HERCOR COLLEGE

Lawaan, Roxas City, Capiz 5800

ACADEMIC YEAR 2021-2022

Department: __College of Hospitality Management (CHM) Course Code: GEC108_____________________

Name of Instructor: _FORTEVILLAR B. ABENIR JR.__ Schedule: ______________________________
Course Description Title: ______ETHICS___________ Semester: 2nd sem________________________

Name of student: ________________________________ Year and Section: ________________________

Student ID Number: ______________________________ Contact Number: ________________________
Email Address: __________________________________ Alternate Contact Number: ________________

Prelim Module in GEC- 108 ETHICS

GRADING SYSTEM
Requirement/assessment Task
Maximum Points
Required Output
Quizzes (long and Short quiz) 20 points
Recitation ,Projects, Attendance, Assignments 40 points
Major Exam (Prelim, Midterm, Finals) 40 points
Total 100 points
Introduction: Key Concept 1-PHILOSOPHICAL FOUNDATIONS
The Nature of Ethics
The word ethics come from the Greek word ethos, meaning charter or custom. Today we use the word ethos to refer to
the distinguishing disposition, character, or attitude of a specific, culture, or group. The etymology of ethics suggests its
basic concerns:
1. Individual character, including what it means to be good person
2. The social rules that govern and limit our behavior, especially the ultimate rules concerning good and evil, which
we call morality.
Philosophers like it distinguish ethics from morality, such that morality refers to human conduct and values and ethics
refers to the study of those areas. By this account, morals and moral refer to the conduct itself, whereas ethics and
ethical refer to the study of moral conduct or to the code of conduct one follows. In everyday parlance, however, we
1
interchange ethical and moral to describe people we consider good and actions we consider right. And we interchange
unethical and immoral to describe bad people and wrong action. We will follow this convention throughout this text.

Two other terms we should define are amoral and nonmoral.

1. Amoral means having no moral sense or being indifferent to right and wrong. This term can be applied to every
few people. Certain person who have had prefrontal lobotomies tend to act amorally after the operation; that is,
they have no sense of right and wrong. Also, babies should be classified as amoral because as yet they have no
moral sense; not until they have become educated in morality do we begin to seriously praise or blame them for
the way they behave. And there are few human beings who, despite moral education, have remained or become
amoral.
2. Nonmoral means out of the realm of morality altogether. For example, inanimate objects such as cars and guns
are neither moral nor immoral. A person using the car or gun may use it immorally, but the things themselves are
nonmoral. Many areas of study (for instance, mathematics, astronomy, and physics) are in themselves nonmoral,
but since human beings are involved in these areas, morality may also be involved. A mathematics problem is
neither moral nor immoral in itself; however, if it happens to provide the means by which a hydrogen bomb can
be exploded, then moral issues will certainly be forthcoming.

Definitions and Purpose of Ethics

1. Ethics is the science of human acts with reference to right and wrong.
2. Ethics is the study of the rectitude of human conduct.
3. Ethics is the scientific inquiry into the principles of morality.
4. Ethics is the practical science of morality of human actions.

Like Logic, Ethics is a Philosophico-practical science; but while the science of logic guides man’s intellect in the
acquisition of truth, the science guides the intellect in the intellect in the acquisition and application of the moral
principles. Not only does Ethics point out the way to right living, just as the signposts on the road indicate the right
direction to a place, but it also compels man to follow the direction to his ultimate destiny. Hence, Ethics likewise guides
the will in its search for what is good.

The Material and Formal Object of Ethics

1. Material Object of a science- is the matter with which the science deals. In the case of Ethics, the material
object consists of human acts. Human acts are acts performed by a man as a man- acts in which his superior
faculties of both intellect and will are used – as opposed to those acts which man performs in common with
animal and vegetative life.
2. Formal Object of science – is the precise aspect under which that science deals with its subject matter. In the
case of Ethics, the formal object is the moral rectitude of man’s human acts in relation to man’s natural end.
3. Ethical Conclusions – in order to reach its conclusions, Ethics draws upon the following sources;
a. Human Reason ( its primary Source)
b. Experience ( Contemporary and Historical)
b.1 Personal Experience
b.2 Experience of others

Morality and Etiquette

Etiquette – refers to any special code of behavior or courtesy. In our society, for example, it is usually considered
bad etiquette to eat with one’s fingers while attending a formal dinner or use obscene language in public; it is
considered good etiquette to say please when requesting and thank you when receiving and to hold a door open for
someone entering immediately behind us.

Morality and the Law

1. Statutes – are laws enacted by legislative bodies. The law that prohibits touching people without their
consent is a statute. Congress enacts statutes. Comprise a large part of the law and are what many of us
mean when we speak of laws.
2. Regulations – Limited in their knowledge, legislatures often set up board or agencies, whose functions
include issuing detailed regulation of certain kinds of conduct – administrative regulations?
3. Common Law – refers to laws applied in the English- speaking world before there were any statutes. Courts
frequently wrote opinions explaining the bases of their decisions in specific cases, including the legal
principles they deemed appropriate. Each of these opinions became a precedent for later decisions in similar
cases. Over the years a massive body of legal principles accumulated is collectively referred to as common
2
 law. Like administrative regulations, common law is valid if it harmonizes with statutory law and with still
another kind constitutional law.
4. Constitutional Law – The Philippine Constitutional enshrines the observance of the principle of powers and
the system of checks and balance among the legislative, the executive and the judiciary departments.
Constitutional Law defines the relationship of these three entities within a state. In the US, the board topic
of Constitutional law deals with the interpretation and implementation of the US Constitution. For example,
in North America the courts are empowered by the U.S Constitution to declare any law unconstitutional. So,
although courts cannot make laws, they have far- reaching powers to rules on a law’s constitutionality and
thereby declare it invalid. The Supreme Court has the greatest judiciary power and, of course, rules on an
array of cases, some of which bear directly on our study of ethics.

