1 ST
1 ST
1 ST
Preliminary Remarks
Context of studying ethics. Ethics deals with the principles of
reasonable behavior in modern society at the level of the person, society, and
in interaction with the environment and other shared resources (CMO 20 s
2013). Morality pertains to the standard of right and wrong that an individual
originally picks up from the community. The course discusses the
contextualized principles of ethical behavior in modern society at the level of
individual, society, and in interaction with the environment and other shared
resources. The course also teaches the students to make moral decisions by
using dominant moral frameworks and by applying a seven-moral reasoning
to analyze and solve moral dilemmas. The course is organized according to
the three (3) main elements of the moral experience: a) agent, including
context – cultural, communal, and environmental; b) the act, c) reason or
framework for the act.
1
Introduction
Introduction
Course Learning Outcomes:
a) Differentiate between moral and non-moral problems;
b) Describe what a moral experience is as it happens in different levels
of human existence.
Guide Questions:
This lesson addresses the following questions:
1. What are moral standards and how do they differ from other rules of
lives?
2. What is moral dilemma?
3. Why is freedom crucial in our ability to make moral decisions?
4. What is the advantage of owning moral standards over merely abiding
by moral standards?
CONTENTS:
A. Understanding Philosophy
1. Importance of Philosophy in Life
2. Approaches in Doing Philosophy
B. Elements of the Moral Experience
1. What is Ethics
2. What Ethics is Not
3. Importance of Ethics
4. Recognizing Terms in Ethics
C. Moral Versus Non-Moral Standards
D. Distinction of Action
E. Elements of Human Acts
F. Determinants of Morality
2
Introduction
A. Understanding Philosophy
Etymologically, the term “Philosophy” is derived from two Greek words; namely,
‘philos’ and ‘sophia which means love and wisdom, respectively. Literally, philosophy
means the “Love of Wisdom,” and so ‘philosophers’ are considered to be” lovers of
wisdom.”
Every aspect of human experience brings out questions to which its techniques and
theories apply, and its methods may be used in the study of any subject or the pursuit of any
vocation. Indeed, Philosophy is in a sense inescapable since life confronts every thoughtful
person with some philosophical questions, and nearly everyone is guided by philosophical
assumptions. To a large extent one can choose how reflective one will be in clarifying and
developing one's philosophical assumptions, and how well prepared one is for the
philosophical questions life presents. Philosophical training enhances our problem-solving
capacities, our abilities to understand and express ideas, and our persuasive powers. It also
develops understanding and enjoyment of things whose absence impoverishes many lives
such things as aesthetic experience, communication with many different kinds of people,
lively discussion of current issues, the discerning observation of human behaviour, and
intellectual zest. In these and other ways, the study of philosophy contributes immeasurably
in both academic and other endeavours in life.
Philosophy, as a systematic study of ideas and issues, examines concepts and views
drawn from science, art, religion, politics, or any other endeavour. Philosophical appraisal of
ideas and issues takes many forms, but philosophical studies often focus on the meaning of
an idea and on its basis, coherence, and relations to other ideas. Philosophy, in general,
guarantees wisdom, leadership, and an excellent guide for our genuine existence. Philosophy
will never become obsolete as long as there is life.
3
Introduction
4
Introduction
code. The Greek philosophers, beginning about the 6th century BCE, theorized intensively
about moral behavior, which led to the further development of philosophical ethics.
From the Ionians to Socratic Greek world, it was always about the amazement and
wonder of how to live in relation to the environment. As such, these thinkers were then
cosmocentric because they were reflecting on the relation of man to nature. Medieval life
was focused on the relation of man to God thus were theocentric because they were proving
God as the beginning and end of man’s life. Modern thinkers were focused on the use of
human reasoning and human abilities thus from then on, the main concern of doing things
was anthropocentric because everything is centered on the human person. Contemporary
life or human endeavor today integrate the moral experience of cosmocentrism,
theocentrism, and anthropocentrism. In short, we cannot deny our human need for nature,
interpretation of human experience in relation to faith towards the Mystery, the Sacred or the
Divine Being; and, the need to bring back the glory of humanity as the center of all human
experiences. Practically, there is no denial of ethical life so that it is important to consider
why are there moral standards and how do they differ from rules of lives. What are moral
dilemmas? Why is freedom crucial in our ability to make moral decisions? What are the
advantages of owning moral standards over merely abiding by moral standards? Let us now
look into the following moral versus non-moral standards, moral dilemmas, three levels of
moral dilemmas and, foundation of morality.
