ETHICS:

FOUNDATIONS
OF MORAL
VALUATION

CHAPTER 1
THE ETHICAL DIMENSION OF HUMAN EXISTENCE
Ethics
About matters such as the good thing that we should pursue and the bad thing that we
should avoid the right ways in which we could or should act and the wrong ways of
acting.
It is about what is acceptable and unacceptable in human behavior. It may involve
obligations that we are expected to fulfill, prohibitions that we are required to respect,
or ideals that we are encouraged to meet
CLARIFICATIONS AND TERMINOLOGY
Recognizing the notions of good and bad, and right and wrong, are the primary concern of
ethics. In order to start, it would be useful to clarify the following points.

Kinds of Valuation
Our first point of clarification is to recognize that there are instances when we make value
judgments that are not considered to be part of ethics.
For instance, I could say that this new movie I had just seen was a "good" one because I
enjoyed it, or a song I had just heard on the radio was a "bad" one because it had an
unpleasant tone, but these are not part of a discussion of ethics.
I may have an opinion as to what is the "right" dip (sawsawan) for my chicken barbecue,
or I may maintain that it is "wrong" to wear a leather vest over a Barong Tagalog, and
these are not concerns of ethics.
These are valuations that fall under the domain of aesthetics.
Aesthetics -Derived from the Greek word aisthesis ("sense" or "feeling") and refers to the
judgments of personal approval or disapproval that we make about what we see, hear, smell, or
taste. In fact, we often use the word "taste" to refer to the personal aesthetic preferences that
we have on these matters, such as "his taste in music" or "her taste in clothes.

Etiquette – Defined as politeness, consideration, thoughtfulness, good manners and behavior.

 Example: I may think that it is "right" to knock politely on someone's door, while it is
"wrong" to barge into one's office. Perhaps I may approve of a child who knows how to
ask for something properly by saying. "please" and otherwise, disapprove of a woman
that I see picking her nose in public.
"technique" and "technical" which are often used to refer to a proper way (or right way) of
doing things, but a technical valuation (or right and wrong technique of doing things) may not
necessarily be an ethical one as these examples show

 Example: This could also be when learning how to bake, for instance. I am told that the
right thing to do would be to mix the dry ingredients first, such as flour or sugar before
bringing in any liquids, like milk or cream this is the right thing to do in baking, but not
one that belongs to a discussion of ethics. This could also be when the learning how to
play basketball. I am instructed that it is against the rules to walk more than two steps
without dribbling the ball, again, obeying this rule to not travel is something that makes
sense only in the context of the game and not an ethical prohibition.
Recognizing the characteristics of aesthetic and technical valuation allows us to have a rough
guide as to what belongs to a discussion of ethics.

Ethics and Morals

Morals
Refer to specific beliefs or attitudes that people have or to describe acts that people
perform.
Sometimes said that an individual's personal conduct is referred to as his morals, and if
he falls short of behaving properly, this can be described as immoral.

In addition, with regard to the acceptable and unacceptable ways of behaving in a given
field, we have the term "professional ethics".

Professional Ethics
(eg. legal ethics for the proper comportment of lawyers and other people in the
legal profession, medical ethics for doctors and nurses; and media ethics for writers
and reporters)
Our third point of clarification is to distinguish between a descriptive and a normative study of
ethics.
Descriptive Study of Ethics
Reports how people, particularly groups, make their moral valuations without
making any judgment either for or against these valuations.
 This kind of study is often the work of the social scientist: either a historian
(studying different moral standards over time) or a sociologist or an anthropologist
(studying different moral standards across cultures).
Normative Study of Ethics
Often done in philosophy or moral theology, engages the question: What could or
should be considered as the right way of acting?
A normative discussion prescribes what we to maintain as our standards or bases for
moral valuation.
When engaging in a discussion of ethics, it is always advisable to recognize whether one is
concerned with a descriptive view (eg, noting how filial piety and obedience are pervasive
characteristics of Chinese culture) or with a normative perspective (e.g. studying how
Confucian ethics enjoins us to obey our parents and to show filial piety).

Issue, Decision, Judgment, and Dilemma

As the final point of clarification, it may be helpful to distinguish a situation that calls for moral
valuation. It can be called a moral issue. For instance, imagine a situation wherein a person
cannot afford a certain item, but then the possibility presents itself for her to steal it. This is a
matter of ethics (and not just law) insofar as it involves the question of respect for one's
property. We should add that issue is also often used to refer to those particular situations that
are often the source of considerable and inconclusive debate (thus, we would often hear topics
such as capital punishment and euthanasia as moral "issues").
Moral Decision
When one is placed in a situation and confronted by the choice of what act to perform
For instance, I choose not to take something I did not pay for.

Moral Judgment
When a person is an observer who makes an assessment on the actions or behavior of
someone. For instance, a friend of mine chooses to steal from a store, and I make an
assessment that it is wrong.
Moral Dilemma
Going beyond the matter of choosing right over wrong, or good over bad, and
considering instead the more complicated situation wherein one is torn between
choosing one of two goods or choosing between the lesser of two evils:
We have a moral dilemma when an individual can choose only one from a number of
possible actions, and there are compelling ethical reasons for the various choices .
 Example: A mother may be conflicted between wanting to feed her hungry child, but
then recognizing that it would be wrong for her to steal is an example of a moral
dilemma.
REASONING
A person's fear of punishment or desire for reward can provide him a reason for acting in a
certain way.

 It is common to hear someone say "I did not cheat on the exam because I was afraid
that I might get caught" or "I looked after my father in the hospital because I wanted to
get a higher allowance in a certain sense, fear of punishment and desire for reward can
be spoken of as giving someone a "reason for acting in a certain way ,But the question
then would be: Is this reason good enough? That is to say, this way of thinking seems to
be a shallow way of understanding reason because it does not show any true
understanding of why cheating on an exam is wrong or why looking after a member of
my family is in itself a good thing.
 The promise of rewards and the fear of punishments can certainly motivate us to act,
but are not in themselves a determinant of the rightness or wrongness of a certain way
of acting or of the good or the bad in a particular pursuit.
 I am in a situation wherein I could obtain a higher grade for myself by cheating. I make
the decision not to do so. Or I know that my friend was in a position to get a better.
grade for herself by cheating. She refuses to do so; I then make the judgment of praising
her for this. In making this kind of moral decision or moral judgment, the question can
be asked: Why?
Asking the question "why" might bring us to no more than a superficial discussion of rewards
and punishments, as seen above, but it could also bring us to another level of thinking.

Moral theory
A systematic attempt to establish the validity of maintaining certain moral principles.
Theory - a system of thought or ideas, it can also be referred to as a framework. We can use
this term, "framework as a theory of interconnected ideas, and at the same time, a structure
through which we can evaluate our reasons for valuing a certain decision or judgment.

There are different frameworks that can make us reflect on the principles that we maintain and
thus, the decisions and judgments we make.
SOURCES OF AUTHORITY
Several common ways of thinking about ethics are based on the idea that the standards of
valuation are imposed by a higher authority that commands our obedience. In the following
section, we will explore three of such ideas: the authority of the law, the authority of one's
religion, and the authority of one's own culture,
LAW
One's guide to ethical behavior.
Is enforced by way of a system of sanctions administered through persons and
institutions, which all help in compelling us to obey. Taking the law to be the basis of
ethics has the benefit of providing us with an objective standard that is obligatory and
applicable to all. So, we would not be surprised if we were to hear someone say,
"Ethics? It is simple. Just follow whatever the law says.

In the Philippines, Filipinos are constrained to obey the laws of the land as stated in the
country's criminal and civil codes.

 In Cebu, residents are constrained to follow any provincial laws or city ordinances.
One can easily imagine this becoming even more localized to the barangay or village
level, where local or municipal layers of obligation are there for residents to follow.
Positive Law
Refers to the different rules and regulations that are posited or put forward by an
authority figure that require compliance.
 We recognize that there are many acts that we immediately consider unethical (e.g.,
murder or theft), which we also know are forbidden by law.
 The law does not tell us what we should do; it works by constraining us from
performing acts that we should not do. To put it slightly differently, the law cannot
tell us what to pursue, only what to avoid.
To make this point concrete, recall the story of toddler who had been run over by couple of
vehicles. While there many passers-by who witnessed what had happened, for quite long while,
one did anything to help. The child later died hospital. law does oblige people help others so
none of these passers-by were guilty of breaking any people reacting this sad share sense
passers-by were somewhat culpable in negligence. In view of all perhaps one should think of
ethics in way that does simply identify it with obedience to law.

RELIGION
"Love the Lord, Your God, therefore, and always heed his charge: his statutes, decrees, and
commandments." (New American Bible)
o This verse the first line Chapter 11 of the book of Deuteronomy. It expresses claim that
many people of religious sensibility find appealing and immediately valid: the idea that
one obliged to obey her God all things.
As foundation for ethical values, this referred to the divine command theory.
o The divinity called God, Allah, or Supreme Being commands and one obliged to obey her
Creator. There are persons and texts that one believes are linked the Divine. By listening
to these figures and reading these writings, an individual discovers how the Divine
wants her to act. Further, someone maintaining a more radical form this theory might
go beyond these instruments of divine revelation and claim that God "spoke to her
directly to instruct her what to do.
At first glance, this seems to make lot of sense. Many of us had been brought up with one form
religious upbringing or another, so it very possible that there is strong inclination in us refer to
our religious background to back up our moral valuations. We are presented with more-or-less
clear code of prohibitions and many of these prohibitions given by religion-Thou shall not kill,
"Thou shall not steal," and "Thou shall not commit adultery-seem to intuitively coincide with
our sense of what ethics should rightly demand.
However, there are some problems with this. First, on the practical level, we realize the
presence of a multiplicity of religions Each faith demands differently from its adherents, which
would apparently result in conflicting ethical standards. For instance, certain religions have
prohibitions concerning what food may be consumed, while others do not share the same
constraints.

