Reference No: KLL-FO-ACAD-000 | Effectivity Date: August 3, 2020 | Revisions No.

: 00

VISION MISSION
A center of human development committedto the pursuit of wisdom, truth, Establish and maintain anacademic environment promoting the pursuit of
justice, pride, dignity, and local/global competitiveness via a quality but excellence and the total development of its students as human beings,
affordable education for all qualified clients. with fear of God and love of country and fellowmen.

GOALS
Kolehiyo ng Lungsod ng Lipa aims to:
1. foster the spiritual, intellectual, social, moral, and creative life of its client via affordable but quality tertiary education;
2. provide the clients with reach and substantial, relevant, wide range of academic disciplines, expose them to varied curricular and co-curricular
experiences which nurture and enhance their personal dedications and commitments to social, moral, cultural, and economic transformations.
3. work with the government and the community and the pursuit of achieving national developmental goals; and
4. develop deserving and qualified clients with different skills of life existence and prepare them for local and global competitiveness

Chapter 1
Introduction to Ethics

 Ethics – from the Greek word ethos which means customs, usage, or character.
o Branch of philosophy that studies the rightness or wrongness of a human action
o Concerned with questions of how human persons ought to act in the search for the definition of
right conduct and the good life. It is for this reason that the attempt to seek the good through
the aid of reason is the traditional goal of ethicists.
o There is no single absolute definition of ethics, this is because ethics as a discipline is
constantly evolving as a result of a change in the socio-cultural and political context.
o In the Greek Tradition, ethics was conceived as relating to the concept of the good life thus the
ethical inquiry during this time was directed toward discovering the nature of happiness.
o Judeo-Christian tradition, introduce ethics as the ideals of righteousness before God and the
love of God and neighbor, not the happy or pleasant life constitute the substance of ethics.
 Ethics vs. Morality
o Ethics denotes the “theory” of right action and the greater good. It undertakes the systematic
study of the underlying principles of morality. (Ethics = science of morals)
o Morality indicates “practice” that is the rightness or wrongness of human action. It is more
prescriptive, it tells us what we ought to do and exhorts us to follow the right way. According to
Terrance McConnell (1994), morality is characterized as an ‘end-governed rational enterprise’
whose objective is to equip people with a body of norms that make for peaceful and collectively
satisfying coexistence by facilitating their living together and interacting in a way that is
productive for the realization of the general benefit. (Morality = practice of ethics)
 Types of Ethics
1. Descriptive Ethics – refers to what individuals accept to be right or wrong and is about
various moral standards utilized over a wide span of time
2. Normative Ethics (evaluative and prescriptive) – seeks to set norms or standards that
regulate right and wrong or good and bad conduct (e.g. good habits that we should acquire, the
duties that we should follow are the consequences of our behavior on others). Normally
attempts to develop guidelines or theories that tell us how we ought to behave.
1|Page

Marawoy, Lipa City, Batangas 4217 | https://www.facebook.com/KLLOfficial/

 2.1 Virtue Ethics – centers around one’s character and kindness
2.2 Deontology – duty/obligation morals or all about objective good or absolutism
2.3 Consequentialism – it centers around the outcome of an activity
3. Metaethics(analytical and descriptive) – constituted by questions of the meanings and
functions of the various ethical terms. It aims to understand the nature and dynamics of ethical
principles and the way we learn and acquire moral beliefs. It doubts the significance of
goodness, morals, and profound quality including how individuals can realize what is valid or
bogus.
4. Applied Ethics – the actual application of ethical or moral theories to decide which ethical or
moral actions are appropriate in a given situation; the utilization of moral hypotheses in various
open and private issues like medication, business, and so on.
 Casuists – the adherents of applied ethics are concerned with individual moral
problems such as abortion or euthanasia and attempt to resolve the conflicting issues
that surround these particular moral problems.
 Applied Ethics is usually divided into different fields: 1) business ethics which deals with
ethical behavior in the corporate world, 2) biomedical and environmental ethics which
deals with issues relating to health, welfare, and the responsibility we have toward
people in our environment, and 3) social ethics which deals with the principles and
guidelines that regulate corporate welfare within societies
 Four Principles of Normative Ethics
1. Respect to Autonomy – the acknowledgment that every person has the right to make choices
to hold views and to act based on one’s value and beliefs as long as the person is conscious
and has a proper understanding of the matter on hand
2. Beneficence – the promotion of doing as much goodness as possible refers to acts of
kindness, compassion, and generosity
3. Non-maleficence – the distribution of resources equally and fairly
4. Justice – the avoidance of any unjustifiable and unnecessary harm

MORAL VS. NON-MORAL STANDARDS

Why the need to distinguish moral standards from non-moral ones?

 Different societies have different moral beliefs which are deeply influenced by culture and context, for
this reason, some values do have moral implications, while others don’t.
 Different cultures have different moral standards. What is a matter of moral indifference, that is, a
matter of taste in one culture may be a matter of moral significance in another. The danger here is that
one culture may impose its cultural standards on others which may result in a clash in cultural values
and beliefs. When this happens as we may already know, violence and crime may ensue such as
religious violence, and ethnic cleansing. So, how can we address this cultural conundrum?
o People have to understand the difference between moral standards and non-moral ones
 Moral standards – we have the RIGHT to FORCE others to act accordingly (e.g. not to cheat, lie, kill,
harm, and deceive our fellow human beings).

