1. What is ethics?

What makes ethics a science of conduct and an important branch of philosophy at the
same time?

Ethics, at a glance, is all about theories and studies of the standards of right and wrong. Going deeper,
ethics is a science of conduct as it is an intellectual undertaking where the subject must be supported
with reasons, a rational inquiry. On the other hand, it is an important branch of philosophy as it can be
viewed as an examination of life. This notion was first started by Socrates where he sought answer to
what it means to live the best version of life, rather than just seeking answer to the reality of the
universe as what other philosophers before him sought to answer.

2. What are the two challenges to ethics and how do they undermine the attempt at doing ethics
seriously?

The two challenges to ethics are change and diversity. We cannot deny that ethics is prone to change,
where what might be wrong in the past might be considered right in the present or in another time. In
addition, in the face of diversity, an action might be right in one place but might be not necessarily right
in another place. Since the goal of ethics is for us to hve self-awareness of what is right and wrong, how
could ethics, in the context of change and diversity, do such things.

3. What is a dilemma? Provide an example and explain why a dilemma counts as a dilemma.

The word ‘dilemma’ refers to when you are torn between two different things. In the context of ethics,
an ‘ethical dilemma’ happens when there is competing values within yourself, which are equally
important to you. Note that the values are competing, not your actions; as actions are driven by our
values. One example of dilemma is, for instance, your mother is very ill who needs treatment, and you
found a wallet of someone containing cash on the street. This is a dilemma because you have two
competing values, to help your ill mother or return the wallet to its original owner. You are torn because
you can help your mother by using the cash from the wallet, but also you also think of the owner of the
wallet as they might also need the cash. Thus, this scenario is a dilemma.

4. What is a moral minimalist? Why should a genuine ethicist disagree with a moral minimalist?

Moral minimalism narrows the perspective in morality without having the considerations of moral
disputes or issue. In other words, moral minimalism is a bare minimum approach to ethics where one,
beyond that minimal standard, can do whatever he or she likes only guided by own private standards. A
genuine ethicist should disagree with a moral minimalist because we must see all the moral viewpoints
with regards to other and not just focus on what our own needs. For instance, the insufficient consent
where you are only concerned about what was agreed upon, doing anything beyond—may it be harm to
others, makes you not accountable because that is beyond the consent bubble.

5. What is the cultural differences argument? Why is it unsound?

The cultural differences argument states that (1) Different cultures have different moral codes (2)
Therefore, there is no objective truth in morality. Right and wrong are only matters of opinion, and
opinions vary from culture to culture. –This is not sound because the conclusion does not follow the
premise, as the conclusion only draws its statement from the mere fact that cultures have different
perspectives on moral codes, then what was the relation of that in its claim that “there is no objective
truth”. Yes, we do believe that our cultures are different when it comes to morality, but in a logical
manner, that difference does not dictate what really is morally right.

6. What are the consequences of taking cultural relativism seriously? Enumerate and explain

First, we could no longer say that the customs of other societies are right or wrong. This negates the fact
that one action of a particular culture is something really not ‘right’. We would be stopped from
criticizing other’s practices, such as the genocide. Such example does really seem wrong, but due to
cultural relativism, we will not be able to condemn those practices. Second, we could decide whether
actions are right or wrong just by consulting the standards of our society. This disregards other society’s
conception of right or wrong by thinking that our society’s moral code is perfect and thus in turns stop us
from criticizing our own. Third, the idea of moral progress is called into doubt. Since this postulate a
culture-centered view, where one practice ca be justified by one’s own culture, it means that what we
consider ‘wrong’ nowadays is just ‘right’ in the past, and thus it makes them both correct—making the
so-called progress stagnant.

7. How do we reconcile differences in practices vis-à-vis our universality as humans?

It can be stated that some values must be at least ‘universal’, such as not telling lies. This a good example
of reconciling the differences in practices in relation with universality as humans, because telling the
truth is fundamental in our society. Without telling the truth, communication would not really transpire
that will lead to the collapse of society. Other cultures might have different take or even leniency
regarding lies telling, but nevertheless, cultures really do value honesty. The manifestations of values
may not be the same for every culture, but that value is one and the same with other culture.

