Module 1

Ethics: Basic Concepts and Issues

Lesson 1. Meaning and Scope of Ethics
Lesson 2. Normative Nature of Moral Statements
Lesson 3. Characteristics of Moral Standards
Lesson 4: The Issue of Ethical Relativism
 Lesson 1: Meaning and Scope of Ethics
Morality and Ethics
Morality
• Morality refers to the set of standards an individual person or society uses to judge
whether an act is good or bad, whether someone is virtuous or not, or whether we
ought to do this or that.

Ethics
• The word “Ethics” is sometimes used to refer to one’s set of moral beliefs and
practices. Strictly speaking, however, it refers to the discipline that examines the
moral standards of an individual or society. Being a branch of philosophy that
studies the nature of morality, it is sometimes also called moral philosophy.
 3 General Areas of Ethics
1. Metaethics
• It looks into the nature, meaning, scope, and foundations of moral values, beliefs,
and judgments. Examples of metaethical questions are: Is morality objective or
relative? Is morality based on reason, emotions, intuition, or facts? What are
moral persons? What does it mean to be morally accountable?

2. Normative Ethics
• It is concerned with the formulation of moral standards, rules, or principles to
determine right from wrong conduct or ways of life worth pursuing.
• Normative ethical theories are generally built on 3 considerations about acts: (a)
that they lead to consequences; (b) that they follow or violate rules; and (c) that
they are done by persons with character traits. Accordingly, these theories are
generally classified into consequentialism, deontology, and virtue ethics.
3. Applied Ethics
• It examines the particular moral issues occurring in both the personal and social
spheres. It determines the moral permissibility of actions and practices in specific
areas of human concern like business, medicine, nature, law, sports, and others.
• Areas in applied ethics include business ethics, bioethics, environmental ethics,
computer ethics, and social media ethics.
__________
Descriptive Ethics
• Metaethics, normative ethics, and applied ethics are areas of Ethics taken as a
philosophical study of morality. A non-philosophical study of morality which seeks to
objectively record and present how people in a certain community make moral
judgments or develop their capacity for such is called descriptive ethics. Descriptive
ethics can be done in the disciplines of sociology, anthropology, and psychology.
 Lesson 2: Normative Nature of Moral Statements

Moral Statements as Normative Statements

• Moral statements are normative or prescriptive, not descriptive or factual. They are
concerned with how things should be rather than what things are.
Normative Statements in General
• While we appeal to the results of research, experiment, or observation in validating
factual statements, we appeal to certain standards in validating normative
statements.
• Normative statements may involve matters concerning morality, aesthetics,
grammar, legality, and etiquette (among others), which are distinguished according
to the standards used for making these statements.
Examples:

Normative Statements Standards

“You ought to return the excess change to the cashier.” Moral Standard
“There should be unity, balance, and contrast in your painting.” Aesthetic Standard

“You ought to use the preposition “in” rather than “on.” Grammatical Standard

“It is illegal to make a U-turn there.” (“Based on the law, you Legal Standard
ought not to make a U-turn there

“You ought to cover your mouth when you laugh.” Standard of Etiquette
 Lesson 3: Characteristics of Moral Standards

Moral Standards and Other Normative Standards

• Moral standards are often confused with other normative standards also
concerned with “good” or “proper” behavior, such as:
1. Standards of Etiquette: based on culture or conventional practices
2. Legal Standards: based on governmental laws
3. Religious Standards: based on religious laws

• What may be acceptable for these other normative standards may not be
acceptable for moral standards due to the characteristics of moral standards.
Four Characteristics of Moral Standards
1. Moral standards deal with matters that can seriously harm or benefit
human beings (and other moral persons).
2. Moral standards have universal validity.
• If it is morally wrong for Person A to do act X, then it is wrong to do X for anyone under
circumstances relevantly similar to Person A’s.
3. Moral standards have a particularly overriding importance.
• Moral standards are used to evaluate even the correctness of other normative
standards such as legal and cultural ones.
4. Moral standards are not established by the decisions of authoritarian
bodies, nor are they determined by appealing to consensus or tradition.
 Lesson 4: The Issue of Ethical Relativism

