Ethics

• Derived from the Greek word ethos, which means “character”, or, in plural,
“manners.
• is the branch of philosophy that studies morality or the rightness or wrongness of
human conduct. Morality speaks of a code system of behavior in regards to
standards of right or wrong behavior.
• Also called ‘moral philosophy’, ethics evaluates moral concepts, values,
principles, and standards. Because it is concerned with norms of human conduct,
ethics is considered a normative study of human actions.

Rules

• It refers to explicit or understood regulations or principles governing conduct within

a specific activity or sphere. (“Rule,” n.d.). Rules tell us what is do or not allowed
in a particular context or situation. It also serves as a foundation for any healthy
society.

The Importance of Rules to Social Beings

Rules protect social beings by regulating behavior. Rules build boundaries that place
limits on behavior. One of the reasons people follow accepted rules is to avoid negative
consequences.

Rules help to guarantee each person certain rights and freedom. Each person is
guaranteed certain rights as the government is limited in its power to ensure that it does
not become powerful enough to suppress liberty. Rules on divisions of power and checks
and balances further protect individual liberty.

Rules produce a sense of justice among social beings. Rules are needed to keep the
strong from dominating the weak, that is, to prevent exploitation and domination. In effect,
rules generate a stable system that provides justice, in which even the richest and most
powerful have limitations on what they can do. If they transgress rules and such laws and
ordinances and take advantage of people, there are consequences both socially and
criminally.

Rules are essential for a healthy economic system. Without rules regulating business,
power would centralize around monopolies and threaten the strength and
competitiveness of the system. Rules are needed to ensure product safety, employee
safety, and product quality.
Morality- Refers to the standards that a person or a group has about what is right and
wrong, or good and evil.

Moral standards are those concerned with or relating to human behavior, especially the
distinction between good and bad (or right and wrong) behavior. It involves the rules
people have about the kind of actions they believe are morally right and wrong, as well
as the values they place on the kinds of objects they believe is morally good and morally
bad.

Non Moral standards Refer to rules that are unrelated to moral or ethical considerations.
Either these standards are not necessarily linked to morality or by nature lack ethical
sense. Basic examples of non-moral standards include rules of etiquette, fashion
standards, rules in games, and various house rules. Technically, religious rules, some
traditions, and legal statutes (i.e. laws and ordinances) are non-moral principles, though
they can be ethically relevant depending on some factors and contexts.

Characteristics of moral standards

• Moral standards involve serious wrongs or significant benefits.

• Moral standards ought to be preferred to other values
• Moral standards are not established by authority figures
• Moral standards have the trait of universalizability
• Moral standards are based on impartial considerations.
• Moral standards are associated with special emotions and vocabulary

Dilemma-

• Refers to a situation in which a tough choice has to be made between two or more
options, especially more or less equally undesirable ones. Not all dilemmas are
moral dilemmas.
• Also called ‘ethical dilemmas,’ moral dilemmas are situations in which a difficult
choice has to be made between two courses of action, either of which entails
transgressing a moral principle. At the very least, a moral dilemma involves
conflicts between moral requirements.

Levels of moral dilemma

Personal dilemma are those experienced and resolved on a personal level. Since may
ethical decisions are personally made, many, if not most of, moral dilemmas fall under, or
boil down to, this level.

Organizational dilemma refer to ethical cases encountered and resolved by social

organizations. This category includes moral dilemmas in business, the medical field, and
the public sector.
Structural dilemma refer to cases involving a network of institutions and operative
theoretical paradigms.

Only humans can be ethical

• Only human beings are rational, autonomous, ad self-conscious.

• Only human beings can act morally or immorally.
• Only human beings are part of the moral community.

PART 1: THE MORAL AGENT LESSON 1: CULTURE IN BEHAVIOR

Culture

• The term Culture is so complex that it is not easy to define. In one sense, culture
is used to denote that which is related to the arts and humanities.
• Culture is the sum total of the learned behavior of a group of people that ar
generally considered to be the tradition of that people and are transmitted from
generation to generation.
• Culture in its broadest sense is cultivated behavior: that is the totality of person's
learned, accumulated experience which is socially transmitted, o more briefly,
behavior through social learning
• Culture is symbolic communication. Some of its symbols include a group skills,
knowledge, attitudes, values, and motives. The meanings of the symbols are
learned and deliberately perpetuated in a society through its institutions.
• A culture is a'way of life of a group of people, and this so-called 'way of life' Actually
includes moral values and behaviors, along with knowledge, beliefs, symbols that
they accept, "generally without thinking about them, and that are passed along by
communication and imitation from one generation to the next"

Convention also refers to the usual or customary ways through which things are done
within a group.

Cultural relativism is perhaps the most famous form of moral relativism, a theory in
ethics which holds that ethical judgments have their origins either in individual or cultural
standards.

Moral relativism fundamentally believes that no act is good or bad objectively, and there
is no single objective universal standard through which we can evaluate the truth of moral
judgments.
Filipino cultural morality, especially that which concerns social ethics, centers on ideally
having a smooth interpersonal relationship (SIR) with others. (1) 'pakikisama, (2) 'hiya.
(3) 'amor propio, (4)'utang na loob' (5) Filipino hospitality, and (6) respect for elders.

By universal values, we mean those values generally shared by cultures. The existence
of the so-called universal values is a strong proof that cultural relativism is wrong.
Lesson 2: The Moral Agent
Moral character refers to the existence or lack of virtues such as integrity courage,
fortitude, honesty, and loyalty. To say that a certain person has a good moral character
means that he/she is a good person and a good citizen with a sound moral compass.

The term "character" is derived from the Greek word 'charakter, which was initially used
as a mark impressed upon a coin. The word "character" later came to mean a distinct
mark by which one thing was distinguished from others, and then chiefly to mean the
assemblage of qualities that distinguish one person from another.