2|Page

Marawoy, Lipa City, Batangas 4217 | https://www.facebook.com/KLLOfficial/

 o These are norms that individuals or groups have about the kinds of actions believed to be
morally right or wrong, as the values placed on what we believed to be morally good or morally
bad.
o Moral standards normally promote “the good”, that is the welfare and well-being of humans as
well as animals and the environment.
o Prescribe what humans ought to do in terms of rights and obligations
o Norms + values = moral standards
o Norms are general rules about actions or behaviors
o Values are enduring beliefs about what is good and desirable, or not
 Characteristics of moral standards:
1. Deals with matters we think can seriously injure or benefit humans, animals, and the
environment (e.g. child abuse, rape, and murder);
2. Not established or changed by the decisions of authoritative individuals or bodies;
3. Overriding, that is, they take precedence over other standards and considerations, especially
of self-interest;
4. Based on impartial considerations; and
5. Associated with special emotions and vocabulary
6. Identify fundamental ethical values that may guide our actions
 Non-moral standards – we have NO RIGHT to impose on others.
o Refer to standards by which we judge what is good or bad and right or wrong in a non-moral
way.
o Examples: standards of etiquette, the law, standards of aesthetics
o Matters of taste or preference

MORAL DILEMMAS
 Dilemma – is a situation where a person is forced to choose between two or more conflicting options,
neither of which is acceptable.
 Ethical or moral dilemmas – when dilemmas involve human actions which have moral implications
o Are situations where persons, who are called “moral agents” in ethics, are forced to choose
between two or more conflicting options, neither of which resolves the situation in a morally
acceptable manner
 Three conditions that must be present in moral dilemmas:
1. The person or the agent of moral action is obliged to make a decision about which course of
action is best.
2. There must be different courses of action to choose from.
3. No matter what course of action is taken, some moral principles are always compromised.
 In moral dilemmas, the moral agent “seems fated to commit something wrong, which implies that she
is bound to morally fail because in one way or another she will fail to do something which she ought to
do. In other words, by choosing one of the possible moral requirements, the person also fails on
others.”
– BenjiemenLabastin
3|Page

Marawoy, Lipa City, Batangas 4217 | https://www.facebook.com/KLLOfficial/

 Types of Moral Dilemmas:
1. Epistemic and ontological dilemmas
 Epistemic moral dilemma – there are two or more moral requirements that conflict
with each other. The moral agent hardly knows which one takes precedence over the
other. One option must be better than the other; only, it needs fuller knowledge of the
situation.
 Ontological moral dilemma – there are two or more moral requirements that conflict
with each other, yet neither of these conflicting moral requirements override each other;
Neither of the moral requirements is stronger than the other; hence, the moral agent
can hardly choose between the conflicting moral requirements.
2. Self-imposed and world-imposed dilemmas
 Self-imposed moral dilemma – caused by the moral agent’s wrongdoings
 World-imposed moral dilemma – certain events in the world place the moral agent in
a situation of moral conflict.
3. Obligation dilemmas and prohibition dilemmas
 Obligation moral dilemma – more than one feasible action is obligatory
 Prohibition moral dilemma – ALL feasible actions are forbidden
4. Single-agent and multi-person dilemmas
 Single-agent moral dilemma – The agent “ought, all things considered, to do A, ought,
all things considered, to do B, and she cannot do both A and B”.
 Multi-person moral dilemma – one agent, P1, ought to do A, a second agent, P2,
ought to do B, and though each agent can do what he ought to do, it is not possible
both for P1 to do A and P2 to do B.” It requires more than choosing what is right; it also
entails that the persons involved reached a general consensus.

THREE LEVELS OF MORAL DILEMMAS

1. Systemic (macro-level) – ethical standards are universal or general; ethical standards apply
to all who are within the system (Example: R.A. 6713 “Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards
for Public Officials and Employees”)
2. Organizational (company level) – at a company or corporate level, ethical standards are
embedded in the policies and procedures of the organization; ethical standards apply to all
those within the organization (Example: “Code of Ethics for Professional Teachers”)
3. Individual (individual level) – ethical standards of individuals; individuals may well have a
very different set of ethical standards from their employer (organization) and this can lead to
tensions (Example: Teacher Peter’s personal ethical standards)

FOUNDATION OF MORALITY: FREEDOM-RESPONSIBILITY FOR ONE’S ACT AND TO OTHERS

 Humans, as moral beings, are free to act or not to act. Their will equip them with the power to
determine their actions. It is in this light that humans differ from other creatures and beings.

4|Page

Marawoy, Lipa City, Batangas 4217 | https://www.facebook.com/KLLOfficial/

  Freedom – power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint;not
absolute, it has limits, so we have to be responsible in exercising our freedom; it is the
dependence of the “will” on the “self” or “I” for the same to act or not to act.
 If there will be no limitations to our freedom, there will be chaos, anarchy, and even war.
 Will – (expression of) desire, willingness
 Moral Dimension of Freedom
1. The moral dimension belongs to the realm of human freedom
2. The moral dimension refers to the concern for a good and happy life
3. The moral dimension speaks to our sense of moral responsibility
Why only human beings can be ethical?

 Only human beings can determine their actions because of their freedom which is absent
to other beings. Self-determination is coupled with responsibility; hence, morality is born.
Without self-determination or freedom, no responsibility and there will be no ethics or
morality to talk about.

MINIMUM REQUIREMENT FOR MORALITY: REASON AND IMPARTIALITY

 Is reason a requirement for morality?
 Reason – the power of the mind to think, understand, and form judgments by a process of
logic
 Immanuel Kant asserted that reason alone is the basis for morality. Once the person
understood this basic requirement for morality, he or she would see that acting morally is
the same as acting rationally.
 A moral decision is about thinking of possible actions to take and choosing what action to
take. It is not controlled by desires, forcing people to act in a particular manner.
 Is impartiality a requirement for morality?
 Impartiality denotes that decisions should be “based on objective criteria rather on the
basis of bias, prejudice, or preferring to benefit one person over another for improper
reasons”
–Jollimore, 2011
 It stresses everyone ought to be given equal importance and not favor one class in
a capricious way thus forfeit question a reason and impartiality a requirement for
morality
 Morality at the very least is the effort to guide one’s action based on the most logical
choice (reason) while giving equal importance to the interests of each person affected by
your decisions (impartiality).