8. Should we not be tolerant of other people and their cultures? How can one reconcile respect for
others and integrity of ethics?

I believe that we should be tolerant in a way that it can be justified. The goal of ethics is for our self-
awareness and being able to use our own moral compass to determine what is right and wrong, and not
really correcting other’s behavior. In that way, we can reconcile with our differences. However, what I am
saying is that, yes, the world compels us to be tolerant of other cultures as they are also compelled to
tolerate our culture. But, that tolerance should be justified. One example is the genital mutilation, it is
their culture but as we have been tolerating their practice for a long time, several studies shown that it
has no benefits to females and may even endanger their life.

9. What is subjective relativism? What are the two variants and explain each?

Subjective relativism is when a morality is based on personal belief or conviction. It arises when the
authority, God of Scripture, is dead. Thus, we can only rely on ourselves to provide us with personal
moral truths, which makes our personal moral reality. The first type is Simple subjectivism by David
Hume, is when a person says something is morally good or bad, that just means he approves or
disapproves it. It cannot count for our mistakes or fallibility, or it cannot count for disagreement. The
second type is emotivism by Charles Stevenson, this is an improved version in which moral statements is
not for stating but for conveying emotions, to influence other’s behavior.

10. What are the main problems with subjective relativism? Explain each.

A moral judgment must be supported by good reasons, as this is our moral compass n making moral
decisions. Another one is that emotions cannot replace reasons, it has been stressed that ethics is a
rational inquiry, and reasons will be our support to justify things. These are the issues with subjective
relativism. Emotions cannot replace reason to answer a moral question, and the answer must be backed
up by the weight of the reason behind it.

11. Against the claim of subjective relativists that there are no more facts, how can one respond
adequately?

I beg to disagree, because it has been stated in the preceding question that such truths are objective
because they are independent of what we might want or think. As we cannot make something a ‘thing’
without reasons behind it. Thus, moral truths are truths of reason and that moral judgements must be
also true if it is supported by better reasons.

12. What is problematic with using religion as a sole basis of ethics? Enumerate and explain the issues.

In terms of verification of God’s command, there is a dilemma. The first one is that is the right conduct
right because God commands it? This makes the conception of right and wrong arbitrary or made solely
from random choice of Him. Another is that does God commands us to do certain things because to His
knowledge, they are right? This just implies that ‘right’ thing is independent of God’s will. Religion should
not be a sole basis for ethics because it is often difficult to find pecific moral guidance in Scriptures as
they were written long ago and addresses only the issue of their time, and not the contemporary issue
nowadays. In addition, Scriptures and Church traditions are ambiguous as people tend to interpret
Scriptures in which it supports the moral conclusions they have attained.

13. What is psychological egoism and how does this theory threaten ethics?

Psychological egoism means that a certain action is only motivated by self interest or selfish desires. This
theory threatens ethics because it states that we always do what we most want to do without the regard
for others. This can be justified that human act, whether it could pose harm to others, is just right
because he or she do what makes them feel good. This notion can be used to justify what we think really
is not a good example of human act, such as again, the genocide. Using the concept of egoism, it can be
justified that genocide is not wrong as it motivated by Hitler’s desires. This makes egoism a threat to
ethics.

14. What are the arguments against egoism? Why are they potent?

One argument against is that it confuses selfishness and self-interestedness. This a false-dichotomy, self-
interestedness does not mean selfishness, an example of it is brushing your teeth; no one should think
you are doing it because you are selfish, it is not about pursuing pleasure all the time. Another argument
against psychological egoism is that it is not falsifiable, it is potent because it raised awareness to us that
if we adapted it, we would only think that all action is only motivated by egoism.

15. What are the stages of moral development? Enumerate and give an example for each one.

Stage 1 (Obedience and Punishment): A child doesn't hit a sibling because they fear punishment.

Stage 2 (Individualism and Exchange): A child shares toys with a friend to get something in return.

Stage 3 (Good Interpersonal Relationships): A teenager helps a friend with homework to maintain a
good friendship.

