Chapter

1
Introduct
ion to
Ethics

 Ethics – from the Greek word ethos which means customs, usage, or character.
 Branch of philosophy that studies the rightness or wrongness of a human action
 Concerned with questions of how human persons ought to act in the search for
the definition of right conduct and the good life. It is for this reason that the
attempt to seek the good through the aid of reason is the traditional goal of
ethicists.
 There is no single absolute definition of ethics, this is because ethics as a
discipline is constantly evolving as a result of a change in the socio-cultural and
political context.
 In the Greek Tradition, ethics was conceived as relating to the concept of the
good life thus the ethical inquiry during this time was directed toward discovering
the nature of happiness.
 Judeo-Christian tradition, introduce ethics as the ideals of righteousness before
God and the love of God and neighbor, not the happy or pleasant life constitute
the substance of ethics.
 Ethics vs. Morality
 Ethics denotes the “theory” of right action and the greater good. It undertakes the
systematic study of the underlying principles of morality. (Ethics = science of
morals)
 Morality indicates “practice” that is the rightness or wrongness of human action. It
is more prescriptive, it tells us what we ought to do and exhorts us to follow the
right way. According to Terrance McConnell (1994), morality is characterized as
an ‘end-governed rational enterprise’ whose objective is to equip people with a
body of norms that make for peaceful and collectively satisfying coexistence by
facilitating their living together and interacting in a way that is productive for the
realization of the general benefit. (Morality = practice of ethics)
 Types of Ethics
1. Descriptive Ethics – refers to what individuals accept to be right or wrong and is
about various moral standards utilized over a wide span of time
2. Normative Ethics (evaluative and prescriptive) – seeks to set norms or standards
that regulate right and wrong or good and bad conduct (e.g. good habits that we
should acquire, the duties that we should follow are the consequences of our
behavior on others). Normally attempts to develop guidelines or theories that tell
us how we ought to behave.
1. Virtue Ethics – centers around one’s character and kindness
2. Deontology – duty/obligation morals or all about objective good or
absolutism
3. Consequentialism – it centers around the outcome of an activity
3. Metaethics (analytical and descriptive) – constituted by questions of the
meanings and functions of the various ethical terms. It aims to understand the
nature and dynamics of ethical principles and the way we learn and acquire moral
 beliefs. It doubts the significance of goodness, morals, and profound quality
including how individuals can realize what is valid or bogus.
4. Applied Ethics – the actual application of ethical or moral theories to decide
which ethical or moral actions are appropriate in a given situation; the utilization of
moral hypotheses in various open and private issues like medication, business,
and so on.
 Casuists – the adherents of applied ethics are concerned with individual
moral problems such as abortion or euthanasia and attempt to resolve the
conflicting issues that surround these particular moral problems.
 Applied Ethics is usually divided into different fields: 1) business ethics
which deals with ethical behavior in the corporate world, 2) biomedical and
environmental ethics which deals with issues relating to health, welfare,
and the responsibility we have toward people in our environment, and 3)
social ethics which deals with the principles and guidelines that regulate
corporate welfare within societies
 Four Principles of Normative Ethics
1. Respect to Autonomy – the acknowledgment that every person has the right to
make choices to hold views and to act based on one’s value and beliefs as long
as the person is conscious and has a proper understanding of the matter on hand
2. Beneficence – the promotion of doing as much goodness as possible refers to
acts of kindness, compassion, and generosity
3. Non-maleficence – the distribution of resources equally and fairly
4. Justice – the avoidance of any unjustifiable and unnecessary harm

