CHAPTER ONE: Understanding Civics and Ethics

Defining Civics, Ethics, Morality

Civic Education

Since human being is a social animal and couldn‘t live alone, he/she has to respect
certain fundamental principles and values to live together with his/her fellow beings
and consequently build peaceful society and lead prosperous life.

Though the most cited definition of civic education is an education that studies about
the rights and responsibilities of citizens of a politically organized group of people,
different writers define it in many ways. The following are some of the definitions:

 Citizenship education can be understood as the knowledge, means, and activities

designed to encourage students to participate actively in democratic life, accepting
and exercising their rights and responsibilities.
 United Nations Development Program (UNDP, 2004) defines civic education as a
way of learning for effective participation in a democratic and development
process.
 Aggarwal (1982) linked civic education to the development of ideas, habits,
behaviors and useful attitudes in the individual which enables him to be a useful
member of the society.
 It is also defined as the process of helping young people acquire and learn to use
the skills, knowledge, and attitudes that will prepare them to be competent and
responsible citizens throughout their lives.

Actually, these different concepts and meanings were used to differentiate between a
maximal and a minimal civic education. The minimal concept of civic education is
content-led, teacher-based, whole-class teaching and examination-based assessment.
However, the maximal concept of civic education is comprised of knowledge, values and
skills, and aims to prepare students for active, responsible participation. Unlike narrow
minimalist civic education, it extends learning beyond the curriculum and classroom to
all activities inside and outside school. In addition, it is highly dependent on interactive
teaching, which requires discussion, debate and the creation of many opportunities for
students to participate effectively.

1
The Definition and Nature of Ethics and Morality

A. What Ethics is?

Ethics is a branch of philosophy that attempts to understand people‘s moral beliefs and
actions. Ethics, or moral philosophy, considers theories about what human beings are
capable of doing, alongside accounts of what they ought to do if they are to live an
ethically good life. Ethics also explores the meaning and the ranking of different ethical
values, such as honesty, autonomy, equality and justice, and it considers ethical
quandaries that human beings face in the course of living their own independent but,
also, socially interdependent lives.

Ethics may share common ground with the law, religious belief, popular opinion,
professional codes and the dictates of authority figures, but it is also broader than all of
these and offers a set of tools and values against which their appropriateness can be
evaluated.

Occasionally the term ethics is used interchangeably with morals. When we speak of
moral problems then, we generally refer to specific problems, such as “Is lying
ever right?” or “Is stealing always wrong?” in contrast, we can look at ethical problems
as being more general and theoretical. Thus, “what makes any act, such as lying or
stealing, right or wrong?” and “what makes any entity good?” are ethical problems. In
short, morality refers to the degree to which an action conforms to a standard or norm
of human conduct. Ethics refers to the philosophical study of values and of what
constitute good and bad human conduct

Generally, ethics:

 Is philosophical study of the code, standards or norm of human conduct and it is

more theoretical and general one.
 It establish the standards, norms, or codes to be followed by human beings are
the study of morality, moral principles, and moral decision making.
 Is the development of reasonable standards and procedures for ethical decision-
making.

2
  Is a set of normative rules of conduct, a code, a standards that govern what one
ought to do when the well-being, or duties to oneself, others or institutions is at
stake.
B. What is Morality?
Of course, morality is a complex concept. It has been a topic of discussion for a very
long time. It can be used to mean the generally accepted code of conduct in a society, or
within a subgroup of society.

Morality, whatever else may be said about it, is about things over which we have control
that lead to “bettering human life”. It is different in every society, and is a convenient
term for socially approved habits.

