to borrow
money to pay for the drug but have been unsuccessful. Mr. Cruz works Security Guard in local
hospital which has enough of the drug to meet his wife’s needs. Should he attempt to steal the
drug? If you are in the position of Mr. Cruz, what should you do? List all the possible action and
rank them from highest to lowest.

2. Sara is a First year at a state university. Her roommate, Katie, is currently enrolled in Educational
Psychology (a course that Sara took last year). The day after Katie turned in her second paper in
Educational Psychology, Sara was cleaning up their room and found what appeared to be her Ed. Psych
paper from last semester. However, as she looked at it closely, the paper had Katie’s name on it but was
identical to the paper Sara had turned in last semester! Obviously, Katie had simply copied and pasted
Sara’s paper, changing only the name and date. This put Sara in a difficult situation because she knew
that Katie was falling behind in her classes because of some personal problems she was experiencing, yet
she had obviously committed plagiarism. What should Sara do? List all the possible action and rank them
from highest to lowest.

35
 Student Activity

1. Debate: Is the dog meat trade wrong or acceptable?

2. Classroom discussion: Should we become vegetarians?

Module 3. The Act

Preliminary Assessment

36
Unit 1. Reasons of Morality

Church (1986: 95) opines that many Western concepts and process such as objectivity do not readily
fit in to Filipino experience. Individualism has Western roots which, as a Filipino, could not readily
connect with Eastern identity. Mercado (1974: 6) had identified the Filipinos’ concept of “loob” in two-
fold. First, “loob” is holistic, secondly, “loob” is interior. The holistic concept centered on the unified
entity of the world. The Filipino’s view of the world is non-compartmentalized and holistic. The Filipinos’
“loob” is connected to the intellectual, volitional, emotional and ethical aspects of life. Emotions and
thoughts were integrated and not dualistic in approach. Thoughts, actions and words were all related
with each other.
In the Philippines the individual for Ayn Rand is to be “against the world” – against one’s family,
community, culture and tradition. For Rand (1961), the first step is asserting the right to a moral
existence, recognizing one’s need. The concern to one’s interests is the essence of a moral existence; a
person must be the beneficiary of one’s moral actions. Nevertheless, individualism might be too ideal.
Big businesses gain profit at the expense of the people. In most developing countries’ experience, the
more money you have, the more privileges are accorded to you. The poorer you are, the greater the
injustice, discrimination and persecution you experience.

Ayn Rand
Thinking is one’s choice; it is volitional…
A person has to initiate thinking, sustain it
and to bear responsibility for its result.

The lack of individuality in the Philippines might be due to authoritarianism. For Andres (1986),
authoritarianism is a Filipino characteristic which places high value on persons in authority (e.g. a boss).
Due to authoritarianism, initiative is expected to come from the top; but the Filipino clings to outside
power for reassurance of his worth.
In the twentieth century, individualism struggled against socialism for world domination. The
collectivist brought their objection to individualism (Joad, 1924). According to the collectivist,
individualism is inadequate to the needs of the times. The doctrine of individualism is that since a human
being is fundamentally selfish, each person could be trusted to look after his own interest.
Individualism is a view that a person knows what he wants better than anyone else, could pursue
what he wants with more energy and persistence than anyone else. This doctrine is found from the belief

37
that no outside interference was either desirable or necessary in the dealings between people with one
another.
For the Western values, the following postulates are observed (Neuliep, 2015):

1. Concern for self-interest and independence, taking precedence over group interests.
2. Privacy of the individual as inalienable right.
3. All forms of authority, including the government, are suspect.
4. Religion is good.
5. All human beings are equal.
6. Progress is beneficial and inevitable. Improvement is essential. Modernization is

The socialist theory welded to the political beliefe to the economy of the times gave birth to
laissez faire. Inidividualists held that in the economic sphere, outside interference in the dealings
between a person to others was not only undesirable but also ineffective. The individualist thinks that
any external interference, i.e. government, can be eliminated.
On the other hand, the socialist insists that a policy of non-interference is fallacious on the
following grounds (Joad, 1924):
1. That each individual is equally far-sighted and has an equal capacity for knowing what he wants.
2. That each individual possesses an equal power of obtaining what he wants and an equal freedom of
choice.
3. That the satisfactions of the the wants of all individuals is identical with the well-being of the community
as a whole.

The Individualist stressed the elimination of all outside interferences in relationship with others.
The Socialist held that people should cooperate in society to provide for each other the possibility of
realizing a life which is free.

For the West, the most valuable attribute of a person is the creative mind. Rationality is based on
whether an individual lives and acts to the best of one’s judgment. Use of force has to be outlawed. The
only role of the government is to police and protect the rights of the citizens. There is no other right
except that of the rights delegated to it by the citizens for a specific purpose.
The use of force cannot be left to the discretion of individual citizens. Peaceful coexistence is
impossible if a person has to live under constant threat or force to be unleashed against him by any of
his neighbors at any moment. Individuals have rights such as property rights, referring to the right of
use and disposal. Individuals should respect the rights of others and shall not consider a human being
as a sacrificial animal. Further, individuals should not let the government manipulate them. The West
emphasizes modern science and technology. In terms of thinking, it is departmentalized and detached
(Neuliep, 2015).
On the other hand, the individualistic tendencies of the Westerners is in contrast to other cultures
such as China or the Philippines. For the Chinese, and to some extent, for the rest of Asia, the following
values are acceptable:
1. Filial piety
2. Industry
3. Tolerance of others
4. Harmony with others
5. Loyalty to superiors
6. Knowledge (education)

38
 People are emotionally connected to values. These values are linked to goals that motivate people
to act. As such hiya or utang na loob can trigger actions, positive or negative to Filipinos. Values
transcend specific actions and situations that arise from work to school or nation. Moreover, these
values serve as standard for deciding what is right or wrong; good or bad (Neuliep, 2015). Individuals
across cultures prioritize their values and these are ranked hierarchically. Multiple values guide our
attitudes and behavior.
From a philosophical viewpoint, the East and West have two different ways of thoughts. The
philosophical basis of the West is on the individual; the Eastern encompassed the whole. The West
indicated that one person is responsible for what becomes of him. To be an individual is to choose what
he wants to be, regardless of others expectations. The East focused on moral reform which can only
begin with the self (Kaplan, 1961). Further, the East viewed the individual as dynamic and relational. In
the East, the self is dissolved as well as other people into conglomeration of personal and instantaneous
elements. In other words, from a theological perspective, there is reciprocity between philosophy and
faith.
Nonetheless, the individual and community are both necessary components in life. For Mclean
(1970), only through relations with others that the individual concretely expresses himself. As in the
case of Filipino “loob”, its holistic concept referred to the unified entity of the world, the non-dual
outlook of the world. It avoided fragmentation and division. There is no conflict between individual and
reference groups. Rather, the individual is fulfilled in terms of reference groups.
Filipino negativism is reflected in the tendency of the Filipinos to identify with the underdog. Filipinos
attribute their success to luck, chance and will of God. These negative values are imposed upon Filipinos
by colonizers which is made to be believed. Negativism leads to social disorientation. Filipinos must
come to realize that their personal worth and dignity is not exterior to themselves; it is found not in the
body of the “sakop” but in one’s “kalooban”. Filipinos can also learn from the Westerners individualism
by becoming self-sufficient.

Unit 2. Feelings and Reasons

Twentieth century gave rise to the importance of the individual, an anti-thesis of the medieval
thought that was God centered. For Ayn Rand, the individual’s mind is the tool for economic progress
vis-à-vis laissez faire capitalism. Since the mind is important, the sector which molds it should be free
from government constraints. The individual should be taught not to be passive by deciding not to think.
In terms of the individual, Rand centers on human ego. This ego provides the venue for innovation in
the pursuit of human progress amidst hate and denunciation.
As a philosopher, Rand had been much argued about. Her works, Fountainhead and Atlas
shrugged, shared her works about capitalism and its strength. She expressed her definition of
individualism by using her characters as medium. Howard Roarke, the young architect, Equality 7-2521
who dared to ask questions, Kira Argounova, a builder who values science, and John Galt, the leader and
initiator of strike of men and women of mind.
In reviewing Aristotle’s philosophy, we can better understand his ability to organize and explain
every aspect of human experience (Price, 2000). He was able to bring together in a unified world-view
the physical world, the social world, and our moral life. We have seen Plato’s influence on some of
Aristotle’s belief and the departures of Aristotle from his mentor. Since Aristotle‘s time, the Western
world has been divided into more or less two camps – the Platonic and the Aristotelian. However,
because Aristotle is a scientist, most Westerners have followed his route and view the physical world as
real and knowable. Both the writings of Plato and Aristotle were so powerful that over the next six
centuries, or until the emergence of Christianity, most philosophy was just a modification of their system.

