Why should we study Ethics?

Man is not just corporeal animal. He is also a consciousness, a rational being. But
corporeality and rationality alone do not make man as man. Man also knows what is good and
what is evil. He is conscious that he is obliged to do the good and avoid the evil. In short, man is
not only corporeal and rational, but also moral. Conscious that he exists, and that his existence is
directed towards certain goals in life, man knows he has to act in order to attain such goals. In
doing so, he is confronted with freedom to choose some alternative means to use, the good or the
evil, the right or the wrong. For this reason, man’s acts to attain his goals, immediate or remote,
become subject to morality. Hence, Ethics is developed as a science for the study of the morality
of human acts.

DEFINITION OF ETHICS

The term Ethics is derived from the Greek word ethos, meaning characteristic way of
acting, and ethike or doctrine of morality. Now, human conduct implies the free and deliberate
use of the will, which is characteristic of human acts. Hence, the word ethics is suited to
designate the science of human conduct.

Mos (nominative) or moris (genitive) is, on the other hand, the Latin equivalent, which
also means custom, or “traditional line of conduct”. It is from this root word that the word
moral or morality is derived. Thus, Ethics is identical to moral science or moral philosophy.

Usually, we brand an individual as a “morally good person” if he correctly

distinguishes what is right from what is wrong not only in knowledge but also in practice.
We call an individual as “immoral person” if he does not act or behave in conformity with
practiced moral principles or norms. An individual is branded as “amoral person” if he does
not have the ability to distinguish between what is morally good act and what is normally
evil one, one who cannot identify and accept moral norms, resulting into some sort of
“abnormality” or deviancy.

Is the term morality synonymous with the word ethics? The answer is yes in terms of their
etymological meaning. But there remains a shade of difference, however. Ethics deals more on
the principles and laws on the morality of human acts; it provides the person with the knowledge
that he may know what to do and how to do it. In other words, ethics provides the guides to the
performance of an act.

Knowledge, however, is not always performed. Knowledge could remain knowledge

without its translation into action. Knowing is different from doing. Man does not necessarily do
what he knows. The implementation of ethical principles and laws is called morality. One
who acts in accordance with ethical norms is called a morally good person. Morality is the
practice of ethics.

OBJECTS OF ETHICS
 Any course of study has its proper objects for which it exists. Such objects are
distinguished as material object, formal object and formula object quo. Though distinct from
each other, the three objects are inseparable from one another. They are interrelated, however.

MATERIAL OBJECT of Ethics refers to the subject matter to be studied, namely, the
human act. The FORMAL OBJECT is the morality of the human act. It is what which is
learned and to be applied. The FORMULA OBJECT QUO is the human reason employed in the
study of the course.

WHO IS MAN?

Since the ancient times, the perennial question on man, as to what he is, was brought out
by the Greek thinkers. Led by Socrates (469-399 BC0, then followed by his student Plato (427-
347 BC), then Aristotle (384-322 BC) in their respective times, these philosophers came out
with the inquiry on the nature and identity of man. Being the first philosophers to make the
inquiry, they were considered the Founders of the Philosophy of Man.

The notion of man by these Greek philosophers were, in the course of centuries, handed
down to and accepted by philosophers after the birth of Jesus Christ. Among these Christian
thinkers were think-tanks of the Church like St. Augustine of Hippo (354-430 AD) who was an
African by origin; St. Anselm of Italy (1033-11096); and St. Thomas of Aquinas (1225-1274),
among others. They accepted the Greek thinkers’ view that man is composed of body and soul,
and incorporated the idea in the Church’s teaching. St. Augustine for instance held and affirmed
that the soul of man is spiritual substance, wholly present in every part of his body; that the soul
is immortal and the body is subject to death.

For Socrates, man is made of body and soul. The soul is distinct from the body, and is
likened to God in memory, understanding, indivisibility and immortality. The highest value of
man is happiness. Happiness is attained only by man’s intellectual virtue according to the Greek
thinker. For Socrates, “know thyself” is both a basic intellectual principle and moral precept.

Plato, on the other hand, viewed that the soul of man is the immediate product of
God’s action. The soul is spiritual, rational, autonomous and immortal. Souls are incarnated
into bodies as a consequence of sin which is committed by coming in contact with matter. The
first human body was a male body fro which emerged a female. The spiritual soul is the thinking
principle in man. If man lives well on earth, his soul will go to a place of happiness. Death
liberates the soul from the prison of the body.

Like his predecessors, Aristotle posited the soul as the substantial form of the body.
The soul, which is created by God, is spiritual and immortal according to him. Man is vegetal,
animal and rational. Rationality is man’s proper function as man, differentiating him from
plants and animals.
 The Oriental counterparts perceived man in quite different way. Unlike the view of the
western philosophers, the Eastern mind focused on the ethical-religious life of man without any
attempt to delve into the philosophical nature of man. Lao-Tse simply encourages man to be
virtuous in order to attain “Tao” (God). Kung-fu-tse, or Confucius taught men with this
“Golden Rule” in order to attain happiness and self-protection. Gautama Buddha, called “The
Enlightened One” during his time, wrote that man strives for happiness, which cannot be
attained in this changing and illusory world because “happiness means changelessness,
evenness of being, peace”.

