CHAPTER VI

FRAMEWORK AND PRINCIPLE BEHIND

OUR MORAL DISPOSITION
Decisions about right and wrong permeate in everyday life, and it can be very difficult to
do. Making ethical decisions requires sensitivity to the ethical implications of problems and
situations. It also requires practice. Understanding the framework for ethical decision-making is
therefore essential. This section addresses the following questions: what are the overarching
frameworks that dictate the way we make our individual moral decision; and what is my
framework in making my decisions.

General Objectives:
1. Discuss the virtue ethics of Aristotle
2. Discern virtue ethics of St. Thomas from Aristotle
3. Discuss the different rights presented by Kant
4. Explain why the only good is good will.
5. Discuss the different points of utilitarianism
6. Explain how justice and fairness promotes common good

Lesson I. Virtue Ethics: Aristotle

Virtue ethics is the general term for theories that put emphasis on the role of character and
virtue in living one’s life rather than in doing ones duty or acting to bring about the
consequences. For virtue ethicists, their moral code would be: “Act as a virtuous person would
act in your situation”.
Most virtue ethics theories take their inspiration from Aristotle who declared that a
virtuous person is someone who has ideal character traits. There is also St. Thomas Aquinas
who asserted that no human act is morally good (or “right”, in the sense of “not wrong”) unless it
is in line with love of self and neighbor (and thus with respect for the basic aspects of the well-
being of each and all human beings) not only:
i. In the motives or intentions with which it is chosen, and
 ii. In the appropriateness of the circumstances, but also
iii. In its object (more precisely the object, or closet-in intention of the choosing person)

WHAT TO EXPECT

1. Explain what is good base on virtue ethics of Aristotle

2. Discuss virtue as a habit
3. Discuss virtue as happiness
4. Differentiate moral virtues and intellectual virtues

Lesson Outline
Aristotle
Aristotle was born in a small colony of Stagira in Greece. That was fifteen years after the
death of Socrates, the teacher of Plato. His father was Nicomachus, who happened to be the
court physician during the reign of King Amyntas. Because of this affiliation, Aristotle became
tutor of Alexander the Great, who was the grandson of the king. When Aristotle’s father died, he
left Stagira and went to Athens to join the Academy, a famous school of Plato, and became
student of Plato for twenty years. He joined the school at the age of seventeen. His known
works are related to moral philosophy are: Nicomachean Ethics (NE), Eudemian Ethics (EE),
and the Magna Moralia. Most of the ideas related to the framework he conceived are taken from
his first two works.

Telos
How often do you as why you always prepare yourself before going to school? Perhaps
your reason is because of hygienic purpose (you take a bath), or to be presentable (you dress
properly) before your classmate and teacher. Or maybe asking why you need to study all your
lessons before entering the class and your answer is simply to go with the flow of undertakings
(reading notes or handouts or books in advance) to happen inside the classroom. Under the
ethical framework of Aristotle, he means a lot that we need be aware of every action we make.
For him, what we do entails direction.
This direction is what we foresee as the outcome of our act. Conversely, we act in order
to get us to the intended direction. In short, we may not get to our destination if we do not act.
This is what Telosmeans for Aristotle. All our human action will lead to our desired end. The
end of human act is either good or bad. But for Aristotle, in his Nicomachean Ethics, the end is
something that is good.

There are two things about the end as good.

1. Aristotle insists that any good is achievable. Nothing in real life that good end is non-
achievable by human action. From the epistemological point-of-view, only human beings
are capable of seeing the good in all things.
2. Every action that aims in achieving the good is the telos/end of human actions. It only
means that the result of our ethical decision-making is good. In fact there are so many
seemingly good ends in life, and sometimes we understand we understand them
subjectively and relatively. Simply our understanding of the good my not necessarily
good to others.
Aristotle understands the meaning of good from the perspective of finality and self-
sufficiency. These are the two features that serve criteria of determining the good.
1. The finality of the object of human action has two views – the dominant or monistic view
and the inclusivist’s view.
 The Dominant or monistic view
This claims that the aim of every act is good.
 Inclusivist’s View
This claim that good, which is the result of the series of human acts.
2. The self-sufficiency of the object of the human action. This means that the object of the
act must be something that will make life worthwhile. One can say that it is not enough to
just fulfill what one intends to do without considering whether it is worth of doing and
acting or not.

