Part 2: The Act

(Lesson 3: Moral Courage)

Moral Courage

We have learned that in morality, over-reliance on

feelings, to say the least, is disadvantageous. In
resolving moral dilemmas, we are thus advised to
guide our emotions with reason, if not to totally
suppress them. But reason, for many ethicists, is
also not enough in carrying our moral decisions.
Moral courage is also as important.
The Importance of Will and Moral
Courage

 Moral Courage means “doing the right thing even at the risk of inconvenience, ridicule,
punishment, loss of job or security or social status, etc. Moral courage requires that we rise
above the apathy, complacency, hatred, cynicism, and fear-mongering in our political
systems, socioeconomic divisions, and cultural/religious differences”
 Will refers to that faculty of the mind which chooses, at the moment of making decision,
the strongest desire from among the various desires present. “Will does not refer to any
particular desire, but rather to the capacity to act decisively on one’s desires Within
philosophy the will is important as on of the distinct parts of the mind, along with reason
and understanding. It is considered important in ethics because of its central role in
enabling a person to act deliberately.”
The Importance of Will and Moral
Courage

 The German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer explained that

when we become conscious of ourselves, we recognize that our
essential qualities are endless urging, craving, striving, wanting, and
desiring. He said that these are features of that which we call our
will.
 According to Schopenhauer, will “is the innermost essence, the
kernel, of every particular thing and also of the whole. It appears in
every blindly acting force of nature, and also in the deliberate
conduct of man.”
The Importance of Will and Moral
Courage

Will power refers to the “inner strength to make a

decision, take action, and handle and execute any aim
or task until it is accomplished, regardless of inner and
outer resistance, discomfort or difficulties. It bestows the
ability to overcome laziness, temptations and negative
habits, and to carry out actions, even if they require effort,
are unpleasant and tedious or are contrary to one’s
habits.”
The Importance of Will and Moral
Courage

 Having moral courage and will means doing the right thing, which may include listening to
our conscience, that quiet voice within. Disregarding that voice may lead to feelings of
inadequacy, guilt and diminished personal integrity. For parents, using will power usually
demands putting aside compelling but momentary pleasures or comforts in order to set a
good example for their children an be the good parents they wish to be.
 Moral courage demands us to make judgments about what behaviors or acts are
supportive of our ethical ideologies or highest ideals, and which ones are destructive.
Moral courage and will require us to recognize our responsibilities and be accountable to
the consequences of our own actions.
Developing Will and Moral Courage

 Develop and practice self-discipline

o The concept of 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.
o Self-control 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.
Developing Will and Moral Courage

 Do mental strength training

 This method is never reserved for a few special people. One of the most
simple and effective methods under this strength training involves declining to
satisfy unimportant and unnecessary desires.
 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, and achieve satisfaction and
peace of mind.
Developing Will and Moral Courage

 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.
 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 action.
Developing Will and Moral Courage

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 act that manifest them whenever
opportunity allows it.
Developing Will and Moral Courage

 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.
 Part 3: Frameworks and Principles Behind
our Moral Disposition
(Lesson 1: Basic Theories as Frameworks in
Ethics)
Basic Theories as Frameworks in Ethics

 The term “framework” can be defined as a basic structure

underlying a system or concept. Contextually in Ethics, it refers to “a
set of assumptions, concepts, values, and practices that constitutes
a way of viewing reality.” With this definition, a framework is pretty
much like a worldview or a held history.
 Personally held frameworks and principles in Ethics dictate one’s
disposition or the way person resolves moral dilemmas.
Basic Theories as Frameworks in Ethics

Ethicists today generally, divide the study of morality into three general subject areas:
1. Meta-ethics
2. Normative ethics
3. Applied Ethics
Meta-Ethics

 Meta-ethics is the branch of ethics that studies the nature of morality. As such, it talks
about the meaning, reference, and truth values of moral judgments. It also explains what
goodness and wickedness mean and how we know about them.
 Meta-ethical theories are commonly classified semantically as either cognitivism or non-
cognitivist; substantially as either universalist or relativist; and epistemologically as
empiricist, rationalist, or intuitionist.
Cognitivism vs. Non-cognitivism

Cognitivism states that moral judgments convey

propositions, that is, they are “truth bearers” or they are
either true or false. Most ethical theories are cognitivist as
they contend that right and wrong are matters of fact.
The most famous forms of cognitive ethics are the moral
realism and the ethical subjectivism.
Cognitivism vs. Non-cognitivism

Cognitivist theories:
 Moral realism claims that the existence of moral facts and the truth (or falsity) of moral
judgments are independent of people’s thoughts and perceptions. It maintains that
morality is about objective facts, that is, not facts about any person or groups' subjective
judgment.
 Ethical subjectivism on the other hand, holds that the truth (or falsity) of ethical
propositions are dependent on the attitudes or standards of a person or group of persons.
Subjectivism is obviously contrary to moral realism.
Cognitivism vs. Non-cognitivism

 Non-cognitivism denies that moral judgments are either true or false. It claims
that ethical sentences do not convey authentic propositions, hence are neither
true nor false.
 Emotivism is the most popular form of non-cognitivist theory. It submits that moral
judgments are mere expressions of our emotions and feelings. Like exclamatory
sentences, ethical sentences cannot be said to be either true or false according
to the theory.
Universalism vs. Relativism

 Moral universalism
 theorizes that moral facts and principles apply to everybody in all places.
 Also called “moral objectivism”, it claims that a universal ethic exists and that
this applies to all similarly situated persons, regardless of nationality, citizenship,
culture, race, gender, sexual preference, religion, or any other differentiating
factor. Believing that some behaviors are simply wrong, it also submits that if
something is right for one, then it is right for another. Moral universalism is very
much compatible with “moral realism”.
Universalism vs. Relativism

 Moral relativism
 On the other hand, submits that different moral facts and principles apply to
different persons or group of individuals.
 Believing that various cultures have distinct standards of right and wrong, it
also maintains that ethical standards also change over time even in the same
culture. Denying a single, objective standard for morality, it holds that all moral
norms are equally true and morals are mere preferences. Noticeably, it is very
much compatible with ethical subjectivism.
Empiricism vs. Rationalism vs. Intuitionism

 Moral empiricism
 is a meta-ethical stance which states that moral facts are known through
observation and experience.
 The theory is an extension of “empiricism” in epistemology which states that all
knowledge of matters of fact is derived from experience and that our mind is
not equipped with pre-experience concepts. Some forms of moral empiricism
hold that moral truths are reducible to matters about people’s opinions or
cultural conventions and thus are recognizable by observation of their
conventions.
Empiricism vs. Rationalism vs. Intuitionism

Moral rationalism
Contends that moral facts and principles are knowable a priori,
that is, by reason alone and without reference to experience.
As “rationalism” in epistemology claims that knowledge about
reality are gained through non-empirical deductive system, most
forms of moral rationalism purport that moral facts are known
through rational inferential process. In general, the theory relies
on reason rather than intuition in justifying a belief or action.
Empiricism vs. Rationalism vs. Intuitionism

 Moral Intuitionism
 Submits that moral truths are knowable by intuition, that is, by immediate
instinctive knowledge without reference to any evidence.
 The theory claims that we have intuitive awareness of value or morality and
that it defines the basis of our ethical knowledge. It thus insists that the moral
value of actions may be known intuitively even if their consequences have
not been uncovered.
 In its general form, it claims that some moral facts can be known without
inference. Hence, some empiricist and rationalist theories that promote non-
inferential moral knowledge may be compatible with moral intuitionalism.
Normative Ethics

 Normative ethics is the branch of ethics that studies how man ought to act, morally
speaking. As the name suggests, it examines ethical norms, that is, those guidelines about
what is right, worthwhile, virtuous or just.
 This branch evaluates standards for the rightness and wrongness of actions and
determines a moral course of action. Prescriptive in nature, it addresses specific moral
questions about what we should do or believe.
 We do normative ethics if we justify norms like “Discrimination is wrong” or “We must
always act in accordance with our duty.”
 Just for easy distinction, whereas meta-ethics tackles questions such as “What is
goodness?” normative ethics deals with issues like “What ought one to do?”
 Normative ethical theories are categorized into three kinds: deontological, teleological,
and virtue ethics.
Normative Ethics

 Deontology
 Is an ethical system that bases morality on independent moral rules or duties.
 The term came from the Greek word deon, which means “duty”, implying the
foundational nature of man’s duties or obligations. This system equates behaving
morally with adherence to duties or moral rules, and acting immorally with failure to
obey them.
 Also called non-consequentialism, the system’s principles are submitted as obligatory,
regardless of the consequences that actions might produce.
Normative Ethics

 Teleology
 Refers to moral system that determines the moral value of actions by their
outcomes or results.
 From the Greek word “telos”, which means “end”, teleology takes into
account the end result of the action as the exclusive consideration of it’s
morality.
 Teleology deems an action as morally right if its favorable consequences are
greater than its adverse outcomes. Its most famous form is consequentialism
which proposes that morality is determined solely by cost-benefit evaluation
of the action’s consequences.
Normative Ethics

Virtue Ethics
As a moral system, places emphasis on developing good habits
of character, like kindness and generosity, and avoiding bad
character traits, or vices such as greed or hatred.
Virtue-based theories give importance to moral education which
molds individuals to habitually act in a virtuous manner. Focusing
on the character of the agent, virtue ethics describes right
actions as those chosen and performed by a suitably virtuous
person.
Applied Ethics

 Applied Ethics philosophically examines specific, controversial

moral issues. Using philosophical methods, this are of concern in
Ethics attempts to determine the ethically correct course of action
in specific realms of human action.
 For a subject to be considered as an applied ethical issue, not only
must it be a matter of moral judgment, but also it has to be
controversial. That is, there must be considerable groups of people
both for and against the issue.
Applied Ethics

1. Bioethics- This concerns ethical issues pertaining to life, biomedical researches, medicines,
health care, and medical profession.
2. Environmental Ethics- It deals with moral issues concerning nature ecosystem and it’s
nonhuman contents.
3. Business Ethics- It examines moral principles concerning business environment which
involves issues about corporate practices, policies, business behaviors, and the conducts
of relationships of individuals in the organizations.
4. Sexual Ethics- It studies moral issues about sexuality and human sexual behavior.
5. Social Ethics- It deals with what is right for a society to do and how it should act as a
whole.
Part 3: Frameworks and Principles
Behind our Moral Disposition
(Lesson 2: Virtue Ethics)
Virtue Ethics

 Socrates (470-399 BC), Plato (427-348 BC), and Aristotle (384-22 are
Greek philosophers in the ancient period who deeply affected
Western Philosophy.
 The contemporary theory in Ethics called Virtue Ethics, is said to
have started with these three great philosophers. In the medieval
era, the Italian philosopher and theologian Thomas Aquinas (1225-
1274) revived, enhanced, and Christianized the Greek Virtue Ethics.
Virtue Ethics Defined

 Virtue Ethics 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 situations. According to the theory, a virtuous
person is someone who acts virtuously and people act virtuously if they possess and live
the virtues. A virtue is a moral characteristic that an individual needs to live well.
 Virtue Ethics out emphasis on developing good habits of character and avoiding bad
character traits or vices. It focuses on the character of the agent and describes right
actions as those chosen and performed by a suitably virtuous person.
 Virtue ethicists, such as Aristotle, hold that people live their lives trying to develop their
faculties to the fullest extent. We have many faculties to develop such as intellectual,
physical, social, moral, and so on. Developing one’s moral capacity to the fullest is
pursuing ethical excellence, which is displayed by the virtues.
Virtue Ethics Defined

 Basically, the virtues are the freely chosen character traits that people praise in others.
People praise them because:
1. They are difficult to develop
2. They are corrective of natural deficiencies
3. They are beneficial both to self and society
Virtue Ethics Defined

 Virtue Ethics defines a moral person as someone who develops the virtues and unfailingly
displays them over time.
 The ancient Greeks list four “cardinal virtues” namely:
1. Wisdom
2. Courage
3. Moderation
4. Justice
 The Christian teaching, on the other hand, recommends:
1. Faith
2. Hope
3. Charity
4. Love
5. Others suggest virtues
Socrates and Plato’s Moral Philosophy

