MORAL ETHICS

HANDOUTS
Prepared by: JC Dalagan, Jr.

Case 1
In the first day of class, the teacher asks: "What makes something good or bad, right and wrong?" Many, if
not most of the students, would just say, "It depends!" By this they mean that the question of good and bad,
right and wrong, is all a matter of personal opinion. It is, they say, "subjective."
What is right or wrong depends on how one looks at something. What is good or bad for one may not be good
or bad for the other to each his/her own. Do you think this is correct? What does the subject of ethics or moral
philosophy say about this? Can philosophical discipline of ethics help in clarifying this?

Case 2
Many educators who have taught ethics as a subject at one time or another share the belief that ethics or
morality "cannot be taught." They say that moral values such as respect, honesty, integrity, and the like are
not learned through studying ethics or moral philosophy in the classroom.
If this is correct, should ethics than as a course be taken out from the curriculum? Why or why not studying
ethics as an academic discipline relevant or not? Can ethics be taught? Justify your answer.

Case 3
In a college faculty meeting of philosophy teachers, the department chair proposed that a percentage of
student's final grade in an ethics subject should cover their attitude or moral behavior.
He said that ethics being a practical discipline, teachers should not just rate student's academic p e r f o r m a n c e
b u t a l s o the way they apply i n r e a l i t y w h a t t h e y l e a r n f r o m t h e course.
Some faculty members objected to this idea because according to them what the students actually do with
their lives are their own private business and should never be subjected to somebody else's evaluation., not
even that of ethics teacher. Do you agree? Why or why not?

SOCRATES AND PLATO

Socrates’ central concern was to goad his fellow Athenians into accepting that being a “good man” was the
most important goal they could ever have in life. They should strive to embody those marks of human
excellence (arête) Greek tradition prized so highly: wisdom, bravery, self-control, Justice, and piety.

Problem of Relativism

The Ring of Gyges (Republic, Book II)

“To be just is always better than to be unjust!”
Now that those who practice justice do so involuntarily and because they have not the power to be
unjust will best appear if we imagine something of this kind: having given both to the just and the unjust power
to do what they will, let us watch and see whither desire will lead them; then we shall discover in the very act
the just and unjust man to be proceeding along the same road. Gyges was a shepherd in the service of the king
of Lydia; there was a great storm, and an earthquake made an opening in the earth at the place where he was
feeding his flock.
Amazed at the sight, he descended into the opening, where, among other marvels, he beheld a hollow
brazen horse, having doors, at which he stooping and looking in saw a dead body of stature, as appeared to
him, more than human, and having nothing on but a gold ring; this he took from the finger of the dead and re-
ascended. Now the shepherds met together, according to custom, that they might send their monthly report
about the flocks to the king; into their assembly he came having the ring on his finger, and as he was sitting
among them he chanced to turn the collet of the ring inside his hand, when instantly he became invisible to the
rest of the company and they began to speak of him as if he was no longer present. He was astonished at this,
and again touching the ring he turn the collet outwards and reappeared; he made several trials of the ring, and
always with the same result - when he turned the collet inwards he became invisible, when outwards he
reappeared.
Whereupon he contrived to be chosen one of the messengers who were sent to the court; where as soon
as he arrived he seduced the queen, and with her help conspired against the king and slew him, and took the
kingdom. Suppose now that there were two such rings, and the just put on one of them and the unjust the
other; no man can be imagined to be of such an iron nature that he would stand fast injustice. No man would
keep his hands off what was not his own when he could safely take what he liked out of the market, or go into
houses and lie with any one at his pleasure, or kill or release from prison whom he would, and in all respects be
like a God among men. Then the actions of the just would be as the actions of the unjust; they would both come
at last to the same point.

A. Traditional Presentation of the Theory of Forms / Ideas

Plato’s Response:

World View of Reality. The sensible (perceptible) realm is the world where things keep changing. The things
we see are only images or shadows of the really real, which are in an ideal world outside space and time. The
really real - ideas - are in the realm of Ideas / Forms.
Road of Defining (Laches 191d-192). Definition is the attempt to reach the form or that which makes something
what it is. The task of finding proper definitions is aimed at isolating the objective essence of
Ideas as Objective Essences. These universal concepts are not mere subjective concepts, but that in them we
apprehend objective essences, these objective essences Plato gave the name of ideas' or 'Forms'. We must not
be misled into thinking that this term means a subjective concept in the mind. Rather, when Plato speaks of
Ideas or Forms, he is referring to the objective content or reference of our universal concepts. In our universal
concepts we apprehend objective essences, and it is to these objective essences that Plato applied the term
"Ideas."

The Form of the Good

For Plato, even in the realm of ideas, "there is an ascending order of more and more inclusive, more and more
fundamental ideas. But there is one such idea under which all ideas (including being itself) fall under. This is the
idea of the GOQD. “
The Good, in fact, is the Idea of ideas, i.e., the Good is the source of all reality, the Good transcends every
particular real thing. It is more exalted than being. To describe the reality of the Idea of the Good, Plato, in the
Republic, uses the Simile of the Sun and the allegory of the cave.

Allegory of the Cave (Rep., Bk VII, 514a-518d).

We are like a people imprisoned in an underground cave, all of our experience limited to the wavering shadows,
not of trees and horses but only of puppet-images of such realities and shadows cast on the wall..., not by the
clear and steady light of the sun, but by the smoky, flickering light of a fire we take for the only kind of light
there is. We take these deceptive shadows to be genuine...; were we able to turn about, we would see that they
are not even shadows...but only puppet-images.... To see genuine trees or horses, we would have climb upward
... to the bright surface of the earth, where real trees and horses are, illumined... by the sun itself. The upward
climb would be a painful and strenuous one: we would even be tempted to resist the one who came to free us
from our cave-prison ... and then, were we to return to our cave-companions to tell them of the real... they
would tell us we were crazy....
Summary', The traditional presentation of Plato's theory of ideas designates the objects we apprehend in
universal concepts to be objective ideas or subsistent universals, existing in a transcendental world of their
own-somewhere "out there "-apart from sensible things, understanding by "apart from" practically spatial
separation.
Sensible things are mere copies of or participations in these universal realities. The latter abide in an
unchanging heaven of their own, while sensible things are subject to change, are always becoming, and can
never truly be said to be.

“Ideas” as “IDEALS”
Plato’s route to Ideals

Eidos as “paradigm” (Cratylus389b)

“When a shuttle-maker wants to make a good shuttle, he “looks,” not at some shuttle he had made before, but
“to” or “at” the eidos of shuttle, at that which is “naturally fitted to be a shuttle.”

Side as norms, or paradigms: as Ideal “models” (think of the artist’s idea, once again) or “standards” our minds
(or meta-physical imaginations) must “consult” when evaluating whether this or that experienced instance
“resembles,” or better, “measures up to” its appropriate ideal.

The “concrete” style of thinking was encouraged by the fact that Plato drew his inspiration from that concrete
individual “embodiment” he detected in Socrates, an individual who represented for him a contemporary
version of the equally concrete poetic ideal of courage represented by Homer’s Achilles. The artist’s and the
poet’s “eyes” work in much the same was. Do you want to know what “manliness” would look like? Then look
at Achilles, or better, look, but insightfully, at (or “into”) Socrates.

Concrete Ideal as Deontological

For Plato, Socrates is eidos and idea in the sense of Ideal: the kalos, the “beautiful” human being who
peremptorily “calls” us to become as beautiful as we can be, and makes us feel “ashamed” about being less
than that. Not only “artistic,” Plato’s style of thinking is markedly “deontological” in tone.

Socrates as “Ideal Concretized” (Symposium, 212-223c)

What he reminds me of more than anything is one of those little silent that you see on the statuaries’ stalls; you
know what I mean - they’re modeled with pipes or flutes in their hands, and when you open them down the
middle there are little figures of gods inside... (215b)
I don’t know whether anybody else has ever opened him up when he’s been being serious, and seen the
little images inside, but I saw them once, and they looked so godlike, so golden, so beautiful, and so utterly
amazing that there was nothing for it but to do exactly what he told me... (21 7a)
I’ve been bitten in the heart, or the mind, or whatever you like to call it, by Socrates’ philosophy, which clings
like an adder to any young and gifted mind it can get hold of, and does exactly what it likes with it. (218a)
Plato’s central concern: moral cosmos. But that we should believe that our cosmos was a moral one, this was
Plato’s central and primary concern. ... For only in a genuinely moral cosmos could the precise kind of arête
exemplified by Socrates’s manner both of living and dying make ultimate sense. And the form which that moral
cosmos takes for Socrates, and eventually for Plato as well, is distinctively personal: it is one in which gods
exist, and exercise such effective care for humankind, that they will never permit either goodness to go
unrewarded, or evil unpunished. Perfectly responsive, or, totally subject to, or, better perhaps, perfectly
“attuned to” such Ideals as Goodness, Justice, and Beauty, they can, in consequence, assure that everything in
our human world harmonizes tunefully, “as it ought,” “in measure.”
Simile of the Sun (Rep., Bk VI, 508a-509b)
Good as the Source of Reality-. As the sun bestows light upon the objects of the world of becoming and
perception so that they may be seen, and power of vision upon the eye so that it may perceive, so the highest
good, in the world of being, endows the object of knowledge with "truth" (aletheia) and the mind with the
power of perceiving true knowledge. The simile then turns from epistemology to ontology.
As the sun bestows development and growth, as well as the law of growth, upon the objects of the world of
becoming, so the Idea of the Good gives being and order to the objects of the world of being. Thus, the true
circle, like true justice, owes its perfection to that ultimate perfection. At last, still another dimension becomes
visible above the level of being. As the cause of becoming is not itself becoming, so the source of being is not
itself being. Then we encounter the highest paradox: not itself being but beyond being.

ARISTOTLE: THE LIFE OF VIRTUE

“It is a hard task to be good... anyone can get angry - that is easy - or can give away money or spend it; but to
do all this to the right person, to the right extent, at the right time, for the right reason, and in the right way
is no longer something easy that anyone can do. It is for this reason that good conduct is rare, praise-worthy,
and noble. ” (Nicomachean Ethics, Book II)

Aristotle’s Ethics in General

One can call Aristotle’s ethics of Ethics Character: This ethics tells us to be a person of a certain sort. The basic
moral question for Aristotle then would not be "What shall I do?" but, "What shall I be?" In a sense, Aristotle's
ethics focuses on what a person should be.