Virtue as Habit
Aristotle explicates about the acquisition of character excellence by habituation
(ethismos). Character excellence and habit are the two important terms we need to consider
here. The word character means the development of the personality that resulted in the
application of virtues, while the word habit means that certain human acts are being carried out
frequently. It only means that when a person carries a certain act only once, it is just a plain act
and not a habitual act.
There are two kinds of virtues:
 Moral Virtues
  Intellectual Virtues

Since our concern is more on the moral virtue, the role of intellectual virtue complements
moral virtue. There are two classifications under the intellectual virtue, the intellectual virtue of
wisdom and the intellectual virtue of understanding. The intellectual virtue of wisdom has the
role of governing ethical behavior. In this sense, this intellectual virtue of wisdom help us what
particular virtue, among moral virtues, we need to apply under specific circumstances.
Moreover, the moral virtues of Aristotle, when put into action, should observe
moderation. This moderation entails that one has to avoid what is excess or defect in action.
Aristotle suggests that the moral virtues are in the middle between too much and too little. It is
also called the Doctrine of the Mean. Here are the excess and defects of the following virtues
(Urmson, 33-34).

EXCESS OR TOO MUCH VIRTUES DEFECT OR TOO LITTLE

Irascibility Even temper Impassivity
Foolhardiness Bravery Cowardice
Shamelessness Modesty Touchiness
Intemperance Temperance Insensibility
Envy Fair-mindedness (nameless)
Gain Justice Disadvantages
Prodigality Liberality Meanness
Boastfulness Truthfulness Mock modesty
Flattery Friendliness Churlishness
Servility Dignity Disdain
Vanity Pride Mean spirit
Ostentation Magnificence Unworldliness

We have to take note that the exercise of the moral virtues differs from one person to
another person. Now, how are we going to achieve the right amount of virtues as to avoid the
excess and defect? Aristotle has the answer: By observation and correction those excess and
defect in our conduct.

Happiness as Virtue
The Telos or end of our human actions which are what we desire and tend for is good.
From the dominant or monistic view, we see some series of actions by its corresponding results,
with the rest are subordinate goods and the last is the dominant good. This is not all there is
since there are also series of dominant goods in the scheme of human actions. Therefore, for
Aristotle, all human acts that we undertake must have to have the ultimate Telos or end. He is
referring to happiness or in Greek Eudaimonia as the supreme good. What is this happiness by
the way? Can we exercise happiness the way we exercise other virtues? Is happiness is one of
the virtues laid down in his doctrine of the mean?
 St. Thomas Aquinas was born in Roccascca, Italy during medieval period. He studied
liberal arts at the University of Naples, and in 1249, he became a Dominican Friar. He is known
as the Doctor of the Church because of his immense contribution to the theology and doctrine of
the Catholic Church. His influence on western thought is considerable, especially on modern
philosophy. His most important works are the ”Summa Theologica” where he expounded on the
five proofs of the existence of God and the “Summa Contra Gentiles” or the Book on the truth of
the Catholic faith against the errors of the unbelievers. The two books are combinations of
philosophy and theology where he discussed about the role of natural law, virtues and
happiness in moral philosophy.

WHAT TO EXPECT

1. Discuss the four cardinal virtues of St. Thomas

2. Discuss how is virtue ethics of Aristotle differs from that of St. Thomas
Lesson Outline

Natural Law

St. Thomas Aquinas begins his explanation of virtue ethics by grounding on natural law.
He discusses the natural law along with eternal law. By linking the two laws he shows that it has
theological underpinning because his philosophy is theistic or belief in God as the highest of all
beings and the highest of all goods. God expresses his self through the eternal law, his will and
his plan for all his creatures.
Aquinas insists that the natural law expresses moral requirements. It contains rules,
commands, and action guiding requirements. But if we ask where to find it or discover it, it is not
outside of us, that is, located somewhere. The natural law is found within us, his rational
creatures. But there is the condition, that is, only insofar as the rational creatures share in the
divine providence. This implies that we adhere to the will and plan of God who shares his love
and goodness to us, His creatures. In that, we live up to the expectation of God - to be His
moral creature and with obedience to the law.
 The premises is clear that rational creatures, where natural law is present, insofar as
one shares in divine providence, have to exercise their capacity to recognize that law within
them. Conversely, this natural law has to be discovered by any human beings by what to do
and what not to do, and guide their action towards the right direction. The repercussion is that
since only rational creatures can discover and obey the law, hence, it is only they who can
disobey them.