 The 7-step Model for Ethical Decision-Making

1. Gather the facts – gather as many facts as you can; clarify what assumptions you are
making

5|Page

Marawoy, Lipa City, Batangas 4217 | https://www.facebook.com/KLLOfficial/

 2. Identify the stakeholders – identify all of the persons involved and will be affected in an
ethical situation
3. Articulate the Dilemma – the purpose of articulating a dilemma is to make sure that you
understand the situation and the moral conflict you are facing
4. List the Alternatives – think creatively about potential actions to ensure you are not pushed
into a corner
5. Compare the Alternatives with the Principles – identifying the values and comparing your
action help identify illegal or unethical actions
6. Weigh the Consequences – filter your choices to avoid options that will violate ethical
values
7. Make a Decision – avoid “paralysis by analysis”. Your decision must reflect the values you
want to uphold
Chapter 2
The Moral Agent

CULTURE: HOW IT DEFINES MORAL BEHAVIOR

 Culture is the integrated pattern of human knowledge, beliefs, and behaviors. It is people’s way of life.
 It consists of non-material and material culture. Non-material culture includes language, values,
rules, knowledge and meanings shared by members of society. Material culture refers to the physical
objects that a society produces such as tools and works of art.
 Culture is learned not inherited. It is acquired through enculturation, inculturation, and acculturation.
 Enculturation is the process of learning the components of life – material as well as non-material – in
one’s culture.
 Inculturation is making the Gospel take roots in a culture and introducing that transformed culture to
Christianity.
 Acculturation is the process by which people learn and adapt a new culture.
 Culture influences the human person, who is the moral agent.
 Culture affects human behavior. Not all cultural practices are morally acceptable.

CULTURAL RELATIVISM
 Cultural relativism is the idea that a person’s beliefs, values, and practices should be understood
based on that person’s own culture rather than be judged against the criteria of another. It is view that
moral or ethical systems, which vary from culture to culture, are equally valid and no one system is
really better than any other.
 Morality is relative to the norms of one’s culture. That is, whether an action is right or wrong depends
on the moral norms of the society in which it is practiced. The same action may be morally right in one
society but morally wrong in another.
 The danger of cultural relativism is the idea of relativism itself. Whether an action is right or wrong
depends on the moral norms of the society in which it is practiced. What is good depends on what

6|Page

Marawoy, Lipa City, Batangas 4217 | https://www.facebook.com/KLLOfficial/

 society’s culture considers as good. What is bad likewise depends on what society’s culture considers
as bad.
 Absolute relativism is self-contradictory and impossible. Absolute relativism states there are no
absolute truths: which is an absolute truth itself, so absolute relativism contradicts itself.
 There is a difference between cultural perspective and cultural relativism. To have a cultural
perspective is to understand people’s beliefs, values, and practices in the context of their culture.
Having a perspective of one’s culture, is needed to understand people. But it does not follow that
morality must be based on said culture.

THE FILIPINO CHARACTER: STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES

The weaknesses of the Filipino character are as follows:
1. Extreme family centeredness
2. Extreme personalism
3. Lack of discipline
4. Passivity and lack of initiative
5. Colonial mentality
6. Kanya-kanya syndrome, talangka mentality
7. Lack of self-analysis and self-reflection
8. Emphasis on porma rather than substance

These weaknesses are rooted in many factors: home, social and economic environment; culture and
language; history; religion; educational system; mass media; leadership and role models.

The strengths of the Filipino character are:

1. Pakikipagkapwa-tao
2. Family orientation
3. Joy and humor
4. Flexibility, adaptability and creativity
5. Hard work and industry
6. Faith and religiosity
7. Ability to survive

To help every Filipino child grow morally and ethically, he/she must be helped acquire the strengths of the
Filipino character at the same time, he/she must be made to realize that his/her strengths also become
his/her source of weaknesses.

7|Page

Marawoy, Lipa City, Batangas 4217 | https://www.facebook.com/KLLOfficial/

 The Filipino group-centeredness and “kami”-mentality make it difficult for the Filipino to stand up
against the group when that is the moral thing to do.
 There is much need for home, school and society as a whole to help every Filipino grow into the
strong moral person everyone is called to become.
 For the Filipino to become the moral and ethical person, he/she should capitalize on his/her strengths
and eliminate his/her weaknesses.

UNIVERSAL VALUES
 Are there universal values? Is honesty a universal value? Plato talked about the values or virtues of
temperance, courage, and wisdom. Jesus Christ preached the value of love from which springs
patience, kindness, goodwill, forgiveness, and compassion. Confucius taught righteousness, human-
centeredness, and filial piety.
 Values are universalized because they can only be wished to be the values of all.
 Using Kant’s criteria, universal values are values that are willed to be the values of all.
 Dr. Kent M. Keith (2003) came up with a list of fundamental, or universal moral principles that can be
found throughout the world, these are as follows:
o Do no harm
o Do good
 Universal values are for human survival. They are the ultimate bases for living together and learning
how to live together. Without respect for human life by all then people will just kill each other. If
honesty or truth telling is not valued by all, there will be endless lack of trust among people.
 In spite of cultural relativism, there are values that are universal for human survival.

THE HUMAN PERSON AS A MORAL AGENT

 “Moral” comes from the Latin “mores,” referring to society’s patterns, standards, rules of doing things.
“Agent” comes from the Latin “agree,” to do, act.
 A moral agent is one who performs an act in accordance with moral standards. A moral agent is the
moral actor, one who acts morally. Only a moral agent is capable of human acts. That’s why “morality
is for persons.”
 A moral agent should have the capacity to rise above their feelings and passions and act for the sake
of the moral law.
 A moral agent has the capacity to conform to moral standards, to act for the sake of moral
considerations, that is, for the sake of moral law.
 An insane person, who does not have the capacity to think and choose, cannot be a moral agent.
 A dog is, therefore, not a moral agent because it doesn’t have the capacity to conform to moral
standards. It cannot knowingly, freely and voluntarily act. It does not have a mind and freewill. Like the
dog, a robot cannot be a moral agent.
 The moral agent is purpose-driven or end-driven. That end is sought for its own sake, an end no
longer sought for the sake of another end, the highest good which is happiness.

