WEEK 11 development (American Psychological Association,

2018).
MODULE 9
Theoretical Framework
STAGES OF MORAL DEVELOPMENT
The framework of Kohlberg’s theory consists of six
The Six Stages of Moral Development stages arranged sequentially in successive tiers of
Lawrence Kohlberg, (born October 25, 1927, complexity. He organized his six stages into three
Bronxville, New York, U.S.—died January 17, 1987, general levels of moral development (Sanders, n.d.).
Boston, Massachusetts), Level 1: Preconventional level
- American psychologist and educator known for At the preconventional level,
his theory of moral development.
- morality is externally controlled. Rules
Lawrence Kohlberg’s stages of moral development imposed by authority figures are conformed to in
- a comprehensive stage theory of moral order to avoid punishment or receive rewards.
development based on Jean Piaget’s theory of This perspective involves the idea that what is
moral judgment for children (1932) and right is what one can get away with or what is
developed by Lawrence Kohlberg in 1958. personally satisfying.
- Cognitive in nature, Kohlberg’s theory focuses Level 1 has two stages.
on thethinking process that occurs when one
decides whether a behaviour is right or wrong. – Stage 1: Punishment/obedience orientation
- Thus, the theoretical emphasis is on how one
decides to respond to a moral dilemma, not what Behaviour is determined by consequences. The
one decides or what one actually does (Sanders, individual will obey in order to avoid punishment.
n.d.). Stage 2: Instrumental purpose orientation
Piaget described a two-stage process of moral Behaviour is determined again by consequences. The
development (Scott, & Cogburn, 2020). Kohlberg individual focuses on receiving rewards or satisfying
extended Piaget's theory, proposing that moral personal needs.
development is a continual process that occurs
throughout the lifespan. His theory outlines six stages Level 2: Conventional level
of moral development within three different levels.
At the conventional level,
The Heinz Dilemma
- conformity to social rules remains important
Kohlberg based his theory on a series of moral to the individual. However, the emphasis shifts
dilemmas presented to his study subjects. from self-interest to relationships with other
Participants were also interviewed to determine the people and social systems. The individual strives
reasoning behind their judgments of each scenario to support rules that are set forth by others such
(American Psychological Association, 2018). as parents, peers, and the government in order
to win their approval or to maintain social order.
One example was "Heinz Steals the Drug." In this
scenario, a woman has cancer and her doctors believe Stage 3: Good Boy/Nice Girl orientation
only one drug might save her. This drug had been
Behaviour is determined by social approval. The
discovered by a local pharmacist and he was able to
individual wants to maintain or win the affection and
make it for $200 per dose and sell it for $2,000 per dose.
approval of others by being a “good person.”
The woman's husband, Heinz, could only raise $1,000 to
buy the drug.He tried to negotiate with the pharmacist for Stage 4: Law and order orientation
a lower price or to be extended credit to pay for it over
time. But the pharmacist refused to sell it for any less or Social rules and laws determine behaviour. The
to accept partial payments. Rebuffed, Heinz instead individual now takes into consideration a larger
broke into the pharmacy and stole the drug to save his perspective, that of societal laws. Moral decision making
wife. Kohlberg asked, "Should the husband have done becomes more than consideration of close ties to others.
that?" The individual believes that rules and laws maintain
social order that is worth preserving.
Kohlberg was not interested so much in the answer to
whether Heinz was wrong or right but in the reasoning Level 3: Postconventional or principled level
for each participant's decision. He then classified their
At the postconventional level,
reasoning into the stages of his theory of moral
 - the individual moves beyond the perspective of MODULE 10
his or her own society. Morality is defined in
terms of abstract principles and values that REASON AND IMPARTIALITY AS REQUIREMENTS
apply to all situations and societies. The FOR ETHICS
individual attempts to take the perspective of all Reason and Impartiality
individuals.
Humans have not only feelings but also reason, and
Stage 5: Social contract orientation reason plays a vital role in Ethics. In fact, moral truths
Individual rights determine behaviour. The individual are truths of reason; that is, a moral judgement is true
views laws and rules as flexible tools for improving if it is espoused by better reasons than the
human purposes. That is, given the right situation, there alternatives (De Guzman et al. 2017).
are exceptions to rules. When laws are not consistent Reason
with individual rights and the interests of the majority,
they do not bring about good for people and alternatives - Is the ability of the mind to think, understand,
should be considered. and form judgments y a process of logic.
- It is an innate and exclusive human ability that
Stage 6: Universal ethical principle orientation utilizes new or existing information as bases to
According to Kohlberg, this is the highest stage of consciously make sense out of thing while
functioning. However, he claimed that some individuals applying logic.
will never reach this level. At this stage, the appropriate - It is also associated with thinking, cognition, and
action is determined by one’s self-chosen ethical intellect (“Reason and Impartiality as Minimum
principles of conscience. These principles are abstract Requirement for Morality”).
and universal in application. This type of reasoning In the article “Kant and Hume on Morality,” Reason and
involves taking the perspective of every person or group experience are required for determining the likely effects
that could potentially be affected by the decision. of a given motive or character trait, so reason does play
Kohlberg’s theory was highly influential, especially in an important role in moral judgment.
psychology and education. No other account had According to De Guzman et al. (2017), reason spells
provided such a detailed explanation of children’s moral the difference of moral judgments from the mere
development. Moreover, during a time when most expressions of personal preference. If after eating
psychologists were behaviorists, Kohlberg’s work broke someone says, “I like a sweet cake,” he is not required
new ground by concentrating on cognitive phenomena. to support it with good reasons for that is a statement
His theory also received much criticism, however, most about his/her personal taste and nothing more. But in the
notably from the American psychologist Carol Gilligan, case of moral judgments, they require backing by
who argued that it ignored the distinct patterns of moral reasons. In the absence of sensible rationale, they are
development exhibited by girls (Doorey, 2020). merely capricious and ignorable.

