Republic of the Philippines

CAVITE STATE UNIVERSITY

Trece Martires City Campus, Cavite
www.cvsu.edu.ph

A Learning Guide in
GNED 02 ETHICS

Acker R. Besimo
Instructor 1
COURSE DESCRIPTION
 Course GNED Course Lecture / Credit
Ethics Type 3
Code 02 Title Laboratory / Units
This module is designed to provide an understanding and deeper insights in ethics and
appreciate its applicability in students’ personal life challenges and future career goals.
Every chapter and lesson introspects on concepts and principles of ethics on a personal
level. Activities are provided to give emphasis on the crutial and creative thinking in
Course
moral reasoning. In addition, different analytical theories are highlighted to give
Description comprehension on the topic.
Thus, we believe that our holistic educational learning system will give the students all the
necessary information to understand the subject matter and later develop set of virtues
and ethical standards necessary for their careers in the future.

Lecture: _________________
Pre- Course
None Laboratory: _________________
requisites Schedule

Expected Outcomes
At the end of this course, the students are expected to:
1. Applies knowledge and skills related to the ideas, principles, concepts, basic research
methods, and problem- solving techniques in the operations of the accommodation, food
and beverage enterprises;
2. Demonstrate the skills needed to acquire, understand, and assess information from the
range of sources applicable to improving efficiency in the accommodation, food and
beverage operations.
3. Possess knowledge and skills in the application of work –related technology including
information, education, and communication (IEC)

Demonstrate leadership, communication, and collaborative competence.Grading System

A. Lecture…………………………………………. 100%

Comprehensive Exam 40%

OBA 40%
Class Participation 10%
Attendance 10%
Total 100%

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
COURSE DESCRIPTION……………………………………………………………….. I
EXPECTED OUTCOMES………………………………………………………………. ii
PRE-TEST………….…………………………………………………………………….. iii
Module 1. What is Contractarianism? ......................................................... 1
Module 2. Key Concepts in Ethics…………………………............................. 2
Module 3. Culture in Moral Behavior………………………… ..…………… 3
Module 4. Moral Agent.............................................................................. 4
Module 5. Feeling and Moral Decision Making…………………………….. 5
Mid-Term Assessment……………………………………………………………………
Module 6. Reason and impartiality as minimum requirement for morality.. 6
Module 7. Moral Courage…………………………………………………….. 7
Module 8. Basic Theories as Frameworks in Ethics……………………….. 8
Module 9. Virtue Ethics ………………………………………………………. 9
Module 10. Kanthians Right Theory…………………………………………. 10
Module 11. Utilitarianism…………............................................................. 11
Final Assessment……………………………………………………………………………
POST-TEST……………………………………………………………………………………
REFERENCES…………………………………………………………………………………
APPENDICES………………………………………………………………………………….

MODULE 1. What is Contractarianism?

Contractarianism Ethics (or the Moral Theory of Contractarianism) claims that

moral norms derive their normative force from the idea of contract or mutual agreement.
It is deontological theory that moral acts are those that we would all agree to if we were
unbiased, and that moral rules themselves are a sort of a contract, and therefore only
people who understand and agree to the terms of the contract are bound by it. The
theory stems initially from the principle of social contract of Thomas Hobbes.
Objectives
At the end of this module, students must be able to:
1. Define contractarianism
2. Understand their role in the society
3. Identify the Filipino moral ascendency; and
4. Learn how to influence good moral to the society.

Learning Activity
A. Lecture
1. What is Contract means in Ethics? A shared agreement for our
security.
B. Videos to Watch (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Co6pNvd9mc&t=229s)
2. The Foundation of Leviathan Theory
3. The Outcome of Leviathan Theory through the Years.
4. The Effect of Rules and Regulations to the Whole World.

Outcome-Based Assessment
1. Quiz worth 10 points.
2. A one paragraph reflection .

Recommended Reference(s) for the Topic

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Co6pNvd9mc&t=229s

Activity 1
1. In your personal assessment; what is the primary reason why the contract is
necessary to human society?
2. In your personal life; what do you think you need to improve more base on that
contract?
3. What is your recommendation for your friend’s to live a peaceful life base on the
contract?
Quiz: 2 points each
1. Prior to the creation of law, what kind of freedom did exists over the land?
a. Unlimited b. Limited c. A and B d. none of the three
2. Before the conception of the rules and regulation according to Hobbes, people
are;
a. Brutish b. Kind c. Thoughtful d. Barbaric
3. What Leviathan represent according to Hobbes
a. Sea Monster b. Pigmy c. Giant Tortoise d. Witchcraft
4. What particular book in the Bible did mentioned the term leviathan?
a. Psalm 74:14 b. Isaiah 1:1 c. John 3:16 d. Revelation 1:2
5. Hobbes called the hypothetical time, with rules to govern our behavior, and the
state of nature, and he described life there as;
a. Nasty b. Great c. Happy d. Luxurious
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Co6pNvd9mc&t=229s

MODULE 2. Key Concepts in Ethics

This chapter consisting of seven (7) lessons will allow students to become
reflective and critical thinkers who understand the rightness or wrongness of human
conduct.

Objectives:

After the completion of the chapter, the students should be able to:

1. Familiarize the key concepts in ethics

2. Differentiate the various aspects of ethics
3. Apply the concepts of ethics in real life situations

Learning Activity
A. Lecture
1. What branch of philosophy that studies morality or the rightness or wrongness of
human conduct?
2. What is the role of morality in regards to standards of right or wrong behavior?

Recommended Reference(s) for the Topic

De Guzman, Jens Micah (2017). Ethics: principle of ethical behavior in modern society. Mutya Publishing
House, Inc.: Malabon City

Clearly, Ethics and Morality necessarily carry the concept of moral standards or rules
with regard to behavior. So as a way of introducing moral rules, let us discuss why rules

1. THE IMPORTANCE OF RULES TO SOCIAL BEINGS

Definition of rules
 ● Rules refer to explicit or understood regulations or principles governing conduct
within a specific activity or sphere.
● Rules tell us what is or is not is allowed in a particular context or situation.
● In many ways, rules serve as a foundation for any healthy society. Without rules,
society would like to fall into anarchy.
Rules benefit social being in various manners
a. Rules protect social beings by regulating behavior.
b. Rules help to guarantee each person certain rights in freedom.
c. Rules produce a sense of justice among social beings.
d. Rules are essential for a healthy economic system.
In short, society could not soundly function without rules and regulations. Rules
are necessary to protect the greater good. Even the freest societies ought to have rules
in order to avoid exploitation and tyranny while upholding the common welfare.
2. MORAL VS NON-MORAL STANDARD
“Not all rules are moral rules. That is, not all standards are moral standards”
● Morality may refer to the standards that a person or a group has about what is
right and wrong, or good and evil.
● Accordingly, moral standards are those concerned with or relating to human
behavior, especially the distinction between good and bad (or right and wrong)
behavior.
Moral Standards and Non-moral standards defined:
➢ Moral standards involve the rules about the kinds of actions they believe are
morally right and wrong, as well as the values they place on the kinds of objects
they believe are 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.
The following characteristics of moral standards further differentiate them from
non-moral standards:
a. Moral standards involve serious wrongs or significant benefits.
b. Moral standards ought to be preferred to other values.
c. Moral standards are not established by authority figures.
d. Moral standards have the trait of universalizability.
e. Moral standards are based on impartial considerations.
 f. Moral standards are associated with special emotions and vocabulary.
3. DILEMMA AND MORAL DILEMMA
The term dilemma refers to a situation in which a tough choice has to be made
between two or more options, especially more or less equally desirable ones. 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.
4. THREE LEVELS OF MORAL DILEMMA
a. Personal dilemmas. This is experienced and resolved on a personal level.
Since many ethical decisions are personally made, many, if not most of, moral
dilemmas fall under, or boil down to, this level.
b. Organizational Dilemmas. These dilemmas refer to ethical cases encountered
and resolved by social organizations. This category includes moral dilemmas in
business, medical field, and public sector.
c. Structural Dilemmas. It refers to cases involving a network of institutions and
operative theoretical paradigms. As they usually encompass multi-sectoral
institutions and organizations, they may be larger in scope and extent than
organizational dilemmas.
5. ONLY HUMAN BEINGS CAN BE ETHICAL
● Only human beings are rational, autonomous, and self-conscious
● Only human beings can act morally or immorally.
● Only human beings are part of the moral community.
6. FREEDOM AS FOUNDATION OF MORALITY
Morality is a question of choice. It is choosing ethical codes, values, or standards
to guide us in our daily lives. Philosophically choosing is impossible without freedom.
Morality requires and allows choice, which means the right to choose to give to
charities, donate time and money to schools, mentor children, open businesses, or
protest against animal cruelty.
7. MINIMUM REQUIREMENT FOR MORALITY: REASON AND IMPARTIALITY
The reason as a requirement for morality entails that human feelings may be
important in ethical decisions, but they ought to be guided by reason. Sound reasoning
helps us to evaluate whether our feelings and institutions about moral cases are correct
and defensible.
Impartiality, on the other hand, involves the idea that each individual's interests and
points of view are equally important.
Activity 2
1. 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. Ang tatay mo ay nagkasala sa batas, dumating ang pulis sa bahay nyo
habang natutulog ang tatay mo to serve a search warrant. Ano ang gagawin mo
without transgressing a moral principle and why?