CULTURE:
o Our exposure to different societies and their cultures makes aware that there ways of
thinking valuing different from that fact wide diversity how people act.
There are aesthetic differences (Japanese art), religious differences (Buddhism Christianity),
and differences (conflicting behaviors regarding dining practices) In these bases, become easy
conclude that the in ethics well.
 This discussion would not be complete if we were to ignore the topic of Filipino values Early in our
upbringing, we were taught about certain valuable traits that we say are characteristics of Filipinos,
such as respect for the elderly, close family ties, sense of hospitality, and also of solidarity with
others at times of distress. We proudly say that we value these qualities of Filipinos.

SENSES OF THE SELF

It is sometimes thought that one should not rely on any external authority to tell oneself what
the standards of moral valuation are, but should instead turn inwards. In this section, we will
look into three theories about ethics that center on the self: subjectivism, psychological egoism,
and ethical egoism.

SUBJECTIVISM
The starting point of subjectivism is the recognition that the individual thinking person
(the subject) is at the heart of all moral valuations. She is the one who is confronted
with the situation and is burdened with the need to make a decision or judgment.
From this point, subjectivism leaps to the more radical claim that the individual is the
sole determinant of what is morally good or bad, right or wrong .
A number of clichés familiar to us would echo this idea
"No one can tell me what is right and wrong"
"No one knows my situation better than myself"
"I am entitled to my own opinion"
"It is good if I say that it is good"

PSYCHOLOGICAL EGOISM
"Human beings are naturally self-centered, so all our actions are always already motivated by
self-interest."
A theory that describes the underlying dynamic behind all human actions. As a
descriptive theory, it does not direct one to act in any particular way. Instead, it points
out that there is already an underlying basis for how one acts.
The ego or self has its desires and interests, and all our actions are geared toward satisfying
these interests. This may not seem particularly problematic when we consider many of the
actions that we do on a day-to-day basis.
o Example: I watch a movie or read a book because I want to, or go for a walk and do
some window shopping in the mall because I enjoy that.
o I take a certain course in college because I think it will benefit me, or I join an
organization because I will get some good out of it.
We do things in pursuit of our own self-interest all the time.
But what about other types of behavior that we would commonly say are directed toward the
other?

 For example, an act of generosity, in which someone helps a friend with her thesis
rather than play videogames, or someone makes use of her free Saturday helping build
houses for Gawad Kalinga? The psychological egoist would maintain that underlying
such apparently other-directed behavior is a self-serving desire, even if one does not
acknowledge it or is even conscious of it. Perhaps he only helped his friend with her
thesis because he is trying to impress her. Perhaps she helps out with Gawad Kalinga
because this is how she relieves her sense of guilt at being well-off compared to others.
The idea is that whether or not the person admits it, one's actions are ultimately always
motivated by self-serving desire.

ETHICAL EGOISM
Prescribes that we should make our own ends, our own interests, as the single
overriding concern. We may act in a way that is beneficial to others, but we should do
that only if it ultimately benefits us.
This theory acknowledges that it is a dog-eat-dog world out there and given that
everyone ought to put herself at the center .One should consider herself as the priority
and not allow any other concerns, such as the welfare of other people to detract from
this pursuit.

Ethical egoism differs from psychological egoism in that it does not suppose all our actions are
already inevitably self-serving.
It is clear that we have our interests and desires, and would want them satisfied. Thus, this
question can be asked: Why should I have any concern about the interests of others? In a
sense, this question challenges in a fundamental way the idea of not just a study of ethics, but
also the effort of being ethical .
 CHAPTER II UTILITARIANISM

Utilitarianism
An ethical theory that argues for the goodness of pleasure and the determination of right
behavior based on the usefulness of the action's consequences. This means that
pleasure is good and that the goodness of an action is determined by its usefulness.
Utilitarianism claims that one's actions and behavior are good in as much as they are
directed toward the experience of the greatest pleasure over pain for the greatest
number of persons.
Its root word is "utility, which refers to the usefulness of the consequences of one's action and
behavior.

The two foremost utilitarian thinkers:

Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832)

Was born on February 15, 1748 in London, England.

He was the teacher of James Mill, father of John Stuart Mill. Bentham first wrote about
the greatest happiness principle of ethics and was known for a system of penal
management called panopticon.
He was an advocate of economic freedom, women's rights, and the separation of
church and state, among others.
He was also an advocate of animal rights and the abolition of slavery, death penalty,
and corporal punishment for children. Bentham denied individual legal rights nor agreed
with the natural law.
On his death on June 6, 1832, Bentham donated his corpse to the University College
London, where his auto-icon is in public display up to this day to serve as his memorial.
  Their system of ethics emphasizes the consequences that the goodness badness action
based whether useful in contributing to specific purpose the greatest number of people
Utilitarianism consequentialist. This means that moral value actions and decisions based
greatly on usefulness of their consequences; it is the usefulness results that determines
action behavior is good. or bad.
 For Bentham utility way of understanding the results people's actions. Specifically, they
interested whether these actions contribute not to total amount of resulting happiness
the world.
 The utilitarian value pleasure happiness, means that the usefulness actions is based its
promotion of happiness. Bentham and Mill understand happiness the experience
pleasure of pleasure for the greatest number of persons, even at the expense of some
individuals’ rights.

THE PRINCIPLE OF UTILITY

Jeremy Bentham begins arguing that are governed two "sovereign masters" which calls
pleasure and These "masters" are given us by nature help us determine what good or and
ought to throne.

The principle of utility is about our subjection to these sovereign masters: pleasure. and
pain.
On one hand, the principle refers to the motivation of our actions as guided by our
avoidance of pain and our desire for pleasure. It is like saying that in our everyday
actions, we do what is pleasurable and we do not do what is painful.
On the other hand, the principle also refers to pleasure as good if, and only if, they
produce more happiness than unhappiness. This means that it is not enough to
experience pleasure, but to also inquire whether the things we do make us happier.
Having identified the tendency for pleasure and the avoidance of pain as the principle of
utility, Bentham equates happiness with pleasure.
Mill supports Bentham's principle of utility.
 He reiterates moral good as happiness and, consequently, happiness as pleasure.
 Mill clarifies that what makes people happy is intended pleasure and what makes us
unhappy is the privation of pleasure.
 The things that produce happiness and pleasure are good, whereas, those that produce
unhappiness and pain are bad Mill explains:
 Mill argues that we act and do things because we find them pleasurable and we avoid
doing things because they are painful. If we find our actions pleasurable, Mill explains, it
 is because they are inherently pleasurable in themselves or they eventually lead to the
promotion of pleasure and the avoidance of pain.

John Stuart Mill (1806-1873)

 Was born on May 20, in Pentonville
 John Stuart Mill was home-schooled.
 He studied Greek at the age three and Latin the age eight.
 He wrote history Roman Law eleven, suffered nervous breakdown at of twenty was
married to Harriet after one years friendship.
 His ethical theory defense utilitarian views are found in his long essay entitled
Utilitarianism (1861).
 Died on May 8,1873 in Avignon, France form erysipelas.

In determining the moral preferability of actions, Bentham provides a framework for evaluating
pleasure and pain commonly called felicific calculus.
Felicific calculus
A common currency framework that calculates the pleasure that some actions can
produce.
In this framework, an action can be evaluated on the basis of intensity or strength of
pleasure duration or length of the experience of pleasure; certainty, uncertainty, or the
likelihood that pleasure will occur, and propinquity, remoteness, or how soon there will
be pleasure.
These indicators allow us to measure pleasure and pain in an action.
Felicific calculus allows the evaluation of all actions and their resultant pleasure. This
means that actions are evaluated on this single scale regardless of preferences and
values. In this sense, pleasure and pain can only quantitatively differ but not
qualitatively differ from other experiences of pleasure and pain accordingly.
Mill dissents from Bentham's single scale of pleasure.

 He thinks that the principle of utility must distinguish pleasures qualitatively and not
merely quantitatively.
 For Mill, utilitarianism cannot promote the kind of pleasures appropriate to pigs or to
any other animals.
 He thinks that there are higher intellectual and lower base pleasures. We, as moral
agents, are capable of searching and desiring higher intellectual pleasures more than
pigs are capable of.
 Mill recognizes the empirical fact that there are different kinds of pleasures:

It is quite compatible with the principle of utility to recognize the fact that some kinds of
pleasure are more desirable and more valuable than others. It would be absurd that while,
in estimating all other things, quality is considered as well as quantity, the estimation of
pleasure should be supposed to depend on quantity alone.

Mill argues that quality is more preferable than quantity. An excessive quantity of what is
otherwise pleasurable might result in pain.
For example, our experience of excessive eating or exercising. Whereas eating the right
amount of food can be pleasurable, excessive eating may not be. The same is true when
exercising. If the quality of pleasure is sometimes more important than quantity, then it
is important to consider the standards whereby differences of pleasures can be judged.

PRINCIPLE OF THE GREATEST NUMBER

Equating happiness with pleasure does not aim to describe the utilitarian moral agent alone
and independently from others. This is not only about our individual pleasures, regardless of
how high, intellectual, or in other ways noble it is, but it is also about the pleasure of the
greatest number affected by the consequences of our actions.
Utilitarianism cannot lead to selfish acts. It is neither about our pleasure nor happiness
alone; it cannot be all about us. If we are the only ones satisfied by our actions, it does
not constitute a moral good.
If we are the only ones who are made happy by our actions, then we cannot be morally
good. In this sense, utilitarianism is not dismissive of sacrifices that procure more
happiness for others.
Therefore, it is necessary for us to consider everyone's happiness, including our own, as
the standard by which to evaluate what is moral.
Utilitarianism is interested with everyone's happiness, in fact, the greatest happiness of
the greatest number.
Utilitarianism is interested with the best consequence for the highest number of people.
It is not interested with the intention of the agent.
JUSTICE AND MORAL RIGHTS
Mill understands justice as a respect for rights directed toward society's pursuit for the greatest
happiness of the greatest number.
What is a right? For Mill
Rights are a valid claim on society and are justified by utility.
Are related to the interests that serve general happiness. The right to due process, the
right to free speech or religion, and others are justified because they contribute to the
general good.
This means that society is made happier if its citizens are able to live their lives knowing
that their interests are protected and that society (as a whole) defends it. In this
context, our participation in government and social interactions can be explained by the
principle of utility and be clarified by Mill's consequentialism. Mill further associates
utilitarianism with the possession of legal and moral rights.