 Since Plato wrote down and essentially adhered to Socrates’ philosophy, it is practical to
treat their theories jointly.
 In the dialogue “Gorgias” written by Plato, Socrates indicates that pleasure and pain fail
to provide an objective standard for determining moral from immoral since they do not
exist apart from one another, while good and evil do.
 In “Euthyphro”. Socrates asks Euthyphro whether something is good because the gods
love it, or whether the gods love it because it is good. Socrates’ point is that what is good
has a certain independence from the whims of the gods’ determination of the rightness of
our actions and mores. Socrates therefore believed in the existence of objective ethical
standards though he admitted that it is not easy to specify them.
Socrates and Plato’s Moral Philosophy

 Central to Plato’s philosophy is his theory of forms- the objectively existing

immaterial entities that are the proper object of knowledge. Everything in the
material world is what it is by virtue of its resemblance to, or participation in, this
universal Form or Idea. These unchanging independent forms are like ideal and
stable models of the ordinary observable objects.
 Circularity and squareness are good examples of what Plato meant by Forms. A
thing in the physical world may be called a circle or a square insofar as it
resembles or participates the Form “circularity” or “squareness.”
Socrates and Plato’s Moral Philosophy

 Now, since everything in the perceptible realm participates in independent and perfect
forms, there is also a form even for moral predicates, such as justice and happiness. The
highest of all forms is the form of the Good. For Plato, those who comprehend the Good
will always do good actions. Bad actions are performed out of not knowing the Good. To
know the Good, nonetheless, requires and austere and intellectually meticulous way of
life.
 Virtue therefore is regarded as knowledge and can be taught. Knowledge of the 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.
Aristotle’s Ethics

At least two of Aristotle’s works specifically concern

morality, the Eudemian Ethics and the Nicomachean
Ethics. But since only a few have studied the former, the
Nicomachean Ethics has been regarded as the Ethics of
Aristotle since the beginning of the Christian Era.
Aristotle’s Ethics

 Three general descriptions, which are interrelated, can be used to depict Aristotle's ethics:
1. Self-realizationism: may be termed as his ethical system. In his philosophy, when someone acts in
line with his nature or end (“telos”) and thus realizes his full potential, he does moral and will be
happy.
2. Eudaimonistic: Aristotle’s theory focuses on happiness (Eudaimonia), or the good for man, and
how to obtain it.
3. Aretaic: means virtue-based. Whereas act-oriented ethics is focused mainly on what we should
do, a virtue ethics is interested basically in what we should be, that is, the character or the sort of
person we should struggle to become.
Aristotle’s Telos

 A “telos” is an end or purpose. Aristotle believes that the essence or essential nature of
beings, including humans, lay not at their cause (or beginning) but at their end (telos).
 Aristotle does not agree with Plato’s belief in a separate realm of Forms. Aristotle, instead,
argues that rational beings can discover the “essences” of things and that a being’s
essence is its potential fulfillment or “telos” (as the essence of an acorn is to become an
oak tree). The essence or “telos” of human being is rationality and, thus, a life of
contemplation (a.k.a. Philosophy) is the best kind of life for human flourishing.
Aristotle’s Telos

 Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics can be thus summarized in this

manner:
 “All human seek happiness (“well being”), but in different ways. True
happiness is tied to the purpose or end (telos) of human life. The essence (or
telos) of human beings (that which separates and distinguishes them 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)”
Aristotle’s Telos

In terms of his ethics, Aristotle thus believes in the

excellence of philosophical contemplation and virtuous
actions stemming from virtuous persons. By virtuous
actions, he means those which the person with wisdom
would choose because what is good is obvious to such a
person.
Happiness and Virtues

 Aristotle believes that the ultimate human goal is self-realization.

This entails achieving one’s natural purpose by functioning or living
consistently with human nature. Accomplishing it, in turn, produces
happiness; whereas inability to realize it leads to sadness, frustration,
and ultimately to poor life. It therefore behooves us to act in
accordance with our nature so as to be content and complete. In
detail, what does Aristotle mean by human nature?
Happiness and Virtues

 Aristotle identifies three natures of man:

1. The vegetable or physical
2. The animal or emotional
3. The rational or mental
 As previously explained the thing that distinguishes humans from all
other creatures is the rational nature or the ability to reason.
Rational development is this deemed the most important, as it is
uniquely human. Accordingly, living in accordance with reason is
viewed as vital in self-realization or developing one’s potential.
Happiness and Virtues

 This self-realization- the awareness of our nature and the development of our potentials- is
the key to human happiness. But what is this happiness in line with Aristotle’s ethical view?
 Ethics, for Aristotle, is the inquiry into the human good. This is to say that the purpose of
studying ethics is to make ourselves good, though Aristotle assumes that we already want
to become good: This human good is Eudaimonia or happiness.
 Aristotle observed that wise persons seek an end that is self-sufficient, final, and attainable
over one’s life. This end is happiness which all human beings want. Aristotle also considers
happiness as the summum bonum- the greatest good of all human life. He adds that it is
the only intrinsic good, that is, the wealth, and honor are merely means to an end,
happiness is man’s ultimate goal as it is an end itself.
Happiness and Virtues

 Compared to Plato’s philosophy, it is happiness (eudemonia), not

the Form of the Good, which is the supreme good with which
Aristotle’s ethics is concerned. Aristotle indeed holds that the
supreme good in ethics cannot be identified with the idea of the
Good because ethics is a practical science, whereas the
immutable idea of the Good could only be of theoretical interest.
But agreeing with Plato, Aristotle believes that there is an essential
connection between living happily and living virtuously.
Happiness and Virtues

 In fact, Aristotle fundamentally connects happiness to virtues, as he

explains happiness in terms of activities manifesting the virtues.
Human good, he says, is the activity of the soul in accordance with
excellence or virtue. Aristotle’s happiness, therefore, is not much of
a subjective feeling of well-being, but human well-being itself,
being the human good, Moreover, his account of Eudaimonia, is
different from hedonist, and utilitarian account of happiness as
pleasure.
Virtue as Habit

Aristotle’s idea of happiness should also be understood in

the sense of human flourishing. This flourishing is attained
by the habitual practice of moral and intellectual
excellences, or virtues.
Related to self-realization, acting in line with virtues is
acting in accordance with reason. The function of human
being, accordingly, consist in activities which manifest the
best states of his rational aspect, that is the virtues.
Virtue as Habit

 Aristotle employs 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. Virtue, thus, manifests
itself in action. More explicitly, an action counts as virtuous,
according to Aristotle, when a person holds oneself in a stable
equilibrium of the soul, in order to select the action knowingly and
for its own sake. This stable equilibrium of the soul is what constitutes
character.
 Moral virtue, for Aristotle, is the only practical road to effective
action. The virtuous person, who has good character, sees truly,
judges rightly, and acts morally.
Virtues and the Golden Mean

Virtue refers to an excellence of moral or intellectual

character. Aristotle distinguishes two kinds of virtue:
1. Virtues of intellect- the fully rational part of the soul, the intellect.
2. Moral Virtues- pertains to the part of the rational soul which can
“obey reason”. Moral virtue is an expression of character,
formed by habits reflecting repeated choices, hence is also
called a virtue of character.
Virtues and the Golden Mean

 For Aristotle, moral virtues follow from our nature as rational beings- they are the traits or
characteristics that enable us to act according to reason.
 Acting in a reasonable manner is done when we choose to and indeed act in a way that
neither goes to excess nor defect. Excess and defect normally indicate a vice. Virtue lies
neither in the vice of deficiency nor in the vice of excess but in the middle ground. Thus,
moral virtue is the golden mean between the two less desirable extremes.
 Happiness and its opposite playa role in the determination of the golden mean, since we
tend to do actions that bring delight and avoid actions that bring agony. The virtuous
person is brought up to find enjoyment in virtuous actions and sorrow in vices.
Virtues and the Golden Mean

 Aristotle mentions four basic moral virtues:

1. Courage – the golden mean between cowardice (deficiency) and tactless
rashness (excess)
2. Temperance- between gluttony (excess) and extreme frugality (deficiency)
3. Justice- the virtue of giving others right what they deserve, neither more nor
less
4. Prudence- enables us to keep away from excess and defect
Virtues and the Golden Mean

 The question why we should be moral  Honesty

was also answered by Aristotle by his
doctrine of virtues. By simply including  Sincerity
justice or morality among his list of virtues,  Gentleness
he implies that man has to be moral.
 Tolerance
 Additional moral virtues include:
 Benevolence
 Generosity
 Cooperativeness
 Civility
 Empathy
 Trustworthiness
 Tact
 Reliability
 Kindness
 Sociability
 Good temper
 Dependability
Virtues and the Golden Mean

 Aristotle nonetheless admits that some actions, such as adultery,

theft, and murder, do not admit of a mean and are always wrong.
We could never excuse anyone for committing just the right
amount of murders, nor defend someone for committing adultery
with the right person at the right time in the right way.
 In the same vein, no culture considers envy, spite, dishonesty,
insensitivity, cruelty, arrogance, injustice, cowardice, self-
centeredness, and the like to be virtues.
Phronesis and Practice

In learning to avoid excess and defect, we thus have to

find out for ourselves what the right amount is in our
respective unique case and situation.
Aristotle teaches 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.
Phronesis and Practice

 This phronesis or practical wisdom is a grasp of the appropriate way to respond- to feel
and act- in a particular situation. Once we have learned the proper amount of some kind
of action through moral virtue and practical wisdom, then, we have “the right
prescription” (orthos logos). To be virtuous therefore is to act in accordance with the right
prescription.
 But acting appropriate to the right prescription should be understood in terms of practice,
training, or cultivation. To be virtuous one must perform the actions hat habitually bring
virtue. 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 becomes normal.
Phronesis and Practice

 Aristotle’s complete picture of a morally virtuous man therefore is someone who

constantly and habitually acts according to moral virtue and practical wisdom, ideally
exhibiting a lifetime of rational living and avoidance of vice, thereby forming an ethical
character, achieving self-realization, and thus realizing happiness and human good. His
comprehensive notion or moral virtue is that it is a state of character manifested in choice
and action, resting in the golden mean, resolved by the prescription that a wise person
would determine.
Evaluation of the Greek Philosophical
Theories

Takeaways from Socrates and Plato:

 Advocated a positive view of man
 Punishing bad deeds has no place in the theory
 Perseverance is encouraged
 Being moral is equated to being knowledgeable
 Morality is linked with happiness
 A just person has a proper balance among rational, spirited and appetitive aspect of their
soul.
 The realm of Forms could be argued to not exist and even if it would be of no help in
ethical inquiry.
 This very non-figurative theory serves as one of the pioneers of objectivism in ethics.
Evaluation of the Greek Philosophical
Theories

Takeaways from Aristotle’s theory:

 More active than Plato’s theory.
 Virtue is not taught but is acquired by practice.
 Virtue does not come naturally and is an achievement.
 Distinguishes “doing right” from “knowing right”
 More practical, particular, and applicable.
 Could better explain accountability and responsibility.
 Opens the door to bias, prejudice, and subjectivism.
 Moderation could be said that it’s not always the solution.
 There is no universal agreement on what is moderate.
 Complex and tough prescription of being moral.
Thomas Aquinas’ Ethics

 Also called the Angelic Doctor and the Prince of Scholastics, Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274)
is an Italian philosopher and theologian who ranks among the most important thinkers of
the medieval time period.
 In Ethics, Aquinas depends so heavily on Aristotle. Like the Greek philosopher, Aquinas
believes that all actions are directed towards ends and that happiness is the final end.
Aquinas thinks that happiness consists in activities in accordance with virtue.
 But like Augustine, Aquinas declares that ultimate happiness is not attainable in this life, for
happiness in the present life remains imperfect. True happiness, then, is to be found only in
the souls of the blessed in heaven or in beatitude with God.
The Typology of Laws

Central also in Aquinas ethics is his typology of laws. By

the term “law”, he means an ordinance of reason for the
common good, promulgated by someone who has care
of the community. Aquinas’ laws should also be
understood in terms of “rules and measures” for people’s
conduct and as “rational patterns or forms.” Obedience
to the law is thus viewed also as participating in or being
in conformity with the pattern or form.
The Typology of Laws