Division of Ethics
1. General Ethics presents truths about human acts, and from these truth deduces the general principles of
morality.
2. Special Ethics is applied ethics. It applies the principles of General ethics in different departments of human
activity,
a. Individual Ethics
a.1 As regards God
a.2 As regars self
a.3 As regards fellowmen
b. Social Ethics
b.1 In the family
b.2 In the state
b.3 In the world ( International Ethics)

Basis of Christian Ethics

1. Human reason is capable of discovering some truths.
2. God exists.
3. God is Just.
4. A good life shall merit God’s reward.
5. An evil life shall merit God’s punishment.
6. Man has a soul.
7. Man’s soul is immortal.
8. Man’s soul has faculties of intellect and will.
9. The object of the intellect is truth.
10. The object of the will is goodness.
11. Man’s will is free and is therefore capable of moral good or moral evil.
12. Good must be done; evil must e avoided.
13. An act is good when it is in conformity with right reason.
14. An act is evil when it is not in conformity with right reason.

Approaches to the study of Morality

1. Scientific or Descriptive Approach – is most often used in the social sciences, which emphasizes observation
of human behavior and conduct and the positing of conclusions based on those observations. The emphasis
here is empirical; that is, social scientist observe and collect data about human behavior and conduct and
then draw certain conclusions.
For example; psychologist, after having observed many human beings in many situation, have reached the
conclusion that human beings often act in their own self-interest. This is a descriptive or scientific approach
to human behavior – the psychologists have observed how human beings act in many situation, have
described what they have observed and have drawn conclusions.
2. Philosophical Approach – Has two parts, the first of which is nearly the opposite of the scientific or
descriptive approach. It id referred to as normative or prescriptive ethics, that is, having to do with norms
and prescriptive ethics. Using the example that human beings often act in their own self-interest, normative
ethical philosophers would go beyond the description and conclusion of the of the psychologist and want to
know whether human beings should or ought to act in their own self-interest. They might even go further
and come up with a definite conclusion,
For example; “given these argument and this evidence, human beings should always act in their own self-
interest” (egoism). Or they might say, “Human beings should always act in the interest of others” (Altruism),
or “Human beings should always act in the interest of all concerned, self-included” (Utilitarianism). These
3
three conclusions are no longer merely descriptions but prescriptions; that is, the statements are prescribing
how human beings should behave, not merely describing how they do in fact behave.
The second part of the philosophical approach to the study of ethics is called metaethics or, sometimes,
analytic ethics. Rather than being descriptive, this approach is analytic in two ways. First, meteathicist
analyze ethical language (for example, what we mean when we use the word good). Second, they analyze
the rational foundations for ethical systems or the logic and reasoning of various ethicists. Metaethicist do
not prescribe anything, nor do they deal directly with normative systems. Instead, they go beyond (a Key
meaning for the Greek prefix metal), concerning themselves only indirectly with normative ethical systems
by concentrating on reasoning, logical structures and language rather than on content.

The Norm of Morality

1. Norms are purely internal – many people today reject any moral norms or standards which would
be based on the existence of values outside of us and they argue that the only valid norms are
purely internal; “be true to yourself,” “do what you feel is right,” follow your conscience.” But at
best these so-called internal norms beg the question: to which self am I to be true? Not only do we
change, but we ourselves are divided, vacillating in respect to almost every important decision;
within each of us there are competing selves clamoring for attention, and it is possible that the self
which I am at the moment is not the self which I ought to be. It is also possible that “what I feel is
right” might actually not be right at all. It is even possible that my conscience, in a given case, might
be the product of self-deception, or might be hypocritical façade for selfishness. These internal
norm, such as conscience, make sense only if they are based on something outside of us as
individuals, which can rightfully lay total claim to us. To vote for a particular candidate, for example,
based on one’s conscience which is an internal or outside of us by asking question, such as, is the
candidate maka-diyos, maka-tao and maka-kalikasan? Is his record “clean” as a public servant? Was
he involved in any acts of graft and corruption?
2. Norm based on current opinions and customs – There some who use the norm that current
opinions and customs determine the acceptable mode of acting or at least rationalize along those
lines. This reflected in the not uncommonly heard phrase “Everybody is doing it” but right is still
right no matter how many people are wrong. Many of the attempts at persuasive arguments relative
to “planned parenthood’ and contraceptive birth control run along this line: most people today hold
that contraception is morally allowable; therefore it is. In other words, these are people who would
in point of fact base morality on majority opinion.
3. Norm of expediency – Other people regulate their actions in accordance with what is useful for
them at the moment rather than what is objectively right or wrong. This is the norm of expediency.
A good number of people today guide their actions by expediency rather than by morality. Not
infrequently in modern times rules of nations have abandoned the ship of state to the winds and
currents of expediency, with results always confusing, frequently dangerous and sometimes
disastrous.
4. Norms of “preference” – There are still others who act in accordance with what is desirable, what
one” prefers” doing rather than is right or wrong. Such is the man who has bad teeth but will not go
to the dentist; he has no doubts about what he ought to do, but to visit a dentist may be unpleasant.
Or take the case of an assistant tax- collector who knows that he should in certain particular
circumstances express disapproval of an immortal procedure or refuse to cooperate in an immoral
procedure or refuse to cooperate in an immoral operation done by other tax-collectors but would
find this unpleasant and so compromises his principles.
5. Situation Ethics – to the question “what must I do to act rightly and well?” there is one answer
which we hear more often than any other in our day: “I must always do what I feel is right for me. I
must not impose my views of right and wrong on you, and you must not impose your views on me.
For after all, who is to say who is right? This vies is defended theoretically under the heading of
situation ethics, and there it is often given a theological cover. “There are no objective standards for
human activity; I must always act in what I perceive to be a loving way, by letting the situation, in all
of its uniqueness, speak to me.” Behind the rhetoric above love there seems to lurk the suspicion
that general norms or standards of action are abstract, and cannot really do justice to the unique
character of each situation.
6. Evaluation – Morality is not a matter of current opinions or actions of the majority; it is not matter
of what is useful at the moment, of a spirit of altruism, of expediency, of feeling. It is not a matter of
social usefulness or sentiment. That is right which is in conformity with human nature and right
reason or commanded by God; that is wrong which runs contrary to human nature, right reason, or
God’s command. Rape, murder, and adultery are wrong not because of statistics or popularity or
public apathy or expediency or opinion polls, but because they run country to right reason and

4
 God’s will. Basically, it is a question of principle versus expediency. Morality is intrinsic, object and
unchanging. That is right which is in conformity with the divide will. It is expressed in our through a
properly formed conscience.