While it can be justified why others violate legal rights, it is an act of injustice to violate an
individual's moral rights. However, Mill seems to provide some extenuating circumstances in
which some moral rights can be overridden for the sake of the greater general happiness. Going
back to the case of wiretapping, it seems that one's right to privacy can be sacrificed for the
sake of the common good. This means that moral rights are only justifiable by considerations of
greater overall happiness.
 CHAPTER III: NATURAL LAW

INTRODUCTION

In October 2016, newspapers reported that Pantaleon Alvarez, Speaker of the House of
Representatives, was intending to draft a bill which would amend the country's Family Code,
thereby allowing for the legalization of same-sex unions. This would result in the possibility of
two men together or two women together being identified as a couple with rights guaranteed
and protected by the law. However, as one newspaper report revealed, even before anything
could be formally proposed, other fellow legislators had already expressed to the media their
refusal to support any such initiative.
The reasons given in the news article vary, ranging from the opinion that seeing two men kiss is
unsightly, to the statement that there is something "irregular" about belonging to the Lesbian,
Gay, Bisexual, Transgender (LGBT) community, and to the judgment that two people of the
same sex being together is unnatural.
We are used to hearing people justify done something by making the appeal that what they
maintain is what is "natural," and therefore acceptable. Likewise, people would judge
something as unacceptable on the basis that it is supposedly "unnatural" Thus, we are no
longer surprised when we hear people condemn and label many different things as "unnatural":
maybe receiving blood transfusions, eating meat, or, as our news report shows, engaging in
sexual relations that one might consider deviant. We also realize that sometimes we might find
ourselves astonished or perplexed as to what different people might consider "unnatural.

In order to proceed, it is therefore necessary to ask: "What do the words natural and
unnatural mean?" Sometimes, the word "natural" seems to be used to refer to some kind of
intuition that a person has, one which is so apparently true to him that it is unquestioned.
o For example, a woman may claim that it is simply "unnatural" to eat any kind of insect,
and what this means is that she personally finds herself averse to the idea of doing so.
o In other instances, the word is used to try to justify a certain way of behaving by seeing
its likeness somewhere in the natural world. For example, a man might claim that it is
 okay for him to have more than one sexual partner, since, in a pride of lions, the alpha
male gets to mate with all the she-lions.
In yet other instances, the word "natural" is used as an appeal to something. instinctual without
it being directed by reason.
o For example, a man may deem it all right if he were to urinate just anywhere because
after all he sees it as "natural" function of humans.
o Lastly, we also easily find people using the word "natural" to refer to what seems
common to them given their particular environment. For instance, a Filipina may
suppose that eating three full meals of rice and ulam every day is what is "natural"
because everyone she knows behaves in that way.
Given these varied meanings of the term "natural" we need to find a more solid and nuanced
way to understand the term. In this chapter, we will explore how Thomas Aquinas provides this,
emphasizing the capacity for reason as what is essential in our human nature. This
understanding of human nature anchored on our capacity for reason will become the basis of
the natural law theory, a theory which will provide us a unique way of determining the moral
status of our actions.
 There have been various thinkers and systems of thought emerging throughout history
that could be said to present a natural law theory. Among them, the one we will be
focusing on is the medieval thinker Thomas Aquinas. It has to be recognized, however,
that this natural law theory is part of a larger discussion, which is his moral theory taken
as a whole. This moral theory, in turn, is part of a larger project, which is Aquinas's
vision of the Christian faith. Before we turn to the natural law theory, let us take a look
at these contexts.

THE CONTEXT OF THE CHRISTIAN STORY

The fundamental truth maintained and elaborated by Aquinas in all his works is the promise
right at the center of the Christian faith: that are created by God in order to ultimately return to
Him.
There are three parts to this voluminous work.
In the first part, Aquinas speaks of God, and although we acknowledge that our limited human
intellect cannot fully grasp. Him, we nevertheless are able to say something concerning His
goodness, His might, and His creative power Recognizing then that we are created by God,
Second part, which deals with man or the dynamic of human life. This is characterized by our
pursuit of happiness, which we should realize rests ultimately not on any particular good thing
that is created by God, but in the highest good which is God Himself Our striving for this
ultimate happiness, while important, will not in itself bring us to this blessed state.
In other words, salvation is only possible through the presence of God's grace and that grace
has become perfectly incarnate in the person of Jesus.
Third part focuses on Jesus as our Savior

Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274)

Hailed as a doctor of the Roman Catholic Church.
A Dominican friar who was the preeminent intellectual figure of the scholastic period of
the Middle Ages, contributing to the doctrine of the faith more than any other figure of
his time.
His Summa Theologiae, Aquinas's magnum opus, is a voluminous work that
comprehensively discusses many significant points in Christian theology.
He was canonized in 1323.
Given that our concern here is the question of ethics, it would seem clear that what would be of
greatest interest to us is the second part or the section of this story that centers on human life
and its striving toward God.
THE CONTEXT OF AQUINAS'S ETHICS
A full consideration of Aquinas's ethics would require us to explore his discussion of
other matters, such as how, in our pursuit of happiness, we direct our actions toward
specific ends. We might explore how emotions-"the passions"-are involved in this
process, and therefore require a proper order if they are to properly contribute to a
good life.
We might explore how our actions are related to certain dispositions (often referred to
as "habits") in a dynamic way since our actions both arise from our habits and at the
same time reinforce them.
We might explore his discussion of how we develop either good or bad habits with a
good disposition leading us toward making moral choices, thereby contributing to our
moral virtue, and a bad disposition inclining us toward making immoral choices, bringing
us to vice.
The Christian life, therefore, is about developing the capacities given to us by God into a
disposition of virtue inclined toward the good.
Aquinas also puts forward that there is within us a conscience that directs our moral
thinking. This does not refer to some simple intuition or gut feeling. For Aquinas, there is
a sense of right and wrong in us that we are obliged to obey. However, he also adds that
this sense of right and wrong must be informed, guided, and ultimately grounded in an
objective basis for morality
THE ESSENCE AND VARIETIES OF LAW

ESSENCE

As rational beings, we have free will. Through our capacity for reason, we are able to
judge between possibilities and to choose to direct our actions in one way or the other.
Our actions are directed toward attaining ends or goods that we desire.
Example: We work on a project to complete it. We study in order to learn. My
mother bakes in order to come up with some cookies. Maybe my brother
practices playing his guitar in order to get better at it. It can also be as simple as
the fact that I play basketball because I enjoy doing so. These are goods, and we
act in a certain way to pursue them, so goods are sometimes referred to as the
ends of actions.
There are many possible desirable ends or goods, and we act in such ways as to pursue
them. However, just because we think that a certain end is good and is therefore
desirable does not necessarily mean it is indeed good.
It is possible to first suppose that something is good only to realize later that doing so
was a mistake.
This is why it is important for reason to always be part of the process. Acts are rightly
directed toward their ends by reason." But this does not simply mean that through
reason we can figure out how to pursue something that we already had thoughtlessly
supposed to be good for us, what is necessary is to think carefully of what really is in
fact good for us.
In thinking about what is good for us, it is also quite possible that we end up thinking
exclusively of our own good.
Aquinas reminds us that this will not do; we cannot simply act in pursuit of our own
ends or good without any regard for other people's ends or good.

Common Good
We are not isolated beings, but beings who belong to a community. Since we belong to
a community, we have to consider what is good for the community as well as our own
good.
 What exactly the common good is might not always be easy to determine as there. are
many variables to consider, such as the particular community we are thinking of or the
particular ends that the community is pursuing. But that need not occupy us right now.
What is of greater significance for us here is the recognition that, since we must
consider not just our own good but also that of others, we cannot act in just any which
way; there would have to be some kind of measure to our acts.
The determination of the proper measure of our acts can be referred to as law.
Using a simple example, we can think of traffic rules. A motorist cannot just drive
in any way he likes, but must respect traffic rules. These rules seem to measure
or place a limit on his driving, for example, by placing a maximum speed he can
travel on a particular a limit or such rule something good, for both him for others
motor accidents. Aquinas relationship universal happiness. therefore, concerned
with the common good.
VARIETIES

Eternal law refers to what God wills for creation, how each participant in it is
intended to return to Him. Given our limitations, we cannot grasp the fullness of
the eternal law. Nevertheless, it is not completely opaque to us.
We must recognize that first, we are part of the eternal law, and second, we
participate in it in a special way.
All things partake in the eternal law, meaning, all beings are already created by
God in a certain way intended to return to Him. Thus, we can find in them the
very imprint of the rule and measure of the acts by which they are guided. These
can be determined in the very inclinations that they possess, directing their acts
toward their proper ends.
Irrational creatures (e.g. plants and animals) are participating in the eternal law,
although we could hardly say that they are in any way "conscious" of this law.
Aquinas notes that we cannot speak of them as obeying the law, except by way
of similitude," which is to say that they do not think of the law or chose to obey
it, but are simply, through the instinctual following of their nature, complying
with the law that God has for them.
These creatures are moved by divine providence.
Human being's participation is different. The human being as rational,
participates more fully and perfectly in the law given the capacity for reason.
The unique imprint upon us, upon our human nature by God, is the capacity to
think about what is good and what is evil, and to choose and direct ourselves
appropriately.
Human law refers to all instances wherein human beings construct and enforce laws in their
communities.
 o Given the larger picture of Aquinas's view, one would have a basis for assessing the
validity or invalidity of a human law: whether or not it conforms to the natural law.
o Insofar as a human law goes against what nature inclines us toward, it is not properly
speaking a law-in the ideal sense of directing us to the common good-but instead is
unjust and can be called a matter of violence.

