ETHICS: LIFE AS OUGHT TO BE

Chapter I: UNDERSTANDING MORALITY AND MORAL STANDARDS

Lesson 1 Course Orientation and the Importance of Rules
Intended Learning Outcomes:
1. To state what are expected of me in this course
2. To explain the importance of rules

INTRODUCTION
Everywhere you go are rules – at home, at school, in church, in the barangay. Do these rules
make our life more peaceful and orderly? Imagine your life, your home, your school, your Church and
community without rules. In this Lesson, we’ll study about the importance of rules.

ABSTRACTION
Rules are important to social beings. Just imagine the chaos that results from the absence of
rules. What happens when students and professor alike come to school in any attire they want? Imagine
what happens when in the classroom everyone wants to talk at the same time. Let’s go out of the
classroom for more examples. What if there were no traffic rules? Rules can be expanded to include the
Philippine Constitution and other laws of the land?
Rules are meant to set order. Rules (the Philippine Constitution and other laws included) are
meant for man. The greatest Teacher, Jesus Christ, preached emphatically, “The Sabbath is made for man
and not man for the Sabbath”. The law of the Sabbath, i.e. to keep it holy and observe rest, is meant to
make man whole by resting and by giving him time to thank and spend time in prayer and worship for his
own good.
For then sake of order in society, everyone is subject to rules. In a democratic country like the
Philippines, we often hear the statement “No one is above the law,” including the highest official of the
country/ we are all subject to rules or else court chaos.
Rules are not meant to restrict your freedom. They are meant to help you grow in freedom, to
grow in your ability to choose and do what is good for you and for others. If there are rules or laws that
restrict your ability or strength to do good, they are suffocating laws and they are not good laws. They
ought to be abolished. Any rule or law that prevents human persons from doing and being good ought to
be repealed. They have no reasons to exist.
In fact, if you are a rule or a law-abiding citizen, you don’t even feel the restricting presence of a
rule or law because you do what the law or what the rule states everybody should do. Looking from a
higher point of view, this is the state when one acts not because rules demand it but because one sees
he has to act that way. It is like saying one no longer needs the rule or law because one has become
mature and wise enough to discern what ought to be done. This is an ideal state which the ancient
Chinese sages (Confucius, Lao Tzu) referred to as state of no-more rules, no-more laws, because people
discern what is right or good and do what is right or good without thinking a rule or law; people are no
longer in need of a government because they can govern themselves. It is a state where one owns the
moral standard not just abide by the moral standard.

KEY TAKEAWAYS
 Rules are meant to set order in society
 Rules are intended for human persons. They are not meant to limit a person’s
freedom which is the ability to choose and do what is good. Rather rules are meant
to help persons choose and do what is good
 Those who do what is good don’t even feel the presence of a rule that prevents
them from doing what is not good. It is those who intend to do the opposite of what
is good that feel the suffocating and limiting presence of a rule.
 When society is ideal, i.e. when all the persons are good and do only what is ideal
then there will be no more need for rules and laws according to Lao Tzu.
Lesson 2 Moral and Non-Moral Standards

Intended Learning Outcome:

1. Distinguish between moral and non-moral standards

INTRODUCTION
We often hear the terms “moral standards” and “non-moral standards.” What do these refer to?
What about the word “immoral?” is there such a thing as immoral standards? Is immoral synonymous
with non-moral? Let’s find this out in this Lesson.

Classification of the Theories of Moral Standards

Garner and Rosen (1967) classified the various moral standards formulated by moral
philosophers as follows: 1) Consequence (teleological, from tele which means end, result, or
consequence) standard states that an act is right or wrong depending on the consequences of
the act, that is the good that is produced in the world. Will it do you good if you go to school? If
the answer is right, because you learn how to read and write then going to school is right. The
consequence standard can also be a basis for determining whether or not a rule is a right rule.
So the consequence standard states that the rightness or wrongness of a rule depends on the
consequences or the good that is produced in the following the rule. For instance, if everyone
follows the rule of a game, everyone will enjoy playing the game. This consequence proves the
rule must be a correct rule. 2) Not-only-consequence standard (deontological), holds that the
rightness or wrongness of an action or rule depends on sense of duty, natural law, virtue and the
demand of the situation or circumstances. The rightness or wrongness of an action does not only
depend or rely on the consequence of that action or following that rule.
Natural law and virtue ethics are deontological moral standards because their basis for
determining what is right or wrong does not depend on consequences but on the natural law
and virtue. Situation ethics, too, is deontological because the rightness or wrongness of an act
depends on situation and circumstances requiring or demanding exception to rule.
Rosen and Garner are inclined to consider deontology, be it rule or act deontology, as
the better moral standard because it synthesizes or includes all the other theory of norms.
Under this theory, the rightness or wrongness of an action depends on (or is a function of) all
the following: a) consequences of an action or ule, what promotes one’s greatest good, or the
greatest good of the greatest number; b) consideration other than consequences, like the
obligatoriness or the act based on natural law, or its being one’s duty, or it’s promoting an ideal
virtue. Deontology also considers the object, purpose, and circumstances or situation of the
moral issue or dilemma.
All these moral standards or ethical frameworks will be dealt with more in detail in
Chapter IV of this book.

What Makes Standard Moral?

The question means what obliges us to follow a moral standard? For theist, believers in
God’s existence, moral standards are commandments of God revealed to man through prophets.
According to the Old Testament, the Ten Commandments were revealed by God to Moses. One
who believes in God vows to Him and obliges himself/herself to follow His Ten Commandments.
For theist, God is the ultimate source of what is moral revealed to human persons.
How about non -theist? For non-theists, God is not the source of morality. Moral
standards are based on the wisdom of sages like Confucius or philosophers like Immanuel Kant.
In China, B.C., Confucius taught the moral standard, “Do unto others what you like
others to do unto you” and persuaded people to follow this rule because it is the right way, the
gentleman’s way. Later, Immanuel Kant, the German philosopher, formulated a criterion for
determining what makes a moral standard moral. It is stated as follows: “Act only according to
that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.” (1993)
In other words, if a maxim or standard cannot pass this test, it cannot be a moral standard. For
instance, does the maxim “Stealing is wrong” pass this test? Can one will that this maxim be a
universal maxim? The answer is in the affirmative. The opposite of the maxim would not be
acceptable. Moral standards are standards that we want to be followed by all, otherwise, one
would be wishing one’s own ill fortune. Can you wish “do not kill” to be a universal maxim? The
answer has to be yes because if you say “no” then you are not objecting to someone killing you.
Thus, the universal necessity of the maxim, what makes it categorical imperative is what
makes it obligatory. “Stealing is wrong” means “one’s obligation not to steal or kill. Ultimately,
the obligation arises from the need of self-preservation.

