1.

Ethics is the study of how to live the right kind of life; it requires us to be critical in our thinking especially with
regard to our values and actions. To live ethically requires being able to think ethically, that is, to employ a type
of reasoning that provides justifications for choices concerning morality. There are seven steps to be
undertaken in ethical decision making.
Ethics involves critically examining our values and actions to lead a morally upright life, requiring ethical thinking to justify
moral choices. But first, what do we mean by the dilemma?
Tools for Ethical Decision Making
- Lecture by Dr. Antonette Palma-Angeles PhD on ethical decision-making.
- Aim: To provide an ideal method for decision-making when faced with ethical dilemmas.

Understanding Dilemmas
- Definition of Dilemma: A situation where competing values are at play rather than just good and evil. // Two competing claims on
our choice/decision.
- Identification: Dilemmas involve competing values, not competing solutions.
- Importance of Articulation: Values need to be clearly articulated as they drive actions.
Ethical decision-making typically involves seven steps to ensure thoughtful and principled choices.

Ethical Decision-Making Process

1. Gather the Facts: Avoid rushing to judgment, patiently collect relevant data.
Key Questions: What do I know? What do I need to know?

2. Identify Stakeholders: Consider all parties involved, including abstract stakeholders.

Distinguish between primary and secondary stakeholders.
Understand their interests in the situation.
3. Articulate the Dilemma: Clearly state the conflicting values and issues involved.
Example: Balancing privacy, family harmony, fidelity, and truth.
4. Generate Alternatives: Brainstorm various possible courses of action. Eliminate untenable options.
5. Evaluate Alternatives against Principles: Match each option with the values identified in the dilemma.
Ensure alignment with articulated values.
6. Weigh the Consequences: Consider both positive and negative outcomes for stakeholders.
Use a matrix to systematically analyze consequences.
7. Make a Decision: Consider all steps in the process and choose the most ethical course of action. Justify decisions with
reference to the ethical reasoning process.
Conclusion
- Ethical decision-making is a rational process but also about character.
- Building character involves repeatedly practicing moral reasoning.
- Quoting Aristotle: "We are what we repeatedly do. Ethics is character."
- Courage and moral character are integral to ethical decision-making.
Practical Application
● Practice the ethical decision-making process on significant decisions.
● Be patient with yourself and persist in applying the process.
● Ethics is not just about reasoning but also about building character.
Key Takeaways
● Ethical dilemmas involve competing values, not just good and evil.
● The ethical decision-making process involves gathering facts, identifying stakeholders, articulating the dilemma,
generating alternatives, evaluating options against principles, assessing consequences, and making decisions.
● Ethical decision-making requires patience, thoroughness, and the development of moral character over time.
We acknowledge how culture can be a contributing factor to ethical decision-making, in particular, how culture contains
moral values and principles that are passed on to us, which then serve as norms or standards of morality. We also recognize that an
uncritical acceptance of such values is dangerous as this can lead towards two extremes: dogmatism or relativism.
(MAIN TOPIC)
2. Lawrence Kohlberg elaborated a theory on the moral development of a person wherein there are three levels and six
stages of development.
Good day, everyone. Today, I will be discussing Lawrence Kohlberg's theory of moral development. Lawrence Kohlberg is
an American psychologist who proposed a stage theory of moral development in 1958, building upon the work of Jean Piaget in the
year 1932.
To have a background, let us first review Jean Piaget's groundwork. It is about cognitive development stages that outline
the evolution of children's thinking from infancy to adulthood and each marked by distinct cognitive abilities. Beyond Piaget's initial
formulations, Lawrence Kohlberg expanded the understanding of this by the theory of moral development. Now, let’s explore how
dilemmas test our moral reasoning and decision-making abilities.
The framework of Kohlberg’s theory consists of six stages and is organized into three general levels. I know that we are
already familiar with the Heinz Dilemma, a frequent example used to help understand Kohlberg's theory, but now, let me use other
situational examples.

