Ethics- BatStateU

MODULE 10
REASON AND IMPARTIALITY AS REQUIREMENTS FOR ETHICS

Introduction
In this module, students will learn the concepts of reason, morality, and impartiality. It will
help them to think rationally what is good and what is bad; and to be just and fair to benefit not
themselves but to benefit the majority. This module gives emphasis on the principle that every
person is equally important and to give equal consideration to the interests of majority. Lastly, it
will help students to develop their logical, rational and analytical thinking.

Learning Objectives
At the end of the topic, students are expected to:
l) Discuss the ethical requirement of reason and impartiality.
m) Discover different occupations where reasons, impartiality, and morality are part of their
professions
n) Apply reason and impartiality on the different societal issues.
o) Develop possible solutions on the current situation of the country.

Learning Content

Reason and Impartiality

Humans have not only feelings but also reason, and reason plays a vital role in Ethics. In
fact, moral truths are truths of reason; that is, a moral judgement is true if it is espoused by better
reasons than the alternatives (De Guzman et al. 2017).

Reason is the ability of the mid to think, understand, and form judgments y a process of
logic. It is an innate and exclusive human ability that utilizes new or existing information as bases
to consciously make sense out of thing while applying logic. It is also associated with thinking,
cognition, and intellect (“Reason and Impartiality as Minimum Requirement for Morality”). In the
article “Kant and Hume on Morality,” Reason and experience are required for determining the
likely effects of a given motive or character trait, so reason does play an important role in
moral judgment.

According to De Guzman et al. (2017), reason spells the difference of moral judgments
from the mere expressions of personal preference. If after eating someone says, “I like a sweet
cake,” he is not required to support it with good reasons for that is a statement about his/her
personal taste and nothing more. But in the case of moral judgments, they require backing by
reasons. In the absence of sensible rationale, they are merely capricious and ignorable. Moral
deliberation is a matter of weighing reasons and being guided by them. In understanding the

1
Ethics- BatStateU

nature of morality, considering reasons is indispensable. Truth in Ethics entails being justified
by good reasons. That is, the rightful moral decision involves selecting the option that has the
power of reason on its side.

Being defined by good reasons, moral truths are objectives in the sense that they true
no matter what we might want or think. We cannot make an act moral or immoral just by
wishing it to be so, because we cannot merely will that the weight of reason be on its side or
against it. And this also explains why morality is not arbitrary. Reason commends what it
commends, regardless of our feelings, attitudes, opinions, and desires. Since the connection
between moral judgments and reasons is necessary important, then a proposed theory on the
nature of moral judgment should be able to give an account for the relation. In focusing on
attitudes and feelings, both Emotivism and Subjectivism fail to accomplish this important thing
De Guzman et al. 2017).

As stated in the article “Reason and Impartiality as Minimum Requirement for Morality,”
impartiality is manifesting objectivity. It is the quality of being unbiased and objective in creating
moral decision – underscoring that a (morally) impartial person makes moral decisions relative to
the welfare of the majority and not for specific people alone. According to De Guzman et al.
(2017), impartiality involves the idea that each individual’s interest and point of view are equally
important. Also called evenhandedness or fair-mindedness, impartiality is a principle of justice
holding that decisions ought to be based on objective criteria, rather than on the basis of bias,
prejudice, or preferring the benefits to one person over another for improper reasons.

Impartiality in morality requires that we give equal and/or adequate consideration to the
interests of all concerned parties. The principles of impartiality assumes that every person,
generally speaking, is equally important; that is, no one is seen as intrinsically more significant
than anyone else. Other ethicists however, suggest that some clarifications is required. From the
impartial standpoint, to say that no one is seen as intrinsically more significant than anyone else,
is not to say that there is no reason whatsoever for which an individual might demand more moral
attention or better treatment than others. Many ethicists supposed that from the impartial point of
view, properly conceived, some persons count as more significant, at least in certain ways. A
virtous and respectable religious leader maybe supposed to be more significant than a mere maid;
so an emergency (say, a building on fire) the decent religious leader ought to be rescued first. The
reason, nonetheless, is not that the religious leader is intrinsically more significant; rather, it is that
he makes greater contribution to the society (De Guzman et al. 2017).

Why are Reason and Impartiality the Minimum Requirements for Morality?
Is someone tells us that a certain action is immoral, we may ask why it is so, and if there is
reasonable answer, we may discard the proposition as absurd. Also if somebody utters that a
particular act is wrong and explains that it is because it does not happen to fits his taste, then we
also do not count his claim as legitimate ethical judgment. Clearly, thus reason is a necessary
requirement for morality (De Guzman et al. 2017).

In the article “Impartiality,” it was stated that the only respect in which morality requires
impartiality is with respect to violating moral rules—for example, those rules prohibiting killing,
Ethics- BatStateU

causing pain, deceiving, and breaking promises. It is only with regard to these kinds of moral
rules—those that can be formulated as prohibitions—that it is humanly possible to act impartially
with regard to a group large enough to be an appropriate group.

As stated in the article “Reason and Impartiality as Minimum Requirement for Morality,”
Reason and impartiality become the basic prerequisite for morality as one is excepted to be able
to deliver clear, concise, rightful, and appropriate judgments made out of logic and understanding
in an unbiased and unprejudiced manner while considering the general welfare to accurately
concoct moral decisions.

Learning Activity
Directions: Each group will think 2 occupations or professionals. Using what they had learned
from reason, impartiality, and morality, each group will create a persuasion map and write down
all the facts, examples, and information to back up their reasoning. End your persuasion map with
a conclusion.

