CHAPTER III

MORALITY
Morals refer to human behavior where morality is the practical activity and, ethics
describes the theoretical, systematic, and rational reflection upon that human behavior
(Churchill, 1982).

Moral experience begins with moral consciousness or moral sense. In fact moral
consciousness and moral experience are used as synonyms by many. But it is good to
distinguish between the two. Experience is a generic term in the sense that whatever affects
a person can be called an „experience‟. It can be an emotion like love or hatred. It can be
active or passive like love for a friend or love of a friend. One can speak of one‟s progress in
studies as „knowledge experience.‟ Any experience leaves behind an impression or memory.
Such impressions or memories cumulatively add up to one‟s experience. The totality of such
experiences contributes to the formation of a human personality

General Objectives:

1. Explain morality and the importance of rules

2. Differentiate moral and non-moral standards
3. Discuss the different levels of dilemma
4. Explain the role of freedom in making moral decisions

Lesson I. Nature of Morality and the Importance of Rules

How can one know whether an act is good or bad? What is the yardstick or standard to
determine the morality of an act? What is the standard of morality?

Any standard must be plain and objective for everyone to understand. It must be the
same for everyone.

There is a standard meter, a standard yardstick, a standard kilogram. Any other

measuring stick or balance must conform with the standard in order to determine its
rightness or wrongness. In school examinations, there is always a correct answer sheet
against which answers can be compared.
 WHAT TO EXPECT

1. Describe the main features of morality

2. Examine the different moral theories
3. Explain the importance of rules

I. Main Features of Morality

Part of any theory, whether about morality or something else, is to describe the
subject matter by listing certain features or characteristics of the subject that makes it distinct
and special. This will, in a way, give a clearer picture as to what the whole subject is really all
about. The following list by Ellin (1995), though not exhaustive, provides a thorough
grounding of the subject:

1. Morality is binding on those to whom it applies. This means that if some principle
is part of morality, then the people to whom the morality applies should obey that
principle. This feature follows logically from the simple fact that morality consists of
rules, for being binding is part of what it means for something to be a rule. This
applies to rules of etiquette and manners as well as moral rules.

2. Morality does not depend on what people think. This means that numbers does
not decide right and wrong even if that is the majority.

3. There are often correct answers to moral questions. In spite of so many

controversies regarding certain moral issues like abortion, euthanasia and the like,
most people have no trouble distinguishing good and moral actions or decisions from
bad ones.

4. Despite this, morality is sometimes unclear or ambiguous. The rules of morality,

unfortunately, are not always as clear or obvious as well as we all would like them to
be. This may explain why a number of individuals argue on certain moral issues
without ever reaching some sort of agreement or consensus. This maybe explains
also why some of us make moral decisions even if we are not really sure whether
they are right or wrong.

5. Morality is an end in itself. Why be moral? What is moral in being moral? What is
the ultimate justification or morality? If you really think about it, the only real purpose
of morality lies in itself. We ought to be moral or good just because to be moral is
what we ought to be. Morality is an end to itself, not just means to an end. If you have
 other reasons why you want to be moral other than being moral, then, you have not
understood the point of morality. While being moral serves some other purposes,
some of them are very practical ones, like getting something from people, say, their
admiration, these other ends are not justification for being moral. Morality is self-
justifying.

6. Morality is obligatory. One cannot just decide what morality he or she would like to
have. You cannot just choose your own moral rules. One, for instance, cannot just
say he wants to steal because he needs it, and turn into moral rule. Whether we like
it or not morality obliges us to do certain things whether we like them or not. This
means that to have moral rule one is obliged to follow them. It is not optional. In
short, morality, in an important sense is not voluntary.

7. Morality is decided by reason rather than emotions. This means that moral
questions need to be settled through arguments to justify one‟s moral views rather
that appeal to feelings and sentiments. You cannot just say that you hate
homosexuals therefore it is wrong. There have to be reasons, good reasons why you
hold such kind of moral belief. Personal likes or dislike, moods or temperament are
not good arguments to justify one‟s ethical view. One who does not offer and provide
good reasons and arguments for his or her moral beliefs us not worth listening to.

II. Moral Theory

A theory is a structured set of statement used to explain (predict) a set of facts or

concepts. A moral theory explains why certain action is wrong or why we ought to act in a
certain way. In short, it is a theory on how we determine right and wrong conduct. Also, the
moral theories provide the framework upon which we think and discuss in a reasoned way,
and so evaluate specific moral issues.

Seen in this light, it becomes clear that we cannot draw a sharp divide between moral
theory and applied ethics (e.g. medical or business ethics). For instance, in order to critically
evaluate the moral issues of affirmative action, we must no attempt to evaluate what actions
or policies are right or wrong independent of what we take to determine right or wrong
conduct. We do not do ethics without at least some moral theory. When evaluating the merit
of some decision regarding a case, we will always find ourselves thinking about how right
and wrong is determined in general and apply that to the case at hand.
Are moral theories descriptive or prescriptive?
In presenting a moral theory, are we merely describing how people, in their everyday
'doings' and 'thinking,' form a judgment about what is right and wrong, or are
we prescribing how people ought to make these judgments?

Most take moral theories to be prescriptive. The descriptive accounts of what people
do are left to sociologists and anthropologists. Philosophers, then, when they study morality,
want to know what the proper way of determining right and wrong is. There have been many
different proposals. Here is a brief summary.

Theories of Morality

(1) Moral Subjectivism

Right and wrong is determined by what you -- the subject -- just happens to think (or
'feel') is right or wrong.
In its common form, Moral Subjectivism amounts to the denial of moral principles of
any important kind, and the possibility of moral criticism and argumentation. In essence,
'right' and 'wrong' lose their meaning because so long as someone thinks or feels that some
action is 'right', there are no grounds for criticism. If you are a moral subjectivist, you cannot
object to anyone's behavior (assuming people are in fact acting in accordance with what
they think or feel is right). This shows the key mistake in moral subjectivism -- probably
nearly everyone thinks that it is legitimate to object, on moral grounds, to at least some
peoples' actions. That is, it is possible to disagree about moral issues.

(2) Cultural Relativism

Right and wrong is determined by the particular set of principles or rules the relevant
culture just happens to hold at the time.