Greek philosopher Aristotle tells us that there are two distinct of human excellences, (1)
excellences of thought and (2) excellences of character. His phrase for excellences
of (mortal) character, ethikai aretal, is often translated as "moral virtue(s)" and "moral
excellence(s)." The Greek'éthikos' (ethical) is the adjective cognate with 'ethos'
(character).

character.

• A person's actions determine his/her moral character, but moral character itself
generates acts that help in developing either virtue or vice.
• Greek philosophers, especially Aristotle, emphasize that only a person of good
moral character can reliably judge what actions are appropriate in specific
situations, as moral decisions cannot be fully captured by fixed rules.
• Virtuous traits are stable qualities developed through learning and practice,
representing the highest expression of human reason and the fulfillment of human
life, according to Greek moralists.

Moral Character Traits:

• Virtues
• Vices
Problem with kohlbergs theory

•Lacks Ecological Validity

→ Moral dilemmas (like Heinz) are too artificial and

not realistic.
• Age of Respondents
→ Participants were 10–16 years old — too young

and inexperienced for complex moral issues like

marriage or death.

• Gender Bias
→ Based only on male participants; excludes female

perspective.

• Androcentric Morality
Part 2: Feelings and Moral decision making
Feelings are seen as also necessary in ethical judgment as they are even deemed by
some as instinctive and trained response to moral dilemmas.

Feelings and emotions, however, can become obstacles or impediments to becoming

ethical. This is the case especially when feelings' roles in ethics are misinterpreted or
exaggerated.

Ethical Subjectivism holds that the truth or falsity of ethical propositions is dependent
on the feelings, attitudes, or standards of a person or group of persons. Subjectivists hold
that there is no such thing as objective right or real wrong. Ethical Subjectivism suggests
that we are to identify our moral principles by simply following our feelings.

Emotivism is actually the most popular form of non- cognitivism, the meta-ethical theory
that claims that ethical sentences do not convey authentic propositions.

Moral judgments, according to Emotivism, are not statements of fact but are mere
expressions of the emotions of the speaker, especially since they are usually feelings-
based.
 LESSON 2: REASON AND IMPARTIALITY AS MINIMUM
REQUIREMENT FOR MORALITY
Reason is the basis or motive for an action, decision, or conviction. As a quality, it refers
to the capacity for logical, rational, and analytic thought.

Moral deliberation is a matter of weighing reasons and being guided by them.

Impartiality, on the other hand, involves the idea that each individual's interests and point
of view are equally important. Also called evenhandedness or fair-mindedness.
The principle of impartiality assumes that every person, generally speaking, is equally
important; that is, no one is seen as intrinsically more significant than anyone else.

THE 7-STEP MORAL REASONING MODEL

A model for making ethical decisions proposed by Scott B. Rae, Ph.D, a contemporary
author, wherein it introduces the use of reason and impartiality in deciding on moral
matters.
1.Gather the Facts - the indispensable first step prior to any ethical analysis and
reflection on the case.

2.Determine the Ethical Issues - the moral issues should be correctly stated in terms of
competing interests. It is these conflicting interests that practically make for a moral
dilemma.

3.Identify the Principles that Have a Bearing on the Case - in any moral dilemma,
there are sure moral values or principles that are vital to the rival positions being taken.
4. List the Alternatives - this step involves coming up with various alternative courses of
action as part of the creative thinking included in resolving a moral dilemma.

5. Compare the Alternatives with the Principles - involves eliminating alternatives

according to the moral principles that have a bearing on the case.

6. Weigh the Consequences - if the principles do not produce a clear decision, then a
consideration of the consequences of the remaining available alternatives is in order.

7. Make a Decision
Lesson 3: Moral Courage
MORAL COURAGE means “doing the right thing even at the risk of inconvenience,
ridicule, punishment, loss of job or security or social status, etc.

‘WILL’ refers to that faculty of the mind which chooses, at the moment of making decision,
the strongest desire from among the various desire present. “Will does not refer to any
particular desire, but rather to the capacity toact decisively on one’s desires.
Arthur Schopenhauer. German Philosopher, provided profound insights into the nature
of will. He suggested that when we become conscious of ourselves, we recognize our
essential qualities as endless urging, craving, and desiring. Schopenhauer believed that
will is the innermost essence of every being and force in nature. It drives us to seek
satisfaction for our cravings and desires. This perspective emphasizes that our will is not
just a personal attribute but a fundamental aspect of existence itself.

Will power which refers to the inner strength to make decisions and take actions despite
facing resistance or discomfort. Will power is crucial for overcoming obstacles such as
laziness, temptations, and negative habits. It allows us to carry out actions even when
they are challenging or unpleasant.

a. Develop and practice self-discipline

One way to develop moral courage and will is to develop and practice self-
discipline. The concept self-discipline involves the rejection of instant gratification
in favor of something better. Developing will and moral courage involves
developing self-control. It includes nurturing the ability to stick to actions, thoughts,
and behavior, which lead to moral improvement and success.
b. Do mental strength training.
This method is never reserved for a few special people. One of the most simple
and effective methods under this mental strength training involves declining to
satisfy unimportant and unnecessary desires.
c. Draw inspiration from people of great courage.
These include people in all walks of life, who with sheer will power and moral
courage, overcame difficulties and hardships, have improved their moral life,
advanced on the spiritual or moral path, and became worthy of imitation.
d. Repeatedly do acts that exhibit moral courage and will.
e. Avoid deeds that show lack of moral courage and will.
This involves evading acts that show irresponsibility, cowardice, apathy,
rashness, imprudence, ill will, and wickedness.
 Part III: Frameworks and Principles behind our Moral
Disposition
Lesson 1: Basic Theories as Frameworks in Ethics
Framework - The term 'framework' can be defined as a basic structure underlying a
system or concept. Contextually in Ethics, it refers to " a set of assumptions, concepts,
values, and practices that constitutes a way of viewing reality" ("Framework, "n.d.). With
this definition, a framework is pretty much like a worldview or a held theory.