Level A: Preconventional Level

Stage 1: The Stage of Punishment and Obedience: Moral decisions are based on avoiding punishment and obeying authority.
For example, A child finds a lost wallet on the sidewalk. At stage 1, The child decides not to take the money from the wallet because
they fear getting in trouble if someone finds out they took it.
Stage 2: The Stage of Individual Instrumental Purpose and Exchange: Right actions are those that serve one's own needs and
involve fair exchanges. In a given situation, The child takes the money from the wallet because they see it as an opportunity to buy
something they want without considering the consequences for the owner.
Level B: Conventional Level
Stage 3: The Stage of Mutual Interpersonal Expectations, Relationships, and Conformity: This involves being kind, caring for
others' feelings, maintaining loyalty and trust, and expectations. In this stage, the child decides to return the wallet to its owner
because he/she want to be seen as a good person and maintain positive relationships with others
Stage 4: The Stage of Social System and Conscience Maintenance: Right behavior involves fulfilling duties, respecting laws,
and maintaining social order. For example: The child returns the wallet to its owner because they believe it's their duty to help others
and uphold societal norms of honesty and integrity.
At Stage 4 1⁄2, choice is personal and subjective. It is based on emotions, conscience is seen as arbitrary and relative, as are ideas
such as "duty" and "morally right."
Level C: Postconventional Level
Stage 5: The Stage of Prior Rights and Social Contract or Utility: Morality involves upholding basic rights and values through a
social contract. Example: The child returns the wallet to its owner because they believe in the importance of respecting others'
property rights and adhering to the principle of fairness, even if it means sacrificing personal gain. Example:
Stage 6: The Stage of Universal Ethical Principles: Right actions are guided by universal principles of justice and human
rights..Example: The child returns the wallet to its owner because he/she believes in the universal ethical principle that stealing is
inherently wrong, regardless of societal rules or personal interests.
By this, children pass through six distinct stages as they mature. Each stage involves different considerations when
deciding what is right and wrong.
Aside from this, there are observations to further understand the theory
- Stage development is invariant, requiring progression in order without skipping stages.
- Subjects cannot comprehend moral reasoning beyond one stage above their current level.
- People are attracted to reasoning one level above their current stage.
- Movement through stages occurs when cognitive disequilibrium is created, that is when a person is not adequate to cope
with the given moral dilemma.
- It is possible for individuals to be physically mature but not morally mature.
- Only about 25% of individuals reach stage six of moral development, with the majority remaining at stage four.
The theory of kohlberg shows how individuals develop their sense of morality over time. However, in the year 1980, Carol
Gilligan, an American psychologist criticized the theory that it was biased towards men, and did not take into account a woman’s
way of thinking on patterns of behavior.
3. James Rachels criticized the theory of cultural relativism as being a flawed theory of morality in terms of its argument,
content, and practical consequences.
Good day, everyone. Today, I will be discussing James Rachels’s critique on the theory of cultural relativism.
James Rachels defines cultural relativism as the view that there are no universal moral principles; rather, what is right or
wrong is determined by the moral norms of one's society.
Different cultures have different moral codes, as seen in the contrasting practices of the Greeks and Callatians regarding
the treatment of the dead, and the Eskimos' customs such as polygamy, infanticide, and abandoning the elderly.