1
Ethics- BatStateU

MODULE 11
FEELINGS AND REASON

Introduction
This module discusses the role of feelings and emotions in decision-making. Reason and
emotions are jointly at work and tightly intertwined. This means that feelings are used as instinctive
response to moral dilemmas. Feelings may sometimes prohibit us to make right decisions but it
can also be used in making the right one. This concept will be explained by two theories of ethics
which discuss the role of feeling on morality. Lastly, student shall be mindful of their own feelings,
thoughts, and values as an indication of moral development.

Learning Objectives
At the end of the topic, students are expected to:
p) Appraise and analyze their feelings in personal experiences
q) Compare reasonable and emotional responses.
r) Compare and contrast Ethical Subjectivism and Emotivism
s) Apply the principles of Ethical Subjectivism and Emotivism

Learning Content

Feeling and Moral Decision-Making

According to Ells (2014), emotion is a response to stimuli based on past experiences which
is made instinctively while reason is a form of personal justification which changes from person
to person based on their own ethical and moral code, as well as prior experience. Some ethicists
believe that ethics is also a matter of emotion. They hold the moral judgment as thet are even
deemed by some as instinctive and trained response to moral dilemmas (De Guzman et al. 2017).
Emotions is the result of logical analysis through which we first analyze someone’s behavior, make
an appropriate judgment, and then feel whichever is called for, respect or contempt (Pillemer &
Wheeler, 2010).

Researchers (and some philosophers) now see emotion and reason as tightly intertwined.
Emotion and reason are jointly at work when we judge the conduct of others or make choices
ourselves. A cognitive deficit of either type can impair our decision making capacity about all
manner of things, including moral judgments. People who suffer certain kinds of brain injuries or

1
Ethics- BatStateU

lesions, for example, retain the intellectual ability to understand alternative courses of action,
nevertheless are unable to make up their own minds, both literally and figuratively. Reading a
menu apparently is one thing, but choosing among items involves weighing likes, dislikes,
objectives, and values. These necessarily involve subjective judgments (Pillemer & Wheeler,
2010).

Some hold that reason and emotion are not really opposite. Both abstract inference and
emotional intuitions or instincts are seen as having relative roles in ethical thinking. For one thing,
feelings or emotions are said to be judgments about the accomplishment of one’s goals. Emotions,
it is thus concluded, can be rational in being based at least sometimes on good judgments about
how well a circumstance or agent accomplishes appropriate objectives. Feelings are also visceral
or instinctual by providing motivations to act morally (De Guzman et al. 2017).

Reason when removed from emotion, allows a person to make conscious decisions based
on fact, with no references to personal involvement. The use of reason as a way of knowing, allows
for the knower to see the consequences of their actions through-out the decision-making process.
Also, there are limitations to decisions made based on reason alone, perception of situations is not
questioned as it may be with an emotional decision (Ells, 2014).

Feeling-based Theories in Ethics

There are at least two theories in ethics that gives focus on the role of feelings on morality.
They are (1) Ethical Subjectivism and (2) Emotivism (De Guzman et al. 2017).

1. Ethical Subjectivism. This theory basically utter runs contrary to the principle that there is
objectivity in morality. Fundamentally a meta-ethically theory, it is not about what things are good
and what are things are bad. It does not tell how we should live or what moral norms we should
practice. Instead, it is a theory about the nature or moral judgments (De Guzman et al. 2017).

In the article “Basics of Philosophy,” Ethical Subjectivism holds that there are no objective
moral properties and that ethical statements are in fact arbitrary because they do not
express immutable truths. Instead, moral statements are made true or false by
the attitudes and/or conventions of the observers, and any ethical sentence just implies
an attitude, opinion, personal preference or feeling held by someone. Thus, for a statement to be
considered morally right merely means that it is met with approval by the person of interest.
Another way of looking at this is that judgments about human conduct are shaped by, and in many
ways limited to, perception.

As cited in the article “Basics of Philosophy,” there are several different variants which can be
considered under the heading of Ethical Subjectivism:

• Simple Subjectivism: the view (largely as described above) that ethical statements
reflect sentiments, personal preferences and feelings rather than objective facts.
• Individualist Subjectivism: the view (originally put forward by Protagoras) that there are
as many distinct scales of good and evil as there are individuals in the world. It is effectively
Ethics- BatStateU

a form of Egoism, which maintains that every human being ought to pursue what is in his
or her self-interest exclusively.
• Moral Relativism (or Ethical Relativism): the view that for a thing to be morally right is
for it to be approved of by society, leading to the conclusion that different things are right
for people in different societies and different periods in history.
• Ideal Observer Theory: the view that what is right is determined by the attitudes that a
hypothetical ideal observer (a being who is perfectly rational, imaginative and informed)
would have.

2. Emotivism. As cited in the “Emotive Theory of Ethics” The term emotivism refers to a theory
about moral judgments, sentences, words, and speech acts; it is sometimes also extended to cover
aesthetic and other nonmoral forms of evaluation. Although sometimes used to refer to the entire
genus, strictly speaking emotivism is the name of only the earliest version of ethical
noncognitivism (also known as expressivism and nondescriptivism).

Emotivism is actually the most popular form of non-cognitivism, the meta-ethical theory
that claims that ethical sentences do not convey authentic propositions. Moral judgments,
according to Emotivism, are not statements of fact but are mere expressions of the emotions of the
speaker especially since they are usually feelings—based (De Guzman et al. 2017).