Cultural Relativism is closely linked to Moral Subjectivism. It implies that we cannot

criticize the actions of those in cultures other than our own. And again, it amounts to the
denial of universal moral principles. Also, it implies that a culture cannot be mistaken about
what is right and wrong (which seems not to be true), and so it denies the possibility of moral
advancement (which also seems not to be true).

(3) Ethical Egoism

Right and wrong is determined by what is in your self-interest. Or, it is immoral to act
contrary to your self-interest.
 Ethical Egoism is usually based upon Psychological Egoism -- which we, by nature,
act selfishly. Ethical egoism does not imply hedonism or that we ought to aim for at least
some 'higher' goods (e.g., wisdom, political success), but rather that we will (ideally) act so
as to maximize our self-interest. This may require that we forgo some immediate pleasures
for the sake of achieving some long term goals. Also, ethical egoism does not exclude
helping others. However, egoists will help others only if this will further their own interests.
An ethical egoist will claim that the altruist helps others only because they want to (perhaps
because they derive pleasure out of helping others) or because they think there will be some
personal advantage in doing so. That is, they deny the possibility of genuine altruism
(because they think we are all by nature selfish).This leads us to the key implausibility of
Ethical Egoism -- that the person who helps others at the expense of their self-interest is
actually acting immorally. Many think that the ethical egoist has misunderstood the concept
of morality -- i.e., morality is the system of practical reasoning through which we are guided
to limit our self-interest, not further it. Also, that genuine altruism is indeed possible, and
somewhat commonly exhibited.

(4) Divine Command Theory

Many claim that there is a necessary connection between morality and religion, such
that, without religion (in particular, without God or gods) there is no morality, i.e., no right and
wrong behavior. Although there are related claims that religion is necessary to motivate and
guide people to behave in morally good way, most take the claim of the necessary
connection between morality and religion to mean that right and wrong come from the
commands of God (or the gods). This view of morality is known as Divine Command Theory.
The outcome is that an action is right -- or obligatory -- if God command we do it, wrong if
God commands we refrain from doing it, and morally permissible if God does not command
that it not be done.

Divine Command Theory is widely believed to have several serious defects. First, it
assumes that God or gods exist. Second, even if we assume that God does exist, it
presupposes that we can know what God commands but even if we accept theism, it looks
like even theists should reject the theory. Plato raised the relevant objection 2500 years ago.
He asked: Is something right (or wrong) because the gods command it, or do the gods
command it because it is right?

If the second, then right and wrong are independent of the gods' commands -- Divine
Command Theory is false. If the first, then right and wrong are just a matter of the subjective
will of the gods (i.e., they might have willed some other, contradictory commands).
 Most think that right and wrong are not arbitrary -- that is, some action is wrong, say,
for a reason. Moreover, that if God commands us not to do an action, He does so because
of this reason, not simply because He arbitrarily commands it. What makes the action wrong,
then, is not God's commanding it, but the reason. Divine Command Theory is false again.

(5) Virtue Ethics

Right and wrong are characterized in terms of acting in accordance with the
traditional virtues -- making the good person.

The most widely discussed is Aristotle's account. For Aristotle, the central concern is
"Ethica" = things to do with character. Of particular concern are excellences of character --
i.e., the moral virtues.

Aristotle and most of the ancient Greeks really had nothing to say about moral duty,
i.e., modern day moral concepts. Rather, they were concerned with what makes human
beings truly 'happy'. True 'happiness' is called Eudaimonia (flourishing / well- being /
fulfillment / self- actualization). Like Plato, Aristotle wants to show that there are objective
reasons for living in accordance with the traditional virtues (wisdom, courage, justice and
temperance). For Aristotle, this comes from a particular account of human nature -- i.e., the
virtuous life is the 'happiest' (most fulfilling) life.

Three steps to the argument:

1) The ultimate end of human action is happiness.

2) Happiness consists in acting in accordance with reason.

3) Acting in accordance with reason is the distinguishing feature of all the traditional
virtues.

Aristotle thought that humans had a specific function.This function is to lead a life of true
flourishing as a human, which required abiding by the dictates of rationality and so acting in
accordance with the traditional virtues.

(6) Feminist Ethics

Right and wrong is to be found in women‟s' responses to the relationship of caring.

Comes out of the criticism that all other moral theories are 'masculine' -- display a
male bias. Specifically, feminists are critical of the 'individualistic' nature of other moral
theories (they take individualism to be a 'masculine' idea). Rather, feminist ethics suggests
that we need to consider the self as at least partly constructed by social relations. So
morality, according to some feminist moral philosophers, must be ground in 'moral emotions'
like love and sympathy, leading to relationships of caring. This allows legitimate biases
towards those with whom we have close social relationships.

(7) Utilitarianism

Right and wrong is determined by the overall goodness (utility) of the consequences
of Unitarianism is a Consequentialist moral theory

Basic ideas:

All action leads to some end. But there is a summum bonum -- the highest good/end.
This is pleasure or happiness. Also, that there is a First Principle of Morals -- 'Principle of
Utility', alternatively called 'The Greatest Happiness Principle' (GHP), usually characterized
as the ideal of working towards the greatest happiness of the greatest number. The GHP
implies that we ought to act so as to maximize human welfare (though Bentham thought we
should include all sentient animals in his utilitarian calculations). We do this in a particular
instance by choosing the action that maximizes pleasure/happiness and minimizing
suffering.

Jeremy Bentham -- the first to formulate Utilitarianism -- did not distinguish between kinds
of pleasures. However, Bentham's student, John Stuart Mill, produced a more sophisticated
version of Utilitarianism in which pleasures may be higher or lower. The higher pleasures
(those obtained, e.g., through intellectual pursuits), carried greater weight than the lower
pleasures (those obtained through sensation).The upshot is that in determining what action
to perform, both quality and quantity of pleasure/happiness count.

Note: Utilitarians are not a Hedonist. Hedonists are concerned only with their own
happiness. Utilitarian‟s are concerned with everyone's happiness, so it is Altruistic. In
general, morally right actions are those that produce the best overall consequences / total
amount of pleasure or absence of pain.