Moral deliberation

- is a matter of weighing reasons and being

guided by them.

In understanding the by good reasons. That is, the

rightful moral decision involves selecting the option that
has the power of reason on its side. Being defined by
good reasons, moral truths are objectives in the
sense that they true no matter what we might want
or think. We cannot make an act moral or immoral just
by wishing it to be so, because we cannot merely will
that the weight of reason be on its side or against it. And
this also explains why morality is not arbitrary.
Reason commends what it commends, regardless of
our feelings, attitudes, opinions, and desires. Since
the connection between moral judgments and reasons is
necessary important, then a proposed theory on the
nature of moral judgment should be able to give an
account for the relation. In focusing on attitudes and
feelings, both Emotivism and Subjectivism fail to taste, then we also do not count his claim as legitimate
accomplish this important thing De Guzman et al. 2017). ethical judgment. Clearly, thus reason is a necessary
requirement for morality (De Guzman et al. 2017).
As stated in the article “Reason and Impartiality as
Minimum Requirement for Morality,” In the article “Impartiality,” it was stated that the only
respect in which morality requires impartiality is with
Impartiality respect to violating moral rules—for example, those
- is manifesting objectivity. rules prohibiting killing, causing pain, deceiving, and
- It is the quality of being unbiased and objective breaking promises. It is only with regard to these kinds of
in creating moral decision – underscoring that a moral rules—those that can be formulated as
(morally) impartial person makes moral prohibitions—that it is humanly possible to act impartially
decisions relative to the welfare of the majority with regard to a group large enough to be an appropriate
and not for specific people alone. According to group.
De Guzman et al. (2017), As stated in the article “Reason and Impartiality as
- involves the idea that each individual’s interest Minimum Requirement for Morality,” Reason and
and point of view are equally important. Also impartiality become the basic prerequisite for morality as
called evenhandedness or fair-mindedness, one is excepted to be able to deliver clear, concise,
- is a principle of justice holding that decisions rightful, and appropriate judgments made out of logic
ought to be based on objective criteria, rather and understanding in an unbiased and unprejudiced
than on the basis of bias, prejudice, or preferring manner while considering the general welfare to
the benefits to one person over another for accurately concoct moral decisions.
improper reasons.

Impartiality in morality

- requires that we give equal and/or adequate

consideration to the interests of all concerned
parties.
- The principles of impartiality assumes that every
person, generally speaking, is equally important;
that is, no one is seen as intrinsically more
significant than anyone else. Other ethicists
however, suggest that some clarifications is
required. From the impartial standpoint, to say
that no one is seen as intrinsically more
significant than anyone else, is not to say that
there is no reason whatsoever for which an
individual might demand more moral attention or
better treatment than others. Many ethicists
supposed that from the impartial point of view,
properly conceived, some persons count as
more significant, at least in certain ways. A
virtous and respectable religious leader maybe
supposed to be more significant than a mere
maid; so an emergency (say, a building on fire)
the decent religious leader ought to be rescued
first. The reason, nonetheless, is not that the
religious leader is intrinsically more significant;
rather, it is that he makes greater contribution to
the society (De Guzman et al. 2017).

Why are Reason and Impartiality the Minimum

Requirements for Morality?

Is someone tells us that a certain action is immoral, we

may ask why it is so, and if there is reasonable answer,
we may discard the proposition as absurd. Also if
somebody utters that a particular act is wrong and
explains that it is because it does not happen to fits his
WEEK 12 instinctual by providing motivations to act
morally (De Guzman et al. 2017).
MODULE 11
Reason when removed from emotion, allows a person to
FEELINGS AND REASON make conscious decisions based on fact, with no
Feeling and Moral Decision-Making references to personal involvement. The use of reason
as a way of knowing, allows for the knower to see the
According to Ells (2014), consequences of their actions through-out the decision-
making process. Also, there are limitations to decisions
Emotion
made based on reason alone, perception of situations is
- is a response to stimuli based on past not questioned as it may be with an emotional decision
experiences which is made instinctively while (Ells, 2014).
reason is a form of personal justification which
Feeling-based Theories in Ethics
changes from person to person based on their
own ethical and moral code, as well as prior There are at least two theories in ethics that gives focus
experience. on the role of feelings on morality.
- Some ethicists believe that ethics is also a
matter of emotion. They hold the moral judgment They are (1) Ethical Subjectivism and (2) Emotivism
as thet are even deemed by some as instinctive (De Guzman et al. 2017).
and trained response to moral dilemmas (De 1. Ethical Subjectivism.
Guzman et al. 2017). - This theory basically utter runs contrary to the
- is the result of logical analysis through which we principle that there is objectivity in morality.
first analyze someone’s behavior, make an Fundamentally a meta-ethically theory, it is not
appropriate judgment, and then feel whichever is about what things are good and what are things
called for, respect or contempt (Pillemer & are bad. It does not tell how we should live or
Wheeler, 2010). what moral norms we should practice. Instead, it
Researchers (and some philosophers) now see emotion is a theory about the nature or moral judgments
and reason as tightly intertwined. (De Guzman et al. 2017).