For Aquinas, there are four primary types of law:

1. 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 exists in His mind is the law that direct everything in
the universe to its appointed end. To this eternal law,
everything in the universe is subject.
The Typology of Laws

2. Natural Law: is that aspect of the eternal law which is

accessible to human reason. Because mankind is 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 or order to which people are subject by their nature
ordering them to do good and avoid evil.
The Typology of Laws

3. Human Law: refers to the positive laws. For natural

law to be adhered to, more exact and forceful
provisions of human law are helpful. Because the
natural law is too broad to provide particular
guidance, the human law’s precise, positive rules of
behavior, are supposed to spell out what the natural
law prescribes.
The Typology of Laws

4. Divine Law: serves to complement the other types

of law. It is a law of revelation, disclosed through
sacred text or Scriptures and the Church which is
also directed toward man’s eternal end.
The Natural Law

 Obviously, the type of law that is Primarily significant is Ethics is the natural law. Part of this
natural law is our inherent natural tendency to pursue the behavior and goals appropriate
to us.
 According to Aquinas, this natural law is knowable by natural reason. For instance, our
practical reason naturally comprehends that good is to be promoted and evil is to be
avoided.
 By virtue of a faculty of moral insight or conscience that Thomas called syndresis, we also
have natural inclination:
1. To Survive
2. To Reproduce and Educate Offspring
3. To know the truth about God and to live peacefully in society
Features of Human Actions

Aquinas evaluates human actions on the basis of not only

their conformity to the natural law but also of their specific
features.
He mentions at least three aspect through which the
morality of an act can be determined: in terms of 1.
species, 2. accidents, and 3. end.
Features of Human Actions

Species: of an action that refers to its kind. It is also called

the object of the action. Human deeds may be divided
into kinds, some of which are good, some bad, and some
indifferent or neutral. Aquinas holds that for an action to
be moral, it must be good or at least not bad in species.
Features of Human Actions

Accidents: simply refer 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 through it’s consequences.
Features of Human Actions

End: stands for the agent’s intention. An act might

be unjust through it’s intention. To intend to direct
oneself against a good is clearly immoral.
Happiness, Moral Virtues, and Theological
Virtues

 Aquinas believes that all actions are directed towards ends and that happiness is the final
end. He also thinks that happiness is not equates with pleasure, material possessions,
honor, or any sensual good, but consists in activities in accordance with virtue. A person
needs a moral character cultivated through the habits of choice to realize real happiness.
 Aquinas defines virtue as “a good habit bearing in activity” or a good faculty-habit. Habits
are firm dispositions or “hard to eradicate” qualities that dispose us to act in a particular
manner.
 Aquinas differentiates between acquired and infused habits. The autonomous will of a
person plays a major role in acquired habits as they involve consistent deliberate effort to
do an act time and again and despite obstructions. The infused virtues, on the other hand,
are independent of this process as they are directly instilled by God in our faculties. These
virtues are thus divine gifts which elevate the activities of those who receive them.
Happiness, Moral Virtues, and Theological
Virtues

Aquinas mentions at least two kinds of infused virtues:

1. Moral virtues
2. Theological virtues
Happiness, Moral Virtues, and Theological
Virtues

 Moral Virtues have as their object not God Himself, but activities that are less virtuous and
inferior to the final end. To this kind belong the four basic virtues:
1. Prudence
2. Fortitude
3. Temperance
4. Justice
Happiness, Moral Virtues, and Theological
Virtues

 Theological values, on the other hand, are concerned directly with God. They provide us
with true knowledge and desire of God and of His will. Here are the 3 virtues that serve
that attune us to our final end:
1. Faith: makes us recognize and believe in the true God.
2. Hope: makes us wish to be with Him.
3. Love: makes us adore Him.
Happiness, Moral Virtues, and Theological
Virtues

 Unlike Aristotle’s virtues, Christian virtues are not applications of the golden mean
between extremes. We ought to exercise these virtues according to what God
demands of us and according to our capacity as individuals.
 Aquinas also treats the theological virtues in terms of the vices and sins which
respectively conflicts with them.
An Analysis of Thomistic Ethics

Takeaways from Thomistic Ethics:

 The goodness and badness of an action lies in the interior act of will.
 More of a deontologist or Kantian.
 Against contemporary philosophy due to adherence to natural law.
 Prescribes to the doing of good, avoiding evil, pursuing knowledge and living at peace.
 Promotes a positive view of the world as rational, humane, and ordered.
 Earthly happiness can also be desirable.
 Part 3: Frameworks and Principles
Behind our Moral Disposition
(Lesson 3: Kant and Rights Theory)
Immanuel Kant (1724-1804)

Immanuel Kant is a German Thinker regarded by many as

the most significant philosopher in the modern era. His
major contributions to Ethics can be found in his two
works: The Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals and
the Critique of Practical Reason.
Kantian Ethics

Kant categorically rejects that ethical judgments are

based on feelings. For him, feelings even serve as
obstructions to our discernment of right and wrong. His
ethical theory instead bases moral judgments on reason
alone. Reason, for him, is what deems an action ethical or
otherwise.
Good Will

 Kant believes that when we wish to determine the moral status of an action, we consult
reason. An act either accords with reason or it does not. If it accords with reason, we must
do it, if not, we must avoid it.
 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 teaches that only good will is intrinsically good. That is, it is the only thing which is
good without qualification.
Good Will

 Kant does not agree with many ethicists that happiness is the summum bonum or the
highest good. Happiness, for him, can be corrupting and may be worthless or even
positively evil when not combined with a good will. In the same way, intellectual
eminence, talents, character, self-control, and fortune cannot be intrinsically good for the
can be used to bad ends.
 A good will is one that habitually wills rightly. And it is not what good will achieves that
constitutes its goodness. Even if good will, because of some hindrances, accomplishes
nothing, it remains to be something with full value in itself. Good will is good in itself.
Good Will

 Who is a good person or a person of good will? For Kant, it is the person who acts
from a sense of duty. Kant thinks that acting from a sense of duty means
exhibiting good will even in the face of difficulty.
 For an act to be moral, it is a requisite that it be an act of a free agent. That is, it
must be a voluntary action, not a forced or compelled one. In addition however,
it must be an act done it must be an act done not from ”inclination” but from a
“sense of duty” dictated by reason.
 Inclination refers to the feeling that pushes us to select a particular option or
make a particular decision. It is our liking or tendency to do, favor, or want
something.
 A duty or obligation, on the other hand, is that which we ought to do despite our
inclination or “taste” to do otherwise.
Good Will

Normally, people perform the acts which please them or

which they desire to do in particular circumstances.
For Kant, these actions determined by wishes, passions,
appetites, desires, and the like have no moral worth. He
believes that we act morally only when we restrain or
feelings and inclinations and do that which we are
obliged to do. Morality, as Kant sees it, is essentially
connected with duties and obligations.
Good Will

 There is however a need to make a distinction between acts done “from the
motive of duty” and those that are “in accordance with duty”.
 The former are moral acts unlike the latter.
 Respecting one’s parents for expediency or solely in obedience to custom,
paying one’s debt for fear of being sued, helping others because it’s pleasing to
do so, taking care of one’s children because on is so fond of doing so, displaying
honesty to receive an award and keeping a promise by accident are all
examples of acts that are in accord with duty, but not from duty.
Good Will

 Moreover, acting morally entails acting from the motive of duty

regardless of the consequences that doing so or not doing so will
bring.
 To perform an act for fear of undesirable consequences of not
doing it- that ism to act from a sense of prudence- is only to do a
“prudential act”, but not necessarily a moral one.
 Therefore, it is only when we recognize the “we ought” to do an act
because it is our duty, understand the nature of this obligation, and
act upon it that we are said to perform an authentically moral act.
Categorical Imperative

How 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 believes that there is. First, it is one’s duty, as a
rational being, to act on principle or maxim, as
contrasted to simply acting on purpose.
Categorical Imperative

Let’s distinguish “actions on maxim” from “actions 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.
 Now, contrast this with another man who gives relief to total strangers who are victims of a
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
This is acting on maxim. The agent has a reason for his action, and out of this reason, a maxim
like this was formulated: “The situation has such-and-such features, and any situation
possessing these features must be dealt with in such-and-such manner”.
Categorical Imperative

 Maxim, as we have seen, is a general rule or principle which serves

as a guide to action.
 “Be honest always”; “Don’t always shoot the ball when you get it”;
“Don’t wear the wedding gown before the wedding”; and “When
in doubt, render a salute” are examples of maxims. Evidently, not all
maxims are moral ones.
 In Ethics, Kant is concerned with maxims that are moral, that is,
those dictated by reason and thus have imperative force.
Hypothetical and Categorical Imperatives

Kant further divides the maxims of conduct into two

classes:
1.Hypothetical Imperatives
2.Categorical Imperatives
Hypothetical Imperatives

 Imperative should be understood as a command of reason.

 The term “hypothetical”, on the other hand, entails being true only
under some condition and therefore not universally true or valid.
 Accordingly a hypothetical imperative is how reason orders one to
achieve one’s specific ends. It directs one to behave in certain
manners on the condition that one seeks specified goals, such as: if
you wish to pass, then study hard.
 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.
Hypothetical Imperatives

There are a lot of hypothetical imperatives for there are

several various ends which people may set themselves.
Some hypothetical imperatives are concerned with mere
prudential actions,
Simply a rule for obtaining some desired ends, a
hypothetical imperative is accepted not on its own merits.
In our example, the maxim to study hard is accepted as a
rule for passing, and not on its own merits.
Hypothetical Imperatives

Hypothetical imperative is this both contingent and

derivative.
It is contingent or conditional, because circumstances are
imaginable where studying hard would still not result in
passing, and in such situations the maxim may no longer
be accepted.
It is derivative because acceptance of it depends on
one’s wish to pass, the principle may be ignored.
Categorical Imperatives

Categorical Imperatives, on the other hand, pronounces,

“No matter what end you desire to attain, act in such-
and-such a way”.
Clearly, it commands a person to act in particular ways
regardless of what goals one looks for or what one’s ends
may be.
Categorical Imperatives

As suggested by the term “categorical:, this imperative is

exceptionless, that is, binding on all rational agents, in all
circumstances, at all times.
Categorical imperative demands action without
qualification without any ifs and without regard to the
consequence such an act may produce.
Unlike hypothetical imperative, categorical imperative is
accepted on its own merits.
Categorical Imperatives

 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 thus serves as the barometer of reason determining whether or
not an action qualifies as ethical. Therefore, it is Kant’s moral philosophy that an act is
morally good if it is done for the sake of a morally good maxim; and a maxim is morally
good if it conforms to the categorical imperative.
Universalizability and End-in-Itself

Kant provides various formulations of the

categorical imperative:
Universalizability
End-in-Itself
Universalizability

The most famous formulation of the categorical

imperative is “universalizability” which states “Act only on
that maxim through which you can at the same time will
that I should become a universal law.”
In other words, a person ought always to behave as if his
course of conduct were to become a universal code of
behavior.
Universalizability

To illustrate, Kant takes the case of a lying promise.

 A person, having run out of money, may be tempted to borrow
from someone though knowing for sure that he will be incapable to
pay it back. He thus acting on the maxim, “When in need of
money, borrow from someone by making a lying promise.”
 Evidently, this does not pass the categorical imperative. Reason
cannot will that everyone should act on this maxim, otherwise, all
human relations based upon trust and honoring one’s promises
would drastically collapse.
End-in-Itself

 End-in-itself states: “So act as to use humanity, both in your own

person and in the person of every other, always at the same time as
an end, never simply as a means.”
 This rendition teaches among other things, to respect persons as
ends in themselves and not only as means or instruments to further
self-interest.
 This involves acknowledging the person as a rational being with
goals and treating him with dignity.
End-in-Itself

 Kant uses this formulation in ruling out suicide.

 He contends that to take one’s own life is to use one’s own person
as a tool in bringing to an end one’s suffering and grief.
 Furthermore, the lying promise does not pass this formulation as
well. Without a plan to repay the borrowed money, the promisor
does not treat the promise with honor, but rather as a mere
instrument to attain the promisor’s aim to gain the wanted amount.
An analysis of Kantian Ethics

 Another way of stating the golden rule.