Ethics of Doing:
This understanding of ethics focuses on “moral norms which ought to be followed.” This particular branch of
ethics is associated exclusively with behavior guided by rules.

Ethics of Being:
This is also known as "Character ethics"; concerned primarily with the kind of person a human being ought to
be. It emphasizes the formation of character, patterns of action, the right vision of life, basic values and
convictions which move a person to do what he or she believes is the right thing to do. “It is obvious that a man
cannot just be; he can only be what he is by doing what he does; his moral qualities are ascribed to him because
of his actions, which are said to manifest those qualities. But the point is that an ethics of Being must include
this obvious fact, that Being involves Doing; whereas an ethics of Doing ... may easily overlook..,, A morality of
principles is concerned only with what people do or fail to do, since that is what rules are for. And as far as this
sort of ethics goes, people might well have no moral qualities at all except the possession of principles and the
will (and capacity) to act accordingly”. (Bernard Mayo, "Virtue and Moral Theory")

On the Nichomachean Ethics in Particular

1. EN (Nicomachean Ethics) was a set of lecture notes/outlines.
2. Its subject matter is declared to be "politics"; and the work called Politics is presented as a sequel to the
Ethics.
3. Practical Science: means knowledge as a means to conduct. Knowledge is divided into several kinds:
a. Theoretical, according as it is pursued for its own sake;
b. Productive, knowledge as a means to making something that is beautiful or useful;
c. Practical science.
4. Relationship between Ethics and Politics
What is the Good?
To call something good and to allow that it is not a thing which anyone who wanted that sort of thing would
want would be to speak unintelligibly. In this “good” differs from "red.” That people in general want or do not
want a red car is a contingent matter of fact; that people in general want what is good is a matter of internal
relationship of the concept of being good and being an object of desire.
Everyone who has the power to live according to his own choice should dwell on these points and set up for
himself some object for the good life to aim at, whether honor or reputation or wealth or culture, by reference
to which he will do all he does, since not to have one’s life organized in view of some end is a sign of great folly.
(EE, A2, 1214b6-14)

Happiness (Eudaimonia) as the Highest Good

Understand by being happy the same as “living well” and “doing well”
Many views held about happiness: Pleasure, Honor, Wealth. Characteristics of the Highest Good: Final and
Self-sufficient. We define as self-sufficient that which taken by itself makes life something desirable and
deficient in nothing.

Clearer Account of the Good

“To call happiness the highest good is perhaps a little trite...” Ergon argument: consists in asking what powers
and activities are peculiar to and distinctive of the human being.
If something has a function, its good depends on its function. “The function of x is determined by its capacities.
... It is what alone can do, or can do better than anything else.”
The function of man consists in an activity of the soul in conformity with a rational principle or, at least, not
without it.
The good of man is an activity of the soul in conformity with excellence or virtue, and if there are several virtues,
in conformity with the best and most complete

What is the good? - Defined as the aim of action (telos).

Hierarchy of ends (goods)

Final-Self-sufficient Eudaimonia: “living well” and “Doing well”
What is the good of the human being?

Question: How can we do good acts if we are not ourselves good?

Distinguish between “Acts that create” and “Acts that flow from good disposition”

But in the case of the virtues an act is not performed justly or with self-control if the act itself is of a certain kind,
but only if in addition the agent has certain characteristics as he performs it: first of all, he must know what he
is doing-, secondly, he must choose it for its own sake', and in the third place, the act must spring from a firm
and unchangeable character.

What then is Virtue?

1. “It must be observed that the nature of moral qualities is such that they are destroyed by defect or by
excess... Thus we see that self-control and courage are destroyed by excess and by deficiency and are
preserved by the mean.”
2. Characteristic that:
(a) renders good the thing itself of which it is the excellence, and
(b) causes it to perform its function well.
IMMANUEL KANT
General context for Kant’s moral philosophy

Problem:
The new science developed by Galileo, Kepler, Newton, Descartes and others viewed the universe as one big
machine governed by precise physical laws that can be discovered by observation and experiment. Freedom
and responsibility disappear from this picture of the world - and with them morality. Such a world has no
meaning, no purpose, no intrinsic value; it simply is.

Solution:
Kant did not want to oppose this new science; but he did want to defend belief in morality (and religion). To be
able to do this, he would have to show that theoretical or scientific knowledge has limitations that prevent it
from reaching all of reality. In other words, scientific knowledge leaves room for and does not undermine
morality.

What can I know?

Kant’s main contention ... is that man as reason, as unity of consciousness, as the "I think," is not so much he
who is subjected to some object as he who constitutes the subjective conditions which make possible the object
of experience. Thus the Kantian subject is one that "legislates," sets the rules and boundaries for the emergence
of the object. This, in general, is what is meant by Kant's "transcendental" method. (Sullivan, 1989: 55)

Transcendental Deductive Method:

Conditions of the possibility of experience and knowledge; vto uncover the limit-boundaries of what we could
possibly know.

Space and Time + Sense Manifold Concepts of Understanding + Experience

Implication for what we can know:
If space and time are merely ways in which the mind orders things, then things can only be known by human
beings as they appear, that is, under the conditions of space and time (a priori forms of sensibility), and never
as they are in themselves.

Kant's famous distinction between:

1. Phenomena: things as they appear
2. Noumena: things as they are in them-selves.
According to Kant, all we can know are phenomena-, this is the limit of what we can know. Beyond the
phenomenal world (i.e. the noumenal), there can be no knowledge

Summary/Conclusion
a. "Knowledge," properly so called, is partly based on sense experience and is partly not so based.
Knowledge is always composite, i.e., we may identify empirical elements and a priori elements. The
latter are contributions of the knower.
b. The limit of what we can know then is the limit of what is there in sensuous experience that we can apply
our a priori forms to.

“Concepts without sense experience are empty; sense experience without concepts are blind.'’'’
"All our knowledge begins with experience, but not all our knowledge arises out of experience.”

Transition: Knowledge is limited to what we can experience in space and time. But there are “things'” we don’t
experience empirically - like the “ought” in moral imperatives. Through his excursion into the possibility of
knowledge, Kant has shown that there is room for matters of moral and religious significance.
Kant’s aim is then to rehabilitate morality. But to do this, he first had to analyze knowledge, to explain how we
come to know the world and what counts as such knowledge. Only then would he be in a position to show the
limits of knowledge.
Our presentation of Kant’s thinking on morality will be guided by the following three questions:
1. What can we know? [Kant had to analyze knowledge first.
2. What ought I to do?
3. What may I hope for?

KANT’S TASK
What Ought I to Do?
To seek out and establish the supreme principle of morality” and so to be in a position to justify and defend,
not every individual moral judgment, but the principles in accordance with which such judgments can be truly
made.
To develop a “proof by reason” (a priori) that will work for moral laws. He wants to prove the basic moral laws
not by experience or observation but by reason a priori, i.e., by pure reason alone. Pure reason gives us results
that are absolutely true and cannot be doubted. It is true for everyone, every-where, and all the time. And this
sort of absolute truth, Kant thinks, is very desirable indeed.

The need for pure ethics

“Since my aim here is directed strictly to moral philosophy, I limit my proposed question to this point only—Do
we not think it a matter of the utmost necessity to work out for once a pure moral philosophy completely
cleansed of everything that can only be empirical and appropriate to anthropology.”
Kant calls pure reason by the name “reason a priori”. What he means by this is a reason that can statement that
82 + 45 = 127, for example, is absolutely true and cannot be doubted. It is true for everyone, everywhere, and
all the time. And this sort of absolute truth, Kant thinks, is very desirable indeed

“The GOOD WILL”

“It is impossible to conceive anything at all in the world, or even out of it, which can be taken as good without
qualification, except a good will.”
To clarify Kant's assertion about the good will, we ought to pay attention to "without qualification”'.
a) A good will alone can be good in itself, or can be an absolute or unconditioned good. That is - it is a good
will alone which is good in whatever context it may be found.
b) Its goodness is not conditioned by its relation to a context or to an end or to a desire. It is good on the
basis of itself and nothing else.
Therefore, the only possible basis of a pure ethics is the good will because it is always good, or is good in every
circumstance and situation. And so it is the good will that Kant will use as the basis of his ethical theory.

“What makes a person have a ‘good will’”?

When we act, we always act to accomplish something; every action has some goal or other. But we do not
consider people to be morally wanting when, despite their best efforts, they fail to achieve their goal. Instead
- “morally good [will] is ... intrinsically good, that is, good in itself, just for what it is and not good merely insofar
as it is effective in achieving something further.

Against Utilitarianism: An act is not right or wrong because people are happy or not. If the will acted from
moral duty, then it acted rightly, even if its action makes me, or other people, very unhappy. We must do our
moral duty even if the whole world perishes.
“The function of reason”
Since ... reason has been imparted to us as a practical power—that is, as one which is to have influence on the
will... its true function must be to produce a will which is good, not as a mean to some further end, but in itself;
and for this function reason was absolutely necessary in a world where nature, in distributing her aptitudes, has
everywhere else gone to work in a purposive manner. Reason, which recognizes as its highest practical function
the establishment of a good will, in attaining this end is capable only of its own peculiar kind of contentment-
contentment in fulfilling a purpose which in turn is deter-mined by reason alone, even if this fulfillment should
often involve interference with the purposes of inclination.

What makes the good will good is the performance of DUTY?

Kant wants to distinguish two different ways of acting. The first we might call “outward agreement with duty.”
Here the action does do what duty requires. But the motive behind the action was not duty itself, but some
other inclinations. The second way of acting is acting from duty. Here the action not only does what duty
requires, but the motive behind the action is duty. And what Kant wants to argue, here, is that it is only this
second way of acting - only acting from duty - that has true moral worth.

The formal principle of duty

Our second proposition is this: An action done from duty has its moral worth, not in the purpose to be attained
by it, but in the maxim in accordance with which it is decided upon; it depends therefore, not on the realization
of the object of the action, but solely on the principle of volition in accordance with which, irrespective of all
objects of the faculty of desire, the action has been performed.