MORAL VS. NON-MORAL STANDARDS

Why the need to distinguish moral standards from non-moral ones?
 Different societies have different moral beliefs which are deeply influenced by culture and
context, for this reason, some values do have moral implications, while others don’t.
 Different cultures have different moral standards. What is a matter of moral indifference,
that is, a matter of taste in one culture may be a matter of moral significance in another.
The danger here is that one culture may impose its cultural standards on others which
may result in a clash in cultural values and beliefs. When this happens as we may
already know, violence and crime may ensue such as religious violence, and ethnic
cleansing. So, how can we address this cultural conundrum?
 People have to understand the difference between moral standards and non-moral
ones
 Moral standards – we have the RIGHT to FORCE others to act accordingly (e.g. not to
cheat, lie, kill, harm, and deceive our fellow human beings).
 These are norms that individuals or groups have about the kinds of actions
believed to be morally right or wrong, as the values placed on what we believed
to be morally good or morally bad.
 Moral standards normally promote “the good”, that is the welfare and well-being of
humans as well as animals and the environment.
 Prescribe what humans ought to do in terms of rights and obligations
 Norms + values = moral standards
 Norms are general rules about actions or behaviors
 Values are enduring beliefs about what is good and desirable, or not
 Characteristics of moral standards:
1. Deals with matters we think can seriously injure or benefit humans, animals, and
the environment (e.g. child abuse, rape, and murder);
2. Not established or changed by the decisions of authoritative individuals or bodies;
3. Overriding, that is, they take precedence over other standards and
considerations, especially of self-interest;
4. Based on impartial considerations; and
5. Associated with special emotions and vocabulary
6. Identify fundamental ethical values that may guide our actions
 Non-moral standards – we have NO RIGHT to impose on others.
 Refer to standards by which we judge what is good or bad and right or wrong in a
non-moral way.
 Examples: standards of etiquette, the law, standards of aesthetics
 Matters of taste or preference

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

 Types of Moral Dilemmas:

1. Epistemic and ontological dilemmas
 Epistemic moral dilemma – there are two or more moral requirements
that conflict with each other. The moral agent hardly knows which one
takes precedence over the other. One option must be better than the
other; only, it needs fuller knowledge of the situation.

Ontological moral dilemma – there are two or more moral requirements that conflict with each
other, yet neither of these conflicting moral requirements override each other; Neither of the
moral requirements is stronger than the other; hence, the moral agent
1. Self-imposed and world-imposed dilemmas
 Self-imposed moral dilemma – caused by the moral agent’s wrongdoings
 World-imposed moral dilemma – certain events in the world place the
moral agent in a situation of moral conflict.

2. Obligation dilemmas and prohibition dilemmas

 Obligation moral dilemma – more than one feasible action is obligatory
 Prohibition moral dilemma – ALL feasible actions are forbidden

3. Single-agent and multi-person dilemmas

 Single-agent moral dilemma – The agent “ought, all things considered,
to do A, ought, all things considered, to do B, and she cannot do both A
and B”.
 Multi-person moral dilemma – one agent, P1, ought to do A, a second
agent, P2, ought to do B, and though each agent can do what he ought to
do, it is not possible both for P1 to do A and P2 to do B.” It requires more
than choosing what is right; it also entails that the persons involved
reached a general consensus.

THREE LEVELS OF MORAL DILEMMAS

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

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

OTHERS
 Humans, as moral beings, are free to act or not to act. Their will equip them with the
power to determine their actions. It is in this light that humans differ from other
creatures and beings.
 Freedom – power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or
restraint; not absolute, it has limits, so we have to be responsible in exercising our
freedom; it is the dependence of the “will” on the “self” or “I” for the same to act or not
to act.
 If there will be no limitations to our freedom, there will be chaos, anarchy, and even war.
 Will – (expression of) desire, willingness
 Moral Dimension of Freedom
1. The moral dimension belongs to the realm of human freedom
2. The moral dimension refers to the concern for a good and happy life
 3. The moral dimension speaks to our sense of moral

responsibility Why only human beings can be

ethical?

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

NIMUM REQUIREMENT FOR MORALITY: REASON AND IMPARTIALITY

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

 The 7-step Model for Ethical Decision-Making

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

CULTURE: HOW IT DEFINES MORAL BEHAVIOR 

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

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

• The danger of cultural relativism is the idea of relativism itself. Whether an action is
right or wrong  depends on the moral norms of the society in which it is practiced.
What is good depends on what  society’s culture considers as good. What is bad
likewise depends on what society’s culture considers  as bad. 

• Absolute relativism is self-contradictory and impossible. Absolute relativism

states there are no  absolute truths: which is an absolute truth itself, so absolute
relativism contradicts itself.
• There is a difference between cultural perspective and cultural relativism. To
have a cultural perspective  is to understand people’s beliefs, values, and
practices in the context of their culture. Having a  perspective of one’s culture, is
needed to understand people. But it does not follow that morality must  be based
on said culture.

THE FILIPINO CHARACTER: STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES 

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

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

The strengths of the Filipino character are: 

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

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

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

UNIVERSAL VALUES 
• Are there universal values? Is honesty a universal value? Plato talked about the
values or virtues of  temperance, courage, and wisdom. Jesus Christ preached the
value of love from which springs  patience, kindness, goodwill, forgiveness, and
compassion. Confucius taught righteousness, human centeredness, and filial
piety. 