39
 Consider the following sentences such as “Humans produce one offspring at a time” or “The
octopus has eight tentacles.” Logic is a general discipline and Aristotle wanted to deal generally with all
possible arguments. The logical system that Aristotle develops in the Prior Analytics is based upon his
doctrine of the proposition. However, since there are many arguments, Aristotle produced a simple
device. To treat generally that indefinitely immense multiplicity, Aristotle used letters A, B, C, instead of
such sentences cited. The use of letters and schemata allows Aristotle to speak with full generality; for
what holds true of a schema, holds true of every instance of that schema.
Aristotle makes great claims for his theory. His arguments are divided into three groups or
figures. The pairings are taken according to a fixed pattern, and for each pair Aristotle states and proves
formally, what conclusion, if any, may be correctly inferred. The whole account is recognized as the first
essay in the science of formal logic. Any deficiencies in his logic are minor flaws; if Aristotle’s logic is not
considered as a complete one, it can still be admired as a nearly perfect fragment of logic.
Thus, the very first argument-pattern that Aristotle discusses runs like this: “If A is predicated of
every B, and B of every C, necessarily A is predicated of every C.” In arguments of this form, all three
propositions are universal, affirmative, and assertory. An instance might be: “Juan is a man; all men are
mortal; therefore, Juan is mortal.”
For Rachels (2004), morality is a matter of consulting reason. He argues that the morally right
thing to do is whatever there the best reasons for doing are. Moral judgments go beyond personal or
public opinion. As in logic, valid and sound or cogent arguments are based on truth of the claimed
evidence. If there are no evidence supporting the conclusion, then there is no argument, only loosely
associated statements or merely a statement of a belief or opinion (Hurley, 2011). Also, in reasoning,
people may commit fallacies that include appeal to people, appeal to pity, suppressed evidence or ad
hominem. For Hurley (2011), these fallacies are committed by using intellectually dishonest means
which is a form of cheating.
Morally justifying a fallacious reasoning becomes problematical as manipulation, violation of
human dignity, careless disposition and emotional impetus contribute to wrong decisions (Hurley, 2011).
Impartiality when making a decision, on the other hand, is based on the idea that individual interest are
equally important and thus, each must acknowledge that other person’s welfare is equally important as
one’s own (Rachels, 2004). A conscientious moral agent is impartial and carefully considers facts and
studies its implications. This person accepts principles of conduct after scrutinizing them and make sure
that they are sound and finally, takes action upon deliberation. In the bible, when King Solomon was
made to decide on favoring who the real mother of a baby is, we can consider him making a sound and
impartial judgment, and most of all, a wise one.
II. Reasoning
For Rand, thinking is volitional. A person has the freedom to think or not. However, Rand
maintains that the majority belongs to the “passive supporters of the status quo” who chose not to think.
Individual rights are not a matter of numbers. Rand rejected collectivism, for according to her, the only
power the collectivists have is brute force which she termed as the “modern mystic” of the muscle.
Though there are rights, there should also be the responsibility. It is an individual right to live, to
own properties but they should also respect the properties of others. Similarly, Guardini believed that
the individual possessed “power which referred to real energies capable of changing the reality of things,
of determining their condition and interrelationship and awareness of those energies toward their
goals.”
Hegel identified the alienation of the individual. According to Hegel, the history of man/woman
is the history of man’s/woman’s self-alienation. For Hegel, humanity is blind to its true essence. He/she
is estranged from Universal being of which humanity is a part and human progress consists of humanity’s
motion toward the whole as humanity transcends the limitations of individual perceptions.

40
 Alienation is blamed to big businesses and industrialization. However, Rand points the accusing
finger to the individual who has turned his/her back from responsibility of a volitional consciousness: to
think or not to think. If an individual does not want to bear responsibility for the consequence of his/her
actions, then he/she is not responsible for one’s life. Since Rand considers freedom is inherent nature
of man/woman, there is no escape from volitional consciousness. In other words, the problem of
alienation is not caused by capitalism but by the individual’s psycho-epistemological aspect of how the
individual chooses to use his/her own consciousness.
Individual rights were upheld in capitalism which is the only system that can uphold and protect
them. The principle of man’s/woman’s individual rights represented the extension of morality into the
social system. Rand is contemptuous to all previous systems that had regarded man/woman as a
sacrificial means to the end of others and society as an end.
Rand cited the right to gain, to keep, to use and dispose of material values. However, developing
countries have become the dumping site of United States and recently, Canada. These countries,
particularly, the U.S., should not just keep producing nuclear materials with no projection of where they
are going to throw their waste. The same is true to Canada, which imported truckloads of its garbage in
the Philippines in 2014. Can we consider, the acts of throwing toxic wastes to other countries as
irresponsible?
Individuals have illusions that what he/she thinks is completely his/her own. Fromm cited the
influence of media to promote a false sense of success. In capitalism, marital gains vis-à-vis economic
activity, provokes the individual to pursue material things to become his/her God. Though the authority
figure is not concrete when for instance, the advertisement says, “Use this so and so product. In a very
affordable price, you can be on top of the world.” The individual, in his desire to become famous and
powerful, buys the product thinking it was his will and decisions which prodded him to choose the
commodity.
Pope Francis’ deplores the state of consumerism, overuse of social networks at the present which
he referred to as “eating us alive.” According to Pope, we are ruled by latest trend of consumerism
rather than on human relationships. Because of this focus, modern culture “discards” everything that is
not “useful” or “satisfying” that leads to loneliness and economic inequality. This loneliness is rooted
from fear of commitment in a limitless effort to feel recognized.
Only in long term generous investment of our intelligence, enthusiasm and passion can there be
true quality of life, according to the Pope. In this regard, Rand and the Pope agree: we cannot survive,
as animals do, by acting on the range of immediate moment. Humanity must project his goals and
achieve them across a span of time.
Fromm does not accept that “reason alone is superior” and can never be false. The realization
of the self could not be attained exclusively by the act of thinking but by the realization of our total
personality, by the active expression of emotional and intellectual potentialities. Further, that humanity
can also blossom in a society, without the need to inhibit the self from the rest should result in a
participative atmosphere which will further lay the groundwork toward cultural and political
transformation.
Individuals can live with each other in a society through adaptation. For Harris, the good of the
community is symbiotic with the life of the persons who comprise it. Harris believes that we should not
consider the self and the world as two antagonistic elements. Instead, we should view both in polarity
wherein balance could be achieved.
Productive work is the central purpose of a rational life. It is the central value that integrates and
determines the hierarchy of all other values. The realization of individualism is achieved by means of
the virtues of rationality, productiveness and pride. Rand believes that the interests of rational human

41
beings do not clash therefore, one can benefit from each other’s actions. Sacrifice is not required to
achieve human good.
The link of individual with the social structure is through work. For the Buddhist, work is a form
of prayer which reinforces discipline. In Anthem, Rand philosophizes work as an extension of the ego
and the individual’s worth. Work is a form of fulfillment.
In 1989, “cold fusion”, experiment outlined by Pons and Fleischmann (that consisted of applying
an electric current forced deuterium to concentrate in the palladium causing hydrogen nuclei to fuse
and produce heat radiation and radiation byproducts), generated feverish multi-million-dollar
researchers worldwide. Currently, since the Pons-Fleischmann experiment failed to be replicated, the
consensus in the scientific community is that cold fusion does not occur (Martin and Schinzinger, 2005).
This incident is considered how bias and self-deception, aggravated by external pressures, can
undermine sound research.
Both Pons and Fleischmann are well respected electrochemists, though they made mistakes,
what was objectionable was their unorthodox step of announcing the results of research that had not
yet been published in peer reviewed journals. They should have simply published their results and
allowed other researchers to confirm or refute their conclusions. For Martin and Schinzinger (2005),
their failing lie in fraud and sloppiness. Self-deception is pertinent on both instances; this refers to an
unreasonable belief motivated by biases. Moreover, self-deception is allowing one’s judgment to be
biased by what one wants to believe and by one’s emotions such as wishes, hopes, self-esteem and fears.
Self-deception, as opposed to impartiality, can be motivated by irrationality that constitutes a
more purposeful deception. For instance, researchers suspect an unpleasant result that the data is going
against what they want to believe, may disregard the evidence or downplay its consequences. For
instance, universities seeking commercial ties, must find ways to place reasonable limits on commercial
pressures in athletics, marketing of products in campus and technology transfers from universities to
industry to preserve objective judgment.
Another instance is when a pharmaceutical company funded a research that aims to present its
product as superior to a generic brand. The researcher, initially believes that results will correspond to
the company’s hopes, only to find out that there was no difference in the drug’s effectiveness. When
the researcher attempted to publish the results, the company accuses her of sloppiness and threatens
legal action (Martin and Schinzinger, 2005). Hence, to be impartial, researchers must openly
acknowledge even potential conflict of interest, as well as limits on the extent to which they can be
invested in companies for which they do research.
Finally, critical thinking in ethics is not just reasoning and impartiality or just gathering facts; more
importantly, aside from making sound and valid choices, philosophical ethics is the willingness to take a
stand on issues.

Unit 3. The Steps in moral reasoning model

Student Activity: Case Analysis

1. Consider the case of the KADAMAY, where they are forcing themselves to occupy government
houses since they do not have decent ones. They have been bugging the NHA since the
President in his campaign promised he would have housing projects for them. It seems that
the military, police, BJMP, BFP personnel are not occupying the said houses. Does this justify
their action to occupy those that are unoccupied? How would you ethically resolve the issues?

42
 2. In the killings as the result of the president’s campaign on war on drugs justified? Give instances
where it is, and where it is NOT.

The Steps in Moral Decisions

1. Acknowledge the ethical issue or concern
2. Give due consideration tot eh parties involved
3. Gather important information
4. Create plan of action and investigate alternatives
5. Decide and give considerations
6. Act or do the action
7. Analyze the result to actions

Application of Frameworks to different cases

Ethical judgements on specific case could be done if there is a framework or guidelines that is followed. It
is important for one to work on the basis on how one case is decided on. The steps about could be useful if carrying
out decisions.
It is important to recognize ethical issues, in deliberating and locating the extent possible ethical issue at
hand. There are instances where, an ethical dispute appears to be ethical. Utilitarian argue that death penalty
deters crime therefore it is ethical for it response to the good of the many, thus produces greatest amount of good
with the least harm. Although some would say it does not deter crimes, which implies that it produces more harm
than good. So, which facts argue for morality of an action not just morality on a principle. All utilitarian would
abide by the principle of producing the most good with the least harm.
Other considerations are the parties involved. The group who may be affected by the decision and who
may be consider who might be harmed or who might benefit. One should also gather all the relevant information
before one take actions. This is gathering of pertinent information and all potential sources of information should
be consulted. Then one formulates action and consider the alternatives by evaluation options and asking some
questions like: In utilitarian perspective, which actions will produce the most good and do the least harm? The
rights approach, which actions respects the rights of all who have a stake in the decision? The justice approach,
which actions treats people equally or proportionately? The common good approach, which action serve the
community and not just some members? And the virtue approach, which action leads one to act as the sort of
person one should be?
Then, one must decide and consider the action. Which best address the situation and how one felt about
the choice? Then, act ethically and take some action and reflect on the outcome. Consider the result of your
decision, what were the consequences and how would this change anything?