Defining Ethical Relativism

• Ethical Relativism: the view which states that all moral principles are valid
relative to a particular society or individual.
• Ethical Relativism should be distinguished from:
• Ethical Skepticism: the view which states that there are no valid moral
principles at all (or at least we cannot know whether there are any)
• Ethical Objectivism: the view which states that there are universally valid
moral principles binding all people.
Two Forms of Ethical Relativism
1. Individual Ethical Relativism /Ethical Subjectivism
• The rightness or wrongness of an action lies on the the individual’s own
commitments and interests.
• There is no interpersonal basis by which to judge whether an act is morally
good or bad, right or wrong.
2. Cultural Ethical Relativism /Ethical Conventionalism
• The rightness or wrongness of an action depends on society’s norms.
• Morality is social in nature. While there are no universal moral principles, there
are valid moral principles justified by virtue of their cultural acceptance.
• Considered more acceptable or reasonable than individual ethical relativism.
 Arguments For and Against Ethical Relativism
Some Arguments in Support of Ethical Relativism
1. Ethical relativism must be true since moral beliefs and rules vary from culture to
culture (and within the same culture, they vary over time). (Diversity Argument)
2. Our perception of things is inescapably culture-bound: there is no independent,
non-cultural viewpoint. Consequently, moral beliefs can only be true or valid
relative to certain groups. (Dependency Argument)
3. Relativism must be the right way to view the nature of morality since
acknowledging the differences among various societies in terms of their moral
beliefs and practices leads to respect, social harmony, and peaceful co-existence
among the different cultural, religious, and social groups. (Toleration Argument)
Some Arguments Against Ethical Relativism
1. Moral diversity or disagreement does not establish moral relativism.
• When two people disagree about something, it may be that one of them is
correct while the other is wrong.
2. Ethical relativism leads to absurd consequences.
• First, moral criticism would be impossible or meaningless. It would be senseless
to criticize an action by another individual or group however abhorrent or
inhumane.
• Second, morality would simply be a matter of following social norms, which
would undermine our rational nature.
• Third, moral progress would be impossible. For how can we change social
practices for the better if we cannot criticize them?
3. Despite the fact that some moral beliefs and practices vary among cultures,
there are still universal moral standards that exist, such as those that respect
life and promote the pursuit of truth, justice, and peace.
• Cultural practices may differ but the fundamental moral principles underlying
them do not.
GEETHIC Blueprint Presentations
Prepared by: Napoleon M. Mabaquiao, Jr
Department of Philosophy
DLSU, Term 3, AY 2019-20

Reference: Evangelista, F. and N. Mabaquiao. Ethics: Theories and Applications

(Anvil Publishing Inc., 2020).
 Module 2
Moral Personhood
and Accountability
Lesson 1: Moral Persons and Rights
Lesson 2: Moral Agents and Patients
Lesson 3: Criteria for Moral Personhood
Lesson 4: Features of Moral Accountability
Lesson 5: Conditions for Moral Accountability
 Lesson 1: Moral Persons and Rights

Defining Moral Persons

• Moral persons are beings or entities having moral status or standing. They
are the appropriate objects of moral concern.
• The actions which we subject to a moral evaluation are those that
concern moral persons—either as the doers or recipients of these actions.
• Moral standards only apply to actions performed by moral persons.
• At the minimum, to be a moral person is to be a bearer of moral rights. All
moral persons have moral rights but some have moral duties as well.
Defining Moral Rights
• What are rights in general and how are they classified?
• How are moral rights different from other kinds of rights?

Rights and Duties

• Rights are entitlements; they are interests one is allowed to pursue or actions
one is allowed to do. Duties, in contrast, are what we are obliged to do.
• Rights correlate with duties: one’s rights impose duties on other people; and
one’s duties are intended to respect the rights of other people.
• Not exercising rights will not merit sanctions (penalties or punishments), while
not performing duties will merit such.
Classifying Rights
• Rights are classified according to (1) the duties they impose (the duties
having such rights impose on other people), and (2) the manner of their
acquisition.

