OUR LADY OF LOURDES COLLEGE FOUNDATION

Vinzons Ave., Daet, Camarines Norte, 4600 Philippines

COLLEGE OF ARTS AND SCIENCES

SECOND SEMESTER
S.Y. 2021-2022
PRE-FINAL MODULE

GE 8 – ETHICS

LESSON 7
MORAL THEORIES AND THE PRACTICE OF MORAL ANALYSIS

Introduction:

Different theories of morality arise from everyday experiences. We expect these theories to tell us what to
do in cases where choices are hard to make. Knowledge of moral theories is very important because these
are tools which we can use to analyze and determine the moral goodness of our decisions.

Overview:

In this lesson, we will discuss the different terminologies that may help us better understand the nature of
ethics.

Learning Objectives:

At the end of this module, the students are expected to:

1. Recognize moral dilemmas;
2. Use moral theories in solving moral dilemmas; and
3. Evaluate oneself on how to face moral dilemma in daily living.

PRELIMINARY TEST

Answer the following questions. You may use bond paper or yellow pad.
1. Give cases where you experience moral dilemma.
2. How do you handle and solve your moral dilemma?

Mother's Love

Rosa, a mother of three daughters, is being fired from her current job. She cannot handle
the daily needs of her daughters because her partner died a year ago. She cannot handle
the situation seeing her daughters crying out of hunger. She is trying her best to earn
money but, still, failed to accommodate all the expenses. One day, her friend offered her
a secret job and will earn easy money. Rosa will just transfer the illegal drugs to their buyers.
Rosa knowing that it is against the law, but seeing her daughters dying made her thinks twice.
3. What do you think is the moral dilemma that Rosa is facing?
4. If you are in the situation of Rosa, what will you choose? Justify your answer.
5. What do you think is the best decision that Rosa will do? Justify your answer.
6. If Rosa chose to deliver the illegal drugs, what do you think is the Moral Theory that would
justify her decision as good?
7. What moral theory would Rosa violate if she chose to deliver the illegal drugs?

Ethics – Pre-Final Modules / 1

Lesson Proper:

THE NATURE OF MORAL DILEMMA

There are occasions when problems are too complicated. When we are faced with overwhelming
difficulties in deciding what to do, we are in a state of moral dilemma. Moral dilemma occurs when there
is uncertainty or perplexity in selecting the best choice of action between two or more unfavorable
options. In other words, we are in a moral dilemma when we are forced to choose between two necessary
evils. Ordinarily, we all desire some sort of quick fix when we deal with difficult problems. However,
there is no easy way out in complex and confusing ethical problems. The layman's rule, when forced to
choose between two evils, is to choose the lesser one.

However, a moral dilemma is not simply about conflict of choices like choosing between saving your
mother or your father, between lying or telling the truth. Rather, it is essentially about conflict of
obligation.

For instance, between saving my daughter's life by stealing my neighbor's goods and respecting others'
rights to their property at the expense of failing to save my daughter's life, there exists in me a conflict of
obligation toward my daughter and my neighbor. I have an obligation to save my daughter but I also have
an obligation to respect the rights of my neighbor over his property.

What makes a moral dilemma different from other difficult problems is the test it gives to the moral
character, or to the integrity, or human beings in making decisions. A moral dilemma complicates a
person's obligation to his family, to his community, to his religion, and finally to the entire community to
which he belongs.

MORAL PHILOSOPHY AND MORAL DILEMMA

The study of Ethics is useless if it cannot help us make more enlightened decisions. We expect Moral
Philosophy to help us solve our moral problems by providing us with rich insights when dealing with
moral issues. Indeed, Moral Philosophy can clarify our beliefs about morality and it can show how these
beliefs can consistently be put into practice. Moral Philosophy provides us with clear and logical theories
as reliable guides to making choices in life's most trying times.

However, we should not expect moral philosophy to solve our problems in a blink of an eye. Moral
Philosophy cannot solve our moral problems with absolute certainty it can provide us with a theory or a
principle, a method or technique for solving a difficult moral problem.

We must remember that we make our own decisions and that we solve our own moral problems. All these
theories on morals are merely tools that we choose from for making the right decisions.

MORAL DILEMMA AND MORAL THEORIES

A moral theory is an organized system of moral principles that applies in a variety of circumstances to
explain the morality of human actions. Moral principles are generalizations that are accepted as true and
that can be used as bases for reasoning or conduct. A moral theory provides criteria for distinguishing
good and evil or right and wrong. For instance, we have the Christian Theory of Morality and with it, the
Ten Commandments. When I am forced to choose between killing or not, the theory tells me not to kill
because the Laws of God command that I should not kill. A moral theory also reminds us of cases we
need to consider and other features we need to ignore when making decisions.

MORAL ANALYSIS AND MORAL THEORIES

We usually perform an analysis before arriving at decisions or making solutions to difficult problems. The
term "analysis" refers to the abstract separation of a whole into its constituent parts. Studying the
components of a problem allows us to see the issues in a much better and clearer light. In Moral
Philosophy, we perform a special kind of analysis when we try to solve moral dilemmas. We call it moral
analysis.