To understand how the theory views moral judgments, it would help to note that language
is used in a variety of ways. Principally, language is used to state facts or what we believe to be
facts. But there are other purpose for which language may be used like utterance or command. The
purposes of utterances are (1) they are used as means of influencing other’s behavior and (2) moral
sentences are used to expresses (not report) the speaker’s attitude (De Guzman et al. 2017).

As cited in the article “Emotivism,” Emotivists believe that moral language expresses
emotions and tries to influence others; it has no cognitive content. If I say homosexuality is evil,
I’m just expressing my feeling that homosexuality is disgusting! I am expressing my emotions
and, at the same time, trying to influence you to dislike homosexuality. The same analysis applies
to any moral judgment. If I say that capital punishment is wrong, I’m just expressing my dislike
for it and trying to get you to agree with me. I might as well have said capital punishment while
shaking my head and rolling my eyes. And if I say that Stalin or Cheney were bad men—which
they were—I’m merely trying to get you to agree with what I’m really saying.

Criticisms on Ethical Subjectivism and Emotivism

Stated in the article “Subjectivism,” subjectivism implies the moral statements are less
significant than most people think they are – this may of course be true without rendering moral
statement insignificant. More so, Ethical Subjectivism has implications that are contrary to what
we believe about the nature of moral judgments.it also implies that each of us is infallible so as
long as we are honestly expressing our respective feelings about moral issues. Furthermore, it
cannot account for the fact of disagreement in Ethics. Finally, the theory could also have dangerous
implications in moral education (De Guzman et al. 2017).

1
Ethics- BatStateU

As cited in the article “Emotivism,” emotivism presupposes that moral disagreements

are incapable of being resolved by rational discourse. There is no way to resolve our attitudinal
disagreements unless we are persuasive enough (or violent enough). But we have already seen
that there’s another way to persuade—using reason to support our position. We can provide
good reasons why x is right or x is wrong. If we appeal to reason, we have discovered a way to
resolve our disputes that other than by shouting or beating others into submission. And if
reason plays a role in ethics, then there is truth or falsity about ethical judgments.

Feelings Can Help in Making the Right Decision

According to Pillemer & Wheeler (2010), moral development may rest in our ability to be
mindful of our own feelings, thoughts, and values—and the context in which we are functioning.
As we ponder decisions, and more fundamentally, our principles, Pillemer & Wheeler (2010),
enumerated some precepts to bear mind. Among them are:

1. Don’t accept the problem as given. How choices are framed can sway your choices
in ways that may contradict your core beliefs. (Think of the classic experiment about
health care policy.) Generate multiple options and assess them against one another
instead of considering them in isolation.
2. Listen to both your heart and head. Issues of right and wrong matter deeply to us, as
they should. Twinges of disgust or shame may be internal signals that we are nearing
the outer bounds of acceptable behavior. But we should also reflect on the sources of
our feelings, be they negative or positive, as they may be triggered by associations that
have nothing to do with the matter at hand.
3. Watch your language. How we name things exposes (or masks) the nature of our
actions and their consequences. Firings become layoffs, layoffs become downsizing,
and downsizing becomes right-sizing. The action may be unavoidable, but we should
not sugarcoat the fact that people who once worked with or for us are now jobless.
4. Take special care in dimly lit places. Your actions—and ultimately even your
values—are influenced by the company you keep.
5. Be modest about your virtue. Most of us believe that we are more ethical than are
others. Countless experiments and real life examples, however, should remind us that
people who are most self-righteous may be most likely to slip.
6. Understand why others transgress. Some lapses may be due to moral failure, but
others can be caused by external factors that have little to do with their fundamental
nature. Luck plays a role in regard to how people are tested and what resources they
can draw upon. Refrain from judging a person’s core character, positively or negatively,
on the basis of a single event.
7. Don’t give up on yourself (or on others). An ancient proverb says, “Every saint has
a past. Every sinner has a future.” Honest reflection about the past, coupled with a
measure of humility, can serve as foundation for leading a responsible life going
forward.
Ethics- BatStateU

In the end, morality is not merely—or even principally—determining the right thing to do
in specific instances, rather it entails who we want to be and what kind of life we want to lead
(Pillemer & Wheeler, 2010).

Learning Activity
Directions: The following are the suggested activities
1. Case analysis. Analyze the following cases with your group members and justify your
answer based on what you have learned from the topic.
A. You are a high-ranking public health official who must decide how to respond in
the face of an epidemic that will cost 600 lives if nothing is done. You only have
two alternatives: Option A which will result in 200 lives being saved or Option B
with a 1/3 chance that everyone would be saved. Which would you choose?
B. Dan, a student council president, often picks topics for discussion that appeal to
both professors and students in order to stimulate discussion. Would you say that
his conduct is highly immoral, not immoral at all, or someplace in between?
C. What if instead of throwing the switch, the only way for you to stop the train and
save the five is pushing a 300-pound man on to the tracks?

2. Recall a news report that you have seen recently. Illustrate your feelings as instinctive
response to the news.

Learning Assessment
Directions: The class will be divided into six group. Each group will play a wheel of fortune game
prepared earlier by their teacher. Each part of the wheel has topic to be used in the class debate.
Each group have only chance to roll the wheel. The topic where the pointer ends would be the
group’s topic.