1. Positive and Negative Rights

• According to the duties they impose, rights are either positive or negative.
a. Negative rights impose the duty of non-interference in a person’s exercise of
his/her rights. E.g., right to free speech.
b. Positive rights impose the duties of non-interference and provision in a
person’s exercise of rights. E.g., right to life, right to information.
• Some rights are negative or positive in consideration of some factors.
2. Contractual, Legal, and Moral Rights
• According to their manner of acquisition, rights are either contractual, legal, or moral.
a) Contractual rights are acquired upon entering an agreement or contract.
Contractual rights may be formal or informal.
b) Legal rights are acquired through citizenship.
c) Moral rights are acquired upon becoming a moral person or upon possession of
the morally relevant qualities (such as sentience and rationality—discussed
under Criteria for Moral Personhood).
• “Human Rights”: the moral rights of humans
• “Animal Rights”: the moral rights of animals
• “Machine Rights”: the moral rights of intelligent machines (?)
 Lesson 2: Moral Agents and Patients

• Moral persons are either the sources or receivers of moral concern or (morally
evaluable) actions. Accordingly, moral persons are either moral agents or
moral patients.
• Moral Agents: moral persons acting as the sources of morally evaluable
actions; they necessarily possess both moral rights and duties; they can be
morally accountable for their actions (i.e., they can deserve moral blame or
praise for their actions).
• Moral Patients: moral persons acting as the receivers or recipients of
morally evaluable actions; they necessarily posses moral rights only; they
cannot be morally accountable for their actions.
• All moral agents are moral patients; but not all moral patients are moral
agents. Accordingly, we can distinguish between agentive and and non-
agentive moral persons.
• Agentive Moral Persons: moral persons who can be both moral
patients and agents. E.g., normal human adults
• Non-agentive Moral Persons: moral persons who can only be moral
patients. E.g., animals, mentally challenged humans, infants
 Lesson 3: Criteria for Moral Personhood
(Theories of Personhood)

General Classification of Theories of (Moral) Personhood

1. Uni-criterial Theories: theories claiming that there is just one defining
feature of moral personhood
2. Multi-criterial Theories: theories claiming that there is more than
one defining feature of moral personhood
3. Meta-criterial Theories: theories about nature of the defining
features of moral personhood
Uni-criterial Theories of Personhood
1. Genetic Theory: moral persons are those possessing human DNA.
2. Life Theory: moral persons are those who are alive.
3. Rational Theory: moral persons are those with reason and will (or those
capable of intelligence and free choice).
4. Sentient Theory: moral persons are those capable of experiencing pain (or
suffering) and pleasure.
5. Relational Theory: moral persons are those in caring relationships
Multi-criterial Theories of Personhood
• May involve any combination of the defining moral features.
• The combination may be interpreted in two ways:
1. Strict (or Conjunctive) Interpretation: a moral person possesses all features in
the combination.
2. Liberal (or Disjunctive) Interpretation: a moral person possesses at least one of
the features in the combination

• The most reasonable multi-criterial theory is the rationality-sentience-relationality

combination interpreted liberally, as it is able to account for the moral agent-patient
distinction, and the kinds of moral personhood assumed in ethical theories of
consequentialism, deontology, and virtue ethics.
Meta-criterial Theories of Personhood
1. Social Theory: moral personhood is a social construct. The criteria for moral
personhood are decided by society.
2. Gradient Theory: moral personhood comes in degrees. The criteria for moral
personhood can be possessed in greater or lesser degree. Consequently,
some entities have greater moral personhood than the others. (E.g., the
more rational or sentient, the greater moral personhood)

• Both theories are criticized for justifying inhumane treatment of one group of persons
by another group. The social theory may justify, for instance, the practice of slavery.
The gradient theory may justify, for instance, the practice of ethnic cleansing—where
the perpetrators think of themselves as belonging to a superior race or as having
moral ascendancy over those they exterminate.
 Lesson 4: Features of Moral Accountability

Accountability in General
• The natural product of a person’s intelligence and freedom: a person’s
Intelligence enables him/her to know what is right and wrong; while a
person’s freedom enables him/her to choose whether to do what is right
or what is wrong.
• The deservingness of blame or punishment for doing what is wrong or
not doing what is right, and praise or reward for doing what is right or
not doing what is wrong.