MODULE 3. Cultural in Moral Behavior

This chapter consisting of seven (7) lessons will give the students a glimpse of
their outlook, attitude, values, goals and practices shared by a group, organization or
society. It also aims at strengthening Filipino values system.

Objective
After the completion of the chapter, the students shall be able to:

1. Familiarize oneself with the role of culture in human moral behavior

2. Identify the challenges of cultural relativistic perspective in ethics
3. Discuss the Filipino moral character based on their experiences and
perspectives.

Learning Activity
A. Lecture
Culture is commonly said that it is all around us. Practically, culture appears to be an
actual part of social life as well as our personality. For some, culture is a quality that
some people have more than others.
Recommended reference(s) topic
De Guzman, Jens Micah (2017). Ethics: principle of ethical behavior in modern society. Mutya Publishing
House, Inc.: Malabon City

1. 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. But in a
broader sense, culture denotes the practices, beliefs and perception of a given
society.
  It is in this sense that culture is often opposed with savagery,’ that is, being
‘cultured’ is seen as a product of a certain evolvement from a natural state

2. CULTURE’S ROLE IN MORAL BEHAVIOR

 Culture refers to the cumulative deposit of knowledge, experience, beliefs,

values, attitudes, meanings, hierarchies, religion, notions of time, roles, spatial
relations, concepts of the universe, and material objects and possessions
acquired by a group of people in the course of generations through individual and
group striving.

 Culture consists of patterns, explicit and implicit, of and for behavior acquired and
transmitted by symbols, constituting the distinctive achievement of human
groups, including their embodiments in artifacts; the essential core of culture
consists of traditional ideas and especially their attached values, culture systems
may, on the one hand be considered as products of action, on the other hand, as
conditioning influences upon further action.

3. MORAL STANDARDS AS SOCIAL CONVENTION AND THE SOCIAL

CONDITIONING THEORY

Theories explained:
 The things we regard as moral laws (moral standards or rules), some
purport or significance, are nothing but just social convention. They mean
those things agreed upon by people, like through their authorities.

Theories analyzed:
 However, just because something is learned at homes or school does not
necessarily mean that it is a social convention.
 Mathematical operations, geographical facts, and scientific laws are also
taught in those institutions, yet they are never considered as mere human
 fabrications. Meaning, whether or not people know and like them, they are
as they are.

The philosopher C.S Lewis offers two reasons for saying that morality belongs to
the same class as mathematics:

a. Although there are differences between the moral ideas of one time or country
and those of another, the differences are not really very great.
b. We affirm that the morality of one people is better or worse than that of another,
which means that there is a moral standard or rule by which we measure both
moralities and that standard for real.

Social conditioning theory:

 Concerning social conditioning theory,’ it can be observed that when one

says that a particular action ought or ought not to be done, he/she is not
simply echoing social approval or disapproval.

4. CULTURAL RELATIVISM IN ETHICS

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.

Cultural relativism an Analysis:

 Valuable lessons from ethical relativism. In proposing that there is no

independent standard in ethics, moral relativism does encourage
tolerance. Without a doubt, tolerance is necessary for people of different
cultural origins to co-exist and live peacefully in society.

The theory’s ethical faults:

 Cultural relativism discourages analytical thinking and independent

decision making in Ethics as it requires unsuspecting compliance and
subscription to social norms.
  Logically, cultural relativism is inconsistent in promoting tolerance while
teaching that no culture is morally superior or more progressive than
others.

Rachels’ evaluation of cultural relativism

The Cultural Differences Argument

 He explains that the cultural relativists’ approach is to argue from facts
about the difference between cultural outlooks to a conclusion about the
status of morality.

 Different cultures have different moral codes. Therefore, there is no

“objective truth” in morality. Right and wrong are only matters of opinion,
and opinions vary from culture to culture.

The bad consequences of cultural relativism

a. We could no longer say that the customs of other societies are morally inferior to
our own.
b. We could decide whether actions are right or wrong just by consulting the
standards of our society.
c. The idea of moral progress is called into doubt.

5. ASIAN MORAL UNDERSTANDING

 Because culture has a major impact on morality, people from the different
cultures appear to have seemingly, but not essentially, different sets of ethics.

 This particularly apparent in ethics of groups of people from the Eastern or Asian
culture as compared to those from the Western culture.
 Some say that one of the differences between eastern (ASIAN)and western
ethics is the fact that Western Ethics is basically about finding truth, whereas
Eastern Ethics is very much about the protocol and showing of respect. Asian
ethics is said to be much more about doing what is right in terms of what is
expected to some by his family ,society and culture.

 On the other hand, Western Ethics is claimed to have more of a stress on self of
what is rationally or logically true. Moreover, Western ethics is seen to place
more emphasis on law and justice while Eastern Ethics seems to hold on must
do what is right and expected and him and the universe (or a metaphysical force)
will take care of the rest.
 SUMMARY OF PERCEIVED DIFFERENCES
IN WESTERN AND EASTERN ETHICS

WESTERN ETHICS EASTERN ETHICS

Focus Finding truth Protocol and Respect

Basic Rational thought Religious Teachings

Emphasis Logic, cause and effect Respect Towards Family

Roots Athens, Rome and Judeo- Hinduism, Buddhism,

Christianity Confucianism and Taoism

Approach Rational Holistic and Cultural

Conflict and Harmony Good must triumph over Good and Bad,
evil Light and Dark all exist
and equilibrium.

As indicated in the table, the basis of Asian or Eastern Ethics is religion,

specifically Easter religions or philosophies. Confucianism for instance, focuses on the
cultivation of virtue and maintenance of morality, the most basic of which are an
obligation of altruism and humaneness for other individuals, the upholding of
righteousness and the moral disposition to do good and a system of norms and
propriety the determines how a person should properly act in every life.

6. FILIPINO MORAL CHARACTER

• Filipino cultural morality, especially that which concern social ethics center on
ideally having a ‘smooth interpersonal relationship ‘(SIR) with others. The
definitional of ‘smooth interpersonal relationship’ in the Philippines culture is
principally supported by an anchored on at least six basic Filipino values.
 FILIPINO VALUES

1.PAKIKISAMA
having and maintaining ‘good public relations,’ This public usually being practiced to avoid
clash with other people or a certain group. It characterizes both a value and a goal that
involves keeping good feelings in all personal interactions and getting along with others,
oftentimes, at all costs

2.HIYA
is described as a feeling of lowliness,shame or embarrassment, and inhibition or shyness
which is experienced as somewhat distressing. Integrally, ’HIYA’ is related to the concept of
‘face’ and a concern with how one appears in the eyes of others

3.AMOR PROPIO
is derived from the concept of ‘face.’ Although commonly translated as ‘self-respect’ or ‘self-
esteem,’ ‘AMOR PROPIO’ has ‘been characterized as the high degree of sensitivity that
makes a person intolerant to criticism and causes him to have an easily wounded pride”
 4.UTANG NA LOOB
is likewise a fundamental aspect of upholding group harmony and relationships that
demands the balancing of obligations and debts. This involves the concepts’reciprocity’ or
returning the received favor.The inability to repay “utang na loob” (debt of gratitude) usually
makes a person “walang utang na loob” or “walang hiya.” To avoid being dubbed as
“walang utang na loob” some Filipinos sometimes do thing that may be bad (like voting for
unworthy candidate)

5.FILIPINO HOSPITALITY
refers to the innate ability and trait of Filipinos to be courteous and entertaining to their
guests. Generally speaking,Filipinos are hospitable as they are internationally known to be
warm, welcoming, and accommodating.This trait, However, makes Filipinos prone to being
abused or maltreated.

6.RESPECT FOR ELDERS

We, Filipinos, are not only respectful to elders, but also have unique ways to expressing
this respect to elders. These include the use of ‘opo’ when talking to elders and
‘pagmamano’ or the putting of the elder’s hand on one’s forehead. When excessive,
nonetheless, respect to elders make one dependent or irrationally obedient to parents or
elders.

7. UNIVERSAL VALUES

 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. If certain values exist in Western and Eastern cultures
(including Filipino culture) despite the distance, the cultural relativism’s claim
that cultures’ moralities radically differ from each other is mistaken.

 Going back to the contention that Eskimos are also protective of their
children, Rachels submits the following sound arguments (1999, p.29):

 Human infants are helpless and cannot survive if they are not given extensive
care for a period of years. Therefore, if the group did not care for its young,
the young would not survive and the older members of the group would not
be replaced after a while, the group would die out. Therefore, any cultural
group that continues to exist must care for its young. Infants that are not
cared for must be the exception rather than the rule.

 The same form of argument could be used reasonably show that other values
must be generally shared by many cultures. Giving value on (1) TRUTH
TELLING, for instance is indispensable in the existence of a society for
without it there would be no reason to pay attention to what anyone
communicates with anyone. And because complex societies cannot exist
without communication among their members, the very existence of this
societies proves that truthfulness is valued in those cultures.
  The very few situations in which it is thought to be permissible to lie are more
of “exceptions to the rule” (1999, p.30). The “general theoretical point” here,
Rachels concludes, is that “there are some moral rules that all societies will
have in common, because those rules are necessary for society to exist.
Cultures may differ in what they regard as legitimate exceptions to the rules,
but this disagreement exists against a background of agreement on the larger
issues’ Therefore, ‘it is a mistake to overestimate the amount of difference
between cultures’ (1999, p.30). In fact, not every moral rule can vary from
society to Society. This definitely files in the face of Cultural Relativism.