Generally, morality:

 Refers to the code of conduct one follows while ethics is the study of moral
conduct or the study of the code that one follows.
 Is the conformity of human behavior to the established code of conduct .If an
action conform to the established code, it is called moral ,if not immoral.
 Refers to the effort to guide one‘s conduct by reason while giving equal weight to
the interests of each individual who will be affected by one‘s conduct.
Morality and Law
Laws are norms, formally approved by state, power or national or international political
bodies. Many laws are instituted in order to promote well-being, resolve conflicts of
interest, and promote social harmony. However, there are several reasons why ethics is
not law.
First, some actions that are illegal may not be unethical.
Second, some actions that are unethical may not be illegal.
Third, laws can be unethical or immoral.
Fourth, we use different kinds of mechanisms to express, teach, inculcate, and enforce
laws and ethics.
Finally, we use the coercive power of government to enforce laws. People who break
certain laws can be fined, imprisoned, or executed. People who violate ethical or moral
standards do not face these kinds of punishments unless their actions also violate laws.

3
Morality and Religion
Can there be a morality without religion? Must God or gods exist in order for there to be
any real point to morality? If people are not religious, can they ever be truly moral? And
if belief in God is required in order to be moral, which religion is the real foundation for
morality? There seem to be as many conflicts as there are different religions and
religious viewpoints.
Many reasons can be given to demonstrate morality need not, and indeed should not, be
based solely on religion.
A. Difficulty of Proving Supernatural Existence
First, in order to prove that one must be religious in order to be moral, we would have
to prove conclusively that a supernatural world exists and that morality exists there as
well as in the natural world. Even if this could be proved, which is doubtful, we would
have to show that the morality existing in the supernatural world has some connection
with that which exists in the natural world. It seems obvious, however, that in dealing
with morality, the only basis we have is this world, the people who exist in it, and the
actions they perform.
However, morality need not be founded on religion at all, and there is a danger of
narrowness and intolerance if religion becomes the sole foundation for morality. Rather
than relying on holy books or religious revelations, philosophical ethics uses reason
and experience to determine what is good and bad, right or wrong, better or worse.
B. Religious People Can Be Immoral
It is a known fact that some religious people can be immoral; one only needs to look at
some priests/pastors, who even though highly trained in religion and the ethics of their
church, nevertheless were guilty of molesting children under their supervision. Also,
consider the many wars and other persecutions carried out by almost every religion in
the history of humankind.
C. Nonreligious People Can Be Moral
If moral right and wrong were grounded only in religious beliefs , then non-believers
could not said to have moral views or make moral judgment that are not based strictly
on their religious views but rather on reflection and common sense. Although it is
obvious that most religions contain ethical systems, it is not true that all ethical
systems are religiously based; therefore, there is no necessary connection between

4
morality and religion. The very fact that completely nonreligious people (e.g., humanist
ethicists) can evolve significant and consistent ethical systems is proof of this.
D. Religious foundation for ethics is difficult to rationally establish
Providing a rational foundation for an ethical system is difficult enough without also
having to provide a rational foundation for the religion. And the difficulty of rationally
founding most religious systems is inescapable. It is impossible to prove conclusively
the existence of any super nature, afterlife, God. Traditional and modern arguments for
the existence or nonexistence of God or gods provide a rational basis for both claims,
but there is no conclusive evidence that such beings do or do not exist.
Therefore, if no evidence is conclusive and none of the arguments’ logic is irrefutable,
then the existence of a supernatural world, an afterlife, God, or gods, is at least placed
in the category of the unproven. This, of course, does not mean that many people will
not continue to believe in their existence, basing their belief on faith, fear, hope, or
their reading of the evidence, but as a logical foundation for morality, religion is weak
indeed except for those who believe.
E. Which Religion Would Be Best Ethically?
Even if religions could be rationally founded, which religion should be the basis of
human ethics? Within a particular religion that question is answered, but obviously it is
not answered satisfactorily for members of other conflicting religions or for those who
do not believe in any religion. Even if the supernatural tenets of religions could be
conclusively proved, which religion are we to accept as the true or real foundation of
morality?
The difficulty is underscored even more when we consider that people who believe
there is no God or supernatural or afterlife (atheists) or people who are not sure
(agnostics) are essentially excluded from moral consideration. If such people do not
believe, or neither believe nor disbelieve, then how can any of the moral precepts set
down within any particular religion have any application to them? They are
automatically excluded from the moral sphere created by the ethics of religion.
F. Difficulty of Resolving Conflicts.
How do we resolve the conflicts arising from various religiously based ethical systems
without going outside of all religions for some more broadly based human system of
morality - some wider base from which to make ethical decisions? When such
resolutions are successful, it is usually because we have gone beyond any particular