Maxim
When you are contemplating doing a particular action, you are to ask what rule you would be following if you
were to do that action. This will be the maxim of the act. The maxim is thus the subjective principle in the
categorical imperative. This is the rule of action a person follows as part of his own policy of living.
What Kant is saying is that morality does not depend so much on what we do or on whether we are successful.
Rather, morality depends on our doing things in a principled way. It is not what we do, but how (on the basis of
what principles) we do it. Or, to put it a little differently, whatever our purposes might be, the important thing
is to pursue those purposes in a way that stays constantly in touch with the principles of duty. (Velasquez, 199)
“Duty is the necessity to act out of reverence for the law.” Since dutifulness abstracts from any ends we may
desire, it requires us to comply with the moral law out of respect for it, regardless of any desires we may have
and regardless of anything further we may or may not achieve. (Sullivan, 1996: 32)

ST. THOMAS AQUINAS

Through his wisdom God is the founder of the universe of things... And so, as being the principle through which
the universe is created, divine wisdom means art, or exemplar, or idea, and likewise it also means law, as
moving all things to their due ends. Accordingly the Eternal law is nothing other than the exemplar of divine
wisdom directing the motions and acts of everything. St. Thomas Aquinas, ST Q. 93,a

Best Known Works (two systematic treatises):

1) Summa Contra Gentiles (A Summary against the Gen-tiles): an apology for the Christian faith; aims
was to show that the Christian faith rests on a rational foundation and that the principles of philosophy
do not necessarily lead to a view of the world which excludes Christianity either implicitly or explicitly.
2) Summa Theologica (A Summary of Theology): a systematic and summary exposition of theology for
"novices" in this branch of study; divided into 3 parts; but the second part is itself divided into 2 parts,
known respectively as the Prima secundae (first part of the second part) and the Secunda secundae
 (second part of the second part):

Theory of the Natural Law

Metaphysical world-View
Neo-Platonic Theory of Participation -
Where many beings are found to be - intrinsically similar in that they share some one perfection common to all
yet are diverse (dissimilar), this common perfection of similarity cannot find its adequate sufficient reason in
these many participants precisely as many and diverse. The only adequate sufficient reason for this common
sharing must be someone unitary' source from which this common perfection derives.
What all beings share in common is the act of existence itself? Hence, all beings necessarily point back to one
single ultimate source of existence itself.

Thomistic Synthesis:
 Aristotle’s concern with change, Aquinas transformed into the question of existence: God is both
efficient and final cause of all beings!! ~
 Relation between beings and Being is conceptualized in terms of the Neo-Platonic theory of
Participation.
Aquinas existentialized both Aristotle and Plato to show that all beings not only come from God as their First
Cause hut also return to Him as to their perfection as the Final Cause.

The Great Circle of Being:

The Universe as Journey.
But no sooner has the outgoing journey begun than it pivots upon itself and starts back on a journey home
again to its Source (reditus), drawn by the pull of the Good in each being. This pull arises as the inner act of
being of each thing pours over into its characteristic goal-oriented action, seeking the fullness of its own
perfection, and drawn to this goodness ultimately, through the channels of participation, by the same Infinite
Goodness from which its original act of existence flowed in the first place, but this time as Final Cause.

CONCLUSION
It is this metaphysical framework-God as both first and final cause—that enables Aquinas to assert that from
the very fact that the human being has a nature, he is dynamically oriented toward a goal, a final destination
of human choice already inscribed in her nature, and her will in particular, as an a priori necessary tendency she
can do nothing about.
The moral life, in this context, involves the realm of the human being’s free choice as he walks toward or away
from his end-who is God. (Metaphysics of Natural Law, 148)

The Nature of Law in General

A “Law is a kind of direction or measure for human activity through which a person is led to do something or
held back.” (Q.90,a.l)
Now direction and measure come to human acts from reason.” (Q.90, a.l)
Taken as a rule and measure, law can be present in two manners, first, and this is proper to the reason, as in the
ruling and measuring principle, and in this manner it is in the reason alone; second, as in the subject ruled and
measured, and in this manner law is present wherever it communicates a tendency to something, which
tendency can be called derivatively, though not essentially, a ‘law.’ (Q.90, a.l)
“Law is engaged above all with the plan of things for human happiness...Every law is shaped to the common
good.” (Q.90,
It is nothing than a reasonable direction of beings toward the common good, promulgated by the one who is
charged with the community. (ST,I-II,q.90,a.4,c
As stated above, law is nothing but a dictate of practical reason issued by a sovereign who governs a complete
community. Granted that the world is ruled by divine Providence... [Then] it is evident that the whole
community of the universe is governed by God’s mind. Therefore the ruling idea of things which exists in God
as the effective sovereign of them all has the nature of law.... It follows that this law should be called eternal.
(Q.91,a.l,c)
Ideas in the divine mind and in the human mind do not stand in the same relationship to things. For the human
mind is measured by things, in such wise that its concept is not true of itself, but because it agrees with a thing.
According to what a thing is or is not objectively so the view we form of it is true or false. God’s mind, however,
is the measure of things, for, as we have shown, each has truth to the extent that it reflects the divine mind.
Consequently the divine mind is true of itself, and hence the exemplar there is truth itself. (Q 93, a.l, R.3).

The Eternal Law is nothing other than the exemplar of divine wisdom directing the motions and acts of
everything. (Q.93,a.l)
Law is a rule and measure, as we have said, and therefore can exist in two manners, first as in the thing which
is the rule and measure, second as in the thing that is ruled and measured, and the closer the second to the first
the more regulated and measured it will be. Since all things are regulated and measured by Eternal Law, as we
have seen, it is evident that all somehow share in it, in that their tendencies to their own proper acts and ends
are from its impression. (Q.91,a.2)
A thing may be known in two ways, the first, in itself, the other, in its effects, in which some likeness tc it is
discovered, as when not seeing the sun itself we nevertheless see daylight. So then it should be said that no
one, except God himself and the blessed who see him in his essence, can know the Eternal Law as it is in itself,
but that every rational creature can know about it according to some dawning, greater or lesser, of its light. (Q
93, a.l)

The natural law is nothing other than the sharing in the Eternal Law by intelligent creatures. Precepts of the
Natural law
The precepts of the natural law are to human conduct what the first principles of thought are to demonstration.
There are several first principles of thought, and so, also, several precepts of natural law. (Q.94,a.2)
That which first appears is the real, and some insight into this is included in whatsoever is apprehended. This
first indemonstrable principle, ‘There is no affirming and denying the same simultaneously’, is based on the
very nature of the real and the un-real: on this principle, as Aristotle notes, all other.

To apply the analogy: as to be real first enters into human apprehending as such, so to be good first enters the
practical reason’s apprehending when it is bent on doing something. For every agent acts on account of an end,
and to be an end carries the meaning of to be good.

SYNDERESIS
The first principle for the practical reason is based on the meaning of good, namely that it is what all things
seek after. And so this is the first command of law, ‘that good is to be sought and done, evil to be avoided’.
(Q94,a.2)
Reason, reflecting upon human beings’ natural inclinations, promulgates the order of the primary precepts of
natural law which follows the order of natural inclinations:
1. Every substance tends to conserve its existence according to its own kind. Together with all substances,
human beings have a natural tendency to preserve their being, and reason reflecting on this tendency
as present in human beings promulgates the precept, that life is to be preserved.
2. Human beings have inclinations that is common to all animals. These are inclinations involving
propagation of species and bringing up offspring. Again, reason reflecting on these tendencies,
promulgates the precept that the species is to be propagated and children educated.
3. Human beings have inclinations proper to rational beings. In virtue of the rational nature of human
 beings, there are those inclinations to know the truth, live in society ... etc. Again, reason, reflecting on
these inclinations of the rational nature, promulgates such precepts as human beings should seek the
truth and avoid ignorance, especially about those things knowledge of which is necessary for the right
ordering of human lives, and that human beings should live in society "with others.

According to the natural law, then, everything that is right by nature is right either
1) because the universal nature of being is such, or
2) because the universal nature of animal is such, or
3) because the rational nature is such.

Secondary Precepts of the Natural Law

Reason, reflecting further on human nature can discover even less general and more particular precepts. There
is a decreasing generality in the precepts.
The moral agent's action may begin with the more universal precepts. But she cannot stop there because the
more universal the precept is, the less it has to say about what action to pursue. Hence, the moral agent, in the
process of practical reasoning, must move forward beyond the realm of general rules through a series of more
and more particular judgments, until eventually reaching the single decision to act or not to act.

We can thus isolate three moments in the whole process of applying the natural law:
 First, we are disposed to “do good and avoid evil.” This is synderesis: the disposition by which a human
being is in possession of the fundamental principle of morality.
 Second, reason discerns the matter at hand and applies the general principles of natural law to the
concrete situation.
 Third, there is the judgment to do something because it is good or avoid it because it is evil. This whole
process is what we call conscience

Further Clarifications:
 First: The term, “natural law” itself is misleading because it implies that ethical laws are like "laws of
nature" or scientific laws.
 Second: It also misleading to think of it as being similar to civil law: they apply equally to all human
beings, regardless of the conventions, customs, or beliefs of their particular society. Therefore, we can
say that natural law refers to ethical guidelines or rules that stipulate what people ought to do rather
than what they in fact do, and that they apply equally to all humanity because they are rooted in human
nature itself.
 Third: Note the Significant Role of Reason: Through reason, the human being can reflect on his
fundamental inclinations of his nature (Remember: these are inclinations to the development of his
potentials and attainment of his good). And then, having reflected on his fundamental inclinations, the
human being promulgates to himself the natural moral law.