The Origin of the Moral Standards: Theist and Non-Theist

Related to the question on what makes moral standards moral is how do moral
standards arise or come into existence? A lot of new attempts to explain the origins of morality
or moral standards have been made.
The theistic line of thought states moral standards are of divine origin while 20 th century
thinkers claim state that they simply evolved. The issue is: Are moral standards derived from
God, communicated to man through signs or revelation, or did they arise in the course of man’s
evolution?
With the divine source concept, moral standards are derived from natural law, man’s
“participation” in the Divine law. The moral principle, “Do good and avoid evil” is an expression
of natural law. Man’s obliging himself to respect the life, liberty, and property of his fellowman
arises from the God-given sacredness, spirituality, and dignity of his fellow man. It arises from his
faith, hope, and love of God and man.
With the evolutionary concept, the basics of the moral standards – do good avoid evil –
have been observed among primates and must have evolved as the process of evolution
followed its course.
Are these theist and non-theist (evolutionary) origin of moral standards reconcilable?
The evolutionist claims that altruism, a sense of morality, can be observed from man’s
fellow primates- the apes and monkeys and, therefore, it can be said that the altruism of human
persons evolved from the primates. However, the evolutionist cannot satisfactorily argue, with
factual evidence, that the rudiments of moral standards can be observed from the primates.
Neither can it be scientifically established that the theist view, that man’s obliging himself to
avoid evil, refrain from inflicting harm on his fellowman, is a moral principle implanted by God in
the hearts of men. But the concept of creation and evolution are not necessary contradictory.
The revelation of the norms of Diviner origin could not have been instant, like a happening “in
one fell swoop.” It could have happened gradually as man evolved to differ from the primates. As
the evolutionists claim, creation may be conceived as a process of evolution. Hence the biblical
story of creation could have happened in billion of years instead of six days.

KEYTAKEWAYS
 Non-moral standards originate from social rules, demands of etiquette and good manners.
They are guides of action which should be followed as expected by the society.
 Moral standards are based on consequences standards. That which leads to a good
consequence or result like the greatest good of the greatest number is what is moral.
 Moral standards are based also on non-consequence standards or sense of duty that you
wish would be followed by all. Respect for humanity, treatment of the other as a human
person, an act that is moral, springs from a sense of duty, a sense of duty that you wish is
wished by all and applies to all human persons.
 For theist, the origin of the moral standards is God “who wrote his law in the heart of every
person”, the natural law.
 For non-theists, the origin of the moral standards is the moral frameworks formulated by
philosophers like Confucius, Immanuel Kant, Stuart Mill, et al.
 The evolutionists claims that the sense of moral standards must have evolved with man not
something that was implanted in every human person instantly at the moment of creation.
Creation as a process may have taken place not only in 6 days as the creationist claims but in
billion years as the evolutionist asserts.
  For the theists, belief in God strengthens them to be moral.
Lesson 3 Moral Dilemmas
Intended Learning Outcome:
1. Explain moral dilemma as a moral dilemma as a moral experience
2. Distinguish between a moral and a false dilemma

INTORDUCTION
After learning moral and non-moral standards, you must now have an idea of what a moral
experience is. When you find yourself in a moral dilemma, you are in for a moral experience. What is a
moral dilemma? This is the main focus of this Lesson.

ACTIVITY
Read The Pregnant Lady and the Dynamite, then answer the questions given:

The pregnant woman leading a group of five people out of a cave on a coast is stuck in the
mouth of that cave. In a short time, high tide will be upon them and unless she is unstuck, they will all be
drowned except the woman whose head is out of the cave. Fortunately (or unfortunately), someone has
with him a stick of a dynamite. There seems no way to get the pregnant woman loose without using the
dynamite which will inevitably kill her; but if they do not use it everyone else will drown. What should
they do?

ANALYSIS
1. What would you do if you were one of the men? Explain why you decided to act that way?
2. The situation or the experience you went through is a moral dilemma. What then is a moral
dilemma?
3. Is finding yourself in a moral dilemma, a moral experience? Why or why not?

ABSTRACTION
Meaning of Moral Dilemma
A moral dilemma is a problem in the decision-making between two possible options, neither of
which is absolutely acceptable from an ethical perspective. It is also preferred to as ethical dilemma. The
Oxford Dictionary defines ethical dilemma as a “decision-making problem between two possible moral
imperatives, neither of which is unambiguously acceptable or preferrable. It is sometimes called an
ethical paradox in moral philosophy.” (Oxford Dictionary)
Based on this definitions, moral dilemmas have the following in common: 1) “the agent is
required to do each of two (or more) actions which are morally acceptable; 2) the agent can do each of
the two actions; 3) but the agent cannot do both (or all) of the actions. The agent thus seems
condemned to moral failure; no matter what she does, she will do something wrong (or fail to do
something that she ought to do).
This means that moral dilemmas are situations where two or more moral values or duties make
demands on the decision-maker, who can only honor one of them, and thus will violate at least one
important more concern, no matter what he or she decides to do. Moral dilemmas present situations
where there is tension between moral values and duties that are more or less on equal footing. The
decision-maker has to choose between a wrong and another wrong. The decision-maker is deadlock.
In case of the Pregnant Lady and the Dynamite, there were two options – use the dynamite and
kill the pregnant woman but save the other 5 or don’t use the dynamite and all the 5 will get drowned
except the pregnant woman whose head is out.
To have a genuine dilemma, one of the conflicting solutions should not override the other. For
instance, “…the requirement to protect others from serious harm overrides the requirement to repay
one’s debts by returning a borrowed item when its owner demands.” Hence,… “in addition to the
features mentioned above, in order to have a genuine moral dilemma it must also be true that neither if
the conflicting requirements is overridden” (McConell, T. 2019). This means that none of the conflicting
requirements is solved by the other. The persons involved in the dilemma are in a deadlock. They find
themselves in a “damn-if-you-do and damn-if-you-do-don’t” situation.
 Another example of a moral dilemma is the story from the Bible about King Herod. On his
birthday, his step daughter, Salome dances so well in front of him and the guests at his party that he
promised to give her anything she wanted. Salome consulted her mother about what she should wish
for, and decided to ask for the head of John the Baptist on a platter. The king now had a choice between
honoring the promise to his stepdaughter, or honoring the life of John the Baptist. And Herod chose to
have John the Baptist beheaded.
The king had inadvertently designed a moral trap for himself, a dilemma where whatever he
decided to do would be morally wrong.