Moral Analysis is limited to only one special problem: the morality of human acts, and this problem has
four components: the motive or the reason why the act is performed; the end or the desired goal of the act,
the means or the things employed to achieve the desired end; and the consequence or the possible or

Ethics – Pre-Final Modules / 2

actual result of the act. Thus, when we are faced with conflicting and equally unfavorable options, we
usually evaluate each of the alternative actions either in terms of motives, the desired end, the available
means, or their possible results.

MORAL THEORIES AND MORAL RESPONSIBILITY

Aside from the practical use of moral theories as tools for solving moral dilemmas, our study of these
theories is important for another reason. When we act, we are held responsible for actions: when we act
rightly, we alone deserve praise, when we act badly, we alone deserve the blame,

Good acts stem good decision, and good decisions are usually the fruits of careful decision making. If we
make poor decisions, we tend to act badly. Since we are held responsible for our actions and their
consequences, we therefore need to make decisions more carefully. Moral theories offer us valuable help
by providing us with clear principles and rules for making enlightened decisions.

LEARNING ASSESSMENT:

Make your answers brief and direct. You may use bond paper or yellow pad for your answer.

CASE ANALYSIS:
Case no. 1
Mr. Swimer

Mr. Swimer always wants to take a walk every weekend at the seashore to keep himself
relax from all the work problems in the office. One time, while walking, Mr. Swimer
heard a voice asking for help. He suddenly saw a drowning child in the sea. Mr. Swimer
wants to save the drowning child because he knows that it is his duty to lend help for
someone who is in need and emergency. But Mr. Swimer is worried because if he helps
the child, he knows that anything can go wrong. Mr. Swimer might accidentally drown
the child while saving him because he does not know how to swim.

1. What is the moral dilemma that Mr. Swimer is facing?

2. Analyze the act of Mr. Swimer by identifying the elements of human acts (intention of the act, means
of the act, end of the act, consequence of the act).
3. What should determine Mr. Swimer's decision, his motive or the possible consequences of his act?
4. If Mr. Swimer decides to help and he accidentally drowns the child, is he morally responsible for the
death of the child?
5. If you are Mr. Swimer and you know that you might accidentally drown the child, what would you
do?
Case no. 2
Revenge of the Fallen

James and Bond were best friends during high school. 10 years later, James saw Bond in
the coffee shop, he still remembers the day when he failed the final exam because Bond
didn't lend his answers to him which result him not to graduate. James wants to take his
revenge to Bond. He, then, approach him with smile but he plans to put a poison in his
coffee. Few minutes later, Bond goes to CR, James, then, has an opportunity to put the
poison in Bond's cup. After Bond drinks his coffee, he suddenly collapsed. James asks
for help and takes the blame to the coffee shop owner for poisoning his former best friend.
1. Analyze the act of James by identifying the elements of human acts (intention of the act, means of
the act, end of the act, consequence of the act).
2. Does James morally responsible for the death of the Bond?
3. What makes James morally responsible?
4. Identify the actions that James are held responsible.
5. Does James experience moral dilemma or not? Defend your answer.

Ethics – Pre-Final Modules / 3

 OUR LADY OF LOURDES COLLEGE FOUNDATION
Vinzons Ave., Daet, Camarines Norte, 4600 Philippines

COLLEGE OF ARTS AND SCIENCES

SECOND SEMESTER
S.Y. 2021-2022

GE 8 – ETHICS
LESSON 8
DEONTOLOGY (KANTIAN ETHICS)
Introduction:
Kantian Ethics is the most important theory under non-consequentialist ethics. To hold a moral conviction
means believing that it is one's duty to do the right thing. What is duty? Why does one choose to follow
her duty even if doing otherwise may bring her more benefits?

Overview:
This lesson tackles the most influential non-consequentialist theory, The Kantian Ethics. it emphasizes the
moral role of a person which is rooted on his/her very duty as a human being.

Learning Objectives:
At the end of this module, the students are expected to:
1. Understand the basic principles of deontology;
2. Apply the concepts of agency and autonomy to one's moral experience; and
3. Evaluate actions using universalizability test.

PRELIMINARY TEST
REACTION PAPER: Kantian Morality: Morally desirable or not? Minimum of 3 paragraphs.

Lesson Proper:
KANTIAN ETHICS
The most important non-consequentialist o deontological ethical theory is Kantian Ethics. Deontology
comes from the Greek word deon which means "being necessary." Hence, deontology refers to the study
of duty and obligation. The main proponent of deontology is Immanuel Kant, a German Enlightenment
philosopher who wrote the most important works on moral philosophy, Groundwork towards a
Metaphysics of Morals (1785).

For Kant, morality is a system of absolute commands to act in certain ways, that is, morality is a system
of categorical imperatives or unyielding rules of human conduct. If performing an act is a matter of duty,
then we should do it regardless of the consequences. If, on the other hand, we are prohibited by duty to
perform a certain act, then we should never do it, again, regardless of the consequences.