Moral Accountability: a person’s deservingness of moral blame or

praise for his/her actions.
Accountability and Responsibility
• Though related, these two concepts should not be confused. There are three
senses of responsibility, one of which equates it with accountability.
1. Responsibility as Accountability
• A responsible person is one who deserves blame or praise for his/her
actions.
2. Responsibility as Agency
• A responsible person is one who does or causes the action. An agent
is not necessarily accountable for his/her actions.
3. Responsibility as Duty
• A responsible person is one who does his/her duties or obligations.
One is accountable for failing to perform one’s duties.
Moral and Legal Accountability
• They differ in terms of their standards: legal accountability is based on
the laws of the government; while moral accountability is based on
moral principles.
• They differ in terms of their sanctions: the sanctions for legal
accountability are external (e.g., imprisonment, physical punishment,
fine, revocation of license); the sanctions for moral accountability are
internal (e.g., shame, guilt, remorse, low self-esteem);
 Lesson 5: Conditions for Moral Accountability

• Attribution Conditions: conditions that determine whether a person is

morally accountable for his/her actions. They may be incriminating, when
they commit a person to moral accountability, or excusing, when they
excuse or absolve a person from moral accountability.

• Degree Conditions: conditions that determine the extent or gravity of a

person’s moral accountability. They may be mitigating, if they tend to lessen
the degree of moral accountability, or aggravating, if they tend to increase
the same.
Incriminating Conditions:
1. Agency: the person causes the action.
2. Knowledge: the person knows whether the action is good or bad.
3. Intentionality: the person is free to perform the action and intends to do
it.

• For a person to be morally accountable for an action, all conditions

should be present: he/she causes the action, knows the morality of the
action, and is free to perform the action.
Excusing Conditions
1. Non-agency: the person does not cause the action.
2. Ignorance: the person does not know the morality of the action (Note: the
person should be blamelessly ignorant—see next slide).
3. Non-intentionality: the person is not free to perform the action or does
not intend to perform the action.

• For a person to be excused from moral accountability for an action, at

least one condition should be present: either he does not cause the
action, is ignorant of the morality of the action, or is not free to perform
the action.
Excusable and Non-excusable Ignorance
• Real / Blameless Ignorance: the excusable ignorance; the ignorant person
cannot be said to have known better.
• Irresponsible / Blameful / Blameworthy Ignorance: the non-excusable
ignorance: the ignorant person can be said to have known better.

Some Factors to Consider

• The ignorant person’s mental and physical conditions.
• The ignorant person’s access to the relevant information.
• Whether the ignorant person has the duty to know what he does not know.
Degree Conditions
1. Knowledge: the greater the knowledge, the greater the accountability; the
lesser the knowledge, the lesser the accountability
2. Pressure or Difficulty in Life: the greater the pressure, the lesser the
accountability; the lesser the pressure, the greater the accountability
3. Intensity of the Injury: the greater the intensity of the injury, the greater the
accountability; the lesser the intensity of the injury, the lesser the
accountability
4. Degree of Involvement: the greater the involvement, the greater the
accountability; the lesser the involvement the lesser the accountability
GEETHIC Blueprint Presentations
Prepared by: Napoleon M. Mabaquiao, Jr
Department of Philosophy
DLSU, Term 3, AY 2019-20

Reference: Evangelista, F. and N. Mabaquiao. Ethics: Theories and Applications

(Anvil Publishing Inc., 2020).
 Module 3
Consequentialism
Lesson 1: Consequentialism in Perspective

Lesson 2: General Divisions of Consequentialism

Lesson 3: Complex Types of Consequentialism

Lesson 4: Utilitarianism and Its Basic Forms

 Lesson 1: Consequentialism in Perspective

Consequentialism and other Ethical Theories

• Normative ethical theories are generally based on three morally relevant
features of actions—that actions (a) lead to certain consequences, (b)
follow or violate certain rules, and (c) are performed by agents with
character traits.

1. Consequentialism
• The consequences of actions are the fundamental morally relevant
consideration in making moral judgments.
• An action is morally good if it results in good or desirable consequences,
while it is morally bad if it results in bad or undesirable consequences.
2. Deontology
• The rules that actions follow are the fundamental morally relevant
consideration in making moral judgments.
• An action is morally good if it is done in conformity with a good rule,
while it is bad if done in conformity with a bad rule.

3. Virtue ethics
• The character of agents is the fundamental morally relevant
consideration in making moral judgments.
• An action is morally good if it is done by a virtuous person (a person with
good character traits) while it is morally bad when done by a vicious
person (a person with bad character traits).
Inherent and Instrumental Good
• “Good consequences” in consequentialism refer to consequences
promoting an inherent good.
• Inherent Good: good in itself; desired for its own sake.
• Instrumental Good: good in relation to another good; desired in so far as it
serves as a means to attain another good.