 Rachels also mentions of the case of (2) valuing or respecting life which
necessitates the prohibition on murder. In a society where no one thought
there was anything wrong with killing others at will, everyone would have to
be constantly on guard. Avoiding people would become a mechanism for
survival and large-scale. Societies would therefore be improbable.

MODULE 4. Moral Agent

After the completion of the chapter, students will be able to:

1. Comprehend the role of human beings as moral agents;

2. Know the six stages of moral development;
3. Appreciate the role of Kohlberg’s Theory in the development of human
ethics.

Learning Activity
a. Lecture
A moral agent is any person or collective entity with the capacity
to exercise moral agency. It is suggested that rational thought and deliberation are
prerequisite skills for any agent. In this way, moral agents can discern between right
and wrong and be held accountable for the consequences of their actions.
Recommended Reference(s) Topic
De Guzman, Jens Micah (2017). Ethics: principle of ethical behavior in modern society. Mutya Publishing
House, Inc.: Malabon City

4.1 MORAL CHARACTER AND VIRTUES

 Moral Character Virtue/s
 Refers to the existence or lack of  For humans, it refer to habitual,
virtues such as integrity, courage, excellent traits that are
fortitude, honesty, and loyalty. To intentionally developed throughout
say that a certain person has a one’s life
good moral character means that  Virtues are called “arête” in Greek
he/she is a good person citizen which, since the time of Aristotle
with a sound moral compass. and Plato, has referred to
 The term “character” is derived excellences in regard to persons
from the Greek word “charakter” or objects being the best that they
which was initially used as a mark can be in accordance with their
impressed upon a coin. The word purpose.
“character” later came to mean a
distinct mark by which one thing
was distinguish from others, and
then chiefly one person from
another. This stress on
distinctiveness or individuality
tends to merge “character” with
“personality” in modern usage.

 The use in ethics of the word “character” however, has a different linguistic
history. At the beginning of book II of the Nicomachean Ethics, the Greek
philosopher Aristotle tells us that there are two distinct human excellences,
“the excellences of thought and excellences of character.” His phrase for
excellences of moral character is often translated as moral virtues.
 “Moral Character” therefore, in philosophical sense, refers to having or lacking
moral virtue. If one lacks virtue, he/she may have any of the moral vices, or
maybe marked by a condition somewhere in between virtue and vice, such as
continence or incontinence.
 Moreover, philosophers usually think that moral character traits, unlike other
personality or psychological traits have an irreducibly evaluative dimension
that is they involve a normative judgement. The agent is morally responsible
for having the moral character trait itself or for the outcome of that trait.
Hence, a certain moral character trait s a trait for which the agent is morally
responsible.

4.2 THE CIRCULAR RELATION OF ACTS AND CHARACTER

  In the process of moral development, there is the circular relation between
acts that build character and moral character itself. Not all acts help to build
moral character, but those acts which emanate/derive from moral character
certainly matter in moral development. Hence, there appears the apparent
circular relationship between individual acts and moral character. A person’s
actions determine his/her moral character, but moral character itself
generates acts that help in developing either virtues or vices.
 This goes to show that moral development should also be understood in the
sense of human flourishing. This flourishing is attained by the habitual
practice of moral and intellectual excellence or virtues in the context of
developing morally which also brings about self-realization and happiness,
acting in line with virtues is acting in accordance with reason. Indeed
philosophers like Aristotle hold that the function of human being consists in
activities which manifest the best states of his rational aspect that is the
virtues.
 Virtuous traits of character ought to be stable and enduring and are not mere
product of fortune but of learning, constant practice, and cultivation. In this
sense the Greek moralists believe virtuous acts complete or perfect human
life.
 Nonetheless, the Greek philosophers think that it takes someone of good
moral character to determine with regularity and reliability what individual acts
are appropriate and reasonable in certain situations, and that it takes
someone of good moral character to decide with regularity how and when to
secure goods and resources for himself and others.
4.3 MORAL CHARACTERS AS DISPOSITIONS

 Moral character traits that constitute a person’s moral character are

characteristically understood as behavioral and affective disposition.
Generally speaking, dispositions are particular kind of properties or
characteristics that objects can possess.
 Among human beings moral characters traits, either virtues or vices, are also
considered as dispositions. Moral character traits are those disposition of
character for which it is suitable to hold agents morally responsible. On the
other hand, a vice is a moral character trait for which the agent is deserving of
a negative reactive attitude such as resentment or blame.

4.4 SIX STAGES OF MORAL DEVELOPMENT

LEVEL 1 LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3

PRECONVENTIONAL CONVENTIONAL POSTCONVENTIONAL
MORALITY MORALITY MORALITY

Stage 1 Stage 3 Stage 5

  Based on social contract, a government is needed for stability.
 Conflict is part in living with groups and the government provides methods to
resolve and/or prevent conflicts.
 A government makes laws, enforcement, and establishes courts.
 Conflict is restricted because the government limits what people can do (law
and order).

4.4 GETTING TO THE HIGHEST LEVEL, CONSCIENCE-BASED MORAL

DECISIONS

 Stage 1: respect for power and punishment

 Stage 2: looking out for # 1
 Stage 3: being a “good boy” or a “nice girl”
 Stage 4: law and order thinking
 Stage 5: justice through democracy
 Stage 6: deciding on basic moral principles by which you will live your life and
relate to everyone fairly

4.5 PROBLEM’S WITH KOHLBERG’S THEORY

  It must be noted nonetheless, that not all ethicists accept Kohlberg’s theory
on moral development. Some argue that this mentioned dilemmas are
artificial, that is they lack ecological validity. In the Heinz dilemma for instance
Kohlberg’s subject were aged between 10 and 16 have never been married
and so not credible to answer whether or not Heinz should steal the drug.
 Some say that Kohlberg’s sample is biased because Kohlberg’s theory is
based on an all-male sample and thus the stages reflect an androcentric or
male definition or morality. It is argued that men’s morality is basically based
on abstract principle of law and justice, whereas women’s is based on
principle of compassion and care.

REFERENCES:
De Guzman, Jens Micah (2017). Ethics: principle of ethical behavior in
modern society. Mutya Publishing House, Inc.: Malabon City.
Santrock, John (2011). Educational psychology. MacGraw Hill: New York.
Rich, Karen. Introduction to ethics. Jones & Batlett Learning, LLC.

MODULE 5. Feelings and Moral Decision-Making

After the completion of the chapter, students will be able to:

1. Describe the impact of feelings in responding to moral dilemmas;

2. Determine the disadvantages of feelings in making life decisions;
3. Balance the role of feelings making correct decisions in life.

Learning Activity

a. Lecture

Emotions – that is to say feelings and intuitions – play a major role in most of the
ethical decisions people make. Most people do not realize how much their emotions
direct their moral choices. But experts think it is impossible to make any important moral
judgments without emotions.

5.1 FEELINGS AS INSTINCTIVE RESPONSE TO MORAL DILEMMAS

  Some ethicists believe that ethics is also a matter of emotion.
 Some hold that reason and emotion are not really opposite.
 Ethical judgements are highly emotional as people emotionally express their
strong approval or disapproval of different acts.
 Moral sentiments highlight the need for morality to be based also on
sympathy for other people.
 Many ethicists conclude that being good involves both thinking and feeling.

5.2 FEELINGS AS OBSTACLES TO MAKING THE RIGHT DECISIONS

 Feelings and emotions can become obstacles or impediments to becoming

ethical. This is the case especially when feelings are misinterpreted or
exaggerated.

The following are two theories in ethics that give focus on the role of feelings on
morality:

A. Ethical Subjectivism
 This theory utterly runs contrary to the principle that there is objectivity
in morality. It suggests that we are to identify our moral principles by
simply following our feelings.
 Holds that the truth or falsity of ethical propositions is dependent on the
feelings, attutudes, or standards of a person or group of persons.
 There is no such thing as objective right or wrong. For instace, it is a
fact that some people are homosexual and some are heterosexual; but
it is not a fact that one is good and the other bad. So when someone
says that homosexuality is wrong, it is not stating a fact about
homosexuality. Instead, it is merely saying something about its feelings
toward it.

Analyzing Ethical Subjectivism

 Ethical Subjectivism suggests that we identify our moral principles by
simply following our feelings. It also implies that each of us is infallible
so long as we are honestly expressing our respective feelings about
moral issues.
 Argument: “If Ethical Subjectivism is correct, then each of us is
infallible in our moral judgements as long as we are speaking sincerely
but we are not infallible, we make mistakes even when we are
speaking sincerely. Therefore, Ethical Subjectivism cannot be correct.”
 B. Emotivism
 It can be viewed as the improved version of Subjectivism. Emotivism
begins with the observation that language is used in a variety of ways.
 Developed chiefly by the American philosopher Charles L. Stevenson
(1908‐1979), Emotivism was one of the most influential theories of
Ethics in the 20th century.
 Purpose of Emotivism:
a. First, it is used as a means of influencing people’s behavior. (For
example, if someone says “Adultery is immoral,” Emotivism
interprets it as an attempt to stop you from doing it. Thus the
utterance is more like a command than a statement of fact; it is
similar to saying, “Don’t do that!”)
b. Second, moral language is used to express (not report) one’s
(speaker’s) attitude. (For instance, saying “Lincoln was a good
man” is not like saying “I like Lincoln,” but it is like saying “Hurrah
for Lincoln!”)