• Values are universalized because they can only be wished to be the values of all.

• Using Kant’s criteria, universal values are values that are willed to be the values of all
• Dr. Kent M. Keith (2003) came up with a list of fundamental, or universal moral
principles that can be found throughout the world, these are as follows: 
o Do no harm 
o Do good 
• Universal values are for human survival. They are the ultimate bases for living
together and learning  how to live together. Without respect for human life by all
then people will just kill each other. If honesty  or truth telling is not valued by all,
there will be endless lack of trust among people. • In spite of cultural relativism,
there are values that are universal for human survival. 

THE HUMAN PERSON AS A MORAL AGENT 

• “Moral” comes from the Latin “mores,” referring to society’s patterns, standards,
rules of doing things.  “Agent” comes from the Latin “agree,” to do, act. 
• A moral agent is one who performs an act in accordance with moral standards. A
moral agent is the  moral actor, one who acts morally. Only a moral agent is
capable of human acts. That’s why “morality is  for persons.” 
• A moral agent should have the capacity to rise above their feelings and passions
and act for the sake  of the moral law. 
• A moral agent has the capacity to conform to moral standards, to act for the sake of
moral  considerations, that is, for the sake of moral law. 
• An insane person, who does not have the capacity to think and choose, cannot
be a moral agent. • A dog is, therefore, not a moral agent because it doesn’t have
the capacity to conform to moral  standards. It cannot knowingly, freely and
voluntarily act. It does not have a mind and freewill. Like the  dog, a robot cannot
be a moral agent. 
• The moral agent is purpose-driven or end-driven. That end is sought for its own
sake, an end no longer  sought for the sake of another end, the highest good
which is happiness. 
• From the Christian point of view, a human person’s destiny in the world is not only to
achieve cultural  and moral perfection, but to attain the eternal happiness of the
soul after death of the body. As a moral  agent his duty is to know, to love, and to
serve God, his ultimate end. 
• A person’s act is moral if it realizes his/her potentials and brings him/her nearer to
this goal in life,  immoral if it deviates from it. 
• Fundamental option is a human person’s basic choice or inner orientation
either for a good life (directed  towards others and God) or for a bad life
(directed towards himself/ herself and cut off from others and God). 
• Man as a moral agent adopts the “fundamental option,” a free choice to say “yes” to
God’s invitation to  follow His way. 
• There is no pre-fixed plan for the human person as a moral agent. 
• For the existentialist, like Jean Paul Sartre, the human person, the moral agent,
becomes what he/she  makes of himself/herself by choice. He/she is nothing, no
“essence” until he/she starts his/her  “existence” by making choices. 

• To the process philosophers like Teilhard de Chardin and Alfred

North Whitehead, whatever a human  person, the moral agent, is or will
be is a result of a creative process. The moral agent has to create
his/her end, purpose, or directions. He/she has to invent his/her destiny. Since
there is no goal or end  designed for him/her, he/she would completely be the
 author of what he/she turns out to be. He/she will  be totally responsible for
what he/she will be. 
• Other groups, like Martin Heidegger, Gabriel Marcel and Martin Buber see the
moral agent as being with-others, who is inseparably related to his/her fellow man.
Together with other moral agents, the  human person goes through life, designing
his/her end guided by messages unveiled in a life of dialogue  with others and with
the world. 
• For Brabander, the moral agent directs his/her life to improve, refine, develops this
world in order to  bring out the world to come. 
• R. Francoeur likewise claims that the moral agent should direct his/her life to the
spiritualization of this  material world. 

THE DEVELOPMENT OF MORAL CHARACTER OF THE MORAL AGENT 

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

STAGES OF MORAL DEVELOPMENT 

• Moral development refers to the “process through which a human person gains
his/her beliefs, skills  and dispositions that make him/her a morally mature
person.” William A. Kay (1970) has the following  to say regarding the nature of
moral development. 
...Just as the pattern of intellectual growth can be simply described as
passing through stages of  animal behavior, pre-logical thinking, thought
governed by empirical logic and finally by formal logic, so  morality can be
described as passing through stages of behavior controlled first, by taboo; then
second,  by law; third by conscience ( i.e. irrational, intrajected values); fourth,
by reciprocity; fifth, by social  consensus and finally by personal moral
principles, though not necessarily in that order. 
Stated differently, the five stages may be reduced to three as follows: 

o The amoral stage – egocentric, hedonist and prudential considerations.

o The pre-moral stage – authoritarian, ego-idealist, social and reciprocal

considerations. o The moral stage – personal, autonomous, altruistic,
rational, independent and responsible  considerations. 