5
religion’s ethical system and used some sort of rational compromise or broader ethical
system that cuts across all religious and nonreligious lines. Accordingly, it is both
important and beneficial that we pursue this approach more strongly and consistently
than we have.
Aspects of Morality
The question here is to whom or what does morality apply. Morality may be applied to
four areas: religious morality, morality and nature, individual morality, and social
morality.
A. Religious Morality: Religious morality refers to a human being in relationship to a
supernatural being or beings. In the Jewish and Christian traditions, for example, the
first three of the Ten Commandments pertain to this kind of morality. These
commandments deal with a person’s relationship with God, not with any other
human beings. By violating any of these commandments, a person could, according
to this particular code of ethics, act immorally toward God without acting immorally
toward anyone else.
B. Morality and Nature: Morality and nature refers to a human being in relationship
to nature. Natural morality has been prevalent in all primitive cultures, such as that
of the Native American, and in cultures of the Far East. Some see nature as being
valuable only for the good of humanity, but many others have come to see it as a
good in itself, worthy of moral consideration. In the morality and nature aspect, he
could be considered either moral or immoral, depending upon his actions toward
the natural things around him.
C. Individual Morality: refers to individuals in relation to themselves and to an
individual code of morality that may or may not be sanctioned by any society or
religion. It allows for a “higher morality,” which can be found within the individual
rather than beyond this world in some supernatural realm. A person may or may not
perform some particular act, not because society, law, or religion says he may or
may not, but because he himself thinks it is right or wrong from within his own
conscience.
D. Social Morality: Social morality concerns a human being in relation to other human
beings. It is probably the most important aspect of morality, in that it cuts across all
of the other aspects and is found in more ethical systems than any of the others. A
person thrown in the desert-island is incapable of any really moral or immoral

6
 action except toward himself and nature. Such action would be minimal when
compared with the potential for morality or immorality if there were nine other
people on the island whom he could subjugate, torture, or destroy.
Who is Morally/Ethically Responsible?
Morality pertains to human beings and only to human beings; all else is speculation. If
one wants to attribute morality to supernatural beings, one has to do so solely on faith.
If one wants to hold animals or plants morally responsible for destructive acts against
each other or against humans, then one has to ignore most of the evidence that science
has given us concerning the instinctual behavior of such beings and the evidence of our
own everyday observations.
Therefore, when we use the terms moral and ethical, we are using them in reference
only to human beings. We do not hold a wolf morally responsible for killing a sheep, or
an eagle morally responsible for killing a chicken. We may kill the wolf or fox for having
done this act, but we do not kill it because we hold the animal morally responsible. We
do it because we don’t want any more of our sheep or chickens to be killed. At this point
in the world’s history, only human beings can be moral or immoral, and therefore only
human beings should be held morally responsible for their actions and behavior.
Moral Judgments
Moral judgments refer to deciding what is right and what is wrong in human relations.
Individuals are continually judging their own conduct and that of their fellows. They
approve of some acts and call them “right” or “good.” They condemn other acts and call
them “wrong” or “evil or bad.” Moral judgments always have to do with the actions of
human beings and, in particular, with voluntary actions - those actions freely chosen.
Involuntary actions - those over which people have no control - are rarely open to moral
judgment, as a person usually is not held responsible for an action that she or he did not
initiate.
Finding the right course of action, choosing the right alternative, is not always simple. In
judging conduct or action we have to consider motives, means, and consequences and
sometimes the situation.
1. Motives: Motives, as Jesus, Kant, and others have pointed out, are basic for a
determination of morality. The motive refers to the intention or why an action is
done. A good motive is a prerequisite to conduct that we approve without
qualification. If a good motive is present when an act, through some unforeseen