 Lying is wrong regardless of circumstance.
 We must do our duties no matter what circumstances are.
 Lack of solutions to instances where there is a conflict of duties.
 Ethical rules are better constructed as generalizations rather than as categorical
commands without any exception.
 Prefers motives over consequences.
 Enjoyment does not necessarily equate morality.
 Goes against Christian philosophy’s emphasis on love as love is only a strong desire.
An analysis of Kantian Ethics

 In general however, Kant contributes much to the study of morality. It affirms our
consciousness of the moral law inherent to our practical reason.
 Kant defines human dignity as resting on the attainment of moral character, and thus not
on things like progress in scientific advances.
 His categorical imperative supports the democratic notion that all people are created
equal, from which we can derive that discrimination is not good especially before the law.
 Moreover, his categorical imperative forbids us to behave in an inconsistency and
hypocritical manner.
Rights 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
law.
 For Kant, governments were entrusted with the capacity to create laws by the
citizens they governed in exchanged for protection. 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
efficacies, “government must approach the making and enforcement of 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 freedoms for the protection enjoyed
by organized society, but governments cannot infringe upon the rights that
citizens have been promised.
Rights Theory

 Rights Based Ethics is a broad moral theory in which Kant’s

principles of rights theory is included.
 The concept of rights based ethics is that “there are some rights,
both positive and negative, that all humans have based only on
the fact that they are human.
 These rights can be natural or conventional. That is, natural rights
are those that are moral while conventional are those created by
humans and reflect society’s values.
Legal vs. Moral Rights

 Legal Rights denote all rights found within existing legal codes.
 Moral rights in plain contrast, are the rights that “exist prior to and independently from their
legal counterparts.
 Human rights are best thought of as being both moral and legal rights
Part 3: Frameworks and Principles
Behind our Moral Disposition
(Lesson 4: Utilitarianism)
Utilitarianism

 Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) and John Stuart Mill (1808-1873) are British philosophers who
had immense impact on British thought. Bentham was the head of a group of reformers
called “the philosophical radicals”, whose members included James Mill and his son, John
Stuart Mill. Bentham and the younger Mill are Considered the main proponents of the
moral theory called Utilitarianism.
Utilitarianism Explained

 Perhaps the most prominent moral philosophy in the last two centuries, utilitarianism is
known as a consequentialist theory, a subclass of teleological 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 to do rests 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 intentions or motives of the
agent. As opposed to absolutists who hold that some actions are intrinsically 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 which render some acts- those which
violate those rights in conflict with that law- as immoral, no matter what their outcomes
are. Consequentialists, on the other hand, believe that there is no class of actions which
must be ruled out in advance independent of their consequences.
Utilitarianism Explained

 Utilitarianism is the most influential consequentialists theory. Derives from the Latin term
“ulitis” which means “useful”, utilitarianism basically states that what is useful is good, and
that the moral value of actions are determined by the utility of its consequences.
 It explains that those actions that bring about favorable effects are moral while those that
produce damaging results are immoral. Utilitarianism is this essentially opposed to ethical
theories that consider God’s will or some inner sense or faculty, like the conscience, to be
the final arbiter of morality.
 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 pleasure and
minimizes pain.
Utilitarianism Explained

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.”
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 brings 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
actions. Moreover, it is argued that it is possible to justify immoral
acts using Act Utilitarianism.
Rule Utilitarianism

 In Rule Utilitarianism on the other hand, the principle of utility is used

to decide the validity of rules of conduct (moral standards or
principles). A moral rule such as promise-keeping is established by
evaluating the consequences of a world in 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.
 One of the criticisms against this view is that it is possible to produce
unjust rules according to the principle of utility.
Origins and Nature of the Theory

 Jeremy Bentham founded the doctrine of utilitarianism but John

Stuart Mill later systematized and modified some of Bentham’s
utilitarian principles.
 Jeremy Bentham proposed the primary form of utilitarianism in his
“Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation (1789). He
confessed nonetheless that he took over the principle of utility from
David Hume. Upon reading Hume’s account of the principle of
utility, Bentham wrote that he felt as if the scales had fallen from his
eyes.
Bentham’s Utilitarianism

 Bentham explains that “utility” means that property in any object,

whereby it tends to produce benefit, advantage, pleasure, good,
or happiness or to prevent the happening of mischief pain, evil, or
unhappiness.
 The principle of utility thus states that an action is right insofar as it
tends to produce the greatest happiness for the greatest number
as the supreme objective of human action.
 For Bentham, it is the principle of utility- not the so-called natural
law, natural rights, or social contracts- which serves as the
objectives barometer in ethically evaluating human action, state
laws, and legal systems.
Bentham’s Utilitarianism

 Bentham observes that people act in their own interests. For him,
this should be understood in terms of pleasure and pain, for people
are essentially seekers of pleasure and avoiders of pain. Bentham
wrote that pleasure and pain are “two sovereign masters” under
which nature has placed mankind. The concepts pleasure and
pain spell the scope of limit of Bentham’s ethical system.
Bentham’s Utilitarianism

For Bentham, nothing else but pleasure is intrinsically

good. Though he recognizes four sanctions or sources of
pleasure- the physical, the moral, the religious, and the
political- the physical source, for him, is the basis of all the
others. Giving emphasis on only one kind of pleasure,
Bentham gives no importance to the quality of pleasures.
Bentham’s Utilitarianism

 Dubbed as quantitative hedonist or quantitative utilitarian, Bentham even went so far as to

create a detailed method, the “hedonic calculus,” to calculate the quantitative worth of
pleasures. This method has seven criteria or ingredients that allow one to quantify the
amount of pleasure or pain an action brings about:
1. Intensity
2. Duration
3. Certainty
4. Propinquity
5. Fecundity
6. Purity
7. Extent
Bentham’s Utilitarianism

 In general, utilitarianism determines the moral value of an act by

calculating the sum of pleasure it caused, and the amount of pain
generated.
 Remember that a moral deed is that which maximizes benefits and
minimizes damages or costs. Therefore, the one moral act to carry
out in any case is that which can be sensibly seen to afford the
greatest net benefit, when the projected costs are deducted from
the anticipated benefits.
Bentham’s Utilitarianism

 As regards justice and punishment Bentham disapproves the

retributive principle or that which requires that he who has done
harm shall endure harm.
 Rendering evil for evil, for mere retribution’s sake, would just
augment the quantity of evil in the society. Bentham’s account of
the justification of punishment is this a deterrent account instead.
Punishment can only be justified if it deters people from
perpetrating future harms.
Mill’s Utilitarianism

 John Stuart Mill is the most famous proponent of utilitarianism after

Bentham. He made the doctrine the subject of his philosophical
treatise (Utilitarianism) published in 1863. Like Bentham, he
advocates “the greatest happiness principle” which states that it is
the greatest happiness of the greatest number that is the measure
of right and wrong.
 Mill differs fundamentally from Bentham on two central aspects.
First, Mill rejects the purely quantitative treatment of the principle of
utility; second, he introduces the so-called “secondary principles”
which set the tone for a contemporary variant form of the theory
called rule utilitarianism.
Mill’s Utilitarianism

 Mill distinguished between higher and lower pleasures. Addressing

the criticism that utilitarianism basely defines man in terms of mere
pleasure and pain, Mill cites Epicurus (341-270 BC) who explained
that while the good or happy life is the life of pleasure, it does not
mean only sensual pleasure.
 Physical pleasures belong to the lower pleasures or which animals
too can experience, such as those from food, drink, and sex.
 Believing that some pleasures are intrinsically superior to others, Mill
famously declared, “It is better to be a human being dissatisfied
than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool
satisfied.”
Mill’s Utilitarianism

By higher pleasures, Mill basically means intellectual,

which includes artistic, political, and even spiritual
pleasures. These more desirable and more valuable
pleasures are exclusive to humans, like the pleasures that
accompany reading a good novel or poetry, listening to
music, enjoying visual arts, meditating on nature or the
cosmos, and solving a complex scientific or mathematical
problem.
Mill’s Utilitarianism

 Note that Mill, nonetheless, does not remove the lower pleasures from the picture
of a happy life. Considered a “qualitative hedonist”, he just wants qualitative
distinctions among pleasures. And for him, a happiness that is made up
principally of higher pleasures is a higher, deeper, truer and more valuable form
of happiness. Mill thus denies the limited identification of the term “happiness”
with “physical pleasure and the absence of pain” and the concept
“unhappiness” with “pain and the absence of bodily pleasure”.
 In ethics, Mill purports that “happiness” and “unhappiness” are the basis for good
and evil. While “pleasure” and “pain” are significant matters, they are only the
basic minimum.
 Mill’s Utilitarianism

 As regards Mill’s “secondary principles”, he believes that past experiences teach us

which kinds of action promote happiness and which do not.
 These principles which are based on the history of human experience, would save us
from doing taxing utilitarian calculations every time we act.
 Secondary principles serve as practical rules, giving knowledge about the
tendencies of actions when no better information is available.
 This does not mean however that the action are justified by these practical rules- it’s
the consequences manifested in past experiences which validate them.
Analysis of Utilitarianism

Cons
Pros
 Does not account the difficulty
 Has a transcultural appeal in foreseeing consequences
 Promotes action that improves  Advantageous for immediate
one’s life effects but has detrimental
 Inspires and encourages long term effects.
people to act morally even  Disregards the nature of the
without a belief in the afterlife act.
 Allows for exceptions to the rule  An act born out of an evil
motive as long as it brings
about advantageous effects
Business’s Fascination with Utilitarianism

 The most broadly understood and normally applied ethical theory to business.
 In the theory, “good” is typically defined as the net benefits that accrue to those parties
affected by the 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.
Business’s Fascination with Utilitarianism

 Business executives normally embrace the utilitarian approaches to ethical problems

because they are so compatible with traditional business thinking.
 Just as utilitarianism seeks to maximize happiness, or the good, business executives usually
hope to maximize profit, return on investment, or share price. If a business person makes
the conclusion that the greatest good is equivalent to the highest profitability and this
condition produces the most benefits for society, then his “philosophy” is so compatible
with utilitarianism which is oriented to optimum results.
 Another influential appeal of the utilitarian approach, as long as business is concerned, is
its cost-benefit character. Practically, business managers often weigh the pros and cons of
alternative economic and managerial actions. This method to solving business problems is
a staple of many business courses so is this embedded in the psyche of many business
managers.
Business’s Fascination with Utilitarianism

 Of course, business managers also understand that their business

decisions must often be placed in the context of a “win-lose”
situation, That is, the repercussions of a business action are rarely a
singular; “rather, they are multiple and may “cut both ways”.
 For instance, in mature markets, the only way to gain market share
is for at least one competitor to lose share. Or increasing long-term
shareholder value may require sacrificing short-term profits (and
perhaps management bonuses) in favor of reinvestment in the
business, its products and services.”
Business’s Fascination with Utilitarianism

 Another reason business managers are so fascinated with

utilitarianism lies in its flexibility in response to differing situations.
Utilitarianism philosophy accommodates complex situations more
easily than others, more absolute, moral theories. The factors taken
in a utilitarianism structure can be “conveniently varied from the
short term to the long term or from financial to non-financial criteria,
While conflicting stakeholder claims can be recognized, managers
typically weigh business owner or shareholder goals associated with
corporate profitability as more important than the goals of other
groups such as employees or the community.”
Part 3: Frameworks and Principles
Behind our Moral Disposition
(Lesson 5: Justice and Fairness)
Justice and Fairness

 Many consider the American political philosopher John Rawls (1921-2002) the most
important political philosopher of the 20th century. Rawls reject utilitarianism and offers a
number of arguments against such a theory.
 He argues that utilitarian thinking cannot absolutely exclude systems such as slavery or
racial segregation as there is nothing in the moral theory to dismiss them from
consideration. That is, if slavery, for example, is to the overall benefit of society, in that
wellbeing of the slave-owners overshadows the suffering of the slaves, then utilitarianism
would be required to accept slavery.
 Rawls maintains that slavery is wrong under all situations, regardless of any utility
calculations, for it does not respect the fundamental tights and liberties of all persons.
Slavery is wrong not because it is unproductive or inefficient but because it is unjust, for it
does not consider individual rights inviolable.
Rawls’ “Justice as Fairness”