Stage 4 (Maintaining Social Order): An adult follows traffic laws to maintain social order.

Stage 5 (Social Contract and Individual Rights): An adult protests an unjust law to promote equality.

Stage 6 (Universal Principles): A person sacrifices their safety to stand up for human rights.

16. Bearing in mind the stages of moral development, how does one sculpt one’s disposition and
character?

Character is slowly sculpted through time as we progress in our life and facing dilemma and they test our
moral judgements and allow us to make better judgements next time, that sharpen our moral tools/skills
to become a better person. In addition, our disposition is developed as we progress from heteronomous
to an autonomous will and thinking based on moral principles.

17. What are the relationships among the concepts of values, reasons, and eudaimonia according to
Bond? Explain.

Value is the bedrock of reasons, and reasons prompts our actions. Reason for non-moral choices and
actions are ultimately leading to the attainment of eudaimonia, the same goes for the reason of moral
choices and actions, though their primary reason is the attainment of common good. But note that
common good is also a stepping stone to attain eudaimonia.

18. Can aesthetic values be considered moral? Why or why not?

Aesthetic values are not inherently moral. However, while aesthetic values themselves are not moral,
they can sometimes be connected to moral issues if the art or beauty in question conveys moral
messages or encourages ethical reflection.

1. What does it mean for goodwill to be the only thing that is good without qualification?

goodwill is the only thing that can be called good without qualification because it is a moral disposition
grounded in duty and not dependent on the results of the action or the individual's personal desires.
Imagine a person who helps a stranger not because they expect anything in return, but because they
believe it’s their moral duty to help others. This person is acting from goodwill, and according to Kant,
this action is good without qualification, because the intention is driven by duty, not by personal gain or
external reward.

2. Can good will still be good even when it is unable to produce the results at which it aims? Why?

moral value of an action comes from the intent behind it, not from its success or failure in achieving a
particular result. Goodwill remains good as long as it is motivated by a genuine commitment to doing
what is morally right, even if the action does not achieve the intended outcome

3. How is goodwill produced? What are the two ingredients? Explain each.

goodwill is produced by the combination of freedom and the role of reason. Freedom allows individuals
to act according to their own moral principles, and reason provides the ability to recognize and act on
those principles. Together, these elements form the foundation of moral action and the moral worth of
goodwill.

4. How is freedom produced? Is a drugged individual ever free in his actions that are consequential from
being drugged?

-Freedom, in a broad sense, can be seen as the ability to act according to one's own will, without undue
constraint or coercion. a result of self-awareness and the capacity for choice.

-When we consider the freedom of a person under the influence of drugs, the situation becomes more
complex. In the context of an individual who is drugged or intoxicated, their ability to make free,
informed, and deliberate choices may be significantly impaired. a drugged person is less free because
their actions may no longer reflect their true will.

5. What is the role of reason in the human person and in being good?

-in human beings, reason is the organ which controls action; just as instinct is the organ which controls
action in animals. the good, duties, and rights, do not depend on consequence, but in the fact that we
are human

-reason is there because it wants to locate that which is good in itself, good will

6. How is good will manifested in the human person?

-if an action is done out of inclination, there is no moral merit. “an action is morally good if it is done not
from inclination, but from moral duty.” even if it is not convenient for me, i should still do it. Such as in
helping victims of natural disasters. kung naawa ka lang and umakto ka, hindi yun morally good pero if u
go out of your way kase narealize mo na kailangan ng tulong nung tao na yun, then that is morally good
and from good will

7. Differentiate motive of inclination from motive of duty.

-A motive of inclination refers to the motivation to act based on one's personal desires, feelings, or
interests. It is driven by what an individual wants or feels like doing at a particular moment. These
desires are typically tied to the satisfaction of one's own needs, pleasures, or preferences.

-A motive of duty refers to the motivation to act out of a sense of moral obligation, regardless of
personal desires or feelings. It involves doing what is morally right because it is required by moral law or
ethical principles, not because of the consequences or because it aligns with personal inclinations.