8|Page

Marawoy, Lipa City, Batangas 4217 | https://www.facebook.com/KLLOfficial/

 From the Christian point of view, a human person’s destiny in the world is not only to achieve cultural
and moral perfection, but to attain the eternal happiness of the soul after death of the body. As a moral
agent his duty is to know, to love, and to serve God, his ultimate end.
 A person’s act is moral if it realizes his/her potentials and brings him/her nearer to this goal in life,
immoral if it deviates from it.
 Fundamental option is a human person’s basic choice or inner orientation either for a good life
(directed towards others and God) or for a bad life (directed towards himself/ herself and cut off from
others and God).
 Man as a moral agent adopts the “fundamental option,” a free choice to say “yes” to God’s invitation to
follow His way.
 There is no pre-fixed plan for the human person as a moral agent.
 For the existentialist, like Jean Paul Sartre, the human person, the moral agent, becomes what he/she
makes of himself/herself by choice. He/she is nothing, no “essence” until he/she starts his/her
“existence” by making choices.
 To the process philosophers like Teilhard de Chardin and Alfred North Whitehead, whatever a human
person, the moral agent, is or will be is a result of a creative process. The moral agent has to create
his/her end, purpose, or directions. He/she has to invent his/her destiny. Since there is no goal or end
designed for him/her, he/she would completely be the author of what he/she turns out to be. He/she
will be totally responsible for what he/she will be.
 Other groups, like Martin Heidegger, Gabriel Marcel and Martin Buber see the moral agent as being-
with-others, who is inseparably related to his/her fellow man. Together with other moral agents, the
human person goes through life, designing his/her end guided by messages unveiled in a life of
dialogue with others and with the world.
 For Brabander, the moral agent directs his/her life to improve, refine, develops this world in order to
bring out the world to come.
 R. Francoeur likewise claims that the moral agent should direct his/her life to the spiritualization of this
material world.

THE DEVELOPMENT OF MORAL CHARACTER OF THE MORAL AGENT

 Defining moment is a significant life-changing event or moment in a person’s life. This kind of
moment can change who we are and what we value.
 Moral character is necessary for moral behavior. Moral character facilitates doing the moral action.
 A person who has moral character does moral actions more readily and more willingly than one who
does not. Therefore, it is good to develop moral character.
 It is, therefore, best for all persons to develop moral character. Moral character is formed by
repeatedly doing moral acts.

STAGES OF MORAL DEVELOPMENT

 Moral development refers to the “process through which a human person gains his/her beliefs, skills
and dispositions that make him/her a morally mature person.” William A. Kay (1970) has the following
to say regarding the nature of moral development.
9|Page

Marawoy, Lipa City, Batangas 4217 | https://www.facebook.com/KLLOfficial/

 ...Just as the pattern of intellectual growth can be simply described as passing through stages of
animal behavior, pre-logical thinking, thought governed by empirical logic and finally by formal logic, so
morality can be described as passing through stages of behavior controlled first, by taboo; then
second, by law; third by conscience ( i.e. irrational, intrajected values); fourth, by reciprocity; fifth, by
social consensus and finally by personal moral principles, though not necessarily in that order.
Stated differently, the five stages may be reduced to three as follows:
o The amoral stage – egocentric, hedonist and prudential considerations.
o The pre-moral stage – authoritarian, ego-idealist, social and reciprocal considerations.
o The moral stage – personal, autonomous, altruistic, rational, independent and responsible
considerations.

Kohlberg’s Stages of Moral Development

 Level 1 – Pre-conventional morality
At this level, children don’t have a personal code of morality. Instead, their moral code is controlled by
the standards of adults and the consequences of following or breaking adults’ rules. Authority is
outside the individual and reasoning is based on the physical consequences of actions.
o Stage 1. Obedience and Punishment Orientation. The child/individual does good in order to
avoid being punished. Moral decisions are based on fear of punishment. It is a matter of obey
or you get punished.
o Stage 2. Instrumental Orientation. Right behavior is defined by whatever the individual
believes to be in his/her best interest. “What’s in it for me?” In this stage there is limited interest
in the needs of others, only to the point where it might further the individual’s own interests. In
this stage, right involves equal exchange.
 Level 2 – Conventional
Throughout the conventional level, a child’s sense of morality is tied to personal and societal
relationships. Children continue to accept the rules of authority figures, but this is now due to their
belief that this is necessary to ensure positive relationships and societal order. Adherence to rules and
conventions is somewhat rigid during these stages and a rule’s appropriateness or fairness is seldom
questioned.
o Stage 3. “Good Boy, Nice Girl” Orientation. In stage 3, children want the approval of others
and act in ways to avoid disapproval. Emphasis is placed on good behavior and people being
“nice” to others. The individual values caring and loyalty to others as a basis for moral
judgments.
o Stage 4.Law and Order Orientation. The child/individual becomes aware of the wider rules of
society, so judgments concern obeying the rules in order to uphold the law and to avoid guilt. It
is a matter of “I have to do this because the law says so.” It is still blind obedience to the law so
morality still lacks internalization.
 Level 3 – Post-conventional Morality
This is the level of full internalization. Morality is completely internalized and not based on external
standards. Individual judgment is based on self-chosen principles and moral reasoning is based on
individual rights and justice.
10 | P a g e

Marawoy, Lipa City, Batangas 4217 | https://www.facebook.com/KLLOfficial/

 o Stage 5. Social Contract Orientation. The child/individual becomes aware that while
rules/laws might exist for the good of the greatest number, there are times when they will work
against the interest of particular individuals. In this level, individuals reason out that values,
rights and principles transcend the law.
Laws are regarded as social contracts rather than rigid orders. Those that do not promote the
general welfare should be changed when necessary to meet the greatest good for the greatest
number of people.
o Stage 6. Universal, Ethical, Principle Orientation. Individuals at this stage have developed
their own set of moral guidelines which may or may not fit the law. They have developed moral
judgments that are based on universal human rights. The principles apply to everyone.

Development of conscience-based moral decision

 Moral development includes development of conscience-based moral decision. This is in the post-
conventional level of Kohlberg’s stages of moral development. Panizo defines conscience as “an act of
the practical judgment of reason deciding upon an individual action as good and to be performed and
as evil and to be avoided. It is metaphorically referred to as the “inner or little voice of God.”
 Rev. Thomas V. Berg (2012) defines conscience as follows:
o In the natural law tradition, conscience is understood to be a judgment emanating from human
reason about choices and actions to be made, or accomplished, or already opted for and
performed.
o Conscience is the interior resounding of reason. Conscience is reason’s awareness of a
choice, or an action’s harmony or disharmony, with the kind of behavior which truly leads to our
genuine well-being, and flourishing.
 Conscience formation begins with the deep-seated decision to seek moral truth.
 A sound conscience must stand on the firm foundation of integrity, sincerity, and forthrightness.
 Conscience formation is sustained by the habit of consistently educating oneself by exposure to
objective moral norms and the rationale behind those norms.
 For conscience to be formed, it needs a guide, for Christians, the Church’s moral teaching and
persons whose moral judgments are sound and in accordance with the Church’s moral tradition.
 Conscience formation requires a habit of on-going self-formation (moral information gathering) through
study, reading and other types of inquiry.
 Conscience-based moral decision means the widening of human consciousness – from family
consciousness to clan consciousness, community consciousness, town consciousness, provincial,
regional, national and international or global consciousness.
 As one’s consciousness widens, the standards of one’s decision making widens; as one’s moral
conscience widens, one matures.
 Moral development is internalization of moral norms. One acts morally based on his/her convictions
not because the law says so or a person in authority orders so.