5
Introduction
students fall into the trap of engaging in pre-marital sex because they allow their feelings or
emotions to dominate their rationality.
Ethics is not the same with religion Most religions, of course, advocate high
but speaks about it. While religion ethical standards. Yet if ethics were
seeks the meaning of human existence confined to religion, then ethics would
through spiritual nourishment with Creed, apply only to religious people. But ethics
Code and Ceremonies, ethics dwell on the applies as much to the behavior of the
reason or existence of religion. This atheist as to that of the saint. Religion can
explains why we have philosophy of set high ethical standards and can provide
religion. However, since religion uses intense motivations for ethical behavior.
reason to explain faith like theology, then Ethics, however, cannot be confined to
we do philosophizing which we call moral religion nor is it the same as religion.
Being ethical is also not the same as following the Ethics is not the same with studying
law. The law often incorporates ethical standards to law but is closely related to it. While
which most citizens subscribe. But laws, like law is concerned about the effects of
feelings, can deviate from what is ethical. What is action through punishment and reward,
legal is not necessarily ethical; but what is ethical is ethics dwell on a deeper meaning of
necessarily worth legalizing. For instance; gambling, action by finding the main reason of the
divorce, abortion, and the like can be legalized in act. This explains the old adage, “not all
some nations, but they do not necessarily mean that legal is ethical.” However, if ethics
they are ethical. reflect laws founded on reason as their
bases, then we do philosophizing like
Ethics is not the same with culture but Being ethical is not the same as doing
is closely connected to it. Ethics is not "whatever society accepts." In any society,
only about etiquette or manners like the most people accept standards that are, in
GMRC (Good Manners and Right Conduct) fact, ethical. But standards of behavior in
we used to learn. Learning variety of society can deviate from what is ethical.
cultural norms is not a guarantee of ethical An entire society can become ethically
evaluation. This explains why ethics is not corrupt. Nazi Germany before,
only researches in cultural anthropology or particularly during the time of the
sociology that studies behaviors of a social holocaust, is a good example of this. If
group, an organization or a community. being ethical were doing "whatever
However, in studying society and culture, society accepts," then to find out what is
we have social philosophy to explain the
reasons of organizations to exist. We can7
say then that culture and society are
associated with ethics as a branch of
Introduction
ethical, one would have to find out what society accepts. To decide what I should think
about abortion, for example, I would have to take a survey of American society and then
conform my beliefs to whatever society accepts. But no one ever tries to decide an ethical
issue by doing a survey.
Finally, the lack of social consensus on many issues makes it impossible to equate
ethics with whatever society accepts. Some people accept abortion but many others do not. If
being ethical were doing whatever society accepts, one would have to find an agreement on
issues which does not, in fact, exist.
Ethics is not the same with morality but is closely linked to it. While moral
standard or norm of action is fixed and already set, ethics dwells on the use of
reason. It is because we cannot limit philosophy from mere norms of conduct.
However, ethics is identical to moral science or moral philosophy based from the
Latin term mos (nominative) or moris (genitive) which also means custom, or
“traditional line of conduct.” It is from this root word that the word moral or
morality is derived. The term morality is synonymous with the word ethics in
etymological meaning; however, ethics deals more on the principles and laws on the
morality of human acts by providing the person knowledge that s/he may know,
what to do and how to do it. In other words, ethics provides the guides to the
performance of an act.
8
Introduction
Moral actions or events are those which require the goodness of the object chosen,
the intention or the end in view, and of the circumstances together. Moral actions are
deemed to be good as one performs the moral rules or codes of the society.
Immoral actions or events are those actions or areas of interest where moral
categories do apply and are considered to be evil, sinful, or wrong according to the
code of ethics. For examples: consciously telling a lie; graft and corruption; cheating
during examinations, gluttony, taking a sip of water fully aware that there is
hemlock in it (suicide), and many more.
Moral dilemma happens when we cannot make a distinction between what is a good
act from an evil act. When we encounter question of ethics like, is it moral to attend my class
even if I am sick? Is it necessary to avoid killing someone when my life is in danger? Is
9
Introduction
A morally good act requires the goodness of the object chosen, of the intention, and
of the circumstances together. An evil end corrupts the action, even if the object is good in
itself like for instance in the case of praying and fasting in order to be seen by men. The
chosen object can by itself vitiate or destroy an act in its entirety. There are some concrete
acts, such as bribery, robbery, fornication, and the like, which are always wrong to choose,
because choosing them entails an evil act.