Evaluating Emotivism
 Emotivism provides morality with insufficient explanation. It does not
interpret moral judgments as statements that are true‐or‐false because
commands and expressions of attitude are not true‐or‐false; people
cannot be “infallible” with respect to them.
 Emotivism is against our basic knowledge that it is favorable if
opposing groups would instead judiciously deliberate about their
ethical differences and resort to reasons to resolve them.

5.3 FEELINGS CAN HELP IN MAKING THE RIGHT DECISIONS

 Experientially, our moral compasses are also strongly influenced by the

feeling forces of disgust, fondness, or fear.
 Nonetheless the feelings or emotions involved in moral thinking should be
anchored on careful consideration of a full range of right goals, including
altruistic ones.

Activity 3

1. Write your personal assessment on how feelings affect your moral decision
making
2. Why you need to improve your moral judgement based on your feelings and
emotion?
3. What is your recommendation to address the issue moral judgement?

REFERENCES:
De Guzman, Jens Micah (2017). Ethics: principle of ethical behavior in modern
society. Mutya Publishing House, Inc.: Malabon City.
Rae, Scott (2018). Moral choices: an introduction to ethics. Zondervan: Michigan
Rachels, James (1993). Subjectivism in ethics.
https://web.ics.purdue.edu/~drkelly/RachelsSubjectivismInEthics1993.pdf
 MODULE 6. Reason and Impartiality as Minimum
Requirement for Morality
After the completion of the chapter, students will be able to:

1. Describe the importance of moral reasoning and impartiality;

2. Familiarize oneself with the seven-step moral reasoning model;
3. State examples and real-life scenarios where moral reasoning and impartiality
can be applied.
Learning Activity
1. Lecture
Outcome-Based Assessment
1. Short Quiz 10 points
Reason commends what it commends, regardless of our feelings, attitudes, opinions,
and desires. IMPARTIALITY involves the idea that each individual's interests and point
of view are equally important. It is also called evenhandedness or fair-mindedness.

6.1 REASON AND IMPARTIALITY DEFINED

REASON IMPARTIALITY
 It is the basis or motive for an  It is the idea that each
action, decision, or conviction. individual’s interests and point of
 Reason spells the difference of view are equally important.
moral judgement from mere  Impartiality in morality requires
expressions of personal that we give equal and/or
preference. adequate consideration to the
interests of all concerned parties.


6.2 THE SEVEN-STEP MORAL REASONING MODEL

i. Gather the Facts

 Gathering the facts is the indispensable first step prior to an ethical
analysis and reflection on the case.
 In analyzing a case/situation, know the available facts at hand, as well as
any facts presently not known but that need to be determined.

ii. Determine the Ethical Issues

  Ethical issues are stated in terms of legitimate competing interests or
goods. These competing interests are what actually create an ethical
dilemma (ethical dilemma is defined as a conflict between two or more
value/virtue-driven interests.)
 Moral values and virtues must support the competing interests in order to
have a genuine ethical dilemma. If you cannot identify any underlying
virtues/values, then it may have some other kind of dilemma, not a moral
one.
 Issues must be presented in a P vs. Q format In order to reflect the
interests that are colliding in a specific moral dilemma.

iii. 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. It is critical to identify these values
or principles.
 In some cases, one will need to decide whether some principles are to be
weighted more heavily than others.

iv. Lists of Alternatives

 This involves coming up with various alternative courses of action as part
of the creative thinking, to resolve an ethical dilemma.
 The more alternatives that are listed, the better the chance that your list
will include some high quality ones.

v. Compare the Alternatives with the Principles

 This involves eliminating alternatives according to the moral principle that
have bearing on the case.
 Often, in order to make a clear decision, one must weight one or more
virtues/values more heavily than the others. However, more basis must be
provided for weighting than simple intuitions.

vi. Weigh the Consequences

 If the principles do not yield a clear decision, then the consequences of
the remaining available alternatives must be considered, both positive and
negative.
 Positive consequences are more beneficial than others and negative
consequences are more detrimental than others.

vii. Make a Decision

 It must be realized that one common element to moral dilemmas is that
there are no easy and painless solutions to them. Frequently, the decision
 that is made is one that involves the least number of problems or negative
consequences, not one that is entirely devoid of them.

Short Quiz: Encircle the correct answer

1. How could reason and impartiality work together?

a. It will help them to think rationally what is good and what is bad; and to be
just and fair to benefit not themselves but to benefit the majority.
b. It will help them not to think rationally of what is good and what is bad.
c. It will help them not to think rationally what is good and what is bad; and it
only beneficial for themselves
d. None of the above

2. Identify the issue to find the correct answer. What is the first step you should
do in analyzing a case and know the available facts at hand, as well as any
facts presently not known but that need to be determined.
a. Gather the fact b. Jump right away to the issue c. Find the near context
b. Determine the far context in order to understand the near context issue

3. Determine the issue here on why moral values must support the competing
interests in order to have a genuine ethical dilemma. If you cannot identify
any underlying virtues, then it may have some other kind of dilemma, not a
moral one.
a. Determine the ethical issue? B. It concern to moral dilemma? C. It concern
to ethical issue? D. None of the above
4. Positive consequences are more beneficial than others and negative
consequences are more detrimental than others
A. Weigh the Consequences B. gather the facts C. make a decision D. None
5. It must be realized that one common element to moral dilemmas is that there
are no easy and painless solutions to them. Frequently, the decision
A. make a decision B. determine the ethical issue C. lists of alternatives

REFERENCES:
De Guzman, Jens Micah (2017). Ethics: principle of ethical behavior in modern
society. Mutya Publishing House, Inc.: Malabon City.
Rae, Scott (2018). Moral choices: an introduction to ethics. Zondervan: Michigan.
 CHAPTER 7
MORAL COURAGE

After the completion of the chapter, students will be able to:

4. Describe the importance of moral courage

5. Developing Will and Moral Courage
6. Enable to draw inspiration from people of great courage

Learning Activity
2. Lecture
Outcome-Based Assessment
1. Short Quiz 10 points

Moral courage is the ability to stand up for and practice that which one considers ethical,
moral behavior when faced with a dilemma, even if it means going against countervailing
pressure to do otherwise.

Morally courageous individuals act upon their ethical values to help others during

difficult ethical dilemmas, despite the adversity they may face in doing so. ... To be
morally courageous means standing up for what you believe even when it means that
you do so alone (Murray, 2015)
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. It encompasses endowing the inner strength to
focus all the energy on a moral goal and persevere until it is accomplished.
To act out of a "good will" for Kant means to act out of a sense of moral obligation or
"duty". ... Kant answers that we do our moral duty when our motive is determined by a
principle recognized by reason rather than the desire for any expected consequence or
emotional feeling which may cause us to act the way we do .
The Importance of Moral Courage
This is an excerpt/extract from Ch. 14, “Trust: The Key to Combat Leadership” by
Colonel (Retired) Patrick Sweeney, Ph.D., from the book “Leadership Lessons from
West Point”.  The chapter delves into the top ten attributes of a leader who can be
trusted in combat as determined by Sweeney’s research on trust and leadership in an
actual combat environment during Operation Iraqi Freedom in May 2003.  Those
attributes, in order of importance, are: competent, loyal, honesty/good integrity, leads by
example, self-control (stress management), confident, courageous (physical and moral),
shares information, personal connection with subordinates and strong sense of duty.
The second dimension of leader courage deals with leaders’ moral strength to do the
right thing in all situations.  Moral courage entails a leader’s strength of character to
be willing to incur risk in order to act according to his or her values and beliefs
and stand up to authority to protect his or her soldiers’ welfare or defend his or
her decisions.  Thus, moral courage enables leaders to live with integrity, act to uphold
the loyalty to their subordinates, and execute their duties with confidence.  Subordinates
can trust leaders who have the courage to act in accordance with their values because
they know the directives they issue will be honest and based on values.  Subordinates
will not depend on or trust a leader who possesses good job knowledge, has a good set
of values and beliefs, and has loyalty to subordinates but lacks the moral courage to put
these skills, values, and beliefs into action.  Therefore, a leader’s moral courage
provides the force of will to do what is right regardless of the situation and the costs the
leader must incur.  In combat, this is critical because leaders’ moral courage and
integrity define the moral and ethical boundaries that subordinates must operate within.
Furthermore, soldiers’ responses indicated they would trust combat leaders who were
not afraid to take a stand for what they believed in, the decisions they made, or what is
the proper way to conduct business.  Leaders must have the moral courage to handle
the consequences of taking a stand with the chain of command to fight for what they
believe is right.  The following statements illustrate qualities of moral courage that lead
to the development of trust:
“[I place a high value on a leader’s] strength when it comes to standing up to the
company commander, so that fire-support team members were used properly and not
as machine gunners.” – Staff sergeant, infantry company fire support noncommissioned
office, Qayyarah West Airbase, northern Iraq
“Courage [is important because] a leader must be able to take risks and not back down
from confrontation.” – Private first class, infantry company forward observer radio
operator, Qayyarah West Airbase, northern Iraq
Moral courage is equally important to leadership in business, nonprofit, political, or any
other type of organization.  Group members always expect their leaders to have the
moral courage to act in accordance with their own and the organization’s values.  Thus,
leaders’ moral courage provides group members with a sense of confidence that
leaders will behave in a moral and ethical manner and take action to promote the best
interests of the organization and its members.  This confidence that leaders have the
strength to act morally and ethically leads to the development of trust, which increases
group members’ willingness to follow.
Enron’s, Tyco’s, and Adelphi’s senior business leaders lacked the moral courage to act
in accordance with their own and their organization’s values.  The consequences of this
leadership failure were devastating to the companies, the employees, retirees, and
shareholders.  Employees lost their jobs, retirees lost their pensions and sense of
security, shareholders lost their equity, and the public lost trust in the companies. 
Whether these senior leaders actively participated in the fraud or tolerated it by not
coming forward, they all lacked moral courage to do the right thing.  Thus, the agency
that comes with moral courage helps ensure group members that leaders do the right
thing by the organization and all people associated with it. 