The Natural and Its Tenet

Where is natural law situated in the scheme of things in the Philosophy of Aquinas? As
we all know that his philosophy is grounded on the belief that God exists. God is known as the
highest good and being who establishes eternal law where his divine plan for his creatures has
been inscribed. But he also categorizes the law to makes his eternal law more comprehensible.
From eternal law is the natural law, which we are talking about. This law is discoverable
by any rational creatures and unknowable for irrational ones. In his Ethics, Glenn has made
distinction of natural law in broad sense and in the narrow sense for rational and irrational
creatures. In the narrow sense, for rational creatures, it is already given above the natural law is
already present in us who are rational beings. All we have to do is to recognize that we are his
creatures and that we are called to participate in the divine life of the highest being in order to
have a fullness of being. In the language of religious people, this is our divine vocation where
we are to realign our moral life, our thinking, and our being with that of God. This is also known
as participation.

Can we say that this natural moral law is different from the eternal law? It is not exactly.
This natural moral law is an expression of participation in the eternal law. The word moral is
inserted between two words to show that emphasis on moral action – observance to the moral
requirements established by God. In moral philosophy, this natural law is a picture of eternal law
as something sensible and knowable to rational beings. These two laws can never be
contradicting from each other. But this law, because it is discoverable by the use of our reason
has to be enacted to make them feasible to other rational beings. Once it is enacted into written
law, it is now called human positive law. It implies that if we do not enact them to make it official,
it remains within the subclasses of human positive law – the civil law which is enacted and
promulgated by the lawmakers of the land, and the ecclesiastical law, which is enacted and
promulgated by the religious people regarding faiths and morals.
Happiness as Consecutive of Moral and Cardinal Virtues
The moral and cardinal virtues of Aquinas has special meaning in this moral philosophy.
Virtues consist of human actions that are frequently carrying out, so much so that such human
acts become easily executed. There many kinds of acts that can be carried out frequently but
not all them belong to one category called virtues. Virtues are special kind of human kind of
human acts that are moral. It means that such moral act is carried out in accordance with the
dictate of reason. This dictate of reason is also called conscience, which is the proximate norm
of morality. Conscience is being formed through unceasing education by parents, members of
the community, the church and the society at large. Achieving certain and true conscience takes
time. it is not given automatically from above. That is why we see now the definition of virtues as
moral frequent act. The opposite is the immoral frequent act or vice. This proximate norm of
morality is patterned after the divine reason called eternal law that is established by God from all
eternity.
The four cardinal virtues are: prudence, justice, fortitude, and temperance.

 Prudence – what is it role to our moral life? This virtues is an exercise of understanding
that help us know the best means in solving moral problems in which we encounter in
the concrete circumstances. Knowing the best means, and without acting carelessly
without thinking, will incline us to apply them immediately with certainty. It is like a one-
step-backward-and-two-step forward technique. If we encounter a moral dilemma, we
don not rush into conclusion without considering the pros and cons of our act, and more
so what is right and what is wrong. If we do so, then there is a big possibility of
committing an immoral act than moral one.
 Justice. What is its role to our moral life? This habit is an exercise of the will to give or
render the things, be it intellectual or material, to anyone who owns it. If a thing belongs
to you, then everyone should respect it and not own it, or if it belongs to someone, then
we must not treat it as ours.
 Fortitude. What is it role to our moral life? This habit is an exercise of courage, to face
any dangers one encounters without fear, especially when life is at stake
 Temperance. What is it role to our moral life? This habit is an exercise of control in the
midst of strong attraction to pleasures. The key word here is moderation. Getting
indulged into strong pleasure has undesired consequences, either excess or disorder.
Becoming beautiful or handsome is not a bad idea, but if one willing to spent thousands
of pesos in order to achieve it is already vanity.
 How happiness becomes constitutive of moral and cardinal virtues? If the telos or
end of Aristotle is happiness, which means success or human flourishing, or Aquinas, it
entails the wholeness of human beings that involves body and soul to be united with the
highest good or summumbonum, no other than God himself is in heaven.
 Lesson III. Kant and the Right Theorists

Immanuel Kant – is aGerman philosopher and one of the famous thinkers during the
modern period. He was born in Konigsberg in 1724. He spent the rest of his life in Konigsberg
from birth to death, and worked in Konigsberg University first as a lecturer and later as a
professor in philosophy from 1755 until his death in 1804. His works related to moral philosophy
are the Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals (1785) and The Critique of Practical Reason
(1788).