The following are the options written in the wheel of fortune

15. Affirmative Team – End of life involving a dying parent
16. Negative Team – End of life involving a dying parent
17. Affirmative Team – Payment of facilitation fee to a customs officer by a finance employee
18. Negative Team – Payment of facilitation fee to a customs officer by a finance employee
19. Affirmative Team - The use of an official car to bring a four-year old daughter to school
everyday
20. Negative Team - The use of an official car to bring a four-year old daughter to school
everyday

1
Ethics- BatStateU

MODULE 12
THE 7-STEP MORAL REASONING

Learning Objectives
At the end of the topic, students are expected to:
t) Understand the different the 7-step moral reasoning model
u) Apply the 7 steps of moral reasoning in his/ her decision making.

Learning Content

To ensure the reasonableness and neutrality of moral decisions, it is good to follow the
seven-step moral reasoning model. These steps can serve as a guide in making best choices in
decision makings.
1. Stop and think. Before making any decisions, it is nice to take a moment to think about
the following:
a. Situation itself
b. Your role in the situation
c. Other internal/ external factors such as
• People who might get involved in the result of the decision
• Potential effects of the decision
2. Clarify Goals. In a decision making, it is essential to determine your goals both short-term
and long-term goals. Short-term goals are those that need to be accomplished right after or
immediately after a decision is made. A long-term goal is that which the result may come
out after some times. It is important because that is going to be the basis of what one wishes
to accomplish. Sometimes, it requires a sacrifice for someone just to achieve his or her goal
whether short or long term one.
3. Determine facts. Make sure that that all essential information is considered before you
make a decision. To determine the facts, solve first what you know, then what do you still
need to know. Have a heart to accept other information about the subject of your decision-
making process and make it sure that facts are reliable and credible since these facts would
be the basis of your decision. In addition:

1
Ethics- BatStateU

a. Consider the reliability and credibility of the people providing the facts.
b. Consider the basis of the supposed facts. Evaluate on the basis of honesty,
accuracy, and memory.
4. Develop options. Once you know what you the goals are and facts are well considered
already, then you can make a list of actions that are possibly be your options. If its about
life decision, you can make talk to someone you trust most so you can broaden your
perspective and think of new choices. If you can think of only one or two choices, you are
probably not thinking hard enough.
5. Consider consequences. After developing options which are possibly your basis of action,
you must consider consequences of each option. Filter your choices to determine if any of
your options will violate any ethical considerations, and then omit unethical options. Think
of its long long-term consequences and act in accordance to the spirit of fairness and justice.
Identify who will be affected by your decision and how the decision is a likely to affect
them.
6. Choose. After consideration of all the consequences from the options, make a decision
now. If you are doubtful of your choice, try the following:
a. Talk to people whom you trust.
b. Think of someone who you think has the character of good decision maker.
c. If people around you found out your decision, would you be comfortable and
proud?
d. Follow the Golder Rule: treat others the way you want to be treated, and keep
your promises.
7. Monitor and modify. Ethical decision makers monitor the effect of their decisions and are
willing to modify their decision. Though it takes a lot of humility and courage to do such,
it is necessary if the decision had been made has a lot of ethical considerations. Do not
hesitate to revise your decisions in light of new developments in the situation.

Learning Activity
Directions: In a sheet of paper try this:
Ethics- BatStateU

MODULE 13
REASON AND WILL

Learning Objectives
At the end of the topic, students are expected to:
a) To understand the meaning of reason and will;
b) Compare and contrast the reason and will.
c) To apply these two concepts in their daily lives.

Learning Content
What is Reason?
In philosophy, reason, is the faculty or process of drawing logical syllogism. Reasoning is
the process of drawing out conclusion from the previous knowledge. In other words, reason is
associated with knowledge. Knowledge is something that one acquires as he studies, gets matured
and professional. The term reason is also used in other context as a disagreement to sensation,
perception, feeling, and desire.
According to Immanuel Kant, reason is the power of producing into oneness, by means
of understandable theories, the concepts that are provided by the intellect or the mind. The
foundation of sound ethics for him can only be by the authority of human reason. The voice of
God- conscience for St. Thomas Aquinas- is not heard directly today while man is living in this
finite world. That reason which gives a priori principles Kant calls “pure reason,” as distinguished
from the “practical reason,” which is especially concerned with the performance of actions. The
reason elects such and such as morally binding and thus act in accordance with what he/she this is
so. Kant told that reason in itself can only be sensible foundation of what is ethical for man. It also
reiterated that morality is grounded with external authority but it is simply grounded with reason
itself. Kant certainly wanted to delimit the bounds of reason, but this is not the same as arguing
that it has no role in our knowledge. There are three points in Kant’ reason:
1. the relation of reason to empirical truth;
2. reason’s role in scientific inquiry; and
3. the positive gains that come from appreciating reason’s limits.

1
Ethics- BatStateU

In theology, reason, as distinguished from faith, is the human intelligence exercised upon
religious truth whether by way of discovery or by way of explanation. The limits within which the
reason may be used have been laid down differently in different churches and periods of thought:
on the whole, modern Christianity, especially in the Protestant churches, tends to allow to reason
a wide field, reserving, however, as the sphere of faith the ultimate (supernatural) truths of
theology.
What is the will?
If the reason is the foundation of what is ethical for Kant, in turn, its source must be a
goodwill. This means that what is morally binding is rooted in reason as workable for the human
person who possesses the goodwill. A good will is also a force to pursue what one possesses in
mind also. Instead of looking at a man as he displays external attributes, goodness is in the very
interiority of himself. The good that is relevant to the person who through his/her reason knows
what one ought to do. The good will implies the achievability of what is known though reason.
Generally, will is a faculty od the mind that at the moment of decision is always present. For him,
there is only one good which can be called good without any qualification- the good motive or
good will. The true object of reason is to produce a will which is good in itself, since nothing else
is always and necessarily good. This will must be autonomous in nature because the will’s
autonomy will make a man a dignified one. To lose one’s freewill is to lose one’s dignity.