Thus, by the light of his reason, the human being can arrive at some knowledge of the natural law.
And since this law is a participation in or reflection of the eternal law - the human being is not left in ignorance
of the eternal law which is the ultimate rule of all conduct.
Further Questions:
1. But why should we take our "inclinations” seriously?
There are two modes in the determination of judgment:
Way of cognition: I take a certain judgment, let us say, s is p, and I wonder how it is determined. Roughly,
it may be determined by antecedent cognitions. Perhaps, the predicate is really contained in the subject
(analytic). Or we take a proposition of experience, and we determine the truth of this proposition by
antecedent knowledge.
 Way of inclination: Many judgments are determined not by way of cognition but by way of inclination.
We say "yes" or "no" to all sorts of propositions as a result of inclination. Is this arbitrary thinking? In
many cases, cognition is not available and all we have is judgment by way of inclination. Very often
though, in the case of natural law, the inclination involved is not purely intellectual. We cannot give a
strictly demonstrable justification for our knowledge of the natural law. All we can say perhaps is that
the inclination involved is that of the good, honest will, and the expert is the prudent, the wise.
Thus: We can conclude that the natural law is known by reason, but reason sort of divines our
inclinations.
2. Is natural moral law one and the same for all human beings?
Obviously, one and the same for all, in its primary and more easily known rules. As for secondary
precepts, although more complicated, they are still rather close in meaning to primary principles.
Hence, they are relatively right for all and are known to all, in most cases. But the more particular we
get, the more remote are these precepts from the primary. These precepts are not easily known by all.
What this means is that the more particular moral precepts, requiring developed capacities of practical
reasoning, may be erroneously or inadequately grasped by some people who are led astray by bad
reasoning or corrupt habits.
3. Can Natural Law be Changed?
It is sometimes claimed that human nature is always and everywhere the same, hence natural moral
laws must be permanent and incapable of change. This claim is too rigorous and simplistic. On the basis
of decreasing universality: the primary precepts remain immutable. But as we move to more particular
precepts, these can be "changed"-i.e., the circumstances of an act may be such that it no longer falls
under the class of actions prohibited by reason.
In its general form then, the precepts remains valid.

CONCLUSION
All other things being equal, we hold that it is better to live than to die, that it is better that mothers
should take care of their babies rather than dispose of them, that it is better not to lie than to lie. This is so
because of what these things are: because a human being is a being, because a mother is a mother, because
human beings are rational agents.
We express these natures rationally, and thus we have the first component of the definition of law: it is
a work of the reason. But it is a reason measured by things, which bows before things: that is what we mean
when we say that things are right by nature.
Thus, the natural law exists in nature before it exists in our judgment, and it enjoys the latter existence - that is
what natural law means! - by reason of what the nature of things is.
A good introduction to the study of Moral Philosophy or Ethics (the study of normative human conduct)
is a brief historical survey of both eastern and Western moralities throughout the history of mankind. There is
a value on the historical study of man's reflection on what is good or evil, right or wrong in any age and culture—
the to appreciate moral philosophy in a Philippine context.
If we speak of Filipino morality, is it something uniquely Filipino or does it have essential human elements which
can be shared by the rest of mankind? Despite the different approaches to morality in both eastern (Asian) and
Western ethical thought, there is a universally experienced human morality common to all men and binding on
all people irrespective of their historical and cultural differences.
There are basic structures of the human person and moral experience (Similar to the basic structures of
the religious experience which are studied in the Philosophy of Religion) which provide the general foundation
and common basis for the study of human morality. These basic structures are perhaps best revealed in the
moral questions which man asks in every culture and every epoch. It is also true, as we shall see later, that a
limited number of answers to these questions recur throughout history. This is not, however, to assert that
"there is nothing new under the sun." Contemporary ethics deals with new moral problems. There are
permanent and changing aspects of morality. The problem of continuity and discontinuity of contemporary
ethics with past moral thought shows that present day moral thinking has its roots in the past and itself
provides the basis for the future evolution of man's ethical thought. A study of history of ethics also shows a
source of ethical wisdom in the various Asian and Western moralities apart from Christian morality which the
Christians shares with mankind. Morality which is genuinely human is objective and Is valid for everyone and
cannot be merely the subjective whim of an individual or group of individuals of a particular historical era or
culture.
Thus, while this historical survey must be brief and needs to be supplemented with further study and
discussion in the philosophy of Religion (where ethical questions and religious questions are inextricably
interwoven), it will be helpful in orienting the reader to consider the principal Oriental and Western ethical
traditions while the aim of this particular lesson is to study moral philosophy in a Philippine context. The study
of other moralities can enrich Filipino morality and make the Filipino critically aware of the distinctive
characteristics of his own moral viewpoint as it differs from the distinctive features of other moral viewpoint in
history and in varying historical cultures. It is hoped that the Filipino will become aware of the Asian and
Western moral influences on his own indigenous moral and religious values. After all the Filipino today is the
unique blending of East and West.
The creed which accepts as the foundation of morals “utility” or the “greatest happiness principle” holds
that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness; wrong as they tend to produce the
reverse of happiness. By happiness is intended pleasure and the absence of pain; by unhappiness, pain and the
privation of pleasure.
John Stuart Mill, "What is Utilitarianism?"

BRIEF HISTORICAL PRELUDE

Late 18th and 19th centuries: It became a very influential way of thinking about morality. It urged that morality
is not a matter of pleasing God, nor is it a matter of faithfulness to abstract rules. Morality, it claims, is nothing
more than the attempt to bring about as much happiness as possible in the world. (Rachels, The Elements of
Moral Philosophy, pp. 79-80)

Two Early Formulations:

Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832): Quantity over Quality

By the Principle of Utility is meant that principle which approves or disapproves of every action
whatsoever, according to the tendency which it appears to have to augment or diminish the happiness of the
party whose interest is in question; or what is the same thing in other words, to promote or to oppose that
happiness. (The Principle of Morals and Legislation)
But how do we determine the most pleasure? We calculate a pleasure, by applying the following criteria:
(1) its intensity - or how strong it is;
(2) its duration - how long it will last;
(3) its certainty - how likely it is to occur;
(4) its proximity - how long we have to wait for them, or, how near at hand it is;
(5) fecundity or productiveness - the further pleasures or pains they are likely to cause;
(6) its purity - its freedom from ensuing pains;
(7) extent - the number of persons who are likely to be affected by this particular pleasure or pain, as the
case may be. In short, the quantity of pleasure over pain is an overriding consideration in judging the morality
of an act.

John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) Quality over Quantity

Utility must take account of the fact that some pleasures (e.g. pleasures of knowledge) are qualitatively
preferable to others (e.g. the pleasure of a full stomach). By introducing the quality of pleasures sought, over
and above quantity, Mill introduced a second factor: moral superiority.
It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be a Socrates dissatisfied than
a fool satisfied. And if the fool, or the pig are of a different opinion, it is because they only know their own side
of the question. The other party to the comparison knows both sides.

WHAT IS UTILITARIANISM
General View: The criterion of ethical conduct is to produce as great a balance of good over bad as possible.
Happiness is the only intrinsic good, and unhappiness the only intrinsic bad. Each person's happiness is as
important as is anyone else's.

UTILITARIANISM IN THREE STAGES:

1. Principle of Utility: At the heart of utilitarianism is the Principle of Utility which asserts: The doctrine
that we ought to act so as to promote the greatest balance of good over evil.

2. Pleasure Principle: we must figure out what the good is. For utilitarian’s, the good is pleasure. Thus
Utilitarianism asserts, the doctrine that we ought to act so as to promote the greatest balance of
pleasure over pain.

3. Maximization Principle: Utilitarianism also asks whose pleasure is to be maximized. The answer is the
greatest number of people. And so utilitarianism asserts -The doctrine that we ought to act so as to
promote the greatest happiness for the greatest number.

CRITICAL EVALUATION OF UTILITARIANISM

Radicalness of the theory: Gone are all references to God or (at least originally) to abstract rules "written
in heaven." Instead the point of morality is seen as the happiness in this world.

Consider the following case: Matthew Donnelly was a physicist who had worked with X-rays for thirty
years. Perhaps as a result of too much exposure, he contracted cancer and lost part of his jaw, his upper lip, his
nose, and his left hand... He was also left blind. Mr. Donnelly's physicians told him that he had about a year left
to live, but he decided that he did not want to go on living in such a state. He was in constant pain....Knowing
that he was going to die eventually anyway, and wanting to escape this misery, Mr. Donnelly begged his three
brothers to kill him. Two refused, but one did not. The youngest brother, 36-year old Harold Donnelly, carried
a 30 caliber pistol into the hospital and shot Matthew to death.

Is utility (happiness, pleasure) the only thing that matters?

Happiness is not something that is recognized as good and sought for its own sake, with other things
appreciated only as means of bringing it about. Instead, happiness is a response we have to the attainment of
things that are recognized as goods, independently and in their own right.

Are Consequences all that matter?

The most fundamental idea underlying the theory is that in order to determine whether an action would
be right, we should look at what will happen as a result of doing it. The claim against utilitarianism is that more
than consequences are required to determine the morality of an action or decision. Some of these are: Justice,
Rights.

JOHN RAWLS: JUSTICE AND FAIRNESS

These are the basic elements of Justice as Fairness
 Proportion
 Liberty
 Equality

We are to imagine that those who engage in social cooperation choose together, in one joint act, the
principles which are to assign basic rights and duties and to determine the division of social benefits. Men are
to decide in advance how they are to regulate their claims against one another and what is to be the foundation
charter of their society. Just as each person must decide by rational reflection what constitutes his good, that
is, the system of ends which it is rational for him to pursue, so a group of persons must decide once and for all
what is to count among them as just and unjust. The choice which rational men would make in this hypothetical
situation of equal liberty, assuming for the present that this choice problem has a solution, determines the
principles of justice.

ORIGINAL POSITION
In justice as fairness the original position of equality corresponds to the state of nature in the traditional
theory of the social contract. This original position is not, of course, thought of as an actual historical state of
affairs, much less as a primitive condition of culture. It is understood as a purely hypothetical situation
characterized so as to lead to a certain conception of justice.

FEATURES OF THE ORIGINAL POSITION

1. Specific Task: To reach a consensus on the principles to govern the basic structure of society.
2. They are conceived of as choosing behind a "veil of ignorance."

VEIL OF IGNORANCE
Behind the 'veil of ignorance/ people are ignorant of two things: first, their own talents and abilities and
their place in society; second, their own conception of what gives value to life (their conception of good, which
may include religious and aesthetic ideals or even tastes and preferences. Why? So people cannot tailor the
principles of the just society to suit themselves. The veil of ignorance implements the idea of impartiality which
is an essential component of the justice as fairness.

TWO TYPES OF JUSTICE

In the Original Position, people will come up with two principles to govern the basic structure of society:

FIRST PRINCIPLE: Each person has an equal right to a fully adequate scheme of equal basic liberties which is
compatible with a similar scheme of liberties for all. (This principle generates specific rights and duties, such as
those regarding speech, assembly, conscience, etc.)