11 | P a g e

Marawoy, Lipa City, Batangas 4217 | https://www.facebook.com/KLLOfficial/

 Chapter 3
The Human Act

THE MEANING OF HUMAN ACT

Act of Man versus Human Act
 A human act is an action that is considered to be carried out voluntarily, whereas an act of man is
an involuntary action.
 A human act is an act on which an individual can make a conscious decision whether or not to
carry out that act. An act of man is the natural act of vegetative and sense faculties such as
digestion, the beating of the heart, growing, bodily reactions and visual or auditory perceptions.
The Determinants of the Morality of Human Acts
 According to Rev. Coppens, S.J., to know whether an individual human act is morally good, three
things are considered. These are called the determinants of morality, namely, a) the object of
the act, b) the end, or purpose, and c) its circumstances.
 The object of an act is the thing done. In reality, it is not distinct from the act itself(E.g., going to
church, praising God, eating meat).For an individual human act to be good, its object, whether
considered in itself or as further specified, must be free from all defect; it must be good, or at least
indifferent.
 The end, or purpose intended by the agent is not the end of the work, for that pertains to the
object, but the end of the workman or agent. It is the intention of the acting subject, or what
inspires the acting subject. No matter how good the object of an act may be, if the end intended is
bad, the act thereby vitiated, spoiled or impaired. Thus, to praise God is good in itself, but if in so
acting the intention would be to play the hypocrite, the act is morally bad.
 The circumstances of time, place and persons have their part in determining the morality of an
individual act. The moral character of an act may be so affected by attendant circumstances, that
12 | P a g e

Marawoy, Lipa City, Batangas 4217 | https://www.facebook.com/KLLOfficial/

 an act good in itself may be evil when accompanied by certain circumstances. They either
increase or diminish the moral goodness or evil of human acts.
 A morally good act requires the goodness of the object, of the end, and of the circumstances
together. An evil end corrupts the action, even if the object is good in itself.

ACCOUNTABILITY OF MORAL ACT

Bases of Moral Accountability
 Every human act is a free act so is imputable to him/her who performs it.
 Under Christian natural law ethics, God is deemed the author of the law, hence violators are
accountable to God. For non-theistic morality, violators are accountable solely to themselves.
 There are three bases for moral accountability, namely: knowledge, freedom, and
voluntariness.
o A human act must be done knowingly; it must be done freely and it must be done
voluntarily (intentional or negligent).
o To be credited for a good act or held morally liable or responsible for an evil act, a person
must have done it knowingly, willingly, and voluntarily. Determining moral liability is
analogous to determining criminal liability.
 Knowledge is the awareness of or familiarity with a fact, situation, or truth, unveiled through
experience or disclosed in dialogue or encounter with persons or things. To have a genuine
knowledge, your mind must be normal, not impaired or vitiated, by mental condition or ignorance.
 An act that is freely done happens when you can exercise your power of choice. If the act you
intend to choose is testifying as to your personal knowledge, what you saw, heard, etc., you should
be free to do so, without being subjected to an uncontrollable fear of being silenced by death.
 An act is voluntarily intended when it is done with the aim, purpose, or goal of attaining a result.
An act is negligent when it is done voluntarily, but without care or precaution in avoiding the
happening of foreseeable event. A voluntary act proceeds from the will and depends upon the will
for its performance. When something is done purely by accident, this is referred to as fortuitous
event, act of God.
 Your degree of moral accountability depends on the degree or extent of knowledge, freedom, and
voluntariness.

Modifiers of Human Act

 Modifiers of the human act either increase or decrease accountability. These are analogous
to exempting, mitigating, aggravating, and justifying circumstances in criminal law. They
are as follows: 1) ignorance, 2) passions, 3) fear, and 4) violence (Panizo, 1964).
 Ignorance is the absence of knowledge. There are various degrees of ignorance. Traditional
ethics classifies them as vincible, invincible, affected, and supine or gross ignorance. The
basic rule is invincible ignorance is entirely voluntary, hence removes moral responsibility;
vincible ignorance does not remove moral responsibility. Gross or supine ignorance exists
when scarcely an effort has been made to remove it while affected ignorance exists when a
person deliberately avoids enlightenment in order to sin more freely.

13 | P a g e

Marawoy, Lipa City, Batangas 4217 | https://www.facebook.com/KLLOfficial/

  Passion refers to positive emotions like love, desire, delight, hope, and bravery and negative
emotions like hatred, horror, sadness, despair, fear, and anger. Antecedent passions those
that precede the act, do not always destroy voluntariness, but they diminish accountability for
the resultant act. Consequent passions are those that are intentionally aroused and kept. They
do not lessen voluntariness, but may increase accountability.
 Fear is the disturbance of the mind of a person due to an impending danger or harm to himself
or loved ones. Acts done with fear is voluntary, but acts done because of intense or
uncontrollable fear or panic are involuntary.
 Violence refers to any physical force exerted on a person by another free agent for the
purpose of compelling said person to act against his will. Actions performed by person
subjected to violence or irresistible force are involuntary and not accountable.

Moral Accountability for What Could Have Been

 Whatever one fails to do but which should have been done is also imputable to him. This refers
to failure to act despite knowledge of being free, therefore different from negligence or lack of
foresight. This is sin of omission.

FEELING AS A MODIFIER OF MORAL DECISION-MAKING

Feelings in Decision-Making
 Feeling, in general, is an emotional state or reaction, experience of physical sensation, like feeling
of joy, feeling of warmth, love, affection, tenderness, etc.
 Feelings can be obstacles to making right decisions but they can also help in making the right
decisions.
 Researches shows that actual emotional states can influence the process of moral reasoning and
determine moral judgment. According to recent research, feelings or emotions have positive
effects on decision making.
 Emotional decision-making can also come with a number of negatives.