Modern versions of Utilitarianism have dropped the idea of maximizing pleasure in

favor of maximizing the satisfaction of all relevant peoples' preferences and interests. Also,
some distinguish between Act Utilitarianism and Rule Utilitarianism Act Utilitarianism is pretty
much as described above, where we make the utilitarian calculation based on the evaluation
of the consequences of a single isolated act. It is thought by some that this leads to a
number of significant problems -- for instance, that one person may be harmed if that leads
to the greatest good for everyone. To overcome these problems, some advocate Rule
Utilitarianism -- the view that we should adopt only those rules (for governing society) that
produce the greatest good for all.

Other key points:

 For utilitarian, no action is intrinsically right or wrong.

 No person's preferences or interests (including your own, your relatives, friends,
neighbors‟, etc.) carry a greater weight than any other person's.
 Usually we cannot make the required utilitarian calculation before acting. So, in most
situations, following 'rules of thumb' will produce the best consequences.
 Democratic and economic principles reflect Utilitarianism.

Some things to ask about Utilitarianism:

 How can we determine accurately what the consequences of an action will be?
 Do people have rights that cannot be overridden by the goal of the best
consequences for all?

(8) Kantian Theory

Right and wrong is determined by rationality, giving universal duties.

Kantianism is a Non-consequentialist moral theory.

Basic ideas:

That there is "the supreme principle of morality". Good and Evil are defined in terms
of Law / Duty / Obligation. Rationality and Freedom are also central. Kant thought that acting
morally was quite simple. That is:

- You ought to do your duty (simply because it is your duty).

- Reason guides you to this conclusion.

Good Will (i.e., having the right intentions) is the only thing that is good without qualification.
So, actions are truly moral only if they have the right intention, i.e., based on Good Will.

What establishes Good Will?

- Only can be a law of "universal conformity" -- "I should never act except in such a way that
I can also will that my maxim should become a universal law".
 This is called the Categorical Imperative = Principle of Universalizability (something
like The Golden Rule).The basic idea is that we should adopt as action guiding rules (i.e.,
maxims) only those that can be universally accepted. Consider someone wondering if they
could break a promise if keeping it became inconvenient. We might formulate the following
maxim governing promises:
I can break promises when keeping them becomes inconvenient.
Can this be universalized? Kant says no because making promises then becomes, in
essence, contradictory. The thinking is that a promise is, by definition, something you keep.
The above maxim would lead to a contradiction of will, i.e., "I'll make a promise (something I
keep), but I'll break it if I choose". The more general way to understand the Principle of
Universalizability is to think that we must always ask the following questions: What if
everyone did the action you are proposing? Or, what if I were in the other person's position?
This leads to the basic idea behind the Golden Rule.

Kant had another way of formulating the Categorical Imperative that is worth noting.

Never treat anyone merely as a means to an end. Rather, treat everyone as an end
in themselves.

We can understand this by noting an example, i.e., the slave society. What is wrong with the
slave society, following the above principle, is that a slave is treated as a means to the slave
owner's ends, i.e., as an instrument or tool, not as a person. The upshot is that no person's
interests (or rights) can be overridden by another's, or the majority.

Many think that this way of formulating the Categorical Imperative shows that
Kantianism is clearly anti-Utilitarian.

Some things to ask about Kantianism:

 Is it true that having good intentions is the only thing that counts morally?
 Must we always ignore good consequences?
 Is it always wrong to treat people merely as a means to an end? (Can we do
otherwise?)

(9) Rights-based Theories

We are to act in accordance with a set of moral rights, which we possess simply by
being human.
 Rights-based views are connected to Kantianism and are Non-consequentialist. The
basic idea is that if someone has a right, then others have a corresponding duty to provide
what the right requires.

Most distinguish between positive and negative rights. A positive right is one in which
the corresponding duty requires a positive action, e.g., giving a charitable donation in order
to sustain someone's right to life, shelter, education, etc. A negative right is one in which the
corresponding duty merely requires refraining from doing something that will harm someone.
Some claim -- e.g., Libertarians -- that only negative rights count morally. For instance, the
right to life does not require that we give what is needed to sustain life rather merely that we
refrain from taking any action that would take life. [Note: others argue that there is really no
significant distinction between positive and negative rights, arguing that a positive right can
be understood negatively, and vice versa. Also, that there is no morally significant difference
between, for example, letting someone die and killing them. Obviously, this is a hotly
disputed issue.]

Some things to ask about Rights-based theories:

 Where do rights come from? From nature (we have them simply by being human)?
From principles of Justice? Or, from Utilitarian procedures?
 How do we decide between competing rights?

(10) Contractarianism

The principles of right and wrong (or Justice) are those which everyone in society
would agree upon in forming a social contract.

Various forms of Contractarianism have been suggested. In general, the idea is that the
principles or rules that determine right and wrong in society are determined by a hypothetical
contract forming procedure. Here is John Rawls's example.
Through a thought experiment, Rawls developed a way of getting people to come up
with universal principles of justice. The basic idea is nothing new -- i.e., of impartial
developing a social contract of universal principles -- but many find Rawls' novel method
very appealing. The idea is to start by thinking, hypothetically, that we are at the beginning of
forming a society and we want to know which principles of justice to ground the society.
However, in this 'original position' we do this without knowing which position we will occupy
in the future society -- we don't know if we will be rich or poor, male or female, old or young,
etc. We then advocate those principles that will be in our self-interest (though we don't know
what 'self' that will be). This forces us to be impartial, and if we are rational, to propose
universal principles. The idea of the thought experiment is not to think that we actually begin
again, and construct a society from scratch. Rather, we can use the thought experiment as a
test of actual principles of justice. If a principle is one that would not be adopted by people in
the original position, behind the 'veil of ignorance' (about who they will be), then it is unjust
and should be rejected.

Rawls claims that people in this original position will choose conservatively when
developing principles governing the distribution of benefits and burdens. This conservatism,
Rawls claims, will lead to the choosing two basic principles: (1) that each member of the
society should have as much liberty as possible without infringing on the liberty of others;
and (2) the 'maximin' rule for decisions about economic justice -- namely, that they will
choose those rules that would maximize the minimum they would receive. In other words,
make the society in which the least well off are in the best possible position. Deviations from
equality of distribution of benefits and burdens are justified only if it advantages the least well
off. Rawls thought that some inequalities would be adopted because rewarding on the
grounds of merit and hard work, for example, would lead to a society in which there was a
greater production of social benefits, so the least well of would be better off than in a society
of pure equality.