Meaning of a False Dilemma

On the other hand, a false dilemma is a situation where the decision-maker has a moral duty to
do one thing, but it is tempted or under pressure to do something else. A false dilemma is a choice
between right and a wrong. For example, a lawyer or an accountant can face an opportunity to prioritize
self-interest over the client’s interest.

What to Do When Faced with a Moral Dilemma

Ultimately, dilemmas are conflicts in the application of moral standards. The question is which
moral standards must be followed? In a state of emergency, necessity demands no moral law. You have
to decide based on your judgment or choose based on the principle of a lesser evil or greater good or
urgency.
There are 24 moral dilemmas listed by Pixi’s blog. Refer to 25 Moral Dilemmas, Pixi’s Blog
(retrieved/http://psychopixi.com/author/pixil)

KEY TAKEAWAYS
 A moral dilemma is a “decision making problem between two possible moral
imperatives, neither which is unambiguously acceptable or preferrable.
 A moral dilemma is a situation where a person has the moral obligation to choose
between two options both based on moral standards, but he/she cannot choose both,
and choosing one means violating the other.
 In a moral dilemma, one is caught between two options. It is a “damn-if-you-do and
damn-if-you-don’t” situation. One is in a deadlock.
 False dilemma are situations where the decision-maker has a moral duty to do one
thing, but it is tempted or under pressure to do something else. A false dilemma is a
choice between right and a wrong unlike a moral dilemma where both choices are
wrong.

Lesson 4 The Three Levels of Moral Dilemma

Intended Learning Outcome:
1. Illustrate the three levels of moral dilemma

INTORDUCTION
This lesson reinforces your understanding of moral dilemmas. After understanding the meaning
of moral dilemmas, let us now illustrate three levels of moral dilemma. In this Lesson, you are expected
to give examples of the levels of moral dilemmas. A research on some significant events in history may
help you arrived at a concrete understanding of structural dilemma most especially.

ACTIVITY
Read the following dilemmas:
1. The mission of Catholic School A is to serve the poor by giving quality education. It is torn
between the obligation to charge low tuition to help the poor and to pay better salaries to keep
quality teachers.
2. Heinz’s wife was dying from a particular type of cancer. Doctors said a new drug might save her.
The drug have been discovered by a local chemist, and the Heinz tried desperately to buy some,
 but the chemist was charging ten times the money it cost to make the drug. And this was much
more than the Heinz could afford.
Heinz could only raise half the money, even after help from family and friends. He
explained to the chemist that his wife was dying and asked if he could have the drug cheaper or
pay the rest of the month later.
The chemist refused, saying that he had discovered the drug and was going to make
money from it. The husband was desperate to save his wife, so later that night he broke into the
chemist’s laboratory and stole the drug.
3. A principal ought to welcome and encourage parents and community participation in school
affairs. Based on her experience, parent and community are passive and so the principal always
ends up deciding and doing things just the same. She is obliged to observed parents’ and
community participation which do not give any input at all at the same time she is obliged to
accomplish things on time.