One of the important aspects of Kantian Ethics is its notion of MORAL WORTH. Moral worth refers to
the moral value of an act, something that makes an act morally praiseworthy. What gives acts their moral
worth? For Kant, it lies in the motive of the moral agent who performs the moral act.

THE MOTIVE OF THE ACT

For Kant, not all acts are equally praiseworthy. The action of a moral agent has moral value only if his
motive for acting is out of a sense of duty. (Herman: 2002, pp. 69-70). The phrase "sense of duty" simply
means the awareness of a moral agent that the act he performs is done because it is the right thing to do.
Thus, what makes two apparently dutiful acts different lies in their motive. Motive roughly means the
reason why a moral agent chooses to perform a particular course of action (for instance, my reason why I
choose to lie rather than tell the truth, or the reason why I decide to attend my classes rather than be
absent, etc.).

Ethics – Pre-Final Modules / 4

If an act is performed not primarily out of one's sense of duty, but out of inclination or feeling, even if the
act is good, it is still void of any moral worth (in other words, the act even though good, is still not
praiseworthy). For example, if I help an elderly man cross the street primarily because I have a
compassion for elderly people, I am, in Kant's view, not necessarily acting morally because I have acted
on mere inclination and out of sense of duty to help. But if, for instance, I help an elderly man because I
think it is my duty to help anyone in distress, then, my act of helping has moral worth. Hence, for Kant,
the motive of an action is far more important than the action itself and its consequences. It is not enough
to know that I helped an elderly man or I told the truth. I might have been acting out of inclination or self-
interest. What matters most is when I did the right thing with the right motive: that is, I acted primarily
out of my sense of duty to help others and my duty to tell the truth.

However, it does not mean that compassion or inclination is morally undesirable. There is nothing wrong
about feeling good when we help, or when we are moved by compassion to help, as long as the "good
feeling" or the sense of compassion is not our primary reason for acting morally. What is required is to
perform an act primarily (take note, not "purely") out of our sense of duty. For Kant, natural inclinations
such as good feelings and compassion are not stable enough to be firm grounds for morality. For instance,
if I help because it feels good to help others, helping in this case is a mere accident. I am fortunate to feel
good when I help, thus, I find it easy to help. But if helping others no longer feels good, will I continue
helping?

For Kant, we may perform a dutiful act out of sense of duty combined with inclinations and other
emotions and still preserve its moral worth, as long as the sense of duty is our primary motivation for
acting dutifully.

One reason why Kant concentrated so much on motives rather than on consequences was that he believed
that we can only be held reasonably responsible for things over which we have some control. For
instance, if, acting from me sense of duty, I attempt to save a drowning child, but accidentally drown the
child, my action can be considered moral since my motives were of the right kind: the consequences of
my actions are, in this case, unfortunate, but irrelevant to the moral worth of what I did.

KANTIAN MAXIMS
Kant says that we can only discuss the motive of a moral agent when the moral agent presents a maxim.
Our motive for acting is a very personal one, no one can access it aside from ourselves. For instance, if I
help Mr. X, I'm the only one who knows the reason why I'm helping. Others can only guess my reasons
for helping Mr. X, but any discussions would only be speculative. But if I state my reason in a clear and
understandable manner why I'm helping Mr. X, only then can people appropriately discuss my motives.
We can therefore say that maxims are the verbal expressions of a moral agent's reasons for acting.

However, Kantian maxims are not the same as our usually constructed ones like, "I'm helping Mr. X
because I expect him to pay me in return for my services," rather, they are reason presented in a particular
way. Maxims usually take the form of, "to always do action A when in circumstance B." so for instance,
if I propose to help Mr. X because I expect some financial reward, the maxim of my action has this form:
"to always help when you expect to be financially rewarded for your troubles." If I want to help Mr. X
because helping others makes me feel good, then my other possible maxim for helping Mr. X would be,
"to always help those in need when helping feels good." But if I desire my act of helping Mr. X to have a
moral worth, that is, for my helping act to be praiseworthy, I may propose this maxim: "to always help
those in need because it is a duty to do so."

The Kantian Maxim is a subjective principle underlying the actions of a moral agent.

THE CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE

Kant believed that as rational human beings, we have certain duties. These duties are categorical, in other
words, they are absolute and unconditional - duties such as "you ought always to tell the truth" or "you
ought never to kill anyone." They apply whatever consequences might follow from obeying them. If
stealing, for instance, is wrong, then one should never steal regardless of the gravity of the need that
pushes one to steal.

Although Kantian imperatives (or moral rules) are absolute, they are not arbitrary. They are laws
discovered by reason. Kant contrasts categorical duties (duties we ought to do unconditionally) with
hypothetical ones. Hypothetical duties tell you what you ought or ought not to do if you want to achieve a
certain goal. A hypothetical duty is therefore merely conditional duty.

Ethics – Pre-Final Modules / 5

For example, "if I want more customers, then I ought to be more honest in my dealings with them," or "if
I want to be trusted, then I ought to tell the truth." But for Kant, moral duties are never hypothetical. "I
ought to be honest and I ought to be truthful because it is the right thing to do, or, it is my duty to be so."
But how do we precisely know if an act is our duty or not? Kantian ethics provides two principles or
formulas to guide us in determining our categorical duties.