43
 Remember that making ethical decision requires sensitivity to the ethical implications of the problem and
its situation. It requires practice using a framework of ethical decision making.

Student Activity: Moral decision making

Following the steps in moral decision making, resolve the following cases

1. The Baby or The Townspeople

Enemy soldiers have taken over a village. They have orders to kill all remaining civilians over
the age of two. Jane and some of people have sought refuge in the underground rooms of a house.
Outside Zane hears the voices of soldiers who have come to search the house for valuables. Zane’s baby
begins to cry loudly in the other room.
His crying will summon the attention of the soldiers who will spare Zane’s baby’s life but will
kill Jane and the others hiding in both rooms. If Zane turns on the noisy furnace to block the sound,
the other room will become uncomfortably hot for adults and children, but deadly for infants. To save
her and the others Zane must activate the furnace, which will kill her baby. Should Zane overheat her
baby to save herself and the other people?

Step 1.
Step 2.
Step 3.
Step 4.
Step 5.
Step 6.
Step 7.

2. The Unfaithful Wife

You are in an emergency response team and has just been called to the scene of an accident.
When you arrive, you see that the car belongs to your wife. Fearing the worst, you rush over, only to
see she is trapped in her car with another man. He is obviously her lover, with whom she’s been having
an affair.
You reel back in shock, devastated by what you have just found out. As you step back, the wreck
in front of you comes into focus. You see your wife is seriously hurt and she needs attention straight
away. Even if she gets immediate attention there’s a very high chance she’ll die. You look at the seat
next to her and see her lover. He’s bleeding heavily from a wound to the neck and you need to stem
the flow of blood immediately.
If you attend to your wife, her lover will bleed to death, and you may not be able to save her
anyway. If you work on the lover, you can save his life, but your wife will die.
Who should you choose to work on?

Step 1.
Step 2.
Step 3.
Step 4.
Step 5.
Step 6.
Step 7.

3. The Mad Bomber

A madman who has threatened to explode several bombs in crowded areas has been
apprehended. Unfortunately, he has already planted the bombs and they are scheduled to go off in a
short time. It is possible that hundreds of people may die. The authorities cannot make him divulge the
location of the bombs by conventional methods. He refuses to say anything and requests a lawyer to
protect his fifth amendment right against self-incrimination. In exasperation, some high-level official
suggests torture. This would be illegal, but the official is sure that it will make him tell the truth in time
for you to find and defuse the bombs.
What should you do? What if you know that the bomber can withstand torture himself, but
would talk if you were to torture his innocent wife instead?
Step 1.
Step 2.
44
 Step 3.
Step 4.
Step 5.
Step 6.
Step 7.

Unit 4. The difference between reason and will

In 2002, an unwed mother in Nigeria was sentenced to be stoned to death for having had sex out
of wedlock. It is unclear whether Nigerian values, overall, approved of this verdict, given that it was later
overturned by a higher court. However, it was overturned partly to appease the international
community. When the Nigerians themselves heard the verdict being read out in the courtroom, the
crowd shouted out their approval.
In 2005, a woman from Australia was convicted of trying to smuggle nine pounds of marijuana
into Indonesia. For that crime, she was sentenced to 20 years in prison— an excessive punishment.
Under Indonesian law, she might even have received a death sentence
In 2007, a woman was gang-raped in Saudi Arabia. When she complained to the police, the police
discovered during their investigation that she had recently been alone with a man she was not related
to. For that crime, she was sentenced to 90 lashes. When she appealed her conviction, this angered the
judges, and they increased
her sentence to 200 lashes plus a six-month prison term. Eventually, the Saudi king pardoned her,
although he said he supported the sentence she had received.

During the EDSA Revolution, Corazon Aquino was stranded in Cebu for her civil disobedience
campaign against Marcos; she slept peacefully in a convent. Though she did not have the military
support, she had the people’s support. Bodies shielded Marcos’ tanks and guarded the mutineers,
chanting “Cory!” In her trademark yellow dress, Aquino will swore to serve the Filipino people as the
Marcos’s will live in exile at Hawaii. EDSA February 1986 would not have happened without the civilians.
Civilians, without the mutinous soldiers, might have a different ending. People stayed awake, and victory
went to the vigilant (Yabes, 2009).
The coup attempt of 1986 is attempted again and failed; from the December 1989 to Oakwood Mutiny
in July 2003. For one of the Oakwood mutineers recall that when he was assigned to Basilan, he learned
about the poor leadership of his superiors and what seemed to be little supplies and food for him and
his men. Years of life at the academy did not prepare him for the shocked he felt in Mindanao. This
officer told him that should there be a coup, he will surely join.
One of the rebel soldiers of 1989 became a changed religious individual. If a major portion of the
coup is violent, he will not join. He believed in God’s guidance and believed that His plans are on a much
higher plane. However, for Yabes (2009), the umbilical cord between the old and new officers are not
severed. Young officers offer the nationalists’ features, providing the old one’s with a facelift for its past
embarrassments. A military uprising backed by civilian uprising, except in EDSA II 2001, crumbled.
There are countless new beginnings of Armed Forces of the Philippines, always picking up from a
previous fall. There are failures, repeating the same mistakes. Coup plotters use the same formula on
how they were plotted in the past, so they are doomed. However, when people swelled up in EDSA II,
calling for Estrada resignation, Gen. Angelo Reyes withdrew his support from Estrada. The coup became
successful. Gloria Macapagal Arroyo became the president.
The Oakwood mutiny will initiate to oust Arroyo, as announced by Trillanes. Their appeal for support
to right the wrongs of Arroyo were broadcasted in national television. The mutiny will last for only 10
hours, political backers left them to hang and dry. Later, Trillanes will become a senator. In the
succeeding years, Gen. Reyes will commit suicide.

45
 1. THEORY OF GOLDEN MEAN

This theory of Aristotle reminds us of moderation or balance between the two extremes of “too
much” or “too little.” Virtue lies between the two extremes and is in consonance with reason and
everything that is excessive or insufficient. Take for instance the examples next page (Price, 2000):

Excess Mean Defect

(Virtue)

Wasteful Generosity Stingy

Gluttony Moderation Starvation

Too shy Modesty Show-off

Foolhardy Courage Cowardice

The future has yet to realize the dreams of Aristotle and Plato – that the State is not for
mere life but for the best life, that true liberty is found in willing obedience to the State; that the
State has to aim at the culture of all its citizens and to realize it, before it can lay claim to have
justified its existence. Whether the State is East or West, it is the task of both to work together,
for in the kingdom of knowledge and human happiness there is neither East nor West (Scott et
al., 1993).

2. MOKSA

Moksa is derived from the root muk, meaning “to free,” “to emancipate,” “to release.” In short,
moksa is complete freedom. Moksa as the ultimate goal of life, for the Indians, points to the
extraordinary significance they attach to the essentially spiritual nature of humanity. According to all
Indian schools of philosophy, humanity’s state of suffering and unfreedom is not due to any original sin
on its part but to original ignorance (avidya) of its true being and nature. The Upanishads teach that a
human being in his true being is Atman (Brahman, the ultimate reality), which is infinite, eternal, and
immortal. In his ignorance, a human being identifies himself with finite and perishable things, such as his
body, mind, ego and thereby develops attachments to them and suffers sorrow and misery, when he
loses them as he inevitably does.

Ultimate reality is attained by knowledge of one’s true being; only then can a person conquer
ignorance and bondage and become free. Freedom therefore consists in self-realization – the realization
that a human being is the infinite, eternal, immortal Pure Being. Immortal does not mean an endless
existence in an unknown cosmos, but as human being’s discovery that he is identical with the all-
encompassing eternal reality. Moksa is not a state that one looks forward to after death. It is, in principle,
to be attained here and now while one is still in one’s bodily existence. It is for this reason that all Indian
philosophies and religions hold that the body is not something to be disparaged as the source of sin and
depravity, but rather is the vehicle for attaining moksa.

It makes no sense to talk about knowledge, without a body. Yoga in some form or other physical-
46
mental discipline is necessary for the attainment of moksa. The same point may be expressed by saying
that biological and social fulfillment is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for the attainment of
moksa.

There are two kinds of moksa. The first one earlier mentioned could be attained while still alive
(jivan mukti). Mother Teresa, for instance, was highly revered by the Indians and considered her under
this category; same goes with Jesus Christ and Buddha. The other form of moksa could be attained
after death (para mukti).

Dharma has several meanings in Sanskrit and defies any attempt to render it exactly into English.
Nevertheless, its basic sense is derived from the root dhr, which means “to sustain,” “to maintain,” “to
support.” Thus duty, obligations, and justice – in general, rules of conduct and guides for action – come
under dharma since they are essential to the protection and perpetuation of the individual and society.
Dharma is the duties and obligations of the individual toward himself and the society as well as those of
the society toward the individual. Thus, it is dharma that makes it possible for men to live and function
harmoniously in their society by fulfilling themselves and at the same time contributing to the well-being
of the society at large.
Different individuals have different duties and obligations, depending on their aptitude, abilities, and
stations in life at any given time. However, it is obvious that all individuals have certain duties and
obligations in common as well.
Like dharma, artha has many meanings in Sanskrit. Its root meaning is “that which one seeks.” Broadly
speaking, artha may be translated as one’s means of supporting one’s life. It is clear that artha covers
job, wealth, and all other material means necessary for the maintenance of life. This does not mean that
artha excludes the spiritual life of human beings. On the contrary, material well-being is a necessary
condition for spiritual life. It is absurd to talk about the spiritual life if one is in the grip of grinding poverty
or emaciating sickness. Thus, all means of livelihood is artha. However, human beings should not earn
their living and acquire wealth in violation of dharma – for instance, by stealing.
Wealth should not be an end in itself but just a means. Kama is the purpose of wealth. Kama means
pleasure and enjoyment. It also means wish and any kind of desire such as food, sex, home, friendship.
Pleasure and enjoyment are not to be thought of as unworthy and sinful. On the contrary, they are one
of the main aims of life. It is important, however, that artha and kama be in harmony with each other
and with dharma.

