ETHICS

Lesson 1: Introduction: Key Concepts in the Study of Ethics

Meaning of Ethics and Morality

Ethics or moral philosophy discusses the set of rules for human conduct
 comes from the Greek word ethos which means custom, habit, character or disposition
 involves systematizing, defending, and recommending concepts of right and wrong behaviour
 also defined as the study of judgment of value, of good and evil, right and wrong
 at its simplest, ethics is a system of moral principles
 affect how people make decisions and lead their lives
Our concept of ethics have been derived from religions, philosophies, and cultures.

Morality on the other hand refers to the rightness or wrongness of an action (Mañeb6g et a3., 2013)
 comes from the Greek word mos or moris or in Latin moralitas which means manner or
characteristics
 the terms ethical and moral are being use interchangeably (dictionary of philosophy)
Philosophers today usually divide ethical theories into three general subject areas:
1. Meta-ethics deals with the nature of moral judgment
 Looks at the origins and meaning of ethical principles
2. Normative ethics is concerned with the content of moral judgments and the criteria for what is
right or wrong
3. Applied ethics looks at controversial topics like war, bioethics and capital punishment

Significance of the Study of Ethics

It is very evident in contemporary societies the manifestation of continuing collapse in the
standards of morality. Ethical issues are becoming huge, complicated, subjective, and eventually
confusing so much so that people begin to act in accordance with the ethical norms. This becomes the
main concern of today’s sociologists and social philosophers. They are driven to reassess the main
structures of morality and rebuild necessary measures to address the present characteristics of moral
issues today. It requires a rigid reevaluation of the norms of morality which seem to be acceptable and
easily applicable in all situations during the past decades compared to the types of people to whom
these norms are expectedly applied.

Ethics in Moral Life

1. Ethics needs to provide answers.
If ethical theories are to be useful in practice, they need to affect the way human beings behave.
Some philosophers think that ethics does this. They argue that if a person realizes that it would
be morally good to do something, then it would be irrational for that person not to do it. But
human beings often behave irrationally. They follow their “gut instinct” even when their head
suggests a different course of action. However, ethics does provide good tools for thinking about
moral issues.
2. Ethics can provide a moral plan.
Most moral issues get us pretty worked up – think of abortion and euthanasia for starters.
Because these are such emotional issues they often let our hearts do the arguing while our
brains just go with the flow. But there’s another way of tackling these issues, and that’s were
philosophers can come in – they offer us ethical rules and principles that enable us to take a
cooler view of moral problems. So, ethics provides us with a moral plan which gives a framework
that we can use to find our way through difficult issues.

3. Ethics can identify a disagreement.

Using the framework of ethics, two people who are arguing a moral issue can often find that
what they disagree about is just one particular part of the issue, and what they broadly agree on
everything else. That can take a lot of heat out of the argument, and sometimes even hint at a
way for them to resolve their problem. But sometimes ethics doesn’t provide people with the
sort of help that they really want.

4. Ethics does not give right answers.

Ethics does not always show the right answer to moral problems. Indeed more and more people
think that for many ethical issues there isn’t a single right answer – just a set of principles that
can be applied to particular cases to give those involved some clear choices. Some philosophers
go further and say that all ethics can do eliminate confusion and clarify the issues. After that it’s
up to each individual to come to his/her own conclusions.

5. Ethics can give several answers.

Many people want there to be a single right answer to ethical questions. They find moral
ambiguity hard to live with because they genuinely want to do the ‘right’ thing, and even if they
can’t work out what that right thing is, they like the idea that ‘somewhere’ there is one right
answer. But often there isn’t one right answers – and the individual must choose between them.
For others moral ambiguity is difficult because it forces them to take responsibility for their own
choices and actions, rather than falling back on convenient rules and customs.

Reference:
Angulo, Joselito B., et al. (2019). Ethics: A Heuristic Approach. Mindshapers Co., Inc.
 ETHICS
Lesson 1: Introduction: Key Concepts in the Study of Ethics
Ethics and the People

1. Ethics about the “other”.

Ethics is concerned with other people. At the heart of ethics is a concern about something
or someone other than ourselves and our own desires and self-interest. Ethics is concerned
with other people’s interests, with the interests of society, with God’s interests, with
‘ultimate goods”, and so on. So when a person ‘thinks ethically’ they are giving at least some
thought to something beyond themselves.