• Example of an intrinsic good: Happiness (Aristotle)

• Happiness is an intrinsic good for we desire it for its own sake. We desire
other things to attain happiness; but we desire happiness just to experience
it. Other things we desire to achieve happiness, such as good health, wealth,
and healthy relationships, among others, are instrumental goods.
 Lesson 2: General Divisions of Consequentialism

Two Considerations about Consequences:

1. Is pleasure (or happiness) the only inherent good (and pain the only
inherent bad)?:
• YES  Hedonism (or Hedonistic Consequentialism)
• NO  Non-hedonism (or Non-hedonistic Consequentialism)
2. Are the consequences to (or directly affecting) the agent the primary
consideration?
• YES  Agent-relative (or Egoistic) Consequentialism
• NO  Agent-neutral (or Non-egoistic/Impartial) Consequentialism
 First General Division:
Hedonism vs. Non-hedonism

• Hedonism: pleasure is the only inherent good.

1. Pleasure is inherently good.
2. Pleasure is the only inherent good.

• Non-hedonism rejects hedonism in two ways:

1. Exclusive Non-hedonism: pleasure is not inherently good. Something else
is (which may be power, preference-satisfaction, and others).
2. Inclusive non-hedonism: pleasure is inherently good but there are others
(such as power, preference-satisfaction, truth, beauty, and knowledge).
 Second General Division:
Agent-relative vs. Agent-neutral Consequentialism
(Egoistic vs. Impartial Consequentialism)

• Agent-relative consequentialism: the consequences to the agent are primary;

they outweigh the consequences to other people.
• Agent-neutral consequentialism: the consequences that promote the
greatest overall benefits of all affected persons, regardless of their recipients,
are primary; personal good or happiness may sometimes be necessary to
sacrifice to promote the same.
 Lesson 3: Complex Forms of Consequentialism

• The two general divisions of consequentialism overlap and qualify each

other. Accordingly, they combine to form four complex types of
consequentialism, which may be termed as:
1. Agent-relative Hedonism
2. Agent-relative Non-hedonism
3. Agent-neutral Hedonism
4. Agent-neutral non-hedonism
1. Agent-relative hedonism: an action is morally good if it promotes the agent’s
own pleasure or happiness.
• But which among the agent’s pleasures are primary? (a) Active Hedonism: the
agent’s immediate though momentary pleasures are primary (Aristippus); (b)
Passive Hedonism: the agent’s long-lasting though non-immediate pleasures are
primary (Epicurus).

2. Agent-relative non-hedonism: an action is morally good if it promotes the

agent’s own intrinsic good, which does not necessarily correspond to pleasure.
• For some this intrinsic good refers to power (Nietzsche), desire-satisfaction (Hare
and Singer), and others.
3. Agent-neutral Hedonism: an action is morally good if it maximizes the
overall happiness (or pleasure) of all affected persons .

4. Agent-neutral Non-hedonism: an action is morally good if it maximizes the

overall welfare of all affected persons. (”Welfare” generally refer to
beneficial consequences which may or may not include pleasure/happiness)

—————————
• Agent-neutral/impartial consequentialism is best represented by the ethical theory
called utilitarianism, which also happens to be the most influential form of
consequentialism. The various forms of utilitarianism, accordingly, serve as
representatives of the different forms of agent-neutral consequentialism.
 Lesson 4: Utilitarianism and Its Basic Forms

Utilitarianism: an action is morally good if it maximizes the overall welfare of all

affected persons / promotes ”the greatest good of the greatest number of people.”