Assessment

Share to your class your own personal experience and understanding.

1. Differentiate individual morality and positive morality

2. What school rules can remember that has a different moral sense than that of your
friend? Do it affect your relationship?
3. Give examples of rules in your community that you have followed. What particular
right you have that makes you follow the rules and how does it affect your
community. Share your experience.

Multiple Choice. Choose the correct letter of your choice.

1. The principles of right and wrong (or Justice) are those which everyone in society
would agree upon in forming a social contract.

a) Right Based Theories c) Social Contract Theory

 b) Utilitarian Theory d) Contractarianism
2. A Theory connected to Kantianism and are Non-consequentialist. The basic idea
is that if someone has a right, then others have a corresponding duty to provide
what the right requires.
a) Right Based Theories c) Social Contract Theory
b) Utilitarian Theory d) Contractarianism
3. Comes out of the criticism that all other moral theories are 'masculine' -- display a
male bias.
a) Utilitarian c) Right-Based Theory
b) Feminist Theory d) Contractarianism
4. A theory that explains why certain action is wrong or why we ought to act in a
certain way. In short, it is a theory on how we determine right and wrong conduct.
a) Moral Theory c) moral subjectivism
b) Virtue Theory d) cultural Relativism
5. That there is "the supreme principle of morality". Good and Evil are defined in
terms of Law / Duty / Obligation. Rationality and Freedom are also central, And
that acting morally was quite simple.
a) Socratic Model c) Kantian Theory
b) Platonic Theory d) Marxian Theory
6. A principle of Universalizability like “The Golden Rule”. The basic idea is that we
should adopt as action guiding rules (i.e., maxims) that can only be universally
accepted.
a) Categorical Imperative c) Libertarians
b) Utilitarian Rule d) maximin
7. Are concerned only with their own happiness.
a) Altruism c) Utilitarian
b) Hedonist d) Egotism
8. A proposition that the person who helps others at the expense of their self-
interest is actually acting immorally
a) Psychological Egoism c) egoism
b) Ethical Egoism d) relative egoism
9. It is called 'The Greatest Happiness Principle' (GHP), usually characterized as the
ideal of working towards the greatest happiness of the greatest number.
a) Principle of universality c) Hedonistic Principle
b) Principle of Utility d) Utilitarian Principle
10. It implies that we cannot criticize the actions of those in cultures other than our
own. And again, it amounts to the denial of universal moral principles.
 a) Moral Imperatives c) Cultural Relativism
b) Psychological Relativism d) Social relativism

Lesson II. Moral Vs. Non-Moral Standards

In our daily life we encounter moral questions at every step. In our everyday
experience, we face different situations, some of which we straightaway designate as moral
or as immoral and in some other cases we may face difficulty to put the instance in any of
these two specific categories. For example – my grandfather used to give food to birds every
morning and before he died he advised me to continue this practice. But owing to my other
preoccupations I failed to follow his advice. Can we designate this failure to follow his advice
as immoral?

WHAT TO EXPECT

1. Explain the characteristics of moral standards

2. Discern moral standards from non-moral standards

Lesson Outline

I. Characteristics of Moral Standards:

Moral standards are bases for moral behavior and bases for determining whether a
certain act is moral or immoral and for someone to be responsible or not. These are the
guides of human behavior and decision making. These standards are not only applied to
individual persons but also to a group or corporation. Something is unethical if it does not
conform to a particular standard of morality. They may not be written but observed and they
are assumed norms of moral conduct (Articulo, 2005).

Understanding this context, it is very clear that individuals must be guided to act in
good manner in dealing with fellow humans, society and his environment. These standards
should encourage individuals to take actions and courage.

There are certain elements differentiating moral standards to non-moral standards:

a. Moral standards involve serious wrongs or significant benefits.

Moral standards deal with matters which can seriously impact, that is, injure or
benefit human beings. It is not the case with many non-moral standards. For instance,
following or violating some basketball rules may matter in basketball games but does not
necessarily affect one‟s life or wellbeing.

b. Moral standards ought to be preferred to other values.

Moral standards have overriding character or hegemonic authority. If a moral

standard states that a person has the moral obligation to do something, then he/she is
supposed to do that even if it conflicts with other non-moral standards, and even with self-
interest.

Moral standards are not the only rules or principles in society, but they take
precedence over other considerations, including aesthetic, prudential, and even legal ones.
A person may be aesthetically justified in leaving behind his family in order to devote his life
to painting, but morally, all things considered, he/she probably was not justified. It may be
prudent to lie to save one‟s dignity, but it probably is morally wrong to do so. When a
particular law becomes seriously immoral, it may be people‟s moral duty to exercise civil
disobedience.

There is a general moral duty to obey the law, but there may come a time when the
injustice of an evil law is unbearable and thus calls for illegal but moral noncooperation (such
as the antebellum laws calling for citizens to return slaves to their owners).

c. Moral standards are not established by authority figures.

Moral standards are not invented, formed, or generated by authoritative bodies or

persons such as nations‟ legislative bodies. Ideally instead, these values ought to be
considered in the process of making laws. In principle therefore, moral standards cannot be
changed nor nullified by the decisions of particular authoritative body. One thing about these
standards, nonetheless, is that its validity lies on the soundness or adequacy of the reasons
that are considered to support and justify them.

d. Moral standards have the trait of universalizability.

Simply put, it means that everyone should live up to moral standards. To be more
accurate, however, it entails that moral principles must apply to all who are in the relevantly
similar situation. If one judges that act A is morally right for a certain person P, then it is
morally right for anybody relevantly similar to P.

This characteristic is exemplified in the Gold Rule, “Do unto others what you would
them do unto you (if you were in their shoes)” and in the formal Principle of Justice, “It
cannot be right for A to treat B in a manner in which it would be wrong for B to treat A,
merely on the ground that they are two different individuals, and without there being any
difference between the natures or circumstances of the two which can be stated as a
reasonable ground for difference of treatment.” Universalizability is an extension of the
principle of consistency, that is, one ought to be consistent about one‟s value judgments.

e. Moral standards are based on impartial considerations.