Moral statements as expressions of feelings

 According to some linguistic philosophers, called (emotivists) the statement “stealing is wrong” is
not a statement of fact, it is an expression of a desire or emotion. The rule of maxim “Stealing is
wrong” means “I desire that you do not steal.”
 Emotivism is the view that moral judgments do not function as statements of fact but rather as
expressions of the speaker’s or writer’s feelings. The emotivist says that ethical statements being
emotional expressions are not verifiable. Emotional expressions are not assertions of what is true
or false. They are like expressions of taste.

Managing Feelings
 Aristotle wrote: “Anyone can get angry---that is easy---but to do this to the right person, to the right
extent, at the right time with the right motive, and in the right way, that is not for everyone, nor is it
14 | P a g e

Marawoy, Lipa City, Batangas 4217 | https://www.facebook.com/KLLOfficial/

 easy.” In other words, your anger should not be displaced. The moral person manages his/her
feelings well.
 Acting on one’s convictions imply involvement of both reason and feeling.

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN REASON AND WILL

 The moral person is endowed with an intellect and will. The “will” is what “disposes” what the
“intellect proposes.” The will is the faculty of the mind that is associated with decision making.
 Reason conducts the study, research, investigation, fact-finding. It uses logic, the principle of
consistency, avoids fallacious reasoning to come up with a truthful and accurate proposition.
 Jean Paul Sartre, the French Philosopher, and the most popular existentialist was saying that an
individual person is nothing until he/she starts making decisions. What ultimately constitutes who a
person is are his/her decisions. The essence of being a person equals his/her bundle of decisions.
 Free will is the capacity of rational agents to choose a course of action from among various
alternatives. It is the ability to choose between different possible courses of action unimpeded, the
power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants. It is the power of self-determination. When the
will is free, there is freedom. The stuff of free will is a multi-dimensional power, energy or strength.
One is free to the degree that he has energy, that is, physically free to the degree that he is
physically strong; materially or economically free to the degree that he is materially or
economically strong.
 Freedom implies power, energy, strength in all human dimensions, as the stuff of freedom. A free
person is one who is physically healthy and strong, psychologically normal, financially stable.

The Courage To Be
 Courage is self-affirmation ‘in-spite-of,’ that is in spite of that which tends to prevent the self from
affirming itself. It is the affirmation of being inspite of non-being. This implies affirming, accepting
oneself inspite of one’s defects, lack, or imperfections, affirming the world we live in inspiteall that it
lacks. It means not giving up because of setbacks and failures. It is keeping right on keeping on.

Chapter 4
Frameworks and Principles Behind Moral Frameworks

THE MEANING OF ETHICAL FRAMEWORK

 An ethical framework is a set of codes that an individual uses to guide his or her behavior. It is
just another term for “moral standards”. It is what people use to distinguish right from wrong in the
way they interact with the world. It is used to determine the moral object of an action. An ethical
framework guides an individual in answering these two questions: “what do I ought to do?” and
‘Why do I ought to do so?” So ethical frameworks serve as guideposts in moral life.
 The various dominant mental frames may be classified as follows: 1) virtue or character ethics of
Aristotle, 2) natural law or commandment ethics of St. Thomas and others, 3) deontological and
duty framework of Immanuel Kant, 4) utilitarianist, teleological, and consequentialist approach and
5) Love and justice framework.

15 | P a g e

Marawoy, Lipa City, Batangas 4217 | https://www.facebook.com/KLLOfficial/

Virtue or Character Ethics of Aristotle
 Virtue ethics asks, who is the ethical person? For Aristotle, the ethical person is virtuous, one who
has developed good character or has developed virtues. One attains virtues when he/she
actualizes his/her potentials or possibilities, the highest of which is happiness. Happiness is the joy
of self-realization, self-fulfillment, the experience of having actualized one’s potentials.

Natural Law or Commandment Ethics of St. Thomas

 For St. Thomas, what is right is what follows the natural law, the rule which says, “do good and
avoid evil.” In knowing the good as distinguished from evil, one is guided by the Ten
Commandments which is summed up as loving God and one’s fellowmen.

Deontological and Duty Framework of Immanuel Kant

 Kant’s framework is deon or duty or deontological framework. Deontology centers on the “rights of
individuals and the intentions associated with particular behavior…equal respect…given to all
persons.”
 The deontological approach is based on universal principles such as honesty, fairness, justice and
respect for persons and property. It is based on the categorical imperative, that is, one must act
that his/her maxim will be the maxim of all. This acting based on a maxim that can be the maxim of
all is a duty, an obligation of every man or woman. Acting out of duty (deon) is acting out of good
will or intentions.

Utilitarianist, Teleological and Consequentialist Framework

 The utilitarianist teleological approach focuses on consequences. The decision maker is
concerned with the utility of decision. What really counts is the net balance of good consequences
over bad.

Love and Justice Framework

 What is ethical is that which is just and that which is loving. Justice giving what is due to others
(justice) and it is also giving even more than what is due to others.

ARISTOTLE’S VIRTUE ETHICS

Virtue or character ethics
 Virtue ethics is person-based rather than action-based. It looks at the virtue or moral character of
the person carrying out an action, rather than at ethical duties and rules or the consequences of
particular actions. It does not only deal with the rightness or wrongness of individual actions. It
provides guidance as to the sort or characteristics and behaviors a good person will seek to
achieve. It is concerned with the whole of a person’s life, rather than particular episodes or actions.
A good person is someone who lives virtuously – who possesses and lives the virtues.
 The rightness or wrongness of one’s action, or the goodness or badness of one’s personality
depends on his character, motivations, and intentions.
16 | P a g e

Marawoy, Lipa City, Batangas 4217 | https://www.facebook.com/KLLOfficial/

  Virtue ethics is an ethics whose goal is to determine what is essential to being a well-functioning or
flourishing human person. Virtue ethics stresses an ideal for humans or persons. As an ethics of
ideals or excellences, it is an optimistic and positive type of ethics.