SECOND PRINCIPLE: Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both (a) reasonably
expected to be to everyone's advantage, and (b) attached to positions and offices open to all. . . . (This principle
regulates the fair distribution of wealth and power.)

MORALITY/ETHICS
"The discipline dealing with what is good and bad and with moral duty and obligation." (Merriam Webster's
Collegiate Dictionary, 10th ed.)

"The study or science of morals" (Chambers Encyclopedic English Dictionary)

"Ethics" used synonymously with "morality" but it is not quite the same with morality.
ETHICS is a branch of philosophy (moral philosophy) that examines the moral standards of an individual or
society, and asking how these standards apply to our lives and whether these are reasonable or unreasonable.

"Morality" refers to the standards that an individual or group has about what is right and wrong conduct,
good and evil, and the values embedded, fostered or pursued in the act.

"Moral standards include the norms we have about the kinds of actions we believe are morally right and
wrong as well as the values we place on the kinds of objects we believe are morally good and morally bad."
(Velasquez, Business Ethics, p. 9)

VALUES
Values are qualities that are of worth, of importance.
"Moral values can usually be expressed as statements describing objects or features of objects that have
worth, such as 'Honesty is good," "Injustice is bad." (Velasquez, p. 9)

Max Scheler: values are objects of our intentional feeling.

"Values are caught, not taught"
Question: are values objective or subjective? Whether value reposes in the object or is a matter of how we
feel towards it. Scheler: values are objective, a priori.

GOOD AND EVIL

Good and evil in ethics are to be distinguished from physical/natural good or evil, because they
presuppose freedom and responsibility.
Si Scheler: good and evil are moral values. Positive: good. Negative: evil.

FOUR MAJOR CATEGORIES OF ETHICS

1. DESCRIPTIVE ETHICS is a sociological ethics or discipline that state of what norm is given in social context
and culture. (These ethics could not be applied to another place.)
2. NORMATIVE ETHICS refer to discipline that produce morals, norms, rules, and product.
3. METAETHICS is investigating moral, norm and rules. It dictates a manner of communication. ( a sense of
good and wrong language)
4. ARETAIC ETHICS a study of a certain behavior

Ethical system Action oriented or virtue oriented Action is a neuter neither bad nor good not until the norm
requires.

Deontological –primary system

1. Divine command theory
2. Natural law
3. Ethical rationalism
4. Kant’s Imperative

Ethics is based on God’s will. -it is also absolute. It is exactly and could never be changed (Mal. 3:6). -it requires
perspective.

Christian Ethics – it is also absolute, based on revelation.

- must be Biblical.
DEONTOLOGICAL rather than TELEOLOGICAL Sin is the result of unethical action and even thinking of it.

Deontological Ethics Teleological ethics

Rule determines the result Result determines the rule
Rule is the basis of the act Result is the basis of the act
Rule is good regardless of result Rule is good because of result
Result is always calculated within the rules Result is sometimes used to break rules

FREEDOM

Freedom and responsibility are correlatives.

Two meanings of freedom and responsibility:
1. Free choice (horizontal freedom) and accountability
2. Fundamental option (vertical freedom) and response-ability.

FREEDOM OF CHOICE
I am the source of my action.
I am free from external coercion
Choice of goods

RESPONSIBILITY
Because I am the source of my action, I am accountable or answerable for it. This does not mean though
that my action is a responsible one.

FUNDAMENTAL OPTION
Refers to the direction of my choices
Towards values that form a hierarchy
Option of love: higher values
Option of egoism: lower values
Freedom from internal constraints

RESPONSE-ABILITY
The ability to give a response that meet the objective demands of the situation. Answers the call of higher values.
I become a responsible person.

Fundamental Moral Principles

1. The Principle of Respect for Autonomy

Autonomy is Latin for "self-rule.” We have an obligation to respect the autonomy of other persons, which is
to respect the decisions made by other people concerning their own lives. This is also called the principle of
human dignity. It gives us a negative duty not to interfere with the decisions of competent adults, and a
positive duty to empower others for whom we're responsible. Corollary principles: honesty in our dealings
with others & the obligation to keep promises.

2. The Principle of Beneficence

We have an obligation to bring about good in all our actions. Corollary principle: We must take positive steps
 to prevent harm. However, adopting this corollary principle frequently places us in direct conflict with
respecting the autonomy of other persons.

3. The Principle of Non-maleficence

Corollary principles: Where harm cannot be avoided, we are obligated to minimize the harm we do. Don’t
increase the risk of harm to others, it is wrong to waste resources that could be used for good. Combining
beneficence and non-maleficence: Each action must produce more good than harm.

4. The Principle of Justice

We have an obligation to provide others with whatever they are owed or deserve, in public life, we have an
obligation to treat all people equally, fairly, and impartially. Corollary principle: impose no unfair burdens.

Combining beneficence and justice: We are obligated to work for the benefit of those who are unfairly treated.

ETHICAL PRINCIPLES
1. UTILITARIANISM
Conceived in the 19th century by Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, the most popular in business: the cost-
benefit analysis in business is a form of this theory.
 Basis for the rightness of an action: consequences or effect on all persons affected (including the agent).
 An action is right if and only if the sum total benefits produced by that act is greater than the sum total
benefits produced by any other act the agent could have performed in its place.

Two Main Limitations

1. In its traditional form, it is difficult to use when dealing with values that are difficult and perhaps impossible to
measure quantitatively.
2. It ignores the questions of rights (individual entitlements to freedom of choice and to well-being) and justice
(how benefits and burdens are distributed among people).

Rule utilitarianism (vs. case utilitarianism) tries to answer this by proposing the evaluation of rules instead of
cases.
2. RIGHTS
 The individual's entitlement to something.
 In contrast to legal rights, moral or human rights are derived from a system of moral standards that
specify that all human beings are permitted, empowered to do something, or entitled to have something
done for them.
3. KANT’S CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE
The basis of moral rights is Immanuel Kant’s Categorical imperative, which, for our purposes, has two
formulations:
First formulation:
I ought never to act except in such a way that I can also will that my maxim should become a universal
law."
An action is morally right for a person in a certain situation if, and only if the person's reason for carrying out the
action is a reason that he or she would be willing to have every person act on, in any similar situation,
Two criteria, therefore, are necessary for determining moral right and wrong:
 UNIVERSALIZABILITY
 REVERSIBILITY

(similar to the Golden Rule: Do unto others what you would want them do unto you.)
Second Formulation:
"Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other,
never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end."
An action is morally right for a person, if, and only if, in performing the action, the person does not use others
merely as a means for advancing his or her own interest, but also both respects and develops their capacity to
choose freely for themselves.
4. JUSTICE AND FAIRNESS
“Justice consists. In treating equals equally and unequal’s unequally, and in giving each person his due."
A. Compensatory Justice: concerns the just way in compensating someone for a past injustice or what he/she
lost when wronged by others.
B. Retributive justice: consists in the just imposition of punishment and penalties on those who do wrong. This
is related to procedural justice, referring to fair decision procedures, practices, agreements.
C. Distributive Justice: involves the fair distribution of benefits and burdens.
When issues concerning the common good are at stake, distributive justice comes into play. The principle of
distributive justice simply states:
Individuals who are similar in all respects relevant to the kind of treatment in question should be given similar
benefits and burdens, even if they are dissimilar in other irrelevant respects; and individuals who are dissimilar
in a relevant respect ought to be treated dissimilarly, in proportion to their dissimilarity.
5. VIRTUE ETHICS
Virtues are dispositions, attitudes, habits that form the character of a person, developing his or her
highest potentials. Aristotle held that virtues are habits that enable a person to act in accordance with reason,
and acting in accordance with reason is choosing the mean between the two extremes, the extreme of excess
and the extreme of lack.
An action is morally right if in carrying out the action the agent exercises, exhibits, or develops a morally
virtuous character, and it is morally wrong to the extent that by carrying out the action the agent exercises,
exhibits, or develops a morally vicious character.
Virtue ethics then determines the rightness or wrongness of an action "by examining the kind of character the
action tends to produce or the kind of a character that tends to produce the action."
6. ETHICS OF CARE
One criticism of Kohlberg comes from Carol Gilligan, a psychologist who studied the moral development
of women. For Gilligan, the moral development for women is marked by progress towards more adequate ways
of caring. (Most ethicists recently have pointed out the ethics of caring is not only for women but also for men.)

An ethics of care emphasizes two moral demands:

a. We should preserve and nurture those concrete and valuable relationships we have with specific persons
who have become part of our lives and have formed us as we are.
b. We should care for those with whom we are concretely related by attending to their particular needs, values,
desires, well-being as seen from their own personal perspective, and by responding to these needs, values,
desires, well-being, especially of those who are vulnerable and dependent on our care.
 Two important points:
1. An ethics of care should encompass larger systems of relationship leading to a "communitarian ethic".
2. An ethics of care provides a corrective to other ethical principles that emphasize impartiality and
universality.

In Summary, when making a moral decision, ask the following questions:

1. Does the action maximize social benefits and minimize social injuries?
2. Is the action consistent with the moral rights of those affected?
3. Will the action bring just distribution of benefits and burdens?
4. What kind of person will one become if one makes this decision?
5. Does the action exhibit care for the well-being of those who are closely related to or dependent on oneself?

Assumption of Ethics:
 Man is rational being
 Man as free

The Objects of Ethics:

1. Physical: The doer of the act.
2. Non Physical: The act done by doer.

Human acts- are said to be the formal objects of ethics because they have moral value.
Acts of man: Involuntary natural acts, Voluntary natural acts.

Acts of Man:
Involuntary natural Acts: these include the involuntary, intuitive or reflex acts exhibited by man.
Voluntary Natural Acts: Nonmoral Acts. These acts involves a certain degree of freedom or voluntariness.
However they are categorized under acts of man because they are neither moral nor immoral.

Human Acts:
These include action that are conscious, deliberate, intentional, voluntary and within the preview of human value
judgment. These acts are either moral or immoral, because these are products of man’s rationality and freedom
of choice, which contain an element that allow for moral judgment and setting for moral responsibility.

Classification of Human Acts:

1. Moral or Ethical Acts: These are moral Acts which observe or conform to a standard or norm of morality.
2. Immoral or Unethical Acts: These are acts that violate or deviate from a standard of morality.