1. Meta-ethics is the branch of ethics that studies the nature of morality. As such, it talks
about the meaning, reference, and truth values of moral judgments. It also explains what
goodness and wickedness mean and how we know about them. Studying the methods
for choosing ethical principles and doing normative ethics can be said to be part of this
more basic branch of moral philosophy.

Cognitivism states that moral judgments convey propositions, that is, they are 'truth
bearers' or they are either true or false. Most ethical theories are cognitivist as they
contend that right and wrong are matters of fact. The most famous forms of cognitive
ethics are the moral realism and the ethical subjectivism.

Moral realism claims that the existence of moral facts and the truth (or falsity) of moral
judgments are independent of people's thoughts and perceptions. It maintains that
morality is about objective facts, that is, not facts about any person or group's subjective
judgment.

Ethical subjectivism, on the other hand, holds that the truth (or falsity) of ethical
propositions are dependent on the attitudes or standards of a person or group of persons.
Subjectivism is obviously contrary to moral realism.

Non-cognitivism denies that moral judgments are either true or false It claims that ethical
sentences do not convey authentic propositions, hence are neither true nor false.

Emotivism is the most popular form of non-cognitivist theory, It submits that moral
judgments are mere expressions of our emotions and feelings,

Moral universalism theorizes that moral facts and principles apply to everybody in all
places. Also called moral objectivism, it claims that a universal ethic exists and that
applies to all similarly situated people, regardless of nationality, citizenship, culture, race,
gender, sexual preference, religion, or any other differentiating factor.

Moral relativism, on the other hand, submits different moral facts and principles apply to
different persons or group of individuals. Believing that various cultures have distinct-
standards of right and wrong also maintains- that ethical standards also change over time
even in the same culture.

Moral empiricism is a meta ethical stance which states that moral facts are known
through observation and experience.

Moral Rationalism Contends that moral facts and principles are knowable a priori, that
is, by reason alone and without reference to experience.

Moral Intuitionism Submits that moral truths are knowable by intuition that is, by
immediate instinctive knowledge without reference to any evidence

2. Normative Ethics is the branch of ethics that studies how man ought to act, morally
speaking. This branch evaluates standards for the rightness and wrongness of actions
and determines a moral course of action.

Deontology - An ethical system that bases morality on independent moral rules or duties.
- The term came from the Greek word deon which means “duty”, implying the
foundational nature of man’s duties or obligations.
- Also called nonconsequentialism, the system’s principles are submitted as
obligatory, regardless of the consequences that actions might produce

Teleology - Refers to moral system that determines the moral value of actions by their
outcomes or results

- From the greek word ‘telos’ which means ‘end’, teleology takes into account the
end result of the action as the exclusive consideration of its morality
- Teleology deems an action as morally right if its favorable consequences are
greater than its adverse outcomes.

Virtue Ethics - As a moral system, places emphasis on developing good habits of

character, like kindness and generosity, and avoiding bad character traits, or vices, such
as greed or hatred
Applied Ethics philosophically examines specific, controversial moral issues. Using
philosophical methods, this area of concern in Ethics attempts to determine the ethically
correct course of action in specific realms of human action.

Applied ethical issues nowadays are classified into various subfields:

• Bioethics - This concerns ethical issues pertaining to life, biomedical researches,

medicines, health care, and medical profession.
• Environmental Ethics - It deals with moral issues concerning nature, ecosystem,
and its non human contents.
• Business Ethics - It examines moral principles concerning business environment
which involves issues about corporate practices, policies, business behaviors, and
the conducts and relationships of individuals in the organizations.
• Sexual Ethics - It studies moral issues about sexuality and human sexual
behavior.
• Social Ethics - It deals with what is right for a society to do and how it should act
as a whole.
Lesson 2: Virtue Ethics
Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle were influential Greek philosophers from ancient times who
played a major role in shaping Western philosophy.

Virtue Ethics - is a branch of moral philosophy that focuses on a person’s character

rather than the rules or consequences of actions. It says that an action is morally right if
a virtuous person would do the same in that situation. A virtuous person is someone who
consistently shows positive moral traits, or virtues.

- asks, “What kind of person should I be?” It emphasizes forming good habits,
avoiding bad traits (called vices), and becoming someone with moral excellence.

Socrates and Plato’s Moral Philosophy

Socrates

- argues that pleasure and pain cannot be reliable standards for morality because
they are often experienced together. In contrast, good and evil are clearly distinct,
which makes them a better foundation for moral judgment.
- asks whether something is good because the gods love it, or whether the gods
love it because it is good. His point is that goodness exists independently of the
gods’ preferences. Socrates believed that objective moral standards exist, even if
they are difficult to define.

Plato

- Plato’s philosophy is the Theory of Forms — the idea that non-material, perfect
versions (or “Forms”) of everything exist. Physical things are only reflections of
these perfect Forms. For example a round object is considered a circle only
because it resembles the perfect Form of “circularity.”
- also believed that there are Forms for moral values like justice and happiness. The
highest of all Forms is the Form of the Good. According to him, people who truly
understand the Good will always act morally. Bad actions result from ignorance of
what is truly good.
Aristotle Ethics

Aristotle’s main works on morality are the Eudemian Ethics and the Nicomachean Ethics,
though the latter is more widely studied and recognized. His ethical philosophy can be
described in three connected ways:

• Self-realizationism
• Eudaimonistic
 • Aretaic

Aristotle’s Telos
Aristotle’s concept of telos means the “end” or “purpose” of something. Unlike Plato,
Aristotle believes that the essence of a being lies not in a separate realm of Forms, but in
its final purpose or potential. For example, the telos of an acorn is to become an oak tree.

become an oak tree.

For humans, Aristotle argues that our telos is rationality, and the highest fulfillment of this
is through a life of contemplation (philosophy). In his Nicomachean Ethics, he states that
all humans seek happiness, but true happiness is found in living according to our
purpose—using reason to develop moral and intellectual virtues like courage, justice,

Happiness and Virtues.