Basic Types of Virtue (Excellence)

 Aristotle gave two types of virtue. These are 1) intellectual virtues and 2) moral virtues.
 Intellectual virtues refer to excellence of the mind while moral virtues refer to a person’s
dispositions to act well. Intellectual virtues include ability to understand, reason and judge well
while moral virtues dispose a person to act well.
 Virtue is an attained, actualized or self-realized potential or possibility.
 The highest good or end, telos, of a person is the fullness of his/her self-development or
actualization. The concomitant result of this development or actualization of his/her potentials is
what Aristotle termed as happiness or the experience of happiness.

Virtue as a Mean
 For Aristotle, virtue is the Golden Mean between two extremes. The virtue of courage is a mean
between two extremes of deficiency and extreme, namely, cowardice and foolhardiness,
respectively.

Virtue Ethics in Other Traditions

 Confucius emphasized two virtues, jen (or ren) and li. Jen means humaneness, human-
heartedness and compassion. Li means propriety, manners or culture.
 Hinduism emphasizes five basic moral virtues: non-violence, truthfulness, honesty, chastity,
freedom from greed. It also emphasizes mental virtues: calmness, self-control, self-settledness,
forbearance, faith, and complete concentration, hunger for spiritual liberation.
 Buddhism also has its intellectual and moral virtues. From the eightfold path are the intellectual
virtues of right understanding and right mindfulness and the moral virtues of right speech, right
action and right livelihood.
 Jesus Christ preached the virtues of love, mercy and compassion, hunger for justice, patience,
kindness, gentleness, and self-control.
 St. Thomas Aquinas taught the theological virtues – faith, hope, and love.
 Christian tradition teaches four cardinal moral virtues, namely: prudence, justice, temperance, and
fortitude.

ST. THOMAS’ NATURAL LAW ETHICS

Meaning of Natural law and Other Laws
 What is ethical is what the natural law says.
 Natural law is the ordinance of Divine Wisdom, which is made known to us by reason and which
requires the observance of the moral order. It may also be defined to be “the eternal law as far as
it made known by human reason.” By the external law we mean all that God necessarily decrees
from eternity. Eternal law is what God wills for creation.
17 | P a g e

Marawoy, Lipa City, Batangas 4217 | https://www.facebook.com/KLLOfficial/

  A law decreed by Almighty God is a divine law; one established by man is a human law. Those
laws for human conduct which God, having once decreed creation, necessarily enacts in
accordance with that decree, constitute the natural law; those which God or man freely enacts are
positive laws. Now, between the natural law and positive laws, there are these four points of
difference:1. The natural law, unlike positive laws, does not depend upon the free will of God; its
requirements flow from the intrinsic difference between right and wrong, which is determined by
the very essences of things. Hence, under this law, certain acts are not evil primarily because they
are forbidden, but they are forbidden because in themselves they are evil. 2. Consequently, the
natural law is the same at all times, in all places, and for all persons; but this is not true of positive
laws, which may be changed with changing circumstances, or, if the law-giver so wills it, even
without change of circumstances. 3. The natural law emanates from God alone; but positive laws
may be enacted by men. 4. The natural law is promulgated through the light of reason; positive
laws require for their promulgation a sign external to man.
 We have an eternal law, God’s law for the whole creation, which we cannot fully grasp given our
limitation. But with our gift of reason we have a grasp of that eternal law, that is natural law. Divine
law is decreed by God while human law is decreed by man.

Natural Law as a Universal Formula

 What is natural and ethical for a human person is to “keep the moral order,” to “observe right
order,” to “do good and avoid evil,” to “preserve his/ her being.”
 St. Thomas Aquinas grounded the directedness of nature in God. All of creation is directed toward
their final end God, God Himself. To direct us to Himself, he gave the divine law. The divine law
given to us is in the Ten Commandments of the Old Testament and the new commandment of
“love God…” and “love your neighbour…” by Jesus Christ in the New Testament.

Law Defined
 Laws that are enacted are called positive laws.
 St. Thomas defined law in general as an ordinance of reason which is for the common good, and
has been promulgated by one having charge of the community. For a law to be a law, it must have
the four requisites, namely, a) ordinance (order, command) of reason, b) for the common good, c)
promulgation, and d) by one who has charge of the community.

KANT’S DEONTOLOGICAL ETHICS: THE DUTY FRAMEWORK

 Kant’s Ethics is now referred to as deontological. The term deontological has its root from the
Greek “deon” which means “duty.” Hence deontological ethics focuses on “duty, obligation, and
rights” instead of consequences or ends.
 The duty-based approach, sometimes called deontological ethics, argued that doing what is right is
not about the consequences of our action (something over which we ultimately have no control)
but about having the proper intention in performing the action.

18 | P a g e

Marawoy, Lipa City, Batangas 4217 | https://www.facebook.com/KLLOfficial/

  Kant’s famous formula for discovering our ethical duty is known as the “categorical imperative.”
The most basic form of the imperative is: “Act only according to that maxim by which you can at
the same time will that it should become a universal law.”

The Duty Framework

 In the duty framework, we focus on the duties and obligations that we have in a given situation,
and consider what ethical obligations we have and what things we should never do. Ethical
conduct is defined by doing one’s duties and doing the right thing, and the goal is performing the
correct action.
 Ethical obligations are the same for all rational creatures (universal), and knowledge of what these
obligations entail is arrived at by discovering rules of behaviour that are not contradicted by
reason.
 This framework also focuses on following moral rules or duty regardless of outcome, so it allows
for the possibility that one might have acted ethically, even if there is a bad result.
 This framework also has its limitations. First, it can appear cold and impersonal, in that it might
require actions which are known to produce harms, even though they are strictly keeping with a
particular moral rule. It also does not provide a way to determine which duty we should follow if we
are presented with a situation in which two or more duties conflict. It can also be rigid in applying
the notion of duty to everyone regardless of personal situation.

Kant’s theory of right

 According to Kant, the “universal principle of right” is that “an action is right if it can coexist with
everyone’s freedom in accordance with a universal law, or if on its maxim the freedom of choice of
each can coexist with everyone’s freedom in accordance with a universal law.”
 Universal law means a maxim that can be the maxim of all.