7
 factor, leads to harmful effects, we tend to disapprove less severely and to say,
“Anyway, he meant well.”
2. Means: Just as there may be many motives for desiring something, there may be
many means for achieving it. The term means can be defined as an agency,
instrument, or method used to attain an end. Though we expect people to use the
best available means to carry out their purposes, we condemn them if their choice of
means impresses us as unjust, cruel, or immoral. On rare occasions we may approve
of an act when means are used that under other conditions would be condemned.
3. Consequences: Consequences are the effects or results of a moral decision based on
a value. We expect the consequences of an act that we call “right” to be good.
Ordinarily, when people ask, “what is right?” they are thinking about the
consequences of the action. This depends on what ethical principle is in operation. In
general, society judges conduct “right” if it proceeds from a good motive, through the
use of the best available means, to consequences that are good. If these conditions
are not fulfilled, we condemn the action or approve it with reservations. We rarely
approve an action when the results are evil or wrong.
4. The Moral Situation: A moral situation involves moral agents - human beings who
act, are empowered to make choices, and consciously make decisions. As moral
agents, demands are made on us and place us under obligations: we have both
duties and rights. We are faced with moral alternatives, and we can better weigh
those alternatives when we have an understanding of the ingredients of the moral
situation.
Why Should Human Beings Be Moral?

The question that is worth mentioning at this point is “Why should human beings be
moral?” Another way of putting the problem is as follows: Is there any clear foundation
or basis for morality - can any reasons be found for human beings to be good and do
right acts rather than be bad and do wrong acts?

A. Argument from Enlightened Self-Interest

One can certainly argue on a basis of enlightened self-interest that it is, at the very least,
generally better to be good rather than bad and to create a world and society that is
good rather than one that is bad. As a matter of fact, self-interest is the sole basis of one

8
ethical theory, ethical egoism. However, it is not being suggested at this point that one
ought to pursue one’s own self-interest. Rather, an argument is being presented that if
everyone tried to do and be good and tried to avoid and prevent bad, it would be in
everyone’s self-interest. For example, if within a group of people no one killed, stole,
lied, or cheated, then each member of the group would benefit. An individual member of
the group could say, “it’s in my self-interest to do good rather than bad because I stand
to benefit if I do and also because I could be ostracized or punished if I don’t.” Therefore,
even though it is not airtight, the argument from enlightened self-interest is compelling.

B. Argument from Tradition and Law

Related to the foregoing argument is the argument from tradition and law. This
argument suggests that because traditions and laws, established over a long period of
time, govern the behavior of human beings, and because these traditions and laws urge
human beings to be moral rather than immoral, there are good reasons for being so.
Self-interest is one reason, but another is respect for the human thought and effort that
has gone into establishing such laws and traditions and transferring them from one
historic period and one culture to another.

C. Common Human Needs

If we examine human nature as empirically and rationally as we can, we discover that

all human beings have many needs, desires, goals, and objectives in common. For
example, people generally seem to need friendship, love, happiness, freedom, peace,
creativity, and stability in their lives, not only for themselves but for others, too. It
doesn’t take much further examination to discover that in order to satisfy these needs,
people must establish and follow moral principles that encourage them to cooperate
with one another and that free them from fear that they will lose their lives, be
mutilated, or be stolen from, lied to, cheated, severely restricted, or imprisoned.

Morality exists, in part, because of human needs and through recognition of the
importance of living together in a cooperative and significant way. It may not be the
case that all human beings can be convinced that they should be moral, or even that it
will always be in each individual’s self-interest to be moral. However, the question “why
should human beings be moral?” generally can best be answered by the statement that

9
adhering to moral principles enables human beings to live their lives as peacefully,
happily, creatively, and meaningfully as is possible
The Importance/Goal of Moral and Civic Education

Civic education is a discipline that deals with virtue traits rooted in values of respect
and culture of tolerance to make individuals responsible and efficient member of their
community. It teaches the values and sense of commitment that define an active and
principled citizen, how to make responsible decisions, solve problems, care about
others, contribute to society, and be tolerant and respectful of diversity.