Components of Moral Acts:

Intention: or motive of the act.

The means of the act: this is the act, object or person employed to carry out the intent of the act.
The end: The intent of the act is always assumed to be directed towards the desired end or perceived good.
Human Will:

It is the so-called “Free-will” a God given agency that makes us a person unique among all creation. With this the
freedom of choice is the leading mark of human existence in such human will is the point of existence. The
freedom to choose reveals that human are perfect being ever since the world begun but until such moment that
iniquity was found the “Fall” was the great milestone to mankind. Hence, without the Divine providence such
Will may not be directed according to its ideal purpose of existence.

Moral acts stem from the human will that controls or influences the internal and external actions of man. The
will stirs a person to act or hampers him from acting. It colors the motives for his engaging or disengaging in a
certain action.
Living against all odds, hoping in the midst of hopelessness, finding meaning in great loss, selfless sacrifice for
others. These are just few cases that demonstrate the power of the will to motivate the human soul for goodness,
hope and determination or the reverse. It is this art of the soul that affects the freedom and reasoning of the
individual. The will is the agency of choice.
The will may prompt reason to overpower passion or on the other extreme, arouse passion and allow it to
overrun reason. As such, the will is a potential force for both good and evil. The strength and weakness of the
will determines the strength and weakness of a person’s character.

Thus, the will affects one’s action, and that therefore, it must be brought closer to reason and to the proper sense
of morality and goodness. It is morality which directs the will to its proper choice through the instruction of the
moral sense which is borne out of human experience

Description of Moral Dimension:

Action:
It is the moving of oneself and taking concrete means in view of the goal or end, which is not yet but which
somehow ought to be. It requires man to take the means and to set into motion a course of events, starting from
himself and moving into the world, toward what ought to be , toward some future state of being, which
eventually includes himself and the world. This moral end or goal needs to be made m0ore precise, but in any
case, morality is primarily man taking up action, doing something, realizing something which ought to be.

Freedom:
Morality requires man to act, to realize what he must be and what his very being ought to be. Morality therefore,
presupposes freedom of action. Freedom of choice of the means, Freedom of choice of intermediate goals,
Freedom to follow or not man’s ultimate end, the freedom to determine oneself to be truly he is.

Judgment:
Action can be judge as good or bad; right or wrong, which can be classified as the norms of morality, which refers
to some ideal vision of man, an ideal stage or perfection of man, which serves as the ultimate goal and norm. In
this light, the good seems to be the kind of ultimate norm, the measure of the ultimate meaning and worth of
man’s existence. (Norms: Technical, societal, Aesthetic, Ethical/Moral)
Universality:
The law of universality: “Act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should
become a universal law, that is: Action is moral in so far as one can say that any man in one’s place should act in
the same way. Morality therefore, of its very nature, is infinitely open and inclusive of any and every human
person, placing man in the context of the community of all fellow human beings. For this reason, equality and
justice are the direct corollaries of moral experience.

Obligation:
The state of being bound or required to do or not to do, a categorical imperative. In this sense, the good is
universally binding and obligatory on man so that his being is an “ought-to-be” and an “ought to act” in view of
his very being. That is the “good”.

STAGES OF MORAL DEVELOPMENT

The American psychologist Lawrence Kohlberg grouped together children while they were still small and did a
study on the moral development of these people in a span of about twenty years. He was interested in the
justification or reasoning behind the right behavior of the group and was able to mark out of six stages of
development.

Pre-conventional Level
Concerned with concrete consequences to individuals, focusing on pursuing concrete interest, while avoiding
sanctions.

Stage one
Punishment-Obedient Orientation
What is right is to obey the rules, avoid physical damage to persons and property. The reason is that one
wants to avoid punishment. Also, there is the deference to power and position, in relation to social perspective,
what is considered is simply one's own interest as there is still no sense of another's point of view.

Stage two
Instrumental-purposive Orientation
What is right is one’s own immediate interest, and letting others act also in their own interest. Thus, each to his
own. What is right is what is fair. You do your thing, I do my thing; we have fair, equal exchange.

The reason for this is instrumental, to satisfy one’s need and admit the needs of others in their own self-
interest. While the other is after his/her own interest, I too have my own interest. And if I do what is wrong, I
might not obtain my own interest. Human relations are seen as a market place, a place of exchange. Fairness,
reciprocity, equal sharing are all interpreted in a physical, pragmatic way.
Conventional Level
Concerned with fulfilling role expectations, maintaining and supporting the social order, and identifying
persons or groups involved in this order.

Stage three
Interpersonal-Concordance Orientation
 What is deemed right is what pleases or helps others, what is approved by others, what reinforces mutual
relationships such as trust, loyalty, respect, gratitude.
The reason for helping others, for pleasing others, for doing what is conventional or what is mutually
good for everyone is the need to be seen by the self and others as a loyal, caring person (important here is my
image to others), the desire to maintain rules and authority that support your typical good behavior and living
up to what significant others expect.
In relation to the social perspective, one takes the third person perspective where one knows how the
group will react, is aware of shared feelings, agreements, and groups expectations that take primacy over
individual interest

Stage four
Social Structure Orientation
What is right is doing one's duty; showing respects for laws, authority and society and contributing to
the maintenance of society and institutions. One's reason for doing one's duty and the like is that, action which
breaks the social or moral agreements impairs the system which is a value. It would be hazardous to digress
from conformity, from social norms.
One reason for this is that conscience is imperative to the moral law, to the ethical system. Another
reason is the maintenance of the system for system for its own sake. The social perspective takes the
perspective of a generalized other and not just the personal other. The generalized other is the institution, the
society or the church. One sees a given social issue from the perspective of a fixed system of laws and beliefs.

Post - Conventional Level

In this level, there is the effort to define the moral values and principles that have validity and application
apart from the authority of groups or persons and the ability to see beyond laws and norms of society. It is here
that one examines, adopts and applies the different ethical frameworks or principles. This stage includes what
is right; individual rights and standards which have been critically examined, and agreed upon. One says "these
rights have been examined, and since they are right, they are the ones to be followed."

Stage five
Social Contract Orientation
This stage includes what is right; individual rights and standards which have been critically examined,
and agreed upon. One says "these rights have been examined, and since they are right, they are the ones to be
followed. Here, one is concerned that obligations be based on calculations of overall utility, what is really good
for all. To a certain extent, there is universality in this good but still within basic human society, basic human
agreements.
The social perspective here views the rights of each as best protected when stability governs relations,
when one recognizes that moral and legal perspective sometimes differ and thus one may question the legal,
because it may not be moral.

Stage six
Universal Ethical Principles
Kohlberg was not able to observe this stage in his group, and thus he projected it. What is right is
following self-chosen ethical principles based on judgments that are universalizable, irreversible, and
consistent. What is right are the universal principles of justice, and the reasons given are the validity of universal
moral principles and the sense of personal commitment to these principles.
The social perspective taken is the moral point of view from which even the social arrangements are
derived; from this universalizable moral point of view, moral judgments are made.
Ethical Principles

A 7-Steps Model for Ethical Decision-Making

1. Gather the facts

2. Identify the stakeholders
3. Articulate the dilemma
4. List the alternatives
5. Compare the alternatives with the principle
6. Weight the consequences
7. Make the decision

Step 1: Identifying and setting up the Ethical Problem

What is the ethical problem? The issue – it helps to be able to state or define, succinctly, the ethical issue
involved in the case and to make sure that this is not confused with other elements of the problem. (Perhaps the
ethical problem can be stated in one or two sentences very much like a thesis statement that defines the problem
to be tackled.)

Step 2: What are the relevant facts?

What immediate facts have the most bearing on the ethical decision that must be made in this case? Include
any potential economic, social, or political pressures.

Step 3: WhoVALUES-ETHICS PHILIPPINE ADVENT COLLEGE PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION COURSE (PEC)

are the Stakeholders?
It is important to identify the stakeholders who will be affected by the ethical decision to be made. It will
also help to identify the corresponding obligations that one has toward the various stakeholders.

Step 4: What are the available options?

It is important to list down at least three. As Aristotle remarks, there are at least two, and these two often
represent the extremes. Nothing is ever either black or white; sometimes one is forced to think in terms of a
compromise, even if that compromise doesn’t exactly conform to your personal notion of what is the right thing to
do. It is at this stage that reason struggles to transcend what we feel.

Guide Questions for Evaluating the Options

● What benefits and what harms will each option produce, and which alternative will lead to the best
overall consequence? (Utilitarianism)
● What moral rights do the affected parties have, and which option best respects those rights? (Kant)
● Which course of action advances the common good?
● Which decision enables me to be and act in ways that develop my highest potential as a person? (Virtue)
● Which option treats everyone the same, except where there is a morally justifiable reason not to, and
does not show favoritism or discrimination? (Justice and Fairness)

Step 5: Determine the most appropriate action

 On the basis of the evaluation done on the various options, we must determine the best course of action
– the moral thing to do. Ethicists claim that this is the most difficult part of the process of moral decision-
making. It requires courage – especially when reason suggests one way and what we feel another way.

Why do the right Thing?

 Because knowing the right thing to do and actually being able to do it is essential for me to achieve my
highest goal (happiness: eudaimonia)
– Virtue Ethics: Aristotle
 Because in means I am following the human nature that God gave me, which is essential for me to
achieve my highest goal (happiness: beautitudo)
– Virtue Ethics II: Thomas Aquinas (Natural Law Ethics)

 Because it is my duty
– Deontological Ethics: Immanuel Kant
 Because it produces the greatest good for the greatest number
– Consequentialist Ethics: Utilitarianism: Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill
 Because it is what is fair and equitable
– “Justice as Fairness”: John Rawls

Step 6: Double-checking the Decision

First, Moral judgments must be backed by good reasons: We must avoid making judgments on the basis
of feelings alone. "Morality is, first and foremost, a matter of consulting reason: the morally right thing to do is
determined by what there are the best reasons for doing." How do we evaluate arguments then? First, we
should get our facts straight. Second, moral theories/principles should be brought into play. In other words,
these function to justify (not rationalize) our actions and decisions.