Aristotle believes that the ultimate human goal is self- realization. This entails achieving
one's natural purpose by functioning or living consistently with human nature.
Accomplishing it, in turn, produces happiness; whereas inability to realize it leads to
sadness, frustration, and ultimately to poor life. It therefore behooves us to act in
accordance with our nature so as to be content and complete. In detail, what does
Aristotle mean by human nature?

Aristotle identifies three natures of man:

• the vegetable or physical

• animal or emotional, and
• rational or mental

Self-realization - the awareness of our nature and the development of our potentials-is
the key to human happiness.

Ethics, for Aristotle, is the inquiry into the human good. This is to say that the purpose of
studying ethics is to make ourselves good, though Aristotle assumes that we already want
to become good. This human good is eudaimonia or happiness.

Aristotle's View on Happiness

• Wisdom seeks self-sufficient, final, and attainable end.

• Happiness is considered the summum bonum, the greatest good of all life.
 • Happiness is the only intrinsic good pursued for its own sake.
• Happiness is the ultimate goal, surpassing pleasure, wealth, and honor.

Virtue as Habit.

Aristotle's idea of happiness should also be understood in the sense of human

flourishing. This flourishing is attained by the habitual practice of moral and intellectual
excellences, or 'virtues'.

Aristotle's Definition of Moral Virtue

• 'Hexis' refers to an active state or condition that must hold itself.

• Virtue manifests in action, where a person holds a stable equilibrium of the soul.
• This equilibrium constitutes character.

Virtues and the Golden Mean.

Virtue refers to an excellence of moral or intellectual character. As mentioned earlier,

Aristotle distinguishes two kinds of virtue: virtues of intellect and moral virtues. The first
corresponds to the fully rational part of the soul, the intellect; the second pertains to
the part of the rational soul which can 'obey reason'. Moral virtue is an expression of
character, formed by habits reflecting repeated choices, hence is also called virtue of
character.
Excess and defect normally indicate a vice. Virtue lies neither in the vice of deficiency nor
in the vice of excess but in the middle ground. Thus, moral virtue is the golden mean
between the two less desirable extremes.

Aristotle mentions four basic moral virtues:

Courage - is the golden mean between cowardice (deficiency) and tactless rashness
(excess). The coward has too little bravery, the reckless individual has too much, and the
courageous shows just the proper amount of bravery.

Temperance - is the mean between gluttony (excess) and extreme frugality

(deficiency). Both overindulgence and denying oneself of bodily pleasures make one
less happy; whereas practicing temperance makes one virtuous and fulfilled. This directly
exemplifies the connection between being happy and being virtuous.
Justice - Justice is the virtue of giving others right what they deserve, neither more
nor less.
Prudence - what helps us to know what is just or reasonable in various circumstances,
enabling us to keep away from excess and defect is the moral virtue called PRUDENCE
or called PRUDENCE or wisdom.

'Phronesis' and Practice.

The phronesis, the intellectual virtue of practical wisdom, is that kind of moral knowledge
which guides us to what is appropriate in conjunction with moral virtue.

An Evaluation of the Greek Philosophers' Ethical Theories

• To begin with, we can say that Socrates and Plato, based on their ethical theory,
advocate a positive view of man. Their philosophy implies that human beings who
behave immorally do so out of ignorance of the Good. All vice therefore is the result
of lack of knowledge, and that no person is willingly bad.
• Obviously, being moral, virtuous, and just is equated with being knowledgeable of
the Good, as it is claimed that those who know the right will act rightly. In addition,
morality is essentially linked to happiness. A just person is said to have a proper
balance among the rational, spirited, and appetitive aspects of his soul.
Thomas Aquinas' Ethics

Also called the Angelic Doctor and the Prince of Scholastics, Thomas Aquinas (1225-
1274) is an Italian philosopher and theologian who ranks among the most important
thinkers of the medieval time period.

In Ethics, Aquinas depends so heavily on Aristotle. Like the Greek philosopher, Aquinas
believes that all actions are directed towards ends and that happiness is the final
end. Aquinas thinks that happiness consists in activities in accordance with virtue. True
happiness, then, is to be found

The Natural Law. Central also in Aquinas ethics is his typology of laws. By the term 'law,'
he means an ordinance of reason for the common good, promulgated by someone who
has care of the community. Obedience to the law is thus viewed also as participating in
or being in conformity with the pattern or form. For Aquinas, there are four primary types
of law the eternal, natural, human, and divine.

• Eternal law refers to the rational plan of God by which all creation is ordered.
• Natural law is that aspect of the eternal law which is accessible to human reason.
• Human law refers to the positive laws.
 • Divine law serves to complement the other types of law. It is a law of revelation,
disclosed through sacred text or Scriptures and the Church which is also directed
toward man's eternal end.

Features of Human Actions

Species (the act itself): An action's inherent nature determines its morality. Only actions
that are good or at least neutral in their fundamental nature are morally acceptable.

Accidents (circumstances): The context surrounding an action matters. Even a good

action can be morally flawed if performed in inappropriate circumstances (e.g., publicly
declaring faith in a hostile environment).

End (intention): The agent's intention is crucial. A bad intention can spoil a good act,
while a good intention cannot justify a bad one. A virtuous intention is necessary for moral
action.

Happiness, Moral Virtues and Theological Virtues

• Happiness: Aquinas believes that all actions aim towards an end, with happiness
being the ultimate goal. He distinguishes happiness from mere pleasure,
possessions, or sensual gratification. True happiness comes from virtuous
activities.
• Moral Virtues: These are good habits that dispose individuals to act virtuously.
They are acquired through consistent effort and practice.
• Theological Virtues: These virtues (faith, hope, and love) are directly related to
God and are considered divine gifts, not acquired through human effort. They
orient the individual towards their ultimate end – union with God Aquinas
differentiates between acquired (developed through effort) and infused

An Analysis of Thomistic Ethics

• Holistic Approach: Aquinas considers various aspects of an action (internal

will, external act, nature of the act, consequences, and intention) when evaluating
its morality.
• Deontological and Consequentialist Elements: While not strictly fitting into
contemporary categories, Aquinas's ethics exhibit both deontological (duty-based)
and consequentialist (outcome-based) elements. His emphasis on the intrinsic
 nature of actions leans towards deontology, while the consideration of
consequences suggests a consequentialist influence.
• Virtue Ethics: Aquinas is a virtue ethicist, emphasizing the role of virtues

An Analysis of Thomistic Ethics

Comparison with Augustine: Aquinas shares similarities with Augustine but diverges in
his view of the world. Unlike Augustine's depiction of a sin-laden and disordered world,
Aquinas, following Aristotle, portrays the world as rational, humane, and ordered. He also
allows for the pursuit of earthly happiness, but subordinates it to the ultimate goal of
everlasting happiness in heaven.