In a nutshell, Reason is the foundation of morality and the source of is the goodwill.

For example, the basis of our actions is our prior knowledge of somethings. The purpose
of why we wish to buy rubber shoes is that because we have prior knowledge that rubber shoes is
good for sports. To insist and the actual purchase of the rubber shoes, our will pushed us to do so.

Learning Activity
Directions: Make a simple essay about your future wishes/ dreams. Consider the following
questions?
1. What do you really want in your life?
2. What are the factors that made you realize what you want?
3. What are the ways are you going to do to achieve what you want in your life?
Ethics- BatStateU

MODULE 14
MORAL THEORIES

Learning Objectives
At the end of the topic, students are expected to:
a) determine the difference between morality and ethics
b) understand the different moral theories
c) differentiate between moral theories.

Learning Content

The words "moral" and "ethics" (and cognates) are often used interchangeably. However, it is
useful to make the following distinction:

● Morality is the system through which we determine right and wrong conduct -- i.e., the guide to
good or right conduct.
● Ethics is the philosophical study of Morality.
What, then, is a moral theory?

A theory is a structured set of statements used to explain (or predict) a set of facts or concepts. A
moral theory, then, explains why a certain action is wrong -- or why we ought to act in certain ways. In
short, it is a theory of how we determine right and wrong conduct. Also, 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 issue
of affirmative action, we must not attempt to evaluate what actions or policies are right (or wrong)
independent of what we take to determine right and wrong conduct. You will see, as we proceed, that we
do not do ethics without at least some moral theory. When evaluating the merits of some decision regarding
a case, we will always (or at least ought to always) find ourselves thinking about how right and wrong is
determined in general, and then apply that to the case at hand. Note, though, that sound moral thinking does
not simply involve going one way -- from theory to applied issue. Sometimes a case may suggest that we
need to change or adjust our thinking about what moral theory we think is the best, or perhaps it might lead
us to think that a preferred theory needs modification.

Are moral theories descriptive or prescriptive?

In presenting a moral theory, are we merely describing how people, in their everyday 'doings' and
'thinkings,' form a judgment about what is right and wrong, or are we prescribing how people ought to make
these judgments?

1
Ethics- BatStateU

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 is the
proper way of determining right and wrong. There have been many different proposals. Here is a brief
summary.

Theories of Morality
1. Moral Subjectivism
Main Point: Moral Subjectivism is where right or wrong are determined by what you -- the subject -- just
happens to think (or 'feel') is right or wrong. This is simply based on your personal assessment and
judgment.

In its common form, moral subjectivism amounts to the denial of moral principles of any significant
kind, and the possibility of moral criticism and argumentation. In nature, '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. This shows the key flaw
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
Main Point: Right and wrong is determined by the particular set of principles or rules the relevant culture
just happens to hold at the time. This is also based on the idea that different people have different cultures
that are why right or wrong is based on how one’s culture dictates morality.

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
Main Point: 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 -- that 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 constrain our self-interest, not further it. Also, that genuine altruism is
indeed possible, and relatively commonly exhibited.
Ethics- BatStateU

4. Divine Command Theory

Main Point: Right and wrong come from the commands of God (or the gods)

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 behaviour.
Although there are related claims that religion is necessary to motivate and guide people to behave in a
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 upshot is that an action is right -- or obligatory -- if God commands us to do
it, wrong if God commands we refrain from doing it, and morally permissible if God does not command
that it not be done.

5. Virtue Ethics
Main Point: Right and wrong are characterized in terms of acting in accordance with the traditional
virtues -- making a good person.

This will be further discussed in the preceding chapters.

6. Feminist Ethics

Main Point: Right and wrong are 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. 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
Main Point: Right and wrong is determined by the overall goodness (utility) of the consequences of the
action.

Utilitarianism 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, 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.
We do this in a particular instance by choosing the action that maximizes pleasure/happiness and
minimizing suffering.

This will be further discussed in the preceding chapters.

8. Kantian Theory

1
Ethics- BatStateU

Main Point: Right and wrong are determined by rationality, giving universal duties.

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:

1. you ought to do your duty (simply because it is your duty).

2. Reason guides you to this conclusion.
3. 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.

This will be further discussed in the preceding chapters.

9. Contractarianism
Main Point: 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.

Learning Activity
Directions: Make a reflection paper anchored on any of the given Moral Theory above.
Ethics- BatStateU

MODULE 15
ARISTOTLE AND ST. THOMAS

Learning Objectives
At the end of the topic, students are expected to:

a) To describe the moral philosophy of Aristotle and St. Thomas.

b) To explain the differences and similarities of Aristotle and St. Thomas’ philosophy.

Learning Content
Aristotle

The Greek philosopher Aristotle wrote his Nicomachean Ethics with these questions in

mind. For him, the ultimate purpose cannot be understood without understanding the place of

reason in ordering one’s life. Aristotle considers that morality is not merely a matter of knowing

the good, just like Plato’s proposition, but actually doing the good habitually. We become what

we are not what we know but what we do. According to him, self-realization is the highest good

attainable by man. Self-realization is termed as Eudaemonia or well-being or happiness.