Finally, Aquinas asks us to recall that there is a certain form of happiness that is
proportionate to our human nature, which we can obtain by means of our natural
principles However, there also is another, more complete, happiness that surpasses
human's nature, a supernatural happiness that can be obtained through the power of
God alone. To direct us toward our supernatural end, we had been given further
instructions in the form of divine law. This term, often confused with eternal law, refers
specifically to the instances where we have precepts or instructions that come from
divine revelation. For example, we have what is handed down to us in the sacred
Scriptures (eg, the Ten Commandments in the book Exodus in the Old Testament or
Jesus's injunction to love one's neighbor in the Gospels).

NATURAL LAW

The Natural Law

Summa Theologiae 1-2, Question 94, Article 2¹ Thomas Aquinas
Since, however, good has the nature of an end, and evil, the nature of a contrary, hence it is that all
those things to which man has a natural inclination, are naturally apprehended by reason as being
good, and consequently as objects of pursuit, and their contraries as evil, and objects of avoidance.
Wherefore according to the order of natural inclinations, is the order of the precepts of the natural
law. Because in man there is first of all an inclination to good in accordance with the nature which
he has in common with all substances inasmuch as every substance seeks the preservation of its
own being, according to its nature: and by reason of this inclination, whatever is a means of
preserving human life, and of warding off its obstacles, belongs to the natural law. Secondly, there
is in man an inclination to things that pertain to him more specially, according to that nature which
he has in common with other animals and in virtue of this inclination, those things are said to
belong to the natural law, "which nature has taught to all animals, such as sexual intercourse,
education of offspring and so forth. Thirdly, there is in man an inclination to good, according to the
nature of his reason, which nature is proper to him thus man has a natural inclination to know the
truth about God, and to live in society and in this respect, whatever pertains to this inclination
belongs to the natural law, for instance, to shun ignorance, to avoid offending those among whom
 one has to live, and other such things regarding the above inclination.

We may now turn to the specifics concerning the natural law

In Common with Other Beings

In reading Aquinas, we have to consider how we, human beings, are both unique
and at the same time participating in the community of the rest of creation.
Aquinas thus identifies first that there is in our nature, common with all other
beings, a desire to preserve one's own being.
o A makahiya leaf folds inward and protects itself when touched .
o A cat cowers and then tries to run away when it feels threatened.
Similarly, human. beings have that natural inclination to preserve their
being.
o For this reason, Aquinas tells us that it is according to the natural law to
preserve human life. We can thus say that it would be a violation of the
natural law, and therefore unethical to take the life of another
o Murder, for instance, would be a clear example of a violation of the
natural law. On a more controversial note, it seems that taking one's
own life would be unacceptable, even in the form of physician-assisted
suicide. On a more positive note, we can confidently pos it that acts that
promote the continuation of life are to be lauded as ethical because they
are in line with the natural law.

In Common with Other Animals

Aquinas then goes on to say that there is in our human nature, common with other
animals, a desire that has to do with sexual intercourse and the care of one's offspring.
As a matter of fact, animals periodically engage in sexual intercourse at a specific time of
"heat and this could result in offspring. In human beings, too, that natural inclination to
engage in the sexual act and to reproduce exists.
The intrinsic connection between the sexual act and fecundity gives rise to a number of
notions of what is acceptable and unacceptable in varying degrees of contentiousness
An ethical issue that is hotly contested in some parts of the world is whether abortion is
acceptable. From the stance of the natural law, the act of preventing the emergence of
new life would be considered unacceptable. Not so controversial, perhaps, would be the
claims that we could more easily make about how it is good to care for the young, to
make sure that they are properly fed, sheltered, and educated. On the other hand, it is
bad to abuse the young, to force children into hard labor or to deprive them of basic
needs or otherwise abuse them in a physical or emotional way.

With regard to the sexual act, the moral judgments get more volatile. This argument
seems to provide ground for rejecting various forms of contraception since these allow
for the sexual act to take place, but inhibit procreation. This also seems to justify the
claim that any form of the sexual act that could not lead to offspring must be considered
deviant. One of these is the homosexual act.
 CHAPTER IV : DEONTOLOGY

During the flag ceremony of that Monday morning, January 24, 2017, the mayor of Baguio
City awarded a certificate from the City Government that commended Reggie Cabututan for his
"extraordinary show of honesty in the performance of their duties or practice of profession"
Reggle is a taxi driver who, just three days before the awarding, drove his passenger, an
Australian named Trent Shields, to his workplace. The foreigner, having little sleep and was ill
the previous day, left his suitcase inside the taxi cab after he reached his destination. The
suitcase contained a laptop, passport, and an expensive pair of headphones, which Trent
claimed amounted to around P260,000,²
Consider closely the moment when Reggie found that Trent had left a suitcase in his taxi cab:
If he were to return the suitcase, there was no promise of an award from the City Government
of Baguio and no promise of a reward from the owner. What if he took the suitcase and sold its
contents? That could surely help him supplement his daily wages, Life as a taxi driver in the
Philippines is not easy. A little extra cash would go a long way to put food on the table and to
pay tuition fees for his children.
Yet, Reggie returned the suitcase without the promise of a reward. Why? Perhaps, he had
previously returned lost luggage to passengers. Maybe, it was his first time to do so. Maybe, he
received a reward before, or maybe he knows some fellow taxi drivers who did or did not
receive rewards from passengers after they returned lost luggage. However, the point is that
there was no promise of a reward. A reward, in the first place, is not an entitlement. It is freely
given as an unrequired gift for one's service or effort. Otherwise, it would be a payment, not a
reward, if someone demanded it.
Why did Reggie return the suitcase? For now, let us suppose his main reason was simply
because it was right to return lost property to the rightful owner, no matter how tempting it is
to keep it for oneself. Is it possible that Reggie's reason for returning the luggage was not
because of any reward whether psychic or physical? "It is simply the right thing to do," Reggie
might have told himself.
What if Reggie did not return the suitcase, destroyed the lock, then took and sold its valuable
contents? What is wrong about keeping and benefitting from the valuables that someone
misplaced? "It is his fault; he was mindless and careless, Reggie could have thought. As the
saying goes: Finders keepers, losers weepers. On one hand, Reggie could have mused: "He will
learn to be more mindful of his things from now on." Yet, Reggie returned the suitcase without
the promise of a reward. As we previously said, perhaps, Reggie believed that it was the right
thing to do. Even if he felt that he could have benefitted from the sale of the valuable items in
the suitcase, he must have believed the principle that it is right to do the right thing. Reggie
could be holding on to this moral conviction as a principle of action.
To hold a moral conviction means believing that it is one's duty to do the right thing. What is
duty? Why does one choose to follow her duty even if doing otherwise may bring her more
benefits?
Deontology
The moral theory that evaluates actions that are done because of duty.
comes from the Greek word deon, which means "being necessary"
refers to the study of duty and obligation.
The main proponent of deontology is Immanuel Kant (1724-1804).
Immanuel Kant
A German Enlightenment philosopher who wrote one of the most important works on
moral philosophy, Groundwork towards a Metaphysics of Morals (1785).
In this work, he brings our attention to the fact that we human beings, have the faculty
called rational will, which is the capacity to act according to principles that we
determine for ourselves.
The rational will is to point out the difference between animals and persons. On one hand,
animals are sentient organisms. Sentience, meaning an organism has the ability to perceive and
navigate its external environment. Insofar as dogs and carabas are sentient organisms, we do
not see them bumping into trees and walls unless their senses are weak. Animals constantly
interact with their surroundings. This is also true to us humans we are also sentient. Thus, both
animals and persons interact in and with the world, reacting to external stimuli and internal
impulses to survive and thrive.

On the other hand, people are also rational. Rationality consists of the mental faculty to
construct ideas and thoughts that are beyond our immediate surroundings. This is the

capacity for mental abstraction, which arises from the operations of the faculty of reason. Thus,
we have the ability to stop and think about what we are doing. We can remove ourselves
mentally from the immediacy of our surroundings and reflect on our actions and how such
actions affect the world. We can imagine a different and better world, and create mental
images of how we interact with other people in that world. In the same way, an architect "first"
constructs her blueprint of a house in her mind. When the draft of that construction is drawn,
she can then give instructions to masons and carpenters on how to build the actual house,
which becomes the "second" construction. This happens often in our lives such as when a
young girl puts on her nice dress and makeup, when a student. writes the outline for an English
essay, or when a painter makes initial sketches on a canvass. The first construction consists in
how we imagine things can be, then we implement that in the second construction. Through
the capacity for imagination and reflection, we conceive of how we could affect, possibly even
change, the world we live in.

Thus, we do not only have the capacity to imagine and construct mental images, but we also
have the ability to act on to enact and make real-those mental images. This ability to enact our
thoughts is the basis for the rational will. The rational will refers to the faculty to intervene in
the world, to act in a manner that is consistent with our reason. As far as we know, animals only
act according to impulses, based on their natural instincts. Thus, animals "act". with immediacy
(from Latin: /+medius, or

"no middle") with nothing that intervenes between the impulse and the action. They do not
and cannot deliberate on their actions. In fact, we may say that animals do not "act." They only
"react to their external surroundings and internal impulses. In contrast, we humans have
reason, which intervenes between impulse and act. We have the ability to stop and think about
what we are doing to evaluate our actions according to principles. Simply stated, we are not
only reacting to our surroundings and internal impulses, but are also conceiving of ways to act
according to certain rational principles.

Right now, for example, you may feel lethargic. Your head feels heavy and your eyes are
droopy. The corresponding impulse is to close your eyes and then fall asleep. However, your
rational will demand something else. Perhaps, you have to finish reading this chapter for a quiz
tomorrow. That quiz is part of the big picture, that is, your formation as a student to earn a
degree and do productive work. So you struggle to stay awake; you stand up briefly to stretch
your legs. You may have already taken some coffee. Right now, as you struggle to stay awake
and understand the words on this page, your rational will is victorious over your bodily impulses
as long as you stay awake. This demonstrates the triumph of your rational will over your base
impulse to just go to sleep. This triumph clarifies the meaning of rational will, the capacity of a
person to be the cause of her actions based on reasons and not merely to mindlessly react to
the environment and base impulses. In philosophical discussions about human freedom, this
capacity is called agency, which is the ability of a person to act based on her intentions and
mental states.