Activity I-
1. In your own words, define the following terms:

a. Moral –

b. Immoral –

c. Amoral –

d. Nonmoral –

2. How do you differentiate ethics from morality?

_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________

3. What is the difference between descriptive and prescriptive ethics?

_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________

4. What is metaethics, or analytic ethics, and how does it differ from descriptive and prescriptive ethics?
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________

5. Explain in your own words the relationship between law and morality.
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________

5
Introduction Key Concepts 2: Knowing a little Theory: Three
Approaches to Ethics
Basic Types of ethical Theories
1. Virtue Ethics;
2. Consequentialist Ethics
3. Principled ethics

These are systematic ways of thinking about moral issues. While these are subdivisions within these groups, you
can think of each as a cluster of thought or a school of moral philosophy.
Let us take a look at the three leading school of thought, variations of which can be found around the world. As
you read through them, ask yourself which one make sense to you. Do you have a preference? Why? Think of a
moral problem you have had and which moral course you decide was right. Which of these three approaches did
you actually use in making your decision?

1. Virtual Ethics – Which focuses upon character, is the most ancient of these three types. Aristotle is
perhaps the most famous proponent of this way of thinking about ethical matters. Those who look
at ethics through the lens of character ask, what sort of person should I aim to be and what do I
need to do to fulfill that goal? The main point of this approach is individual integrity.
In virtue ethics acting true to oneself and fulfilling the goals of life are what it means to be a
full human being. A person who accepts the virtue approach to ethics is moved to action because
acting as a virtuous person is only the way he can live with himself. This approach of ethics had
fallen into disuse by philosophers for a century or more, only to be received in the latter part of the
twentieth century by Alasdair Macintyre (January 12, 1927), who wrote a book called after Virtue: a
Study in Moral Theory (1981). People who are concerned with character education for children
often use this approach to ethics.
Those who employ the consequentialist basis for morality focus on psychological traits such
as affection, sympathy, a moral sense, intuition, and so forth. Perhaps the earliest leading
philosopher of this approach is Scotsman David Hume (1711-1776). Since consequentialist are
observing things as they are, they are led to ask the question, “What is the result of what I did?”
Those who look to results are concerned less with the kind of a person someone is than with the
outcome of the actions the person takes. In Europe this approach stresses the greatest good for the
greatest number of people – the utilitarian theory. The U.S. from of this school is philosophical
pragmatism, an approach that value results over principles and look toward producing the desired
outcome.
The third group or school thinks that ethics must be based on principles that are certain and
universal. A principle approach to ethics relies upon rationality and obligates a person to live
consistently with what reason requires. The German Immanuel Kant is the leading philosopher here.
Those who base their ethics upon principle and rationality and search for valid generalization ask,
“What does reason morally require me to do?” “Duty” and “ought” are terms frequently employed
in this ethical system, which seeks universal principles that apply to all people, everywhere, all the
time.
Each Theory is limited
1. Aristotle and the Greeks had theirs- wisdom, courage, temperance and justice.
2. Thomas Aquinas and the Cristian had theirs – Faith, hope and charity.
3. The Chinese produced a slightly different set, and so forth.
A virtue is like questions as to which target you should be aiming at. Virtue ethics has the
disadvantage of being culture bound. What it holds up as virtue turns out often to be a reflection of
conventional morality- what is right is right because society says it is right. This is not much help in
situations in which there is a conflict of values or where society’s morality itself seems to be
immoral. Virtue ethics becomes a relativistic ethic: everything depends upon the culture in which
one lives.

2. Consequentialist Ethics – Is limited because it severs results from the way in which the results were
obtained. It looks primarily at outcomes, not input. Only the ends are important, not the means by
which they were achieved. The problem is twofold: first, measuring ethics only by its consequences
overlooks the fact that a bad person may produce something worthwhile as a by-product of some
evil; and second, it can’t distinguish between, say, a student who gets an A honestly and one who
gets it by cheating.
Consequentialist ethics can be reduced to a crude utilitarianism – if it works, its good, and
the greatest good for the number is what is important, no matter how one arrives at producing that
6
 good. It may also suffer from a rough cultural relativism in which no judgements can be made about
other groups. Watching a lot of war picture, I thought at first the torture was bad but that it may not
be immoral if done by an agent (NBI or FBI) who is trying to extract truth on a captured terrorist.
The third ethical school, in which morality is built upon rational principle, also has its
limitations. Taken to their logical results, for they can ignore consequences of our actions.

What to consider?
Philosophers argue among themselves which of the three approaches is correct. They have little
patience with the person who will sometimes use one, then another concept. But I believe that it is the
person who struggles with these perplexities who comes closer to the reality of things than those who
insist on a unitary moral system. Different people in all god faith can reach different conclusions about
ethical matters, because they each may be employing a different one of the three ethical systems. But to
make matters even more complex, we can disagree with one another because of whole set of other
contingencies. Here are some factors that need attention:
1. One needs to decide on the facts of the case if confronted with an ethical situation.
Example; “Is someone lying or telling the truth”?
2. Next is the need to interpret the facts. To follow- up the first question,
“Did the person have cause to lie”?
3. Then you have to fill in the gaps in the story with assumptions, if you can’t ask the protagonist directly. “Did
the person mean to lie?”
4. Then take into account your own set of values by asking the question, “How important is the matter?”
5. Then evaluate one ethical principle over another. This will provide you with the question, “How important is
telling the truth for me, or are there circumstances that one can lie?”