2. Ethics as source of group strength.

One problem with ethics is the way it’ often used as a weapon. If a group believes that a
particular activity is “wrong” it can then use morality as the justification for attacking those
who practice that activity. When people do this, they often see those who they regard as
immoral as in some way less human or deserving of respect than themselves; sometimes
with tragic consequences.

3. Good people as well as good actions.

Ethics is not only about the morality of particular courses of action, but it’s also about the
goodness of individuals and what it means to live a good life. Virtue ethics is particularly
concerned with the moral character of human beings.

4. Searching for the source of right and wrong.

At times in the past some people thought that ethical problems could be solved in one of
two ways: by discovering what God wanted people to do by thinking rigorously about moral
principles and problems. If a person did this properly, he would be led to the right
conclusion. But now even philosophers are less sure that it’s possible to devise a satisfactory
and complete theory of ethics - at least not one that leads to conclusions. Modern thinkers
often teach that ethics leads people not to conclusions but to decisions. In this view, the role
of ethics is limited to clarifying ‘what’s at stake’ in particular ethical problems. Philosophy
can help identify the range of ethical methods, conversations and value systems that can be
applied to a particular problem. But after these things have been made clear, each person
must make their own individual decision as to what to do, and then react appropriately to
the consequences.

Four Ethical “Isms”

1. Moral Realism
Moral realism is based on the idea that there are real objective moral facts or truths in
the universe. Moral statements provide factual information about those truths. I might
be making a statement about an ethical fact. “It is wrong to murder.”

2. Subjectivism
Subjectivism teaches that moral judgments are nothing more than statements of a
person’s feelings or attitudes, and that ethical statements do not contain factual truths
about goodness or badness. In more detail: subjectivists say that moral statements are
statements about the feelings, attitudes and emotions that particular person or group
 has about a particular issue. If a person says something is good or bad he/she is telling
us about the positive or negative feelings that he/she has about that something.

3. Emotivism
Emotivism is the view that moral claims are no more than expressions of approval or
disapproval. This sounds like subjectivism, but in emotivism a moral statement doesn’t
provide information about the speaker’s feelings about the topic but expresses those
feelings. So when someone makes a moral judgment, he/she shows his/her feelings
about something. Some theorists also suggest that in expressing a feeling the person
gives an instruction to others about how to act towards the subject matter.

4. Prescriptivism
Prescriptivists think that ethical statements are instructions or recommendations. So if I
say something is good, I’m recommending you to do it, and if I say something is bad, I’m
telling you not to do it.

Man as Social Being: His Perception of the Importance of Rules

As a social being, man has four-fold relationships: intrapersonal, interpersonal, societal,
and relationship with God. This is the cross-dimension of human relationship. The
horizontal line shows the relationship of a person to himself, as well as his relationship
with others; while the vertical line points towards a person’s relationship with the
society and environment, as well as with God. In these kinds of relationship, man’s
actions are considered “right or wrong”, “good or bad”, “proper and improper”, etc. The
perceptions of rightness or wrongness of actions may primarily start from the concepts
of rules.

Why Rules?
When rules exist, order is achieved. Imagine a home without rules, either implicit or
explicit; a school without policies and regulations, either written or unwritten; a
basketball game without rules; a road without signs and directions, without laws, a
society without judicial courts; what would happen. Rules are meant to ensure order in
every organization, either in small or big community of people.
When rules exist, to get things done is easy. In an organization, job descriptions are
defined. Every member acts according to his or her role. When each performs job
accurately, the vision and the goals of the organization is realizable. Sometimes, rules
are not written yet people behave properly, because of the norms.
When rules exist, we acquire social values that strengthen our relationship with others.
Beingwith-others-in-society requires values and skills necessary to sustain harmony
among members of society. Because of rules, our actions are tamed which eventually
lead towards positive relationship with others.

Usual Rules in our Lives

1. Etiqutte – standards by which we judge manners to be good or bad normally dictated

by a socioeconomic elite

2. Legal – standards by which we judge legal right and wrong in a democracy,

formulated by representative of the people
 3. Language – standards by which we judge what is grammatically right or wrong
evolved through use

4. Aesthetics – standards by which we judge good and bad art usually dictated by a
small circle of art specialists

5. Athletic – standards by which we judge how good or bad a game is played usually
formulated by governing bodies. According to Rachels (2007), morality is, first and
foremost, a matter of consulting reason. Thus, what is morally good, in any
circumstance, is that which has the best reasons for doing.