Let us go back to Reggie. The moment he discovered that Trent had left his suitcase in the taxi
cab, Reggie reacted according to his rational will-to return the suitcase. He determined that it
was his duty to return it inasmuch as his rational will had conceived such a duty. Hence, to act
according to a duty is a specifically human experience. Animals, if it is true that they do not
possess the faculty of rational will, cannot conceive of having duties This is the starting point of
deontology. We may claim that as long as we have rationality there will always be the tension
between our base impulses and our rational will.

AUTONOMY

Kant claims the property of the rational will is autonomy (Ak 4:440), which is the opposite of
heteronomy. These three Greek words are instructive autos, heteros, and nomos, which mean
"self," "other" and "law," respectively. Hence, when we combine autos and nomos, we get
autonomy, heteros and nomos to heteronomy. Crudely stated, autonomy means self-law (or
self-legislating) and heteronomy means other law.

Consider the trivial example of brushing one's teeth, which is not yet a moral dilemma but is
sufficient to explain the difference between autonomy and heteronomy. When you were a
child, did you like to brush your teeth? As far as we can tell, children do not like
to brush their teeth, but parents know that children should, to maintain oral hygiene, So
parents try to find ways to get their small children to brush their teeth before going to bed,
using a variety of incentives or threats of undesirable consequences. "Hey, Ryan," a mother tells
her boy, "go and brush your teeth now or else your teeth will rot!" "Come on now, Liza," a
father tells his daughter, "If you brush your teeth in five minutes, I will let you play your
computer game tonight." In the case of Ryan and Liza, are they autonomous? Certainly not, as
their parents are the ones that legislate the principle that children should brush their teeth
before they go to bed and impose such a principle by using threats or incentives.

Now think about Ryan and Liza twenty years later when they are in their mid twenties. Suppose
they brush their teeth every night before they go to bed, and they do so without the prodding
of their parents. At a certain point, perhaps when they were growing up as teenagers, they
both reflected on the whole business of brushing one's teeth. Both concluded that they (1)
agree with the principle behind it (oral hygiene) and thus, (2) every night they impose it upon
themselves to brush their teeth before going to bed. Number 1 refers to the act of legislating a
principle, while number 2 refers to the enacting of the principle. Thus, it also refers to the
willing of the adopted principle into reality. Are they autonomous? Yes, certainly. Kant
describes this as follows:

The will is thus not only subject to the law, but it is also subject to the law in such a way that it
gives the law to itself (seif-legislating), and primarily just in this way that the will can be
considered the author of the law under which it is subject. (Ak 4:431)

This description of autonomy is unusual. When we think of someone being "subject. to the law,
we usually think of an imposing authority figure that uses his power to control the subject into
complying with his will. Imagine a policeman who apprehends a suspected criminal by forcing
him on the ground and putting handcuffs on his wrists. Incidentally, "subject" comes from the
Latin words sub (under) and jacere (to throw). When combined, the two words refer to that
which is thrown or brought under something. The will must comply with the law, which is the
authority figure.

Surprisingly though, the will must give the law to itself. Therefore, the will is, at the same time,
the authority figure giving the law to itself. How can the rational will be subordinate to that
which is simultaneously its own authority figure? Isn't that contradictory to be subject to the
law and yet also be the authority figure for itself? Thus, Kant describes autonomy as the will
that is subject to a principle or law.

This apparent contradiction is entirely possible to exist, but only for self-reflexive human beings
that have rational will. Remember Ryan and Liza, and the principle of brushing their teeth. On
one hand, heteronomy is the simple legislation and imposition of a law by an external authority
(a person must brush her teeth before going to bed). Their parents are the authority figures,
and the law is imposed externally by rewards or punishments. On the other hand, autonomy
belongs to the grown-up and already rational Ryan and Liza, who
have adopted such a law about brushing their teeth. They regularly impose such a law on
themselves out of the enactment of the will to follow the law.

The distinguishing point here is the locus of the authorship of the law. In any given scenario
where a person complies with the law, we ask where the author is, whether it is external or
 internal. If the author of the law is external, the will is subjected to an external authority, thus
heteronomous will. In contrast, if the author was the will itself, imposing the law unto itself,
then we describe the will as autonomous. For the 25-year-old versions of Ryan and Liza who
brush their teeth before going to bed without any prompting from their parents, their adoption
of the childhood law about toothbrushing makes the locus of the authorship internal. Thus,
they are autonomous.

However, trivial actions such as brushing one's teeth can hardly be considered "moral" Real
moral issues often involve actions like stealing, lying, and murder, in that they have a certain
gravity, insofar as those actions directly harm or benefit the well-being of persons. Reggie's
case, seen in this light, is clearly a moral issue.

Let us remember that alternative scenario that we imagined earlier: What if Reggie did not
return the suitcase, destroyed the lock, then took and sold its valuable contents? Is this not an
act of rational will? Can we not claim that Reggie's rational will determines for itself how it
enacts its duty in this alternative scenario? Is Reggie not, after all, acting as an autonomous
agent? Reggie could have easily come upon the odious principle that he should benefit from
Trent's loss because people who lose their things are careless, and thus do not deserve to keep
those things. Therefore, Reggie may have concluded, "I am entitled to benefit from this lost
suitcase. I am the author of this principle. I am acting autonomously He may conclude this since
no external authority is legislating laws for him by using rewards or punishments. However, this
kind of reasoning is mistaken from a Kantian understanding as we will show below.

What do you think of Reggie's principle that he should benefit from other people's loss because
they are careless, and thus do not deserve to keep those things? Is it still autonomous agency
when a person enacts any apparently self-legislated principle? We may argue that the locus of
the authorship of the law was certainly internal, when he tells himself, "I am entitled to benefit
from this lost suitcase, based on how we have described the difference between autonomy and
heteronomy-self and other. Is that what autonomy properly means? Certainly not.

Kant claims that there is a difference between rational will and animal impulse. Take a close
look at how he describes the distinction in this passage:

The choice that can be determined by pure reason is called free choice. That which isdeterminable
only by inclination (sensible impulse, stimulus) would be animal choice (arbitrium brutum). Human
choice, in contrast, is a choice that may indeed be affected but not determined by impulses, and is
therefore in itself (without an acquired skill of reason) not pure, but can nevertheless be determined
to do actions from pure will (Ak 6:213)

Thus, there is a difference between what determines a choice or decision, whether it is caused
by sensible impulse or by pure reason. On one hand, sensible impulses are usually bodily and
emotional Bodily instincts and desires, such as the urge to eat, drink, sleep, or have sexual
intercourse, comprise the set of human compulsions for survival and the propagation of the
species. Emotions and sentiments also make up what Kant considers sensible impulses.
Practical examples are the jealousy from seeing your girlfriend or boyfriend make eyes at
someone, and the rage from being pushed foully by your opponent in a basketball game. As we
previously claimed, when we discussed the difference between animals and humans, there is
immediacy to sensible impulses. There is hardly anything that comes between the stimulus and
the reaction. Kant calls this set of actions that are caused by sensible impulse animal choice or
arbitrium brutum.

On the other hand, there is a choice or action that is determined by pure reason. Kant calls this
kind of action free choice, and one may argue that human freedom resides in this capacity of
reason to intervene, to "mediate" within arbitrium brutum. Previously, rationality was
described as the mental capacity to construct ideas and thoughts that are beyond one's
immediate surroundings. This mental capacity is what makes the intervention possible between
stimulus and reaction. With the faculty of reason, a person can break the immediacy of stimulus
and reaction by stopping to deliberate and assess possible alternative actions. The above-
described jealous partner and raging basketball player, if they had enough self possession,
could refrain from reacting mindlessly to the triggering stimuli and instead construct a rational
response. For instance, you may open up with your partner to talk about trust and setting
boundaries, or you may tell the guarding opponent to take it easy and play the game well. In
both cases, you orient your actions toward an overall aim that you aspire for trust and
sportsmanship, respectively. These aims are mental constructions of the faculty of reason.
These examples do not imply that people are not affected by sensible impulses. The jealous
feelings and anger are present, but they do not immediately and automatically cause the
actions. Based on the quote above (Ak 6:213), Kant describes that human choice can be
affected but is not determined by sensible impulses.
What does it mean for a human to be affected but is not determined by sensible impulse? It
implies that we are indeed basically animals, but we cannot be reduced to mere animality. This
is where the correlative conjunction "not only, but also is useful. When we claim, "The human
person is not only an animal, but is also rational," we admit to two

possible causes of our actions sensible impulses and the faculty of reason. Human freedom
resides in that distinction

Let us return once again to Reggie and the alternative scenario when he tells himself, "I am
entitled to benefit from this lost suitcase. Is Reggie acting autonomously supposing he did not
return the suitcase and instead sold its contents for his own benefit? We asked this at the
beginning of this section: Is it always autonomous agency when a person enacts any apparently
self-legislated principle? Certainly not. The difference between human choice and animal choice
is crucial to giving a correct answer here. Autonomy is a property of the will only during
instances when the action is determined by pure reason. When the action is determined by
sensible impulses, despite the source of those impulses being nevertheless internal, it is
considered heteronomous. Why heteronomous? Because a sensible impulse is "external" to
one's self-legislating faculty of reason. Kant confirms this point when he states that the action
caused by sensible impulses results always only in the heteronomy of the will because it is what
he calls "a foreign impulse" (Ak 4:444), insofar as the will does not give itself the law.

Therefore, Reggie is not acting autonomously, supposing he was to take and benefit from the
contents of the sultcase. Why would we consider his will as being heteronomous? Because a
sensible impulse would be the cause of such an action, whether it is greed or the excitement of
obtaining easy money without working for it, or the shame that arises from being unable to
provide for his family. In any of those causes, a sensible impulse is akin to a "foreign impulse"
that has the same immediacy of an external authority figure that imposes its will on Reggie.