This makes for least eight variables (Three ethical systems, facts, interpretation, assumptions, values, and
principles) that you employ when you make an ethical decision. With these mix of variables, even people of goodwill can
disagree with one another over moral matters.
One reason that we can mention for the disagreement is that ethical theory often uses only rational consideration,
divorced from psychological, cultural, political, and social realities. The way we live our life, the meaning we put into it,
and the manner in which we experience them are more complicated than any unitary theory can contain. And because
of such divergence, we can say that no one is a perfect type or singly motivated. You may be inconsistent or
contradictory. Ralph Waldo Emerson once said, “A Foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of the little minds”.
But most of us also favor one ethical over another. And while we may be inclined to follow one direction over
the other, using our intellect and will, we still make ethical choices. This ability to make an intellect choice is part of what
it means to be an ethical person.

Ethics and Good Judgement

The real issue in taking up a course in ethics is not to identify or evaluate one’s taste or inclination or preference
in ethical matters. What is more important is the intention to develop an ethical approach to living, whichever method
of justification you see. In this course, we ask ourselves, “How am I going to live an ethical life?” this goes the heart of
morality.
Aristotle – ethics is a combination of action, desire and feeling. This requires the use of judgement so that you
may apply what you believe to be right to the situation at hand. Understanding ethical principles alone isn’t enough.
David Luban (2009) - explain, moral decision-making “also requires good judgement, by which I mean knowing
which actions violate a moral principle and which do not. “ I agree with luban’s statement that, “You can’t teach good
judgment through general rules, because you already need judgement to know how rules apply.”
In ethics, your own actions are one of the subjects of your own inquiry. If an ethical life matters to you, you must
already be committed to a particular values and principles. Therefore you inevitably view things through your own
interests and experiences. All of us are products of biology history, and social institutions, each of which shapes our
understanding and beliefs regarding what it means to be human. In ethics, reason can be divorced from the particularity
of individual lives. Ethics is difficult precisely because it is so close and matters so much.
To make matter worse, morality sometimes claims too much of us. There is always something more we could be
doing to make the world a better place-more help to give a friend, another good cause to support. Sometimes a conflict
arises in our values, or a gap appears between our ideas and our behavior. Knowing that we have failed to fully live up to
an ethical standard leaves the slit of self-recrimination. By being less than we think we ought to be – that is, less than
perfect- we feel guilty and maybe even ashamed, emotions, when unchecked, make living the moral life less likely, not
more likely.
If ethics were all there, life would be no leisure, no projects of our own. Life would be chore to complete instead
of a joy to be experienced. If ethics make demands, you may believe, it must make demands absolutely, without
exception and on all people under the same circumstances, the same way.

7
 But moral obligation is only type of ethical consideration. Fortunately, this is not all in ethics. Living a good life,
too, is a part of an ethical outlook. This means that while obligations to other are very important, they aren’t the only
thing. You need to remember this, particularly if you are frequently drawn between those who claim that there is only
one right way, only one righteous path, and those who, on the other , maintain that ethics is nothing but hollow call for
conformity by authority.

Finding A Way to Decide

Amy Gutmann and Dennis Thompson (Why Deliberated Democracy? 2004), two political philosophers, offer am
approach to ethical problems that they call, “Standard of deliberation.”
First, every appeal to reason or principles you use must be one that could be accepted by other reasonable
people. This means that there must be a degree of consistency, coherence, and logic to what you say.
Second, the factual claims you make must be testable by reliable and non-private methods. You cannot say
something like, “you broke my arm,” but not let anyone see your arm. You have to allow your arm to be seen and
examined by those who know what broken arms are. You can’t refuse to share information you have or claim something
as fact just because it “feels right or because “I said so.”
Third, all your reasons must be offered in public. You should not solve ethical problems based on secret
information. This is unfair to others, as it puts them at a disadvantage.

More specifically, here is a series of steps you can use in making an ethical decision:
1. What are the facts? Know the facts as best you can. If your facts are wrong, you are liable to make a bad
choice.
2. What can you guess about the facts you don’t know? Since it is impossible to know all the facts, make
reasonable assumptions about the missing pieces of information.
3. What do the facts mean? Facts by themselves have no meaning. You need to interpret the information in
light of the values that are important to you.
4. What does the problem look like through the eyes of the various people involve? The ability to walk in
another’s shoes is essential. Understanding the problem through a variety of perspectives increases the
possibility that you will choose wisely.
5. What will happen if you choose one thing rather than another? All actions have consequences. Make a
reasonable guess as to what will happen if you follow a particular course of action. Decide whether you
think better or harm will come of your action.
6. What do your feelings tell you? Feelings are facts, too your feelings about ethical issues may give you a clue
as to parts of our decision that your rational mind may overlook.
7. What will you think of yourself if you decide one thing or another? Some call this your conscience. It is a
form of self-appraisal. It helps you decide whether you are the kind of person you would like to be. It helps
you live with yourself.
8. Can you explain and justify your decision to others? Your behavior shouldn’t be based on a whim. Neither
should it be self-centered. Ethics involves you in the life of the world around you. For this reason, you must
be able to justify your moral decisions in a ways that seem reasonable to reasonable people. Ethical reasons
can’t be private reason.
In the early twentieth Century, the great American ethical philosopher Morris Rafael Cohen (July 25, 1880 – January 28,
1959) wrote in Reason and nature (1959, 2 nd edition) that without moral choice “there is no genuinely human life, but
only slavish adherence to mechanically rigid rules which choke the currents of ever changing life.” The choice, then is
between thinking things out of ourselves, judging and acting on those ethical values- however uncertain we may be
about them- or living like slaves, afraid of risk, waiting for someone else to tell us what to do. While we have a moral
vocabulary from which to construct our answers, there is no text, which by itself can tell what is right or wrong for each
and every situation. Knowing this and acting nevertheless is the essence of responsibility and free will.