Reference: Angulo, Joselito B., et al. (2019). Ethics: A Heuristic Approach. Mindshapers Co.,
Inc.

ETHICS
Lesson 1: Introduction: Key Concepts in the Study of Ethics

Difference between Moral and Non-Moral Standards

The following characteristics of moral standards provide a clear distinction of these two
concepts.
First, moral standards deal with matters that can seriously injures or benefit human
beings. These refer to good or bad actions that may bring help or harm to others. Examples
of good acts are charitable programs that may help others who are in need; while examples
of bad acts are theft, rape, fraud, slander, and murder.
Second, the validity of moral standards rests on the adequacy of reasons to support and
justify them, not on decisions of majority or authoritative bodies. Example, if someone is
ought to tell the truth, his or her decision does not depend on how many people will agree
or disagree to him or to her. It holds that truth remains though nobody accepts it, while
falsity does not turn into truth though everybody accepts it. One indication of justification is
the consensus of participants in communication (Habermas).
Third, moral standards are to be preferred than other values including self-interest.
Example, honesty is to be preferred than cheating although cheating can make me graduate.
It holds that even if an act is rewarding, it cannot justify a wrong deed.
Fourth, moral standards are based on impartial considerations. Another way of
expressing this is ‘universalizable’ or taking the point of view of an ideal observer still this
impartiality must be balanced with partiality towards those we have a special relationship
(family and friends) and the poor and the disabled. Rachels stated that the basic idea of
impartiality is that each individual’s interests are equally important, which in the moral point
of view, it means that there are no privileged persons. It acknowledges therefore that my
importance is equally as yours, and vice versa. This concept of impartiality is backed up by
good reasons, thus, these two concepts are very important in addressing ethical issues.
Fifth, moral standards are associated with special emotions such as ‘guilt’, ‘remorse’,
‘praise’, ‘indignation’. Aside from reason, another consideration is person’s feelings. Most of
the time, we include our feelings in every action that we do.
 We sometimes react not only based on reason but most of the time with our feelings
involved in the process.
What is common to all five characteristics? All of these characteristics of moral
standards consider in its broadest sense the existence of society or in more philosophical
term, “other.” It means that individual responsibility cannot be taken in isolation from social
responsibility. Therefore, it is good to note that we act not just for ourselves but always for
others, with others, and also by others. Noncompliance with moral standards seriously
injure us as human beings. “Nababawasan ang ating pagkatao.” The challenge of moral
standards is that in violating them, effect is not always immediate and visible.

What are Moral Dilemmas?

Moral dilemmas are displayed by being “bothered” – nababagabag. Why am I
bothered? When did you have that “bothered” feeling? Confronted with choices whose
ends result to one positive and another negative; or two negatives, one less and another
lesser, we naturally have this bothered feeling. We find it difficult to make decisions because
of moral considerations. This experience happens when an agent is confused about the right
decision to make because there are several competing values that are seemingly equally
important and urgent.

A moral dilemma is a problem in the decision-making between two possible options,

neither of which is absolutely acceptable from an ethical perspective. It is also referred to as
ethical dilemma. The Oxford Dictionary defines ethical dilemma as a “decision-making
problem between two possible moral imperatives, neither of which is unambiguously
acceptable or preferable. It is sometimes called an ethical paradox in moral philosophy.”
(Oxford Dictionary)

Based on these definitions, moral dilemmas have the following in common: 1) “the
agent is required to do each of two (or more) actions which are morally unacceptable; 2) the
agent can do each of the actions; 3) but the agent cannot do both (or all) of the actions The
agent thus seems condemned to moral failure; no matter what she does, she will do
something wrong (or fail to do something that she ought to do).

This means that moral dilemmas are situations where two or more moral values or
duties make demands on the decision-maker, who can only honor one of them, and thus will
violate at least one important moral concern, no matter what he or she decides to do. Moral
dilemmas present situations where there is tension between moral values and duties that
are more or less on equal footing. The decision-maker has to choose between a wrong and
another wrong. The decision-maker is a deadlock.

Meaning of a False Dilemma

On the other hand, a false dilemma is a situation where the decision-maker has a moral
duty to do one thing, but is tempted or under pressure to do something else. A false
dilemma is a choice between a right and a wrong. For example, a lawyer or an accountant
can face an opportunity to prioritize self-interest over the client’s interest.

What to Do When Faced with a Moral Dilemma?