Moral standard does not evaluate standards on the basis of the interests of a certain
person or group, but one that goes beyond personal interests to a universal standpoint in
which each person‟s interests are impartially counted as equal.

Impartiality is usually depicted as being free of bias or prejudice. Impartiality in

morality requires that we give equal and/or adequate consideration to the interests of all
concerned parties.

f. Moral standards are associated with special emotions and vocabulary.

Prescriptivity indicates the practical or action-guiding nature of moral standards.

These moral standards are generally put forth as injunction or imperatives (such as, „Do not
kill,‟ „Do no unnecessary harm,‟ and „Love your neighbor‟). These principles are proposed for
use, to advice, and to influence to action. Retroactively, this feature is used to evaluate
behavior, to assign praise and blame, and to produce feelings of satisfaction or of guilt

If a person violates a moral standard by telling a lie even to fulfill a special purpose, it
is not surprising if he/she starts feeling guilty or being ashamed of his behavior afterwards.
On the contrary, no much guilt is felt if one goes against the current fashion trend (e.g.
refusing to wear tattered jeans). (Copyright 2013 by Jensen DG).

II. Moral Standards versus Other Rules in Life

A person‟s moral values constitute society‟s rules, and moral rules are very
significant and subjective to each person‟s moral values. Individually, we feel differently from
the perspective of stealing for example. Some of us may feel bad about getting one‟s
belongings, some may not. We do not know how exactly one feels about stealing. On the
other hand, we do not know how people will react seriously about stealing or if they were
stolen. Our expectation and social exercise will reflect on our belief with within our social
standards, i.e., the collective values of other people‟s morality. We sometimes generalized
people‟s morality by their actions against our expectations. We will react severely about
stealing if our principle against stealing is strong. If a certain social standard does not
condemn stealing our behavior is based on such. Such experiences reshape our belief about
social standard and thus may affect our behavior in which stealing is toward us in the future
experiences.

Etiquette, Policy, Law, and Commandment

Etiquette is a set of rules on how an individual should responsibly behave in the

society (Taylor and Williams, 2017). The table manners such as the proper use of utensils
and the proper manner of eating are examples of etiquette. Meanwhile, a policy is a clear,
simple statement on how an organization plans to handle its services, actions or business.
Policies are guiding rules to help with decision making (The University of Sydney, ©2002-
2017). When schools require their students to wear the proper school uniform and school ID
before they will be allowed inside the campus (or the NO Uniform No ID, No Entry rule
posted in the school‟s entrance) is an example of a policy. On the other hand, a law is a rule
created and enforced by the government and its agencies to maintain order, resolve
disputes, and protect a person‟s liberty and rights(Robertson,2008; Brickley and Gottesman,
© 2017). Can you give an example of a law in the Philippines? Finally, a commandment is a
rule that is to be strictly observed because it was said to be set by a divine entity, such as
those in the Ten Commandments (Stahl, 2009).

What is the advantage of owning moral standards over merely abiding by moral
standards?

For most people, the fundamental moral question is, “What should I do?” or “How
should I act?” Ethics are presumed as moralities on how a person should act. For example,
“every person is obligated to do the greatest good for the most number of people.” There is
also the philosophy that “everyone is obligated to act in ways that upholds the human dignity
for all people.” Moral principles like these guide the practice of various professions
(professional ethics).

But is all there is to ethics? Is ethics just about following rules of do‟s and don‟ts?
This obsession with rules somehow reflects the more important aspect of being a human
person and that becoming what you should be. In other words, the more important question
for ethics is not “What should I do?” but “What kind of person should I be?”
 Assessment

Based on the topics discussed, explain:

1. How are the moral standards different from non-moral standards?

2. How moral standards differ from etiquette, policy, law and commandment?

Modified true or false. Tell whether the statement is true or false. Write letter Y if the
statement is correct and letter N if the statement is wrong. Underline the word or words that
make the statement wrong and write the correct word or words.
1. _________ Moral standards are invented, formed, or generated by authoritative
bodies or persons such as nations‟ executive bodies. ______
2. _________ Peoples expectation and social exercise will do not necessarily reflect on
our belief with, within our social standards, i.e., the collective values of other people‟s
morality. __________.
3. _________ Ethical standards are necessary and the only rules or principles in
society, but they take precedence over other considerations, including aesthetic,
prudential, and even legal ones. _______.
4. _________ Experiences reshape our belief about social standard and thus may
affect our behavior in which stealing is toward us in the future experiences.
5. __________ Moral standards are the only rules or principles in society, but they do
not take precedence over other considerations, including aesthetic, prudential, and
even legal ones.

Lesson III. Moral Dilemma

The essence of studying ethics is morality. Ethics is the science of good/bad,

just/unjust, moral/immoral behavior (Rossouw&VanVuuren, 2006; Weiss, 2009; Desjardins,
2009). So when we talk of ethics we are also talking about morality. Moral dilemmas are
associated with ethical dilemmas. So the conflict in morality can be in these areas, personal,
organizational and structural.
 WHAT TO EXPECT

1. Define dilemma and distinguish moral dilemma

2. Explain the three levels of moral dilemma
Lesson Outline

I. What is Dilemma? Its Definition and Concept

Dilemma is in which two well-known cases is conflicting. In each case, an individual

regards as to having moral reasons to do each of the two actions, but doing both actions is
not possible. The most crucial characteristic of moral dilemma is that, a person has to do two
or more actions; the moral dilemma is that the person can possibly do the two actions
however; he cannot possibly do two or more actions, because everyone has to make a
choice.

What is common to the two well-known cases is conflict. In each case the agent
regard himself as having moral reasons to do each of the two actions, but doing both actions
is not possible. Ethicists have called situations like this as moral dilemma. The crucial
features of a moral dilemma are these: the agent is required to do each of the two (or more)
actions; the agent can do each of the action; but the agent cannot do both (or all) of the
actions; the agent seems doom to moral failure; no matter what he does he will do
something wrong (or fail to do something that he ought to do).