This happiness is not the same as possession of wealth or pleasure; while pleasure is good,

it is not the ultimate good. Happiness is the natural outcome of the active exercise of functions.

The full realization of functions refers to fulfilling, realizing, actualizing, and developing one’s

nature with all its potentials.

Eudaemonia is sought for its own sake. All other ends, such as wealth, health, power, are

sought because they are perceived to be instrumental in one’s flourishing. It is, as the proper end

of man, not some kind of inactive state but actually something that one does. for Aristotle, our
Ethics- BatStateU

chief good is not something we merely possess in mind but something that we continually actualize

in practice. According to him, Eudaemonia is an activity of the soul in accordance with virtue.

Threefold Nature of Man

Each of these must be fulfilled as the realization of each is accompanied by a state of

pleasure and happiness.

1. Vegetative- it refers to the physical body which is cultivated by wholesome food and proper

exercise. The body needs food, drink, work, and rest in order to survive and to keep oneself

physically fit.

2. Sentient- Man as full of senses has sentient nature. Man’s sensual feelings and emotions

must be fully developed through appropriate sex activity within the limit of his social

conventions. One needs to make his feelings and emotions fine to satisfy his senses.

3. Rational- Human bearings are rational animals. the full realization of their vegetative and

sentient nature keeps them longing for more lasting satisfaction. food and shelter cannot

satisfy their thirst for self-realization. one develops his rational nature in the pursuit of

scientific knowledge. philosophical truth, political activity, religious commitment, and

creative, artistic endeavor.

Therefore, for Aristotle, upon the realization of man’s highest nature, there is good,

happiness.

Determinant of Morality

The doctrine of the golden mean is central in the self- realization ethics of Aristotle,

especially in the full exercise of functions regarding the development of man’s vegetative and

sentient nature. reason seeks the balanced course between too much and too little. Extremes and

excesses are always evil, hence, to be avoided.

1
Ethics- BatStateU

St. Thomas Aquinas

St. Thomas’ philosophy began with the standpoint of faith. He is known to be one who

Christianized the philosophy based on his theories and ways. His perspective presupposes the

existence of God who is the author (source) and the goal (end) of all realities. According to him,

there exists a natural law which is the interpretation of man from the Eternal Law. In his view, the

source of the moral law is reason itself. in its operation, reason recognizes the basic principle “Do

good and avoid evil”. He used the term synderesis to describe this inherent capacity of an

individual to perceive what is good or bad. In short, the moral law is the dictates of the voice of

reason, and this dictate is expressed in the principle that good must be done and evil must be

avoided. The voice of reason is also called the conscience, in so far the conscience refers to the

immediate judgment of practical reason applying the general principle of morality.

What is good for St. Thomas?

St. Thomas asserts that what is human good is which is suitable for and proper to human

nature. Thus, whenever an act is suitable to human nature as such, then it is good and it must be

done; whenever it is not proper to human nature, however, then it is evil and it must be avoided.

So, human nature is the proximate norm of morality. In St. Thomas View, the good is built

into human nature, to which we are directed by our natural inclinations: self-preservation, just

dealings with others and the propagation of the species.

Three Natural Inclinations of Man

1. Self-preservation. We are inclined to preserve our life. Self- destruction, first of all, is

unnatural as far as St. Thomas is concerned. This urges us to care for our health, not to kill

ourselves or put ourselves in danger.

Ethics- BatStateU

2. Just dealings with others. Reason by nature leads us to treat others with the same dignity

and respect that we accord ourselves. This is the basis of justice which arises out of human

relations. Thus, any act of injustice is against human nature.

3. Propagation of the species. We are naturally inclined to perpetuate our species which is

viewed as a natural good. We are obligated not to pervert this natural inclination. the

reproductive organs are by nature designed to reproduce and to perpetuate the human

species. And any intervention against such nature must be evil.

Determinant of Morality

1. Object- the Act itself

2. Circumstances-are conditions which, when superadded to the nature of the moral act, will

affect its morality. It answers the question of who, what, where, by what means, why, how

and when?

3. End of the agent- The end here is taken in the sense of end or purpose of the agent or the

doer.

Learning Activity
Directions: Answer this situation using St. Thomas’ determinants of morality.

Giving alms to a beggar is good in itself. Try to explain this proving that there can be an
evilness in it.

Learning Assessment
Directions: Identify the following:
1. This urges us to care for our health, not to kill ourselves or put ourselves in danger.

1
Ethics- BatStateU

MODULE 16
KANTIAN THEORY

Learning Objectives

At the end of the topic, students are expected to:

a) understand the Kantian Theory.
b) determine the role of goodwill in ethics
c) understand the Right Based theory of Kant.

Learning Content
Kantian Theory (Continuation of Module 15)

Main Idea: 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:

a. you ought to do your duty (simply because it is your duty).

b. Reason guides you to this conclusion.
c. 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

1
Ethics- BatStateU

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?)
Rights-based Theories of Kant

Main Point: 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 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. 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.
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?

Learning Activity
Directions: Write a reflection paper entitled, “My Rights and my Duties”
Ethics- BatStateU

MODULE 17
UTILITARIANISM

Learning Objectives

At the end of the topic, students are expected to:

a) understand utilitarianism.
b) understand Principle of Utility of Jeremy Bentham
c) Understand the John Stuart Mill Utilitarianism.

Learning Content
Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism is a normative ethical theory that places the locus of right and wrong solely on the

outcomes (consequences) of choosing one action/policy over other actions/policies. As such, it

moves beyond the scope of one's own interests and takes into account the interests of others.