Emotion and reason In the article “Basics of Philosophy,” Ethical Subjectivism

holds that there are no objective moral properties and
- are jointly at work when we judge the conduct of that ethical statements are in fact arbitrary because they
others or make choices ourselves. A cognitive do not express immutable truths. Instead, moral
deficit of either type can impair our decision statements are made true or false by the attitudes and/or
making capacity about all manner of things, conventions of the observers, and any ethical sentence
including moral judgments. People who suffer just implies an attitude, opinion, personal preference or
certain kinds of brain injuries or lesions, for feeling held by someone. Thus, for a statement to be
example, retain the intellectual ability to considered morally right merely means that it is met with
understand alternative courses of action, approval by the person of interest. Another way of
nevertheless are unable to make up their own looking at this is that judgments about human conduct
minds, both literally and figuratively. Reading a are shaped by, and in many ways limited to, perception.
menu apparently is one thing, but choosing
among items involves weighing likes, dislikes, As cited in the article “Basics of Philosophy,” there are
objectives, and values. These necessarily several different variants which can be considered under
involve subjective judgments (Pillemer & the heading of Ethical Subjectivism:
Wheeler, 2010). • Simple Subjectivism: the view (largely as described
- Some hold that reason and emotion are not above) that ethical statements reflect sentiments,
really opposite. Both abstract inference and personal preferences and feelings rather than objective
emotional intuitions or instincts are seen as facts.
having relative roles in ethical thinking. For one
thing, feelings or emotions are said to be • Individualist Subjectivism: the view (originally put
judgments about the accomplishment of one’s forward by Protagoras) that there are as many distinct
goals. Emotions, it is thus concluded, can be scales of good and evil as there are individuals in the
rational in being based at least sometimes on world. It is effectively a form of Egoism, which maintains
good judgments about how well a that every human being ought to pursue what is in his or
circumstance or agent accomplishes appropriate her self-interest exclusively.
objectives. Feelings are also visceral or
• Moral Relativism (or Ethical Relativism): the view men—which they were—I’m merely trying to get you to
that for a thing to be morally right is for it to be approved agree with what I’m really saying.
of by society, leading to the conclusion that different
things are right for people in different societies and Criticisms on Ethical Subjectivism and Emotivism
different periods in history. Stated in the article “Subjectivism,”
• Ideal Observer Theory: the view that what is right is Subjectivism implies the moral statements are less
determined by the attitudes that a hypothetical ideal significant than most people think they are – this
observer (a being who is perfectly rational, imaginative may of course be true without rendering moral
and informed) would have. statement insignificant. More so, Ethical Subjectivism
2. Emotivism. has implications that are contrary to what we believe
- As cited in the “Emotive Theory of Ethics” The about the nature of moral judgments.it also implies that
term emotivism refers to a theory about moral each of us is infallible so as long as we are honestly
judgments, sentences, words, and speech expressing our respective feelings about moral issues.
acts; it is sometimes also extended to cover Furthermore, it cannot account for the fact of
aesthetic and other nonmoral forms of disagreement in Ethics. Finally, the theory could also
evaluation. Although sometimes used to refer to have dangerous implications in moral education (De
the entire genus, strictly speaking emotivism is Guzman et al. 2017).
the name of only the earliest version of ethical As cited in the article “Emotivism,” emotivism
noncognitivism (also known as expressivism and presupposes that moral disagreements are
nondescriptivism). incapable of being resolved by rational discourse.
- is actually the most popular form of non- There is no way to resolve our attitudinal disagreements
cognitivism, the meta-ethical theory that claims unless we are persuasive enough (or violent enough).
that ethical sentences do not convey authentic But we have already seen that there’s another way to
propositions. persuade—using reason to support our position. We can
Moral judgments provide good reasons why x is right or x is wrong. If we
appeal to reason, we have discovered a way to resolve
- according to Emotivism, are not statements of our disputes that other than by shouting or beating
fact but are mere expressions of the others into submission. And if reason plays a role in
emotions of the speaker especially since ethics, then there is truth or falsity about ethical
they are usually feelings—based (De Guzman judgments.
et al. 2017).
- To understand how the theory views moral Feelings Can Help in Making the Right Decision
judgments, it would help to note that language is According to Pillemer & Wheeler (2010), moral
used in a variety of ways. Principally, language development may rest in our ability to be mindful of our
is used to state facts or what we believe to be own feelings, thoughts, and values—and the context in
facts. But there are other purpose for which which we are functioning. As we ponder decisions, and
language may be used like utterance or more fundamentally, our principles, Pillemer & Wheeler
command. The purposes of utterances are (1) (2010), enumerated some precepts to bear mind.
they are used as means of influencing other’s Among them are:
behavior and (2) moral sentences are used to
expresses (not report) the speaker’s attitude (De 1. Don’t accept the problem as given. How choices
Guzman et al. 2017). are framed can sway your choices in ways that may
contradict your core beliefs. (Think of the classic
As cited in the article “Emotivism,” Emotivists believe experiment about health care policy.) Generate multiple
that moral language expresses emotions and tries to options and assess them against one another instead of
influence others; it has no cognitive content. If I say considering them in isolation.
homosexuality is evil, I’m just expressing my feeling that
homosexuality is disgusting! I am expressing my 2. Listen to both your heart and head. Issues of right
emotions and, at the same time, trying to influence you and wrong matter deeply to us, as they should. Twinges
to dislike homosexuality. The same analysis applies to of disgust or shame may be internal signals that we are
any moral judgment. If I say that capital punishment is nearing the outer bounds of acceptable behavior. But we
wrong, I’m just expressing my dislike for it and trying to should also reflect on the sources of our feelings, be
get you to agree with me. I might as well have said they negative or positive, as they may be triggered by
capital punishment while shaking my head and rolling associations that have nothing to do with the matter at
my eyes. And if I say that Stalin or Cheney were bad hand.
3. Watch your language. How we name things exposes WEEK 13
(or masks) the nature of our actions and their
consequences. Firings become layoffs, layoffs become MODULE 12
downsizing, and downsizing becomes right-sizing. The THE 7-STEP MORAL REASONING
action may be unavoidable, but we should not sugarcoat
the fact that people who once worked with or for us are To ensure the reasonableness and neutrality of moral
now jobless. decisions, it is good to follow the seven-step moral
reasoning model. These steps can serve as a guide in
4. Take special care in dimly lit places. Your actions— making best choices in decision makings.
and ultimately even your values—are influenced by the
company you keep. 1. Stop and think. Before making any decisions, it is
nice to take a moment to think about the following:
5. Be modest about your virtue. Most of us believe
that we are more ethical than are others. Countless a. Situation itself
experiments and real life examples, however, should
b. Your role in the situation
remind us that people who are most self-righteous may
be most likely to slip. c. Other internal/ external factors such as
6. Understand why others transgress. Some lapses • People who might get involved in the result of the
may be due to moral failure, but others can be caused decision
by external factors that have little to do with their
fundamental nature. Luck plays a role in regard to how • Potential effects of the decision
people are tested and what resources they can draw
2. Clarify Goals. In a decision making, it is essential to
upon. Refrain from judging a person’s core character,
determine your goals both short-term and long-term
positively or negatively, on the basis of a single event.
goals. Short-term goals are those that need to be
7. Don’t give up on yourself (or on others). An ancient accomplished right after or immediately after a decision
proverb says, “Every saint has a past. Every sinner has is made. A long-term goal is that which the result may
a future.” Honest reflection about the past, coupled with come out after some times. It is important because that
a measure of humility, can serve as foundation for is going to be the basis of what one wishes to
leading a responsible life going forward. In the end, accomplish. Sometimes, it requires a sacrifice for
morality is not merely—or even principally—determining someone just to achieve his or her goal whether short or
the right thing to do in specific instances, rather it entails long term one.
who we want to be and what kind of life we want to lead
3. Determine facts. Make sure that all essential
(Pillemer & Wheeler, 2010).
information is considered before you make a decision.
To determine the facts, solve first what you know, then
what do you still need to know. Have a heart to accept
other information about the subject of your decision-
making process and make it sure that facts are reliable
and credible since these facts would be the basis of your
decision. In addition:

a. Consider the reliability and credibility of the people

providing the facts.

b. Consider the basis of the supposed facts. Evaluate on

the basis of honesty, accuracy, and memory.

4. Develop options. Once you know what you the goals

are and facts are well considered already, then you can
make a list of actions that are possibly be your options. If
its about life decision, you can make talk to someone
you trust most so you can broaden your perspective and
think of new choices. If you can think of only one or two
choices, you are probably not thinking hard enough.

5. Consider consequences. After developing options

which are possibly your basis of action, you must
consider consequences of each option. Filter your
choices to determine if any of your options will violate
any ethical considerations, and then omit unethical WEEK 14
options. Think of its long long-term consequences and
act in accordance to the spirit of fairness and justice. MODULE 13
Identify who will be affected by your decision and how
the decision is a likely to affect them. REASON AND WILL

6. Choose. After consideration of all the consequences What is Reason?

from the options, make a decision now. If you are
doubtful of your choice, try the following: In philosophy,

a. Talk to people whom you trust. Reason

b. Think of someone who you think has the character of - is the faculty or process of drawing logical
syllogism.
good decision maker.

c. If people around you found out your decision, would Reasoning

you be comfortable and proud? - is the process of drawing out conclusion from
d. Follow the Golder Rule: treat others the way you want the previous knowledge.
to be treated, and keep your promises. In other words, reason is associated with knowledge.
7. Monitor and modify. Ethical decision makers monitor Knowledge is something that one acquires as he
the effect of their decisions and are willing to modify their studies, gets matured and professional. The term reason
decision. Though it takes a lot of humility and courage to is also used in other context as a disagreement to
do such, it is necessary if the decision had been made sensation, perception, feeling, and desire.
has a lot of ethical considerations. Do not hesitate to According to Immanuel Kant,
revise your decisions in light of new developments in the
situation. Reason

- is the power of producing into oneness, by

means of understandable theories, the concepts
that are provided by the intellect or the mind.
The foundation of sound ethics for him can only
be by the authority of human reason. The voice
of God- conscience for St. Thomas Aquinas- is
not heard directly today while man is living in this
finite world.
- That reason which gives a priori principles Kant
calls “pure reason,” as distinguished from the
“practical reason,” which is especially
concerned with the performance of actions.
- The reason elects such and such as morally
binding and thus act in accordance with what
he/she this is so. Kant told that reason in itself
can only be sensible foundation of what is
ethical for man. It also reiterated that morality is
grounded with external authority but it is simply
grounded with reason itself. Kant certainly
wanted to delimit the bounds of reason, but this
is not the same as arguing that it has no role in
our knowledge.