It is therefore an error to judge the morality of human acts by considering only the
intention that inspires them or the circumstances which supply their context. There are acts
which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are always
gravely illicit by reason of their object; such as blasphemy, murder, adultery, and the like.
One may not do evil so that good may result from it. According to St. Thomas Aquinas, an
evil action cannot be justified by reference to a good intention. A good intention does not
make the action or behavior that is intrinsically disordered, good or just. The end does not
justify the means. Thus, the condemnation of an innocent person cannot be justified as a
legitimate means of saving the country.
D. Distinction of Action:
Human acts are the fundamental foundation of morality. These acts which are
under the control of the will and therefore done knowingly and willingly; not acts which
happen by accident, as falling, or by nature, as growing, but acts performed by choice, that
is, after deliberation and decision. They are imputable to their human author to the extent
that he has knowledge of his own activity and its import, and to the extent that he has
freedom of election. The moral or ethical character of the human act lies in this, that it is
freely placed with knowledge of its objective conformity or nonconformity with the law of
rational nature.
10
Introduction
There are two significant considerations of ethics; the Ethics of Being and the
Ethics of Doing. In the Ethics of Being, the emphasis is on the “character development”
which involves the integrations of virtues, values and personhood; it is looking into the
foundation of actions who is the “good person” while the Ethics of Doing focuses not only
the goodness of the person but on the ability of the person to put into action his/her ethical
conviction (Fr. Ramon Coronel & Fr. Paul Van Parijs, CICM, Bioethics, 1996). It is not
enough simply to be contented in believing to be a good person while forgetting to do good
actions; on the other hand, it also not good just to think that you are doing good while you
forget that you are first and foremost a good person. There is the need to harmonize the two
considerations of ethics; hence, you do a good act because you believe and think that you are
a good person capable of doing good. Both considerations are inseparably related to be
better person – intellectually mature, psychologically stable, socially involved, spiritually
nourished and economically well-off; and, to do good acts.
11
Introduction
The fundamental bases of morality start with the use of reason, exercise of
human freedom, willful, voluntariness, and deliberate act. Ethical principles and
theories are guidelines for human actions for which we can only talk about moral
responsibility. It is because we cannot be totally responsible to our actions that we
are not aware of. We can only be responsible to our actions that we are aware of,
freely acting on them, and voluntarily responding to the circumstance we are
engaged in. With our moral conviction arises our moral responsibility.
Freedom of the Will. According to St. Thomas Aquinas, this is the power which
human beings have in determining their actions according to the judgment of their reasons.
This always involves a choice or an option of whether to do or not to do a certain action.
Without this freedom of choice, then responsibility and/or liability on the part of the
individual would be meaningless. Insane people who have no control of their minds and
children who have no idea of what they are doing or are not free to do or not to do, are not
responsible for their actions. Matured people, college students and professionals are
expected to be free from doing or not doing; thus, they are responsible or liable for their
actions.
12
Introduction
Perfect Voluntariness is actualized by a person who is fully aware and who fully
intends an act. The person, under perfect voluntariness, is fully convinced of his action
including its consequences. A politician who, in his right mind, engages in graft and
corruption is considered to be acting with perfect voluntariness. Imperfect Voluntariness is
seen in a person who acts without the full awareness of his action or without fully intending
the act. A drunken person who, acting irrationally, jumps from a ten-storey building is said
to be exhibiting an imperfect voluntariness. Conditional Voluntariness is manifested by a
person who is forced by his circumstances beyond his control to perform an action which he
would not do under normal condition. A freshman college student who is forced by his
parents to enroll in a course which is against his will is showing a conditional voluntariness.
Simple Voluntariness is exhibited by a person doing an act willfully regardless of whether
he likes to do it or not. It can either be positive or negative. It is a positive simple
voluntariness when the act requires the performance of an act. For examples: Studying one’s
lesson; participating in class discussions; engaging in sports, and so on. It is a negative
simple voluntariness when the act does not require the performance of an act. For examples:
Remaining silent or choosing to be alone; deciding not to go to a drinking spree; avoiding to
take illegal drugs; and so on.
F. Determinants of Morality
Freedom makes man a moral subject. When he acts deliberately, man is, so to speak,
the master of his acts. Human acts, that is, acts that are freely chosen in consequence of a
judgment of conscience, can be morally evaluated. They are either good or evil. The
morality of human acts depends on the object chosen; the end in view or the intention; and
the circumstances of the action. These are the factors to consider in making ethical
judgement in determining the morality of human acts.