Second, we must also ask if our arguments are both valid and sound. A valid argument is one whose
premises logically entail its conclusion. An invalid argument on the other hand is one whose premises do not
entail its conclusion. In an invalid argument, one can accept the premises as true and reject the conclusion
without any contradiction. A sound argument, on the other hand, has true premises and valid reasoning. An
unsound argument employs invalid reasoning or has at least one false premise.

Finally, our decision must be “enabling” rather than “disabling.” There are decisions that prevent us from
acting any more fruitfully or effectively. These decisions cannot be moral! After all, a moral decision or action
is one that liberates us – develops our potentialities as a person. A decision that “disables” us prevents our
growth as persons.

Step 7: Make the decision impartially

CASE STUDY:

You have just been hired by a consulting firm. It is a good position that will give financial security to your family.
Your first assignment is to assess bids for a study that your client needs done. The bids were all due by 3:00
P.M. At 3:30 your boss calls you into office. He slips one of the submitted bids into an envelope and asks you
to run it over to one of the firms that you thought was going to bid on the project but had not yet done so.
You are told to wait while the agent at this firm looks at the bid in the envelope and formulates his own bid to
return to you. You suspect that you are being asked to cooperate in a scheme that is showing favor to your
boss’s friend. But as a new employee, you want to be seen as a team player. You don’t want to jeopardize your
job or the financial security of your family, yet it seems wrong to let a competing firm look at someone else’s
bid. What ought you to do?
(Richard M. Gula, SS, Moral Discernment (Paulist Press, 1997), 41.)
EASTERN (ASIAN) MORALITIES

HINDUISM
The Religion of Hindustan is founded on the experience of Divine Being (Brahman), the one beyond all
multiplicity. Although the Filipino people are deeply religious, God in the consciousness of the Hindu is more
real than in that of the Filipino. For the Hindu, the material world and the individual self (Atman), are illusory,
and the Great Self (Brahman) is generally conceived as non-conscious and beyond good and evil. Thus there is
very little basis for moral theory in Hinduism; one’s whole duty is to deny the individual and the phenomenal
(appearances), to achieve self-annihilation and absorption into the Great Self. This is seen concretely in the
attempts of Gandhi, Nehru and others to create a modern state. They have had to pay deference to Hinduism,
but they have constructed an essentially secularist and socialist state, and have met more and more resistance
from "orthodox" Hindu leaders. Hinduism is not a morality but a religion and it’s Buddhism—there are about
37,000 Buddhist or 0.1 per cent of the population in the Philippines (1970). Buddhism originates from the
experience of the misery of life. Life is caught in an endless cycle of change, of birth and death, with no peace
to be found here. For the Buddhist, man must achieve something totally other, and cross beyond humanity to
"nirvana". But nirvana changes its meaning here, because at least in Mahayana 8uddhism, the real self and in
some sense immortal. In Buddhism, nirvana comes to mean "the fading out of suffering". Thus Buddhism has
a morality, like eight beatitudes of Christian morality, Buddhism offers the eightfold way. However, Buddhism
tends to be egocentric and individualistic, since this present life and society is given very little positive value.
Theravada Buddhism is much more of a reversion to Hinduism, without the caste system.

Confucianism—it is not necessary to stress the influence of Chinese thought, both historically and the present,
on Filipino thought and behavior. Most of the Chinese nationals here in the Philippines are Christians; the rest
claim to be Buddhist, Confucianists, or Taoists. Confucianism, like Taoist, originates with the experience of the
all-embracing harmony of man and nature. (Filipino thought, too, is characterized by the harmonizing spirits,
of maintaining equilibrium (pagkakapantay) between man and nature and God). In Confucianism, man is at
home in the world and is not seeking escape to another order of reality. Confucianism is distinguished duty to
bring nature to serve his ends. Thus there is a program of life and of social order. In fact, Confucianism might
better be called ethical than religious, since it constitutes a social morality. Confucianism eschewed speculation
and stressed practical ethics (man's whole duty consists in preserving right human relationships). Maintaining
harmonious human relationship is an Asian value and is akin to the Filipino smooth interpersonal relationships.
Confucianism is intensely conservative (conservatism in Filipino society might very well be due to Chinese
influence), and yet is a vigorous and positive social morality. Some major ethical ideas of Confucianism are as
follow:
Doctrine of the Mean
 Moral virtue avoids excess and seeks the mean similar to the Buddhist Middle Way,
 Stoic ideal of “meden agan” or moderation,
 Roman axiom, "virtue lies in the middle", and
 Filipino idea of "tapat" or "katamtaman"), but how does one determine the mean in moral conduct?

Natural Law: Every man possesses himself the four natural principles of humanity (jen), justice (yi), wisdom
(te), and propriety (li) (perhaps akin to the Filipino values of pagkatao, katarungan, karunongan & kagalangan).
These four innate principles in man have a similarity to the Western Natural Law Doctrine. But note the striking
and distinctively Asian stress on propriety as a cardinal virtue (one of the essentials of Filipino identity is respect,
politeness, propriety). According to Confucianism, man has only to obey the law within himself to be perfect.
(Yet Confucianism died broken-hearted because of his failure to get his contemporaries to live by these ideals
that seemed innate and clear to him).
The Golden Rule. "Do unto others as you would want others unto you" is the Confucian norm of morality. This
golden rule was enunciated later and apparently independently in the West. Note the striking similarity to
Kant's more metaphysical "categorical imperative" (Actin conformity with that maxim... which you at the same
time will to be a universal law").

Taoism—(pronounced Daoism). Taoist morality arises from the experience of the dynamic force immanent in
the universe which gives order and life and meaning to all reality. "Tao" means "The Way". Taoism shared with
Confucianism the distinctively Chinese vision of man's oneness with nature. But it saw man as essentially
passive, called to harmonize himself with the dominant rhythms of nature. Thus the Taoist system does have
an ethic, but it is an ethic of passivity (recall the "Wu-Wei" or inaction of Zen a derivative of Taoism) —man is
called to conform to the natural rhythms of things. It is to be noted that the mentality of conforming to nature
is still prevalent among Filipino rural folk and hence it is considered wrong to go against nature. There has been
an evolution in the meaning of the "Tao". Originally it meant "the course of nature”, then in Confucius, it meant
"an impersonal deity", and in later Confucianism, "the Absolute" (similar to the Stoic Logos or reason, or the
"Absolute" of 18th century Western Idealism).

Zen-Buddhism—Zen morality arises from the experience of the original and spontaneous activity of the mind
aimed at keeping the intellectual and cultural life of man in the state of elemental simplicity with all the vigor
of the spontaneous and instinctive. Zen-Buddhism developed in China where it is known as Ch'an, a blend of
Taoism and Mahayana Buddhism. But whereas Mahayana stressed "mind" or reason, Zen Stressed intuition.
Knowledge or wisdom comes by safari (means a sudden jolt). Wisdom is paradoxical and the approach to it is
antirational (e.g., the disciple is told to meditate, perhaps for months, until there is a satori or intuition).
Some characteristics of Zen which affect morality are the following: Essential passivity: the principle of "Wu-
Wei" or in action means that man should be like the branches of a tree, blending beneath the weight of the
snowy if the branch were rigid, it would break under this weight. So, too, man should not resist intellectual
difficulties but should let them destroy themselves by their own weight. This principle of passivity has today
been also called the "way of the bamboo" (because of its flexibility) or the "way of the water" (because water is
flexible that it can take the shape of any container, yet water can little by little eat away and split a big rock).
Judo is a technique of fighting based on the principle of passivity. Union of contradictories: What seems
rationally or logically incompatible (e.g., attack-defense , subjective -objective, passive-active) are harmonized
and resolved by satori Roan or Zen problems are an exercise of harmonizing contradictories, e.g., "the sound
of one hand clapping; "how to get a goose into a narrow-mouth bottle without breaking the bottle or harming
the goose". The Ordinary: Zen stresses what is very ordinary in everyday life is the Tao; "What is Buddha?" the
Buddha is three gantas of rice (in the original, "three pounds of flax")";"Where is the Buddha- Heart? It is within
man."

ISLAM —it is unfortunate that the majority of Filipino Christians know very little about the religion of their
Filipino Muslim brothers. A dialogue unless Filipino Christians and Filipino Muslims is not possible unless
Filipino Christians have some acquaintance with Islamic religion and morality. There are about 1,831,000
Filipino Muslims (500 million in the world) or 4.9 percent of the Philippine population (1970).
Islam means "complete surrender of oneself" (to God) and Muslim means "given to God". Islam is both a religion
and a life, it is a religion of the book (the Qur'an is the word of God) which is explained by tradition (Hadith or
Sunna). The Muslim's life is a testimony and witness of faith in One God. But unlike Luther's salvation by "faith
alone", the Muslims believe in the efficacy of good works.

The Prophet (Muhammed) has said that man does not have unless he in the Muslims Creed:
(1) There is no divinity outside of God (Muslims refrain from using the term "Allah");
(2) Muhammed is God's envoy to teach truth;
(3) There is a resurrection after death;
(4) Divine decrees govern good or evil.
The Muslim also believes in four prophetical messengers, namely, Abraham, Moses, Jesus (not the son of God,
much less God) and Muhammad. Is God's envoy to each the truth? The Muslims also believe in four major
prophetical messengers, namely Abraham, Moses, Jesus (not the son of God)' and Mohammed according to
the second Vatican council , the Muslims believe in one God who is merciful and powerful, maker of heaven
and earth , speaker to men. They submit to God's inscrutable decrees just what Abraham did. They revere Jesus
as a prophet and honor Mary with devotion. They await the Day of Judgment when God will give each man his
due after raising man up. The Koran is their scripture. They value the moral life and worship God especially
through prayer, almsgiving, fasting (Vatican II relationship of the church to Non-Christian Religions).

WESTERN MORALITIES

Four Ethical Issues- A historical survey of western moral thought show five perspective on key ethical issue:
value obligation, natural law and virtue. A working definition of these four key terms is necessary. Value is the
object of human desire and striving of the subjective appraisal of an object as on some way good. One of the
key problems of the ethics will be decided whether values are objective or subjective or both. Moral others
ought to be avoided and deserve blame. Natural law is the standard of morality based on man's own nature
virtue is the power of moral action that enables a man act with ease and order in the area of right and wrong in
his life.