ABSTRACTION
A. Individual
This refers to personal dilemmas. It is an individual’s damn-if-you-do-and-damn-if-you-
don’t situation.
The case of Heinz as given in the Activity phase of the lesson is one of the best-known
individual dilemmas of Kohlberg’s (1958).
Kohlberg’s dilemma questions were as follows: “Should Heinz have stolen the drug.”
(Mackinnon, B.,etal 2015) If he did not steal the drug that would mean his wife’s death. He was
torn between stealing the drug and saving his wife. The dilemma is faced by an individual who is
torn between 2 obligations – to save the wife or obey the law. So this is an example of an
individual dilemma.
B. Organizational
An organization dilemma is a puzzle posed by the dual necessities of a social
organization and members’ self-interest. It may exist between personal interests and
organizational welfare or between group interest and organizational well-being… (Wagner, j.
2019).
The example of the Catholic school in the Activity phase of the lesson shows the
dilemma between the goal of the school to give quality education for the poor and so must
charge the lowest tuition fee possible and yet to keep quality faculty the school must raise their
salary and consequently, must raise tuition.
Organizational dilemma may likewise occur in business, medical, and public sector.
The following hypothetical case highlights the story of Mr. Brown, a 74-year-old man
who is seriously ill of metastatic lung cancer. Mr. Brown completed a full course of radiation
therapy as well as chemotherapy for treatment of his cancer, and he is now hospitalized with
severe shortness of breath and pneumonia. His physician has managed the symptoms associated
with the lung disease including chest pain, fever, infection, and respiratory distress, but believes
that there are no other options available to aggressively the underlying cancer…. Both Mr. Brown
and his wife clearly state that they ‘want everything done.’…
The dilemma here lies in the inflicting concerns: a) the financial problems of Mr. Brown
and his wife, b) the hospital concern of cases which have still possible remedies, c) the other
hospital patient’s concern of the medical staff, et al.
Organizational dilemmas arise due to different opposing concerns between various
groupings in an organization.
C. Structural
The case of the principal whether to be participatory or non-participatory in school
affairs but due to her not so favorable experience of attempting to be participatory ended up to
one-woman rule is an example of a structural dilemma.
Below are more examples of structural dilemma.
Differentiation Versus Integration in Structural Dilemma
 Different divisions have heir own different culture and coordination between divisions or
bringing them together for become more difficult.
With decentralization, local governments have become more empowered to direct their
affairs just as schools have become empowered to address their problems or are given
opportunity to localize the given curriculum.
In effect, local governments ands schools have likewise more differentiated and so it
becomes more difficult to integrate them for a unified structure. Local governance and school
curricula have become more complex. There is need for more costly coordination strategies.
Any attempt to introduce reform in society or government creates structural dilemma.
For instance, promoting or introducing universal health care, which is tantamount to socialized
health care, gives rise to a structural dilemma, that is, a conflict of perspective of sectors, groups
and institutions that may be affected by the decision. Why would those who contribute less to
the social fund enjoy the same benefits as those who contributed big amounts of premium? In a
study on the prices of medicines in the Philippines, it was established that “patients are buying
medicines from the private sector at many times their international reference price” (Ateneo de
Manila University 2019). If the government intervenes by introducing price control, the drug
stores may lose so much that they may close shop. If the government does not do anything at
all, the patients will continue to suffer because they may not be able to afford the highest prices
of medicines.
Gap Versus Overlap
There may be gaps and overlaps in roles and responsibilities. If key responsibilities are
not clearly assigned, there may be gaps or overlaps in important tasks. If there are gaps,
organizations end up with no one doing the responsibility. If there are overlaps, things become
unclear and may lead to more confusion and even conflict and worse wasted effort and perhaps
even resources because of the unintended overlap.
Here is an example. A patient in a teaching hospital called her husband to report how
disturbed she is and how sleepless she was during the night. At night, she couldn’t sleep because
hospital staff kept waking her up, often to repeat what someone else had already done. This is
an overlap of nurse duty. Conversely, when she wanted something, her call button rarely
produced any response. This is a gap. There is a gap as to who according to rule is supposed to
respond to the buzzer.
To illustrate further the consequence of gap and overlap, here is a story to show what
happens when there is a gap or overlap. A boy wanted his pants shorter. So, he went to his
mother to ask her to shorten it. His mother was busy computing grades and told her son to ask
his sister to do it. His sister was busy reviewing for the final exams and asked her brother to ask
their elder brother to do it. But his older brother was also busy with his school project and so
could not also attend to it. The boy highly frustrated went to sleep. His pants were beside him.
After finishing her grades, Mother peeped into her son’s room, saw the pants and remembered
her son’s request. So she took a pair of scissors and shortened them. Before she went to bed, the
sister also remembered her brother’s request. Full of remorse she went to her younger brother’s
room, saw the pants, got a pair of scissors and shortened them, too. The older brother finally
completed his school project and suddenly remembered his brother’s asking for help to shorten
the pants. So went to his younger brother’s room, got a pair of scissors and cut them, too. When
the younger brother woke up, he was surprised to see a pair of extremely short shorts. The
pants which he wanted to make just a little bit shorter ended up too short to him!
That is what happens when there are gaps or overlaps in an organization. The gaps leave
an important thing in an organization undone. The overlap results in unnecessary and
counterproductive redundant procedures which ultimately lead to waste of resources.

Lack of Clarity Versus Lack of Creativity.

If employees are unclear about what they are supposed to do, they often tailor their
roles around personal preferences instead of systemwide goals, frequently lading to trouble.
Most McDonald’s customers are not seeking novelty and surprise in their burgers and fries. But
when responsibilities are over defined, people conform to prescribed roles and protocols in
“bureaucratic” ways. They rigidly follow job descriptions regardless how much the service or
product suffers and so end up uncreative.
“You lost my bag!” an angry passenger shouted, confronting an airline manager. The
manager’s response was to inquire, “How was the flight?” “I asked about my bag,” the passenger
said. “That’s not my job,” the manager replied. “See someone in baggage claim.” The passenger
did not leave as a happy airline costumer.
The job of the manager was over defined and made the manager uncreative and
inefficient. Her job in relation to the airline system wide goals was neither clear and so ended up
the wrong answer that turned off the airline passenger.
Flexibility versus Strict Adherence to Rules
You accommodate by bending rules to help someone or you stick strictly to rules no
matter what and so unable to help someone who is thrown into a helpless situation. Or you may
become being too accommodating that all rules are no more.
Your jobs are defined so clearly that you will stick to them even if circumstances are such
that by sticking to your job description the service or product that your organization provides
suffers.
Excessive Autonomy Versus Excessive Independence
This refer to being too isolated versus too much coordination.
To illustrate:
When individuals or groups are too autonomous, people often feel isolated and disconnected.
School teachers working in delf-contained classrooms and rarely working with other teachers
may feel lonely and unsupported. Yet, efforts to create closer teamwork have repeatedly failed
because of teachers’ difficulties in working together. In contrast, if units and roles are too tightly
linked, people are distracted from work and waste time on unnecessary or too much
coordination. IBM lost an early lead in the personal computer business in part because new
initiatives required so many approvals – from levels and divisions alike – that new products were
over designed and late to market. Hewlett – Packard’s ability to innovate in the late 1900’s was
hindered by the same problem.
Structural dilemma is the dilemma arising from conflicting concerns among various
sectors of society. In the first instance of differentiation versus integration, the dilemma is how
to enforce a decision, policy, or rule intended for everybody among different or unique groups or
individuals. In the second, the dilemma arises because of either gaps or overlaps in the
procedure of implementation of certain projects or policies among involved agencies like the FBI
and CIA in the U.S.A. or like the NBI and the INP in the Philippines. GAPS creates serious
consequences. Read about the unforgettable Mamasapano massacre in Mindanao, Philippines.
Centralized versus Decentralized Decision Making
In decentralized decision making, organizations can respond to change more rapidly and
effectively because the decision makers are the people closest to the situation. However, top
managers may lose some control. This is the dilemma of tight over centralization or diffusing
authority which is loose.
Structural Dilemma in a World Organization Like the UN
Succinctly put, a structural dilemma in a world organization like the UN is the problem of
the balance between world order and national sovereignty re-stated as the balance between
the measure of international authority essential to the establishment of an organized common
peace and the continued freedom of action of the separate members of the world community or
the balance between interdependence and independence (Jenks, 1971).
Some Structural Dilemmas of World Organization* C. Wilfred Jenks**Georgia Journal of
International and Comparative Law Volume 3 1973 Issue 1
Revolving the Moral Dilemmas
The following offer some techniques in resolving moral dilemma: One way is to think of
available alternative options revealing that the dilemma does not really exist. This happens
where there are available alternative options. For instance, one is experiencing a dilemma
between stealing or not stealing otherwise his family will either die of hunger or survive. The
creative moral agent will try to think of other alternatives like “alternative means of income or
support such as social safety net, charity, etc.”
Another way is “choosing the greater good and lesser evil” or…,” Or one may apply the
situation ethics approach, following the rule, one must do only what he can where he is. Do not
resort to extraordinary or supernatural means.
Joseph Fletcher offers some principles in resolving moral dilemma, He uses Kant’s “ought
implies I can” rule. If I ought to do something then I can do it. By contraposition, if I can do
something, then cannot be obliged to do it. Or by implication, either I cannot be obliged to do
something or I can do it. In other words, one is only obliged to do something if and only if he can
do it. So Fletcher says, “do what you can where you are.” Or quoting St. Agustine’s, “Dilige, et
quod vis fac” (love and do what you will). The extent of one’s obligation and responsibility is the
extent of one’s ability and the measure of the “extent” is one’s capacity for love.
Here is a situation: You are a father of seven children. On your support, seven children
plus your wife depend. You work in the mines and receive only a minimum wage. After working
like a “carabao” in the mines, you need to ease you pains with a bottle of gin before you lie down
to rest and sleep. You also need to eat food sufficient enough to replaced your wasted energy.
Hence, you spend for wine, food, and cigarette. Minus these expenses, the balance of your wage
is just enough for the food of your children. Nothing is left for their education, and other
expenses. Question: Should you be faulted for not being able to sacrifice enough by giving up
your needs, so that your dependents can have something left for their education? You love your
family, but you have a need you cannot give up. Is your case what Fletcher wants to picture?
Your obligation ends where your capacity for love ends. Love is supposed to be unconditional, no
limits of sacrifice or boundaries. But your love is human, you are only human. “You can only do
what you can where you are.” Others can sacrifice more by giving up their gin and cigarette and
eat less expensive food. Yes others can, but can one be faulted for not being like the others, not
having the strength to overcome a vice? Can one not argue that the extent of his ability is the
limit of his responsibility? On the other hand, can it not be said that resorting to human frailty is
just a convenient or comfortable way of justifying one’s lack of moral will? That may be the
easier said than done, although it is possible for one who has virtue as his moral strength. But
what can be said of one who has no’ moral virtue or strength to sacrifice with the discomfort of
self-giving? Endless condemnation? That would be un-Christian.