8. What is a maxim and differentiate between an objective and a subjective maxim?

-a maxim is a principle upon which we act. subjective maxim/principle - principle on which a rational
agent does act. objective maxim/principle - one on which every rational agent would necessarily act if
reason had full control over his actions. good will is only located in objective principle.

9. What is a duty and how is a categorical imperative a law?

-A duty is an obligation or requirement to act in a certain way, based on moral principles or rules. In
Kantian ethics, a duty is a command of reason that tells us how we ought to act, independent of
personal desires or inclinations. the necessity to act out of reverence for the law, and that law is the
categorical imperative. A universal law because it is a binding, unconditional command that applies to all
rational beings, regardless of their personal inclinations or circumstances..

10. Differentiate a categorical from hypothetical imperative

- categorical imperatives are laws that you legislate yourself, follow through and through, and are
objective

- hypothetical imperative = if-then statements (may benefit)

11. Explain the first categorical imperative.

- The Formula of Universal Law (Universalizability) - “act only on the maxim whereby you can at the same
time will that it should become a universal law.” very close to utilitarianism example: telling the truth. In
other words, before we act, we should ask ourselves whether we would be willing for everyone to act in
the same way, in a similar situation. If the action can be universalized without contradiction, then it is
morally permissible. If it cannot, then it is morally wrong.

12. Explain the second categorical imperative.

- Formula of the End in Itself - “act in such anway thta you always treat humanity, whether in your own
person or in the person of any another, never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end.”
example: hoarding and overpricing antigen test kits (laws of economics demand and supply during
health crisis). interdependence - we cannot deny that we use people, but we shouldn’t use them as
means mutual relationship
- Suppose you lie to someone in order to get something you want from them (e.g., borrowing money
with no intention of repaying it). In this case, you are using the other person as a means to your own
end—getting the money—without regard for their right to be treated honestly. . The person’s ability to
make decisions based on truthful information is undermined by your deception. You are not recognizing
them as an end in themselves but rather as a mere instrument for achieving your goal.

13. Explain the third categorical imperative

- Formula of Autonomy - “so act that your will can regard itself at the same time as making universal law
through maxim” result of the first two we should also respect other people to make decisions for
themselves because we respect and see them as coequals = democracy

- The third formulation focuses on the idea that each person is not only bound by the moral law but also
has a role in creating it, legislating it, and making it applicable universally to all people

14. What are the two issues with Bentham’s Utilitarianism?

-Individual rights: can sometimes lead to outcomes that sacrifice individual rights or treat people unfairly
if doing so maximizes total utility.

-Common currency of value: This calculation would require an accurate, comprehensive, and detailed
prediction of the consequences of every possible action—something that is practically impossible.

15. Define utilitarianism

- Utilitarianism is a consequentialist ethical theory that asserts that the morality of an action is
determined by its outcomes. Specifically, the right action is the one that maximizes overall happiness or
pleasure and minimizes overall suffering or pain. In other words, an action is morally right if it produces
the greatest good for the greatest number of people.

Note: Bentham-quantity, Mill-quality

16. Enumerate the seven criticisms against utilitarianism and explain each.

-First criticism concerns its affinity with pleasure alone. Is all we care about pleasure?

=Is the fulfillment of our eudaimonia only through pleasure?

-Second criticism, happiness is unattainable because it concerns not just the self, but that of all
concerned.

=You have to satisfy everybody, and it is unattainable to make everyone happy.

-third criticism, the standard is too high, because you have to renounce your own happiness for the
inducement of promoting the general interest of society
= The theory can require extreme personal sacrifices, demanding that people always act in ways that
maximize overall happiness, even at great cost to themselves.

- fourth objection that utilitarianism renders people cold and un sympathizing, making them regard only
the consequences of actions, not taking into account the qualities from which thos actions emanate

=even if you did your best, but your best didn’t yield happiness of the greatest many then engk

-fifth objection utility has been stigmatized as an immoral doctrine by giving it the name of expediency
(what is practical and good for the people), to contrast it with principle

= The theory can lead to conclusions that conflict with widely held moral intuitions

-sixth objection there is not time, previous to action, for calculating and weighing the effect of any line of
conduct on a general happiness

= It is difficult or impossible to accurately calculate the consequences of actions, especially when

considering long-term or far-reaching effects.