1. Sixta Chalita R.Ramos +

A role model

As a philosophy professor, the author asks her students in their final exam about their explanation to
the question “What is the meaning of life?” Usually, the author get replies from her students that are
quite nervous and tentative. Students usually reply, “How am I supposed to know the meaning of my
life? I am still in my college years.”
In the author’s case, she still cannot believe she would be answering the same question from a
different perspective. She would have quoted great philosophers but after the demise of her mom
Chalita, she shares her students’ predicament. It is hard to answer life’s complexities.
There are so much broken pieces yet to be understood. She was shocked for days about the untoward
incident that happened to her mom in the early morning as her mom is on her way to the market. The

47
author’s family was almost one of the last to know. She felt her mom’s pain and being alone then. The
author prayed and felt very worried when her mom has not arrived from the market. Her mom was
supposed to serve at the 7:30 a.m. mass. She was never late for her church service. The author knew
instinctively that something had gone wrong.
Her mom was not just her best friend but also her superheroine. Her parents brought her up to the
best they could, though it was not a Hilton lifestyle, she learned about her mother’s chic and grace under
pressure, dedication to her work and commitment to serve the church. Her mother encouraged the
author at an early age to play the guitar to join the parish choir, and later, she will join the
lectors/commentators/psalmists ministry. She would not have gone through Ph.D. without her mom’s
loving guidance and prayers. In retrospect, her parents had seen her and her siblings, through the most
trying and successful times.
The author was not just writing about a memoir about her mom because of what she had done and
sacrificed for her children (though it is a part of it), but because she is a great lady who did not need a
yacht, a plane or a mansion to help people. Her mother was just herself who saw goodness in the people
she met. The many kind and generous people who sympathized with the author’s family, from the time
her mother was reported missing until coping with their loss, attested to the great friendship her mother
had with so many people in her lifetime. If her mother only knew her mini celebrity status…
To her mom’s friends and relatives, she would be remembered for the meaning of life she
imparted: service to God and others with joy and one that is unconditional. Her demise made the
author (and probably to others’ lives her mother had touched) realized that we cannot avoid conflicts
in life but we need to cherish and love the people whom God has brought in our midst.

Student Activity: Individual Analysis:

1. What corporate virtue/s will encourage you to apply in a certain company?

A. Which of the following work ethic are compatible or incompatible with your profession?
48
 B. Choose from the illustration. Tick the most applicable answer and explain.

Work ethic Compatible Incompatible

Is work a necessary evil?

Is work a major instrumental

good in life?

Does work express fulfillment and

personal expression?
Exercise 2: Profit becomes an end in itself.
Group
Discussion: Simulation

1. Organizations exemplify patterns of virtues and vices as practiced by management, employees and
their corporate vision and mission.
A. Which virtues are manifested in your environment (e.g. school or church)?
B. Based on your individual analysis, share with the group your work ethic. Decide which virtue you
would like to emphasize.
C. Based on your answers, construct a simple vision/mission either for a school or a church.

Module 4. The Framework

Vignettes
The twin daughters of the Maltese couple Michaelangelo and Rina Attard, known to the British public as
Mary and Jodie, were joined at the pelvis with a fused spine. Although operations to separate other infants joined
in such a manner have been relatively straightforward, doctors knew from before the girls' birth in October 2000
that both babies could not survive.
Mary, the smaller and weaker twin, was fatally compromised. Her lungs and heart were not properly
formed and her brain was primitive, although capable of sustaining life.
If the operation had not taken place, both babies would have died.
"The only way [Mary] could have survived was [by the] link to her sister who was acting as her life-support
machine," neonatal surgeon Adrian Bianchi told Mary's inquest.
"Over the previous 10 days [Jodie's heart] had begun to show signs of strain, consequent to taking on two
bodies."
The doctors had little doubt about what had to be done, but the parents, devout Catholics who had come
to Britain to consult leading specialists in conjoined twins, were not prepared to agree to the ending of Mary's life,
even though it would be the saving of Jodie's.
The case went to the high court which ordered that the separation should go ahead, and then quickly on
to the court of appeal, where judges said they had been faced with an agonizing decision.
In the end they came down in favor of Jodie's right to life. "Mary has always been fated for early death," said the
senior judge, Lord Justice Ward. "Though Mary has the right to life she has little right to be alive.
"She is alive only because, to put it bluntly but nonetheless accurately, she sucks the lifeblood of Jodie and her
parasitic living will soon be the cause of Jodie ceasing to live.
"Jodie is entitled to protest that Mary is killing her. The best interests of the twins is to give the chance of
life to the child whose actual bodily condition is capable of accepting the chance to her advantage even if that has
to be at the cost of the sacrifice of a life.
"I am left in no doubt at all that the scales come down heavily in Jodie's favor."
The Catholic church and other campaigners vigorously protested at the decision, but the parents decided not to
take the case to the House of Lords.

49
In a 20-hour operation, the bones and internal organs shared by the twins were separated and neurosurgeons
delicately divided the spinal cord.
When the main blood vessel connecting Mary to Josie was severed, the weaker twin died. It was an incision the
two surgeons, Alan Dickson and Mr Bianchi, made together in silence and, they said, with "great respect".
Jodie - whose real name, Gracie, was disclosed after the operation - is living with her parents on their native island
of Gozo and is said to be doing well. Doctors say she should be able to lead a normal life and have children of her
own.
Rose - Mary's real name - is buried on the island.
Ref: https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2002/feb/05/sarahboseley

Unit 1. Aristotle

Virtue Ethics
This Philosophy was developed by Aristotle and other ancient Greeks, which is the quest to
understand and live a life of moral character. Wat is virtue? Virtue or “arattai” means excellence, it is
doing something well and in a wide sense virtue could pertain to just about anything. This character-
based approach to morality assumes that we acquire virtue through practice, by practicing honesty,
bravery, justice, generosity and so on. A person develops an honorable and moral character, according
to Aristotle by honing virtuous habits.
For example, we used the word virtuoso to describe somebody who plays piano a virtuoso
pianist. We can also say if somebody possesses certain characteristics they have certain virtues for
instance, if someone were detail-oriented and very organized we might say that they possess the virtues
of an accountant, so virtue just means to do anything well. Think of virtue as excellence.
Rosslyn Hurst stated that the virtue ethics does generate norms for acting that she calls V rules
or virtue rules. It states that one should act justly, act compassionately, act courageously, act humbly
and act generously and so on. A virtue theory will generate most of the same rules as other moral
theories. For instance, a rule like don't lie follows from the virtue rule that says be honest but more
importantly rules sometimes mislead us. It is either there are exceptions that the rule ignores, or the
rule requires interpretation that makes it hard to apply.
The basic difference between virtue ethics and act-based ethics is that act based theories are
primarily concerned with the question, “What should I do?”, while virtue theories are primarily
concerned with the question, “What kind of person do I want to be?” Act base theories come up with
rules in the best case, one supreme rule or principle to distinguish a right act from a wrong act. So,
classical utilitarianism is an important example of an act-based theory because it sets up one moral
principle that is intended to tell us what to do in any given situation.
According to Aristotle there are two main types of virtues that human beings develop or hope to
develop the moral virtues. These are referred to as the virtues of character or excellences of character
and the intellectual virtues or virtues of mind. The structure of the soul according to Aristotle can be
described in terms of its various functions that there are two main groups of functions performed by the
human soul. These are the non-rational functions which include our vegetative and nutritive functions
and our appetites and desires functions of a perfectly healthy human being.
On the other hand, we have a set of rational functions subdivide again by the object of our
thought. Thus, we can either think about changing things or we can think about unchanging things. A
person may have their appetites and desires which are non-rational in their origin but once these desires
occur then they also have rational functionality which allows them to think about those desires. Aristotle
emphasized that we want to be praised, and we do not want to be blamed, so we want to make our
choices with excellence. We also want to satisfy our appetites and desires in the right way. Aristotle is
always saying that we should go to the mean, going beyond it is a vice otherwise is a virtue.