Rawls is said to somewhat used the elements of both

Kantian and utilitarian philosophy in describing a method
for the moral evaluation of social and political institutions.
He called his concept of social justice “Justice as Fairness”
which consists of two principles. Since Rawls first published
his classic work A Theory of Justice, he changed the
wording of these principles numerous times. In 2001, he
published his last version.
Rawls’ Two Principles

 Rawls’ First Principle of social justice- often “the Liberty Principle”-

concerns political institutions:
 “Each person has the same and indefeasible claim to a fully adequate
scheme of equal basic liberties, which scheme is compatible with the same
scheme of liberties for all.”
 This means that everybody has the same basic liberties which can
never be taken away. This first principle is very Kantian in that it
provides for basic and universal respect for individuals as a
minimum standard for all institutions.
Rawls’ Two Principles

 Rawls gave as examples most of the liberties in the U.S. Bill of Rights,
such as freedom of speech and due process of law. He nonetheless
added some liberties from the larger sphere of human rights such as
freedom of travel.
 Rawls also recognized the right of private persons, corporations, or
workers to own private property.
 He, however, omitted the right to own the means of production
such as mines, factories, and farms. He also left out the right to
inherit wealth. In his view, these things were not “basic”.
Rawls’ Two Principles

 The American philosopher agreed that basic liberties could be

limited, but only for the sake of liberty. Hence, restricting the liberties
of an intolerant group that aims to harm the liberties of others may
be justified.
 However, while all individuals may be morally equal, it is known that
in the “real world”, there are noteworthy differences between
individuals that under conditions of liberty will lead to social and
economic inequalities. Rawls’ second principle allows such
inequalities but under certain conditions.
Rawls’ Two Principles

 Rawls’ Second Principle of social justice- consisted of “fair equality of

opportunity” and the “the Difference Principle”- concerns social and economic
institutions:
 “Social and economic inequalities are to satisfy two conditions (1)first, they are to be
attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of
opportunity; and (2) second, they are to be to the greatest benefit of the leas-
disadvantaged members of society”
 While focused on equality, the Second Principle recognizes that a society could
not avoid inequalities among its people. In real world, inequalities result from
things such as a person’s inherited characteristics, social class, personal
motivation, and even “luck”. Even so, Rawls maintained that a just society ought
to find ways to lessen inequalities in areas where it can function.
Rawls’ Two Principles

 Rawl’s Difference Principle is the ideal but controversial element of

his theory of social justice.
 In a 1968 essay, he framed it in this manner: “All differences in
wealth and income, all social and economic inequalities,, should
work for the good of the least favored”
 By these terms, he meant those at the bottom of the economic
ladder such as unskilled individuals who earn the lowest wages in
the society.
Rawls’ Two Principles

Rawls preferred maximizing the improvement of the ‘least-

advantaged’ group in society under his Difference
Principle. To this end, he suggested providing “fair
equality of opportunity” and other possible ways such as
a guaranteed minimum income or minimum wage.
Rawls’ Two Principles

Rawls ranked his principles of social justice according to

his supposed order of their priority. The First Principle
(‘basic liberties’) holds priority over the Second Principle.
The first part of the Second Principle (‘fair equality of
opportunity’) holds priority over the second part
(‘Difference Principle”). He nonetheless held that both the
First and Second Principles together are both
indispensable for a just society.
The “Thought Experiment”

 Being a political philosopher, Rawls unsurprisingly focused on society’s basic institutions. He

proposed that unless institutions as the constitution, economy, and education system
functioned in a just way for all, social justice would not truly exist in a society.
 Rawls revived the concept of “social contract” developed by philosophers like John Locke
and Jean Jacques Rousseau. Locke and Rousseau had theorized that people in the
distant past had fashioned a social contract between themselves and their leader.
 The contract encompassed that people would obey their leader, typically a king, and he
would assure their natural rights. Believed to be the foundation of a just society, this social
contract concept was subscribed to by Thomas Jefferson in writing the Declaration of
Independence.
The “Thought Experiment”

Most political scientists however had dismissed the

social contract as an old-fashioned myth by the
20th century. Aiming to revive the concept, Rawls
devised a hypothetical version of the social
contract. It is now known as Rawls’ “thought
experiment”, (though Rawls himself called it the
“Original Position”)
The “Thought Experiment”

 The “thought experiment” was not a real assembly of real people, negotiating over a
contract. Instead it was just an imagined gathering held under strict conditions that
allowed persons to deliberate, only by employing their reason and logic. Their mission was
to assess principles of social justice and select the best ones. Their decision would be
compulsory on their society forever.
 Taking into account the value of impartiality, Rawls added a condition to assure that the
choice of social justice principles would truly be unbiased. The individuals in this mental
exercise had to pick their justice principles under a “veil of ignorance”. Meaning, these
persons would know nothing about their specific positions in society, as though some force
had plucked them form a society and caused them to have severe amnesia.
The “Thought Experiment”

 Rawls contended that only under a “veil of ignorance” could

people reach a fair and impartial contract as true equals not
prejudiced by their place in society. Under the “veil of ignorance”,
these fictional persons would not know their own sex, age, race,
social class, abilities, preferences religion, life goals, or anything else
about themselves. They would also be unaware of the society from
which they came, though they would have general knowledge
about how social institutions functioned.
The “Thought Experiment”

So Rawls set up his “thought experiment: with many given

systems of social justice principles from which the
imaginary participant would select for their own society.
Rawls was mostly interested to find out what choice the
group would make between his own “Justice as Fairness”
concept and another called “Average Utility.” This notion
of justice called for maximizing the average wealth of the
people.
The “Thought Experiment”

 Utilizing reason and logic, the fictional individuals would first have to resolve what most
persons in most societies want. Rawls argued that rational human beings would pick
four things, which he called the “primary goods”:
1. Wealth and income
2. Rights and liberties
3. Opportunity for advancement
4. Self-respect
 In the following and critical step, the participants would have to deliberate on how a
society should go about fairly distributing these “primary goods” among its people.
The “Thought Experiment”

Designing social, economic, and political

institutions that favored the “most advantaged”
society members would obviously not be justice for
all. The imagined members of the experiment
group would rationally agree, however, that equal
rights and liberties, opportunities, and self-respect
for all would be fair.
The “Thought Experiment”

 Everyone having equal wealth and income is also not a viable suggestion. Rawls was
certain that the participants would sensibly conclude that some, but not extreme,
inequality of wealth and income is required in a just society. For working to improve the
economy and wealth of the society, innovators, entrepreneurs, and leaders must be
reasonably rewarded.
 On how wealth and income should be distributed in a just society, Rawls contended that
the imaginary group members would adopt what philosophers call the “maximum-
minimum” (or maximin) rule. Under this rules, the best choice is the highest minimum.
Let us take this example:

Average Wage Per Legal Minimum Wage

Hour

Society A $20.00 $7.00

Society B $30.00 $1.00

The “Thought Experiment”

In this example, the best choice under the “maximin” rule
would be Society A, which has the highest minimum
wage.
“Those earning the average wage and above are doing
pretty well as well. Society B with its higher average wage
benefits those in the middle and at the top income levels,
but largely ignores those at the bottom”
According to Rawls, this manifests the flaw of the
“Average Utility” social justice system.
The “Thought Experiment”

 Rawls also held that the persons in his experiment would logically
select principles of social justice that maximized benefits for the
“least advantaged.”
 Since they did not know what position they actually occupy in their
society, the participants, to be on the safe side, would sensibly pick
the principles of justice that most benefited those at the bottom.
 It is in this way that Rawls believed that he had demonstrated that
his Justice as Fairness principles, tilted toward the “least
advantaged,” where the best for forming or restructuring institutions
for a just society.
Distributive Justice

 Rawl’s “Justice as Fairness” principles is an example of a social

justice concept called distributive justice. This concept basically
concerns the nature of a socially just allocation of goods in a
society.
 If incidental inequalities in outcome do not arise, then the principles
of distributive justice is said to exist in a society. Distributive justice
includes the available quantities of goods, the process by which
goods are distributed, and the subsequent allocation of the goods
to society members.
Distributive Justice

People usually turn to the distributive norms of their group

to determine whether distributive justice has occurred.
A norm is the standard of behavior that is required,
desired, or designated as normal within a specific group.
Distributive justice is said to have occurred if rewards and
costs are allocated according to the designated
distributive norms of the group.
Distributive Justice

The following are the common types of distributive norms:

 Equity: Member’s outcomes should be based upon their inputs.
Therefore, an individual who has invested a large amount of input
(e.g. time, money, energy) should receive more from the group
than someone who has contributed very little. Members of large
groups prefer to base allocations of reward and costs on equity.
 Equality: Regardless of their inputs, all group members should be
given an equal share of the rewards/costs. Equality supports that
someone who contributes 20% of the group’s resources should
receive as much as someone who contributes 60%.
Distributive Justice

Power: Those with more authority, status, or control over

the group should receive more than those in lower level
positions.
Need: Those in greatest needs should be provided with
resources needed to meet those needs. These individuals
should be given more resources than those who already
possess them, regardless of their input.
Responsibility: Group members who have the most should
share their resources with those who have less.
Distributive Justice

Distributive justice, in social psychology, is defined as

perceived fairness of how rewards and costs are shared
by, or distributed across, group members.
Going back to John Rawls, his theory of justice exhibits a
simple idea, that is, that the concern of distributive justice
is to compensate persons for misfortune.
For Rawls therefore, distributive justice demands that the
lucky ought to allocate some or all gains due to luck to
the unlucky.
Distributive Justice

Various socio-economic-political theories have differentiated, but somewhat

related, view of distributive justice:
 Egalitarian: this is a set of closely related socio-economic-political theories that
without exemption promote the proposition that all society members ought to
have exactly equal amount of resources.
 Simpler egalitarian theories are satisfied with the view that everybody should be given,
at all cost, completely equal quantity of some basic material goods.
 More refined egalitarian thinkers are conscious that such a distribution would have
many shortcomings.
 Rawls’ “Justice as Fairness” principle is often called “Rawlsian Egalitarianism”. But one
of Rawls’ tenets suggests that inequalities are permissible, and can even be an
advantage of all, but only if they meet certain criteria.
Distributive Justice

 Capitalist. Laissez-faire capitalist: distributive justice is when people, businesses

and corporations perform based on their individual self-interest for their own
benefit.
 The principal role of government is to allow a free and fair market system, as well as to
protect persons, businesses, and corporations from taking the benefits of their actions
appropriated by others.
 For Rawls, pure laissez-faire capitalism is also unjust, because it tends to generate an
unfair distribution of wealth and income concentrated in the hands of a few, which, in
turn and in effect deprives some if not most citizens of the basic means of essential to
compete fairly for desired benefits, offices, and positions.
 According to Rawls, a just society would be a “property-owning democracy” in which
ownership of the means of production is broadly distributed and those who are worst
off are affluent enough to be economically independent.
Distributive Justice

 Socialist: State socialist distributive justice is a system where the

government or a central authority controls the production of goods
and services.
 Perhaps a better version of a socialist distributive justice is that of democratic
socialism. Also called “welfare democracy”, democratic socialist distributive
justice has a system of social insurance to help disadvantaged persons.
 The system incorporates free-market principles in producing goods and
services with general principles about compassion and concern for others.
 Some economic sectors such as health care, energy distribution,
transportation, and aerospace may be government owned or controlled.
State and Citizens Responsibility

Taxation and Inclusive Growth

 Taxation is a means by which states or governments finance their
expenditure, basically and ideally for constituents, by imposing
charges o them and corporate entries. Government expenditures
fundamentally involve social welfare programs for citizens.
 Inclusive growth is “economic growth that creates opportunity for
all segments of the population and distributes the dividends of
increased prosperity, both in monetary and non-monetary terms,
fairly across society”.
An Evaluation of Rawls’ Principles

Does not allow tolerance for religion.