Aquinas's Rejection of Certain Moral Philosophies

Aquinas's belief in natural law places him in opposition to several contemporary moral
philosophies:

• Nihilism: He rejects the denial of objective moral values.

• Relativism and Conventionalism: He opposes the view that moral values are
solely determined by culture or convention.
• Absolute Skepticism: He believes that fundamental moral principles are
knowable.
Lesson 3: Kant and Rights Theory
Immanuel Kant (1724 – 1804) - is a German thinker regarded by many as the most
significant philosopher in the modern era. His major contributions to Ethics can be found
in his two works:

The Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals & The Critique of Practical Reason.

The Kantian Ethics

- Kant categorically rejects that ethical judgments are based on feelings. For him,
feelings even serve as obstructions to our discernment of right and wrong. His
ethical theory instead bases moral judgments on reason alone. Reason, for him,
is what deems an action ethical or otherwise.

The Good Will

“the highest good and the condition of all other goods” - I.M

- Kant believes that when we wish to determine the moral status of an action, we
consult reason. An act either accords with reason or it does not. If it accords with
reason, we must do it, if not, we must avoid it.
- Kant teaches that only good will is intrisically good. That is, it is the only thing which
is good without qualification.
- Kant does not agree with many ethicists that happiness is the summum bonum or
the highest good. Happiness, for him, can be corrupting and may be worthless or
even positively evil when not combined with a good will.

Inclination

- refers to the feeling that pushes us to select a particular option or make a particular
decision. It is our liking or tendency to do, favor, or want something. A duty or
obligation, on the other hand, is that which we ought to do despite our inclination
or 'taste' to do otherwise.

Action on Impulse – Based on feelings, not consistent

Action on Maxim – Based on rule or duty, consistent in all cases

Maxim

- is a general rule or principle which serves as a guide to action. "Be honest always";
"Don't always shoot the ball when you get it"; "Don't wear the wedding gown before
the wedding"; and "When in doubt, render a salute" are examples of maxim.
Evidently, not all maxims are moral ones.
- In Ethics, Kant is concerned with maxims that are moral, that is, those dictated by
reason and thus have imperative force.

The Types of Maxims

Hypothetical

- The term “hypothetical” means that something is true only under certain conditions,
and not necessarily in all situations.
- A hypothetical imperative is a rule that tells a person what to do if they want to
achieve a particular goal. There are many different hypothetical imperatives
because individuals set different goals for themselves.
- For example, if one’s goal is to pass an exam, a rule such as “Study hard” would
apply. This is a hypothetical imperative because it only holds if the person wants
to pass the exam.

Categorical
- This rule applies to everyone, in every situation, regardless of their personal goals.
It commands an individual to act in a certain way not because it helps achieve a
desired result, but simply because it is the morally right thing to do.
- means acting in a way that is morally correct. It serves as a moral standard that
helps individuals determine whether an action is ethical. It is based entirely on
reason, and not influenced by personal desires, emotions, or preferences.
- Example: If someone finds a lost wallet on the ground, the categorical imperative
would instruct them to return it—not because they hope to receive a reward, but
because returning what is not yours is the right thing to do. Even if no one is
watching, or there is no benefit to returning it, the action remains morally required.

Kants’ Formulation of Categorical Imperative

The most well-known is the “universalizability” formulation, which states: “Act only on
that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal
law.”
This means we should only act according to principles that we believe everyone else
should also follow in similar situations.

Another well-known version is the “end-in-itself” formulation, which states: “So act as to
use humanity, both in your own person and in the person of every other, always at the
same time as an end, never simply as a means.”

This version emphasizes respecting every person as a valuable individual—not merely

as a tool for our own personal gain. We must treat people with dignity and never exploit
them.

Kant’s Rights Theory

• In legal and political philosophy, Kant introduced the principle of rights. He

recognized the relationship—but also the distinction—between the intention of a
law and its enforcement.
• According to Kant, governments are given the power to make laws by thepeople
they govern. In return, governments have the duty to protect citizens and uphold
their freedoms. Therefore, laws that are cruel or oppressive violate the trust and
freedom citizens are entitled to.

What is Right-Based Ethics?

Kant’s rights theory is part of a broader framework called rights-based ethics, which
argues that all human beings possess certain basic rights simply because they are
human.

These rights can be divided into:

• Natural rights: Moral rights that exist by nature.

• Conventional rights: Rights created by humans, reflecting the values of society.

Legal Rights - are those that are found within written laws or legal codes. They are
officially recognized and protected by the government. Whether a legal right exists can
be confirmed by checking the relevant laws or legislation.
Moral rights - exist independently of legal systems. Their existence does not depend on
whether lawmakers or judges acknowledge them. These rights are based on ethical
reasoning and are believed to exist prior to and apart from legal recognition.
Lesson 4: UTILITARIANISM
Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) and John Stuart Mill (1808-73) are British philosophers
who had immense impact on British thought.\

Bentham was the head of a group of reformers called "the philosophical radicals, "
whose members included James Mill and his son, John Stuart Mill. Bentham and the
younger Mill are considered the main proponents of the moral theory called Utilitarianism.