There are three points in Kant’ reason:

1. the relation of reason to empirical truth;

2. reason’s role in scientific inquiry; and

3. the positive gains that come from appreciating

reason’s limits.
In theology, reason as distinguished from faith, is the WEEK 15
human intelligence exercised upon religious truth
whether by way of discovery or by way of explanation. MODULE 14
The limits within which the reason may be used have MORAL THEORIES
been laid down differently in different churches and
periods of thought: on the whole, modern Christianity, The words "moral" and "ethics" (and cognates) are
especially in the Protestant churches, tends to allow to often used interchangeably. However, it is useful to
reason a wide field, reserving, however, as the sphere of make the following distinction:
faith the ultimate (supernatural) truths of theology.
● Morality is the system through which we determine
What is the will? right and wrong conduct -- i.e., the guide to good or right
conduct.
If the reason is the foundation of what is ethical for Kant,
in turn, its source must be a goodwill. This means that ● Ethics is the philosophical study of Morality.
what is morally binding is rooted in reason as workable
What, then, is a moral theory?
for the human person who possesses the goodwill.
A theory
A good will is also a force to pursue what one
possesses in mind also. Instead of looking at a man as - is a structured set of statements used to explain
he displays external attributes, goodness is in the very (or predict) a set of facts or concepts.
interiority of himself. The good that is relevant to the - A moral theory, then, explains why a certain
person who through his/her reason knows what one action is wrong -- or why we ought to act in
ought to do. The good will implies the achievability of certain ways. In short, it is a theory of how we
what is known though reason. determine right and wrong conduct. Also,
moral theories provide the framework upon
Generally, will is a faculty of the mind that at the
which we think and discuss in a reasoned way,
moment of decision is always present. For him, there
and so evaluate, specific moral issues. Seen in
is only one good which can be called good without any
this light, it becomes clear that we cannot draw a
qualification- the good motive or good will. The true
sharp divide between moral theory and applied
object of reason is to produce a will which is good in
ethics (e.g., medical or business ethics). For
itself, since nothing else is always and necessarily good.
instance, in order to critically evaluate the moral
This will must be autonomous in nature because the
issue of affirmative action, we must not attempt
will’s autonomy will make a man a dignified one. To lose
to evaluate what actions or policies are right (or
one’s freewill is to lose one’s dignity.
wrong) independent of what we take to
In a nutshell, Reason is the foundation of morality determine right and wrong conduct. You will see,
and the source of is the goodwill. as we proceed, that we do not do ethics without
at least some moral theory. When evaluating the
For example, the basis of our actions is our prior merits of some decision regarding a case, we
knowledge of somethings. The purpose of why we wish will always (or at least ought to always) find
to buy rubber shoes is that because we have prior ourselves thinking about how right and wrong is
knowledge that rubber shoes is good for sports. To insist determined in general, and then apply that to the
and the actual purchase of the rubber shoes, our will case at hand. Note, though, that sound moral
pushed us to do so. thinking does not simply involve going one way -
- from theory to applied issue. Sometimes a
case may suggest that we need to change or
adjust our thinking about what moral theory we
think is the best, or perhaps it might lead us to
think that a preferred theory needs modification.

Are moral theories descriptive or prescriptive?

In presenting a moral theory, are we merely describing

how people, in their everyday 'doings' and 'thinkings,'
form a judgment about what is right and wrong, or are
we prescribing how people ought to make these
judgments?