Now that framework should we use in making an ethical decision? The second ethical
framework you will be introduced is the duty ethics of Immanuel Kant. This framework focuses
on the agent with the motivation to do morally good out of duty.

WHAT TO EXPECT

1. Differentiate legal and moral rights

2. Discuss categorical imperatives

Lesson Outline

Good Will

Are you familiar with the situation of St. Paul In the bible, particularly in his letter to the
Romans 7:15 of the New Testament when he said that I do not understand what I do, for what I
want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do.He has the knowledge of what are the right things to
be done but he ends up doing the wrong ones. He is confused of himself. St. Paul’s situation is
a counter-argument to Socrates’ contention that if you know what is right, you will do what is
right or possessing moral knowledge will guarantee us with the production of moral acts.

Kant claims that the only good without qualification is the good will. He treats the good
will as the highest good since its end will always be good. It is also a condition of all other
goods. Other matters such as fortune or power or intelligence or other traditional virtues are not
enjoying the state of highest goods since they can be used by rational beings for bad ends. He
even goes further that happiness also corrupts. How do we possess the good will? In the
groundwork of the Metaphysics of Moral, Kant says that role of reason, particularly in ethics is to
produce a will that is good, and this will becomes good only when it is motivate by duty.

Good will for Kant, is an indispensable condition in order to achieve the rightness of act.
Having the will is not enough but the will must be good in order to correct the undesirable acts
or wrongful acts. But what makes the will good is simply by virtue of volition. To quote:

“To act morally is to act from no other motive than motive of doing
what is right. This kind of motive has nothing to do with anything as a
subjective as pleasure. T do right out of principle is to recognize am
objective right that poses an obligation on any rational being (Abbot, 88)

Kant uses analogy to explain further about the good will. When they will do its role of
doing what is moral, the will is like jewel that shines by its own light. Moreover, Kant emphasize
that when a prison acts out of duty, he is obedient to the categorical imperative, and not the
hypothetical imperative.

Categorical Imperative

When a person is acting out of duty, it presumes that the person knows the categorical
imperative. For Kant, moral commands are always categorical and not hypothetical. In speaking
about categorical, it is all about ought, that is to say, one is ought to do the moral law in the
absence of conditions since it is simply done out of duty. This categorical imperative comes
from the nature of the law, a sort of imposing obligation. There are two formulas of the
imperative written by Kant in his two writings. In the first formulation of the categorical
imperative, it says “act only according to a maxim by which you can at the same time will that is
shall become a universal law.” And in the second formulation of the categorical imperative, also
known as the formula of humanity, it says “act in such a way that you always treat humanity,
whether on your own person or in the person of any other, never simple a means, but always at
the same time as an end.”
From the two formulas are the two principles or determiners of moral imperatives, the
respect for person and the universalizability. The respect for person is the basic thing about how
we treat people we encounter in our daily living. For Kant, any act that is good happens only
when we deal with other people not as merely means. It is all about dealing people just because
we want something from him or her, and we cannot have the wants without them. This is the
first kind determiner of moral imperative.

The second one is universalizability, that is, an act is capable of becoming a universal
law. An act is considered as morally good if a maxim or law can be made universal. That maxim
or law is made not only for our self but also for others as well to perform or to prohibit.
Sometime when we follow the maxim or law, it becomes either subjective or personal. In order
to avoid this to happen that maxim or law id put to test by the principle of universalizability. The
particular maxim or law becomes morally good when everyone can fulfill them.
Kant uses the example of lie and promise to illustrate the point of contradiction under the
universalizability. If you make promise to each other to keep the friendship even after your high
school graduation, you are now imposing the duty among yourselves, and at the same time
earning the right to that duty. It is a promised to be fulfilled among friends, and it can be imitate
to other circle of friends as well. This is an act of universalizing.