Activity II-
Ethical Dilemmas
Ethics is about choice which matter, and choices which matter are dilemmas. The Greek word means “two
horns”. The horns of dilemmas- only two choice, to find the way between the horns of the dilemmas. That is nearer to
the original sense of the term.
The sharper your ethical skills, analyze and evaluate the two dilemmas given below:
1. Dilemma 1: The lifeboat
The battleship Matikas na Pinoy was torpedoed in the engine room, and began to sink rapidly. “Abandon
Ship! Shouts Captain Ditatakbo. But few of the lifeboats are intact. One boat, desperately overload, manages to
struggle away the sinking vessel, ditatakbo at the prow. The cold, grey waters of the Pacific around it are filled
with screaming, desperate voices, begging to be saved.

8
 But faced with the grim knowledge of the danger of capsizing the little boat, endangering the lives of
those already on board, should any more sailors be picked up and rescued?
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________

2. Dilemma 2: To obey or Not to Obey

Ditatakbo mutters several words understood only by him, and then, in the bark, orders ‘no stopping’.
Some of the others in the boat mutter too, in different Philippine dialects – about ‘bleeding murderer’,
pitiless bastards’ and even about ‘Captains ought to do down with their boats’ but all are accustomed to
obeying. Until one of the sailors in the water struggles up to the side of the boat, revealing himself to be
Bruce, the cabin steward, who manages to get two frozen hands onto the ship’s gunnels, and with a last
desperate, heroic effort begins to haul himself in, tipping the boat alarmingly as he does so.
“Knock him back in!’ shout Captain Ditatakbo, from the rear of the boat, to Danny, the cook,
who is nearest (Danny and Bruce are best of friends, they used to play pusoy during their free time in
the boat, and Bruce is the godfather of Danny’s only son, elmer).
Should Danny obey? Explain your answer.
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________

Part 1: The Moral Agent

Introduction
In the preceding chapter, we learned that different people in all good faith can reach different conclusions about
ethical matters; the relevance of good judgement in ethics and that there is no choice but to choose and in doing so, to
find ways to make a decision.
The presumption here is that the moral agent, the one making a choice and a way to decide, is a being who is
capable of acting with reference to right or wrong. As such a moral agent is one who can be held responsible for his/her
behavior or decision. We can say that it is the moral agent who can have choices and the power to choose.
Most ethics philosophers believe that only rational beings, who can reason and form self-interested judgements,
are capable of being moral agents. Some would argue that those with limited rationality (for example, people who are
mildly mentally disabled or infants) also have some basic moral capabilities.
Moral agency is an individual’s ability to make moral judgements based on some notion of right and wrong and
to be held responsible for these actions.

Culture as Source of Ethics Belief

I vividly remembered our professor, Fr. Angel N. Lagdameo (Who became the archbishop of Jaro, Iloilo in 2000)
emphasizing that ethical beliefs stem from a handful of values. He would ask a series of rhetorical questions: where do
these values come from? Why does one person see beauty in the waters of El Nido in Palawan, while another sees
danger? Why will one person risk life and limb to ensure justice, while another stands detached and indifferent?

9
 Fr. Angel discussed the sources of values as experience, culture, science and technology, and religion with
enough passion to make us mesmerized with his wisdom as an intellectual and spiritual moral theologian, however,
CHED recommends that in discussing the aspect of the moral agent, focus should center in the area of culture.

General Understanding of Culture

Culture generally refers to the patterned ways of thinking, feeling, and acting that people share and
communicate to one another. Visiting Cambodia during the 2018 Lenten vacation, a good number of times my wife and I
were mistaken as Cambodians and so while buying some a souvenirs at Aeon Mall in Phnom Penh, they will first
communicate to us using the Khmer Language. We just look at them without understanding at all what they said and
they will also look at us, and after about a minute, they will use English saying, are you from the Philippines? My wife
and I would wonder what makes them guess that we came from the Philippines. Why not,” are you from Indonesia,
Thailand, or Vietnam?” After all we look alike Asian people. Maybe there is something in us that separates us from the
rest of the Asian community, something that makes us truly Filipinos.
A different approach was used by Marcus Tullius Cicero. He was considered as one of Rome’s greatest orators
and prose stylists. In his Tusculanae disputations (written around 45BCE), he equated cultura animi. He eloquently
employed an agricultural metaphor to explain the development of a philosophical soul which was understood
teleologically as the highest possible idea for human development. Cicero’s understanding of culture was prevalent up
to the early 17th Century until a German jurist, political philosopher economist, statesman and historian, Samuel
Pufendorf (1632-1694). In his two books on The Duty of Man and Citizen according to the Natural Law (1682) took over
Cicero’s metaphor in a modern context, similar in meaning but no longer assuming that philosophy was man’s natural
perfection. His use of the word culture and that of many writers after him refers to all the ways in which human beings
overcome their original barbarism, and through artifice, become fully human.”
However, it was only during the early 19 th Century when an English anthropologist, Edward Burnett Tylor (1832-
1917), first coins the term “Culture” (Primitive Culture, Volume 1, 2016). He was considered as the founder of cultural
anthropology. He believed that the study of society becomes incomplete without proper understanding of culture of
that society sine culture and society go together. Culture is unique possession of man. Taylor’s understanding of culture
is that of complex whole which includes knowledge, belief, art, moral, law, custom, and any other capabilities and habits
acquired by man as a member of society.

Activity III – Essay Writing:

Choose only one topic among the given statements.