The Difference Principle gives emphasis to the least
advantaged.
Highly idealized principles and maybe impossible
to implement in our public culture.
Conclusion: Ethics through Thick and
Thin (Lesson I: Globalization and
Pluralism: New Challenges in Ethics)
Globalization and Pluralism

 Globalization has made the world into a single interconnected community.

 Politically, economically, and culturally therefore, communities across the world not
function in what is fundamentally a shred space although divided into artificial
political condominiums called nation-states.
 In a globalized era, peoples and community across the world have become culturally
connected, the distinction between the global and the local has become
progressively blurred and actions and events in one locality can carry with it the
potential to breed transnational and transgenerational impacts.
 It is precisely for these reasons that moral reflection about our responsibilities and
obligations in a globalized age has become an imperative.
Pluralism

Pluralism is a concept used in many diverse

ways, but in general terms, it is the
philosophical theory that there is more than
one basic substance or principle, whether it
be the constitutions of the universe of the
mind and body, the sources of truth, or the
basis of morality.
Moral Pluralism

Also known as ethical pluralism and value pluralism, moral

pluralism is the idea that there can be conflicting moral
views that are each worthy of respect.
It this implies that there are some values which may be
equally correct and fundamental, and yet in conflict with
each other. Moreover, moral pluralism proposes that in
many cases, such incompatible values may be
incommensurable, in the sense that there is no objective
ordering them in terms of importance.
Moral Pluralism

 Moral pluralism is a meta-ethical theory, rather than a theory of

normative ethics or a set of values in itself.
 Russian-British social an political theorist, philosopher, and historian
of idea Isaiah Berlin (1909-1997) is credited with being the first to
popularize a considerable work describing the theory of objective
value-pluralism; taking it to the attention of the academe.
 However, the pertinent idea that basic values can and, in some
cases, do conflict with each other has already been prominent in
the thought of the German sociologist and philosopher Max Weber
(1864-1920).
Moral Pluralism

 Moral pluralism seems to advocate flexibility when faced with

competing perspectives. It evaluates issues from various moral
standpoints in deciding and taking action.
 An example if value-pluralism is the notion that the moral life of a
nun is incompatible with that of a mother, yet there is no strictly
rational measure of which is preferable.
 It thus concludes that ethical decisions frequently necessitate
radical preferences with no rational calculus to decide which
alternative to be chosen.
Moral Pluralism

Moral pluralism holds that many moral issues are extremely

complicated. It thus proposes that no single philosophical
approach will always provide all the answers. For instance:
“… assume a building is on fire. A woman has the opportunity to rush
inside and save the children trapped in the burning building. But in
doing this she may die, and leave her own child an orphan. A moral
pluralist would concluded that there is no definitive way to decide
which is the better course of moral action. Indeed, moral pluralism
declares that it is sometimes difficult to choose between competing
values.”
Moral Pluralism

 Moral pluralists occupy a middle ground between “there is only one right answer”
as moral absolutionists say, and “there is no wrong answer” as moral relativists
claim.
 Value-pluralism differs from value-relativism in the sense that pluralism admits limits
to differences, such as when crucial human needs are transgressed.
 Pluralists point out that choices are complex, and so claim that we must not shy
away from the proposition that values are plural. In short, the charm of pluralism is
that it appears to allow for the complexity and conflict that is part of our moral
experience.
 “We do not experience our moral choices as simple additive puzzles. Pluralists have
argued that there are incommensurablilities and discontinuities in value comparisons,
vale remainders (or residues) when choices are made, and complexities in
appropriate responses to value.”
Against Moral Pluralism

 Moral pluralism fails to stipulate what to do when two or more of its

values or theories indicate inconsistent practical imperatives.
 Not only is moral pluralism ethically irresponsible, it is also morally
impotent. It gives u no moral standard, and offers us no moral
power. Moral pluralism leaves us either concluding that”
a) There is no real solution to ethical dilemmas
b) All possible answers are acceptable as long as they have underlying
fundamental values.
 The second implied conclusion is very much like moral relativism.
Against Moral Pluralism

 Some also argue that moral pluralism ignore the fact that values are
indeed commensurable as they can be compared by their varying
contributions towards the human good.
 Concerning the ends of freedom, equality efficiency creativity, and
the like, for instance, some claim that none of these are ends in
themselves, but are valued for their consequences.
 So technically, moral pluralist fail to prove that the problem of
conflicting values is in principle insoluble.
Against Moral Pluralism

In principle, moral pluralism is untenable. To propose that

it does not matter which values we adhere to is, in effect,
to claim that it does not matter what behavior we adopt.
The two are intrinsically linked. Some thus explain that the
popularity of pluralism (and relativism) in the globalized
age is accompanied by substantial moral collapse today.
Pluralism in belief and pluralism in morals go together. The
outcome is said to be disastrous.
Against Moral Pluralism

As AE McGrath and Wheaton College explains:

 “Think of the unwanted girl children exposed to die on the hillsides of Ancient Greece.
Think of the human sacrifices to the fish deity in ancient Polynesian religion. Think of the
murder and gang rape carried out by practitioners of Satanism. Are we to believe that
these all spring from differing insights in the same ultimate reality, as the pluralists claim?
…Think, for example, of the Sawi tribespeople in Indonesia, savage cannibals and ruthless
killers, for whom treachery was the highest virtue.”
 “Moral pluralism can never control or even rival our natural sloth and greed… The terrorist
groups have morality which is determined by their political goals. If you believe in your
cause as the most important thing on earth, you will bomb, maim, and kill in order to
achieve that goal. And the casualties? These are regrettable but inevitable. Many ancient
religions included the idea of human sacrifice: if these still existed, would this practice be
tolerated? Certainly not.
Against Moral Pluralism

Thus, we can identify negative social

consequences of moral pluralism.
Superficially, it has a certain plausibility to a
liberal-minded public; yet, on closer scrutiny,
it has a darker side.
Globalization

 Globalization may be defined as the world-wide integration of

government policies, cultures, social movements, and financial
markets through trade and the exchange of ideas.
 The British sociologist Anthony Giddens defines it as “intensification
of worldwide relationships which link distant localities in such a way
that local happenings are shaped by events occurring many miles
away and vice versa.”
 Various interrelated definitions are given for the concept
globalization. However, the common theme that runs through the
definitions is the stress on the trans-nationalization of the
connections taking place in the world today.
Globalization

Globalization emphasizes the increasing

trans-border or transnational relations, which
are occurring in the contemporary world.
Globalization, in effect restructure our social
space or geography from one that is mainly
territorial to one that is increasingly
transnational.
Globalization

Globalization is said to have began after World War II and

has accelerated since the mid 1980s, driven by two
factors.
The first is the technological advances that have reduced the
cost of transportation, communication, and computation.
The other factor has to do with business escalating liberalization
of trade and capital markets. (establishment of the IMF. GATT,
and the World Trade Organization.
Problems with Globalization

Although generally seen as downright “good” especially

by many economists, globalization unfortunately has a
dark side.
Author Gail Tverberg enumerates some reasons why
globalization is not living up to what was ideally expected
to it, and is, in fact, our very major problem today.
Problems with Globalization

The following are the entries from “Twelve Reasons Why Globalization is a Huge Problem” by
Tverberg:
 Globalization uses up finite sources more quickly.
 Globalization increases world carbon dioxide emissions.
 Globalization makes it virtually impossible for regulators in one country to foresee the
worldwide implications of their actions.
 Globalization acts to increase world oil prices.
 Globalization transfers consumption of limited oil supply from developed countries to
developing countries.
 Globalization transfers jobs from developed countries to less developed countries.
Problems with Globalization

 Globalizations transfers investment spending from developed countries to less

developed countries.
 With the dollar as the world’s reserve currency, globalization leads to huge US
balance of trade deficits and other imbalances.
 Globalization tends to move taxation away from corporations and onto
individual citizens.
 Globalization sets up a currency “race to the bottom,” with each country trying
to get an export advantage by dropping value of its currency.
 Globalization encourages dependence on other countries for essential goods
and services.
 Globalization ties countries together, so that if one country collapses, the
collapse is likely to ripple through the system, pulling many other countries with it.
Ethical Challenges of Globalization

Rising neoliberal globalization and laissez-faire

capitalism.
Loss of state sovereignty and the takeover of
international financial institutions.
Environmental and ecological consequences.
Globalization and Business Ethics

Business Ethics is a form of applied ethics that examines

moral principles concerning business environment
involving issues about corporate practices, policies,
business behaviors, and the conducts and relationships of
individuals in the organization.
Although business grew and the globalized environment
has provided more markets and numerous opportunities,
but with it came various ethical issues.
Globalization and Business Ethics

 Focusing on child labor, it is said that globalization paved the way for the
existence of this controversial business practice.
 Like other ethical issues, child labor issue is taken differently in different nations. In
Europe, it is seen as an unethical activity whereas in Asian countries it is
somewhat tolerated.
 The international company Nike in its Vietnamese factory employs children. Nike
Vietnam however, provides free education and food to these children.
 Fundamentally though, the main reason for employing children is that it reduces
the cost of production. Hence the practice, in many cases, has resulted in legal
conflicts and loss of custom for being seen as immoral.
Globalization and Business Ethics

 Globalization as a new challenge to ethics thus requires

incorporating ethics as part of companies’ strategic business
programs and alliances. Moreover, it mandates top managements
to establish clear policies that encourage ethical behavior.
 With the involvement of business ethics as a part of business
strategic decision making, companies are even expected to gain a
competitive advantage good will, and recognition in the global
business world.
Search for Universal Values

 To address ethical issues in globalization, social scientists and philosophers suggest that the
time has come for the world to develop a global ethic, that is, a set of universally
accepted principles that could provide the foundation for regulating global interactions.
 The philosophical challenge however is that it seems improbable to ascertain normative
principles that will be persuasive across cultures.
 Notwithstanding, in spite of these ethical variations across cultures, it is still very much
possible that basic and fundamental values hold for every society.
 Developing universally acceptable principles, i.e., global ethics for administering
transnational interactions, is possible, for instance, through the process of intercultural
dialogue.
 Conclusion: Ethics through Thick and
Thin (Lesson II: Challenges of Filinnials
and Millennials)
Millennials

Also known as “Generation Y” or the “Net Generation,”

are the demographic cohort directly following
Generation X. There are no exact dates when this cohort
starts and ends, although demographers and researchers
normally use the late 1970s to early 1980s as starting birth
years and the mid-1990s to early 2000s as ending birth
years.
Millennials and Filinnials

 The Center for Generational Kinetics mentions five generations that

presently make up our society and specifies birth years for each
generation as follows:
 Gen Z, iGen, or Centennials: Born 1996 and later
 Millennials or Gen Y: Born 1977 to 1995
 Generation X: Born 1965 to 1976
 Baby Boomer: Born 1946 to 1964
 Traditionailists or Silent Generation: Born 1945 and before
Millennials and Filinnials

 Millennials are generally the children of baby boomers and older

Gen Xers, Fillinnials is a term used to denote the Filipino Millennial.
 Filinnials’ generation is commonly characterized by an increased
use and familiarity with communications, media, and digital
technologies. Their trust in Google or Wikipedia, which provide them
plenty of various worldviews is extraordinary. Even in the Philippines,
millennials’ upbringing is said to be marked by an increase in a
liberal approach to politics, economics and morality, although this
claim is disputed.
Millennials and Filinnials

 Seven basic traits are ascribed to Millennials:

 Special, sheltered, confident, team-oriented, conventional, pressured, and
achieving.
 Their being “team-oriented”, nonetheless, is questioned, as one
study reveals that they have “a sense of entitlement and narcissism,
based on personality surveys showing increased narcissism among
Millennials compared to preceding generation when they were
teens in their twenties.”
 Some psychologists this consider Millennials to be part of what is
called “Generation Me’ instead of “Generation We.”
Millennials and Filinnials

Millennials came of age in a time when the

entertainment industry started to be significantly
influenced by the internet.
Being the most ethnically and racially varied
compared to the generations older than they are
millennials nonetheless seem to be the most
educated.
Ethical Outlook and Cultural Identity