A moral dilemma is a situation in which an agent is faced with two moral choices that
conflict with one another. Moral dilemmas fall into three general categories. In the first
category, an agent is faced with a case where he ought to do two things, but he can only do
one, where the doing of one action excludes the possibility of doing the other action. In the
second category, an agent is faced with a decision that involves one thing he ought to do
and another he ought not to do, where the doing of one forbids the other. The third category
involves a case where an agent is faced with two things he ought not to do, but is forced to
do one of the bad actions. In the third case, the level of wrongness of the act determines
whether the dilemma is to be a tragic dilemma, or a dilemma where the agent is permanently
marred by the decision. In either case, a moral dilemma is meant to be irresolvable or
resolvable only with a remainder.
A resolvable moral dilemma is a moral dilemma where an agent is forced to choose
between two conflicting actions, but one action overrides the other and is better or less
wrong than the other action. Or there is a conflict in a moral decision procedure and one
moral requirement overrides another. A particular example, of a resolvable moral dilemma, is
a situation in which while heading to a friend's college graduation ceremony you stop to help
a person in trouble, even though it results in you breaking a promise to your friend who was
expecting you to be at that ceremony. The virtue of charity requires that you help the
stranger in need, but at the same time the virtue of honesty requires that you keep your
promise to your friend. In either case, the agent acts wrongly. Either the stranger in need will
not be helped, or your friend will be hurt emotionally by you breaking your promise. Either
situation carries negative consequences. This particular situation is resolvable though,
depending on the circumstances involved. There is a big difference between helping a
stranger in need that was in a car wreck and needs medical care, or a stranger in need that
has a flat tire. In the first case, the moral requirement of charity overrides honesty. In the
second case though, keeping your promise to your friend might be the better decision.

II. Three Levels of Moral Dilemma

1. Personal Moral Dilemma is when your decision in a particular situation has a

conflict with your own and another individual. Your actions will become harmful to
group of individuals.
2. Organizational Dilemma is when a member or members of the organization is in
situation where there is moral conflicts and the decision will potentially harm either
some members of the group or the entire organization itself.
3. Structural Moral Dilemma is when a person or group of persons who holds high-
level positions in the society faces a morally conflicting situation wherein the entire
social system is affected.

Assessment

1. Define dilemma and moral dilemma.

2. Explain the three levels of dilemma and give one example in each level.
3. Cite a specific morally conflicting situation you encountered or might encounter and
make a sound decision.

Lesson IV. Freedom in Making Moral Decisions

The personal aspect of the morality is about developing virtue so that thinking
morally, performing moral acts, and choosing to do what is good becomes a habit. The
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2016) explained that virtue is your thought or behavior
guided by, and displays, high moral standards. Virtues are habits developed through
learning and practice.

An efficiently run ship is like a virtuous person: both have internalized the practices
that make them weather storms. However, a ship is under the control of captain while
virtuous person free to cultivate his or her values. Freedom, then, is the foundation of moral
acts. For a person to be virtuous, he or she must also be free.

Meanwhile, when talking about interpersonal aspects of morality, the discussion turns
to following rules. It is important to note that even in following of the rules freedom is
essential.

Finally, there is a question of the ultimate end. “Why are you here?” “What is your
purpose?” The human person‟s final end is always debatable topic because it often goes
hand in hand with specific religious views. However, the debate does not negate the fact that
freedom remains essential with one‟s view of his or her ultimate purpose.

WHAT TO EXPECT

1. Explain the meaning of freedom in the positive and negative concept.

2. Discuss the philosophical insights on freedom
3. Show situations that demonstrate freedom of choice and the consequences of their
choices
4. Justify that freedom is important in making moral decision

Lesson Outline

I. The Meaning of Freedom

Freedom is a widely applied concept in different branches of Philosophy. For the sake of
focus, however, it would be important to clarify what we mean by freedom in this lesson. We
begin with the important distinctions between the negative and positive freedom according to
Isaiah Berlin. Negative freedom refers to the “absence of interference.” By interference, we
mean something that is intentionally imposed on a person. It may come in the form of
„physical coercion” such as kidnapping or imprisonment, or verbal coercion such as the
issuing of threat to another person. One is free in the negative sense, when she does not
experience either forms of coercion.

“I am negatively free to the degree to which no human being interferes with my activity”:
to the extent that I enjoy unimpeded and un coerced choice “ (Pettit, 1997; 17). In short,
negative freedom is the absence of coercion or interference.
 Negative Freedom is freedom from any block, coercion or interference.

Positive freedom is not about the absence of coercion or interference. It is “more than
just being let alone by others.” It is a kind of freedom that requires active effort on the person
who is said to be free. This effort is exhausted in the „control‟ or mastery of themselves”. This
is freedom from coercion or interference for one to be able to do good. This kind of freedom
indicates something about the human person. That is, it seems to suggest “a man divided
against himself” (Pettit, 1997). Here we refer to the inner struggle of a person who is pulled
in opposing directions of his own conflicting desires, wants, and needs. A person who is
deemed to be free in the positive sense is one who, like a Greek hero, is able to steer the
many headed-monster that is within oneself, so that all may follow a single direction. A
concrete examples is when I want to attend the barrio fiesta and yet it is examinations time
so I need to study for the exams. I am free when I give up the fiesta for the sake of a more
important remote goal. On the other hand, I am not free when deep in my heart I know I
should study for the exams and not be absent and yet I go to the fiesta and enjoy and do not
study for the exams.

A person who is free (possesses positive freedom) has control of mastery of himself and
so has the strength to do what is good. Policies, rules, and regulations are there to ensure
the good of every person. A person who is free is not allergic to rules and regulations. Rules
and regulations help her to grow in freedom since freedom is the power or the strength to
master herself to do good.

II. Philosophical insights of Freedom

The Human Person as a Free Being

What does “human person” mean? In Philosophy, a human being is more than its
biological components. The human being is a person endowed with characteristics that are
material, spiritual, rational, and free. A Human Person is a being (the Aristotelian idea of
being connotes actuality; existence; an actual condition or circumstance) with inborn
properties that he or she uses to direct his or her own development toward self-fulfillment.
One of the inborn properties of the human person is freedom.