Utilitarianism is known as a consequentialist theory, a subclass of teleological moral

theory. A teleological ethical system judges the rightness of an act in terms of an external
goal or purpose. Its basis in the determination of what one ought (or ought not) to do rests
exclusively on the consequences of the act, not the nature of the act nor the traditional
moral rules. Derived from Latin utilis = useful. States that what is useful is good, and that
the moral value of actions are determined by the utility of its consequences.
In general, it puts forward that an action is right if it amplifies pleasures and minimizes
pain. The principle of utility can be applied to either particular actions or general rules.
The former is usually called 'act-utilitarianism' and the latter, 'rule-utilitarianism’

In Act Utilitarianism, the principle of utility is applied directly to every alternative act in a
situation of choice. The right act is then defined as the one which brings about the best
results, or, the least amount of bad results.

In Rule Utilitarianism, the principle of utility is used to decide the validity of rules of
conduct (moral standards or principles). A moral rule such as promise-keeping is
established by evaluating the consequences of a world in which people broke promises
at will and a world in which promises were binding. Moral and immoral are then defined
as following or breaking those rules.

Consequentialism

Consequentialist ethics proposes that actions, rules, or policies should be ethically

measured and evaluated by their consequences, not by the intentions or motives of the
agent.
Absolutism

Absolutists holds that some actions are intrinsically wrong and must never be done no
matter what theresults are. Absolutists believe in a natural law or in natural rights which
render some acts-those which violate those rights or conflict with that law-as immoral, no
matter what their outcomes are.
Jeremy Bentham founded the doctrine of utilitarianism but John Stuart Mill later
systematized and modified it.

Jeremy Bentham proposed the primary form of utilitarianism in his Introduction to the
Principles of Morals and Legislation (1789). He confessed nonetheless that he took over
the principle of utility from David Hume.

BENTHAM’S UTILITARIANISM

Utility- It means that property in any object, whereby it tends to produce benefit,
advantage, pleasure, good, or happiness or to prevent the happening of mischief, pain,
evil, or unhappiness.

Principle of Utility. It states that an action is right insofar as it tends to produce the
greatest happiness for the greatest number. This dogma thus considers the advancement
of the greatest happiness for the greatest number as the supreme objective of human
action.

The principle of utility is the objective standard for evaluating human actions, laws, and
legal systems — not natural law, natural rights, or social contracts.

People act based on self-interest, This should be understood in terms of pleasure and
pain, as people naturally seek pleasure and avoid pain. Pleasure and pain are 'two
sovereign masters' under which nature has placed mankind. These two concepts define
the scope and limit of

Bentham’s ethical system.

Nothing else but pleasure is intrinsically good.

Bentham identifies four sources of pleasure:

1. Physical
2 Moral

3. Religious

4. Political

The physical source, for him, is the basis of all the others. Giving emphasis on only one
kind of pleasure, Bentham gives no importance to the quality of pleasures.
 • Bentham is known as a quantitative hedonist or quantitative utilitarian.
• He developed the ‘hedonic calculus’ to to calculate the quantitative worth of
pleasures.
• The method has seven criteria or ingredients that allow one to quantify the amount
of pleasure or pain an action brings about.
• Seven criteria of the hedonic calculus: (1) intensity, (2) duration, (3) certainty,
(4) propinquity (or remoteness), (5) fecundity (or fruitfulness), (6) purity, and
(7) extent to which pleasure and pain are shared among the greatest number of
people.
Bentham: Moral Value of an Action

• Utilitarianism determines the moral value of an act by calculating the sum of

pleasure it caused, and the amount of pain generated..
• A moral deed is that which maximizes benefits and minimizes damages or
costs.
• The most moral action is the one that provides the greatest net benefit, after
subtracting projected costs from anticipated benefits

Bentham on Justice and Punishment

• Bentham rejects the retributive principle — the idea that someone who causes
harm must also suffer harm
• Believes that punishing for revenge only increases the amount of evil in society
• Punishment is justified only if it serves as a deterrent to prevent future harm
• The goal of punishment is to reduce future wrongdoing, not to seek revenge

MILL’S UTILITARIANISM

• John Stuart Mill is the most famous proponent of utilitarianism after Bentham
• He made the doctrine the subject of his philosophical treatise (Utilitarianism)
published in 1863.
• Like Bentham, he advocates 'the greatest happiness principle' which states that
it is the greatest happiness of the greatest number that is the measure of right and
wrong.

Mill Vs. Bentham

1. Mill rejects the purely quantitative treatment of the principle of utility.
2. He introduces the so-called secondary principles' which set the tone for a
contemporary variant form of the theory called rule utilitarianism. Concerning the first
point, Mill distinguished between higher and lower pleasures.

In response to the criticism that utilitarianism reduces humans to seekers of mere

pleasure and pain, Mill cites Epicurus (341-270 B.C.) who explained that while the good
or happy life is the life of pleasure, it does not mean only sensual pleasure.

Lower Pleasure

• Physical pleasures belong to the lower pleasures or those which animals, too,
can experience, such as those from food, drink, and sex.
• Believing that some pleasures are intrinsically superior to others, Mill famously
declared,
• "It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be
Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied."
Higher Pleasures

It basically means intellectual, which includes artistic, political, and even spiritual
pleasures. These more desirable and more valuable pleasures are exclusive to
humans.

Examples: the pleasures that accompany reading a good novel or poetry, listening to
music, enjoying visual arts, meditating on nature or the cosmos, and solving a complex
scientific or mathematical problem.

• Mill does not exclude lower pleasures from a happy life

• As a qualitative hedonist, he believes in distinguishing between types of
pleasure
• For him, happiness made up mainly of higher pleasures is deeper, truer, and
more valuable
• In ethics, Mill purports that 'happiness' and 'unhappiness' are the basis for
good and evil. While 'pleasure' and 'pain' are significant matters, they are only
the basic minimum.
Mill secondary principle

He believes that past experiences teach us which kinds of action promote happiness
and which do not. These principles, which are based on the history of human expérience,
would save us from doing taxing utilitarian calculations every time we act.