Generally, the necessity of delivering the course emanates from:

1) The need to instill citizens about their rights and duties:

We need a fuller, richer and yet more subtle understanding and practice of citizenship,
because what the ideal society needs and wants to be cannot be secured by coercion,
but only through its members (citizens) who have a balanced understanding of rights
and duties.

Sastry et al. (2011) presented four issues to look into the interplay between rights and
duties. First, one's right implies the other's duty. Second, one's right implies one's duty
to recognize similar rights of others. This implies that every exercise of right is subject
to restrictions. Third, one should exercise his rights for the promotion of social good.
Fourth, the State being a nucleus organ needs to take care of the social and legal
interests of all its individuals. From this point of view, the State has the obligation to
discharge duties towards its citizens.

2) The Need for Participant Political Culture:

According to the International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences (1961) political

culture is the set of attitudes, beliefs, and sentiments which give order and meaning to a
political process and which provide the underlying assumptions and rules that govern
behavior in the political system. Political culture shapes what people expect of their
political system, what they see as possibilities for their own action, and what rights and
responsibilities the various actors are perceived to have. Generally, political culture
defines the roles which an individual may play in the political process.

10
Almond and Verba (1963) construct three political cultures: parochial cultures, subject
cultures, and participant cultures. In parochial cultures citizens have low cognitive,
affective, and evaluative orientation regarding the political systems, government
powers and functions and even their privileges and duties. In such political culture, the
role of citizens in the political sphere of their countries is insignificant since individuals
thinks of their families advantage as the only goal to pursue.

In subject cultures, there is high cognitive, affective, and evaluative orientation towards
the political system and policy outputs, but orientations towards input objects (like
political parties) and the self as active participants are minimal.

In participant cultures, members of society have high cognitive, affective, and

evaluative orientation to the political system, the input objects, the policy outputs, and
recognize the self as an active participant in the polity. Largely, participant cultures are
most compatible with democratic political structures because the qualities and attitudes
of citizens determine the health and stability of a country‘s democracy.

2) The Need for Relevant Knowledge, Skills and Positive Attitudes:

Relevant knowledge is a type of knowledge which is useful in dealing with a particular

problem at a period of time. However, knowledge would remain inert knowledge unless
it is functional or put into practice to achieve a certain goal. Still knowledge would
remain infirm if the person is not equipped with right attitudes and requisite skills
which are basic to enable him/her perform his/her role as a credible member of a
society.

Right attitudes are very essential ingredients needed to ensure harmony and peaceful
co-existence among people. It is reasonable to claim that skillful manpower is a pre-
requisite for every nation that wishes to develop but a skillful manpower without
positive attitudes to work is likely to result in counter production because vices like
corruption, bribery, abuse of power, lateness to and work absenteeism among others
will pop their ugly heads.

11
 3) The issue of fostering intercultural societies:

The recognition of cultural diversity is certainly meritorious, but civics and ethics
education could move a step forward by appealing to the notion of inter-culturalism,
which explicitly asserts the need for relationship, dialogue, reciprocity and
interdependence.

4) The issue of inclusiveness:

By framing a universal concept of citizenship constructed on the

attributes/identities and practices of male subjects, gendered relations and the
private sphere have been neglected. Civics and ethics as a subject is thought to
nurture new and inclusive relations and practices in both public and private spaces
that recognize gender differences while ensuring inclusiveness and equity.

5) The issue of peace-building:

In an environment characterized by increasing militarization, terrorism, civil wars

and genocidal acts, it is urgent for citizenship education to advance pedagogical
strategies to promote cooperation, dialogue, and a sustainable peace that is based on
justice.

In sum the goals of teaching civics and ethics at any level of educational institutions
is to produce competent, high moral standard society and responsible citizens who
can ask and use their rights and fulfill their obligations in accordance with the laws
of their respective country.

12