50
 Aristotle gave an example on how much food should one eat. Some may need 1 full meal a day
but for some it is too little and 6 full meals are too much, so the mean of 1+6=7/2 =3.5, so 3.5 meal would
be the moral mean. But it also depends on who the person is and at what situation. One is supposed to
aim at a mean or average. Let us take an example between a Japanese summo Wrestler Michael and a
housewife Linda. Michael maintains an extremely intense training program if he were to eat 3 full meals
of food on his regimen it would not be enough food for him he would need to eat more food than that
to generate or to provide him with enough calories so that he could undertake his training routine on
the other hand that is too much food for Linda. Anyone like an athlete or a couch potato philosopher
can eat either too little or too much food no matter which they are or what their circumstances might.
To find the right amount of food that is excellent and just right amount is going to depend on our
circumstances. Every mean or every just right is between two extremes an extreme of deficiency of too
little or extreme of excess too much. That means that every virtue is sandwiched between two vices so
to speak and no virtue and vice are about habitual, it is about dispositions we must act and choose in a
certain kind of way. For example, if you smoke one cigarette you do not have the vice of smoking,
however if you regularly smoke then we would say that you have developed the vice of smoking.
Rosslyn Hurst house argues that virtue ethics is in a better position to handle the problem of
abortion than act-based theories most of the discussion of the morality of abortion focuses on the status
of the human fetus. Questions like does it have rights if so how those rights should be weighed against
the other rights. Hearst house argues that the question of rights is often beside the point even if we
assume that the mother has a right to an abortion an abortion could be morally wrong because in the
exercise of a right we can do something cruel or callous or selfish or stupid or disloyal or dishonest. Then
she argues that to determine the virtuous thing to do we need to consider biological and social facts
about human reproduction. These are very familiar, but which are largely ignored in the theories that
focus on rights rather than virtues.
The defects of the rights approach to morality asks us to consider the relationship between a
person and an animal, everybody would say that between a woman and a pet cat, she is more valuable
than her cat meaning that if somebody can only rescue one of them from a burning building they should
rescue her rather than the cat. Then she asks what if she escapes by herself, should you rescue the cat?
Most people say no, unless you really can do it with no danger to yourself at all because you outrank the
cat. Humans are much more important than the cat, but would you say the same thing about what she
should do? Should she try to rescue the cat? The answer she says is not nearly as obvious because the
relevant point now is not that she is human, and the cat is a cat but that the cat is her cat she has a
relationship with cat and has assumed responsibility for the cat. She agrees that she would have to take
the risk of dying to save the cat but if she can rescue him without taking a great deal of risk she ought to
do it the point here is that moral status and moral rights are not the only thing relevant to this decision
personal relationships including relationships with animals have moral weight that can be explained in a
virtue theory where the virtues arising from love and friendship and from compassion and sympathy can
easily be extended beyond the human realm.
Let us talk about our fears, we all know we have our fears and we all need to control them. It is
possible to be deficient in the control of our fear we can control our fear too little; another way of saying
that is our fear could control us instead of us controlling our fear. If we cannot control our fear and it
becomes habitually dispositional we would develop the vice of cowardice. That every time a twig snaps
we run for cover, we could say that the person is a coward. If you control your fear too much or humans
did not evolve the sense of fear we would not have evolved at all, we would have died out a long time
ago.
Another example is we all must give money at a certain point not just to charity or churches but
just give money to pay a bill or to buy an item at the store. It is something we all engage in all the time
if we developed a disposition to not give enough money for the right reasons we are called stingy or
cheap on the other hand if we develop the habit or the disposition to be giving money too much trying
to give away money that we do not have.
If I were to give to the Red Cross P5,000.00 based on what I make that is a lot of money for me,
a lot for my family to give and it is a generous donation. If I try to give P50,000 by maxing out my credit
cards that would be a terrible mistake that would be giving too much money on the other hand if Bill
Gates wanted to do something to help the Red Cross people and he gave P5,000.00 who would say Wow

51
big amount I mean (hiyang-hiya naman ako sa iyo) for Bill Gates to be considered generous is a function
of how much money we think Bill Gates has.
Some people suggest that there are no moral rules or principles whatsoever. It's the exact
opposite of the absolutely position and that there is one right way for everyone a relative position. There
is no right way for anyone now there is a third that is called relatively absolute. Everyone no matter what
their circumstances no matter who they are ought to develop the virtues. Everyone absolutely no matter
what, ought to be brave, generous, witty, kind and whatever virtues that we want to develop those apply
to everyone no matter. Aristotle recognizes that everyone will develop these virtues that all of us ought
to have developed. We are going to develop them in accordance with our own circumstances so, we
should be generous but relative to our circumstances.
You may know someone, or you may even be someone who other people say, thinks too much.
When people think too much, we are not complaining about their thinking so much as we are
complaining about their doing or more specifically they are not doing certain things. In other words, they
think and think but they fail. Then to act to do something based on their thinking it is not so much that
thinking is bad it is that the inaction is bad. Of course, one cannot think too much or know too much or
understand too much in and of itself it is just how that plays out in your life and in your action. For
Aristotle any amount of thinking is good more thinking is better.
Aristotle says there are five intellectual virtues, the first is techne that is the word we get we get
our word technology or technique. Techne is defined as any art skill applied science basically to think of
it as just know-how if you have the know-how to bring about change in the world you have technique. If
you know how to make a tuna sandwich you possess technique and what you are doing when you make
a tuna sandwich, you are changing the world not in a huge way, but you are changing it. It goes from
being a world that does not have a tuna sandwich in front of you to be a world where there is a tuna
sandwich in front of you that you can eat so you can see. Where techne comes into play when we want
to satisfy our appetites and desires in this case our appetite our hunger.
Aristotle also mentioned an intellectual virtue called phronesis which is defined as prudence or
practical wisdom and if technique is knowing how to do something phronesis is knowing in effect
whether to do something and why and under what circumstances.

Student Activity. Essay on Aristotle’s Happiness

Happiness is an activity of the soul (the reasoning part of our being) in accordance with virtue
(Nicomachean Ethics).

52
 Student Activity. Discussion on the Natural Law

Discuss Gene therapy based on the theories of Aristotle and Natural law

Unit 2. Aquinas
What is happiness and how is it obtained in this life

St. Thomas Aquinas states that perfect happiness (beatitudo) is not possible on earth, but an imperfect
happiness (felicitas) is. He says that true happiness consists in the beatific vision of God that is only possible in the
afterlife.
Following the position similar to that of St. Augustine that perfect happiness is not possible in this lifetime,
as observe in the teaching of the Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 13:12 that “for now we see as through a glass
darkly, but the we see face to face.”
This world is too plagued with unsatisfied desires to achieve the ultimate good which we all seek by nature.
Furthermore, God has basically created us with a desire to come to perfect knowledge of Him, but this is hidden
from us while in our mortal bodies.
True knowledge of God would require being able to see him directly, but this is only possible by completely
purified soul. When this occurs, we will experience the ultimate pleasure- a pure and everlasting bliss that will be
the satisfaction of every human desire and the obliteration of every sadness or worry.
However, Aquinas goes on to maintain that we can achieve a kind of “imperfect happiness” here on earth.
In this he is undoubtedly influenced by Aristotle, who argued that happiness depends on the actualization of one’s
natural faculties.
The highest faculty the human being possesses is reason, from which it follows that we can achieve
happiness in this life in proportion to the level of truth accessible to reason.
“Man’s ultimate happiness consists in the contemplation of truth, for this operation is specific to man
and is shared with no other animals. Also it is directed to any other end since the contemplation of truth is
sought for its own sake. In addition, in this operation man is united to higher beings (substances) since this is
the only human operation that is carried out both by God and by the separate substance (angels).”
Summa Contra Gentiles , book3 chapter 37

While the perfect realization of Truth will only occur in heaven where we will perceive God “face to face,”
there is an imperfect counterpart of that vision here on earth. Thus, Aquinas led to make a distinction between
“perfect happiness” which he calls beatitudo, and “imperfect happiness” called felicitas.
By making this distinction, Aquinas can tone down the pessimistic view of human nature expressed by
Augustine, including the Doctrine of Sin. Aquinas states that “human nature is not so completely corrupted by sin
as to be totally lacking in natural goodness.” We have an impulse in us that seeks God and other impulses that
pull us down to worldly pleasures.
But also, there is the possibility of healing in this lifetime by exercising the natural virtues as Aristotle
talked about- the virtues of wisdom, courage, moderation, justice, friendship, etc.
Here, Aquinas defined four cardinal virtues as prudence, temperance, justice and fortitude. These are natural and
revealed in nature, and they are binding on everyone. In addition, God in his grace has also revealed to us the

53
virtues of faith, love and hope (theological virtues). These are supernatural and are distinct from other virtues in
their object, namely God:
“now the object of the theological virtues is God Himself, who is the last end of all, as surpassing the
knowledge of our reason. On the other hand, the object of intellectual and moral virtues is something
comprehensible to human reason. Wherefore the theological virtues are specifically distinct from the moral and
intellectual virtues”
Aquinas views that our true happiness can only be found in knowledge of God. No other worldly good or
pleasure can truly provide us with the ultimate good we seek.
“It is impossible for any created good to constitute man’s happiness. For happiness is that perfect good
which is entirely satisfies one’s desires; otherwise it would not be the ultimate end if something yet remained to
be desired. Now the object of the will, i.e. of man’s desire, is what is universally good; just as the object of intellect
is what is universally true. Hence it is evident that nothing can satisfy man’s will, except what is universally good.
This is to be found, not in any creature, but in God alone, because
Every creature has only participated goodness. Therefore, God alone can satisfy the will of man, according
to the words of the Psalm (102:5): who alone satisfies your desire with good things.’ Therefore, God alone
constitutes happiness” (Summa Theologica Part 2. Q.1 Article 8)

For Aquinas, reason confirms to us what we are already know deep down in our hearts: that our ultimate
desire lies in absolute perfection, which can only be found in God, the absolute Being.
Aquinas made a sharp distinction between enjoyment and happiness. Enjoyment pertains to worldly
goods and physical pleasures: but these tend to be short-lived. According to him, even if all our worldly desires
were satisfied- even if we were to experience every possible enjoyment- we would remain unhappy, since we
would still have a nagging feeling that something is missing. Aquinas would explain this as follows: when every
enjoyment is felt, the soul begins to crave for something more than mere enjoyment. But if one has no knowledge
of this something more or does not know how to go about finding it, the enjoyment turns to pain and suffering.
But when this ‘something more’ experience occurs this would explain why many has shifted their end to a higher
purpose of life resulting to virtue of charity, faith and hope.
For Aquinas, God is happiness by His Essence, and men are happy by participation in that Essence.
With this happiness man is called to man’s supreme good and his last end. For in God there is happiness essentially,
but in men, his final perfection is in respect to his union with God which eventually his perfect happiness.

Perfect happiness is the beatific vision of God in heaven.

Imperfect happiness is enjoyment of pleasures in this world.