Developing Will and Moral Courage: 5 Tips

 The following are some tips or suggestions on how to develop will and moral courage
 1. 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. Ethically applied, it may refer to the
giving up of instant pleasure and satisfaction for a higher and better goal such as
executing a good rational moral decision.
 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. It encompasses endowing the inner strength to focus all the
energy on a moral goal and persevere until it is accomplished.

 2. 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.
 Everybody is normally confronted and tempted by an endless stream of cravings and
temptations, many of which are not actually important or desirable. By practicing to
refuse to gratify every one of them, a person gets courageous and stronger.Saying no
to useless, harmful or unnecessary desires and deeds, and behaving contrary to one’s
(bad) habits, fortify and refine a person’s mindset. By persistent practice, one’s inner
power grows, in the same way working out one’s muscles at a gym increases one’s
physical strength. In both cases, when a person needs inner power or physical strength,
they are available at his/her disposal.The following are some examples. Some of them
are not necessarily ethically related:
 - Don’t open the internet for a day or two.
- Drink water or juice, in spite of your desire to have a beer or liquor.
- Avoid chatting with your gossipy friend.
- For a week, go to sleep one hour earlier than usual.
- Resist the desire to gamble.
 Trainings like these add to the storehouse of one’s inner strength. By following a
methodical method of training, a person can reach far, have more control over oneself
and one’s life, realize ethical goals, improve his/her life, and achieve satisfaction and
peace of mind.

 3. Draw inspiration from people of great courage.

People usually admire and respect courageous persons who have won great success
by manifesting self-discipline and will power. 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.
History is filled with outstanding examples of moral courage whom we rightly
celebrate: Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Mahatma Gandhi, Aung San Suu Kyi, and
especially Jesus Christ and His apostles. When we see individuals put their
comfort, safety, security, reputation, or even life on the line for a cause they
believe in, or for an ideal that matters more than personal wellbeing, we witness
moral courage and will in action.

4. Repeatedly do acts that exhibit moral courage and will.

Practice makes perfect. If one wishes to nurture the moral courage and will in him, he
must strive doing the acts that manifest them whenever opportunity allows it. The
following are some examples (Moral Courage)
 Helping someone push a car (e.g. out of a snow bank), even if it means being late.
Example: 1. Standing up to a bully on the playground 2. Picking up litter 3. Doing
homework or chores without being reminded 4. Refusing to listen to or repeat gossip 5.
Practicing what you preach 6. Even when no-one is looking or knows 7. Turning in a toy
or a wallet to the Lost and Found
(For teens) calling home for a ride from a party where alcohol is being served
(For teachers) giving all students an equal voice regardless of race, socioeconomic
status, religion, gender or sexual orientation
Becoming company whistle blower risking job loss, financial cost, and or legal
repercussion
Reporting a crime
Participating in a peaceful protest
 
5. 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. Here are some examples (“Moral Courage,” n.d.):
 
Walking away from someone in need
Taking more than your fair share
Laughing at someone's misfortune or accident
Grabbing the spotlight from someone who has earned it
Placing too much reliance on the letter rather than the spirit of the law
Remaining silent in the face of wrong-doing or injustice
Rationalizations or justifications for action/lack of action
Being inconsistent or capricious with rules and standards for one’s children
Choosing sides after seeing which way the wind is blowing
Breaking a promise like lying and cheating.
 CHAPTER 8

Lesson 8: Basic theories as frameworks in ethics

Intended Learning Outcomes:

After the completion of the chapter, the students will be able to:
1. Discuss the concepts and context of basic theories as frameworks in
ethics;
2. Differentiate the various theories in ethics;
3. Familiarize the role of different theories in ethics in future career.

What is Framework?
FRAMEWORK  It is a basic structure values
 A set of assumption, concept, and practices
The Three Main Branches of the Philosophical Study of Ethics
1. META-ETHICS  Studies the nature of morality 
 Explains what goodness and wickedness mean
 Cognitivism vs. Non-  It talks about the meaning, reference, and truth values of moral judgement
Cognitivism  It also explains what goodness and wickedness mean and how we know
 Universalism vs. about them 
Relativism  It consists in the attempt to answer the fundamental philosophical
 Empiricism vs. questions about the nature of ethical theory itself.
Rationalism vs. For Examples:
Intuitionalism 1. Are ethical statements such as “lying is wrong”, or “friendship
is good” true or false?
2. Assuming there are truths of morality, what sorts of facts
make them true?
3. What makes ethical discourse meaningful? Is it different from
what makes other sorts of discourse meaningful?
4. How do the rules of logic apply to ethical arguments and
ethical reasoning? Is it possible to validly infer a moral
conclusion based on non-moral premises?
5. Assuming we have any, what is the source of our knowledge
of moral truths? Is it based on reason, intuition, scientific
experimentation or something else?
6. What is the connection (if any) between morality and religion? If God exists,
is God’s will the basis of morality? Can there be morality if God doesn’t exist?
Cognitivism vs. Non-Cognitivism
Cognitivism Non-Cognitivism
-The view that moral judgments are -The view that moral judgments are
capable of being true or false not capable of being true or false
-Right and wrong and matters fact (instead they are like commands or
 2 famous form of Cognitivism interjections)
1. Moral Realism -Denies the moral judgements if
-Claims that existence of moral facts true or false
and the truth (or falsity) of moral
judgements are INDEPENDENT Emotivism
2. Ethical Subjective -Submits the moral judgements are
-Holds that the truth of ethical mere expressions of our emotional
propositions are DEPENDENT on and feelings
attitude or standard of a person
Universalism Vs. Relativism
Moral Universalism Moral Relativism
-Theorizes that moral facts -Submits the different moral
and principles apply to facts.
everybody in all places.
Empiricism Vs. Rationalism Vs. Intuitionalism
Moral Empiricism Moral Rationalism Moral
-Is a meta-ethical -Contends that moral Intuitionalism
stance which states facts and principles are -Submits that
that moral facts are knowable, a priori that moral truth are
known through is, by reason along and knowable by
observation and without reference to intuition.
experience. experience.
2. NORMATIVE  How man ought to act, morally speaking
ETHICS  It examines ethical norms, that is, those guidelines about what
is right, worthwhile, virtuous or just.
 Deontology  It is the study of what makes actions right or wrong, what
 Teleology
makes situations or events good or bad and what makes
Virtue Ethics
people virtuous or vicious.
Deontology
 Ethical system that bases morality on independent moral
 Rules or duties
 Obligation
Teleology
 Refers to moral system that determines the moral value of
actions by their outcomes or results
Virtue Ethics
 Moral system, places emphasis on developing good
habits of character, kindness and generosity.
 Avoiding bad character traits, or vices such as greed or
hatred.
3. APPLIED ETHICS  Philosophically examines specific, controversial moral issues.
 Bioethics
 It consists in the attempt to answer difficult moral questions
 Environmental actual people face in their lives.
Ethics For example:
 Business Ethics 1. Is abortion always morally wrong?
 Sexual Ethics 2. Is euthanasia always morally wrong?
3. What about the death penalty?
 Social Ethics Sex before marriage?
So-called “white lies”
Being gay or lesbian?
Fighting in a war?
Using rough interrogation tactics on criminals?
Eating meat?
Using illegal drugs? ETC.
Bioethics
 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 it’s human contents
Business Ethics 
 It examines moral principles concerning business
environment which involves issues about corporate,
practices, policies, business behavior and the
relationships of individual in the organization.
Sexual Ethics 
 Study moral issue about sexuality and human sexual
behavior
Social Ethics 
 Deals with what is right for a society to do and how it
should act as a whole.

Reference(s) & Author(s): Gzzingan,L., Porillo, J., Velasco, V., Valdez, S., Bautista, F.,
Dalhag, L., Trinidad, J.L., Palado, D., Nova, R. Understanding the Self. Panday-Lahi Publishing
House, Inc 2018.

Chapter Assessment

Direction:
Give life at least 2 experiences of the three main branches
of the philosophical study of ethics.
 CHAPTER 9
VIRTUE ETHICS

Learning Activity
After the completion of the chapter, students will be able to:

 Learn the three general descriptions, which are interrelated by Aristotle;

 Enable to evaluate the Greek philosopher ethical theories and;
 Enable to apply Filipino ethics in daily life.