KEY TAKEAWAYS
 Moral dilemmas come in three levels – individual, organizational or structural.
 Individual dilemmas concern dilemmas that individual person’s face.
 Organizational dilemmas refer to dilemmas between organizational benefits versus
individual member’s welfare.
 Structural dilemmas concern dilemmas faced by groups or individuals as a result of
structural relationships.
 A world organization like the United Nations is usually faced with this dilemma:
sovereignty of nations versus world order.
 If confronted with a moral dilemma, choose the greater good and lesser evil or…” do
only what you can where you are (Fletcher) or “love and do what you will” (St.
Augustine) The extent of one’s obligation and responsibility is the extent of one’s ability
and the measure of the “extent” is one’s capacity for love.
Lesson 5 Freedom as Foundation for Moral Acts
Intended Learning Outcome:
1. Explain why only human beings can be ethical

INTRODUCTION
Do the lower forms of animals have ethics? Like can we say that a dog is immoral or unethical if
it defecates right there at your doorstep? Or is ethics only for human persons? If so, why? This is the
concern of this Lesson.

ABSTRACTION
Ethics Applies Only to Human Persons
The song, My Way/Born This Way, implies choice or freedom “I did it my way”. Unlike the lower
forms of animals, human persons have a choice or freedom, hence morality applies only to human
persons.
Ethics, therefore, applies only to human persons. We cannot say a cat is “unethical” when it eats
the food at table intended for you or when a dog urinates on your favorite bag lying on the floor.
Dilemmas presuppose freedom. Freedom-loving societies have customary ways of training the
young to exercise their freedom. Parents regularly give their children opportunities to choose. “Guys,
what do you want for breakfast – ham and egg or pancake?” Later in life, they come face to face with
hard choices. Then dilemmas come along. There is such a thing as dilemma because there is such a thing
as freedom. If there is n o ability or power of choice, then any incident simply happens without any
interference. There would also be no obligation to do any act in expectation of the responsibility
following the act.
Freedom and Moral Choice
Without freedom, it is impossible to make a moral choice. If we are to have free will we must
have the ability to make a decision that is unhindered. Kant believed that we must have free will if we
are be held morally responsible for our actions. If God did not give us free will then our decisions cannot
be considered immoral or moral as we would have had to act in the way we did. Thus we cannot be held
responsible; a good moral action cannot be praised as you had no other option, whilst an immoral action
cannot be punished as once again there was no free choice. In other words, making moral choice is a
necessary consequence for being free, a consequence of being free, a consequence of being a human
person.
Because a human person has freedom, he/she has a choice and so is responsible for the
consequences of his/her choice. The lower forms of animals have no choice since they are bound by
instinct and so cannot be held responsible for their behavior.
To be Ethical: Own Not Merely Abide by Moral Standards
Having free will or freedom to choose among alternatives, which implies prior analysis and
study, is coming to terms with what you finally affirm or deny. When you arrive at a personal conviction
and self-affirmation, you begin to own the moral standard. The moral standard begins to be integrated,
internalized. You follow the norm not because it is imposed by others, not because others say so or
authoritatively impose it on you. On the other hand, merely abiding by moral standards means applying
them as basis to resolve a moral problem without necessarily having internalized them. Merely abiding
by them means once the enforcer is not around, the moral standard is not followed.
Or if you do not own or internalized the standard, you will tend to use it for convenience, to
evade responsibility, to put the blame on the standard itself when things do not end well. You simply
become legalistic, and adopt the maxims, “follow the rule or law, even if the sky falls down”; “the law
says so”; the law is hard, but it is the law (dura lex sed lex). You follow the law because others,
authorities, regulators say so; not because you say so.
Owning moral standards means internalizing them, making them part of your conviction.
Internalized or embodied moral standards are being followed with or without anyone telling you.
 You internalized a rule after using reason to understand. When you are persuaded of its wisdom,
it becomes your basis of resolving an ethical problem. You decide to do something not because the law
says so but you yourself say so.
This may be termed as the embodiment of the moral standard in you. The moral standard
becomes one with the moral agent. As the moral agent, this moral standard becomes your natural and
immediate basis in your ethical decision making.
The presupposition is that you have come to own the moral standard after having been
convinced of its wisdom, having chosen it among other principles or standards. Any dilemma regarding
the standard has been resolved. Under the Chinese Taoist concept of harmony, this is where the
thought, the word, and the action become one. This author once visited a Taoist temple and had a
chance to ask what a Taoist live by as a principle of life. He replied, “what I think must be the same as
what I say, and what I say must be the same as what I do.” The result is oneness of thought, word and
action, and its effect is an integrated personality, personality made whole.
Making your mind, word, and action, a unity is not easy. You have in mind the maxim, “honesty is
the best policy.” As a teacher you always tell that to students. But deep in your heart you know it has
been difficult to be honest all the time. Ther was the joke, of which no one knew the source regarding
the motto of the Philippine Military Academy (PMA) “Integrity, Courage, Loyalty.” This is a signage at the
gate of PMA in Baguio City. At that time, some military officials, alumni of PMA, were being investigated
for corruption, the word “Integrity” disappeared.