Cultural Relativism suggests that moral codes differ among societies, rejecting universal moral truths. It argues that a
society's moral code determines what is right within that society, making objective standards unattainable. However, it faces a
challenge when addressing intolerant actions within a society's norms, such as the Nazi invasion of Poland. (Injustice and
regression)
The Cultural Differences Argument states that because cultures have different moral codes, there is no objective truth in
morality. However, this argument is flawed because disagreement among cultures does not necessarily negate the existence of
objective moral truths. Therefore, the argument fails to establish cultural relativism as valid.
The implications of cultural relativism, highlights the three main consequences.
1. We couldn't deem other societies' customs morally inferior to our own.
2. Criticizing our own society's moral code would be off-limits.
3. The concept of moral progress would be cast into doubt.
Rachel claims that there are less moral disagreements between cultures than it seems because many apparent differences are due
to variations in factual beliefs rather than fundamental differences in values. I agree with Rachel because recognizing shared moral
principles across cultures reduces the extent of apparent disagreement.
We can point out certain things we don’t like in a culture without denouncing the entire culture, emphasizing the
importance of tolerance and avoiding contempt while still acknowledging and addressing harmful practices.
2.8 Back to the five claims
1. Different societies have different moral codes.
2. The moral code of a society determines what is right within that society
3. There is no objective standard that can be used to judge one society’s code as better than another’s.
4. The moral code of our own society has no special status; it is but one among many.
5. It is arrogant for us to judge other cultures. We should always be tolerant of them.
According to Rachels, taking cultural relativism seriously would mean accepting that we cannot criticize the customs of
other societies as morally inferior to our own. However, this would also entail refraining from condemning practices like political
oppression or injustice, as cultural relativism would preclude us from making universal moral judgments.
We can learn from cultural relativism to acknowledge cultural diversity and remain open-mindness to different
perspectives, but we should not embrace moral relativism in its entirety
Rachels does not endorse cultural relativism as a valid theory because he argues that it rests on unsound arguments and
has no reasonable consequences.
4. There are three general ethical frameworks: consequentialism which is typified by Utilitarianism; deontology which
characterizes Kantian Ethics; and Virtue Ethics whose example is Aristotelian Ethics.
I. TELEOLOGICAL OR CONSEQUENTIALIST ETHICS : “MAXIMIZE THE GOOD.”
- Comes from the Greek “telos” which means “end”, “fulfillment”, “realization”;
- The morality of human action is based on the consequences it effects or produces.
- Proponents: Utilitarians = Jeremy Bentham & John Stuart Mill
- “The greatest good for the greatest number of people.”
- Ethical Egoists = “What is good is what is good for me.”
CLASSIC UTILITARIANISM
- The seeds of utilitarianism were sewn by the ancient Greek philosopher Epicurus (342–270 BCE), who stated that “pleasure is the
goal that nature has ordained for us; it is also the standard by which we judge everything good.”
- Epicurus’s theory focused largely on the individual’s personal experience of pleasure and pain, and to that extent he
advocated a version of ethical egoism.
- Francis Hutcheson (1694–1746) stated that “that action is best, which procures the greatest happiness for the greatest numbers.”
David Hume (1711–1776) introduced the term utility to describe the pleasing consequences of actions as they impact people.
- The classical expressions of utilitarianism, though, appear in the writings of two English philosophers and social reformers Jeremy
Bentham (1748–1832) and John Stuart Mill (1806–1873).