Learning Activity
Lecture
Outcome-Based Assessment
Short Quiz 10 points

VIRTUE ETHICS- Socrates 470-399 BC, Plato 427-348 BC, and Aristotle 384-322 BC. The
ancient Greek philosopher who deeply affected western philosophy.
1. Virtue Ethics Defined- is a moral philosophy that teaches that an action is right if it is an
action that a virtuous person would perform in the same situation. Virtue Ethics emphasis
on developing good habits of character and avoiding bad character traits or vices.
Basically, the virtues are the freely chosen character traits that people praise on others.
People praise them because: they are difficult to develop, they are corrective of natural
deficiencies, they are beneficial both self and society.
2. Socrates and Plato Moral Philosophy- in the dialogue written by Plato, Socrates
indicates that pleasure and pain fail to provide an objective standard from determining
moral from immoral since they do not exist apart from one another, while good and evil
do.
Central to Plato’ philosophy in his Theory of Forms –the objectively existing immaterial
entities that are the proper object of knowledge. Everything in the material world is what is by
virtue of its resemblance to, or participation, this universal form of idea. These unchanging
independent forms are like ideal and stable models of the ordinary observable objects. The
highest of all forms is the form of The Good. Virtue therefore is regarded as knowledge and can
be taught. Knowledge of good is considered as the source of guidance in moral decision making
that to know the good, it is argued, is to do the good.
3. Aristotle’s Ethics- At least two of Aristotle’s work specifically concern morality, the
Eudemian Ethics and Nicomachean Ethics.
Three general descriptions, which are interrelated by Aristotle.

3.1 Telos is an end or purpose. He believed that the essential nature of beings, lay not at their
cause or (beginning), but at their end (Telos).
(Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics can be thus summarized in this manner: “all humans seek
happiness (wellbeing) but in different ways. True happiness is tied to the purpose or end (telos)
of human life. The essence of human beings (that which separates and distinguishes as a
species) is reason. Reason employed in achieving happiness (human telos) leads to moral
virtues. E.g., courage, temperance, justice and prudence and intellectual virtues. (e.g.,
science, art, practical wisdom, theoretical wisdom.)
3.2Happiness and Virtues- Aristotle believes that the ultimate human goal is self-realization.
Aristotle identifies three natures of man: Vegetable or Physical, Animal or Emotional, and
Rational or Mental. The thing that distinguishes humans from all other creatures is the rational
nature or the ability to reason. Accordingly, living in accordance with reason is viewed as vital in
self-realization or developing one’s potential. The awareness of our nature and the development
of our potentials-is the key to human happiness. But what is happiness in line with Aristotle’s
ethical view?
• For Aristotle, is the inquiry into the human good. This human good is eudaimonia or
happiness.
• He also considers happiness as the summum bonum- the greatest good of all human life.
It is the only intrinsic good or inherent, that is the good that is pursued for its own sake.
Note: happiness, therefore, is not much of a subjective feeling of wellbeing, but human
wellbeing itself, being the human good.
3.3 virtues as habit- Aristotle’s idea of happiness should be also understood in the sense of
human flourishing. This flourishing is attained by habitual practice of moral and intellectual
excellences, or virtue. Aristotle employ the word hexis to refer to moral virtue. One denotation of
the term hexis is an active state, a condition in which something must actively hold itself. More
explicitly, an action counts as virtuous, according to Aristotle, when a person holds one self in a
stable equilibrium of the soul, in order to select the action knowingly and its own sake. This
stable equilibrium of the soul is what constitutes character. Moral virtue is the only practical road
to effective action. The virtuous person, who has good character, sees truly, judge rightly, and
act morally.
3.4 virtues and the golden mean- 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 form by habits reflecting repeated choices, hence is also
called virtue of character.

He also mentions four moral basic virtues: Courage, Temperance, Justice and Prudence.
Courage is the golden mean between cowardice and tactless. The coward has too little bravery,
the reckless has too much and the courageous shows just the proper amount of bravery.
3.5 Phronesis and Practice- in using golden mean to become virtuous, we must recognize not
only the mean is neither too much nor too little but also it is relative to us as moral agent. We
should know the right amount of food for the six footer basketball player is different from the
right amount for a 3 footer, thin 12 tear old boy, to avoid excess and defect. Aristotle teaches us
about an intellectual virtue that plays a significant role in ethics. 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.
To be virtuous, one must perform the action that habitually bring virtue. Example: a person
must practice and develop the virtue of generosity, for instance, so that acting generously
becomes habitual. Moral education thus comprises imitation, internalization, and practice until it
become normal.

4. AN EVALUATION OF THE GREEK PHILOSOPHER’S ETHICAL THEORIES

Socrates and Plato 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 no person is willingly bad. Obviously, being moral, virtuous, and just,
is equated with being knowledgeable of the good. The just person is said to be truly happy one-
far happier than the wicked, whatever material; advantages the unjust person enjoys, and no
matter what difficulties or poor status the moral person suffers.
Comparatively, Aristotle’s concept of virtue is more active (by practice) than that of Plato.
Whereas Plato equates virtue with mere knowledge of the form of the good. Aristotle
considered virtue not as innate or something taught by a teacher to a student, but that which
acquired by practice.

5. THOMAS AQUINAS ETHICS- called the angelic doctor and the prince of Scholastics, 1225-
1274. Italian philosopher and theologians. He is most important thinkers of the medieval time
period. His idea depends heavily on Aristotle. Aquinas believes that all actions are directed
toward ends (telos by aristotle) and that happiness is the final ends. Happiness consists in
activities in accordance with virtue. Like Augustine, he declares that ultimate happiness is not
attainable in this life. Present happiness is imperfect) true happiness is to be found only in the
soul (saint) of the blessed in heaven of in beatitude with God.
(5.1) The Natural Law. Aquinas use the ordinance of reason for the common good, promulgated
by someone who has care of the community. He also be understood in terms of “rules and
measures” for people conduct and as “rational pattern or forms”.
Aquinas: there are four primary types of law-the eternal law, natural law, human law, and
divine law.

Eternal law- refers to the rational plan of God by which all creation is ordered. As God is the
supreme ruler of everything, the rational pattern or form of the universe that exist in His (God)
mind is the law that directs everything in the universe to its appointed end. To this eternal law,
everything in the universe is subject.
Natural Law- is the aspect of the eternal law which is accessible to human reason. Because
mankind fall under or part of the eternal order, there is a portion of the eternal law that relates
specifically to human conduct. This is the moral law, the law or order to which people are
subject by their nature ordering them to do good and avoid evil.
Human Law- refers to positive laws. For natural law to be adhered or follow to, more exact and
forceful provision of human law are helpful. Because natural law is too broad to provide
particular guidance, the human laws precise, positive rules of behavior are supposed to spell
out what natural law prescribe. This human law includes the civil and criminal law, though only
those formulated in the light of practical reason and moral laws. Human laws that are against
natural law are not real laws, and people are not oblige to obey those unjust laws
Divine Law- serves to compliments other types of law. It is a law of revelation, disclosed
through scared text of Scriptures and the church which is also directed toward man’s eternal
end. The divine law is more focused on how man can inwardly holy and eventually attain
salvation.

Obviously the type of law that is primarily significant in ethics is the Natural Law. Part of this
natural law is our natural tendency to pursue the behavior and goals appropriate to us.
(5.2) Features of Human Actions. Aquinas evaluates human actions on the basis not only of
their conformity to the natural law but also to their specific features. He mentions at least three
aspect through the morality of an acts can be determined in terms of its “Species, Accident, and
End (telos by Aristotle).
Species- of an action refers to its kind. It is also called the object of the action. And
human deeds may be divided into kinds. “good, bad, indifferent or neutral. Aquinas holds that
for an action to be moral, it must be good or at least not bad in species.
Accidents- it refers to the circumstances surrounding the action in ethically evaluating
an action, the context in which the action takes place is also considered because an act might
be flawed or damage through its circumstances.
End- an act might be unjust through its intention. To intend to direct oneself against a
good is clearly immoral. Correspondingly, a bad intention can spoil a good act, like giving an
alms out of vainglory. Hence, stealing to give to the poor as in the case of Robin Hood, is an
unjust act.

6. AN ANALYSIS OF THOMISTIC ETHICS. He holds that the goodness or badness of an

action lies in the interior act of will, in the external bodily act, in the very nature of the act, and
even in its consequences. Moreover, he declares that what matters in morally is not what
actually does but also his intention in doing the act. Thomistic ethics does not fall into just one
neat contemporary category of moral theory. By not giving emphasis on the result of actions in
his so-called features of actions, we can say that he more of a deontologist or Kantian than a
utilitarian. His basic tenet that actions must be directed to what is good somehow relates hi
theory to utilitarianism and consequentialism in general. By advocating the roles by virtues in
morality, Aquinas and Aristotle, is a virtue ethicist.

(One page reflection)

Reference(s) & Author(s): De Guzman, Jens Micah (2017). Ethics: principle of ethical
behavior in modern society. Mutya Publishing House, Inc.: Malabon City

CHAPTER 10
Virtue Ethics

Activity Title: Kantian Right Theory

Learning Target/Competency: After the completion of the chapter, the learners will

be able to familiarize the key concepts in ethics; differentiate the various aspects of
ethics; and apply the concepts of ethics in real-life situations.

Values/Graduate Attribute: The learners will become reflective and critical thinkers

who understand the rightness or wrongness of human conduct.

Reference(s) & Author(s): De Guzman, Jens Micah (2017). Ethics: principle of

ethical behavior in modern society. Mutya Publishing House, Inc.: Malabon City

1. KANTIAN RIGHTS THEORY-Kantian ethics refers to a deontological ethical

theory developed by German philosopher Immanuel Kant that is based on the notion that: "It is
impossible to think of anything at all in the world, or indeed even beyond it, that could be
considered good without limitation except a good will." The theory was developed as a
result of Enlightenment rationalism, stating that an action can only be good if it’s maxim or could
be a universal standard—the principle behind it—is duty to the moral law, and arises from a
sense of duty in the actor.
Central to Kant's construction of the moral law is the categorical imperative, which acts
on all people, regardless of their interests or desires.
Immanuel Khant Categorical imperative- a rule of conduct that is unconditional or
absolute for all agents, the validity or claim of which does not depend on any desire or
end.