KEY TAKEAWAYS
 Choice or freedom is a prerequisite of ethics or morality.
 Every human person has freedom or choice and so is expected to be ethical or moral.
 Lower forms of animals have no choice. They are governed by instincts and so ethics or
morality does not apply to them.
 To be truly ethical or moral, we must internalize or possess not just adhere to moral
standards. “I did it My Way” because I am convinced, have to do it “My Way” and not
because others tell me so.

Lesson 6 Culture: How It Defines Moral Behavior

Intended Learning Outcome:
1. Articulate what culture, enculturation and acculturation mean
2. Attribute facets of personal behavior to culture
3. Explain ow culture shapes the moral agent

INTRODUCTION
The “absolute freedom” that the existentialist and phenomenologist are talking about does not
of course exist in vacuum. It exists in a world with all its spatio-temporal conditions, its “facticity.”
Facticity refers to the “givens” our situation such as our language, our environment. Our previous choices
and our very selves in their function as in – itself constitute our facticity. (Sartre, Stanford Encyclopedia
of Philosophy) That includes culture. In this Lesson, we shall discuss culture and how it affects our
definition of moral behavior.

ABSTRACTION
Culture “is the integrated pattern of human knowledge, belief, and behaviors. This consist of
language, ideas, customs, morals, laws, taboos, institutions, tools, techniques, and works of art, rituals
and other capacities and habits acquired by a person as a member of the society.”(Taylor as quoted by
Palispis, 1997). These include the list of items you made in the Activity phase of this Lesson. Culture is
the one word expected of Question # 2 of Activity # 1.
The Magisterium of the Church explain culture as “the set of means used by mankind to become
more virtuous and reasonable in order to become fully human. In its fullest sense, culture means
opening up to the divine, and ultimately, to a religious dimension.” Based on this Church definition, it is
clear that culture is meant to serve human persons.
 Sociologists categorized culture into material and non-material culture. “Nonmaterial culture
consists of language, values, rules, knowledge, and meanings shared by members of society. Material
culture is the physical object that society produces—tools, streets, homes and toys, to name a few.”
(Brinkerhoff, 1989). If you review your list again in the Activity phase, you will be able to categorize those
that belong to material culture and to the non-material culture.
Culture is passed on the next generation by learning not through the genes or heredity.
“Culture” includes all human phenomena which are not purely results of human genetics. (Kroeber et al,
1952)
The Human Person and Culture
As a moral agent you a born into a culture, a factual reality you have not chosen. You are not
born nothing. It may be said that the Aritotelico-Thomistic culture is a Greco-Roman culture, which has
influenced and shaped the moral life of those who have been exposed to it. Those who were born into
this culture, educated under this culture, are persuaded that there is God, that a divine order and law
keep and govern the world, which includes you. But what happens when there are different cultures
with their own different views of man’s direction and destiny? For instance, the Greek culture introduced
the idea of perfection. In terms of numbers, a perfect thing is 100%; in terms of figures, it is a whole
circle. A perfect thing has no privation, no lack, no absence of being. What if a new culture redefines
perfection as any created and present model, which may be recreated, remolded like clay? Any change in
the model may be perceived as the creation of a new model of perfection, not the actualization of what
was lacking. Every created model is a perfection in its own right.
Enculturation, Inculturation and Acculturation
Cultures change or evolve. These are various ways by which cultures change – by enculturation,
inculturation and by acculturation.
Enculturation, an anthropological term, was coined by J.M. Herskovits. Margaret Mead has,
however, was the one who defined the term as “the process of learning a culture in all its uniqueness and
particularity”.
…Enculturation is a process of learning from infancy till death, the components of life in one’s
culture. The contents of this learning include both the material and non-material culture. The
latter refers to values while the former refers to tools such as a hoe or mask. In the said process
of learning, a person grows int a culture, acquires competence in that culture and that culture
takes root in that person and becomes the cognitive map, the term of reference for acting.
For instance, African girls (South of the Sahara) grows up learning that as a woman she has less
rights and privileges as the African man. For instance, a man can marry more than one woman while she
cannot. While the African wife cannot share her love with other men, the man can share his with other
women in the system. It turns women into an appendage, a property of the man – one of the man’s
laborers. Umoren, U.E. (1992)
Another marriage practice that shows that the African woman is the property of the husband
and his family is levirate marriage. Levirate marriage is the marriage between the widow and the brother
of her deceased husband. Therefore, at the husband’s death is generally expected to stay on (as property
of the family) without any choice in the matter. She raises children to immortalized the deceased
husband’s name. Umoren, U.E. 1992.
This is enculturation in concrete terms. The African girl grows up and becomes a woman through
the said process of enculturation. This enculturation process has cognitive and emotional elements. The
girl who later becomes a woman learns and internalizes the idea that she, because she is a woman, has
less privileges than the African man. This learning takes place through example, direct teaching and in
patterns of behavior. What is learned becomes her cognitive map, her term of reference that directs her
behavior.
Another term is inculturation. Inculturation refers to the “missiological process in which the
Gospel is rooted in a particular culture and the latter is transformed by its introduction to Christianity.”
Umoren, U.E. (1992)
In the Special Assembly of the Synod in 1985, Pope john Paul II defined inculturation in
Redemptoris Mission, n. 52, as …
The intimate transformation of authentic cultural values trough their integration in
Christianity and the insertion of Christianity in the various human cultures.” This means that
 inculturation is characterized by a dual movement, i.e. a dialogic movement towards
cultures via the incarnation of the Gospel and the transmission of its values, and a
movement towards the Church that involves the incorporation of values that come from the
cultures the latter encounters. Therefore, a fruitful cross-fertilization can follow. (Umoren,
U.E. 1992)
In other words, inculturation raises two related problems, that of the evangelization of cultures
(rooting the Gospel in cultures) and that of the cultural understanding of the Gospel. It was this
movement that led Pope John Paul II to say in 1982, “The synthesis between culture and faith is not only
a requirement of culture, but also faith…. Faith that does not become culture is not fully accepted, not
entirely reflected upon, or faithfully experienced”
This means that inculturation is not an action but a process that unfolds over time, one that is
active and based on mutual recognition and dialogue, a critical mind and insight, faithfulness and
conversion, transformation and growth, renewal and innovation.
Inculturation is a two-way process: it roots the Gospel in a culture and introduces that
transformed culture to Christianity. For example, to root the Gospel in the African culture is
to initiate two events. The first event is to transform the African culture of oppressing
women into a culture where men and women are treated as human persons equal in dignity,
rights and privileges. The second event is to develop the African culture’s talent potential
towards the human development of the woman, created like her male counterpart in the
image and likeness of God. The other aspect is to introduced the woman and her
transformed culture to Christianity, for example, by allowing the woman a meaningful place
among the agents of inculturation. (cf. Umoren, U.E. 1992)
Acculturation is another big term. It is the “cultural modification of an individual, group, or
people by adapting to or borrowing traits from another culture”. It is also explained as the merging of
cultures as a result of prolonged contact”. Immigrants to the United States of America become
acculturated to American life. Refugees and indigenous people (IP) likewise adapt to the culture of the
dominant majority.
There are cultural practices that should be stopped because of the painful harm they do. The
practice of human sacrifice has somehow been stopped. But the circumcision of women still goes on in
some part of the world, like Africa. Some approaches have been successful, like what one NGO tried to
introduced in Africa. It is called a buying in. To gradually stop the circumcision of women, the approach
was to buy in, like introducing into the place good facilities and other forms of assistance to alleviate
their economic hardships in return to their stopping the practice.