Jeremy Bentham’ Principle of Utility

1. Recognizes the fundamental role of pain and pleasure in human life,

2. Approves or disapproves of action on the basis of the amount of pain or pleasure brought

about i.e, consequences,

3. Equates good with pleasure and evil with pain, and

4. Asserts that pleasure and pain are capable of quantification (and hence 'measure').

In measuring pleasure and pain, Bentham introduces the following criteria: INTENSITY,

DURATION, CERTAINTY (or UNCERTAINTY), and its NEARNESS (or FARNESS). He also

includes its "fecundity" (will more of the same follow?) and its "purity" (its pleasure won't be

followed by pain & vice versa). In considering actions that affect numbers of people, we must

also account for its EXTENT.

1
Ethics- BatStateU

John Stuart Mill

He adjusted the more hedonistic tendencies in Bentham's philosophy by emphasizing:

1. It is not the quantity of pleasure, but the quality of happiness that is central to

utilitarianism,

2. the calculus is unreasonable -- qualities cannot be quantified (there is a distinction

between 'higher' and 'lower' pleasures), and

3. utilitarianism refers to "the Greatest Happiness Principle" -- it seeks to promote the

capability of achieving happiness (higher pleasures) for the most amount of people (this

is its "extent").

Act and Rule Utilitarianism

We can apply the principle of utility to either PARTICULAR ACTIONS or GENERAL

RULES. The former is called "act-utilitarianism" and the latter is called "rule-utilitarianism."

Act-utilitarianism -- The principle of utility is applied directly to each alternative act in a

situation of choice. The right act is then defined as the one which brings about the best results (or

the least amount of bad results). Criticisms of this viewpoint to the difficulty of attaining full

knowledge and certainty of the consequences of our actions. It is possible to justify immoral acts

using AU: Suppose you could end a regional war by torturing children whose fathers are enemy

soldiers, thus revealing the hideouts of the fathers.

Rule-utilitarianism -- The principle of utility is used to determine the validity of rules of conduct

(moral principles). A rule like promise-keeping is established by looking at the consequences of

a world in which people broke promises at will and a world in which promises were binding.
Ethics- BatStateU

Right and wrong are then defined as following or breaking those rules. Some criticisms of this

position point out that if the Rules take into account more and more exceptions, RU collapses

into AU. More general criticisms of this view argue that it is possible to generate "unjust rules"

according to the principle of utility. For example, slavery in Greece might be right if it led to an

overall achievement of cultivated happiness at the expense of some mistreated individuals.

Learning Activity
Directions:
If you were an utilitarian, write a creative essay entitled, “The Duterte Administration’s
Response to COVID-19 Pandemic.”

Essay Rubric

Points
5 4 3 2 1
Earned

The essay The essay The essay The essay The essay
is fully is is is shows
IDEAS focused consistentl sufficiently minimally little or
● Controlling and y focused focused focused. no focus
idea contains a and and The and the
● Supporting wealth of contains contains provided ideas are
ideas ideas and ample some ideas examples unclear,
● Use of examples. ideas and and are vague irrelevant
details The writer examples. examples. or general , or
● Awareness
uses The writer The and the repetitive
of purpose
● Sense of rhetorical may response is response . The
completeness strategies employ generally demonstrat response
and rhetorical appropriate es minimal is
addresses strategies to the awareness. incomplet
counterarg or address persuasive e or too
uments. counterarg purpose. brief.
uments.

1
Ethics- BatStateU

MODULE 18
GLOBALIZATION AND ITS ETHICAL CHALLENGES

Learning Objectives
At the end of the topic, students are expected to:
a) to define globalization;
b) to identify some emerging problems in globalization;
c) to identify some ethical challenges of globalization;
d) to identify business ethics issues on globalization.

Learning Content

What is Globalization?

Globalization has become the trend of unity among countries as this concept made scattered
states one interact with each other. Globalization is defined through the following:

a. the world-wide integration of government policies, cultures, social movements, and

financial markets through trade and the exchange of ideas;
b. intensification of worldwide relationships which link distant localities in such a way that
local happenings are shaped by events occurring many miles away and vice versa.
c. It is the stress on trans-nationalization of the connections taking place in the world
today.

Some Problems with Globalization

1. It uses up finite resources more quickly. Once one country opens up their product to the
world wherein all countries can avail, there is a big possibility of depleting the supply.
2. Increases world carbon dioxide.
3. It makes it virtually impossible for regulators in one country to foresee the worldwide
implications of their actions.
4. It acts to increase world oil prices.
5. It transfers consumption of limited oil supply from developed countries to developing
countries.
6. It transfers jobs from developed countries to less developed countries.
7. It transfers investment spending from developed countries to less developed countries.
8. With the dollar as the world’s reserve currency, globalization leads to a huge US balance
of trade deficits and other imbalances.
9. It tends to move taxation away from corporations, and onto individual citizens.
10. It sets up a currency “race to the bottom” with each country trying to get an export
advantage by dropping the value of its currency.
Ethics- BatStateU

11. It encourages dependence on other countries for essential goods and services.
12. It ties countries together, so that if one country collapses, the collapse is likely to ripple
through the system, pulling many other countries with it.

Some Ethical Challenges of Globalization

It cannot be denied that globalization has an emerging challenge to address. They can be
deduced from the following:
1. Wealth concentration for the few and leaving behind the majority.
2. Laissez-faire capitalism deepens the inequalities within and between nations for
consequentialist and deontological standpoints.
3. States are losing their own sovereignty.
4. Problem of handling the global environment in order to prevent a global ecological
collapse.
5. Explosive population growth which threatens to surpass the earth’s carrying capacity and
bust the biosphere.