THE PRINCIPLE OF UNIVERSALIZABILITY

The principle of universalizability says: "act only according to that maxims whereby you can at the same
time will that it should become a universal law." This principle declares that we have a duty to do only
those actions whose maxims we are willing to let other people use to justify the same proposed actions in
similar circumstances. To make the presentation of this principle as simple as possible, and I think, we
can do this by employing two simple tests: Contradiction in Conception Test and The Reversalizability
Test.

Contradiction in Conception Test. This test requires that the maxim of a proposed action should
not contradict itself once it is conceived as a universal law of conduct. Once we cannot will, or if we don't
like to, the maxim underlying our proposed action to be a universal law of conduct, we are bound by duty
not to perform it regardless of the consequences. This test follows four simple steps:
1. Determine the maxim of your proposed course of action. Remember that a "maxim" refers to the
reason underlying an act which is presented in law-like form;
2. Imagine a hypothetical world where all people perform the maxim all the same time;
3. Decide if the result is desirable. In other words, if you would like the imagined state of affairs
actually happening in the real world.
4. If your answer in step three is yes, then it would be fine to do your proposed action. If the answer is
no, then it is your categorical duty never to perform it regardless of the consequences.
The Reversalizability Test. It evaluates a proposed action through the reversalizability test. This
test asks one simple question: "Would I want other people do my proposed action to me?" if we like the
idea of other people doing the act, then it would be fine to do it, but if we don't, then it is our duty not to
do it. The test tells us to imagine reversing the situation.
THE PRINCIPLE OF HUMANITY
Kant, in his well-known work, Groundwork to any future Metaphysics, says that man is a rational being
whose existence has in itself an absolute worth something that exists as an end in himself and not merely
as a means to be arbitrarily used by anyone. This is the basis upon which he formulated his famous
version of the categorical imperative, the Principle of Humanity:

“Act in such a way that you treat humanity whether in your person or in the person of
another, always at the same time as an end and never merely as a means.”

Our sense of self-worth or our sense of dignity demands that we should always be treated with respect. As
one of the foundations of Kantian Ethics, this principle is expectedly unconditional, that is, regardless of
the goodness of the purpose or of the consequences, any act that degrades the dignity of human beings (or
treats them merely as a means to an end), is always wrong. It is in this context where the expression, "the
end does not justify the means" make sense.

KANT AND HUMAN EMOTION

Kant rightly warns us that what we feel to be right is sometimes not necessarily the right thing to do.
Feelings or emotions are not sure guides for morality. Our emotions and passions, or our sense of
involvement, most often blur the objectivity and soundness of our moral judgments. Sometimes what
deters us from doing the right thing is our fear of the perceived unpleasant consequences of doing the
right thing. But mistakes are mostly done at the height of human emotions, and acts are mostly regretted
when sadness, excitement, anger, or joy deserts our hearts.

By removing the element of emotion and temporarily removing personal interests from our minds, no
doubt, we can conclude that unethical acts must be avoided. For Kant, such strengthening of one's moral
character is only possible if we train our will to listen to human reason, and not to the passing desires of
human emotions.

Ethics – Pre-Final Modules / 6

STRENGTHS OF KANTIAN ETHICS
The strongest and the single most important contribution of Kantian Ethics is its emphasis on the
unconditional respect for human rights and dignity. Regardless of the nobility of the actual or perceived
end of an act, if it violates the rights and dignity of man, that is, if it exploits human beings as a mere
means to an end, the act is unethical. Our sense of dignity cannot be bargained for anything for any
reason.

The significance of Kantian ethics also lies in its teaching about the dangers of relying too much on our
emotions when making moral judgments. It tells us to control our passions by making our will listen to
the dictates of good reason. It advises us to develop a strong and determined will to be unfaltering in our
adherence to our duty to do the right thing at all times, regardless of the consequences.

CRITICISM OF KANTIAN ETHICS

A major criticism is that Kantian Ethics provides unrealistic or unachievable rules of conduct. Unrealistic
because its cold objectivity or its indifference to human emotions detaches it from everyday realities.
Unachievable because it sets a very high standard of morality which accepts no exemptions. It is unfairly
asking for moral perfection from an imperfect man. Few seriously expect that we can really convince a
desperate mother not to steal by invoking the principle of universalizability. Kant downplays the role of
human sentiments or emotions, which in the real world of real people exert the most powerful motivation
for action.

Kantian theory apparently fails to appropriately provide a solution to moral cases where duties come in
conflict with each other. For instance, if we are asked to tell the truth, but in so doing it will endanger the
life of a friend, what should we treat as a moral duty, to tell the truth or to save human life?

LEARNING ASSESSMENT:
Case Analysis: Try to work the case below.