2 MAIN FEATURES OF UTILITARIANISM (Jeremy Bentham)

- Consequentialist Principle = the rightness or wrongness of an act is determined by the goodness or badness of the results that
flow from it. It is the end, not the means, that counts; the end justifies the means.
- Utility or Hedonist Principle = the only thing that is good in itself is some specific type of state. Hedonistic utilitarianism views
pleasure as the sole good and pain as the only evil.

(John Stuart Mill)

- John Stuart Mill, sought to distinguish happiness from mere sensual pleasure.
- His version of the theory is often called eudaimonistic utilitarianism (from the Greek eudaimonia, meaning “happiness”).
- 2 types of pleasures: The lower, or elementary, include eating, drinking, sexuality, resting, and sensuous titillation. The higher
include high culture, scientific knowledge, intellectuality, and creativity. Although the lower pleasures are more intensely gratifying,
they also lead to pain when overindulged in. The higher pleasures tend to be more long term, continuous, and gradual.

II. DEONTOLOGY OR DUTY-BASED ETHICS: “DO YOUR DUTY.”

- It is not the consequences that determine the rightness or wrongness of an act but certain features in the act itself or in the rule of
which the act is a token or example. The end never justifies the means.
IMMANUEL KANT’S “CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE”: 3 FORMULATIONS
A. Principle of Universality = “Act as though the maxim of your action were by your will to become a universal law of nature.”
Individuals must always be considered as ends in themselves and never merely as means.
B. Principle of Humanity as End-in-Itself = “So act as to treat humanity, whether in your own person or in that of any other, in
every case as an end and never as merely a means.”
The second formulation serves as the basis of rights-based theories of ethics.
C. Principle of Autonomy = “So act that your will can regard itself at the same time as making universal law through its maxims.”
“The person who helps other people out of a sense of duty without any feeling of care, compassion, or sympathy is morally superior
to the person who performs the same actions while motivated by altruistic feelings. Yet Kant’s point here, whether we agree with it or
not, is clear: There is something morally valuable in the actions of a person who, despite feelings to the contrary, does
something because it is the right thing to do..” (Hinman 2008)
III. VIRTUE ETHICS: “BE A GOOD PERSON.”
- Virtues: trained behavioral dispositions that result in habitual acts of moral goodness.
- Vices: trained behavioral dispositions that result in habitual acts of moral wrongness.
- Virtue Ethics: morality involves producing excellent persons, who act well out of spontaneous goodness and serve as examples
to inspire others.
- Virtue Ethics: says that it is important not only to do the right thing but also to have the proper dispositions, motivations, and
emotions in being good and doing right.
ARISTOTLE - In the Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle discusses his thoughts on what consists the highest human good. His answer:
the pursuit of man’s teloς (telos) and ergon (ergon). But what is man’s teloς and ergon? It is eudaimonia (eudaimonia).-
Eudaimonia is:
1. living a life of excellent activities (arête);
2. supported by moderate good fortune;
3. and practiced for a lifetime.
- To practice virtue is to practice reasonableness in our actions, desires, and emotions; and to be reasonable is to act with
moderation. Virtue, thus, lies in the middle (mesotes), in moderation.
- Virtue ethics would have us exercise our capabilities (rational, affective, physical) reasonably, moderately, excellently.
- “Whatever we learn to do, we learn by actually doing it; men come to be builders, for instance, by building, and harp players by
playing the harp. In the same way, by doing just acts we come to be just; by doing self-controlled acts, we come to be
self-controlled; and by doing brave acts, we become brave.” -Aristotle

● Consequentialism: Utilitarianism: Jeremy Bentham & John Stuart Mill

● Deontology: Immanuel Kant
● Virtue Ethics: Aristotle
[Link] Ethics, human beings are said to perform two kinds of acts: voluntary acts (or human acts) and involuntary acts (or acts of
man). Of these two, only voluntary acts (which are of various kinds) have ethical significance and are morally attributable to the
agent. Moreover, voluntary acts can be direct or indirect, positive or negative.
Good day, everyone. Today, I will be discussing Human Conducts. Human conduct refers to the intentional actions people
choose to do, showing their morals and intentions. People are capable of performing two general kinds of actions: voluntary acts
and involuntary acts. Voluntary acts are actions intentionally chosen by individuals, while involuntary acts occur without
conscious control or will.
Example:
● Voluntary acts: helping a friend
● Involuntary acts: blinking, sweating
There are three elements of Human Acts:
1. Knowledge: intellect's role in human acts.
2. Freedom: will's capacity to choose whether to act or not.
[Link]: being knowingly willed.
Voluntariness and responsibility share a direct relationship, where it determines the level of moral responsibility for the
actions undertaken.
Voluntariness has types:
● Positive Voluntariness: Choosing to act: Helping someone cross the street.
● Negative Voluntariness: Choosing not to act: Not offering help to someone in need.
Direct Voluntariness: Actions which are willed for themselves and for their consequences or effects are directly voluntary: Donating
money to a charity to help feed the homeless.
Indirect Voluntariness: The unintended but foreseen (or foreseeable) Consequences: Not studying for an exam, leading to a lower
grade and disappointment from oneself.
In contrast, involuntary acts are those actions that happen without conscious effort, such as biological functions like digestion,
breathing, and heartbeat. Hence, such acts do not have ethical or moral significance and cannot be attributed to the agent.