Secondary principles serve as practical rules, giving knowledge about the tendencies
of actions when no better information is available. This does not mean however that the
actions are justified by these practical rules— it's the consequences manifested in past
experiences which validate them.

Analysis

• Utilitarianism, by Bentham and Mill, evaluates actions based on their

consequences, unlike Kantian ethics which focuses on motives.
• It is appealing because it is based on pleasure and pain, uses observable
evidence, and encourages actions that improve life on earth. It also allows
exceptions to rules if they result in the greatest happiness.
• However, it is criticized for being impractical, as it hard to predict all consequences
and compute effects on everyone affected. It may also overlook long-term
consequences if only immediateoutcomes are considered.
• Mill introduced secondary principles (practical rules based on experience) to
guide actions, but this raises if they do not produce good outcomes.
• Finally, utilitarianism can justify immoral actions (like cheating) if they produce
favorable results and may ignore motives, leading to ethical problems.

BUSINESS’ FASCINATION WITH UTILITARIANISM

• Utilitarianism, which seeks the greatest good for the greatest number, is widely
applied in business ethics. It defines "good" as the net benefits to all affected
parties, requiring decisions to be evaluated by weighing the benefits and harms of
each alternative action, considering all stakeholders.
• Act utilitarianism evaluates specific actions based on whether they produce more
good than harm.
• Utilitarianism accepts that not everyone will benefit from a decision, focusing on
net utility despite potential "win-lose" situations, such as gaining market share
at a competitor’s expense or sacrificing short- term profits for long-term gains.
• Finally, utilitarianism’s flexibility makes it attractive to managers, as it can adapt to
short-term or long-term goals and financial or non-financial factors, allowing them
to prioritize shareholder profitability while considering other stakeholder
interests.
Lesson 5: Justice and Fairness
American political philosopher Rawls (1921-2002)

• Most important political philosopher of the 20th century.

• Rawls rejects utilitarianism and offers a number of arguments against such a
theory.
• He argues that utilitarian thinking cannot absolutely exclude systems such as
slavery or racial segregation as there is nothing in the moral theory to dismiss them
from consideration.

RAWLS’ ‘JUSTICE AS FAIRNESS’

• Rawls is said to somewhat used the elements of both Kantian and utilitarian
philosophy in describing a method for the moral evaluation of social and political
institutions. He called his concept of social justice 'Justice as Fairness' which
consists of two principles. Since Rawls first published his classic work A Theory of
Justice, he changed the wording of these principles numerous times. In 2001, he
published his last version.

1.1 RAWLS’ TWO PRINCIPLES

1. Liberty Principle

"Each person has the same and indefeasible [permanent] claim to a fully adequate
scheme of equal basic liberties, which scheme is compatible with the same scheme of
liberties for all."

• This means that everybody has the same basic liberties which can never be taken
away. This first principle is very Kantian in that it provides for basic and universal
respect for individuals as a minimum standard for all just institutions.
• Rawls’ agreed that basic liberties could be limited, but only for the sake of liberty.
Hence, restricting the liberties of an intolerant group that aims to harm the liberties
of others may be justified

2. Fair Equality Of Opportunity and the Difference Principle

"Social and economic inequalities are to satisfy two conditions: (1) first, they are to be
attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity;
and (2) second, they are to be to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged members
of society (the 'Difference Principle')."
 • While focused on equality, the Second Principle recognizes that a society could
not avoid inequalities among its people. Rawls maintained that a just society ought
to find ways to lessen inequalities in areas where it can function
• He proposed that these jobs must be 'open' to everybody by the society granting
fair equality of opportunity. Society should eradicate discrimination and afford
everybody easy access to education.
• Rawls preferred maximizing the improvement of the 'least advantaged' group in
society. He suggested providing 'fair equality of opportunity' and other possible
ways such as a guaranteed minimum income or minimum wage.

Rawls ranked his principles of social justice according to his supposed order of their
priority:

• The First Principle (basic liberties) holds priority over the Second Principle.
• Fair equality of opportunity holds priority over the Difference Principle

1.2 The ‘Thought Experiment’.

• Rawls’ proposed that unless institutions such as the constitution, economy, and
education system functioned in a just way for all, social justice would not truly
exist in a society.
• Rawls revived the concept of 'social contract' developed by philosophers like
John Locke and Jean Jacques Rousseau.
• This social contract concept was subscribed to by Thomas Jefferson in writing
the Declaration of Independence

• Most political scientists however had dismissed the social contract as an old
fashioned myth by the 20th century. Aiming to revive the concept, Rawls devised
a hypothetical version of the social contract. It is now known as Rawls' 'thought
experiment,' (though Rawls himself called it the 'Original Position)
• The 'thought experiment' was not a real assembly of real people, negotiating over
a contract. Instead, it was just an imagined gathering held under strict conditions
that allowed persons to deliberate, only by employing their reason and logic. Their
mission was to assess principles of social justice and select the best ones. Their
decision would be compulsory on their society forever
Veil of Ignorance

• Taking into account the value of impartiality, Rawls added a condition to assure
that the choice of social justice principles would truly be unbiased.
• The individuals in this mental exercise had to pick their justice principles under a
‘veil of ignorance’.
• Rawls contended that only under a ‘veil of ignorance’ could people reach a fair and
impartial contract as true equals not prejudiced by their place in society.
• Under the ‘veil of ignorance,’ these fictional persons would not know their own sex,
age, race, or social class.