BABY JANE

The year is 1864, and hundreds of Indians raid a frontier village in Louisiana. Several
members of the village fearfully hide. One woman, named Mrs. Smith, has by her side her
three young children, and in her arms, her baby daughter, Jane. As some Indians draw close,
baby Jane begins crying. Mrs. Smith, fearing for the lives of her other children and the lives of several
other people hiding with them, thinks of choking baby Jane rather than risk giving
away their hiding place and thereby ensuring death for them all. With time running out,
should Mrs. Smith do her proposed course of actions?

Questions:
1. What is the possible maxim underlying the action of Mrs. Smith?
2. Using the contradiction in conception test, was the act of Mrs. Smith planning to choke baby Jane
moral or immoral? Follow the four simple steps.
3. Using the reversalizability test, was the act of Mrs. Smith moral or immoral? Provide a clear and
detailed assessment showing how you derived your answer. Employ clearly the reversalizability test.
4. If you were Mrs. Smith. Would you do what she is planning? Why? Provide reasons.

Ethics – Pre-Final Modules / 7

 OUR LADY OF LOURDES COLLEGE FOUNDATION
Vinzons Ave., Daet, Camarines Norte, 4600 Philippines

COLLEGE OF ARTS AND SCIENCES

SECOND SEMESTER
S.Y. 2021-2022

GE 8 – ETHICS
LESSON 9
UTILITARIANISM

Introduction:
Utilitarian Ethics is the most important theory under consequentialist and the bitterest opponent of
Kantian Ethics. this moral theory holds that the greatest number of people is the test of right and wrong.

Overview:
This lesson tackles the most influential consequentialist theory. It measures the morality of the action
based solely on its consequence.

Learning Objectives:
At the end of this module, the students are expected to:
1. Discuss the concept underlying Utilitarian theory;
2. Acknowledge the concept of utilitarian happiness; and
3. Evaluate moral situations using Utilitarian theory.
PRELIMINARY TEST
REACTION PAPER: The Utilitarian Morality: Morally desirable or not? Minimum of 3 paragraphs.
Lesson Proper:
UTILITARIAN ETHICS
Utilitarian ethics was first introduced by Jeremy Bentham and James Mill in 18th century and was later.
popularized by John Stuart Mill. This theory of morality argues that what makes an act right is its
consequences. If the act has resulted good consequences, then it is moral, if not, then it is immoral.

THE INSIGNIFICANCE OF MOTIVES

If Kantian ethics accentuates the importance of motives and completely ignores the significance of the
consequences, Utilitarian ethics, on the other hand, emphasizes the significance of the consequences of an
act and completely disregards the role of motives. Utilitarianism judge’s actions to be right or wrong
solely according to their consequences, regardless of the intention.

The reason why utilitarianism underscores the importance of motives lies in its conviction that motives
are known only by the person who has them. If motives alone make human acts good or bad, right or
wrong, then it would be difficult, if not impossible for other people to praise or to blame a moral agent for
his/her action.

The other serious problem associated with putting too much emphasis on moral motives is the unstable
foundation of determining moral responsibility or accountability of moral agents. Motives are difficult or
impossible to know with a 'comfortable' degree of certainty. Unlike in the case of motives, identifying
consequences of an act is not guesswork. If an act causes injury, we immediately see that something was
wrong and that someone must be held responsible for it.

UTILITARIAN 'HAPPINESS'
John Stuart Mill claims that human beings naturally pursue happiness and avoid pain or suffering.
Because man naturally seeks happiness and avoids pain, he concluded that happiness is what constitutes
the moral good, while pain constitutes the moral evil. Hence any act that promotes happiness is moral,
while those that cause pain is immoral.

Ethics – Pre-Final Modules / 8

Utilitarian happiness is not simply the happiness of one person, but rather, the general or cumulative
happiness of the greater number of people. The reason is quite simple: the greater the number of people
becoming happy, the greater the amount of happiness becomes. If happiness is good, then the greater its
amount, the more desirable it becomes. A utilitarian moral analysis of acts therefore involves the
calculation of consequences: "act only if it promotes the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest
number of persons."

THE PRINCIPLE OF UTILITY

Like Kantian Ethics, Utilitarian ethics also prescribes a categorical or unyielding rule for human conduct:

"Always perform only those acts that best promote the most happiness for the greatest number of
people."

Utilitarian philosophers call this moral rule the Principle of Utility or Greatest Happiness Principle. This
simply means that when we are faced with a moral dilemma, we are advised to do only those actions that
most probably will result in the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people. This
principle puts emphasis on the happiness not necessarily of the agent deciding on what to do, but rather,
the greatest possible amount of happiness for all those who will be directly affected by the decision. This
means that even the happiness of the agent or the doer of the moral act must be sacrificed if it is contrary
to the happiness of the greatest number of persons.

STRENGTHS OF UTILITARIAN ETHICS

Though many would disagree with the major ideas of Utilitarian ethics, it is undeniable that its
application could lead to some positive results. In democratic societies, Utilitarian ethics provides a very
strong justification for people's popular demands like the demands for better standards of living, better
government services, a better peace and order situation, etc.