Moreover, direct and indirect voluntariness as the two different types of voluntary acts. A direct volitional act is an action taken with
a clear consciousness of the effects that are intended to follow, whereas indirect voluntariness deals with an act whose unintended
outcome is foreseen or foreseeable. For instance, a doctor might prescribe a medicine that has adverse effects, but it is its curative
effect that is directly willed and intended. If the patient dies as a side effect of the medicine, then the doctor’s indirect volitional act is
under scrutiny.

Similarly, voluntary acts can be positive or negative based on the performer’s choice to act or not to act under the given
circumstances. For example, studying for a test is a positive volitional act, whereas not studying would be a negative volitional act.
Negative voluntariness refers to choosing not to act.

Thus, in Ethics, only voluntary acts of the agent that are of various kinds are morally relevant and can be scrutinized. On the other
hand, involuntary acts or acts of man do not have moral or ethical significance.
6. “To say therefore that the personal nature and dignity of man is norm of morality signifies that an act is to be judged to be morally
good or bad, depending upon whether it is congruent with or against the three fundamental aspects of the human person—mind,
heart, and embodied consciousness,” and at the same time, whether it respects or not the immeasurable value of the person.

FOR JUDGEMENT TO TAKE PLACE:

1. Object of Judgement:
Mind: Refers to intellectual faculties and reasoning capacity.
Heart: Signifies emotions, feelings, and empathy.
Body: Represents the physical existence and bodily experiences of an individual.
2. (Wala sa notes ko)
3. (Di ko nasulat huhu)
MORALITY OF HUMAN ACTS CANNOT DEPEND ON:
1. The Law: legality and moral rightness of an act are not the same.
2. Culture or Traditions
3. Religions
BASIS OF MORALITY MUST BE:
1. Universalizable: is applicable to all regardless of creed, culture, color, age, gender, and nationality; applicable even
though not accepted.
2. Recognizable: everyone can recognize.
3. Rational: can be recognized because it is rational.
4. Not self-contradictory: rational, so it is not self-contradictory.
BASIS:
1. Personal Nature/ Human Nature
Universal: everyone has human nature.
Refers to the basic and universal structure of being EMBODIED SUBJECTS who are FREE and RATIONAL.
3 FUNDAMENTAL …
a. Freedom
TO BE FREE: to be naturally inclined and in pursuit of the GOOD.
“If we’re not free, then there is no responsibility. No responsibility means we can’t give rewards or
punishments.”
b. Rationality
TO BE RATIONAL: to be naturally inclined and in pursuit of the TRUTH and MEANING.
“Humans are designed for truth. Humans are built for meaning.”
c. Embodiment
TO BE EMBODIED SUBJECTS: to be/have a body, and hence to be historical, i.e., to be inserted in a
space-time continuum.
Our bodies set limits to us too…
Because we are embodied: we have an intimate link with the world (we must care for our environment), as well
as with the people who are in that world (social nature).

The main point is that the personal nature and dignity of individuals serve as the standard for morality, with actions deemed morally
good or bad based on whether they align with or contradict three fundamental aspects of human existence: mind, heart, and
embodied consciousness, while also considering the inherent value of each individual.

The main points are:

1. Human morality is based on the personal nature and dignity of individuals.
2. Moral judgments are determined by whether actions align with or contradict the fundamental aspects of human nature: mind,
heart, and embodied consciousness.
3. The evaluation of actions also considers whether they uphold or disregard the intrinsic value of each person.
PHIS102.N17am
Group name: THE INTEGRITY SISTERS
Members:

Marsha Faith M. Barrera

Gemini J. Saballegue

Hale Berry M. Villan

FINALS THESIS STATEMENT – PHIS102 (Second Semester 2023-24)

2. Lawrence Kohlberg elaborated a theory on the moral development of a person wherein there
are three levels and six stages of development. His theory, however, has been criticized by
Carol Gilligan who opposed Kohlberg's masculinist “ethics of justice” a feminist “ethics of care.”