Classical Christian Morality- This tradition is represented by Thomas Aquinas, Drawing upon Plato and
Aristotle in classical Christian, right reason is the supreme faculty of man of the norm of morality; intelligibility
is the fundamental characteristic of reality, the highest value of happiness which is to be found subjectively in
the fulfillment of man's reason (by knowledge) and will (by love) , and objectively in ; the eternal ideas of justice
and truth , goodness and beauty (Plato); the object of the perfect contemplation absolute truth for the intellect
and absolute good for the will (Aristotle) :God (Aquinas). The source of moral obligation (moral conscience) is
the law of reason which is in its origin , the eternal law of God ( Aquinas) . Natural law is the law of reason based
on human nature (the innate image of God because man's reason participates in divine reason or eternal law of
God) the four cardinal, virtues in classical Christian morality are prudence, justice temperance and courage
(enunciated by Plato and accepted by Aristotle and Aquinas). The moral idea of the roman or the Greek was
the prudent, just temperate and brave man. What should be the moral idea of the Filipino (the essentials of the
Filipino identity?)

Dialectical' Morality- (The term "dialectical" is derived from the dialectics (antithesis, thesis, synthesis) of the
German idealist named Hegel.) This tradition is represented by Kant, Hegel, and Marx for whom the will is the
supreme faculty of man. Kant stresses the value of the individual person; hence his autonomous morality;
Hegel, that of the state to which the individual is subordinated; and Marx, that of relatedness of man and
nature.

Naturalistic Morality- Represented by Dewey, Santayana and other American Philosophers, considers ethics
to be an empirical science, based on the natural and behavioral sciences. It is based on a view of the universe
as autonomous, self-directing, and not dependent on any super-natural cause. Greatly influenced by Darwin's
origin of species, this view recognizes stable values in the universe, but none that are eternal and immutable,
impervious to evolution.

Analytic and Emotive Ethics- the Analytic tradition originates in the logical Atomism of Russell and
Wittgenstein about 1910, and in the Vienna Circle in Austria in the 1920's Linguistic Philosophy was brought to
England by Ayer, with Language, Truth and Logic. Since WW2, linguistic or analytic philosophy has changed
very much. It has abandoned the early ideal of a strictly scientific and precise language and has taken for its
task the analysis of ordinary language as it is. Thus, the name, ordinary language philosophy; In general, it takes
all meaning as being a question of use, The meaning statement is the way it is used in context (syntax and
semantics) and the meaning of moral statements, while still much disputed, generally is a blend of the emotive
and persuasive views.

Existentialist and Situational Morality- the Existentialists stress man's personal freedom and authentic
commitment; they emphasize the individual vs. the anonymous crowd. Therefore they reject the most general
moral principles as infringing on this autonomy of man. The highest value for the existentialist is Man's freedom
and responsibility and to personal commitment, in short, to create himself. The individual's virtue lies in the
authenticity and personal integrity. Situation Ethics in Europe took its origin out of French existentialism,
protestant theology and a changed situation after the World War. Situation Ethics says: "I ought to do what I
think is right in each concrete situation, even if it violates the law,\if loving concern is bettered served.

Contemporary Christian Morality- Contemporary Christian ethics, represented by Teilhard de Chardin, Karl
Rahner, and modern Christian moralists, sees man's moral life within the context of a total vision of man in
evolutionary, personalist, and communitarian perspective. The positive values of the Western moralities
especially the naturalistic and existentialist traditions have been integrated into the framework of Christian
morality.

Towards a Filipino Christian Ethics Since this book is written principally with the Filipino Christian mind, its main
philosophical focus will be a type of Christian humanism. The challenge for the Filipino Christian is to preserve
his own indigenous Filipino values which are genuinely human and at the same time, within the perspective of
Christian faith, become genuinely Christian. The Christian Faith is transcultural and transcendent of all peoples
and culture.

Towards grasping the Filipino Moral Identity Comparing Eastern and Western thought, the former is synthetic,
intuitive and affective; the latter is analytic rational and scientific. While Eastern thought emphasizes salvation
and religion, Western emphasizes science and technology. But both Eastern and Western thought are
complementary and the future augurs hopefully for the unity of mankind, a unity amidst plurality. The Filipino
is a unique blending of East and West.

CHRISTIAN ETHICS
CHRISTIAN ETHICS
FOUR MAJOR CATEGORIES
1. DESCRIPTIVE ETHICS is a sociological ethics or discipline that state of what norm is given in social context and culture.
(These ethics could not be applied to another place.)
2. NORMATIVE ETHICS refer to discipline that produce morals, norms, rules, and product.
3. METAETHICS is investigating moral, norm and rules. It dictates a manner of communication. (a sense of good and wrong
language)
4. ARETAIC ETHICS a study of a certain Behavior
Ethical system
Action oriented or virtue oriented
Action is a neuter neither bad nor good not until the norm requires.
Deontological –primary system
3 system
1. Divine command theory
2. Natural law
3. Ethical rationalism
Ethics is based on God’s will.
-it is also absolute. It is exactly and could never be changed (Mal. 3:6). -it requires
 perspective.
Christian Ethics – it is also absolute, based on revelation.
- must be Biblical.
-is DEONTOLOGICAL rather than TELEOLOGICAL
Sin is the result of unethical action and even thinking of it.

Two views of ethics

Deontological Ethics
Rule determines the result
Rule is the basis of the act
Rule is good regardless of result
Result is always calculated within the rules
Teleological ethics
Result determines the rule
Result is the basis of the act
Rule is good because of result
Result is sometimes used to break rules

Six laws
1. Antinomianism stress that there is no moral law.
2. Situationism affirms that there is one absolute law but in every situation the law is different.
3. Generalism states that there is no moral law but there are other laws (no absolute laws).
4. Unqualified absolutism is a belief that there are many absolute laws.
5. Conflicting absolutism posits that sometimes law conflict from each other and if law is conflicting to
each other it result to choose the lesser evil.
6. Graded absolutism is a belief to follow the voice of the majority (lying is sometimes right)

Antinomianism
Heraclitus -you cannot cross the river twice at the same river. -philosophical foundation and Skepticism
Utilitarianism-the greater good for the greater number
Ex. Rotary club motto - good to all or beneficial to all
Existentialism- by Soren
The father of modern existentialism
-if you can experience that’s good. Experience is the best judge.

Evolution –Adolf Hitler wanted to produce the greatest and the purest of human being [is the Germanic race] that’s why he killed
the Jews.

ANTINOMIANISM
Basic benefits:
1. There are no God or moral law
2. There are no laws against laws
3. There are no timeless of moral law

Positive contribution
1. It stress to individual responsibility
2. It recognize an emotive element/freedom will cease when it is trespass to the others freedom
3. Stresses on personal relationship
4. It stress the finite dimension of ethics

SITUATIONISM is normative according to Flitzer

- The act is justifiable
- There is no absolute law
- Love equal justice

Joseph Flitzer is a UTILITARIANIST

- To avoid Situationism/liberalism and radical ideas let us be unique
- It is the righteousness by “love”
- No good or bad
- It has the value of the person Situationism:
 1. Pragmatism
2. Positivism
3. Relative
4. Personal

Weakness of Situationism:
1. One norm is too general
2. Does not determine what is love/failed to define love
3. Possibility of many universal norms

Situationism affirm that there is only one absolute law which is love but it is empty, in a sense there is no law the same with
antinomianism.

Generalism
There is no absolute law
The ends determines the choice
It denies absolute
Utilitarianism- no intrinsic value

Christian Ethics
Two Basic Kinds of Ethical Views
1. Absolutism
2. Relativism
Absolutism or Unqualified Absolutism- is the most influential among the two kinds of ethical views. It was supported by Augustine,
Immanuel Kant, John Murray, and Charles Hodge.
Relativism- it is a changeable belief.

Augustine’s Clerical View Concerning Unqualified Absolutism

A. Telling the truth is an absolute.
B. Falsification is lying.
C. Lying to save life is strictly forbidden.
D. No eternal good could be accomplished by temporal evil.
E. Lying breaks all the truth and certainty.
F. Without truthfulness there is no integrity and without integrity there’s no certainty.

Immanuel Kant’s Philosophical View Unqualified Absolutism

A. Universal moral duty is imperative.
B. Defense of universal duties is Deontological. Moral duties are intrinsic rather than extrinsic. Society cannot function
without law. If the law cannot be applied to everyone that is not a universal law.
C. Lying to save life is always wrong. All social duties are moral contract and truth is the basis of all contracts.

John Murray’s Theological View of Unqualified Absolutism

A. Principle of conduct as the sanctity of truth even in justifiable lies.
B. God’s law is absolutely binding. Be perfect as the Heavenly father is perfect. Matt 5:48
C. Lying is always wrong. The necessity of truthfulness in us rests upon God’s truthfulness.
D. Deception is not lie if that is done in order to defeat the enemy.

Providence of God is deontological. It stresses result does not determine the rule.
Unqualified absolutist’s strains that God always make a “third alternative” in every apparent moral dilemma.

MAJOR PREMISE OF UNQUALIFIED ABSOLUTISM

1. God’s unchanging character is the basis of moral absolutes.
2. God has expressed his unchanging moral character in His Law.
3. God cannot contradict Himself.
4. No two absolute moral laws can really conflict.
5. All moral conflict are only apparent, not real.

Positive Aspects of Unqualified Absolutism

 1. It is based in God’s unchanging nature.
2. It stresses rule over result.
3. It shows trust in God’s Providence.
4. There is always a way to avoid sinning.

Disputes Concerning Unqualified Absolutism

1. Spiritual or Moral sin is greater than physical sin.
2. Christian neglects social concerns because they are interested in saving soul than helping bodies.
3. Lying is intentional.
4. Lying destroys all certainty.
5. The choice between permission and commission.
6. Lying condemns the person to hell. Knowing the truth but not telling the truth is a sin. Or knowing what is right but failed
to do it is a sin.
7. God will always saves us from all moral dilemmas.

TWO MORAL PRINCIPLES REFLECTIVE OF GOD’S NATURE

1. Truth
2. Mercy

Negative Aspects of Unqualified Absolutism

1. Third alternatives are not always available
2. Not all moral conflict are self-made
3. A basic inconsistency
4. Falling into sins of omission
5. The tendency to legalism
6. Silence is not always possible