Object Chosen: This is a good toward which the will deliberately directs itself. The
chosen object resides out the acting subject. The object chosen morally specifies the act of
the will, insofar as reason recognizes and judges it to be or not to be in conformity with the
true good. Examples of Good Chosen Objects: nutritious foods; hard-earned money or
wealth; educational books and films; and the like. Examples of Bad Chosen Objects:
Forbidden drugs; Pornographic materials; Leakages for examinations; and others.
The Intention: This is a movement of the will toward the end. It is concerned with
the goal of the activity. The end is the first goal of the intention and indicates the purpose
pursued in the action. It aims at the good anticipated from the action undertaken. Intention is
not limited to directing individual actions but can guide several actions toward one and the
same purpose; it can orient one's whole life toward its ultimate end. For example, a service
done with the end of helping one's neighbor can at the same time be inspired by the love of
the Divine Being as the ultimate end of all our actions. One and the same action can also be
inspired by several intentions, such as performing a service in order to obtain a favor or to
boast about it. The intention resides in the acting subject as contrast to the object chosen.
13
Introduction
Because it lies at the voluntary source of an action and determines it by its end, intention is
an element essential to the moral evaluation of an action.
In Summary: A morally good act requires the goodness of the object, of the end,
and of the circumstances together. An evil end corrupts the action, even if the object is good
in itself (such as praying and fasting "in order to be seen by men"). The object of the choice
can by itself vitiate an act in its entirety. There are some concrete acts - such as fornication -
that it is always wrong to choose, because choosing them entails a disorder of the will, that
is, a moral evil. It is therefore an error to judge the morality of human acts by considering
only the intention that inspires them or the circumstances (environment, social pressure,
duress or emergency, etc.) which supply their context. There are acts which, in and of
themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit by
reason of their object; such as blasphemy and perjury, murder and adultery. One may not do
evil so that good may result from it.
The object, the intention, and the circumstances make up the three "sources" of the
morality of human acts. The object chosen morally specifies the act of willing accordingly as
reason recognizes and judges it good or evil. "An evil action cannot be justified by reference
to a good intention" (cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, Dec. praec. 6). A morally good act therefore
requires the goodness of its object, of its end, and of its circumstances together. There are
concrete acts which are always wrong to choose, because their choice entails a disorder of
the will, i.e., a moral evil. One may not do evil so that good may result from it.
References:
Agapay, Ramon B. (1991) Ethics and the Filipino: A manual on morals for students and educators.
Manila: National Bookstore, Inc., 1991.
Andre, Claire and Manuel Velasquez. (Fall 1987). Issues in ethics: Vol.1 No.1, Markkula Center for
Applied Ethics.
Audi, Robert. (2000). Philosophy: A brief guide to undergraduates. The American Philosophical
Association.
14
Introduction
Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC). (1994) Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines
(CBCP).
Coronel, Ramon & Parijs, Paul Van, CICM. Bioethics (1996). Baguio City: St. Louis University
(SLU)
Frank Navran, (1998) Ethics. Resource Center’s Principal Consultant Jackson, Wayne. Christian
Courier: Archives. October 26, 1998.
Gualdo, et al. (2012). Ethics and contemporary moral issues. Revised Edition. Quezon City:
Mutya Publishing.
Kaplan, J. D, Ed. (1958). The pocket Aristotle. New York: Washington Square Press.
Montemayor, Felix. Ethics: The philosophy of life. (1994). Navotas: National Bookstore.
Petrick, Joseph A and John F. Quinn. (1997) Management ethics: Integrity at work. California:
Sage Publications, Inc., 1997), pp. 89-91.
Rachels, James (2003). The elements of moral philosophy. 4th Edition. Boston: McGraw Hill.
Velasquez, Manuel. (2005). Philosophy: Text with readings. “Ethics.” 9th Edition.
Australia: Thomson and Wadsworth.
Electronic Sources:
http://www.ethics.org/staff_bios.
http://www.philosophy.lander.edu
http//www.philosophy.lander.edu
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/socialresponsibility.asp
http://www.ehow.com/info_7861861_difference-between-social-responsibility-ethics.html
https://www.pachamama.org/social-justice/social-responsibility-and-ethics
http://www.imasocialentrepreneur.com/social-responsibility/
15