These two determiners are different in ways of coming up of the same moral course of
action. In universalizing the maxim or law, the respect of person as end and means, and never
solely as means to serve one’s end must be considered at all time. If the respect of person will
be out of reach in every universalizing, then there is always contradiction. The reason is simply
that every person has intrinsic worth or dignity. This reality cannot just be ignored. In the same
manner, whatever that pertains to the consideration of treating every person as means and an
end is always universalizable.

Procedure for determining whether a propose action violates Categorical Imperatives.

1. Formulate the maxim:

I am to do x in circumstances y in order to bring about z
Example:
I am to lie on a loan application when I am in severe financial difficulty
and there is no other way to obtain funds, in order to ease the strain on my
finances.
2. Generalize the maxim into a law of nature:
Everyone always does x in circumstances y in order to bring about z
Example:
 Everyone always lies on a loan application when he is in severe financial
difficulty and there is no other way to obtain funds, in order to ease the strain on
his finances.
3. Figure out the perturbed social world (PSW), that is, what the world would be like if this
law of nature were added to existing aws of nature and things had a chance to reach
equilibrium.
Note: Assume that after the adjustment to equilibrium the new law is common
knowledge – everyone knows that it is true; everyone knows that everyone
knows, etc.
Two questions:
Q1: Could I rationally act on my maxim in the PSW?
This is the “Contradiction in Conception Test”.
Q2: Could I rationally choose the PSW as one in which I would be a member?
This is the “Contradiction in the Will Test”.
The Kantian evaluation rule is this: we must be able to answer yes to both questions for the
maxim to be acceptable. If we get a no answer to either, we must reject the maxim and try to
find another one on which to act.

Different Kinds of Rights: Legal versus Moral Rights

 Legal Rights refer to all rights one has by simply being a citizen of a particular country
like the Philippine. If the Philippines is governed by all legalities stated in 1987
constitution, so all its citizens is governed by the same constitution. Being a Filipino, one
is entitled to all right and privileges accorded by the constitution. This entitlement is
acquired either by birth or by choice. By birth means that one is born within a certain
territory such as the Philippines. By choice means, every Filipino has the option to stay
as citizen of the republic or denounce it and embrace other citizenship.

 Moral Rights are right that belongs to any moral entities such as human beings and
animals. What make them moral entities are the following features such as freedom,
rationality and sentience. First, human beings are the only beings that enjoy freedom.
With freedom, every act they execute accompanies moral consequences becomes
possible. Second, human beings are not the only beings gifted with rationality. With
rationality, everything they do comes with rational deliberation whether certain course of
action would lead to a desired result without regrets or undesired result with undesired
consequences. Lastly, human beings are not the only beings who are capable of
experiencing pleasure and pain. Of course, humans can determine which action plan
would yield more pleasure than pain and vice versa like utilitarian, and only humans can
give different dimension of meanings to pleasure and pain.
 Jeremy Bentham Is known as the founder of utilitarianism. He was born in 1748 in
London, to a father who was a prosperous lawyer at that time. He was sent to school at the age
of seven in Westminster School then graduated from The Queen’s College, Oxford at fifteen. He
was expected to follow his father’s footstep as a lawyer but he did not. His famous works related
to moral philosophy are: Introduction to the Principle of Morals and Legislation and A Fragment
on Government. What led him to believe in the theory of utility is after he read the book of David
Hume on the Treatise of Human Nature.

WHAT TO EXPECT

1. Explain the origin and nature of Utilitarianism

2. Discuss the cost and benefit principle

Lesson Outline

Origins of Nature and Theory

You are familiar with our great national heroes Dr. Jose Rizal and Andres Bonifacio. We
have learnt from our history subjects that they did not die for nothing, but offered their lives for
igniting the spirit of liberty and independence among their fellow Filipinos.
The theory of utilitarianism, sometimes called Consequentialism, focuses on the effect of
a particular end or telos called happiness. The first who proposed the idea is David Hume, a
philosopher of the modern period, but ones who have made the idea more depth and made it
more profound was Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill. It is enough for us to deal Jeremy
Bentham and his classical utilitarianism. He is also considered as the founder of Utilitarianism.
First is the basis for an act to be treated as morally right or wrong is in its consequences
they produced. It is known as Consequentialism. What is there in the consequence that makes it
morally right? It is only when there is the presence of happiness.
The second point is what matters in every act that we do would be the amount of
pleasure produced. One must not forget the element of happiness in assessing the morality of
the act. If there is no pleasure yielded, thane the act is morally wrong. Happiness is
comparative, that is, there will be great happiness, greater happiness, and greatest happiness.
Likewise, there are also a great pain, greater pain, and greatest pain. If there are multiple acts
that can produce a variety and different degrees of happiness, which act is right?