Utilitarian morality can also be a philosophical tool in challenging the ethics of economic realities of
society. For instance, it generally criticizes why the wealthy few are the ones who enjoy a better life,
while the poor suffer in subhuman conditions.

CRITICISMS ON UTILITARIAN ETHICS

While the strengths lie in its emphasis on the general welfare of human beings, it is also the cause of its
own major weakness. Utilitarian theory treats everything as conditional and subservient to utility:
unethical acts like lying, stealing, or breaking a promise become morally good if these promote, the
utilitarian end. Utilitarian ethics causes moral agents to lose a very important aspect of human relations;
personal integrity.

LEARNING ASSESSMENT:
Make your answers brief and direct. You may use bond paper or yellow pad for your answer.
1. Do you agree with the Utilitarian idea that the measure of morality is the number of people?
2. Using Utilitarian Ethics in the case of Mrs. Smith (See Learning Assessment in Lesson 8), is the plan
of choking baby Jane morally good or not? Explain your answer.
3. Cite a concrete situation wherein Utilitarian Ethics is being used in assessing moral case.

Ethics – Pre-Final Modules / 9

 OUR LADY OF LOURDES COLLEGE FOUNDATION
Vinzons Ave., Daet, Camarines Norte, 4600 Philippines

COLLEGE OF ARTS AND SCIENCES

SECOND SEMESTER
S.Y. 2021-2022

GE 8 – ETHICS
LESSON 10
NATURAL LAW

Introduction:
Another interesting moral theory that made an influence in the field of Ethics is the Natural Law
conceptualized by a medieval philosopher, St. Thomas Aquinas. It has to be recognized, however, that
this natural law theory is part of a larger discussion, which is his moral theory taken as a whole. This
theory is part of a larger project, which is Aquinas' vision of the Christian faith.

Overview:
In this lesson, we will discuss another interesting ethical theory, Natural Law, that would prescribe us on
how to act morally.

Learning Objectives:
At the end of this module, the students are expected to:
1. identify the natural law in distinction from the other types of laws;
2. acknowledge the concept of Natural Law in everyday living; and
3. evaluate moral situations using Natural Law.

PRELIMINARY TEST
REACTION PAPER: Aquinas's Natural Law: Morally desirable or not? Minimum of 3 paragraphs.

Lesson Proper:
THOMAS AQUINAS (1225-1274)
Hailed as a doctor of the Roman Catholic Church, Thomas Aquinas was a Dominican friar who was the
preeminent intellectual figure of the scholastic period of the Middle Ages, contributing to the doctrine of
the faith more than any other figure of his time. His Summa Theologiae, Aquinas' magnum opus, is a
voluminous work that comprehensively discusses many significant points in Christian theology. He was
canonized in 1323.

THE CONTEXT OF THE CHRISTIAN STORY

The fundamental truth maintained and elaborated by Aquinas in all his works is the promise right at the
center of the Christian faith: that we are created by God in order to ultimately return to Him. The structure
of his magnum opus Summa Theologiae follows the trajectory of this story.

There are three parts to the Summa Theologiae, a voluminous work of Aquinas:
1. Aquinas speaks of God, and although we acknowledge that our limited human intellect cannot fully
grasp Him, we nevertheless are able to say something concerning His goodness, His might, and His
creative power.
2. Deals with man or the dynamic of human life.
3. Focuses on Jesus as our Savior.
Given that our concern here is question of ethics, it would seem clear that what would be of greatest
interest to us is the second part or the section of this story that centers on human life and its striving
toward God.

Ethics – Pre-Final Modules / 10

THE CONTEXT OF AQUINAS'S ETHICS
A full consideration of Aquinas's ethics would require us to explore his discussion of other matters, such
as how, in our pursuit of happiness, we direct our actions toward specific ends. We might explore how
emotions "the passions" are involved in this process, and therefore a proper order if they are to properly
contribute to a good life. We might explore how our actions are related to certain dispositions (often
referred to as "habits") in a dynamic way since our actions both arise from our habits and at the same time
reinforce them. We might explore his discussion of how we develop either good or bad habits with a good
disposition leading us toward making moral choices, thereby contributing to our moral virtue, and a bad
disposition inclining us toward making immoral choices, bringing us to vice. The Christian life, therefore,
is about developing the capacities given to us by God into a disposition of virtue inclined toward the
good.

Aquinas also puts forward that there is within us a conscience that directs our moral thinking. This does
not refer to some simple intuition or gut feeling. For Aquinas, there is a sense of right and wrong in us
that we are obliged to obey. However, he also adds that this sense of right and wrong must be informed,
guided, and ultimately grounded in an objective basis for morality.

So, we are called to heed the voice of conscience and enjoyed to develop and maintain a life of virtue.
However, these both require content, so we need something more. We need a basis for our conscience to
be properly informed, and we need a clearer guidepost on whether certain decisions we make us lead
toward virtue or vice. Being told that one should heed one's conscience or that one should try to be
virtuous, does very little to guide people as to what specifically should be done in a given situation. Thus,
there is a need for a clearer basis of ethics, aground that will more concretely direct our sense of what is
right and wrong. For Aquinas, this would be the Natural Law.