Most take moral theories to be prescriptive. The

descriptive accounts of what people do are left to
sociologists and anthropologists. Philosophers, then,
when they study morality, want to know what is the because they think there will be some personal
proper way of determining right and wrong. There have advantage in doing so. That is, they deny the possibility
been many different proposals. Here is a brief summary. of genuine altruism (because they think we are all by
nature selfish). This leads us to the key implausibility of
Theories of Morality Ethical Egoism -- that the person who helps others at the
1. Moral Subjectivism expense of their self-interest is actually acting immorally.
Many think that the ethical egoist has misunderstood the
Main Point: Moral Subjectivism is where right or wrong concept of morality -- i.e., morality is the system of
are determined by what you -- the subject – just happens practical reasoning through which we are guided to
to think (or 'feel') is right or wrong. This is simply based constrain our self-interest, not further it. Also, that
on your personal assessment and judgment. genuine altruism is indeed possible, and relatively
commonly exhibited.
In its common form, moral subjectivism amounts to the
denial of moral principles of any significant kind, and the 4. Divine Command Theory
possibility of moral criticism and argumentation. In
nature, 'right' and 'wrong' lose their meaning because so Main Point: Right and wrong come from the
long as someone thinks or feels that some action is commands of God (or the gods). Many claim that
'right', there are no grounds for criticism. If you are a there is a necessary connection between morality and
moral subjectivist, you cannot object to anyone's religion, such that, without religion (in particular, without
behavior. This shows the key flaw in moral subjectivism - God or gods) there is no morality, i.e., no right and
- probably nearly everyone thinks that it is legitimate to wrong behaviour. Although there are related claims that
object, on moral grounds, to at least some peoples' religion is necessary to motivate and guide people to
actions. That is, it is possible to disagree about moral behave in a morally good way, most take the claim of the
issues. necessary connection between morality and religion to
mean that right and wrong come from the commands of
2. Cultural Relativism God (or the gods). This view of morality is known as
Divine Command Theory. The upshot is that an action
Main Point: Right and wrong is determined by the
is right -- or obligatory -- if God commands us to do
particular set of principles or rules the relevant culture
it, wrong if God commands we refrain from doing it, and
just happens to hold at the time. This is also based on
morally permissible if God does not command that it not
the idea that different people have different cultures
be done.
that are why right or wrong is based on how one’s
culture dictates morality. 5. Virtue Ethics
Cultural Relativism is closely linked to Moral Main Point: Right and wrong are characterized in
Subjectivism. It implies that we cannot criticize the terms of acting in accordance with the traditional
actions of those in cultures other than our own. And virtues -- making a good person. This will be further
again, it amounts to the denial of universal moral\ discussed in the preceding chapters.
principles. Also, it implies that a culture cannot be
mistaken about what is right and wrong (which seems 6. Feminist Ethics
not to be true), and so it denies the possibility of moral Main Point: Right and wrong are to be found in
advancement (which also seems not to be true). women's responses to the relationship of caring.
3. Ethical Egoism Comes out of the criticism that all other moral theories
are 'masculine' -- display a male bias. Specifically,
Main Point: Right and wrong is determined by what is feminists are critical of the 'individualistic' nature of other
in your self-interest. Or, it is immoral to act contrary to moral theories. Rather, feminist ethics suggests that we
your self-interest. Ethical Egoism is usually based upon need to consider the self as at least partly constructed
Psychological Egoism -- that we, by nature, act selfishly. by social relations. So morality, according to some
Ethical egoism does not imply hedonism or that we feminist moral philosophers, must be ground in 'moral
ought to aim for at least some 'higher' goods (e.g., emotions' like love and sympathy, leading to
wisdom, political success), but rather that we will relationships of caring. This allows legitimate biases
(ideally) act so as to maximize our self-interest. This towards those with whom we have close social
may require that we forgo some immediate pleasures for relationships.
the sake of achieving some long term goals. Also, ethical
egoism does not exclude helping others. However, 7. Utilitarianism
egoists will help others only if this will further their own Main Point: Right and wrong is determined by the
interests. An ethical egoist will claim that the altruist overall goodness (utility) of the consequences of the
helps others only because they want to (perhaps action. Utilitarianism is a Consequentialist moral theory.
because they derive pleasure out of helping others) or
Basic ideas: WEEK 16

All action leads to some end. But there is a summum MODULE 16

bonum -- the highest good/end. This is pleasure or
happiness. Also, there is a First Principle of Morals -- KANTIAN THEORY
'Principle of Utility', alternatively called 'The Greatest Kantian Theory (Continuation of Module 15)
Happiness Principle' (GHP), usually characterized as the
ideal of working towards the greatest happiness of the Main Idea: Right and wrong is determined by
greatest number. The GHP implies that we ought to act rationality, giving universal duties.
so as to maximize human welfare. We do this in a
Kantianism is a Non-consequentialist moral theory.
particular instance by choosing the action that
maximizes pleasure/happiness and minimizing suffering. Basic ideas: That there is "the supreme principle of
This will be further discussed in the preceding chapters. morality". Good and Evil are defined in terms of Law/
Duty / Obligation. Rationality and Freedom are also
8. Kantian Theory
central. Kant thought that acting morally was quite
Main Point: Right and wrong are determined by simple. That is:
rationality, giving universal duties.
a. you ought to do your duty (simply because it is your
Basic ideas: duty).

That there is "the supreme principle of morality". Good b. Reason guides you to this conclusion.
and Evil are defined in terms of Law / Duty / Obligation.
c. Good Will (i.e., having the right intentions) is the only
Rationality and Freedom are also central. Kant thought
thing that is good without qualification. So, actions are
that acting morally was quite simple.
truly moral only if they have the right intention, i.e.,
That is: based on Good Will.