Unit 3. Kant

Kant’s Categorical Imperatives

Everything works according to the law of nature. However, a person who thinks, he has the
capability to act according to his understanding of the natural law, or the principles of the nature. Since
reason is essential to know how to act base on nature.
Kant observed that the word ought to be often used non-morally. If you want to become a better
basketball player, you ought to study the games of Michael Jordan. If you want to go to call center
company, you ought to be good in language.
Kant called these “hypothetical imperatives” because they tell us what to do if we have the
relevant desires.
In Kant’s moral philosophy he is not trying to convince anyone that morality exist. Many thinks
that morality is just an illusion and it does not really exist, one may think that way after reading about
Kant. What he is doing is saying that we all know that people behave in a way that they call moral at
least some of the time. Morality is a thing that we do, and we talk about it. So, what is the best thing to
try to understand it? Kant starts by asking, “What does it mean to be good? And he is saying that the
only way to be good, without qualification is the good will. This is the will to do the right thing. Everything
else like, money, intelligence, good looks and others are things that can be used for good or evil. But the
will to do good is always good and it is not good because of what you can get out of it. Your rewards for
being good can be used for being good or evil, the good will must be good. We do not always act
according to the good will since we are imperfect, and sometimes we act according to our others desires
but acting from the good will according to Kant is the only way to be moral.

54
 Moral obligations, by contrast, do not depend on having desires. The form of a moral obligation is
not “If you want so-and-so, then you ought to do such-and-such.” Instead, moral requirements are
categorical: They have the form “You ought to do such-and-such, period.”
Consider a fast food cashier, the cashier could give the customer the wrong change and keep it
for herself, but she decided not to, and give the correct change. Kant would ask, why did she do that? If
she did it because she is afraid of being caught, or she wants to have a good relationship with customer
or simply because it makes her happy, that would not be considered as a genuinely good action because
it was not motivated by the good will, it was motivated by the desire to get something else. But Kant’s
says, it is not the consequences of your action that matters so much as you do them for the right reason,
the only genuine actions are the once that you do purely out of a respect to the moral reasons, whatever
those moral reasons are.

Amorality is having no moral sense or being indifferent to right and wrong. The immoral person
knowingly violates human moral standards, the amoral person may also violate moral standards because
he or she has no moral sense. Examples of what might people ask regarding immorality. Is Killing
Immoral? Is downloading copyrighted material off a web site immoral? Is misrepresenting someone else
immoral? Is undercutting someone else work immoral?

Doing what somebody else’s tells you to do cannot be good, whether it is God, your parents or
teachers, or anyone else, if you are just following orders, you are not acting from a good will, you are
acting in anticipation of some reward or punishment – the good will, has to come from you, that is why
moral reasons are so powerful and has such a hold on you, because they actually come from you,
morality is a system of rules that you place on yourself, respect to the rules always comes as a result of
being a member of something.
I respect the school rules because I am a student, I respect the laws of the land because I am a
citizen, Kant thought that moral rules come to us as a result of being a rational being, as a result of having
a mind; rational here just means being able to listen to reasons, and Kant thought and part of being able
to do that is that there are some reasons that we cannot ignore and that apply to everyone.
Kant - Just as hypothetical “ought” are possible because we have desires, categorical “ought” are
possible because we have reason. Categorical ought, Kant says, are derived from a principle that every
rational person must accept: the Categorical Imperative.
Kant is trying to ground morality in logic. He is trying to say is being bad actually does not make
sense, try as you might, you cannot escape the laws of logic by saying that ultimately it comes from the
same place, the built-in restriction on the way that it would makes sense for people to think
This leads us to the categorical imperative, which means that the thing that you have to do all
the time, regardless of circumstances are imperative and order which applies categorically. Kant is not
saying that you should only do something if it would be good for everyone. For instance, if everyone
stole stuff all the time, then the world would be in chaos and not be ideal to live in, But that does not
what Kant think that you should not steal, one should act if it makes sense for you to will everybody to
act in the same way. He is famous for his example on lying, Kant's is asking if it makes sense that every
body lies whenever they want, in a world that everybody lies, no one can be trusted. The concept of
trust would breakdown and in such a world nobody would trust each other, it would not giving anyone
an advantages. Moral rules has to come from your will. Your will must be consistent. Similar to the saying
Thy will shall make sense. Does it makes sense to will everybody to do what I want.
Kant took morality pretty seriously, he thought that morality is constant similar to mathematical
sense, like 1 + 1 = 2 regardless of your religion. For Kant the same goes to morality. Most of the time
whether or not we ought to do something is not really a moral choice - instead, it's just contingent on
our desires. Like if you desire money, then you must work for it and get a job, if you want to learn then
you ought to go the school and study. these are hypothetical imperatives.
Kant use morality in terms of categorical imperatives, which are commands that you must follow
regardless of your desires. Moral obligations are derived from pure reason. According to Kant It does not
matter whether you want to be moral or not - the moral is binding all of us. And he said you do not need
religion to determine what the law is, because what is right and wrong is totally knowable just by using
your intellect.

55
 How do we figure out what is Moral?

The Universalizability Principle which states that "Act only according to that maxim which you
can at the same time will that it should become a universal law without contradiction" A maxim is a rule
or principle of action and a universal law is something must always be done in similar situation. So before
doing an act, take into consideration the maxim or general principle that stands behind this action I am
considering.
According to Kant, then, our behavior should be guided by universal laws, which are moral rules
that hold true in all circumstances. Kant believed in many such exceptionalness rules. Suppose it was
necessary to lie to save someone’s life. Should you do it?
Let say you forgot your wallet at home you do not have time go home in between classes, and
you are hungry, you noticed that the student working at the stall is busy cleaning some stuff and you can
just get a banana without her noticing it. Is it okay morally for you to do this? This action you are
considering is stealing. If you approve of the maxim of stealing - which you are about to do, whether you
admit it or not, then what you are doing is universalizing that action - you are saying to everyone should
always steal. So, if you can do it, then everyone should do it. which leads to a contradiction, remember
according to Kant moral actions cannot bring about contradiction, no one would say that everyone
should steal all the time that never ends. therefore, stealing is NOT unverbalizable. It is not fair to make
exemption for yourself. Kant views that moral rule apply to everyone equally sounds nice and fair, but it
can sometimes lead to some counter intuitive results.
The formula of Humanity. Act so that you treat humanity whether in your own person or in that of
another, always as ends and never as a mere means. To use something as a mere means is to use it only
for your own benefit, with no thought to the interest or benefit of the thing you are using. We use things
as mere means all the time. Like we always use a cup for drinking, when the cup got a crack, it would
stop to serve its purpose as to hold whatever it is in it, it would not be used anymore. It is perfectly fine
to use objects as mere means but NOT humans, it is because we are ends in our selves. We are not
objects that exist to be used by others. We are our own ends. We are rational and Autonomous. We can
set our own goals and work toward them.
Suppose it is held to be wrong to do X in any circumstances and wrong to do Y in any circumstances.
Then what about the case in which a person must choose between doing X and doing Y? This kind of
conflict seems to show that moral rules can’t be absolute.
Kant viewed the Categorical Imperative as binding on rational agents simply because they are
rational; in other words, a person who rejected this principle would be guilty not merely of being immoral
but also of being irrational. Moral judgment must be backed by good reasons—if it is true that you ought
(or ought not) to do such-and- such, then there must be a reason why you should (or should not) do it.
Moral reasons, if they are valid at all, are binding on all people at all times. This is a requirement of
consistency, and Kant was right to think that no rational person may deny it. There are rational
constraints on what we may do. Rules, even within a Kantian framework, need not be absolute. All that
Kant’s basic idea requires is that when we violate a rule, we do so for a reason that we would be willing
for anyone to accept.

Student Activity. Using Kantian Principle

A former employee who was fired due to poor quality work, absences, and lateness related to her
drinking problem, informs you that she has applied for a position at another company and has already given
your name as a reference. She desperately needs a job (she is a single parent with three children), and she
asks you to give her a good recommendation and not mention her drinking, which she assures you is now
under control.
She also asks you to say that she voluntarily left the company to address a family medical crisis, and that
the company was pleased with her work. You like this person and believe she is a good worker when she is
not drinking. You doubt that she really has overcome her drinking problem, however, and you would not
recommend your own company hire her back.

56
 1. What do you say to this woman?

2. What do you say to an employer who calls you for a reference?

3. How do you apply Kant’s insight in this situation?

Unit 4. Utilitarianism
Is it ever okay to do the wrong thing for the sake of the greater good? Does the end justify the
mean? John Stuart Mill would ask what you would do in this situation, say you are a doctor and have five
patients who need transplants for one heart two kidneys one lung and one liver. A healthy person walks
into the hospital and has no family or friends, you consider whether the needs of the many outweigh
the needs of the few should you kill him and harvest his organs? This moral dilemma will be answered
differently depending on which normative theory you hold which depends on how you define morality.
He did not invent utilitarianism it was actually invented by one of his mentors Jeremy Bentham
but Mill is perhaps its best-known or its most successful proponent the basic theory behind
utilitarianism. It proposes that actions are right in proportion to their tendency to promote happiness
and wrong in proportion to their tendency to promote the reverse of happiness. In other words, actions
are morally right if they make us happy and morally wrong if they make us unhappy.
Ethics is about being good about being good which means cultivating excellent character traits
and aiming at the flourishing life. Deontology is about doing good action and fulfilling one’s duty even at
the expense of another’s happiness; consequentialism says ethics is about doing actions that are
considered good if they achieve good results in accordance with some goal sometimes this is called
teleological as because it seeks an end or a goal. Utilitarianism is the most prominent kind of
consequentialism in terms of ethical theory and it says an action is good if it serves the greatest
happiness for the greatest number of people. Morals are built on values, so ethicists developed theories
on how to preserve or obtain whatever has the most value. This is to distinguish between extrinsic goods
and intrinsic good. Extrinsic goods are something that has value given to it by another. Intrinsic goods
are something that has its own value not dependent on another. Happiness is the only thing that has
intrinsic value; pleasure and the freedom from pain are the only things desirable.
The greatest happiness principle also known as the principle of utility is the most important
principle on which utilitarianism is founded. It proposes that actions are right in proportion as they tend
to promote happiness for the greatest number of people and wrong as they tend to produce the reverse
of happiness. The greatest happiness principle’s major goal is to serve the greatest happiness for the
greatest number of people. Utilitarianism requires one to be as strictly impartial as a disinterested and
benevolent spectator. In the golden rule of Jesus we read the complete spirit of the ethics of utility, so
John Stuart Mill adopts this sort of golden rule as well as different competing ethical systems also adopt
this golden rule and interpret it in different kinds of ways and so for him he says to do as you would be
done by and to love your neighbor as yourself constitute the ideal perfection of utilitarian. Morality so

57
according to Hume he is saying that we should act not for our own interests but for the interests of
others and this is to say that when we do something right it does not accomplish anything valuable for
me it accomplishes something valuable for the greatest number of people.