We can thus make the conclusion that heteronomy of the will occurs when any foreign impulse,
whether it is external (as in other persons or institutions that impose their will on the agent) or
sensible (as in bodily instincts or base emotions) is what compels a person to act. In contrast,
autonomy is the property of the will in those instances when pure reason is the cause of the
action.

But what consists in an action that is done by an autonomous will insofar as the cause of the
action is pure reason? What does it mean to act according to pure reason?
 UNIVERSALIZABILITY

To figure out how the faculty of reason can be the cause of an autonomous action, we need to
learn a method or a specific procedure that will demonstrate autonomy of the will t before
explaining this procedure, it will be helpful to first make a distinction about kinds of moral
theories, namely, substantive and formal moral theories

A substantive moral theory immediately promulgates the specific actions that comprise that
theory. As such, it identifies the particular duties in a straightforward manner that the
adherents of the theory must follow. The set of Ten Commandments of the Judeo-Christian

tradition is an unambiguous example of a substantive moral theory. The specific laws are
articulated mostly in the form of a straightforward moral command: "Honor your father and
mother, "You shall not kill," and so forth.

In contrast, a formal moral theory does not supply the rules or commands straightaway. It does
not tell you what you may or may not do, Instead, a formal moral theory provides us the "form"
or "framework of the moral theory. To provide the "form" of a moral theory is to supply a
procedure and the criteria for determining, on one's own, the rules and moral commands.
Metaphorically, we can think of a cookbook as akin to a formal moral theory. In using a
cookbook, we are given instructions on how to cook certain dishes, but we are not given the
actual food themselves, which would be "substantive" In following a recipe for sinigang, for
example, we may add a slight variation to the ingredients and sequence of steps. But if we want
the dish to remain sinigang-and not transform it into some other kind of viand like pochero, we
need to follow the steps that are relevant to making sinigang. To be exact, a formal moral
theory will not give us a list of rules or commands. Instead, it will give us a set of instructions on
how to make a list of duties or moral commands

Kant endorses this formal kind of moral theory. The Grundlegung zur Metaphysik der Sitten,
which he wrote in 1785, embodies a formal moral theory in what he calls the categorical
imperative, which provides a procedural way of identifying the rightness or wrongness of an
action. Kant articulates the categorical imperative this way:
 Act only according to such a maxim, by which you can at once will that it become a universal
law. (Ak 4:421)

There are four key elements in this formulation of the categorical imperative, namely, action,
maxim, will, and universal law Kant states that we must formulate an action as a maxim, which
he defines as a "subjective principle of action" (Ak 4.422). In this context, a. maxim consists of a
"rule" that we live by in our day-to-day lives, but it does not have the status of a law or a moral
command that binds us to act in a certain way, Rather, maxims depict the patterns of our
behavior. Thus, maxims are akin to the standard operating procedures" (SOPs) in our lives. We
act according to a variety of maxims, even if we are not aware of them. Actually, we become
aware of our maxims when we talk about ourselves, when we reveal our habits and the reasons
behind them. For example, we tell our friends what we ordinarily do in certain specific
situations. When the weekend comes, I usually go to the beach with my family to relax. When
the exam week begins, I go to mass so that I will be blessed with good luck. Whenever I meet
my crush, I wear my hair i a braid so that he will notice me. These are usually personal "policies"
that may or may not be unique to us, but we act according to these maxims nonetheless. This is
why Kant calls a maxim a subjective principle of action. We have many maxims in our daily lives,
and we live according to them.

in the formulation of the categorical imperative, Kant calls our attention to the kind of maxims
that we live by. He claims that we ought to act according to the maxim "by which you can at
once will that it become a universal law." What does it mean to will a maxim that can become a
universal law? It means that the maxim must be universalizable, which is what it means to "will
that it become a universal law. This means nothing other than imagining a world in which the
maxim, or personal rule, that I live by were adopted by everyone as their own maxim. In this
formulation, Kant is telling us to conceive of the maxim as if it obligated everyone to comply.
This mental act of imagining a universalized maxim does not mean we picture a world in which
everyone actually followed the maxim. Instead, we merely imagine the maxim as a law that
everyone ought to follow. The proper way to imagine the universalized maxim is not by asking,
"What if everyone did that maxim?" but by asking, "What if everyone were obligated to follow
that maxim?" Here is a clear example.

In Groundwork towards a Metaphysics of Morals, Kant takes up the issue of making false
promises (Ak 4:422). He narrates the predicament of a man who needs money, but has no
immediate access to obtain it except by borrowing it from a friend. This man knows that he will
not be able to pay the money back, but if he says he cannot return the money, then no money
will be lent to him. Hence, the predicament is simply about him borrowing money, while
knowing that he cannot pay it back. This is a specific act under the general category of acts
 called false promising. Kant says that the man would like to make such a promise, but he stops
and asks himself if what he is about to do is right or wrong: Is it really wrong to borrow money
without intending to pay it back? if we were to formulate this act as a maxim, it would go this
way: "When I am in need of money, I shall borrow it even when I know I cannot pay it back"

Remember that Kant states that we should act according to a maxim by which we can at once
will that it become a universal law. What does it mean to universalize the maxim about
borrowing money without intending to return it? It is simple. Imagine a hypothetical world in
which each person, whenever she is in need of money, is obligated to borrow from another
even when she knows she cannot pay it back. We do not imagine that people actually borrowed
money without intending to return it. Instead, we think of them as obligated to do so. Now,
there are two possibilities in this hypothetical world where people are obligated to borrow
money without intending to pay: the maxim can either make sense or not make sense a sa
universal law, By "making sense, we refer to the logical plausibility of the universalized maxim.
The opposite of logical plausibility is self-contradiction or logical impossibility.

Let us assess that hypothetical world. If borrowing money without intending to pay were
everyone's obligation to comply with, what would happen to the status of the universalized
maxim? The purpose of borrowing money would be defeated because no one will lend money.
In a world where it is an obligation to borrow money without paying back, all lenders would
know that they will not be paid and they will refuse to lend money The institution of money
borrowing would lose its meaning if everyone was obligated to
borrow money without intending to pay it back. As a universalized maxim, it would self-destruct
because it becomes impossible. This is how Kant assesses it:

Here I see straight away that it could never be valid as a universal law of nature and be consistent
with itself, but must necessarily contradict itself. For the universality of a law that each person, when
he believes himself to be in need, could promise whatever he pleases with the intent not to keep it,
would make the promise and the purpose that he may have impossible, since no one would believe
what was promised him but would laugh at all such expressions as futile pretense (Ak 4:422),

In the passage above, Kant distinguishes between being "consistent with itself" and contradict
itself." Look at the maxim again: "When I am in need of money, I shall borrow it even when I
know I cannot pay it back. The meaning of the act "to borrow" implies taking and using
something with the intent to return it. In the maxim, the claim is to borrow "even when I know I
cannot pay it back," which contradicts the very meaning of "to borrow. The contradiction is
evident: to borrow (implies returning) but the intention is not to return. Of course, in the real
world, many people borrow money without intending to pay, but it is the logical plausibility of
the universalized maxim that is at stake. Here, we reveal the contradiction that occurs when we
scrutinize the maxim because, after all, one contradicts oneself when one borrows money
(implies intent to return) without intending to pay it back. It makes no sense. This is why Kant
claims that the universalized maxim "could never be valid as a universal law of nature and be
consistent with itself, but must necessarily contradict itself. Thus, we can conclude that the act
of borrowing money without intending to pay is rationally impermissible. Here, we discover two
ways by which Kant rejects maxims. The universalized maxim becomes either (1) self-
contradictory or (2) the act and its purpose become impossible.

What is the result of all these? We reveal the rational permissibility of actions insofar as they
cannot be rejected as universalizable maxims. In contrast, those universalized maxims that are
rejected are shown to be impermissible, that is, they are irrational and thus, in Kant's mind,
immoral. But what does rational permissibility mean? Simply put, it refers to the intrinsic
quality of an action that it is objectively and necessarily rational. Using the universalizability
test, we can reveal the objective necessity of an action as rational. Observe, for example, the
quality of the arithmetical claim, "1+1=2" It is objectively necessary because the quality of the
claim is universally and logically valid, and we understand this to be always true as rational
beings. Observe the difference between the quality of objectively necessary claims with
contingent claims, such as claims about the world like "The sky is blue," the truth of which
depends on the actual situation in the world. Therefore, we have demonstrated that borrowing
money without intending to pay, as a kind of false promise, is objectively and necessarily
wrong, insofar as it encounters a self-contradiction and logical impossibility when it is
universalized as a maxim.
 CHAPTER V: VIRTUE ETHICS

Virtue ethics
Ethical framework that is concerned with understanding the good as a matter of
developing the virtuous character of a person.
Aristotle's book entitled Nicomachean Ethics is the first comprehensive and
programmatic study of virtue ethics.

Aristotle (384-322 BCE)

o Born in Macedonia and studied philosophy under Plato in Athens.
o He was considered to be the brightest among Plato's students in the former's school,
the Academy.
o He later founded his own school, Lyceum, where he became a very productive
intellectual having written numerous works on different topics such as the theoretical
and practical sciences, and logic.
o He was also known to be the tutor of Alexander the Great who tried to conquer the
world. Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics is his major work in moral philosophy.