The third point, which is the happiness experienced by every person is counted the
same. It means that every person’s happiness is taken into account and no one is left behind.
How are we going to use such method? Bentham is hedonist and he understands happiness as
a pleasure. This pleasure has a partner, which is pain. He believes that the world governed by
these two principles. It follows that human beings are inclined more on achieving happiness and
as much as possible avoid what is painful.

Amount of pleasure – amount of pain = moral act or immoral act.

Furthermore, one has to consider in assessing an act the following factors.

1. Happiness/pleasure should be more intense.

2. Happiness/pleasure should last longer.
3. Happiness/pleasure should be more certain to occur.
4. Happiness/pleasure should be happening sooner rather than late.
5. Happiness/pleasure will produce in turn many happiness and few pains.
6. Lastly, in determining the amount of happiness/pleasure, one has to consider how many
people affected. The better position would be when there are more people affected
positively, that is, greatest happiness for the greatest number of people, and fewer
affected negatively.

Business Fascination and with Utilitarianism

In the field of business, there is also ethics. It is just one of the three points of view used
by people when it comes to decision-making related to business in the corporate world. The
other two views are the economic and legal. It only shows that I the corporate world, there is the
presence of ethical issues, it is specifically intended for managers. The outcome of corporate
activities will affected the entire stakeholder–employees and employees, consumers and
producers, and members of the public. One of the ethical theories used by the managers is the
utilitarianism by Bentham.
 How the utilitarianism being used in the business world? The keyword used by Bentham
is extension. It refers to the extent of pleasure and pain spread to all the populace. This is being
considered and applied in public policy. After crafting the content of public policy is in turn affect
the legislative and judicial process of the government. The manager or the economist has to
consider the amount of utility for each individual and the amount of utility for a whole society.
The same computation is being used – amount of pleasure minus amount of pain – where of
course, the amount of pleasure should be greater than the amount of pain.

The second problem is that pleasure cannot be measured precisely in terms of quantity
and quality. There is no valid and reliable instrument to measure it. Some utilitarian manages
the problem by making educated guess, plus the past experience. Other economists, instead of
using felicific calculus, use the cost benefit analysis. The difference between calculus of
Bentham and the analysis is that economist would use monetary units that represents benefits
or advantages and drawback or disadvantages. If the benefit is greater than the amount spent,
then it is worth it. Therefore, it is pleasure.

Cost-benefit amount of money spent versus amount of benefit or drawbacks.

If the benefit is lesser than the amount spent, then it is not worth it. Therefore it is pain.

The cost-benefit analysis is commonly used only as means for making decisions such as
major investments and on matters of public policy. But it is not limited to business matters alone.
Sometimes it can be applied to matters related to purchasing things for personal use or family
use. But again it just like the felicific calculus, the cost-benefit analysis has its problem, that is,
there are other things that monetary values cannot be assigned like the life of a human being.
Some would say that the life of a human being is worth more than a house and lot purchased in
an exclusive subdivision, while other economist and businessmen would intentionally exclude
such an example in their decision-making.
 In the light of free tuition law, the RA 10931, also known as the “Universal Access to
Quality Tertiary Education Act” signed by President Duterte in 2016, all college students have
the privilege to enroll in any states colleges and state universities without paying the tuition and
other fees. Are you in favor that no matter what the financial status – upper class, middle class,
and lower class – of the student will be given the same privilege?

John Rawls is one of the important political philosophers during the 20th century. His
main work is A Theory of Justice published in 1971. This work has addressed some of the social
issues especially in the name of the justice between the state and the citizens and among the
citizens. He received his academic training at Princeton University, and later part of his career
he became a philosophy professor at Harvard University.