Another principle of Mill’s utilitarianism is moral calculus as a consequentialist theory, when

individuals deliberate over a choice they should calculate which action is more likely to benefit the most
number of people. Mill says that through history our society, it gradually figures out what actions serve
the greater good these actions become duties and the virtuous person has them as habit, in terms of
duty and virtue. We talked about a three-different main normative theory which are deontology which
emphasizes duty, Virtue ethics which emphasizes virtue and Consequentialism which emphasizes
consequences all three of those theories incorporate those elements that emphasizes one as being more
important than the other two.
Utilitarian consequences are elevated to be the most important; duty and virtue are merely
extrinsic good, insofar as they are instruments for obtaining happiness which is that consequence at the
end. This contrasts with virtue ethics which says that virtue is intrinsically good because it is happiness
and duty which says, I am not even after my own happiness. I'm just after fulfilling my moral duty as the
main goal so here is an objection to disinterestedness one.
Aristotle said that happiness is meaningful and flourishing life of virtue. Mill says that happiness
is a quantity and quality of pleasures. Happiness is intended pleasure and the absence of pain and the
privation of pleasure. This is influenced by a curious and Epicureanism to suppose that life has as many
ways to express it. No higher end than pleasure no better and nobler object of desire and pursuit they
designate as utterly mean and groveling as a doctrine worthy only of swine to whom the followers of
Epicurus. Epicureans to have been by any means faultless and drawing out their scheme of consequences
from the utilitarian principle to do this in any sufficient manner many stoics as well as Christian elements
require being included.
He is supplementing Epicureanism with a lot of the traditional morals that he finds in Christianity
of the Middle Ages he continues but there is no known at the curing theory of life does not assign to the
pleasures of the intellect of the feelings and imagination and of Moral Sentiments and much higher
values as pleasure than those of mere sensation some kinds of pleasure are more desirable and more
valuable than others.
Utilitarianism is to say that pleasure seeking leads to an animalistic debase not praise worthy kind
of life right this mere pleasure sees but he is emphasizing that we are not after a mere quantity of
pleasures but certain pleasures that have high quality.
Moral calculus is impractical even Mill understands that you cannot sit down and think about
every action before you do an action. There is rule utilitarianism which says you should act according to
the rules that produce the most happiness this is Mills variety of utilitarianism. A criticism of this however
is that it collapses into a queue utilitarianism because there is no guidance on how specific or general a
rule should be and then there is preference. Peter Singer says different people value different things not
simply the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people.

Unit 5. Justice and Fairness

Started out of necessity to address the allocation of limited resources to a growing population.
Probably in the 18th century or when empires or kingdoms had monarchs who owned everything
permitting his subjects to use the resources in the name of the monarchs. Someone who had a great
need was justified in taking something from someone without the former’s consent. Thomas Hobbes –
each individual person has a right to needs for self – preservation such as food, water, clothing, place to
live etc.
⚫ Inequalities between people’s social situations are acceptable if they are a result of personal
choices.
⚫ NOT ACCEPTABLE if disadvantages are thrust upon them.
⚫ Distributive justice takes into account the equitable distribution of many aspects of social life
above and beyond “goods.”

58
 ⚫ Equality issues then are commonly seen in affirmative action policies, minimum wage laws, and
public education opportunities and quality.
⚫ The belief that everyone begins life at a null point when they are born, after which they must
earn their way through life, acquiring resources using their talents and effort and:
⚫ The belief that each person, from birth, is entitled to what his parents possess, regardless of
their own efforts in life.
⚫ As a relates to the environment, distributive justice refers to the evenhanded sharing of
society’s environmental risks, benefits, and impacts. These issues include air and water
pollution, overburdened landfills, industrial waste, and other environmental burdens.
Distributive justice in the environment is the vital principle of sharing the burdens and
responsibilities for the earth’s health, as pollution, global warming and other environmental
consequences have a negative effect on people’s health, decrease quality of life, and reduce
property values.

“All social primary goods-liberty and opportunity, income and wealth, and the bases of self-respect– are
to be distributed equally, unless an equal distribution of any or all of these goods is to the advantage of
the least favoured.”
-Rawls

John Rawls was born in February 21, 1921 in Baltimore, Maryland. His parents are William Rawls
and Anna Stump Rawls. He was married for 53 years to Margaret Fox and together they had four
children: Anne Warfield, Robert Lee, Alexander Emory, and Elizabeth Fox. He was raised as Episcopalian
and later turned atheist after the WWII. Several of his influential works of philosophy included A Theory
of Justice (1971), Political Liberalism (1993), The Law of Peoples (2001), and Justice as Fairness: A
Restatement (2001). He received the Schock Prize for Logic and Philosophy in 1999. He died on
November 24, 2002 in Lexington, Massachusetts.

Plato proposes different kinds of justice. This is Harmony among the basic constituents of a
certain organization. Harmony in the Tripartite Soul like looking into reason, spirit, and appetite,
Harmony in the Three classes of people Rulers, Military, and Artisans.
There are three basic kinds of justice, these are distributive, retributive and compensatory
justice. Retributive refers to just imposition of punishments and penalties on those guilty of performing
wrongful acts. Compensatory justice is Just way of compensating people for what they lost as a result of
wrongful actions done on them. Distributive justice is the distribution of benefits (rights and socio-
economic goods) and burdens (sacrifices and obligations).

Concern with the fair allocation of goods/resources in the society.

The allocation takes account of the following:
1. Total amount of goods to be distributed
2. Distribution process
3. Resulted pattern of the distribution

For Chris Armstrong, a Professor from University of Southampton…

Descriptive Prescriptive

Distributive justice as the ways that the Principles of distributive justice tell us how the
benefits and burdens of our lives are shared benefits and burdens ought to be shared or
between members of a society or community. distributed.

For John Rawls issues on justice includes:

§ Justify morality in the absence of religion.
§ Reasonableness as the standard of moral judgment.
59
 § Sociopolitical institutions are themselves proper subjects for moral assessment.

Since we have limited amount of wealth and resources, the question is how ought we to distribute
them?
Just distribution amounts to answering the question on “How much wealth or how much good
should each person have?

Equality Equity Need Social Utility

Fair share means Fair share is something Fair share is Distribute resources to
each person takes that a person has worked something that a the best interests of the
the same amount. for and has earned. person really needs. society as a whole.

He also has two principles of justice.

1. Liberty Principle – Everyone has a claim to basic liberties and rights. Each person in a society has
an equal right to the maximum liberty compatible with the same amount of liberties as with
everyone else.
2. Difference Principle – Based on the idea of distributive justice, how resources and privileges are
distributed in society. Inequalities in outcomes are permissible so long as
a. Everyone has the same opportunities and
b. Advantages, particularly economic advantages, are to everyone’s benefit.

Significance of Distribution

Equal Distribution Equity Distribution According to Need

Give people a sense Fosters the motivation Ensures that everyone’s basic and
of full-fledge procedure, to be essential needs are met, which is not only
membership. rewarded for one’s good for the individual, but makes criminal
productivity. and political violence less likely as well

For John Rawls, the job of distributive justice is to limit the influence of luck so that good might
be distributed more fairly and to everyone’s advantage.
For Robert Nozick, the aim of distributive justice is not to achieve any outcome of distribution,
but rather to ensure a fair process of exchange.
Others believe that distributive process must be fair for people to feel that they have received a fair
outcome.
In some cases, the thing to be distributed is not a benefit, but a burden (ex. allocation of
punishments).

The Importance of Distributive Justice

n A sense of injustice arises when individuals come to believe that their outcome in not in
balance with the outcomes received by people like them in similar situation.
n Societies in which resources are distributed unfairly can become quite prone to social unrest.
n Redistribution of benefits can sometimes help to relieve tensions and allow for more stable
society.
n But in some case, redistribution can be like this…

60
Student Activity. Distributive Justice

Supposed a group of children decided to do some caroling for Christmas, who should receive
more than the others, or should they be given a reward equally? If the reward is not equal
how would you resolved the distribution of the money they got from caroling?

Student Activity. Consider the following stakeholders:

How can we approach the issue of gay marriage using the theory of John Rawls? Keep
in mind the idea about the Original Position under the Veil of Ignorance. Satisfying the two
principles of justice according to Rawls

a. Catholic mother of a gay lawyer who loves her son unconditionally.

b. A responsible gay lawyer who is in a long-term committed relationship.
c. A parish priest who opposed gay marriage because he felt that homosexuality
is a sin.
d. Ordinary person who is not comfortable with the gay lifestyle but does not see
it as a sin.

Unit 6. Taxation

61
 Module 5. Ethics Through Thick and Thin, and Ethics and Religion
Unit 1. Globalization and Ethical Challenges

Diagnostics:
ü Learning Checkpoint

Instruction: Agree or Disagree. If you think the statement is correct, write AGREE, otherwise write
DISAGREE.

1. Globalization is a process of interdependence on global scale that occurred only recently.

2. Globalization is associated with other social processes and a number of related economic,
cultural and political developments.
3. The globalizing process is an intensification of both concrete global interdependence and
consciousness of the global whole.
4. A world of global citizens sees the world as one with its interdependent units of region
and nations.
5. The physical boundaries are envisioned to become less and less marked between
countries and among regions as we become increasingly interrelated with each other.