Kohlberg’s Stages of Moral Development 

• Level 1 – Pre-conventional morality 
At this level, children don’t have a personal code of morality. Instead, their
moral code is controlled by  the standards of adults and the consequences of
 following or breaking adults’ rules. Authority is outside  the individual and
reasoning is based on the physical consequences of actions.

o Stage 1. Obedience and Punishment Orientation. The child/individual

does good in order to  avoid being punished. Moral decisions are based on
fear of punishment. It is a matter of obey or  you get punished. 
o Stage 2. Instrumental Orientation. Right behavior is defined by whatever
the individual  believes to be in his/her best interest. “What’s in it for me?”
In this stage there is limited interest  in the needs of others, only to the
point where it might further the individual’s own interests. In  this stage,
right involves equal exchange. 
• Level 2 – Conventional 
Throughout the conventional level, a child’s sense of morality is tied to
personal and societal  relationships. Children continue to accept the rules of
authority figures, but this is now due to their belief  that this is necessary to
ensure positive relationships and societal order. Adherence to rules and 
conventions is somewhat rigid during these stages and a rule’s
appropriateness or fairness is seldom  questioned. 
o Stage 3. “Good Boy, Nice Girl” Orientation. In stage 3, children want the
approval of others  and act in ways to avoid disapproval. Emphasis is
placed on good behavior and people being  “nice” to others. The individual
values caring and loyalty to others as a basis for moral judgments. 
o Stage 4. Law and Order Orientation. The child/individual becomes aware
of the widerrules of  society, so judgments concern obeying the rules in
order to uphold the law and to avoid guilt. It  is a matter of “I have to do this
because the law says so.” It is still blind obedience to the law so  morality
still lacks internalization. 
• Level 3 – Post-conventional Morality 
This is the level of full internalization. Morality is completely internalized and
not based on external  standards. Individual judgment is based on self-chosen
principles and moral reasoning is based on  individual rights and justice. 
o Stage 5. Social Contract Orientation. The child/individual becomes aware
that while rules/laws  might exist for the good of the greatest number, there
are times when they will work against the interest of particular individuals.
In this level, individuals reason out that values, rights and  principles
transcend the law. 
Laws are regarded as social contracts rather than rigid orders. Those
that do not promote the  general welfare should be changed when
necessary to meet the greatest good for the greatest  number of
people. 

 Stage 6. Universal, Ethical, Principle Orientation. Individuals at this stage

have developed  their own set of moral guidelines which may or may not fit
the law. They have developed moral  judgments that are based on
universal human rights. The principles apply to everyone. 

Development of conscience-based moral decision 

• Moral development includes development of conscience-based moral decision.
This is in the post conventional level of Kohlberg’s stages of moral development.
Panizo defines conscience as “an act of  the practical judgment of reason deciding
upon an individual action as good and to be performed and  as evil and to be
avoided. It is metaphorically referred to as the “inner or little voice of God.” • Rev.
Thomas V. Berg (2012) defines conscience as follows: 

o In the natural law tradition, conscience is understood to be a judgment

emanating from human reason about choices and actions to be made, or
accomplished, or  already opted for and performed. 
o Conscience is the interior resounding of reason. Conscience
is reason’s awareness of a choice, or an action’s harmony or
disharmony, with the kind of behavior which truly leads to our
genuine well-being, and flourishing. 
• Conscience formation begins with the deep-seated decision to seek
moral truth. • A sound conscience must stand on the firm foundation
of integrity, sincerity, and forthrightness. 
• Conscience formation is sustained by the habit of consistently
educating oneself by  exposure to objective moral norms and the
rationale behind those norms. • For conscience to be formed, it
needs a guide, for Christians, the Church’s moral teaching and
persons whose moral judgments are sound and in accordance with
the Church’s moral tradition. 
• Conscience formation requires a habit of on-going self-formation (moral
information  gathering) through study, reading and other types of
inquiry. 
• Conscience-based moral decision means the widening of human
consciousness – from  family consciousness to clan consciousness,
community consciousness, town  consciousness, provincial, regional,
national and international or global consciousness. 
• As one’s consciousness widens, the standards of one’s decision
making widens; as one’s  moral conscience widens, one matures. 
• Moral development is internalization of moral norms. One acts morally
based on his/her convictions not because the law says so or a
person in authority orders so.