Philosophical Insights on Freedom

We have mentioned freedom numerous times. What is your understanding of
freedom? Philosophers talked about this concept extensively. Here are some philosophical
insights on freedom.
(a) Freedom is a Gift

According to Gabriel Marcel, freedom is the ability to act significantly. Free acts are
significant because they help to make us who we are as human beings. Freedom is
not merely the ability to make arbitrary choices because we are not free if everything
that we can choose to do the significant in the first place. Freedom is the ability to
make significant choices and according to Marcel, it is a gift given to us by God.
(Hernandez, 2009)
(b) Freedom is Complimentary to Reasoning

One of Aristotle‟s ethical doctrines asserted that freedom and reason are
complementary. In Aristotle‟s view, the human person as a moral agent must
exercise practical rationality in order to determine how to pursue his or her ultimate
end (telos). Self-direction, rather than bare spontaneity, is the crucial characteristic of
the free person. Aristotle considered freedom and reason as necessary faculties for
consciously making sense of things (events, occurrences, phenomena, situations).
(Walsh, 1997)

(c) Freedom is Absolute

Existentialist philosopher Jean Paul Sartre‟s concept of freedom is not that freedom
to do something or anything. In Sartre‟s view, the human person is “absolutely free”.
Freedom sets the human person apart from the other creatures. You might say “But
what about animal freedom? Animals – unless caged – are also free. Animals just
roam around, eat when they need to, and sleep where they want. Animals are not
tied down with responsibilities like humans.” Yes, it is true that animals are – unless
caged – free. In farm animals also have a notion of freedom. When they are caged,
animals will try to escape from their cages. This kind of freedom is called freedom
from restrictions. It is a primitive kind of freedom. It is freedom for mere survival.
Humans, on the other hand, have a higher kind of freedom. The freedom of the
human person is beyond freedom from restriction. In fact, a person in jail is still free.
He is free to think, to change, and to become a better person. A prisoner is free to
redefine himself. As human persons, we are free to make choices. We are free to
decide. And we are free to use this freedom to attain goals higher than satisfying
basic needs.
 (d) Freedom Demands Responsibility

Jean-Paul Sartre said “You are Free” because he believed a person always has a
choice. Thus, according to Sartre, you must choose. His idea was that freedom is the
capacity to choose, that even not choosing is a choice (Gallinero, 2014). It is
important to note however, that he also added the concept of responsibility to
freedom. According to Sartre, even though individuals must make their own choices
because they are free, these choices (though freely made) also have consequences
to it. These consequences to freedom are something that the person must endure.
Therefore, it can be said that in Sartre‟s concept, responsibility follows freedom
(Gallinero, 2014)

Chinese philosopher Lao Tzu also discussed freedom and responsibility. Lao Tzu
advocated that a person can and should choose act, but his or her actions should
be that which would result in harmony. Lao Tzu‟s idea was that in any society, the
exercise of one‟s freedom is not absolute. The person is free to do anything; but it is
not without consequence of one‟s action (Gallinero, 2014). Responsibility, as a moral
quality serves as a voluntary check and balance of one‟s freedom. Without proper
balance limitless freedom is a dangerous as an extremely controlling social group.
Great social injustices have resulted from such radical mindsets.

Supplemental Reading
“A Clockwork Orange” synopsis:
Anthony Burgess

Alex was someone utterly asked conscience. Along with his gang, he committed all
kinds of heinous crimes. What makes him truly evil was that Alex was actually fully aware
that his actions were morally wrong; yet he did it anyway. He enjoyed doing crime and
hurting other people. His acceptance that his actions were immoral meant Alex freely chose
to do evil acts.

In one of their killing spree, Alex was captured. He was convicted for murder and
sentence to fourteen years in prison. While serving out his sentence, Alex was
recommended by the prison officials to participate in “Ludovico Technique”. The author
described the Ludovico Technique as an “experimental treatment designed to eliminate
criminal impulses”. The “treatment” was about conditioning Alex‟s mind so that his desire to
commit crime will disappear. Prison doctors injected Alex with nausea-inducing drugs,
strapped him in a chair, and kept his eyes open with metal clips (so that he can‟t even blink,
and made to watch all kinds of violent films. After several sessions, the conditioning was
successful in Alex, that whenever he was confronted with violence he suddenly became
weak, nauseated, and totally unable to inflict pain on others – even in self-defense.

Due to supposed success, Alex was released from prison early. Once he returned to
society, he was pitifully helpless against those who did him harm. Alex was brutalized by his
former victims and was beaten half to death by two of his former gang members (who
became police officers while Alex was imprisoned). In utter despair, Alex attempted suicide,
by some twist of fate, he lived. While he was recuperating in the hospital, Alex realized the
“treatment” had worn off and he was back to his “ultraviolent” self once again.

In the last chapter of the book, Alex (though still violent) was actually less and less
happy with his situation; unlike in his past where he enjoyed crime and violence. He then
came across Pete – the last member of his old gang. Pete had changed. He was living a
happy, productive, comfortable life with his wife. Alex realized he wanted to be like Pete. In
the end, Alex decided (on his own) to turn his life around and actually became responsible,
peace-loving person.

Assessment

1. Discuss what is freedom based on the different philosophical insights.

2. Which of the two makes you human? (Defend your answer considering the synopsis
of “A Clockwork Orange” by Anthony Burgess and the essence of “freedom”)
a. Free to decide and do evil acts: or
b. Forced to become a moral person and not hurt others.
3. From this concept that infancy to early childhood, a person cannot yet be said to be
completely free, both in the negative and positive sense of freedom. Why is that so?
Give illustrative examples to prove your points,

Chapter Summary

 Morals refer to human behavior where morality is the practical activity and, ethics
describes the theoretical, systematic, and rational reflection upon that human
behavior (Churchill, 1982).
 Kinds of Morality are: individual morality and positive morality.
 Positive morality has something to do with laws such as, public, private formal and
common laws
 The sanction for failure to obey positive morality is social sanction.
 Rules are a beneficial tool to guide and monitor the interactions between the
members of the society. They differ from place to place or country to country.

 Moral standards are bases for moral behavior and bases for determining whether a
certain act is moral or immoral and for someone to be responsible or not.
 Moral standards involve serious wrongs or significant benefits.
 Moral standards ought to be preferred to other values.
 Moral standards are not established by authority figures.
 Moral standards have the trait of universalizability.
 Moral standards are based on impartial considerations.
 Moral standards are associated with special emotions and vocabulary.
 A person‟s moral values constitute society‟s rules, and moral rules are very
significant and subjective to each person‟s moral values.
 Dilemma is in which two well-known cases is conflicting.
 Moral dilemma is that the person can possibly do the two actions however; he cannot
possibly do so because everyone has to make a choice.