-seventh objection claim that a utilitarian will be apt to make his own particular case an exception to
moral rules, and when under temptation will see a utility in the breach rather than observance of a rule

=prone to doing what he feels is right, even if that action is an exception to moral rules

17. Explain Eudaimonia. What makes it final and self-sufficient?

- fulfilled life, happiness. It represents the highest good and the ultimate goal of human life—something
that all actions should aim toward in order to lead a fulfilled and meaningful existence.

- eudaimonia is final because it is the end that is desired for its own sake and not for the sake of anything
else.

-Eudaimonia is self-sufficient because it provides everything a person needs for a full and meaningful life.
Eudaimonia is an internal state of being that stems from the development of virtue and rational activity.

18. What is arete? What are the two kinds of excellence?

- arete is a Greek term that means excellence or virtue. refers to the quality of living well by fulfilling
one's nature as a rational being. For humans, this means acting in accordance with reason and virtue,
living a life that expresses one's highest potential, and achieving eudaimonia

- and intellectually virtuous person has qualities that allow him to attain truth because human persons
are rational person. This form of excellence pertains to the reasoning and thinking aspect of the human
soul. It is the excellence that allows us to understand, reason, and make judgments based on knowledge
and wisdom.
- moral virtues = habits and nit simply implanted by nature, developed by doing and in accordance to
reason. Moral virtues are related to how we feel, act, and behave in the world. It refers to the
development of a good character that is able to regulate desires, emotions, and impulses in line with
rational choice.

19. How does one attain moral virtues?

- moral virtues are attained through habit (or "practice") and are developed by repeatedly choosing to
act in ways that are consistent with the golden mean or the mesotes—the balance between extremes of
excess and deficiency.

20. What is phronesis? What is the role of phronesis in the attainment of eudaimonia?

- Practical wisdom or phronesis is crucial to the development of moral virtues. It is the ability to reason
well and make good decisions about how to act in specific situations. This type of wisdom helps
individuals determine what the right action is, how to find the mean between extremes, and how to
apply virtues appropriately. In this way, one can attain eudaimonia.

21. What does it mean for virtues to be trained faculties and not passions and powers?

- Virtues are developed through practice. They are learned and cultivated over time by choosing to act
virtuously and by exercising our ability to reason and deliberate in different situations. Virtues are
dispositions that shape our character.

- Passions are emotions or desires that we feel involuntarily. They are not virtues because they don’t
involve rational control over them. Virtue involves regulating our passions according to reason.

- Powers are innate abilities (like the ability to reason or perceive), whereas virtues are developed
through action. Virtues depend on how we use our powers (e.g., using reason in the right way through
practical wisdom).

22. What role does hexis play in the attainment of eudaimonia?

- hexis—as a stable, habitual disposition to act virtuously—is essential for living a life that is consistent
with reason and moral excellence. The development of these virtuous hexeis is the key to achieving
eudaimonia, as they enable individuals to act in ways that lead to lasting fulfillment, both personally and
socially.

23. What is akrasia? Why is it deterrent to eudaimonia?

- refers to a state of weakness of will or lack of self-control. It occurs when a person knows the right
thing to do—the rational, virtuous action—but fails to do it because their desires, emotions, or passions
overpower their rational judgment. akrasia is a major obstacle to eudaimonia because it creates internal
conflict between reason and desire, leading to inconsistent actions, moral failure, and a disordered life.

24. What is philia and how is it facilitative of eudaimonia?

- Philia, particularly virtuous friendship, helps individuals cultivate virtue by providing moral guidance,
support, and accountability. is an essential part of eudaimonia. It provides the moral, emotional, and
intellectual support necessary for individuals to achieve their highest potential, live in accordance with
virtue, and experience true happiness. Through philia, we not only enrich our own lives but also
contribute to the well-being of others and the flourishing of the broader community.

* Hedone (pleasure) and eudaimonia (flourishing) are related but different concepts in ethics. Hedone
refers to the immediate, sensory experience of pleasure, which can be bodily or intellectual in nature.