1. The Pre-Hispanic and Non-Christian beliefs in Filipino culture.

2. The Influences of Spanish colonization in Philippine culture.
3. The American and Western influences in Philippine Culture.
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________

Culture and Moral Behavior

Each of us has a set of values and beliefs that differs somewhat from anyone else’s. This difference in individual
values and beliefs spring form the core values of our culture. Some philosophers and social scientists believed that these
core values reflect a particular culture’s orientation to five constant aspects of human condition: human nature, the
environment, time, activity, and human relationship. Our worldviews toward these phenomena affect the type of
interaction with people, organizations, and society as a whole.
Taking as an example the view on human nature, we can clearly see that the culture of reach social group is
based on expressed and implied positions about human nature. Based on the prevailing philosophical beliefs, all cultures
develop answers to questions such as: is human nature basically good, bad, or neutral? A person who agrees with the
10
teachings of Mencius (c.371-c.289 BCE) that man is fundamentally good and moral would behave differently in treating
people than someone who would advocate another. Chinese philosopher, Li Si (c.280-c.208 BCE), who taught that
human nature is essentially evil, not moral; championing the ideas of legalism which proposed strict laws to produce an
ordered state. We can also mention the philosopher form Geneve, Switzerland Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778) who
/claimed that man is good by nature, and that it is civilization which ruins him. In his book, discourse on the Sciences and
the Arts (1750), he denied that the sciences and arts had contributed toward the purification of manners, and he even
argued that the arts and sciences corrupt human morality (Padilla, philosophy made simple, 2013).
Taking up a course on Leadership and management at De la Salle University-Taft during the early 90s, I recall one
lecture I attended on Douglas McGregor’s proposals of two sets of culturally induced assumptions about human beings
that he observed among managers. He referred to these as Theories X and Y in his book the human side of enterprise (1 st
edition, 2006).
McGregor observed that managers who espouse Theory X believe that workers essentially dislike work and will
do everything they can to avoid it. Such managers insist that the average person wishes to avoid responsibility, lack
ambition, and values security over everything else. The manager must be coerced and forced into conformity to
organizational objectives.
Managers who belong to Theory Y, in Contrast, believe that workers basically like work and view it as something
natural and potentially enjoyable. Workers are motivated as much as pride and a desire for self-fulfillment as by money
and job security. They do not eschew responsibility, but accept and seek it out.
These sets of culturally induced assumptions about human nature can lead to contrasting styles of management
and leadership behavior. McGregor assumed that Theory X managers are likely to provide an autocratic-type of
leadership. They tend to closely shepherd workers by giving orders and precise directions. They will tell employees what
to do and how exactly to do it. The managers expect workers to follow orders and nothing more.
Theory Y managers, on the other hand, are more likely to provide a democratic style of leadership. In the
process of informing the workers on the tasks to be performed, they will also invite, and are open to new ideas coming
from them. They appreciate and use this information to refine their own ideas about how to do those tasks. Theory Y
managers can be virtually nondirective in the performance of one’s job. Viewing themselves as resource person, trouble
shooters, and supporters rather than directors of the work force, they are inclined to leave decisions on work methods
to the works. In either case, X or Y, culture conditioned the views on human nature and heavily influenced behavior in
terms of leadership styles and management.

Cultural Relativism
The concept of cultural relativism as we know and use it in contemporary time was established as an analytic
tool by the German-America anthropologist Franz Boas (1848-1942) in the early 20 th century. In the study of Geography,
boas first articulated the idea in 1887:”civilization is not something absolute, but… is relative, and… our ideas and
conceptions are true only so far as our civilization goes”.

Basic Concepts relating to Cultural Relativism

1. All beliefs, customs, and ethics are relative to the individual within his own social context. This concept
views “right and wrong” as culture-specific, that is, what is considered moral in one society may be
considered immoral in another, and since no universal norm of morality exists, no one has the right to judge
another society’s customs.
2. Is the idea that a person’s beliefs, values, and practices should be understood based on that person’s own
culture, rather than judged against the criteria of another.
3. Refers to the idea that the values, knowledge, and behavior of people must be understood within their own
cultural context.
Ethnocentrism – is practice of viewing the judging someone else’s culture based on the values and beliefs of one’s own.
Aubrey de Selincourt (1894-1962) – an English writer, classical scholar, and translator mentioned an anecdote of Darius
the Great who illustrated the principle of cultural relativism by inquiring about the funeral customs of the Greeksand the
Callatiae peoples from the extreme western and eastern fringes of his empire, respectively. They practices (The early
History of Rome: Book I-V by Titus livy, audret de selincourt, 1960, translator).

Activity IV- Concept Evaluation

1. Do you agree with Mencius that man is fundamentally good and moral, or Li Si who taught that human nature is
essentially evil, not moral; and hence we need strict legalism to produce an ordered state? Support your answer.
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________

11
 __________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________

2. Following McGregor’s Theories X and Y, what type of leadership style or management are you going to use if you
would be assigned as a manager/CEO or COO in your company someday? Why did you choose that style of
leadership?
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________