We can recall how the ethical approach called the divine command theory urges a person toward
unthinking obedience to religious precepts. Given problems of this simplistic approach to ethics, we can
contrast how the moral theory of Aquinas requires the judicious use of reason. In doing so, one's sense of
right and wrong would be grounded on something stable: human nature itself.

We will start by exploring how Aquinas restates the Christian message, making use of a philosophical
vocabulary appropriated from the ancient Greeks. We then look at how Aquinas speaks of the essence and
also the varieties of law. For there, we will be able to explore the precepts of the natural law.

THE GREEK HERITAGE

NEOPLATONIC GOOD
God creates. This does not only mean that He brings about beings, but it also means that He cares for, and
thus governs, the activity of the universe and of every creature. This central belief of the Christian faith,
while inspired by divine revelation, has been shaped and defined by an idea stated in the work of the
ancient Greek philosopher Plato, which had been put forward a thousand years before Aquinas. He is
credited for giving the subsequent history of philosophy in one of its most compelling and enduring ideas:
the notion of a supreme and absolutely transcendent good.

In his work The Republic, Plato was trying to answer questions such as, "Why should I bother trying to be
good?" and "Why cannot 'good' be just whatever I say it is?" His answer, placed in the mouth of the main
character Socrates, is that the good is real and not something that one can pretend to make up or ignore.
Socrates, in discussing this, elevates the notion of the good to unprecedented heights:

The Idea of the Good

excerpt from The Republic
Plato

"In like manner the good may be said to be not only the author of knowledge to all things known,
but of their being and essence, and yet the good is not essence, but far exceeds essence in dignity
and power."

Readers of The Republic have long been baffled by this enigmatic passage and are still trying to figure out
how exactly to interpret it. Rather than be dismissed, this idea of the good- a good which is prior to all
being and is even the cause of all being - will become a source of fascination and inspiration to later
thinkers even to this day.

Ethics – Pre-Final Modules / 11

In the hands of Neoplatonists, Plato's idea of good, which is the source of all beings, becomes identified
with the One and Beautiful. This is the ultimate reality, which is the oneness that will give rise to the
multiplicity of everything else in the cosmos. All these beings have a single goal, which is to return to that
reality.

The Good and the One

Excerpt from the Enneads
Plotinus

"Now it is clear that we cannot possess ourselves of the power of this principle in its concentrated
fullness: so to do one must be identical with it: but some partial attainment is within our reach."

ARISTOTELIAN BEING AND BECOMING

In Aristotle's exploration of how to discuss beings, he proposes four concepts which provide a way of
understanding any particular being under consideration. Any being, according to Aristotle, can be said to
have four causes.
1. Material Cause. We recognize that any being we can see around is corporeal, possessed of a certain
materiality or physical "stuff". A being is individuated-it becomes the unique, individual being that is
because it is made up of this particular stuff.
2. Formal Cause. We also realize that this material takes on a particular shape: so a bird is different
from a cat, which is different from a man. The "shape" that makes a being a particular kind can be
called its form.
3. Efficient Cause. We also realize that a being does not simply "pop up" from nothing, but comes
from another being which is prior to it. Parents beget a child. A mango tree used to be a seed that
itself came from an older tree. A chair is built as the product of a carpenter.
4. Final Cause. Being has an apparent end or goal, a chair to be sat on, a pen for writing, a seed to
become a tree, or a child to become an adult.
Identifying these four causes gives a way to understand any being.
In addition to describing a being, Aristotle also has to explain to us the process of becoming or the
possibility of change that takes place in a being: The Potency and Actuality. A being may carry within
itself certain potentials, but these require being actualized. A puppy is not yet a full-grown dog. These
potencies are latent in the puppy and are actualized as the puppy grows up and achieves what it is
supposed to be. The process of becoming-or change-can thus be explained in this way.

SYNTHESIS
The idea of transcendent good prior to all being resurfaces in Aquinas in the form of the good and loving
God, who is Himself the fullness of being and of goodness; as Aquinas puts it, God is that which
essentially is and is essentially good. So, we recognize that all beings are only possible as participating in
the first being.

Insofar as God is that from which all beings come, it is possible for us to speak of Him as the first
efficient cause. Insofar as God is that toward which all beings seek to return, it is possible for us to speak
of Him as the final cause.

However, while beings are good because they are created by God, the goodness possessed by being
remains imperfect. "For Aquinas, only God is perfect; all other beings are participating in this goodness,
and are good to that extent, but are imperfect since they are limited in their participation." God did not
create us to simply be imperfect and to stay that way as He leaves us alone. Instead, God directs how we
are to arrive at our perfection.

The unique way that we have been created can be called our nature. Coming from God, it is good, but in
its limitations, it has yet to be perfected. This perfection means fulfilling our nature the best we can, thus
realizing the potencies that are already present in our nature. Given that we are beings with capacity for
reason, our way of reaching God is by knowing and loving him.