Immanuel Khant Hypothetical Imperative- a rule of conduct that is understood to apply to

an individual only if he or she desires a certain end and has chosen (willed) to act on that
desire.

Good will and duty

In his combined works, Kant constructed the basis for an ethical law by the concept of  duty.
Kant began his ethical theory by arguing that the only virtue that can be unqualifiedly (no
limitation/ qualification) good is a good will. No other virtue has this status because every other
virtue can be used to achieve immoral ends (for example, the virtue of loyalty is not good if one
is loyal to an evil person). The good will is unique in that it is always good and maintains its
moral value even when it fails to achieve its moral intentions. Kant regarded the good will as a
single moral principle that freely chooses to use the other virtues for moral ends.
Kant believes that one of the functions and capacities of our reason is to produce a will which is
good not as a means to some further end, but good in itself. For him, it is the good will which is
the highest good and the condition of all other goods. Kant is somehow contradicts to the
summon bonum of Aristotle were happiness is the highest form of end (telos). Note: Kant
teaches that the only good will is intrinsically good. That is, it is the only thing which is good
without qualification.
1.1 Kant categorical imperative- what we discussed so far is Kant emphasis on the ethical
relevance of good will and acting from a sense of duty. “can a person know what his duty is in a
given situation?”. Is there a test to find out what one’s duty is in a particular set of
circumstances? Kant believe that there is, first, it is one’s duty, as rational being, to act on
principle or maxim, as contrasted to simply acting on impulse.

To distinguish “action on maxim” from “action on impulse,” let’s provide some illustration.

Acting on impulse- Suppose a man wants to financially help a certain lady who is in
need, merely because he likes her personally, and he might not want to give the same
assistance to another woman in an exactly similar situation because he does not
happen to like her. This is acting on impulse and not done for a reason or on any principle
or maxim.
Acting on maxim- now, contrast this with another man who gives relief to total
strangers who are victim of calamity. Because he accepts it as his duty to provide support
to those in need, he treats in precisely the same manner any other person whose situation
has the same characteristics.
Evidently not all maxims are moral ones. In ethics Kant concerned with maxims that are moral,
that is, those dictated by reason and thus has imperative force or vital force.
.
Now, Kant further divides the maxims of conduct into two classes, the hypothetical
imperatives and categorical imperatives.
“Imperative” should be understood as a command of reason.
The term “hypothetical”, on the other hand, entails being true only under some conditions, and
therefore not universally true or valid. A hypothetical imperative is how reason orders to achieve
one’s specific ends. Example: if you want to pass the examination, then study hard. If you are
hungry then eat. So it’s like a decree stating that if you wish to accomplish such-and-such an
end, you must act in such-and-such a way.
Categorical Imperative- on the other hand, pronounce, “No matter what end you desire to
attain, act in particular ways regardless of what goals one looks for or what one’s end may be.
Categorical imperative demands action without qualification, without any If’s, and without
regards to consequence such an act may produce. Unlike hypothetical imperative, categorical
imperative is accepted on its own merits.
For Kant, the categorical imperative ordains a rule that, if followed, will guarantee that the
person behaving in accordance with it is acting morally. The categorical imperative serves as a
barometer of reason determining whether or not an action qualifies as ethical. Therefore, it is
Kant moral philosophy that an act is morally good maxim; and a maxim is morally good if it
conforms to the categorical imperative.
Kant provides various formulations of categorical imperative. The most famous 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.”

2. AN ANALYSIS OF KANTIAN ETHICS- many who have read and understood Kant’s ethical
system find it sensible and plausible or believable. In fact, when we try to prove that one’s
particular action is unethical and ask him, “what if everybody behave as you do?, we are
actually advocating Kant’s universabizability formulation of the categorical imperative. Kant
stated the highly accepted golden rule, “do unto others as you would have them do unto you”
and its proscriptive counterpart. The most famous formulations of Kant’s categorical imperative,
especially the end-in-itself version, instruct us to respect other because that is how we treat
ourselves. He submits that some action like lying, are wrong regardless of the
circumstances and the outcomes they generate.
Critics argue that if lying is the only way to safeguard from sure danger another person, then
lying is what one must do. For instance, if a murderer, armed with a shotgun, comes looking for
a family member or friend to kill her, should we reveal her whereabouts merely because we
ought to tell the truth? We may suggest that human obligations, say keeping promises, telling
the truth, and repaying debts, should be really kept, but provided that no other overriding factors
exist, some propose, are better construed as generalizations rather than as categorical
commands without any exception.
Another shortcoming of Kant’s ethics is its lack of solution to instances when there is a conflict
of duties. Suppose a person promises to keep a secret and then another person asks him about
it. He cannot tell the truth without breaking his promise. But Kantian ethics inflexibly demands
that he ought to do both always and in all circumstances, which, in this case, is logically
impossible.

3. RIGHT THEORY- in law, Immanuel Kant proposed the principle of rights. He saw a distinctive
correlation, yet difference, between the intent of the law and the enforcement of the law. For
Kant, governments were entrusted with the capacity to create laws by citizens they govern in
exchange for protection. (the dato and raha do the same measurement prior to Spanish
occupation). Thus, governments have no right to disrupt that trust by making laws with cruel
intent against the freedom that citizens had been promised.
The principle of rights theory is the notion that in order for a society to be efficacious,
“government must approach the making and enforcement of the laws with the right intentions in
respect to the end goals of the society that it governs. Members of society agree to give up
some freedom to protection enjoyed by organized society, but government cannot infringe upon
the rights that citizens have been promised.
When applied to war, rights theory states that in order for a war to be deemed morally justifiable,
the intention of entering into war ought to be right in relation to human rights. The principle of
rights theory teaches that it is not merely the outcome of actions that is significant but also the
reasoning behind them, because if the intent is evil, then the outcome, in all likelihood, is bad as
well.

Rights Based Ethics is a broad moral theory in which Kant principle of rights theory is included.
There are some rights both positive and negative rights, that all humans have based only on the
fact that they are human. These rights can be natural or conventional.
Example of rights based ethics…
1. The right to life
2. The right to liberty
3. The right to pursue happiness
4. The right to a jury trial
5. The right to a lawyer
6. The right to freely practice a religion of choice
7. The right to express ideas or opinions with freedom as an individual
8. The right of individual or organizations to express opinions or share information freely in
written medium
9. The right to come together and meet in order to achieve goals
10. The right to be informed of what law has been broken if arrested
11. The right to call witnesses to speak on one’s behalf if accused of crime
12. The right of a person to be treated with respect and dignity even after being found guilty
of a crime
13. The right to freely live and travel within the country
14. The right to work
15. The right to marry
16. The right to bear children
17. The right to free education
18. The right to join any peaceful parties or groups of choice
19. The right to be free from slavery
20. The right to not be tortured
21. The right to be treated as equal to others
22. The right to be considered to be innocent until proven guilty
23. The right to personal privacy
24. The right to own property

4. Legal vs Moral Rights

What is legal is not always moral. And sometimes, what is moral is not necessarily legal is
particular country. These principles prove, among other things, that being moral and being legal
may be practically related but not one and the same.
4.1 Legal Rights. Denotes or indicate all the rights found within existing legal codes, as such,
they enjoy the recognition and protection of the law. Questions as to their existence can be
resolved by just locating the pertinent legal instrument of piece of legislation.
Technically, a legal right does not exist prior to its passing into law and limits of its validity are
set by the jurisdiction of the body which passed its legislation.
(note: the exercise of the right is limited to particular place and has no legal right receive into
different location.)
4.2 Moral Rights. Is plain contrast, are rights that “exist prior to and independently from their
legal counterparts. The existence and validity of a moral right is not deemed to be dependent
upon the actions of jurists and legislators. For instance, many people argued that the black
majority in apartheid south Africa have a moral right to full political participation in that country’s
political system, although there existed no such legal right.

Note: "aparthood") was a system of institutionalized racial segregation that existed in

South Africa and South West Africa (now Namibia) from 1948 until the early
1990s. ... Apartheid was adopted as a formal policy by the South African government after
the ascension of the National Party (NP) during the 1948 general elections. The liberation
(under great Britain) achieve through the works of Nelson Mandela.

What many found so ethically objectionable about apartheid south Africa (Nambia) was its
denial to majority of the country’s inhabitants of many fundamental moral rights, such as the
right not to discriminated against on ground of color and rights to political participation.
This specific line of opposition and protest could only be pursued because of a belief in the
existence and validity of moral rights, with or without recognition of a legal system.
It must be clear, therefore, that human rights cannot be reduced to, or exclusively identified with
legal rights. In fact, some human rights are best identified as moral rights. Human rights are
meant to apply to all human beings universally, regardless of whether or not they have attained
legal recognition by all countries everywhere. Human rights are best thought as being both
moral and legal rights.
CLASS DISCUSSION
1. Explain the rights theory
2. Differentiate a legal from a moral right
3. Explain Kant’s categorical imperative
4. For Kant, what is the role of reason in living morally?
5. Relate good will and acting from the sense of beauty
6. Explain Kant’s acting on maxim
7. Compare hypothetical and categorical imperatives
 8. For Kant, what is an authentically moral act?
9. Explain “what is legal is not always moral.”
10. Differentiate between the rights and virtue theories.