1. you ought to do your duty (simply because it is your What establishes Good Will?
duty).
- only can be a law of "universal conformity" -- "I
2. Reason guides you to this conclusion. should never act except in such a way that I
can also will that my maxim should become a
3. Good Will (i.e., having the right intentions) is the only universal law". This is called the Categorical
thing that is good without qualification. So, actions are Imperative = Principle of Universalizability
truly moral only if they have the right intention, i.e., (something like The Golden Rule). The basic
based on Good Will. This will be further discussed in the idea is that we should adopt as action-guiding
preceding chapters. rules (i.e., maxims) only those that can be
9. Contractarianism universally accepted. Consider someone
wondering if they could break a promise if
Main Point: The principles of right and wrong (or keeping it became inconvenient. We might
Justice) are those which everyone in society would formulate the following maxim governing
agree upon in forming a social contract. Various promises: “I can break promises when keeping
forms of Contractarianism have been suggested. In them becomes inconvenient.” Can this be
general, the idea is that the principles or rules that universalized? Kant says no because making
determine right and wrong in society are determined by promises then becomes, in essence,
a hypothetical contract forming procedure. contradictory. The thinking is that a promise is,
by definition, something you keep. The above
maxim would lead to a contradiction of will, i.e.,
"I'll make a promise (something I keep), but I'll
break it if I choose". The more general way to
understand the Principle of Universalizability is
to think that we must always ask the following
questions: What if everyone did the action you
are proposing? Or, what if I were in the other
person's position? This leads to the basic idea
behind the Golden Rule. Kant had another way
of formulating the Categorical Imperative that is
worth noting. Never treat anyone merely as a
means to an end. Rather, treat everyone as
an end in themselves. We can understand this
 by noting an example, i.e., the slave society. MODULE 17
What is wrong with the slave society, following
the above principle, is that a slave is treated as a UTILITARIANISM
means to the slave owner's ends, i.e., as an Utilitarianism
instrument or tool, not as a person. The upshot
is that no person's interests (or rights) can be - is a normative ethical theory that places the
overridden by another's, or the majority. Many locus of right and wrong solely on the outcomes
think that this way of formulating the Categorical (consequences) of choosing one action/policy
Imperative shows that Kantianism is clearly anti- over other actions/policies. As such, it moves
Utilitarian. beyond the scope of one's own interests and
takes into account the interests of others.
Some things to ask about Kantianism:
Jeremy Bentham’ Principle of Utility
● Is it true that having good intentions is the only thing
that counts morally? 1. Recognizes the fundamental role of pain and pleasure
in human life,
● Must we always ignore good consequences?
2. Approves or disapproves of action on the basis of the
● Is it always wrong to treat people merely as a means amount of pain or pleasure brought about i.e,
to an end? (Can we do otherwise?) consequences,
Rights-based Theories of Kant 3. Equates good with pleasure and evil with pain, and
Main Point: We are to act in accordance with a set of 4. Asserts that pleasure and pain are capable of
moral rights, which we possess simply by being quantification (and hence 'measure').
human.
In measuring pleasure and pain, Bentham introduces the
Rights-based views are connected to Kantianism and following criteria: INTENSITY, DURATION, CERTAINTY
are Non-consequentialist. The basic idea is that if (or UNCERTAINTY), and its NEARNESS (or
someone has a right, then others have a corresponding FARNESS). He also includes its "fecundity" (will more
duty to provide what the right requires. Most distinguish of the same follow?) and its "purity" (its pleasure won't
between positive and negative rights. A positive right is be followed by pain & vice versa). In considering actions
one in which the corresponding duty requires positive that affect numbers of people, we must also account for
action, e.g., giving a charitable donation in order to its EXTENT.
sustain someone's right to life, shelter, education, etc. A
negative right is one in which the corresponding duty John Stuart Mill
merely requires refraining from doing something that will
He adjusted the more hedonistic tendencies in
harm someone. For instance, the right to life does not
Bentham's philosophy by emphasizing:
require that we give what is needed to sustain life, rather
merely that we refrain from taking any action that would 1. It is not the quantity of pleasure, but the quality of
take life. happiness that is central to utilitarianism,
Some things to ask about Rights-based theories: 2. the calculus is unreasonable -- qualities cannot be
quantified (there is a distinction between 'higher' and
● Where do rights come from? From nature (we have
'lower' pleasures), and
them simply by being human)? From principles of
Justice? Or, from Utilitarian procedures? 3. utilitarianism refers to "the Greatest Happiness
Principle" -- it seeks to promote the capability of
● How do we decide between competing rights?
achieving happiness (higher pleasures) for the most
amount of people (this is its "extent").

Act and Rule Utilitarianism

We can apply the principle of utility to either

PARTICULAR ACTIONS or GENERAL RULES. The
former is called "act-utilitarianism" and the latter is called
"rule-utilitarianism."

Act-utilitarianism -- The principle of utility is applied

directly to each 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). Criticisms of this viewpoint to the difficulty of MODULE 18
attaining full knowledge and certainty of the
consequences of our actions. It is possible to justify GLOBALIZATION AND ITS ETHICAL CHALLENGES
immoral acts using AU: Suppose you could end a What is Globalization?
regional war by torturing children whose fathers are
enemy soldiers, thus revealing the hideouts of the Globalization has become the trend of unity among
fathers. countries as this concept made scattered states one
interact with each other.
Rule-utilitarianism -- The principle of utility is used
to determine the validity of rules of conduct (moral Globalization is defined through the following:
principles). A rule like promise-keeping is established
a. the world-wide integration of government policies,
by looking at the consequences of a world in which
cultures, social movements, and financial markets
people broke promises at will and a world in which
through trade and the exchange of ideas;
promises were binding. Right and wrong are then
defined as following or breaking those rules. Some b. intensification of worldwide relationships which link
criticisms of this position point out that if the Rules take distant localities in such a way that local happenings are
into account more and more exceptions, RU collapses shaped by events occurring many miles away and vice
into AU. More general criticisms of this view argue that it versa.
is possible to generate "unjust rules" according to the
principle of utility. For example, slavery in Greece might c. It is the stress on trans-nationalization of the
be right if it led to an overall achievement of cultivated connections taking place in the world today.
happiness at the expense of some mistreated
Some Problems with Globalization
individuals.
1. It uses up finite resources more quickly. Once one
country opens up their product to the world wherein all
countries can avail, there is a big possibility of depleting
the supply.

2. Increases world carbon dioxide.

3. It makes it virtually impossible for regulators in one

country to foresee the worldwide implications of their
actions.

4. It acts to increase world oil prices.

5. It transfers consumption of limited oil supply from

developed countries to developing countries.

6. It transfers jobs from developed countries to less

developed countries.

7. It transfers investment spending from developed

countries to less developed countries.

8. With the dollar as the world’s reserve currency,

globalization leads to a huge US balance of trade deficits
and other imbalances.

9. It tends to move taxation away from corporations, and

onto individual citizens.

10. It sets up a currency “race to the bottom” with each

country trying to get an export advantage by dropping
the value of its currency.

11. It encourages dependence on other countries for

essential goods and services.