3 Basic Features of Utilitarianism (Hare)

1. Consequentialist. Utilitarianism regards the consequences of actions as the primary
consideration in the moral evaluation of actions.
2. Welfarist. Utilitarianism seeks to promote the welfare (well being, happiness,
benefits, advantages, etc.) of persons.
3. Aggregationist. Utilitarianism seeks to maximize the overall welfare of all persons
involved in an action.
• The overall welfare is the net sum total of benefits of all options: sum total of benefits minus the
sum total of costs.
 Forms of Utilitarianism

Two Considerations:
1. Should the overall welfare to be maximized only involve pleasure (or
happiness)?
• Yes  Hedonistic Utilitarianism
• No  Non-hedonistic Utilitarianism
2. Should the utilitarian principle (maximizing overall welfare or promoting
the greatest good of the greatest number of people) be applied directly
to actions or to the rules governing these actions?
• To the Actions  Act Utilitarianism
• To the Rules  Rule Utilitarianism
A. Hedonistic Utilitarianism
• The overall welfare to be maximized through our actions pertains only to
pleasure or happiness.
• Question: Is there is a qualitative difference between physical and mental
pleasures? Are they the same in terms of value?
1. Quantitative Hedonistic Utilitarianism: there is no qualitative difference
between physical and mental pleasures; there are only quantitative differences
among pleasures (Jeremy Bentham).
2. Qualitative Hedonistic Utilitarianism: the value or quality of mental pleasures,
because they involve the exercise of the higher faculty of reason, is greater than
that of physical pleasures (John Stuart Mill).
The Hedonistic Calculus
• The systematic method developed by Bentham for calculating the quantity of
pleasures (mental and physical). Factors to consider in the calculation:
1. Intensity --(How engaging is the experience of pleasure): The more intense the
experience of pleasure, the greater the value of the pleasure.
2. Duration --(How long the pleasure lasts): The longer the experience of pleasure,
the greater the value of the pleasure.
3. Certainty --(The probability that the pleasure will occur): The greater the
probability that the desired pleasure will be experienced, the greater the value of
the pleasure.
4. Propinquity (remoteness) –(How far off in the future will the pleasure be
experienced) The shorter the temporal distance between an act and the pleasure
that it will produce, the greater the value of the pleasure.
4. Fecundity --(The chance a sensation will be followed by sensations of the same
kind: pleasures, if it be pleasure; pains, if it be pain): The higher the probability
that an experience of pleasure will be followed by further experiences of pleasure,
the greater the value of the pleasure.
5. Purity --(The chance a sensation will not be followed by sensations of the opposite
kind: pains, if it be pleasure; pleasures, if it be pain): The higher the probability
that the experience of pleasure will not be followed by an experience of pain, the
greater the value of the pleasure.
6. Extent --(The number of persons affected by the sensation): The higher the
number of persons to experience the pleasure, the greater the value of the
pleasure.
B. Non-Hedonistic Utilitarianism
• The over-all welfare to be maximized through our actions is either not pleasure
(or happiness) or not limited to such.

1. Ideal (or Pluralistic) Utilitarianism

• For G. E. Moore, there are, in addition to pleasure, other things that are worth
pursuing for their own sake and thus are good regardless of whether they result in
pleasure or not. They include knowledge, beauty, and good relationships, among
others.
2. Preference Utilitarianism
• For Richard Hare and Peter Singer, desire/preference-satisfaction is more
fundamental than the experience of pleasure, as we sometimes prefer to satisfy our
desires/preferences even if it would lead to the experience of pain.
Desire/preference satisfaction is thus the inherent good, not pleasure.
C. Act and Rule Utilitarianism

Question: Which is primary, the consequences of an act or the consequences

of following or violating the rule governing the act?

1. Act Utilitarianism
• The consequences of an act is primary. An action is morally good if it maximizes
overall welfare of all persons involved, regardless of the rule it violates.

2. Rule Utilitarianism
• The consequences of following or violating the rule governing the act is primary.
An action is morally good if it conforms to an optimific rule, regardless of the
consequences of the act.
• A rule is optimific if general conformity to it will maximize overall welfare of all
persons involved.
----------------
• Act utilitarianism is the standard form of utilitarianism. Rule utilitarianism was
developed to deal with some challenging cases such as the morality of breaking
contracts. Rule utilitarianism is regarded by some as a compromise between
utilitarianism and deontology.
• The hedonistic- non-hedonistic division overlaps with the act-rule division which gives
rise to complex forms of utilitarianism.
 Summary: The Varieties of Consequentialism

Active
Hedonistic (Aristippus)
Passive
Agent-Relative (Epicurus)
Consequentialism Exclusive:
Non-Hedonistic Power
Varieties of (Nietzsche)
Consequentialism Inclusive