Rawl’s proposes justice as fairness as an ethical framework. This framework focuses on

how justice should be distributed that would yield fairness for those who have more and those
who have less. The term fairness were not o equality but as equity.
There are different definitions of justice just as there are different thinkers in their
respective field of specialization. Plato defines justice as harmony where the three groups of
people in the society working together for their common goal. The justice of Rawls embraces
not only sociological dimension but includes political and socio economics as well. In fact, for
Rawls, he understands justice where there is fairness among members of the society with the
goal of promoting their common good.

The two principles are as followed:

1. Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive scheme of equal
basic liberties compatible with a similar scheme of liberties for others.
2. Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both:
(a) Reasonably expected to be to everyone’s advantages
(b) Attached to positions and office open to all.

WHAT TO EXPECT
 1. Explain why there is a need for fairness and justice
2. Discuss the different distributive justices

Lesson Outline

The Nature of the Theory

A common view about a just society is that every member treats each other in a just
way. We want to treat others justly and we want to treat us other exactly the same way too.
John Rawls has in mind about an ideal and just society where there is justice, but in different
philosophical nuances. By the way for Rawls, justice is the first virtue of a social institution, and
therefore it is expected that he would always think of a society exercising justice.

Before he speaks what is a just society, he would first lay the foundation of a social
order. Just like any political philosophers, he would consider order as first thing first. He would
talk about social order where there are rules and sanctions that put social affairs into place. He
would underscore that rules in social order should be construed as our moral obligation is to
obey.
Rawls has his theory’s beginning in the original position. He wants to put things in place
where he creates a favorable condition for justice to exist. It is an imaginary idea to speak about
this position but it is important and the basis of justifying his belief. The world’s situation is unjust
when one thinks or unjust rules. He endorses the anonymity condition and rejects the moral
relevance of threat advantage.
The two elements can be summed into what he calls the veil of ignorance. Why he
needs to endorse the anonymity condition it is because we cannot but doubt that the rules are
created with partiality. In this anonymity condition, one knows nothing about the particular
individual each represents, about that citizen’s gender, skin, color, natural endowments,
temperament, interests, tastes, and references.
So if one wants to accept a social order that is just, and then see to it that the object of
agreement is fair, that is, that social order takes into account the interest of all members of such
society equally.

Distributive Justice
 There different theories of justices and Rawls speak of justice as distributive. The
meaning of distributive justice is that everyone on the society has to share both the burden and
the benefit of whatever the society offers.

Egalitarian Distributive Justice

As egalitarian, one is concerned with a just distribution in terms of receiving an equal
share.

2 kind of Distributive Justice under Egalitarianism

1. Political Egalitarianism – where legal rights of every citizens observed.
2. Economic Egalitarianism – where the distribution of socioeconomic goods is quality
observed.

Capitalist Distributive Justice

As a capitalist, one is concerned with a just contribution in terms of receiving one’s share
according to how much one contributes to the over-all success of the goal of the institution
where one is employed. The term proportion is useful here. One receives one’s share according
to the proportion of one’s contribution. If one contributes more, one receives more. If one
contributes less, one receives less.

Social Distributive Justice

As a socialist, one is concerned with just a distribution in terms of one’s need. We have
various needs in life, and if we want to achieve those needs, we need to work hard according to
the amount of needs we have. If one has a greater needs, then one expect that his share is
greater in the distribution scheme, and vice versa. This view of distributive justice would seek
the level of playing field of every member of the society where all of them have natural
inequalities. These inequalities refer to those inequalities in our initial endowment in life.

The State and Citizens: Responsibilities to each other: The Principle of Taxation and
Inclusive Growth

We all exist under a particular state in the Philippines, and the state has the power to
collect taxes from its citizens. As citizens, we have the obligation to support its existence
through monetary contribution. It stated in the 1987 constitution, Article X “LOCAL
GOVERNMENT”, Section V that “Each local government unit shall have the power to create its
own source of revenues and levy taxes, fees and charges subject to such guidelines and
limitations as the Congress may provide, consistent with the basic policy of local autonomy.
Such taxes, fees, and charges shall accrue exclusively to the local government.”
The state possesses inherent powers wherein the government van issue a command for
survival of the people, and at the same time, maintain order and peace in the land. One the
inherent power is the taxation power, and the other powers are police and eminent domain. The
reason why the state possesses such power is to let the people contribute monetarily in order to
support the cost of the government, its existence, and its other project for the betterment of the
whole populace.
The basis of taxation is necessity and reciprocal duties. As to necessity, the government
should collect the amount of its money from the populace for it existence and its expenses.
There can be no government without the monetary aspect for its operation. As to reciprocal
duties, we see how the state and the citizens have responsibilities towards each other. This
responsibility springs from the concept of right and duties. The range of the definition of the
terms rights and the duties is wide, but let settle their prima facie definitions.