Aristotle's discourse of ethics departs from the Platonic understanding of reality and
conception of the good. Both Plato and Aristotle affirm rationality as the highest faculty
of a person and having characteristic enables a person to real the very purpose of her
existence.
But at the end, they differ in their appreciation of reality and nature, which, in turn, results in
their contrasting stand on what the ethical principle should be.
o For Plato, the real is outside the realm of any human sensory experience but can
somehow be grasped by one's intellect. The truth and, ultimately, the good are in the
sphere of forms or ideas transcending daily human condition.
o On the other hand, for Aristotle, the real is found within our everyday encounter with
objects in the world. What makes nature Intelligible is its character of having both form
and matter. Therefore, the truth and the good cannot exist apart from the object and
are not independent of our experience.
HAPPINESS AND ULTIMATE PURPOSE
Aristotle begins his discussion of ethics by showing that every act that a person does is directed
toward a particular purpose, aim, or what the Greeks called telos.
o There is a purpose why one does something, a person's action manifests a good that she
aspires for.
o One eats for the purpose of the good that it gives sustenance to the body. A person
pursues a chosen career, aiming for a good, that is, to provide a better future for her
family. A person will not do anything which is not beneficial to her. Even a drug user
"thinks" that substance abuse will cause her good. This does not necessarily mean that
using drugs is good but a "drug addict" would want to believe that such act is good.
Therefore, for Aristotle, the good is considered to be the telos or purpose for which all acts seek
to achieve.
 One must understand that an individual does actions and pursuits in life and
correspondingly each of these activities has different aims.
 Aristotle is aware that one does an act not only to achieve a particular purpose but also
believes such purpose can be utilized for a higher goal or activity, which then can be
used to achieve an even higher purpose and so on.
 When one diligently writes down notes while listening to a lecture given by the teacher,
she does this for the purpose of being able to remember the lessons of the course .This
purpose of remembering, in turn, becomes an act to achieve a higher aim which is to
pass the examinations given by the teacher, which then becomes a product that can
help the person attain the goal of having a passing mark in the course.
 It is important for Aristotle that one becomes clear of the hierarchy of goals that the
different acts produce in order for a person to distinguish which actions are higher than
the other.

With the condition that there is a hierarchy of telos, Aristotle then asks about the highest
purpose, which is the ultimate good of a human being. Aristotle discusses the general criteria in
order for one to recognize the highest good of man. First, the highest good of a person must be
final. As a final end, it is no longer utilized for the sake of arriving at a much higher end. In our
example above, the purpose of remembering the lessons in the course, that is why one writes
down notes, is not the final end because it is clear that such purpose is aimed at achieving a
much higher goal. Second, the ultimate telos of a person must be self-sufficient. Satisfaction in
life is arrived at once this highest good is attained. Nothing else is sought after and desired,
once this self-sufficient goal is achieved, since this is already considered as the best possible
good in life. Again, in the example given above, the goal of remembering the lessons in the
course is not yet the best possible good because a person can still seek for other more
satisfying goals in her life.

So what is the highest goal for Aristotle? What goal is both final and self-sufficient? It is
interesting to note that for Aristotle, the question can only be adequately answered by older
individuals because they have gone through enormous and challenging life experiences which
helped them gain a wealth of knowledge on what the ultimate purpose of a person is.
According to Aristotle, older individuals would agree that the highest purpose and the ultimate
good of man is happiness, or for the Greeks, eudaimonia. Aristotle says:

Now, such a thing happiness, above all else, is held to be, for this we choose always for itself
and never for the sake of something else, but honor, pleasure, reason, and every virtue we
choose indeed for themselves (for if nothing resulted from them we should still choose each of
them), but we choose them also for the sake of happiness, judging that by means of them we
shall be happy. Happiness, on the other hand, no one chooses for the sake of these, nor, in
general, for anything other than itself.

One can therefore say that happiness seems to fit the first criterion of being the final end of a
human being. For it is clear that conditions for having wealth, power, and pleasures are not
chosen for themselves but for the sake of being a means to achieve happiness. If one
accumulates wealth, for example, she would want to have not just richness but also

power and other desirable things as well, such as honor and pleasures. But all of these ends are
ultimately for the sake of the final end which is happiness. In itself, happiness seems to be the
final end and the highest good of a person since no other superior end is still being desired for

Aristotle continues in saying that happiness is also the self-sufficient end. He says:

Let us examine this question, however, on another occasion, the self-sufficient we now define
as that which when isolated makes life desirable and lacking in nothing, and such we think
happiness to be, and further we think it most desirable of all things, without being counted as
one good thing among others-if it were so counted, it would clearly be made more desirable by
the addition of even the least of goods, for that which is added becomes an excess of goods,
and of goods, the greater is always more desirable.³
Happiness for Aristotle is the only self-sufficient aim that one can aspire for. No amount of
wealth or power can be more fulfilling than having achieved the condition of happiness. One
can imagine a life of being wealthy, powerful, and experiencing pleasurable feelings and yet,
such life is still not satisfying without happiness. Once happiness is achieved, things such as
wealth, power, and pleasurable feelings just give value-added benefits in life. The true measure
of well-being for Aristotle is not by means of richness or fame but by the condition of having
attained a happy life.

Even though older individuals agree that happiness is the highest end and good that humans
aspire for, there are various opinions on what specifically is the nature of the ultimate telos of a
person. One is that happiness is attached with having wealth and power. Others associate
happiness with feelings that are pleasurable. Some take nobler things like honor and other
ideals as constitutive of happiness. For Aristotle, arguing for or against every opinion proves to
be a futile attempt to arrive at the nature of happiness. Instead, Anstotle shows that one can
arrive at the ultimate good by doing one's function well.

How does a person arrive at her highest good? According to Aristotle, if an individual's action
can achieve the highest good, then one must investigate how she functions which enables her
to achieve her ultimate purpose. If she performs her function well, then she is capable of
arriving at happiness. Aristotle then proceeds with discussing the function of human beings to
distinguish one person's activity from other beings. How does a human being function which
sets her apart from the rest? For Aristotle, what defines human beings is her function or activity
of reason. This

function makes her different from the rest of beings. Aristotle expresses this clearly:

What then can this be? Life seems to be common even to plants, but we are seeking what is
peculiar to man. Let us exclude, therefore, the life of nutrition and growth. Next there would be
a life of perception, but it also seems to be common even to the horse, the ox, and every
animal. There remains, then, an active life of the element that has a rational principle; of this,
one part has such a principle in the sense of being obedient to one, the other in the sense of
possessing one and exercising thought
If the function of a human being is simply to do the act of taking in food in order to sustain her
life and continue living, then what makes her different from plants? Also, if the function of a
human being is to do the act of perceiving things, then what makes her different from animals?

What defines a person therefore is her function or activity of reason. A person's action to be
considered as truly human must be an act that is always in accordance to reason. The function
of a human being is to act following the dictates of her reason. Any person for that matter
utilizes her reason but Aristotle further says that a person cannot only perform her function but
she can also perform it well. A dancer, for example, becomes different from a chef because of
her function to dance while the chef's is to cook. Any dancer can dance. but what makes her
distinct from an excellent dancer is that the latter dances very well. The same principle applies
to human beings. What distinguishes a good person from other human beings is her rational
activity that is performed well or excellently. A good individual therefore stands closer to
meeting the conditions of happiness because her actions are of a higher purpose.

Aristotle says:

Now, if the function of man is an activity of the soul which follows or implies a rational
principle, and if we say "a so-and-so" and "a good so-and-so" have a function which is the same
in kind, for example, a lyre player and a good lyre player, and so without qualification in all
cases, eminence in respect of goodness being added to the name of the function (for the
function of a lyre player is to play the lyre, and that of a good lyre player is to do so well): If this
is the case, (and we state the function of man to be a certain kind of life, and this to be an
activity or actions of the soul implying a rational principle, and the function of a good man to be
the good and noble performance of these, and if any action is well performed when it is
performed in accordance with the appropriate excellence if this is the case) human good turns
out to be activity of soul in accordance to virtue, and if there is more than one virtue, in
accordance with the best and most complete?

The local saying "Madaling maging tao, mahirap magpakatao" can be understood in the light of
Aristotle's thoughts on the function of a good person. Any human being can perform the
activity of reason; thus, being human is achievable. However, a good human being strives hard
in doing an activity in an excellent way. Therefore, the task of being human becomes more
difficult because doing such activity well takes more effort on the part of the person.
VIRTUE AS EXCELLENCE
Achieving the highest purpose of a human person concerns the ability to function
according to reason and to perform an activity well or excellently.
This excellent way of doing things is called virtue or arete by the Greeks.
Aristotle is quick to add that virtue is something that one strives for in time. One does not
become an excellent person overnight: "For one swallow does not make a summer, nor
does one day; and so too one day, or a short time, does not make a man blessed and
happy... This means that being virtuous cannot be accomplished by a single act. It is
commendable if a minor participant in a crime becomes a whistle-blower, exposing all the
grave acts that were committed by his cohorts. But one should be careful in judgment of
calling immediately that individual as being a "person of virtue. Being an excellent individual
works on doing well in her day-to-day existence.

What exactly makes a human being excellent? Aristotle says that excellence is an activity of the
human soul and therefore, one needs to understand the very structure of a person's soul which
must be directed by her rational activity in an excellent way. For Aristotle, the human soul is
divided into two parts: the irrational element and the rational faculty. The irrational element of
man consists of the vegetative and appetitive aspects. The vegetative aspect functions as giving
nutrition and providing the activity of physical growth in a person. As an irrational element, this
part of man is not in the realm where virtue is exercised because, as the term suggests, it
cannot be dictated by reason. The vegetative aspect of the soul follows the natural processes
involved in the physical activities and growth of a person. Whereas, the appetitive aspect works
as a desiring faculty of man. The act of desiring in itself is an impulse that naturally runs counter
to reason and most of the time refuses to go along with reason. Thus, this aspect belongs to the
irrational part of the soul. Sexual impulse, for example, is so strong in a person that one tends
to ignore reasonable demands to control such impulse. However, unlike the vegetative aspect,
the desiring faculty of man can be subjected to reason. Aristotle says, "...Now, even this seems
to have a share in the rational principle, as we said; at any rate in the continent man it obeys
the rational principle..." Desires are subject to reason even though these do not arise from the
rational part of the soul.