How Culture Shapes the Moral Agent

Culture definitely affects the wat we evaluate and judge things. Consider the African women not
as privileged as the African men described in the earlier section of this Lesson. Some societies consider it
alright gathering vegetables at the backyard of their neighbor considering the act as getting the share. In
such societies, the act would not be called stealing. In most societies, the act is stealing. In ancient times,
human sacrifice was not wrong. Today it is criminal act. In some culture like Islamic culture, and African
culture (South Sahara) having several wives is allowed. In other cultures, it’s concubinage or adultery.
Culture has a very long-lasting hold on an individual. A person may have become highly
educated, may haver been obtained a doctorate degree, educated with Christian values of forgiveness,
but he comes from a society with a culture of vengeance (“an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth”)
having the sense of obligation to make an act of revenge when a member of his tribe has been killed or
harmed by another tribe, and when a case arise where a member of his tribe is harmed by another, he
becomes ultimately vindictive and joins his tribe seeking revenge. No amount of graduate education can
prevent him from joining his tribe to seek revenge. He forgets about his doctorate degree in Values
Education.

KEY TAKEAWAYS
 Culture is the integrated pattern of the human knowledge, beliefs and behaviors. It is
people’s way of life.
  Culture 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 o 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 the making the Gospel take root 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.
Examples are the culture of vengeance and low regard for the African women in
comparison to the African men.

Lesson 7 Cultural Relativism

Intended learning Outcomes:
1. Explain cultural relativism
2. Cite the strength and weaknesses of cultural relativism

INTRODUCTION
After studying the meaning of culture, how it is learned and how it shapes moral behavior, let us
focus on cultural relativism, its meaning and its strengths and weaknesses.

ABSTRACTION
What is cultural relativism? First, relativism says “what is true for you is true for you, and what
is true foe me is true for me.” Analogously, cultural relativism would say, “what you believe, value or
practice depends on your culture while what I believe, value and practice, depends on my culture.” In
other words, 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.”
Stated in another way:
Cultural relativism is the view that moral or ethical systems, which vary from culture to culture,
are all equally valid and no one system is really “better than any other.” This is based on the idea
that there is no ultimate standard of good or evil, so every judgment about right and wrong is a
product of society. Therefore, any opinion on morality or ethics is subject to the cultural
perspective of each person. Ultimately, this means that no moral or ethical system can be
considered the “best,” or “worst,” and no particular moral or ethical position ca actually be
considered “right” or “wrong.”
In the context of cultural relativism, the manner by which the African woman is treated in
comparison to that of African man should not be judged against other culture’s standards. This should be
judged in the context of African culture, not in the context of Christian culture.