Primary goods and Justice choices

• Rawls set up his ‘thought experiment’ with many given systems of social justice
principles from which the imaginary participants would select for their own society.
• Rawls was mostly interested to find out what choice the group would make
between his own ‘Justice as Fairness’ concept and another called ‘Average
Utility.’
• Utilizing reason and logic, the fictional individuals would first have to resolve what
most persons in most societies want.
• Rawls argued that rational human beings would pick four things, which he called
the ‘primary goods:

1. WEALTH AND INCOME

2. RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES

3. OPPORTUNITIES FOR ADVANCEMENT

4. SELF-RESPECT

Maximin Rule and Justice for the least advantaged

• Designing social, economic, and political institutions that favored the ‘most
advantaged’ society members would obviously not be justice for all.
• Equal rights and liberties, opportunities, and self-respect for all would be fair.
• Rawls was certain that the participants would sensibly conclude that some, but not
extreme, inequality of wealth and income is required in a just society
• Rawls contended that the imaginary group members would adopt what
philosophers call the ‘maximum-minimum’ (or ‘maximin’) rule
Maximin Rule and Justice for the least advantaged

• Rawls also held that the persons in his experiment would logically select principles
of social justice that maximized benefits for the ‘least advantaged.’
• It is in this way that Rawls believed that he had demonstrated that his Justice as
Fairness principles, tilted toward the ‘least advantaged,’ were the best for forming
or restructuring institutions for a just society

2. An Evaluation of Rawls’ Principles

• One of the criticisms against Rawls: Justice as Fairness principles is that they do
not allow ample tolerance for various religious and intensely held beliefs.
• Others find controversial, if not downright unacceptable, Rawls' Difference
Principle, the idea that the greatest benefit must go to the least advantaged.
• Rawls himself admitted that his concept for a just society was highly idealized. He
also acknowledged that currently, there is just a little support for his Difference
Principle in our public culture.

3. DISTRIBUTIVE JUSTICE

• Rawls' 'Justice as Fairness' principles is an example of a social justice concept

called distributive justice.
• This concept basically concerns the nature of a socially just allocation of goods in
a society
If incidental inequalities in outcome do not arise, then the principles of distributive justice
is said to exist in a society. Distributive justice includes the available quantities of goods,
the process by which goods are distributed, and the subsequent allocation of the goods
to society members.

A norm is the standard of behavior that is required, desired, or designated as normal

within a specific group.

Distributive justice is said to have occurred if rewards and costs are allocated according
to the designated distributive norms of the group

Common Types of Distributive Justice

a. Equity: Members' outcomes should be based upon their inputs. Therefore, an

individual who has invested a large amount of input (e.g. time, money, energy) should
receive more from the group than someone who has contributed very little. Members of
large groups prefer to base allocations of rewards and costs on equity.
b. Equality: Regardless of their inputs, all group members should be given an equal share
of the rewards/costs. Equality supports that someone who contributes 20% of the group's
resources should receive as much as someone who contributes 60%.

c. Power: Those with more authority, status, or control over the group should receive
more than those in lower level positions.

d. Need: Those in greatest needs should be provided with resources needed to meet
those needs. These individuals should be given more resources than those who already
possess them, regardless of their input.

e. Responsibility: Group members who have the most should share their resources with
those who have less

Distributive justice, in social psychology, is defined as perceived fairness of how rewards

and costs are shared by, or distributed across, group members.

John Rawls’ theory of justice exhibits a simple idea, that is, that the concern of distributive
justice is to compensate persons for misfortune. For him, it demands that the lucky ought
to allocate some or all of their gains due to luck to the unlucky.
Socio-economic-political Theories

3.1 Egalitarian. is a set of closely related socio economic-political theories that without
exemption promote the proposition that all society members ought to have exactly equal
amount of resources.

Simpler egalitarian theories are satisfied with the view that everybody should be given, at
all costs, completely equal quantity of some basic material goods, like money.

Rawls’ ‘Justice as Fairness’ principle is often called ‘Rawlsian egalitarianism

3.2 Capitalist. Laissez-faire capitalist distributive justice is when people, businesses,

and corporations perform based on their individual self-interest for their own benefit.
For Rawls, pure laissez-faire capitalism is also unjust, because it tends to generate an
unfair distribution of wealth and income concentrated in the hands of a few.

According to Rawls, a just society would be a 'property owning democracy' in which

ownership of the means of production is broadly distributed and those who are worst off
are affluent enough to be economically independent

3.3 Socialist. State socialist distributive justice is a system where the government or a
central authority controls the production of goods and services. From 1918 to 1989, the
former Soviet Union practiced this state socialism. India also illustrated this system from
independence from the British in 1947 to the early 1990s.

Perhaps a better version of a socialist distributive justice is that of democratic socialism.

Also called 'welfare democracy, democratic socialist distributive justice has a system of
social insurance to help disadvantaged persons. European democratic socialist countries
like Denmark, Sweden, and The Netherlands practice this system. Japan also implements
this principle of distributive justice.

4. State and Citizens Responsibility

• Taxation is a means by which the state and its citizens accomplish their
responsibilities to each other. By definition, taxation is a means by which states or
governments finance their expenditure, basically and ideally for constituents, by
imposing charges on them and corporate entities.
• Government expenditures fundamentally involve social welfare programs for
citizens.
• This relationship between taxes and social welfare programs drives the proposition
that taxes are essentially 'socialist.' By 'socialist' in that context, however, we do
not mean the socialism of Soviet Russia or China under Chairman Mao Zedong
(Mao Tse Tung), that type of socialism in which the state owns and controls all
means of production (i.e. all industry) and where there is no such thing as private
property. (That form of socialism has communism as its ultimate ideal.)
• Instead, we mean the democratic socialism practiced in many Western European
countries as previously explained.
• Democratic socialism works hand-in-hand with capitalism, free markets, and
private property.
• The system requires paying high taxes to help pay for a wide range of state-funded
social services
• Inclusive growth is "economic growth that creates opportunity for all segments of
the population and distributes the dividends of increased prosperity, both in
monetary and non-monetary terms, fairly across society"
• In many (capitalist) countries, it is said that people have not seen their incomes
rise for many years. The gap between rich and poor has enlarged, with those at
the top seizing the 'lion's share' of growth
• Concerning inclusive growth, there have been constant allegations on capitalism
that its growth is not trickled down to everybody. Some economists thus argue that
democratic socialism, not capitalism, could really result into inclusive growth