 The three levels of moral dilemma are: personal, organizational and structural.
 Freedom is one of the inborn properties of human person.
 The Philosophical insights on freedom are: freedom is a gift; freedom is
complimentary to reasoning; freedom is absolute; and freedom demands
responsibility.
 Negative freedom is freedom from coercion or interference from any block.
 Positive freedom, which is true freedom, is not just about the absence of coercion ir
interference.
 Freedom is something that is exercised through our choices.
 Freedom for existentialists is something concrete. It is not just abstract words.
 Existence precedes essence.
 Freedom means exercising our capacity to make decisions, choices, choose our life
path and direct the course of our life through our own steering.
 Human person who wants to be real and authentic is to take care of our capacity to
take choices.
 Vices, bias, prejudice, anger, hatred, poverty, ignorance and other negative things
weaken our capacity to choose and do what is good for us and others.

ASSESSMENT

A. Multiple choices. Encircle the letter corresponds to your answer.

1. Why study Ethics?

a. It‟s a required course.
b. To understand my moral compass
c. To learn how to judge others
d. To take a stand in moral issues that affect society

2. Why are rules important to social beings?

a. Rules are what makes human beings superior creatures
b. Rules control people to do something they do not want
c. Rules make people know their place
d. Rules make a person become productive member of society even when there
is conflict

3. What are moral standards?

a. Action that advances the interest of certain people or group
b. It involves behavior that seriously affect other people
c. Are self-preserving behaviors
d. Originate from higher authority

4. Which of the statement below best describe non-moral standards?

a. Non-moral standards are objective
b. Non-moral standards are personal beliefs
c. Non-moral standards vary and are dependent on how a particular group set
the rules
d. Non-moral standards help us live a moral life

5. How do moral standards differ from other rules in life?

a. Moral standards are believed to be universal
b. Moral standards are rules on how a person should behave around other
c. Moral standards are policies that help with decision making
d. Moral standards are enforced to maintain peace and order

6. Why is that only human beings are ethical

a. It is instinctive
b. It is altruistic behavior
 c. Our belief in Superior Being taught us to be ethical
d. Only humans have the capacity for free moral judgment

7. Why is freedom crucial in making decisions?

a. So that you will not commit a crime
b. Only a free person can understand the meaning of his or her life
c. Freedom result to peace and prosperity
d. It is our basic human right

8. Which of the statements below does not describe freedom?

a. Freedom is the ability to make significant choices
b. Self-direction is the characteristic of freedom
c. Freedom is absolute
d. Freedom has no responsibility
Fill-in the blanks, write the correct term the statement is implyimg.

1. _________________The effort that one‟s conduct by reason

2. _________________Deals with moral principles
3. _________________These are in place to manage harmful behaviors, hopes, to
prevent chaos, and encourage stability
4. ________________Guiding rules that help in decision making
5. ________________A level of moral dilemma where all the choices in moral conflict
available to you could negatively affect you or another person.
6. _______________Thoughts or behavior that is guided by and displays high moral
standards.
7. ______________The philosopher who said described morality as the effort to guide
one‟s conduct through reason and giving equal weight between personal interest and
that of other people.
8. _____________Rule created by the government to maintain order
9. _____________A level of moral dilemma wherein all available choices in a moral
conflict will adversely affect the organization
10. _____________A level of dilemma wherein organizations or persons holding high –
level positions I society are faced with a moral conflict and all the choices available
will adversely affect the social system.

B. Enumeration.

a. Give at least four characteristics of moral standards

1
2
3
4
b. What is moral dilemma?
1
2
3
c. What are the levels of moral dilemma?
1
 2
3

D. ESSAY. Briefly explain these philosophical insights on freedom. (10 points each)
1. Freedom is a gift
2. Freedom is complementary to reason
3. Freedom is absolute
4. Freedom demands responsibility

APPLICATION
This can be a home assignment or a group work.

1. Explain what freedom means by the use of the letters of FREEDOM

F
R
E
E
D
O
M
2. “Your beliefs becomes your thoughts,
Your thoughts becomes your words,
Your words becomes your actions,
Your actions becomes your habits,
Your habits becomes your values,
Your values becomes your destiny.” M. Gandhi
3. Here is a question that is often asked in Religion classes. A person has been very
good throughout his life until in the last minute he/she turns otherwise or commits
mortal sins. Will he go to hell?
With personality consolidation in mind, is this most likely going to happen?
4. From the Little Prince by Antoine Exupery – The little prince visited several planets
when he left his small planet. One of those small planets that he visited was
inhabited by an alcoholic. The alcoholic was drinking liquor, no stop. Below is the
conversation between them.
Little Prince: What are you doing?
Alcoholic: I am dinking!
Little Prince: Why are you drinking? Is the alcoholic
Alcoholic: Because I like to forget! free? Or he is
enslaved by his
vice of
 Little Prince: Forget what?
Alcoholic: That I am a drunkard!

5. If freedom is the ability to make choice, this means you have to be freed from
anything negative for something good. It is freedom from an obstacle to freedom for
something good.
Give at least five (5) examples.

Assessment

Check for
understanding

1. Explain the meaning of freedom by explaining the following terms/sentences.

 Positive Freedom
 Freedom is not abstract, freedom is exercised through choices.
 Existence precedes essence
2. Illustrate with concrete examples.
 Choices have consequences. In making choices, some things given up while
others obtained.

Reference
Augustine, (1995). De doctrina Christiana. Edited and translated by R.P.H. Green.
Oxford Clarendon.

Babor. 1999. ETHICS: The Philosophical Discipline of Action First Edition. Manila: Rex
Bookstore, Inc.

Babor. 1997. Man in his Nature and Condition. Quezon City: Printon Press.

Brink, David. "Moral Conflict and Its Structure," The Philosophical Review, Vol. 103,
No. 2. 1994, pp. 215-247.http://www.jstor.org/stable/2185737 Foot, Philippa. "Moral
Realism and Moral Dilemma," The Journal of Philosophy, Vol. 80, No. 7, 1983, pp.
379-398. http://punzel.org/Docdump/MRFootMoralRealismAndMoralDilemma pdf