Quantitative
Act Hedonistic (Bentham)
Agent-Neutral Qualitative
Consequentialism --------- (Mill)
/ Utilitarianism Exclusive:
Rule Non-Hedonistic Preference
(Hare, Singer)
Inclusive:
Pluralistic
(Moore)
GEETHIC Blueprint Presentations
Prepared by: Napoleon M. Mabaquiao, Jr
Department of Philosophy
DLSU, Term 3, AY 2019-20

Reference: Evangelista, F. and N. Mabaquiao. Ethics: Theories and Applications

(Anvil Publishing Inc., 2020).
 Module 4
Deontology I
Divine Command and Natural Law
Lesson 1: Divine Command Theory
Lesson 1.1: Basic Views
Lesson 1.2: Some Challenges
Lesson 2: Natural Law Theory
Lesson 2.1: Basic Views
Lesson 2.2: Some Challenges
 Lesson 1: Divine Command Theory

Lesson 1.1: Basic Views

God’s Will as the Basis of Moral Law
• Does God command what is good because it is good or it is good because God
commands it? (Plato’s Euthyphro: “Do the gods love what is holy because it is holy or it
is holy because the gods love it?”)
• Divine Command Theory (DCT): Whatever is good is good only because God wills it to
be good. DCT has two versions:
1. Strong Version: God’s will is the sole basis of morality.
2. Weak Version: Morality can be based on God’s will or some independent standard
(usually reason), but if a conflict arises between God’s will and some other standard,
God’s will overrides the other standard.
DCT-Strong Version
• The sole basis of morality is God’s will. As such, as Dostoevsky remarked, ”If
there is no God, everything is permissible.” Moral decisions should thus be
made on the basis of what God commands, not on what reason tells us.
• DCT-Strong Version consists of three theses (Pojma 1999):
1. Morality (i.e., rightness or wrongness) originates with God.
2. Moral rightness simply means “willed by God,” and moral wrongfulness means
“being against the will of God.”
3. Since morality is essentially based on divine will, not on independently existing
reasons for action, no further reasons for action are necessary.
DCT-Weak Version
• Omits or qualifies one of two of the three theses (listed above).
• Best represented by Soren Kierkegaard’s theory of the teleological suspension
of the ethical.
• Morality has an independent foundation in reason (and so even if there is no God,
morality will still stand by itself--contra Dostoevsky’s previous remark). But if one
believes in God and His commands conflict with the dictates of reason, God’s
commands should override the dictates of reason.
• Illustrated in the Biblical story where Abraham was asked by God to make his son,
Isaac, as a sacrificial offering.
• Elaborated in Kierkegaard’s three stages of life: (1) aesthetic stage (life of pleasure); (2)
ethical stage (life of reason); and (3) religious stage (life of faith).
 Lesson 1.2: Some Challenges

Criticisms of the DCT

1. How can we know for sure what God wills?
• Sacred texts of different religions are usually stated in very general terms; and
human conscience, religious leaders, and self-proclaimed messengers of God
sometimes give different, if not conflicting, accounts of what God wills.
2. If God can will anything and it would be good, the theory may lead to moral
arbitrariness.
• But if God can only will what is good or those in conformity with His divine qualities
(such as goodness and justice), then these qualities would have value independent
of God. Furthermore, this would mean that there is a higher standard of good
which God must conform to, which contradicts DCT.
3. The theory undermines our autonomy as rational beings.
• What is our reason for if we are bound to just conform to whatever God
commands us to do?
• There are times in which what religion teaches as God’s will may or should be
put into question (e.g., some religions prohibit their members from undergoing
blood transfusion even when that is the only way to cure their sickness or save
their lives.)
Importance of the Concept of God in Morality
1. God’s existence ensures that ultimate justice exists.
• God guarantees that the just will be duly rewarded, and the unjust will be duly punished.
Morality would not make sense if there is no justice.
2. God’s existence provides hope that the good will eventually prevail over the evil.
3. Religion provides a strong motivation for why we should be moral.
• The existence of a perfectly just God and an immortal soul, along with the fear of eternal
damnation and the yearning for an eternal life of happiness, provide a strong motivation
to be moral.
4. Religion provides practices and structures that support its values.
• There is usually a church of some kind and a community of faithful who provide mutual
support to one another.
 Lesson 2: Natural Law Theory