Cultural Relativism vs Cultural Perspective

However, what the cultural relativist fails to see is the difference between cultural perspective
and cultural relativism. A perspective is a standpoint or viewpoint of something. For instance, there are
as many perspectives of a building, a house, as there are standpoints. You try to appreciate the design of
a house considering its various perspective, but you never judge the design based on only one
perspective. Trying to understand one’s culture, having a perspective of one’s culture, is needed to
understand people. But it does not follow that morality must be based only on said culture:
….the problem with moving from cultural perspective to cultural relativism is the erosion of
reason that it causes. Rather than simply saying, “we need to understand the morals of other
cultures,” it says, “we cannot judge the morals of other cultures,” regardless of the reasons of
 their actions. There is no longer any perspective, and it becomes literally impossible to argue that
anything a culture does is right or wrong. If we hold on to strict cultural relativism, it is not
possible to say that human sacrifice is “wrong,” or that respect for the elderly is “right.” After all,
those are products of the culture. This takes any talk of morality right over the cliff, and into
meaningless gibberish. (Mckinnon, et al., 2015)
Likewise, logical analysis of cultural relativism yields contradictory implications:
Relativism in general breaks down when examined from a purely logical perspective. The basic
premise is that “truth is relative.” If every truth statement is valid, then the statement “some truths are
absolute” must be valid. The statement “there are no absolute truths” is accurate, according to
relativism – but it is an absolute truth itself. This contradicts the very concept of relativism, meaning that
absolute relativism is self-contradictory and impossible.

Stated in another way:

Tolerance is certainly a virtue… if morality is simply relative to each culture then if the culture
does not have a principle of tolerance, its members have no obligation to be tolerant…from a relativistic
point of view, there is no more reason to be tolerant than to be intolerant and neither instance is
objectively morally better than the other.
If… valid criticism supposes an objective or impartial standard, relativists cannot morally criticize
anyone outside their own culture. Adolf Hitler’s genocidal actions, so long as they are culturally
accepted, are as morally legitimate as Mother Teresa’s works of mercy. If Conventional Relativism is
accepted, racism, genocide of unpopular minorities, oppression of the poor, slavery and even the
advocacy of war for its own sake are as equally moral as their opposites. And if a subculture decided that
starting a nuclear war was somehow morally acceptable, we could not morally criticize these people.
(McKinnon, et al., 2015)

KEY TAKEAWAYS
 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.”
 Morality is relative to the norms 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 be 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 which it is practiced. What is good
depends on what 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.

Lesson 9 Universal Values

Intended Learning Outcomes:
1. Identify universal values
2. Explain why universal values are a necessity for human survival

INTRODUCTION
After a lesson on cultural relativism and after a discussion on the Filipino strength and weaknesses, let us
find out if there are universal values.

ABSTRACTION
 Despite the claims of cultural relativism, the concept on the reality of universal values persists.
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-heartedness,
filial piety. Are not these universal values, that is, they remain values at all times and in all places? Yes,
Plato would say, they exist apart from the concrete world. On the other hand, Aristotle would say that
they exist embodied in the concrete individual common or essential characteristic. St. Thomas agreed
with them, but the universals do not exist apart from the individual: they exist as universal features
individuated, instantiated in the individuals. In other words, the universals are abstracted common
features from individuals. For example, the universal characteristics of man are that he is a “rational,
sentient living, body” are abstracted as characteristics common to all persons. A human person differs
from a stone because he/she is alive. He/she differs from living things like plants because he/she is
sentient, and differs from sentient things like animals because he/she is rational. This universal character
of human person exists in the mind as idea. Universals are immaterial and immutable, beyond
(transcendent) space and time, or spatio-temporal conditions. In the words of Van Peursen, they are
termed as “logical structures” underlying the material world and making the word possible.
The same thing is true with moral standards and values. The values of honesty and respect for
human life are characteristics individuated all people who respect, do not harm, injure or kill, human
beings. All the standards values and implied in the Ten Commandments can be reduced to the value or
rule of love. This is because no one can wish or will the opposite, hatred, killing, stealing, to be universal.
Values are universalized because they can only be wished to be the values of all. For instance, one
cannot wish that killing be obligatory because it is like wishing anyone come and kill you.
Using Kant’s criteria, can these identified “universal values” be willed as universal. Can one will
these values be the values of all? Certainly, the answer is in the affirmative.
Related to the empirical findings on the universal values, 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
grouped in negative and positive statements as follows:
DO NO HARM. Do not do to others what you would not like them to do unto you. Do not lie. Do
not steal. Do not cheat. Do not falsely accuse others. Do not commit adultery. Do not commit
incest. Do not physically or verbally abuse others. Do not murder. Do not destroy the natural
environment upon which all life depends.
DO GOOD. Do to others what you would like them to do to you. Be honest and fair. Be generous.
Be faithful to your family and friends. Take care of your children when they are young. Take of
your parents when they are old. Take of those who cannot take care of themselves. Be kind to
strangers. Respect all life. Protect the natural environment upon which all life depends.

APPLICATION
1. Heads of State and Government, senior UN officials and representatives of civil society gathered
in September 2015, as part of the 70th session of the Un General Assembly and have adopted the
Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). These objectives form a program of sustainable,
universal and ambitious development, a program of the people, by the people and for the
people, conceived with the active participation of UNESCO.
Here are the 17 Sustainable Development Goals for the period 2015-2030. Study and analyze
them.
1. End poverty in all its forms everywhere
2. End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition, and promote sustainable
agriculture
3. Ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for al at all ages
4. Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote life-long learning
opportunities for all.
5. Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls
6. Ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all
7. Ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy for all
 8. Promote sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth, full and productive
employment and decent work for all
9. Build resilient infrastructure, promote inclusive and sustainable industrialization and
foster innovation
10. Reduce inequality within and among countries
11. Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable
12. Ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns
13. Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts (in line with the United
Nations Frameworks Convention on Climate Change)
14. Conserve and sustainably use the ocean, seas, and marine resources for sustainable
development
15. Protect, restore and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably
manage forests, combat desertification and halt and reverse land degradation and half
biodiversity loss
16. Promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to
justice for all and build effective, accountable inclusive institutions at all levels
17. Strengthen the means of implementation and revitalize the global partnership for
sustainable development
On what universal values are these 17 SDG 2015-2030 founded?
2. Explain why universal values are a necessity for human survival.
3. What are the 30-UN declared human rights? (Hint: Google) Are these universal values?

KEY TAKEAWAYS
 Universal values are for human survival.
 Universal values 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.