Routes to Globalization

What is distinctive about this unit is the adoption of philosophical framework in articulating the
relationship between globalization and technology both of which had become inscribed to the dynamics
of modernity and modern social existence. There is no detailed mention of the intricacies of strategies,
programs, projects and mechanisms, whether political or economic, in dealing with the challenge of
change and cooperation related to this topic. Instead, this unit looks at the tripartite relationship of
globalization, technology and philosophy in dealing with peace and conflict but of the whole world.
In trying to explore how technology facilitates the practices lying at the heart of globalization, the
framework of Martin Heidegger was used to the highest metaphysical and ontological status. Heidegger
(1972: 62) believes that “The stimulus for investigation must start not with philosophies, but with
issues and problems.”
Modern technology, so Heidegger believes, was the inevitable outcome of metaphysical history,
which started from Plato. The technological understanding of being, the view that all things are nothing
but raw materials for the ceaseless process of production and consumption, is merely the final stage in
the history of productionist metaphysics. As a final point, the author envisions a global community that
laid emphasis on non-violence as we aspire for transformation, as well as social and political creativity in
use of science and technology.

62
II. A WORLD OF CHANGE

Social change is now proceeding so rapidly that if a sociologist had proposed as recently as ten years
ago to write a book about globalization, they would have to overcome a wall of stony and bemused
incomprehension. However, now, just as postmodernism was the concept of the 1980s, globalization
may be the concept of the 1990s, a key idea by which we understand the transition of human society
into the third millennium (Lodge 1998: 23). Although it did not arise within sociology, the concept has
therefore found instant appeal across a range of intellectual interests such as philosophy. It remains for
sociology to connect the concept with its own vital theoretical traditions.
Although the word “global” is over 400 years old, the common usage of such words as “globalization”,
“globalize” and “globalizing” did not begin until 1960. The Economist reported “Italy’s globalised quota”
for imports of cars has increased; and in 1961 Webster became the first major dictionary to offer
definitions of globalism and that of globalization. In 1962, The Spectator recognized that “Globalization
is, indeed, a staggering concept” (Waters 1995: 164).
Today we are surrounded by globalizing developments such as the emergence of the global
communications industry, the growth of multinational enterprises; the influence of global financial
markets, global warming and international action on human rights. These have brought the idea of
global society into prominence. We now recognize that the constraints of geography are shrinking and
that the world is becoming a single place.
Many aspects of globalization are indeed intentional and reflexive including both the increasing level
of business planning for global marketing and action by the environmentalist movement to save the
planet. However, many globalizing forces are impersonal and beyond the control and intentions of any
individual or group or individuals. The developments of Islamic fundamentalism as a response to the
effects of Western modernization or the decline of the American car industry are examples of such
effects (Giddens, et al 1994: 84-86).
One of the key elements in many educational reforms is diversity, difference, and choice or, other
proposals that establishes separate curricular routes for different groups or individuals (Castells, et al,
1999). Diversity (be it biology, ethnicity or experiences) is the difference that makes each person unique
(Cauley and Pannozo, 2012). In times, that we have difficulty in accepting others because of their
differences from us, we limit our opportunities or we can make the others feel rejected or resentful
(which might result to a lawsuit against you). Educational challenge in the 21st century thus is how to
deal appropriately with diversity and that one does not engage in harassment of any form. As knowledge
develops, society evolves and people change, so does the educational curriculum must keep pace with
the three (Downey and Kelley, 1975).

Unit 2. Millennials and Fillennials

Student Activity. Group Simulation:

1. Instructions:
• Form a group of 5 members
• Discuss with your group the results of your self-assessment regarding the role of Filinnials.
• Prepare a graphical presentation of the results (use PPT)
• Assign 1 member who will present the results of group’s self-assessment

2. Construct arguments based on different aspects of globalization:

63
 a. What are the effects of globalization and/or technology to nature?
b. Time constraint and economic realities confront Philippine education nowadays. With
the “brain drain” or Filipino diaspora in search of “greener pastures”, the Philippines are
being drained of its human resources make educators re-think or revise the educational
system in the Philippines. The Philippines is lagging in math and science compared with
other countries.
Which do you think has a better outlook in Philippine educational system? Do you agree or
disagree with Camilo Osias or Dean Francisco Benitez?
Ø Camilo Osias: the school has an important role in the development of dynamic
nationalism and internationalism to democracy in the education of the youth. Higher
educational institutions should do more to turn out graduates who can think logically,
scientifically and creatively.
Ø Dean Francisco Benitez: the function of school is neither to fit the individual for the
past, which is dead and gone, nor to prepare him for a remote future, which is
problematical; rather it is to train the individual so that he will be a member of the
world as it is.

Student Activity

Instructions: Answer these questions in 3-5 sentences.

1. Do you agree with Heidegger’s view on technology not being "neutral"?

2. In your opinion, what is the role of the Filipino millennial/Filinnial in the present global age?

Unit 3. Ethics and Religion

Student Activity.

Is morality essentially tied to religion? Can morality survive without religion? Is it that if God
doesn’t exist, everything is permissible?

As being-with-others-in-the-world, it is our task to make this world more humane. For each one of us is not
only locked into a world of our own, but the world is such a way that we share it with others like ourselves. Instead
we must feel a sense of social consciousness, a being with others.
I. The Problem of Fundamentalism

There are three major positions on the existence of God. Theists (god-ists) – believe that God exist, believe that
the word “God” refers to God. Atheists (non-god-ists) – believe that there is no God, believe that the word “God”
does not refer to God. Agnostics – neither believe that God exists nor believe that there is no God. Do not believe
that “God” refers to God nor believe that God” does not refer to God (Double, 1999). Arthur Schopenhauer
speculates that people abandon their belief in God and be eager immortality. The belief in God would be rather
than theism is necessary to achieve immortality. The belief in God would be cast with scarcely a second thought
if atheism were better to alleviate the fear of death.
The promise of an afterlife is undoubtedly the greatest advantage that religion has over philosophy; it is
the chief why most people refuse to give serious consideration to atheism. Consider this scenario. A young man
64
straps a bomb to his chest, walks into a public place, and kills himself along with other innocent victims. The
faith of this young man is sincere, as he is willing to sacrifice his own life and believes that what je has done is a
holy war against the infidels and that his act of self-destruction will ensure him a fast track to paradise. Whether
his act is a political one, is ultimately grounded in his religious faith (Smith, 2000).
From Muslims, Christians and Jews alike we would hear the same objection that true God would never
call for murder of innocent people. Yet this assertion is impossible to justify. Throughout the Bible, we find many
cases where innocent people are killed, either directly by God or the hand of his appointed agents. The Israelites,
acting on God’s behalf, for instance, massacred entire population of conquered cities (Joshua 6; Numbers 31: 17-
18).
For Smith (2000), religious people, in practice, often give priority to their moral principles to access the
validity of various religious claims. Many Christians, in this sense, implicitly accept the possibility of an ethics
without God since they use their ethical principles to evaluate religious claims. Accepting certain actions as morally
reprehensible, they will question, accept or reject altogether any religious belief that runs counter to these moral
convictions.
This lesson seeks a comprehensive analysis of the term “fundamentalism”; exploring the higher ideals of
fundamentals who empower themselves; serving as authority for a united front in bringing about a renaissance,
amidst the fast-changing global realities.
At present, the largest world religions are Islam and Christianity; each including about one and a quarter
billion men and women. The rapid growth of Islam, which overtook Christianity early this century, peaked some
25 years ago. Quoting Almond et al (2003: 48): The norms, are of course, voluntarily assumed, as befits a post
traditional world in which age-old rules of conduct dissolved with the demise of solid, territorially anchored
communities due to the constant migration typical of the 20th century…

In Judaism, an enclave-like social context existed throughout medieval and early modern times. Jews of
whatever religious/secular mix felt themselves threatened by Arabs in general, Palestinians in particular. Further,
many Muslim and Jewish enclaves make frequent sallies out of their boundaries in order to impose their
behavioral norms. The tactics are manifold, dictated by ideological bent and by circumstances that may recourse
from lobbying to vigilante-type militancy (Almond et al, 2003).
The Jewish (or Muslim) street is both a defensive perimeter and performance of a religious duty. How important
a duty is a question answered differently by various groups. The underlying notion to most enclave culture is that
the boorish masses must be made to conform to norms, first and foremost, of strict observance of norms of
conduct derived from the tenets of faith. The observance is strict, because of the gravity of outside danger.

Student Activity: Meta-Cognitive Reading Report

1. Bamyeh, Mohammed. (2000). The ends of globalization. University of Minnesota Press. New York.
2. Germain, Randall (ed.). (2000.) Globalization and its critics: Perspectives from political economy.
Political Economic Research. London.

3. Ramos, Christine Carmela. (2003). Globalization and technology. The shift of industrial age to
computer revolution. pp. 22-25
Rex Book store, Inc. Quezon City.
https://books.google.com.ph/books?id=XHPV-
WWmEusC&pg=PR2&lpg=PR2&dq=globalization+and+technology+ramos+rex&source=bl&ots=kKro9KtpH3&si
g=hqGrsfvNzX5jI5ntR3Q8u5NbRkU&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi-
8o2btPnWAhUlSo8KHUaJBoMQ6AEILzAB#v=onepage&q=globalization%20and%20technology%20ramos%20r
ex&f=false

65
 4. Ramos, Christine Carmela. (Jan. 26-27, 2017). To have or to be? Examining Erich Fromm’s Inquiry of
the Person in the Global Age, Cebu City. pp.39.
http://hssmr.org/proceedingspdf.php?id=25

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. (3) Things that I significantly learned from the readings

2. (3) Things that are still unclear to me

3. I used to think that….

4. (3) questions that I want to ask about the readings

66