 In the United Kingdom, a 2013 poll found that millennials were more open
minded than their parents on controversial topics.
 In 2013, a Pew Research Poll found that 84% of Generation Y members favored
legalizing the use of marijuana.
 In 2014, the same research center issued a report revealing that Millennials in
adulthood are detached from institutions and networked with friends.
 Some authors describe Millennial’s approach of social change “as pragmatic
idealism” with a deep desire to make the world a better place, combined with
an understanding that doing so requires building new institutions while working
inside and outside existing institutions”.
Ethical Outlook and Cultural Identity

 Millennials are also labeled as the “Boomerang Generations” or

“Peter Pan Generation”, because of their perceived tendency for
delaying some rites of passage into adulthood for longer periods
than most generations before them and for living with their parents
for longer periods than previous generations.
 Generation Y members are very upbeat and more open to change
than older generations. Based on a survey by the Pew Research
Center in 2008, Millennials are “the most likely of any generation to
self-identify as liberals and are also supportive of progressive
domestic social agenda than older generations”.
Ethical Outlook and Cultural Identity

Concerning beliefs on ethical issues, most

millennials of every religion, race, and ethnicity
support access to affordable contraception
according to a study.
“56 percent of people ages 18 to 35 say that in
some situations, choosing to have abortion is the
most responsible decision that a woman can
make.”
Ethical Outlook and Cultural Identity

A sampling of other findings reveals the following:

One-quarter of millennials say that marriage has become old-
fashioned and out of date, while 71% disagree.
Millennials falls into a four-way split on “pro-life” and “pro-
choice” labels. While 25% percent say they are exclusively “pro-
life: and 27% say they’re “pro-choice”,, 22% rebuff both labels
and nearly 27% say that both labels describe them equally well.
7% percent of millennials identify either as lesbian, gay, bisexual,
or transgender.
Work Ethics

 It is said that whereas Boomers are hardworking, idealistic, and

committed to harmony and Gen Xers are entrepreneurial, flexible,
and self-reliant, and comfortable with technology, on the other
hand, Millennials are the-savvy, appreciative of diversity, and skilled
and multitasking.
 Concerning negative traits, Boomers are said to be self-centered
with sense of entitlement, workaholics, self-motivated, don’t
appreciate feedback while Millennials lack basic literacy
fundamentals, very short attention spans, not loyal to organization,
demand immediate feedback and recognitions, integrate
technology into the workplace, expect to have many employers
and multiple careers, and work dress is whatever feels comfortable.
Work Ethics

One study concerning generational analysis reveals relatively high percentages of

Millennials who consider some behaviors in the workplace to be ethical Including:
 Using social networking to find out about the company’s competitors- 37%
 “Friending” a client or customer on a social network- 36%
 Uploading personal photos on a company network – 26%
 Keeping copies of confidential documents- 22%
 Working less to compensate for cuts in benefits or pay- 18%
 Buying personal items using a company credit card- 15%
 Blogging or tweeting negatively about a company- 14%
 Taking a copy of work software home for personal use- 13%
Work Ethics

The widespread use of social networking appears to pose challenges, as substantial

numbers of Millennials post questionable information on their personal social
networking sites, including the following:
 Feeling about their jobs- 40%
 Bad joke told by the boss- 26%
 Work on a project- 26%
 Picture of a coworker drinking- 22%
 Annoying habit of a coworker- 20%
 Information about the company’s competitors- 19%
 Opinion about a coworker’s politics- 16%
Work Ethics

 Interestingly though, the same study shows that millennial workers were more likely to
report unethical behavior in workplaces.
 Millennials expect close relationships and frequent feedback from supervisors.
 Generation Y, members can also be characterized by an inclination to a flat corporate
culture, an emphasis on work-life balance and social consciousness.
 Studies also suggest that Millennials are driving a shift towards the public service sector as
more and more of them consider a career in public service.
 For business companies having millennials in their workforce, a strong ethics and
compliance program will have a significant role in developing and maintaining the
organization’s moral culture.
 Proactive training programs must be the hallmark of a strong ethical culture.
Individualism

 Millennials are habitually painted as the entitled, selfie-snapping generation. They are said to be
a class of self-centered and self-absorbed 20-somethings. Some however, defend them by
explaining that millennials just have more time to be themselves.
 Millennials’ individualism is qualified as the self-focused time in life. It does not necessarily mean
that they are selfish; it rather means that they have fewer social rules and obligations, and more
freedom to be self-directed.
 Millennials’ individualism nonetheless also reflects in their moral outlook. One study reveals that
their generation views morality as personal and subjective, based on feeling, and
nontransferable to others. In other words, for them, morality is a personal matter.
 It is said that largely responsible for their individualism are today’s institutions, including some
churches.
 Overall, Millennials are said to be more individualistic and materialistically motivated.
Compared to other generation, there seems a “decline in moral values that is based on a
culture of rampant narcissism. Others point to a veritable epidemic of misplaced
overconfidence that has turned Millennials into the “self-esteem generation”.
Individualism

In describing Millennials’ ethics, it is however

essential to note that new technologies generate
new moral problems, and the Millennials are, to a
greater degree than any prior generation, defined
by the technology in which they are embedded.
The ethical questions that face them may be
qualitatively different than those encountered by
earlier generations.
Conflict with Parents

 Millennials are generally the children of Baby Boomers (and older Gen
Xers). There is now a common observation that Millennials are often in
conflict with Baby Boomers. For one thing, Millennials are seen by
Baby Boomers as somewhat greedy, self-absorbed, and wasteful.
 One of the supposed causes of the alleged conflict is the difference
in mentality. The Boomer life principle goes like this: attain a good
education, get well-paying full-time job, find a stable partner,
purchase a house and a car, and preferably have a child or children.
To Baby Boomers, failing any stage of this course is a reflection of
one’s dignity and somewhat shows a lack of moral fiber.
Conflict with Parents

There are some generalizations about Baby Boomers and

the Millennials that are more grounded in fact.
The Pew Research Center made public opinion surveys
and demographic data which reveal some of the
contrasts between the two generations.
The following are some of the major differences between
Baby Boomers and Millennials.
Conflict with Parents

1. Millennials are more progressive on social issues.

2. Millennials are hesitant to identify themselves with a
political party.
3. Millennials are less wealthy.
4. Millennials are reluctant to get married.
5. More millennials live at home than their parents did at the
same age.
Secularism and Humanism

Millennials are less openly religious than the older

generations. About one in four millennials are
unaffiliated with any religion, which is more than
the older generations when they were the ages of
Millennials.
Especially in dealing with morality, Millennials are
more likely to advocate secularism and humanism.
Secularism and Humanism

 Secularism is basically a non-theistic belief system or a worldview which does not

acknowledge supernatural or divine views of reality. As such, it includes atheism,
agnosticism, naturalism, materialism, scientism, Darwinism, and other ideologies
that reject all spiritual explanations of the world.
 Humanism is a system of thought which gives emphasis to the value of human
beings and favors man’s thoughts over faith or religious doctrine. Originally, the
term refers to Renaissance cultural and intellectual movement featuring the
rediscovery of the arts and philosophers of ancients Greeks and Romans. The
word “humanist” is derived from the olden Italian term “umanista” which pertains
to a teacher or scholar of classical Greek and Latin literature.
Secularism and Humanism

 Though humanism and or secularism does not necessarily imply

non-theism, before 1800, it began to refer to beliefs centered on
humanity without attention to any concepts of the supernatural.
 As an ethical perspective, secular humanism refers to a belief in
human-based morality. Rejecting any supernatural authority, it
submits that we can live ethical and fulfilling lives by placing human
well-being, interests, and happiness at the center of our moral
decision making.
 Denying supernatural and religious views as a basis of morality and
decision making. Secular humanism affirms some notions of a
human nature- human experience, human need, and human
reason- as ethical foundations.
Human Experience as Moral Basis

 Secular humanism explains that moral rules are derived from human experience.
 For instance, it claims that we do not have to be religious to realize that to live in
peace and happiness, we must not assault each other. Through experience, its
adherents explain, we understand that though we may want to assault, we do
not want to be assaulted. Even if sometimes we are tempted to steal, yet we do
not want to be stolen from. And although at time we are enticed to kill, yet we
do not want to be murdered.
 From experiential knowledge, a rule like this allegedly emerged: “Let one do
these things that we can live in peace and realize the human good we need.”
 Secular humanists aver that there is every reason people have come up with
these rules without having to be told by God that these are legitimate moral laws.
Human Need and Reason

 Secular Humanists admit that Ethics is conventional but it has a natural basis. For them, its
natural basis is not the so-called natural law, nor some law written in man’s heart or in
Scriptures. The natural basis of ethics, they assert, is none less than human need and
human reason.
 To prove this view, they point to things which we hate: we hate to bleed, to be wounded
to be killed and to be stolen from. It is claimed that we make our laws, using our reason, by
considering these things. Thus, it is submitted that the natural basis of morality are the
universal human needs, such as the need for security, safety, love, and by extension, the
need to secure our families and teach our children to fulfill their potentials.
 Allegedly, the reason we have reasonable moral rules is that we have these needs.
Hence, it is claimed that we do not need rules from God- all we need is to be human, to
have the needs we have, and to have some human intelligence or reason.
Analysis of Secular Humanism

 By removing God in the picture, secularism and humanism, in

effect, affirm that the rules of morality were just fabricated by
human beings using human nature as the basis of this fabrication
 As their proponents inevitably admit, morality is conventional
having human need, experience, and reason as natural
foundations.
 However, advocating this view amounts to proposing that
objective right and wrong does not exist at all. Subscribing to
secularism and humanism, it is impossible to really condemn
maltreatment, cruelty, or corruption as morally wrong.
Analysis of Secular Humanism

 Non-theism explains that we are products of valueless, physical,

and chemical processes in a series of cause-and-effect originates
from the big bang.
 However, we know that from nothing, nothing comes, and so from
“being valueless”, comes “being valueless”. Thus it is unexplainable
how we progress from a valueless sequence of causes and effects
from the big bang onward, finally arriving at valuable, morally
accountable, dignity-bearing human beings that we are.
 It fails to explain the value of non-material properties such as
consciousness, reasoning power, personhood, moral sense, and
values.
Analysis of Secular Humanism

In a non-theist standpoint, mankind is essentially nothing

but just like a cosmic rock lost somewhere in a purposeless
universe doomed to perish soon. In this worldview, it’s
inexplicable how objective value or goodness can be
accounted for.
Understandably, non-theists are typically materialists and
naturalist who regard man as a purely animal organism.
This implies that human beings are objectively equal as
rats.
Analysis of Secular Humanism

Moral judgements must be supported by good reasons as

morality is ideally an effort to guide one’s conduct by
reason- that is, to do what there are the best reasons for
doing. However, suppose that human reason is never
God-given and that is exists with no non-natural property
would give us no reason to trust our own reason.
Analysis of Secular Humanism

 As CS Lewis puts it:

 “Supposing there was no intelligence behind the universe, no creative mind.
In that case nobody designed my brain for the purpose of thinking, it is merely
that the atoms inside my skull happen for physical or chemical reasons to
arrange themselves in a certain way, this gives me, as a bi-product, the
sensation I call thought. But if so, how can I trust my own thinking to be true? It
is like upsetting a milk-jug and hoping that the way the splash arranges itself
will give you a map of London. But if I can’t trust my own thinking, of course I
can’t trust the arguments leading to atheism, and therefore have no reason
to be an atheist or anything else. Unless I believe in God, I can’t believe in
thought: so I can never use thought to disbelieve in God.”
Conclusion: Ethics through Thick
and Thin (Lesson III: The Role of
Religion in Ethics)
The Role of Religion in Ethics

 Religious ethics concerns beliefs and practices of what is good or

bad, right or wrong, virtuous or vicious, from a religious point of
view. A Christian ethic, for instance, may be based on the radical
teachings of the religious leader Jesus Christ about loving one’s
neighbor, being a good Samaritan, loving one’s enemies, being
guided by the Father’s will, and the like.
 For some, the religious response is what is really needed concerning
the challenges poised by globalization and other contemporary
issues.
Religion and Ethics