Lesson 2.1: Basic Claims

Basis of Right Action
• Morality is part of the natural order of things. Actions are right by nature, apart from
the opinions or practices of humans.
• Reason can discover valid moral principles by looking at the nature of humanity and
society. If something is “unnatural,” it is also immoral.
Natural Law and God
• Older versions of the theory share similarities with DCT in that they point to God as
the source of the natural law. Modern and recent versions, however, claim that
natural law is inherent in the universe and in humanity, and hence does not need a
supernatural force.
Major Proponents
1. The Stoics (1st Century BC)
• They were one of the first thinkers who conceived of the idea of natural law as the
basis of morality. They believe that God is immanent in or even identical with nature
(pantheism). Nature, for the Stoics, refers to the natural order as a whole—”cosmic
nature.” To live a good life, humans have to align themselves to a kind of “cosmic”
nature.
• Fundamental cosmic principles govern and unify everything in the world. Natural
order is thus rational.
• To reason and act rationally is to be in harmony with nature. Thus, rationality is a
key to pursing a moral life. Subsequently, violence and vice are consequences of
irrationality and not being in harmony with nature’s universal laws.
2. Thomas Aquinas (1224-1274)
• He synthesized the Stoics’ sense of cosmic natural law with Aristotle’s view that
human beings have a specific nature, purpose, and function. (If the function of a
knife is to cut sharply, a pencil’s function is to make marks on a paper, and a “good”
knife or pencil then is one that performs its function well.)
• Humanity’s function is to exhibit rationality in all its forms. Fundamental precept
of the natural law: good is to be done and evil avoided.
• What is the good or evil? All those things to which man has a natural inclination
are naturally apprehended by reason as good, and consequently as objects of
pursuit, and their contraries as evil, and objects of avoidance.
• Good is acting in accordance with our natural inclinations, fundamental of which
include our desires for life and procreation, knowledge, and sociability.
 Lesson 2.2: Some Challenges

Moral Absolutism and the Qualifying Principles

• Natural Law Theory (NLT) subscribes to the view of moral absolutism which
claims that certain kinds of actions are always wrong or always obligatory
regardless of the consequences.
• When basic values conflict (or when forced to choose between two actions
which both violate some value), NLT appeals to the following principles:
• Principle of Forfeiture: a person who threatens the life of an innocent person
forfeits his/her own right to life.
• Principle of Double Effect: It is always wrong to do a bad act intentionally in order
to bring about good consequences, but that it is sometimes permissible to do a
good act despite knowing that it will bring about bad consequences.
Principle of Double Effect Elaborated
• When an act has a good and bad effect, the act is good if:
1. The act, considered in itself and apart from its consequences, is good. (The
Nature-of-the-Act Condition)
2. The bad effect must not be the means by which one achieves the good effect.
(The Means-End Condition)
3. The intention must be the achieving of only the good effect, with the bad effect
being only an unintended side effect. If the bad effect is a means to the achieve
the good effect, the act is bad. The bad effect may be foreseen but must not be
intended. (The Right-Intention Condition)
4. The good effect must be at least equivalent to the importance of the bad effect.
(The Proportionality Condition)
How the principle of double effect works
• Case 1: A pregnant woman was diagnosed with a cancerous uterus, and
subsequently has to undergo hysterectomy to save her life, but such procedure
will lead to the termination of pregnancy.
• Case 2: Nita’s father has planted a bomb that will detonate in half an hour. Nita is
the only person who knows he hid it, and she has promised him that she will not
reveal the location to anyone, being a devoted daughter. However, if the
authorities fail to locate the bomb, and dismantle it within the next half hour, it
will blow up a building and kill thousands of people. Suppose we can torture Nita
in order to get this information form her. Given this situation, is it morally
permissible to torture Nita?
Some Criticisms
• Regarding the principle of double effect, how do we distinguish unforeseen from
unintended consequences?
• Hume’s challenge: how can we derive an ”ought” from an “is”? How can what is
natural be obligatory?
• The assumption of NLT that moral laws are written in natural laws is challenged
by the Darwinian evolutionary theory which claims that nature has no inherent
design.
GEETHIC Blueprint Presentations
Prepared by: Napoleon M. Mabaquiao, Jr
Department of Philosophy
DLSU, Term 3, AY 2019-20

Reference: Evangelista, F. and N. Mabaquiao. Ethics: Theories and Applications

(Anvil Publishing Inc., 2020).