Some Emerging Issues of Globalization and Business Ethics

As globalization is largely an economic concept and system, it is reasonable to enumerate
the different concerns in Business Ethics. Business ethics is defined as a form of an applied ethics
that examines moral principles concerning business environment involving issues about:
● corporate policies;
● corporate practices;
● business behaviors; and
● the conducts and relationships of individuals in the organization.
1. duplication/ imitation of products;
2. child labor;
3. money laundering;
4. environmental issues;
5. and other business malpractices and crimes
● cyber crimes
● seuxal harrasments
● intellectual property
● patent thefts

Learning Activity
Directions: Make a video clip showing something you possess now as a product of
globalization then explain how it is part of globalization.

1
Ethics- BatStateU

MODULE 20
MILLENIALS AND FILINIALS: ETHICAL CHALLENGES AND RESPONSES

Learning Objectives
At the end of the topic, students are expected to:
a) identify their own characteristics as compared to the researches
b) To understand the negative and positive characteristics of Millennials and Filinials
c) To identify the differences between Millennials and other Generation.

Learning Content
I. Millennials and Filinials

Millennials are the demographic cohort directly following the Generation X. It is also
known as ‘Generation Y’ or the ‘Net Generation’. The Center for Generational Kinetics mentions
five generations that presently make up our society and specifies birth years for each generation
as follows:

Birth Year Cluster Generation Name

1996 and later Gen Z, iGen, or Centennials

1977 to 1995 Millennials or Gen Y

1965 to 1976 Generation X

1946 to 1964 Baby Boomers

1954 and earlier Traditionalists or Silent Generation

Millenials are generally the children of baby boomers and older Gen Xers. In Filipino
terms, Millennials are called Filinials as adapted from Filipino.

Filinials are commonly characterized by an increased use and familiarity with

communications, media, and digital technologies. They are also known to be an advanced
generation in terms of technology utilization. Even in terms of work ethics, they are known to be
non-linear individuals which the traditionalists sometimes misunderstand. They are also marked
by an increase in a liberal approach to politics, economics, and morality, although this claim is
disputed.

Seven Basic Traits of Millennials

1
Ethics- BatStateU

1. special- They are the most educated generation on record.

2. sheltered- Since birth, they are known to be from many forms of protection. They are the
most protected generation since their birth.
3. confident- They are known to be less religious, less serve the military yet as the most
educated generation.
4. team-oriented (disputed trait)- They like to band together to socialize in groups. In
schools, they prefer working with groups rather than individuals.
5. conventional- They take pride in their improving behavior. Their taste to arts and music is
less extreme than the previous generations.
6. pressured- They wish to be ahead of many things, successful and take advantage of
opportunities but avoiding taking risks.
7. achieving- They are known to be of many achievements as youngsters. These can be
associated with their being proactive in life.

Visit this site for more information: https://blogs.adams.edu/event-planning-

leadership/files/2011/08/Chapter-13.pdf

II. Ethical Outlook and Cultural Identity

In 2013, 2014 researches resulted the following:

1. millennials were more open minded than their parents on some controversial matters. 84%
of millennials favored legalizing this marijuana.
2. in adulthood, they are detached from institutions and networked with friends.
3. found to be a pragmatic idealist in approach to social change.

❖ They are also called Boomerang Generation or Peter Pan because of their perceived
tendencies for delaying some rites of passage in adulthood for longer periods than
most generations before them and for living with their parents for longer periods
than previous generations.
❖ Generation Y are very cheerful and enthusiast and more open to change than older
generations.
❖ Most millennials of every religion, race, and ethnicity support access to affordable
contraception. some connotes that choosing an abortion is the most responsible
decision that a woman can make.

Some other findings are:

a. Some Millennials say that marriage is old fashioned and out of date while most of them
disagree.
b. Millennials belong to four-way split:
● pro-life
● pro-choice
● no both pro life and choice
● equal by pro choice and life.
c. few of them are either lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender.

III. Work Ethics

Ethics- BatStateU

POSITIVE NOTES

BOOMERS Millennials

● hardworking ● tech-savvy
● idealistic ● appreciative of diversity
● committed to harmony ● skilled in multitasking

NEGATIVE NOTES

● self-centered with sense of entitlement ● lack basic literacy fundamentals

● workaholics ● very short attention span
● self-motivated ● not loyal to organizations
● don't appreciate feedbacks ● demand immediate feedbacks and
recognition
● integrate technology in the workplace
● expect of many employers and careers
● work dress is whatever feel
comfortable

What do Millennials believed in to be ethical in the Workplace:

1. using social networking to find out about the company’s competitors= 37%
2. “Friending” a client or customer on social media= 36%
3. uploading personal photos on a company network= 26%
4. keeping copies of confidential documents= 22%
5. working less to compensate for cuts in benefits or pay= 18%
6. buying personal items using a company credit card= 15%
7. blogging or tweeting negatively about a company= 14%
8. taking a copy of work software home for personal use= 13%

The widespread use of social media appears to pose challenges, as substantial numbers of
Millenials post questionable information on their personal social media accounts including the
following:
1. feeling about their jobs= 40%
2. bad joke told by the boos= 26%
3. work on a project= 26%
4. picture of a co worker drinking= 22%
5. annoying habit of a coworker= 20%
6. information about the company’s competitors= 19%
7. opinion about coworkers’s politics= 16%