Evaluation
Name_______________________________________________________Date____________
_________________
Professor__________________________________________________Course &
Year_______________________
I. True or False. Write T if the statement is true and F if the statement is false.

______1. For Kant, happiness, when not combine with goodwill, is worthless
______2. Kant agrees with many ethicists that happiness is the summum bonum
______3. Kantian ethics hold that feelings can help us discern what is right and what is
wrong
______4. Kant thinks that acting from a sense of duty means exhibiting goodwill even in the
face of difficulty
______5. Kant teaches that for an act to be moral, it must be done from a sense of duty
dictated by reason

2. Matching Type:  Right the correct letter at the line provided

_______1. Categorical imperative a. Immanuel Kant
_______2. It should be understood as a command of reason b. Imperative
_______3. Racial segregation that existed in South Africa c. Aparthood
_______4. the moral value of actions are determined by the utility d. Utilitarianism

_______5. Utilis e. Useful

CHAPTER 11
UTILITARIANISM
Activity Title: Utilitarianism

Learning Target/Competency: After the completion of the chapter, the learners will be

able to familiarize the key concepts in ethics; differentiate the various aspects of ethics;
and apply the concepts of ethics in real-life situations.

Values/Graduate Attribute: The learners will become reflective and critical thinkers

who understand the rightness or wrongness of human conduct.

UTILITARIANISM- Jeremy Bentham 1748-1832 and John Stuart Mill 1808-1873; Are British
philosopher who had immense impact on British thought. Bentham was the head of the group of
reformers called “the philosophical radicals,” whose member included James Mill and his son,
John Stuart Mill. Bentham and the younger Mill are considered the main proponent/taga taguyod
of the moral theory called Utilitarianism.

1- Utilitarianism Explained

1. Perhaps the most proponent moral philosophy in the last two centuries,
utilitarianism in known as a consequentialist theory, a subclass of teleological
(The doctrine of the final causes of things) 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 rest
exclusively on the consequences of the act, not the nature of the act nor the
traditional moral rules.

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

measured and evaluated by their consequences, not by the intention or motives of the
agent. As oppose to absolutists who holds that some actions are intrinsically/essentially
wrong and must never be done no matter what the results are, consequentialists
suppose that there is no kind of act which may not be justified by its effects. Absolutists
believe in a natural law or in natural rights or conflict with the law-as immoral, no matter
what their outcomes are. Consequentialist, on the other hand, believed that there is no
class of actions which must be ruled out in advance independent of their consequences.
Utilitarianism is the most influential consequentialists’ theory. Derive from the term utilis
which means useful, utilitarianism basically states that what is useful is good, and that
the moral value of actions are determined by the utility.
Notes: Teleology is an account of a given thing's purpose. For example,
a teleological explanation of why forks have prongs that design helps humans eat
certain foods; stabbing food to help humans eat is what forks are for.

Utilitarian Ethics argues that the right course of action is one that maximizes overall
happiness. This ethical system is basically hedonistic as it identifies happiness with
pleasure. 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”.
I.1 Act 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 bring about the best results, or the least amount of bad results.
One of the criticisms against this outlook is the difficulty of getting a full
knowledge and certainly of the consequences of people’s action. Moreover it is
argued that it is possible to justify immoral act using Act Utilitarianism:
“suppose you could end a regional war by torturing children whose fathers are
enemy soldiers, thus revealing the hide out of the fathers” (Utilitarian Theories)
I.2 Rule Utilitarianism. On the other hand, the principle of utility is use to decide
the validity of rules of conduct (moral standard or principle). A moral rule such
as promise-keeping is established by evaluating the consequences of a world
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. Note: for you not to break the rules, reveal the hideout of your father to.
That’s the contract under utilitarianism.
One of the criticisms against this view is that it is possible to produce unjust
rules according to the principle utility. For example, “slavery in Greece might be
right if it led to an overall achievement of cultivated happiness at the expense
of some mistreated individuals.

2- Origin and Nature of the Theory- Jeremy Bentham founded the doctrine of
utilitarianism but John Stuart Mill later systematized and modified some of
Bentham utilitarian principles.
Jeremy Bentham proposed the primary form of utilitarianism in his introduction
to the Principle of Morals Legislation (1789). He confessed nonetheless that he
took over the principles of utility from David Hume, upon the reading Hume’s
Account of utility. (tsk tsk tsk…nag plagiarized si kumpareng Jeremy).
1.1 Bentham Utilitarianism. Bentham explains that “utility” means that property
in any object, whereby it tends to produce benefit, advantage, pleasure, good,
or happiness to prevent happening of mischief, pain, evil, or unhappiness. The
Principle of Utility thus states that an action is right insofar or the extent as it
tends to produce the greatest happiness to the greatest number. This dogma
thus considers the advancement of the greatest happiness for the greatest
number as the supreme objective of human action. Note: For Bentham, it is the
principle of utility-not the so-called natural law, natural rights, or social
 contracts- whose serves as the objective barometer in ethically evaluating
human action, state laws, and legal system. For Bentham, nothing else but
pleasure is intrinsically good or essentially good.
Dubbed as quantitative hedonist or qualitative utilitarian, Bentham even went
so far as to create a detailed method. The hedonic calculus, “to calculate the
quantitative worth of pleasures. The method has seven criteria or ingredients
that allow one to qualify the amount of pleasure or pain an action brings about-
(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. In general, utilitarianism determines the moral value of
an act by calculating the sum of pleasure it caused, and the amount of
pain generated.
1.2 Mill’s Utilitarianism. The ethical theory of John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) is most
extensively articulated in his classical text Utilitarianism (1861). Its goal is to
justify the utilitarian principle as the foundation of morals. This principle says
actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote overall human
happiness.
The creed which accepts as the foundation of morals, Utility, or the Greatest
Happiness Principle, holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to
promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness.
By happiness is intended pleasure, and the absence of pain; by unhappiness,
pain, and the privation of pleasure. To give a clear view of the moral
standard set up by the theory, much more requires to be said (…). But these
supplementary explanations do not affect the theory of life on which this theory
of morality is grounded….” (CW, 210, emphasis mine) The Second
Formula relates the principle of utility to rules and precepts and not to actions.
It seems to say that an act is correct when it corresponds to rules whose
preservation increases the mass of happiness in the world. And this appears to
be a rule-utilitarian conception. In the light of these passages, it is not
surprising that the question whether Mill is an act- or a rule-utilitarian has been
intensely debated. In order to understand his position it is important to
differentiate between two ways of defining act and rule utilitarianism.
(i) One can conceive of them as competing theories about objective rightness.
An action is objectively right if it is the thing which the agent has most reason to
do. Act utilitarianism would say that an action is objectively right, if it actually
promotes happiness. For rule utilitarianism, in contrast, an action would be
objectively right, if it actually corresponds to rules that promote happiness.
(ii) One can also conceive of act- and rule utilitarianism as theories about moral
obligation. Act utilitarianism requires us to aim for the maximization of
happiness; rule utilitarianism, in contrast, requires us to observe rules that
facilitate happiness. Understood as a theory about moral obligation, act
 utilitarianism postulates: Act in a way that promotes happiness the most. Rule
utilitarianism claims, on the other hand: Follow a rule whose general
observance promotes happiness the most. Mill is in regard to (i) an act
utilitarian and in regard to
(ii) a rule utilitarian. This way the seeming contradiction between the First and
the Second Formula can be resolved. The First Formula states what is right
and what an agent has most reason to do. It points to the “foundation of
morals”. In contrast, the Second Formula tells us what our moral obligations
are. We are morally obliged to follow those social rules and precepts the
observance of which promotes happiness in the greatest extent possible.

3- An Analysis of Utilitarianism-utilitarianism appears to be a direct negative

reaction against Kantian
Ethics. While Kant proposes that an act is justified by the person’s motive to
perform his duty, Bentham and Mill counteract this by submitting that actions are
evaluated though their consequences.
Note: As a moral theory, utilitarianism appears to be attractive. Basically anchored
on the pleasure and pain concepts, utilitarianism has transcultural appeal as all
sentient or emotional beings understand pain and pleasure.
Utilitarianism also allows for exceptions to the rule if justified by the consequences.
Take the case of lying to protect another from sure danger. For some rule bound
theories like that of Kant, such an act is transgressing such an exceptionless rule.
Utilitarianism, on the other hand, would say that such an act is warranted if the
course of action will generate the greatest happiness for the greatest number.

4- Business Fascination with Utilitarianism- utilitarianism is perhaps the most

broadly understood and normally applied ethical theory to business. In as
organizational context, utilitarianism basically teaches that a decision regarding
business conduct is proper if that decision generates the greatest good for the
greatest number of person.
In the theory, ‘good’ is typically defined as the net benefits that accrue or increase
to those parties affected by choice. Moral choices must thus be evaluated by
calculating the net benefits of each available alternative action. In business this
implies that all the stakeholders affected by the decision must be given their just
consideration.
Act utilitarianism, one major school of thought in the theory, centers on the action
that has been taken, evaluating it along the lines of whether the chosen action
produces more good than bad consequences.

Class Discussions
1. What is utilitarianism? Explain.
2. Explain the nature of moral judgment in utilitarianism
3. Differentiate Bentham’s and Mill’s Utilitarianism
4. What are the advantages in subscribing to utilitarianism?
5. What are the weakness of utilitarianism theory in ethics?
Reference(s) & Author(s): De Guzman, Jens Micah (2017). Ethics: principle of ethical behavior in
modern society. Mutya Publishing House, Inc.: Malabon City