Asian and Filipino Morality

This topic, as proposed by CHED I believed is too broad, and therefore, I would limit my discussion on
some ethical teachings which I think binds us as Asians. This may not be a perfect presentation for some readers
would find disagreements in some ethical concepts.
To start our discussion, and to point out the complexity of this topic, allow me to cite the example
provided by Chad Hansen, a professor of Chinese Philosophy at the university of Hongkong, said to Lee Kwan
Yew (former First Minister of Singapore who governed for three decades), “You should not throw people in jail
for long prison terms for criticizing you.” Lee replies, “There is nothing wrong with that.”
This short exchange of words between Pattern and Lee Kwan Yew easily demonstrates the complexity of
the issue. Asia, I think, is the largest continent in terms of population and land area. It can be divided into several
districts or areas: West, central, South, South East and North East. Southeast Asia alone, where we belong, is
compose of several countries: Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, Thailand, Vietnam, Singapore, Malaysia, Brunei,
Indonesia and the Philippines.
Asia is home to the major religions of the world: Christianity, Catholicism, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism,
Confucianism, Buddhism and Taoism, all playing significant roles in the formation of faith, spirituality and ethical
beliefs of their followers.
For our consideration, I will be choosing respect for the elderly or one’s parents for I believe this is
something common among us as Asians.
Scripture passages abound in relation to respect for one’s parents:
1. Deuteronomy 5:16 – Honor your father and mother, as the Lord, your God, has commanded you,
that you may have a long life and prosperity in the land which the Lord, your God, is giving you.
2. Ephesians 6:1-3 – Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for that is what is expected of you. Honor
your father and mother is the first commandment to carry a promise with it – “that it may go well
with you, and that you may have long life on earth.
3. Exodus 21:17 – Whoever curses his father or mother shall be put in death.
4. Colossians 3:20 – You children, obey your parents in everything as the acceptable way in the Lord.
In Buddhism, respect for one’s parent is associated with filial piety. Buddhist teachings would remind
their adherents that since parents spend so much time raising their children, children must repay the pains their
parents took. When a child is young and vulnerable, parents introduce their child to the world and take care of
him, so when parents reach old age, their child must care for them in a similar way. Buddhism teaches that this
particularly true of mothers who experience additional pains while carrying the child in the womb for nine
months and then giving birth.
Buddhism even spells out how one should take care of his/her parents. It’s says that one of the best way
of showing respect for the elderly is to provide for their needs. If parents live with their children, they may help
raise their grandchildren. Young people should also take care of their parents’ financial sand other personal
needs. In addition, since a senior citizen has wisdom accumulated over a long lifetime, younger people can show
respect by listening to the advice of their elders. Buddhism also extend the idea of filial piety to all senior
citizens. Some Catholic seminaries in the Philippines adopted this seminaries so that putting up residences for
the elderly priests near the seminaries so that they can serve as confessors and spiritual advisers to young
seminarians. They can also celibate masses in the seminary or nearby parishes. With the proper support from
their families, communities and the church, elderly can still be “productive” in their twilight years and living
fruitful, happy and fulfilled live.
12
 Confucian philosophy, however, is more specific: Filial piety means:
1. To be good to one’s parents;
2. To take care of one’s parents;
3. To engage in good conduct mot just towards parents but also outside the home so as to bring a
good name to one’s parents and ancestors;
4. To perform the duties to one’s job well so as to obtain the material means to support parents aswell
as carry out sacrifices to the ancestors;
5. Not be rebellious;
6. Show love, respect and support;
7. Display courtesy;
8. Ensure male heirs, uphold fraternity among brothers;
9. Wisely advise one’s parents, including dissuading them form moral unrighteousness;
10. Display sorrow for their sickness and death; and
11. Carry out sacrifices after their death.

Activity V – What Do I Owe an elderly Parent?

(Deepening of Ethical Experiences)
Liza, a Manager of Hotel, and Justin, an engineer, have just celebrated their 30 th birthday. A doctor tells them
that because of the onset of sinilty, liza seventy-five-year-old mother cannot continue to live alone. Despite the
necessity of forgoing many personal plans (Including migrating to Canada) and recognizing the strain it will put upon
them. Liza and Justin decide that they cannot put liza’s mother into a nursing home. Instead they move her into a spare
bedroom in their house.

Some Question to Ask Yourself:

1. What do children owe their parents?
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________

2. Are grown children responsible for their parents’ well-being?

_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________

3. Are positive feelings (towards your parents) a necessary basis for obligations?
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________

4. If you will be married someday, how do you balance your needs and that of your spouse with that of another
family member?
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________

5. Are Liza and Justine doing the right thing?

_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________

Family obligations
13
 If there were a scale of family obligations, everything else being equal, those we have to our parents weigh more
than those we have to our siblings but less than those we have to our spouses and our children. The advent of social
Security, pension plans, and so forth has lessened such obligations insofar as it has made the elderly financially
independent (of course, in the Philippines the amount of pension money they are receiving is not even enough to cover
the cost of their medicines and other necessary expenses).
Supposing your parents can pay for their own apartments, food and medicines, the obligation we have to our
elderly parents is voluntary, at least under certain circumstances. But generally, we are required to ensure that our
parents live as long and as comfortable as possible. It is very much like the obligation we have to our own grown
children.
Families are drawn together by ties that are more than what they can do for one another. The ideal is to have
both economically independent elderly and grown children, who want to take care of their parents, even live with them.
Family life everything else being equal, is better than institutional life; being in a caring community is better than living
alone.

Actions are More Important than Feelings

Children have a serious responsibility to make sure that their elderly parents are taken care of. It arises from the
ethical principle of reciprocity – to return something to the person who has given you something. We don’t have to
particularly like our parents. We may never have chosen them as friends. But remember, the commandment tells us to
honor our parents, not love them. Love is a sentiment, and feelings can’t be conjured on command. We love one
another as our hearts move us. Honor through, is a set of actions and behavior is a subject to direction and is sustainable
whatever one’s emotional state. The honorable thing for grown children to do is at least to assure minimal care for
elderly parents who cared for them, as a way of sustaining ties that make us more human.

Moral Character Development

1. What is the nature of courage?
2. What is the nature of piety?
3. What is the nature of justice?
4. What is the nature of temperance?
On the understanding that what kind of person one is, is constituted by one’s character, the connection
between moral character and virtue is clear. We can think of one’s moral character as primarily a function of whether
one has or lacks various moral virtues and vices (see Padilla [2006], introduction to the philosophy of the human person,
Chapter 12: The human person and moral Character).
And so I realized with that letter certifying that I am of good moral character somehow attest that I was able to
imbibe the school charism of love and service for the Church and for our country, with all the virtues necessary to live a
moral life.
In philosophy, the term character is typically used to refer to the moral dimension of a person. Aristotle, for
example, often used the term ethe for character, which is etymologically connected with “ethics” and “morality” (mores
as its Latin equivalent).
Aristotle treatment of moral character, and virtue in particular, is the most influential discussion of such issues.
The Greek word arête used by Aristotle was commonly translated as virtue, which is perhaps better translated as
“Goodness” or “Excellence” (Lidell and Scott, 1940).
Generally, excellence is quality that makes an individual a good member of its kind. For example, a hammer is
excellence if it can properly drive nails. Excellence, therefore whereby its possessor operates well of fulfills its function.
With this understanding, it is helpful to think of excellences as defining features of one’s character. Aristotle sometimes
speaks of a good moral character as “human excellence” or an “excellence of soul”.