The Benefits-Received Principle

The principle of benefit-received is not without problem. All of us are paying taxes to the
government both direct and indirect, that is, from economic perspective. For employed citizen a
portion of your income is deducted and paid directly to the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR), it
is called direct tax. When money is collected form a business entity, it Is call indirect tax.
The point of raising this matter is for us to understand that all of us are paying taxes to
the government. In return we expect better service from them. Now, the problem of the principle
of benefit-receive is this. We have the mentality that when we pay some amount, we also expect
that the benefit we are going to receive must also be of the same amount.

The Role of Economics and Inclusive Growth

Now, let us get familiarized with basic concept of economics. Economics is focused on
the scarce resource that every member of the society id facing. The role of the economist is to
come up with a plan on how to produce them abundantly so that can enjoy and benefit from it.
 The goal of every economic growth is to increase the production of scarce resources so
that every people’s well-being shall be sustained. This happen only when the resources are well
distributed from the macro-level, which is the (economic growth from regional, national, and
international level), down to micro-level, which is (economic growth from the personal level that
addresses their aspirations, capabilities, productivities, and opportunities). In short, the
economic growth under inclusive growth must create opportunities for all people in different
levels of the societies, and the resource distributed to them accordingly.
 Chapter Summary
 Virtue ethics is the general term for theories that put emphasis on the role of character
and virtue in living one’s life rather than in doing ones duty or acting to bring about the
consequences.
 Aristotle declared that a virtuous person is someone who has ideal character traits.
 Telos means all our human action will lead to our desired end and for Aristotle, in his
NicomacheanEthics, the end is something that is good.
 The finality of the object of human action has two views – the dominant or monistic view
and the inclusivist’s view.
 Aristotle explicates about the acquisition of character excellence by habituation
(ethismos).
 For Aristotle, all human acts that we undertake must have to have the ultimate telos or
end. He is referring to happiness or in Greek Eudaimonia as the supreme good.
 St. Thomas Aquinas links the two laws (natural and eternal)he shows that it has
theological underpinning because his philosophy is theistic or belief in God as the
highest of all beings and the highest of all goods.
 The proximate norm of morality is patterned after the divine reason called eternal law
that is established by God from all eternity.
 The four cardinal virtues are: prudence, justice, fortitude, and temperance.
 Kant claims that the only good without qualification is the good will.
 Good will for Kant, is an indispensable condition in order to achieve the rightness of act.
 For Kant, moral commands are always categorical and not hypothetical.
 In speaking about categorical, it is all about ought, that is to say, one is ought to do the
moral law in the absence of conditions since it is simply done out of duty.
 The procedure for determining whether a proposed action violates categorical
imperatives are: formulate the maxim; generalize the maxim into a law of nature, and
figure out the Perturbed Social World (PSW)
 For the maxim to be acceptable, the Kantian evaluation rule states that we must be able
to answer yes to both questions: (could I rationally act on my maxim in the PSW? And
could I rationally choose the PSW as one in which I would be a member?)
 There are two kinds of rights, the legal and moral rights.
 The theory of utilitarianism, sometimes called Consequentialism, focuses on the effect of
a particular end or telos called happiness.
 For utilitarianism the basis for an act to be treated as morally right or wrong is in its
consequences they produced.
 The second point is what matters in every act that we do would be the amount of
pleasure produced.
 The third point, which is the happiness experienced by every person is counted the
same.
 Cost-benefit amount of money spent versus amount of benefit or drawbacks.If the
benefit is lesser than the amount spent, then it is not worth it. Therefore it is pain it is
commonly used only as means for making decisions such as major investments and on
matters of public policy.
 If one wants to accept a social order that is just, and then see to it that the object of
agreement is fair, that is, that social order takes into account the interest of all members
of such society equally.