ESSENCE OF THE LAW

As rational beings, we have free will. Through our capacity for reason, we are able to judge between
possibilities and to choose to direct our actions in one way or the other. There are many possible desirable

Ethics – Pre-Final Modules / 12

ends or goods. However, just because we think that a certain end is good and is desirable does not
necessarily mean it is good. Acts are rightly directed toward their ends by reason. But this does not simply
mean that through reason we can figure out how to pursue something that we already had.

Aquinas reminds us that this will not do; we cannot simply act in pursuit of our own ends or good without
any regard for other people's ends or good. We are not isolated beings, but beings who belong to a
community. Since we belong to a community, we have to consider what is good for the community as
well as our own good. This can be called the common good.

What exactly the common good might not always be easy to determine as there are many variables to
consider. It is good for us to not simply be free to act in whatever way we like. We should recognize the
proper measure or the limits in our actions. The determination of the proper measure of our acts can be
referred to as law.
Using a simple example, we can think of traffic rules. A motorist cannot just drive in any way he likes,
but must respect traffic rules. These rules seem to measure or place a limit on his driving. Such a limit or
such rule is something good, for both him and for others as it helps prevent motor accidents.

A law, therefore, is concerned with the common good.

Now, in thinking about a community, what if we thought more grandly, not just a small group or country?
Is there someone in charge of this community, guiding all toward their common good and directing all
with His wisdom?

VARIETIES OF LAW
1. Eternal Law-refers to what God wills for creation, how each participant in it is intended to return
to Him. We must recognize that we are part of eternal law and we participate in it in a special
way.
2. Natural Law - the human being participates more fully and perfectly in the law given the
capacity for reason. It refers to our natural inclination to our proper act and end: and this
participation of the eternal law in the rational creature.
3. Human Law - refers to all instances wherein human beings construct and enforce laws in their
communities.
4. Divine Law- refers specifically to the instances where we have precepts or instructions that come
from divine revelation. For example, the Ten Commandments.
NATURAL LAW
We may now turn to the specifics concerning the natural law.
Three Natural Inclinations of Man:
1. In Common with Other Beings. We have to consider how we are both unique and at the same time
participating in the community of the rest of creation. Aquinas identifies first that there is in our
nature, common with all other beings, a desire to preserve one's own being. A makahiya leaf folds
inward and protects itself when touched. A dog tries to run away when it feels threatened. Similarly,
human beings have that natural inclination to preserve human life. We can thus say that it would be
a violation of the natural law, and therefore unethical to take the life of another. Murder would be a
clear example of a violation of the natural law. Taking one's own life would be unacceptable, even in
the form of physician-assisted suicide.

2. In Common with Other Animals. Aquinas then goes on to say that there is in our nature, common
with other animals, a desire that has to do with sexual intercourse and the care of one's offspring or
emergence of new life. An ethical issue that is hotly contested in some parts of the world is whether
abortion is acceptable. For the stance of natural law, the act of preventing the emergence of new life
would be considered unacceptable. Not so controversial, perhaps, would be the claims that they are
properly fed, sheltered, and educated. On the other hand, it is bad to abuse the young, to force
children into hard labor or to deprive them of basic needs or otherwise abuse them in physical or
emotional. way.
With regard to the sexual act, the moral judgments get more volatile/changeable. This argument
seems to provide ground for rejecting various forms of contraception since these allow the sexual act
to take place, but inhibit procreation. This also seems to justify the claim that any form of the sexual
act that could not lead to offspring must be considered deviant. One of these is the homosexual act.
To explain, Aquinas writes ". . . certain special sins are said to be against nature; thus contrary to

Ethics – Pre-Final Modules / 13

 sexual intercourse, which is natural to all animals, is unisexual lust, which has received the special
name of the unnatural crime."

3. Uniquely Human. It states that we have an inclination to good according to the nature of our reason.
With this, we have a natural inclination to know the truth about God and to live in society.
LEARNING ASSESSMENT:
Make your answers brief and direct. You may use bond paper or yellow pad for your answer.
1. Cite one specific law that clearly cares for common good. Give concrete example related to that law.
2. Go online and look for the news or moral issue that clearly violates Natural Law of Aquinas. Cut out
and paste the said news/moral issue. Cite your reference.
3. What are the reasons why the news or moral issue violates Natural Law?
4. Does using contraceptive violate natural law or not? Explain.

ASSESSMENT/EVALUATION RUBRICS
Grades Rubrics Points Rating Scale for Module Output
A+ Shows complete understanding of the question. Very informative and well organized. Can able
(96-100%) to relate topic to his/her personality with ease.
A Shows substantial understanding of the question. Good solid response with clear explanation
(92-95%) with some minor yet non-trivial gaps in their reasoning ability.
B+ Response shows some understanding of the question. Meet the requirements of the problem.
(87-90%)
B Shows unclear yet related answer to the problem. Student may have starter out correctly, but
(84-86%) gone on a main concept or not finished the problem.
C+ Shows incomplete answer to the problem.
(80-83%)
C Misses key points.
(75-79%)
D No answer at all.

Ethics – Pre-Final Modules / 14