Legally and Morally Right

 What is legal must be at the same time moral. An action is legally right if it is at the same time in
accordance with universal law, that is, in accordance with the categorical imperative.
Good will
 An act is said to be right or wrong depending on whether it is done with or without good will. The
rightness or wrongness of an action depends on one’s good will or intentions.
 Categorical Imperative: To serve the will as a principle, Kant has two (2) versions of the
categorical imperative. The first version states that if one cannot wish or want that a certain rule
or maxim becomes the maxim of all, that it is not right to follow it. The second version is as
follows: “Always treat humanity, whether in your own person or that of another, never simply as a
means but always at the same time as an end.” Treating the another merely as a means to an end
means equating him to a mere instrument, a tool, an object which is cast aside after use, or can be
sold or exchanged when no longer needed, or has value only for as long as it is useful. Such act
makes one a “user.”

19 | P a g e

Marawoy, Lipa City, Batangas 4217 | https://www.facebook.com/KLLOfficial/

  Ought implies Can means that if and only if we can or are free to act in certain ways can we be
commanded to do so. If moral law commands that we ought to be better human beings now, it
inescapably follows that we must be capable of being better human beings. The action to which
the “ought” applies must indeed be possible under natural conditions. If I ought to do something,
then I can do it.
 Your ability to perform an obligation is determined by your degree of freedom. One can no more be
responsible than what he can knowingly, freely, and voluntarily do.

UTILITARIANISM: THE CONSEQUENTIALIST ETHICAL FRAMEWORK

Origin and Nature of the Utilitarianist Framework
 Two British philosophers, namely, Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, are known to be the
original advocates of utilitarianism, the former being considered the founder.
 Nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain, and pleasure. It
is for them alone to point out what we ought to do… By the principle of utility is meant that principle
which approves or disapproves of every action whatsoever according to the tendency it appears to
have augment or diminish the happiness of the party whose interest is in question; or, in other
words to promote or to oppose that happiness. – Bentham, 1789
 The creed which accepts as the foundation of morals “utility” or the “greatest happiness principle”
holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness; wrong as they tend to
produce the reverse of happiness. Happiness is intended pleasure and the absence of pain; On
the other hand, unhappiness means pain and the privation of pleasure.
 Utilitarianism is the principle of “the greatest good of the greatest number.” It is a form of
consequentialism focusing on the consequences of action in contrast with deontology.
 There are two versions, namely, act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism. Act utilitarianism
consider the consequences of some particular act such as keeping or breaking one’s promise.
Rule utilitarianism consider the consequences of some practice or rule behavior.
 According to the consequentialist, utilitarianist ethical framework, that which is ethical is that which
gives pleasure and happiness as a consequence. That which is unethical is that which gives pain
and unhappiness. That which is ethical is that which produces the greatest good (happiness) for
the greatest number.

The Consequentialist Framework

 In the consequentialist framework, we focus on the future effects of the possible courses of action,
considering the people who will be directly or indirectly affected. The person using the
consequences framework desires to produce the most good.
 For Bentham and Mill, to avoid pain and to pursue pleasure – intellectual pleasure.

THE LOVE AND JUSTICE FRAMEWORK

The principle of love
 There are three well-known concepts of love originating from the Greeks, namely, agape or
charity, erotic or passionate sexual encounter, and philia, the affection between friends.
20 | P a g e

Marawoy, Lipa City, Batangas 4217 | https://www.facebook.com/KLLOfficial/

  Agape is the love principle preached by Jesus Christ. For St. Thomas, agape is willing the good of
another. It is the act of sharing, or giving more than what is just because justice is just the
minimum of love. In the language of contemporary thinkers, this is love as “affirmation of the
other’s being,” “being-with-others,” “being conscious of the other’s presence.”
 In Joseph Fletcher’s situation ethics, agapeic love is absolute norm, the absolute framework for the
determination of the right thing to do or wrong to avoid.

Justice and Fairness: Promoting the Common Good as a Moral Framework

a. Social Justice
 Social justice is equal access to wealth, opportunities, and privileges within society. Hence,
promotion of social justice is equivalent to promotion of the common good. It may also be
said that promotion of the common good is promotion of social justice.
 Common good refers either to the interests that members have in common or to the
facilities that serve common interests.
 For Plato, justice means giving what is due by doing one’s own function.
b. Justice as the Minimum Demand of Love
 William Lujipen, referred to justice as “the minimum demand of love.” To do justice is
already an act of love, the minimum demand of love. Which means that love is more, gives
more than what is just.
c. Distributive Justice
 Distributive justice is “justice that is concerned with the distribution or allotment of goods,
duties, and privileges in concert with the merits of individuals, and the best interests of
society.”
 The following are anchored on distributive justice:
 Egalitarianism– Everyone is entitled to due process of law and equal protection of
the law.
 Capitalist and free-market systems – Let the law of demand and supply follow its
course. Excess of demand is regulated by the limits of supply, and excess of supply
is regulated by the limits of demand. This means no artificial control of regulations.
It is supposed to arrive naturally at its own equilibrium.
 Socialism – This requires collective ownership of the means of production,
distribution and exchange with the aim of operating for use rather than for profit.
Socialism can be explained with this statement: “from each according to his ability,
to each according to his needs.”
 Taxation – It is government’s getting a part of what its people earn in order to have
money to spend for public services. It is practically demanding from taxpayers a
minimum of justice, to make the enjoyment of the wealth at least more equitable.
Progressive is a system where the average tax rate increases as the taxable
amount increases.
 Protection and Preservation of Public Welfare – The government has power
granted by the constitution to govern, to make, adopt, and enforce laws for the
protection and preservation of public health, justice, morals, order, safety and
security, and welfare.

21 | P a g e

Marawoy, Lipa City, Batangas 4217 | https://www.facebook.com/KLLOfficial/

  Property for Public Use – The government has a constitution-granted power to
take private property for public use with just compensation.
 Justice as moral framework, be it social or distributive justice, states that whatever
promotes justice is the morally right thing to do.

The Better Moral Framework: Garner and Rosen’s Synthesis

 For Richard T. Garner and Bernard Rose (1967), the best framework is a synthesis of the
teleological and deontological framework. The rightness or wrongness of action and the goodness
or badness of character or trait is a function of (meaning it depends on) not only the end, object, or
consequences of applying a rule (rule utilitarianism) or doing an act (act utilitarianism), but also
other bases like one’s sense of duty and good will (rule or act deontology).

22 | P a g e

Marawoy, Lipa City, Batangas 4217 | https://www.facebook.com/KLLOfficial/