The three Oriental mystics commonly hold the doctrine that the only way for man to
reach happiness is to liberate himself from the slavery of sensual pleasures of this world and
from selfishness. While their concept of the soul is not explicated, their affirmation of its
existence is clearly implied. The soul is the one to reach happiness because the body is rather a
hindrance.

THE GOOD

There seems to be three modes of perceiving and using the good. They are the
following:

1. GOOD AS TO UTILITY. An object or act is perceived as good when it is useful for one’s
purpose and satisfaction. For example, a domestic helper in Hongkong is perceived as “good” by
the employer. The bases for her goodness are as follows: sexy, beautiful, industrious, healthy and
strong. She is, therefore, employable. She is very useful. Being very useful to satisfy all the
needs of the employer, she is paid well. Paid well because of her high usefulness.

Why is water good? Because of its utility value. It is used for drinking, washing and
farming.

However, just as thing is perceived as good due to its utility value, the same thing can
also be viewed as evil because of its destructiveness. Water for instance can become evil when it
floods the community, drowning and damaging properties. Or when the domestic helper who is
very good, murders the baby she is taking care of, or suddenly becomes lazy, she becomes evil to
the employer. In another case where one does not need the utility value of a thing or person, they
appear to be “non-good” to him.

Thus, the goodness of an object is relative depending on its usefulness or destructiveness

or non-usefulness to our purpose at the moment.

2. GOOD AS TO BEAUTY. People who consider an object or act as a thing of beauty when it
satisfies their aesthetic appetite. The beauty of a person, physical or social, is synonymous to
goodness. A woman’s body, for example, or a piece of art, is good because it is attractive and
satisfying to the person’s aesthetic need.
 They say that “beauty is in the eye of the beholder”. Yes, there is some truth to this; but
half truth, however. The pronouncement of beauty is both objective and subjective. There must
be conformity between the “eye” of the beholder and the reality of the object perceived. The
absence of conformity means invalidity of the judgment.

It is true, too, that beauty seems to be partially subjective in that what is “very beautiful”
for one is “not beautiful” for another. This is acceptable, for experience tells us. Yet, this cannot
be a basis for us to deny the objectivity of beauty. The judgment of beauty remains both
subjective and objective.

3. GOOD AS TO NATURE OR REALITY. Goodness by nature is real, not accidental. In this

context a thing is seen as good, not because of usefulness or aesthetic value, but because it is its
nature and reality. In other words, the nature of the object is goodness itself. That is, the reality
of completeness according to the nature or design of a thing is the quality that makes a thing
good.

Here are some illustrative examples:

a. A mango tree: when a mango seedling is planted, it is intended by the farmer to grow
robustly and bear abundant, fine and big fruits as expected of its nature and design. If this
is realized, the nature and design of the tree as mango tree is fulfilled. If the expectation
from it fails, it will be cut down for fuel because it does not fulfill its nature and purpose.
It is not a good mango tree by nature.

b. A good woman: by nature and design, she has plenty of possibilities and potentialities:
healthy, prolific, loving, feminine, loving wife, loving mother, housekeeper, with a good
number of happy children, good neighbor. These are expected as potentialities of a good
woman by nature.

What is now the “MORAL GOOD”? The moral good is applied specifically to beings
of moral nature: human beings. People know what is right which he is inclined to do, and
the evil which he tends to avoid. But the idea of “good” has several meanings as we apply them
to people. For instance, we say “Pedro Tan is a good physician; we mean he is expert and
efficient in his medical practice. But we do not include the idea that he is a good as a human
person. A medically good doctor can be a morally bad person. He can be a good physician but a
murderer at the same time. For instance, he is an expert in internal medicine but at the same time
a good aborter of babies for a fee (which is evil).

In other words, there seem to be goods or goodnesses that are morally evil. In reality,
however, these are not goodness but skills. And skills are not all morally good. Some are bad.
When we say he is good in basketball, that is, in shooting, guarding, etc., we mean he is expert or
skilled in playing. When we say “Pedro is good in raping, good in stealing, or good in
murdering, we mean he is skilled in doing such. Such “goods” are immoral goodness. Not moral
good.
 It would be different to say “Joseph is good himself”. “Maria is good by nature.” “She is
good as a person.” This is now what we mean by “moral goodness”, or moral good or
goodness as to nature. It is an essential goodness, not an accidental one.

From man’s moral goodness emanates the following: he is good to himself, good to other
people, good to environment, good to God. Man is good as God created him in His image and
likeness. God did not create man evil.