 Practically, Ethics may be defined as a system of moral principles which affect

how people make decisions and lead their lives. Ethics is concerned with what is
good and right for persons and society.
 On the other hand, religion is defines as “people’s beliefs and opinions
concerning the existence, nature, and nature, and worship of a deity or deities,
and divine involvement in the universe and human life”. Referring to the sacred
engagement with that which is believed to be a spiritual reality, religion denotes
the belief in, or the worship of a god (or gods) and the worship or service to God
or the supernatural.
 The term “supernatural” means “whatever transcends the powers of nature or
human agency”. The term religion is sometimes used interchangeably with
“faith”, “creed”, “belief system” or “conviction”.
Religion and Ethics

 Some submit that the difference between religion and ethics is about the
disparity between revelation and reason. In some measure religion is based on
the idea that God (or some deity) reveals insights about life and its meaning.
These divine insights are compiled in texts (the Bible, the Torah, the Koran, etc.)
and introduced as “revelation”.
 From a strictly humanistic perspective, ethics on the other hand, is based on the
tenets of reason. That is, anything that is not rationally provable cannot be
deemed justifiable. This definition of ethics, however, does not necessarily
exclude religion or a belief in God, for it is also a common belief that human
reason, designed also for ethical discernment, is a gift from a supernatural God.
Indeed, many ethicists emphasize the relationship, not the difference, between
ethics and religion.
Religion’s Role in Ethics

Many ethicists believe that religion is necessary for the

continued survival of morality as an integral part of
human life, especially in a globalized world.
University of Tennessee, Knoxville Philosophy professor
Glenn C, Graber calls this apologetic claim the “cut-
flowers thesis” which consists of a hypothetical judgement
that, “Morality cannot survive, in the long run, if its ties to
religion are cut.”
Religion’s Role in Ethics

 This proposition is a prediction of what would happen to morality if it

were severed from religion. In 1894, Russian writer Leo Tolstoy (1828-
1910) made the following early statement of this thesis:
 “the attempts to found a morality apart from religion are like the
attempts of children who, wishing to transplant a flower that
pleases them, pluck it from the roots that seem to them unpleasing
and superfluous. And stick it rootless into the ground. Without
religion there can be no real sincere morality, just as without roots
there can be no flower.”
Religion’s Role in Ethics

 The cut-flower thesis thus implies that those who believe that
morality is a valuable human institution, and those who wish to
avoid moral disaster, should therefore make every effort to preserve
its connection with the true religion and the sound religious belief
that forms its roots. As morality is currently in a withering stage in this
globalized era, its decline can be identified with the exorbitant
secularization of many things. Support for this claim can be found
both among those sympathetic to religion and surprisingly enough.
Among those with little or no sympathy for religion.
Religion’s Role in Ethics

Basil Wesley, a religionist, calls for urgent action to re-unite

religion and ethics. He holds that there has been a
progressive de-Christianization during the last three or four
centuries, the outcome of which:
“is what we see around us in the world today- the moral
and spiritual nihilism of the modern world, particularly of
the totalitarian creeds.”
Religion’s Role in Ethics

W.T. Stance, a secularist, surprisingly supports the

cut-flower thesis when he said:
“the chaotic and bewildered state of the modern
world is due to man’s loss of faith, his
abandonment of God and religion. I agree with
this statement… Along with the ruin of the religious
vision there went the ruin of moral principles and
indeed all values.”
Religion’s Role in Ethics

 And for those who doubt that religion ever promoted morality in history (since
immorality has flourished even in ages of religious domination), not less that the
well-known agnostic historians Will and Ariel Durant explain thus:
 “Certainly sensuality drunkenness, coarseness, greed, dishonesty, robbery, and
violence existed in the Middle Ages; but probably the moral disorder born of half
a millennium of barbarian invasion, war, economic devastation, and political
disorganization would have been much worse without the moderating effect of
the Christian ethic, priestly exhortations, saintly exemplars, and a calming,
unifying ritual… The Church labored to reduce slavery, family feuds, and national
strife, to extend the intervals of truce and peace, and to replace trial by combat
or ordeal with the judgements of established courts. It softened the penalties
exacted by Roman or barbarian law, and vastly expanded the scope and
organization of charity.”
Religion’s Role in Ethics

 All these statements call attention to the prediction of the cut-

flowers thesis which, bay of summary that morality cannot survive
without religion.
 Some words of caution are needed here though: The cut-flowers
thesis does not say that a consequence of abandoning religion
leads immediately to murder, rape, robbery, drunkenness, sexual
promiscuity, and the like.
 Nor does it say that the morality per e will soon cease to exist if its
ties to religion are cut. However, it does argue to have a real
ground or reason for moral action, one mist admit a religious or
theological foundation.
Theistic Ethics

 Theistic Ethics believes that a supernatural being called God is the foundation of
morality. God is viewed as the true sources of all moral laws, and as the only
plausible cause of moral obligations which possess overriding and biding
character.
 The theory holds that the truth of moral judgements depend on God’s will. In
theism, “X is moral” means “God wants us or a particular agent to do X”. As to
how we can know God’s will, proponents admit sources like revelation (Holy
Scriptures), divinely guided human reason, and God’s laws written in man’s heart
(conscience).
 The theory views Ethics as necessarily linked to true religion. Unlike other ethical
theories, theism considers faith in and obedience to God as necessary part of
being truly moral.
Theistic Ethics

Theists claim that unlike secularists’ ethical theories,

this moral system which is also called moral
supernaturalism can satisfactorily explain the
existence of objective ethical values and the
moral law.
Theism Can Justify Moral Values

 While other ethical views can just postulate good moral principles, only a theistic
view can justify them. At least four reasons are usually given for this:
a) Unless morality is grounded on the unchangeable nature of a morally perfect being
(God), there is no basis for believing in moral absolutes.
b) If everything is relative, then there is no good reason why anyone ought to abstain
from doing anything he wishes to do, including rape, murder, and unreasonable
maltreatment.
c) Only in theism are all persons held morally accountable for their actions in the real
sense.
d) Only the ethics rooted in a Moral Law-Giver can be truly prescriptive in any objective
sense of the word. A descriptive ethic is no ethics at all-it merely tells us what people
are doing, not what they ought to do.
Theism Can Explain Moral Accountability

Ethical supernaturalism, compared to its non-theist

counterparts, is said to be better as an ethical system in
terms of explaining moral accountability.
Theists have simple explanation for the “binding force”
and “overriding character” of the moral obligation. These
attributed to God or Supernatural Being who is believed
to be man’s creator and thus also the cause of man’s
moral dimension.
Theism Can Explain Moral Accountability

 Theists believe that all people have this moral experience of feeling
morally obligated and that this sense of moral responsibility is
connected to God.
 This idea is consistent with the meaning of religion itself- the word
“religion” being a compound word of the Latin “re” and “ligare”
meaning “to bind back”. Thus, for the theists, there is a bond that
exists between the Creator and His human creatures.
 This bond involves the feeling of being morally obligated to live up
to some moral laws that press down on everyone which express
God’s will and nature.
Theism Can Explain Moral Accountability

 Morality is believed to be according Lewis: “something above and beyond the ordinary
facts of men’s behavior, and yet quite definitely real- a real law, which none of us made,
but which we find pressing on us”.
 Theists consider it absurd to think that this moral law just pooped into existence or just
assembled itself.
 When we admit a moral law, theists explain, we also affirm a moral lawgiver, for otherwise,
it looks impossible to think of a moral law that has a moral force on our behavior.
 Theists thus believe that someone made the moral law so that moral rule is not just a
disembodied principle but a rule of Somebody. It accounts for the moral force of the
moral law on our behavior.
 Since Someone higher than us made the moral law, whenever we break ethical rules, we
offend that Someone who Himself created the law. It is that Someone who appears in us,
urging us to do right, and making us feel accountable and uncomfortable when we do
wrong.
Theism Can Explain Moral Accountability

Furthermore, theistic ethics maintains that man’s

life does not end at the grave and that all persons
are truly held morally accountable for all their
actions. Its belief in an afterlife entails that evil and
wrong will be expelled, righteousness and virtue
will surely be vindicated.
Theism Can Explain Moral Accountability

 It is noteworthy that even a non-theist like Professor Taylor, in his

writings, agrees that supernaturalism provides a sound basis for
morality in justifying moral obligation and accountability. He notes:
 “The idea of moral… obligation is clear enough, provided reference to some
lawmaker higher than those of the state is understood. In other words, our
moral obligation can be understood. In other words, our moral obligations
can be understood as imposed by God. This does give a clear sense to the
claim that our moral obligations are more binding upon us than our political
obligations”
Theism Can Explain Moral Accountability

Unfortunately, Professor Taylor does not

believe in God, and so he denies a
supernatural foundation for morality.
Nevertheless, he admits that if God agree to
the reasons proving that supernaturalism
provides a sound and better foundation for
morality.
No Real Accountability in Non-theism

With reference to theism, we can reasonably say that

there is no real moral accountability to one’s actions in
non-theistic ideologies. In naturalism or secularism, human
life just finds its end in the grave. Absent in non-theism is
the so-called “life-after” of theism where the final reward
and punishment- that which accounts for the ultimate
justice- will be given. In this aspect, theism is extensively
plausible and better than it’s non-theistic counterparts.
No Real Accountability in Non-theism

 Even if we grant that there were objective moral values under

naturalism or secularism, they would be ultimately immaterial and
meaningless because there is no moral accountability. In a
worldview where the real sense of moral liability is absent, there is
no legitimate sanction for the mora and immoral.
 Hence, there would be no essential difference between following
and transgressing moral rules. For if one can simply evade state
penalties and the like, say because of power and influence, then, in
non-theism, there is no way his wicked deeds can be punished.
 So if life just ends at the grave as non-theism suggests then it makes
no difference whether on has lived as a villain or as a saint.
No Real Accountability in Non-theism

As the Russian writer Dostoyevsky rightly

said:
“If there is no immortality, then all things
are permitted.”
No Real Accountability in Non-theism

 With theists, we wonder what non-theists would say to someone who contends
that we may as well just live for self-interest, live just as we please, and do
whatever we deem pleasurable.
 Secularists may argue that it is in out best self-interest, being theist or not, to
adopt to a moral lifestyle. True, but as we observe that is not always the case. We
know of situations in which morality is dispensed with in the face of self-interest. If
one is sufficiently powerful, like a Hitler or a dictator, one can just snub the
dictates of conscience and live in pure self-indulgence.
 Acts of sacrifice are valueless in a secular-narcissistic worldview and to deny
oneself for others is plain stupidity. If this life is all there is, then it really does not
matter how one lives.
No Real Accountability in Non-theism

Some secularists argue that the idea of life ending at the

grave still makes a difference whether you live as a saint
or as a devil. It makes a difference, they claim, to what
kind of a person you are. They suggest that you can say “
I want to look good as a human being,” and that is not a
bad ideal, so they say.
No Real Accountability in Non-theism

 Well, indeed, it is not a bad ideal for a teacher, parent, husband wife, or
anybody to look good to themselves as human beings. However, it does not
make any real diffewrence what kind of person you are on the secularist
worldview- for like anumals in forests, our end is all the same, and we ultimately
do not contribute to the good of the universe or the ultimate betterment of
morality.
 There simply is no moral value in secular worldview as in the case of lesser beings.
All will be ultimately extinguished in death and in the “heath death” of the
universe.
 It simply makes no difference what kind of person we become. And so, why
adopt the moral point of view? We cannot see any basis for this in secularism,
where there is no moral accountability.
No Real Accountability in Non-theism

Clearly, the absence of moral accountability

in the philosophy of secularism reduces
virtues, like those of compassion and self-
sacrifice, to hollow abstractions. Secularism,
therefore, fails to match theism in supplying
this necessary element for a sound moral
foundation.
The Euthypro Dilemma

 The most common attack against moral theism is the famous philosophical
argument called “Euthyphro Dilemma”. In Plato’s writing, the ancient Greek
philosopher Socrates asked an insightful question:
 “Is a good thing good because God desires it? Or does God desire it because it is
already good?”
 If theists go with the latter view, which says that God desire moral things because
they are already good, then good and bad are independent of God’s will- and
this moral theism is incorrect.
 On the other hand, if theists answer that moral acts are good just because God
desires them, then cruelty, torture, and maltreatment would be good if God
desired them.