12. It ties countries together, so that if one country

collapses, the collapse is likely to ripple through the
system, pulling many other countries with it.
Some Ethical Challenges of Globalization MODULE 20

It cannot be denied that globalization has an emerging MILLENIALS AND FILINIALS: ETHICAL
challenge to address. They can be deduced from the CHALLENGES AND RESPONSES
following:
I. Millennials and Filinials
1. Wealth concentration for the few and leaving behind
the majority. Millennials

2. Laissez-faire capitalism deepens the inequalities - are the demographic cohort directly following the
within and between nations for consequentialist and Generation X. It is also known as ‘Generation Y’
deontological standpoints. or the ‘Net Generation’. The Center for
Generational Kinetics mentions five generations
3. States are losing their own sovereignty. that presently make up our society and specifies
birth years for each generation as follows:
4. Problem of handling the global environment in order to
prevent a global ecological collapse. Birth Year Cluster Generation Name

5. Explosive population growth which threatens to 1996 and later Gen Z, iGen, or Centennials
surpass the earth’s carrying capacity and bust the
biosphere. 1977 to 1995 Millennials or Gen Y

Some Emerging Issues of Globalization and 1965 to 1976 Generation X

Business Ethics 1946 to 1964 Baby Boomers
As globalization is largely an economic concept and 1954 and earlier Traditionalists or Silent Generation
system, it is reasonable to enumerate the different
concerns in Business Ethics. Business ethics is Millenials
defined as a form of an applied ethics that examines
- generally the children of baby boomers and
moral principles concerning business environment
older Gen Xers. In Filipino terms, Millennials
involving issues about:
are called Filinials as adapted from Filipino.
● corporate policies; Filinials are commonly characterized by an
increased use and familiarity with
● corporate practices; communications, media, and digital
● business behaviors; and technologies. They are also known to be an
advanced generation in terms of technology
● the conducts and relationships of individuals in the utilization. Even in terms of work ethics, they are
organization. known to be non-linear individuals which the
traditionalists sometimes misunderstand. They
1. duplication/ imitation of products; are also marked by an increase in a liberal
2. child labor; approach to politics, economics, and morality,
although this claim is disputed.
3. money laundering;
Seven Basic Traits of Millennials
4. environmental issues;
1. special- They are the most educated generation on
5. and other business malpractices and crimes record.
● cyber crimes 2. sheltered- Since birth, they are known to be from
many forms of protection. They are the most protected
● sexual harrassments
generation since their birth.
● intellectual property
3. confident- They are known to be less religious, less
● patent thefts serve the military yet as the most educated generation.

4. team-oriented (disputed trait)- They like to band

together to socialize in groups. In schools, they prefer
working with groups rather than individuals.

5. conventional- They take pride in their improving

behavior. Their taste to arts and music is less extreme
than the previous generations.
6. pressured- They wish to be ahead of many things, ● committed to harmony
successful and take advantage of opportunities but
avoiding taking risks. MILLENNIALS

7. achieving- They are known to be of many ● tech-savvy

achievements as youngsters. These can be associated ● appreciative of diversity
with their being proactive in life.
● skilled in multitasking
II. Ethical Outlook and Cultural Identity
NEGATIVE NOTES
In 2013, 2014 researches resulted the following:
BOOMERS
1. millennials were more open minded than their parents
on some controversial matters. 84% of millennials ● self-centered with sense of entitlement
favored legalizing this marijuana.
● workaholics
2. in adulthood, they are detached from institutions and
● self-motivated
networked with friends.
● don't appreciate feedbacks
3. found to be a pragmatic idealist in approach to social
change. MILLENNIALS
❖ They are also called Boomerang Generation or Peter ● lack basic literacy fundamentals
Pan because of their perceived tendencies for delaying
some rites of passage in adulthood for longer periods ● very short attention span
than most generations before them and for living with ● not loyal to organizations
their parents for longer periods than previous
generations. ● demand immediate feedbacks and

❖ Generation Y are very cheerful and enthusiast and recognition

more open to change than older generations.
● integrate technology in the workplace
❖ Most millennials of every religion, race, and ethnicity ● expect of many employers and careers
support access to affordable contraception. some
connotes that choosing an abortion is the most ● work dress is whatever feel
responsible decision that a woman can make.
Comfortable
Some other findings are:
What do Millennials believed in to be ethical in the
a. Some Millennials say that marriage is old fashioned Workplace:
and out of date while most of them disagree.
1. using social networking to find out about the
b. Millennials belong to four-way split: company’s competitors= 37%

● pro-life 2. “Friending” a client or customer on social media= 36%

● pro-choice 3. uploading personal photos on a company network=

26%
● no both pro life and choice
4. keeping copies of confidential documents= 22%
● equal by pro choice and life.
5. working less to compensate for cuts in benefits or
c. few of them are either lesbian, gay, bisexual, or pay= 18%
transgender.
6. buying personal items using a company credit card=
III. Work Ethics 15%
POSITIVE NOTES 7. blogging or tweeting negatively about a company=
BOOMERS 14%

● hardworking 8. taking a copy of work software home for personal

use= 13%
● idealistic
The widespread use of social media appears to pose
challenges, as substantial numbers of

Millenials post questionable information on their personal

social media accounts including the following:

1. feeling about their jobs= 40%

2. bad joke told by the boos= 26%

3. work on a project= 26%

4. picture of a co worker drinking= 22%

5. annoying habit of a coworker= 20%

6. information about the company’s competitors= 19%

7. opinion about coworkers’s politics= 16%