Name: Robelyn V.
Delos Angeles
Course/Year: BIT – ELXT 3C
Date Submitted:
Instructor: Mr. Arlan P. Belen
MODULE 2: GE-ET
Ethics and Other Normative Subjects
ACTIVITY:
1. What happened? Why does it take a certain period of time for the residents to respond to the
incident?
A serious case has happened wherein a woman was stabbed in front of a group of people in
which no one searched for help. The woman had been attacked in the late night and no one
helped her. The people that surrounded her didn’t do anything, or they didn’t call the police. No
one did anything to save her when she was in danger. In conclusion, the woman died without any
justice and she suffered because of the stabbing she received.
2. It is wrong NOT TO DO NOTHING in the face of such incident?
In the situation, there are various perspectives that people would feel by encountering a serious
crime. Others might feel nervous, afraid and scared by witnessing this kind of crime. Someone
might feel scared because what if they attack you? What if you call the police? But on the other
hand, we should be brave enough to call for help because we can save the person’s life. It is
wrong not to do nothing, but if we are afraid, nothing is wrong. From my own perspective, if we
encounter crimes, we should be confident in helping people and do something that can’t lead us
into danger.
ANALYSIS:
1. If you were one of the “law-abiding citizens who watched and listened”, what would you do?
What you should have done?
As a law-abiding citizen, I have the right to do something which is I will seek help in police. By
that, they can definitely help people which facing a difficult situation that might lead them to death.
So, as a person I would be do anything that I can in order to save someone. It is important to
save someone, so I would do my best just to save that person.
2. Do you thing the “law-abiding citizens who watched and listened” blameworthy for what
happened to Cenoverse? Why? Can they also be held responsible for her death?
No, they are witnesses therefore they won’t be responsible with her death. They might be afraid
on seeking help because the situation gave a shocked situation they made the scared. They are
witnesses and they did nothing from the person’s death.
3. Is helping a person in need an obligatory or optional act? Why?
The Good Samaritan law secures individuals who give crisis clinical consideration or treatment to
somebody out of luck, as long as the consideration is given in sincerely and the person in
question or family doesn't protest. The individual giving the help should practice alert. Sympathy
is the most elevated temperance. We possibly comprehend others when we carry on of
sympathy, so compassion is the main way we can get others and our obligation to them. We are
committed to help those in need when we identify with them and comprehend their agony and
need.
APPLICATION and ASSESSMENT:
Illustrate the difference between a moral principle, a religious principle, a legal rule, a principle of
etiquette. Are these sometimes related? Are these principles that go across morality, religion, law and
etiquette? Provide examples.
Morality is characterized as a bunch of perspectives concerning what is good and bad, for sure is
acceptable and awful conduct. The guidelines that an administration or local area forces on its
residents to control society are known as laws. Religion is a conviction and love framework. It is a
religious conviction framework that is established on the faith in a higher power. Etiquette
additionally communicates something else, something we call "the standards of manners." Those
are thought, regard, and genuineness. These standards are the three characteristics that remain
behind every one of the habits we have.
They are all interconnected with each other wherein our morals affect our actions and
etiquettes. An example for this is the given situation in which in that circumstances it was inclined in law
wherein the one who attacks did morally wrong that affects its moral principle, religious, legal rule and
principle etiquette. The action that we possess reflects who are we in terms of religious and moral
principle. You can’t be morally good if you did something that affects a person’s life. If someone did
brutally wrong therefore their principles has been affected. They did morally wrong and their morality
has been affected. There may be occasions when obeying the law requires us to behave against our
values or fundamental qualities. A professional may feel obligated to carry out a system that they
believe is unethical, or a community worker may believe it is their responsibility to divulge arranged
facts to the press. A moral choice, according to this definition, is one that is based on thinking about the
things we believe are important and is consistent with our convictions.
What gives us a sense of what is acceptable, right, and significant in our life are our traits,
standards, and purposes. They serve as a type of vantage point for all of the possible ways we could
take. A few rationalists have argued that a person's heart is more constraining than any law, and simply
recommending the law's declared goal will not be a satisfactory alternative for moral deliberation.
A. Read the passage and the answer the questions.
1. Whose action is right and whose action is wrong? Why do you think so?
The right action comes to the responsible neighbor hears the struggle, calls the police, and shouts
from the window, “Hey you, get out of here!” and the wrong action, which is very immoral.
2. Discuss the consequences of each action. Whose action generates more happiness? Less
happiness?
The most happiness is calling police which is right decision and the less happiness which is he kill
a woman whose never have a power to fight.
3. Examine the character of the attacker and the responsible neighbor. Who is virtuous? Who is
vicious? Why do you think so?
It is very clear that the virtuous person would be the responsible neighbor who, calls the police, and
shouts from the window, “Hey you, get out of here!” Virtuous which is the girl who die and the
viscous which is the killer who kill the kitty.
4. What do you think are the individual motives of the attacker and the responsible neighbor?
I would say that since I don’t know the whole story I won’t judge the attacker. While, the
neighborhood, his motive is no other than to help the woman who allegedly attack by a man.
EVALUATION:
A. IDENTIFICATION. Supply the word or phrase that is described by the statements. Write your
answer in the blank provided.
Obligatory Act 1. An act that morality requires you to do; it is not permissible for you to refrain from
doing it.
Supererogation Act 2. An act beyond the call of duty. Also known as heroic act.
Optional Act 3. An act that is neither obligatory nor wrong to do.
Teleological ethics 4. An example of ethical theory that focus primarily on consequences in
determining moral rightness and wrongness.
Character 5. Ethical theory that emphasizes character as the norm of morality
Deontological 6. Ethical theory that emphasizes the nature of the act.
B. TRUE OR FALSE. In the space provided, write T if the statement is true, and F if it is false.
F 7. Etiquette concerns the essence of social existence rather than form and style.
F 8. Morality rests on authority, and we may lack certainty or agreement about the authority’s
credentials.
T 9. Etiquette determines what is polite behavior rather than what is right behavior in a deeper
sense.
T 10. Morality differs from religion by seeking reasons, rather than authority, to justify its
principles.
T 11. Intentions cannot be covered by law.
T 12. Secular ethics is horizontal, lacking a vertical or higher dimension.
F 13. Morality is a cultural invention, but etiquette is more like a discovery.
T 14. Religious ethics has a vertical dimension of morality.
T 15. There are times that it can be immoral to disregard or defy etiquette.