In contrast, the rational faculty of man exercises excellence in him. One can rightly or wrongly
apply the use of reason in this part. This faculty is further divided into two aspects: moral,
which concerns the act of doing, and intellectual, which concerns the act of knowing. These two
aspects are basically where the function of reason is exercised.

of the soul. As stated by Aristotle, this excellence is attained through teaching. Through time,
One rational aspect where a person can attain excellence is in the intellectual faculty one learns
from the vast experiences in life where she gains knowledge on these things. One learns and
gains wisdom by being taught or by learning. There are two ways by which one can attain
intellectual excellence: philosophic and practical. Philosophic wisdom deals with attaining
knowledge about the fundamental principles and truths that govern the
universe (e.g. general theory on the origins of things). It helps one understand in general the
meaning of life Practical wisdom, on the other hand, is an excellence in knowing the right
conduct in carrying out a particular act. In other words, one can attain a wisdom that can
provide us with a guide on how to behave in our daily lives.

Although the condition of being excellent can be attained by a person through the intellectual
aspect of the soul, this situation does not make her into a morally good individual. However,
Aristotle suggests that although the rational functions of a person (moral and intellectual) are
distinct from each other, it is necessary for humans to attain the intellectual virtue of practical
wisdom in order to accomplish a morally virtuous act.

In carrying out a morally virtuous life, one needs the intellectual guide of practical wisdom in
steering the self toward the right choices and actions. Aristotle is careful in making a sharp
distinction between moral and intellectual virtue. In itself, having practical wisdom or the
excellence in knowing what to act upon does not make someone already morally virtuous.
Knowing the good is different from determining and acting on what is good. But a morally good
person has to achieve the intellectual virtue of practical wisdom to perform the task of being
moral. This distinction draws a sharp contrast between Aristotle's understanding of the
dynamics of knowledge and action from that of Socrates's view that knowledge already
contains the ability of choice or action. Aristotle says:

This is why some say that all the virtues are forms of practical wisdom and why Socrates, in one
respect, was on the right track while in another, he went astray; in thinking that all the virtues
were forms of practical wisdom, he was wrong, but in saying they implied practical wisdom, he
was right. This is confirmed by the fact that even now, all men, when they define virtue, after
naming the state of character and its objects, add "that (state) which is in accordance with the
right rule", now the right rule is that which is in accordance. with practical wisdom. All men,
then, seem somehow to divine that this kind of state is virtue, viz., that which is in accordance
with practical wisdom. 10

It seems that for Socrates, moral goodness is already within the realm of intellectual excellence.
Knowing the good implies the ability to perform morally virtuous acts. For Aristotle, however,
having intellectual excellence does not necessarily mean that one already has the capacity of
doing the good. Knowing the good that needs to be done is different from doing the good that
one needs to accomplish.

Therefore, rational faculty of a person tells us that she is capable of achieving two kinds of
virtue moral and intellectual. In discussing moral virtue, Aristotle says that it is attained by
means of habit. A morally virtuous man for Aristotle is someone who habitually determines the
good and does the right actions. Moral virtue is acquired through habit Being morally good is a
process of getting used to doing the proper act. The saying "practice makes perfect can be
applied to this aspect of a person.

Therefore, for Aristotle, a person is not initially good by nature:

Again, of all the things that come to us, by nature, we first acquire the potentiality and later
exhibit the activity (this is plain in the case of the senses, for it was not by often seeing or often
hearing that we got these senses, but on the contrary we had them before we used them, and
did not come to have them by using them); but the virtues we get by first exercising them, as
also happens in the case of the arts as well. For the things we have to learn before we can do
them, we learn by doing them "

Any craft that one does can be perfected by habitually doing the right action necessary to be
good in a particular craft. Being a good basketball player, for example, involves constant
training and endless hours of shooting and dribbling the ball in the right way until one
habitually does the right stroke in shooting the ball and the right tempo in dribbling the ball. It
is only when she properly plays basketball consistently that she will be recognized as a good
basketball player.

The same is true with moral virtue. A moral person habitually chooses the good and
consistently does good deeds. It is in this constant act of choosing and doing the good that a
person is able to form her character. It is through one's character that others know a person
Character then becomes the identification mark of the person. For instance, when one
habitually opts to be courteous to others and regularly shows politeness in the way she relates
to others, others would start recognizing her as a well-mannered person. On the other hand,
when one habitually chooses to be rude to others and repeatedly demonstrates vulgar and foul
acts, she develops an image of an ill-mannered person. The Filipino term pag-uugali precisely
reflects the meaning of moral character. One can have mabuting pag uugali (good character) or
masamang pag-uugali (bad character).

How does the continuous exposure to violence on television affect the kind of character that
children will develop? One can surmise that if we rely on the above-mentioned study, children
tend to mimic the violence they watch on television and such habit could develop into a
character that can tolerate behaviors that are hostile in nature.

MORAL VIRTUE AND MESOTES

As stated by Aristotle, developing a practical wisdom involves learning from
experiences.
Knowledge is not inherent to a person. Knowing the right thing to do when one is
confronted by a choice is not easy.
One needs to develop this knowledge by exercising the faculty of practical reason in her
daily life.
This is why when it comes to life choices, one can seek the advice of elders in the
community, those who gained rich life experiences and practical wisdom, because they
would be able to assist someone's moral deliberation. Parents can advice their children
how to behave in front of family members and relatives, Senior members of the
community like priests, counselors, and leaders may also guide the young members on
how relationships with others are fostered.

As maintained by Aristotle, it is the middle, intermediate, or mesotes for the Greeks that is
aimed at by a morally virtuous person. Determining the middle becomes the proper tool by
which one can arrive at the proper way of doing things.
Based on Aristotle, a morally virtuous person is concerned with achieving her appropriate
action in a manner that is neither excessive nor deficient.
In other words, virtue is the middle or the intermediary point in between extremes.
One has to function in a state that her personality manifests the right amount of
feelings, passions, and ability for a particular act. Generally, feelings and passions
are neutral which means that, in themselves, they are neither morally right nor
 wrong. When one shows a feeling of anger we cannot immediately construe it as
morally wrong act. But the rightness or wrongness of feelings, passions, and abilities
lies in the degree of their application in a given situation. It is right to get angry at an
offensive remark but it is not right to get angry at everyone just because you were
offended by someone. One can be excessive in the manner by which she

manifests these feelings, passions, and abilities. But one can also be deficient in the way she
expresses these. For example, she may be outraged at the attacks of terrorists and yet may be
insensitive because she is not directly affected.

A morally virtuous person targets the mesotes.

For Aristotle, the task of targeting the mean is always difficult because every situation is
different from one another.
Thus, the mesotes is constantly moving depending on the circumstance where she is in.
The mean is not the same for all individuals. The mean is simply an arithmetical
proportion. Therefore, the task of being moral involves seriously looking into and
understanding a situation and assessing properly every particular detail relevant to the
determination of the mean.
One can be angry with someone, but the degree and state of anger depends
accordingly with the nature of the person she is angry with. The aid of reason
dictates how humans should show different anger toward a child and a mature
individual.
Mesotes determines whether the act applied is not excessive or deficient. Likewise, an
individual cannot be good at doing something haphazardly but reason demands a
continuous habituation of a skill to perfect an act.
Moral virtue - is firstly the condition arrived at by a person who has a character identified out
of her habitual exercise of particular actions.
One's character is seen as a growth in terms of the continuous preference for the
good.
The action done that normally manifests feelings and passions is chosen because it
is the middle. The middle does not fall short or is excessive of the proper proportion
by which these feelings or passions should be expressed.
Aristotle adds that the middle is relative to us. This does not imply that mesotes
totally depends on what the person identifies as the middle.
But Aristotle's middle is not relative to the person but to the situation and the
circumstance that one is in. This means that in choosing the middle, one is looking
 at the situation and not at oneself in identifying the proper way that feelings and
passions should be dispensed.
Thirdly, the rational faculty that serves as a guide for the proper identification of the
middle is practical wisdom. The virtuous person learns from her experiences and
therefore develops the capacity to know the proper way of carrying out her
feelings, passions, and actions.
o The rational faculties of this person, specifically practical wisdom, aid in making
a virtuous person develop this habit of doing the good.
A moral person in this sense is also someone who is wise. Habit is not
simply borne out repetitive and non-thought-of activities in a person. Habits
for Aristotle are products of the constant application of reason in the
person's actions. One sees Aristotle's attempt to establish a union between
the person's moral action and knowledge that enables him to achieve man's
function.

Aristotle clarifies further that not all feelings, passions, and actions have a middle point.
o When a mean is sought, it is in the context of being able to identify the good act in a
given situation. However, when what is involved is seen as a bad feeling, passion, or
action, the middle is non-existent because there is no good (mesotes) in something
that is already considered a bad act.
o When one murders someone, there is nothing excessive or deficient in the act:
murder is still murder. Further, there is no intermediary for Aristotle in the act
because there is no proper way that such act can be committed.
Aristotle also provides examples of particular virtues and the corresponding excesses and
deficiencies of these. This table shows some of the virtues and their vices:

Excess Middle Impulsiveness

Impulsiveness Self-control Indecisiveness
Recklessness Courage Cowardice
Prodigality Liberality Meanness

In the table, Aristotle identifies the virtue of courage as the middle, in between the vices of
being coward and reckless.
Cowardice - a deficiency in terms of feelings and passions. This means that one lacks
the capacity to muster enough bravery of carrying herself appropriately in a given
situation.
 Recklessness - is an excess in terms of one's feelings and passions. In this regard,
one acts with a surplus of guts that she overdoes an act in such rashness and
without any deliberation.
The virtue of having courage is being able to act daringly enough but able to weigh up possible
implications of such act that she proceeds with caution.
For Aristotle, being superfluous with regard to manifesting a virtue is no longer an ethical act
because one has gone beyond the middle.
Being overly courageous (or "super courageous") for instance does not make someone
more virtuous because precisely in this condition, she has gone beyond the middle and
therefore has "moved out" from the state that is virtuous. Therefore, one can always be
excessive in her action but an act that is virtuous cannot go beyond the middle.
o Filipinos have the penchant of using superlative words like "over," "super," "to
the max," and "sobra" in describing a particular act that they normally identify
as virtuous. Perhaps, Aristotle's view on virtue is prescribing a clearer way by
which Filipinos can better understand it.