Stages of Moral Development

Thinking back of my childhood and growing up Catholic in Candelaria, Quezon, I was taught at a tender age of
five as a kindergarten student that there are choices in life, that there would be occasions to choose between lying and
truth telling, or between being honest or dishonest. Sometime we ask ourselves, as a child, why did I tell the truth
ourselves, as a child, why did I tell the truth rather than lie? Finding a 50-centavo bill (yes. Paper bill during the early 60s
and with it, could buy a battle of Coca-Cola and a sandwich!), why did I surrender it to my teacher rather than keep it? I
probably did so because I was told by my parents and my teacher who was an Augustinian Recollect Sister that telling
the truth and being honest were the right things to do and lying or being dishonest were wrong things. By doing the
good things, I am a good son and that my guardian angel will rejoice in heaven.
What is more, I know if I were caught lying or being dishonest, I will probably be punished – scolded, spanked,
transferred to a public school. On the other hand, truth telling and honesty probably will be rewarded – I will be hugged

14
by my parents, praise in school, or given candy by my sisters. And so at tender age, I learned such clear and decisive
messages; doing what I was told was in my best interest and disobeying was not.
As I grew into adolescence, there moral instructions were gradually internalized. They were no longer imposed
from the outside under threat of punishment or promise of reward, and I did not follow them solely out of self-interest.
Rather, I began to understand the implications of these moral lessons and followed them in part to advance the welfare
of loved ones. At this point, I believe, my moral standards were based largely on loyalty to family and friends, possibly
even to our country. I was still self-interested, for adolescence is a time intense self-centeredness. But it was also a time
when the sphere of interests widens to include at least those with whom I have special relationships, family and peers.
According to Manuel Velasquez Known a father of Academic business ethics and a Charles J. Dirksen Professor of
Business ethics at the Santa Clara University, it only as mature adults that any of us can inspect the moral values and
standards we have inherited and their consequences. Then we can broaden our interest base to include not just our
immediate circle of friends and relatives but all people. At his point, morality is grounded in universal principles that
impartially take into account the interest of all people.
The stage of moral development were more psychologists and among the best theory was that by Lawrence
Kohlberg (Essays on Moral Development, 1981). He groups his stage of moral development into the following three
levels, distinguished by what defines right or moral action. The second stage is the more advanced form of the general
orientation of each level.

Level 1: Premoral – the first two stages formed what is termed as the premoral level because value is place
not in persons or social standards but in physical acts and needs. Unquestioning obedience and self-gratification
characterize this level, which the child typically operates on. The child, whose primary motivation is self-interest, can
respond to rules and social expectations and can apply moral labels – “Good,” “Bad,” “Right,” “Wrong” - but sees them
as imposed from the outside.
Stage 1 – Punishment and obedience orientation – Children or adults base their decisions on personal fear and
avoidance of punishment. There is little if any awareness that others have needs and desires similar to one’s own. The
physical dimensions of an act or its consequences largely determined its degree of badness. One avoids trouble by
simple obeying powerful authorities. It affirms the saying “might is right.”
Stage 2 – self-gratification orientation – This stage asserts that individuals are concerned only primarily with
satisfying their own needs. Being sharply sensitive to outcomes, they view actions as right when it promotes one’s self-
interest. Comparing with Stage 1, Stage 2 persons realize that other people have similar needs and desires and they
even will defer to them, but only if there is a pay-off. The exchange of favors figures prominently at this stage. It upholds
the saying “you scratch my back, and I will scratch yours.”

Level 2 – Conventional – is placed in maintaining the conventional social order and the expectations of
others. Individual belonging to level 2 recognize that others are similar to themselves, and they are motivated to
conform to the group’s norms, even if it means subordinating their own personal needs.
Stage 3 – approval-of-others orientation – at this stage, persons internalize the values of others, such as
parents and peer group. They resolve moral dilemmas by determining how those whom they admire would behave or
want them to behave. To gain the approval of others by pleasing them is central at this stage. Example is the old cliché:
“It is better to give than to receive.” We can ask “why better’? It is better because one will be thought of as a “Good
person” in the eyes of other and thus in one’s own eyes.
Stage 4 – Law-and-order orientation – Persons belonging to this stage base their thinking on the dictates of
established authority; the police, teacher, the president, the scripture. They also maintain that rules and obligations are
necessary for a stable society. They respect the law, which they perceive as fixed and immutable, not as a social contract
subject to change. Stage 4 persons uphold that the operative rule of morality could be stated as: “Obey authority,
respect the law, and follow rules in order to preserve social harmony.”
Level 3 – Principles – The third level represents the higher values and questioning of the existing legal
system in the light of social utility and abstract principle, such as justice and human dignity. Persons belonging to this
level no longer blindly accept the values and norms of the group but try to see situation from the viewpoint that
impartially takes everyone’s interests into consideration. They questions authorities and the laws and values of society,
perhaps even redefining them in terms of universal moral principles that seemingly can be justified to any rational
individual, whatever the person’s role in society.
Stage 5 – Social – contact Orientation – The individual recognizes an implied agreement existing between
individuals and society – a social contract where by the state acquires its legitimacy through the consent of the
governed. Rules or expectation, therefore, contain an arbitrary element: they are made for social purposes can change.
This social contract orientation includes recognition of the value of constitutional rights and legal procedures.
Stage 6 – Universal – Ethical – principles Orientation – In this last stage of orientation, the person has fully
internalized moral principle held as universally valid. Right action is defined in terms of these principles, chosen because
of their consistency. These principles are not concrete propositions just like those found in the ten commandments or in
civil statutes, but are abstract moral generalities dealing with justice, equality, and respect for persons.

15
Activity VI- Explain the following statements:
a. Men are good in one way, but bad in many way (Aristotle).
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
b. The value or worth of a man is, as of all things, his price (Thomas Hoobes).
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
c. Give a man a mask and he will show you his true self.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________

*******End of Prelim Period********

16