Ultimately, dilemmas are conflicts in the application of moral standards. The question is
which moral standards must be followed? In a state of emergency, necessity demands no
moral law. You have to decide based on your best judgment or choose based on the
principle of lesser evil or greater good or urgency.

Three Levels of moral dilemmas:

1. Individual Level (Individual Dilemmas)
It is a situational problem for an individual who is experiencing a difficulty in
choosing between two or more options. Factors like peer pressure, perspective, and
any other personal cultural beliefs may vary and make a difference on the
individual’s decision.

This refers to personal dilemmas. It is an individual’s dam-if-you-do-and-damn-

if-youdon’t situation

2. Organizational Level (Organizational Dilemmas)

This level usually occurs when a dilemma is made and the standards of the person’s
standards are already attached or are being affected by policies or procedures of an
organization.
To be ethical requires pause:
(1) to get hold of emotions before they do damage, and
(2) distance from what everyone else is saying.
To be ethical also requires critical thinking:
(1) to analyze the situation, consider stakeholders’ interest, make the right
choices, and
(2) to see the bigger picture and align the choice with the values important to
me.

An organizational dilemma is a puzzle posed by the dual necessities of a social

organization and members’ self-interest. It may exist between personal interests
and organizational welfare or between group interests and organizational well-
being….(Wagner, J. 2019)

3. The Systemic Level or the Macro Level (Structural Dilemmas)

Defined ethics and is influenced by the wider environmental operation where
the company exist.
Political pressures, economic status, societal attitudes to some businesses and
even business regulation are the factors that influence the standard of company
operation and policies. Business owners and managers must be informed about how
pressures like these can affect operations and relationships, and how they may
impact on markets locally, nationally and internationally.

A structural dilemma is a conflict of perspective of sectors, groups and

institutions that may be affected by the decision.

Structural dilemmas concern dilemmas faced by group or individuals as a

result of structural relationships.
 Reference: Angulo, Joselito B., et al. (2019). Ethics: A Heuristic Approach.
Mindshapers Co., Inc. Corpuz, Ruben A. and Corpuz, Brenda B. (2020). Ethics: Life As
It Ought To Be. Lorimar Publishing Inc.

ETHICS
Lesson 1: Introduction: Key Concepts in the Study of Ethics

Freedom as Foundation for Moral Acts: Absolute and Relative

As universal paradox, on freedom, states that “You are free to choose, but you are not free from
the consequence of your choice.” This statement already implies the concept of freedom and
responsibility, as well as the concept of absolute freedom and relative freedom. Human as we to, we
always have to make choices, from simple to the most complicated issues. Some objects of our choice
do not necessitate moral decisions on our part. For instance, when we wake up in the morning, we
already have something to decide on, whether to take our breakfast, to take a bath or even to go to
school or work or not. These are non-complicated choices however the consequences may lead to
conflicts. For instance, if we choose not to attend classes or go to work, our tasks will be pending, and as
such others who may also be affected. Eventually, the simple choice that we make may become a huge
problem.
The concept of freedom cannot in any way be separated from the concept of moral obligation
and accountability. This explains why freedom is a foundation for moral acts. Man is free, yet there are
things that he “ought” to act or follow, like rules, policy, practices, or principles. A contemporary
secularist, Kai Neilsen, recommends that man must perform what he “ought” to perform to maximize
happiness and minimize pain. Neilsen further explains this moral obligation in relation to this concept of
justice.
He argues that it is not enough to just seek maximization of human happiness and minimization
of suffering, man is “ought” to achieve both fairly. Mañebog et al also quoted the outspoken atheist
Richard Dawkins who declares that there “moral instructions” on how we ought to behave.”
From these views, we can now understand freedom as man’s capacity to select from choices,
and to perform his choices, nevertheless, such freedom does not imply that he has the absolute power
to make choices. Man must consider what he “ought” to do.
For instance, if he chooses to relax and set his karaoke set in its full volume, he truly has the
freedom to do so. However, such freedom is not absolute because as he enjoys, he also has been
mindful and conscious of the freedom of his neighbours who may also have the freedom to relax and
take complete rest. This means therefore that freedom is not absolute but relative. It always in relation
to others’ freedom, thus, we can say that “where your freedom ends, the freedom of others begin”.

Ethics Applies Only to Human Persons

Unlike the lower form of animals, human persons have a choice or freedom, hence morality
applies only to human persons.
Ethics therefore, applies only to human persons. We cannot say a cat is “unethical” when it eats
the food at table for you or when a dog urinates on your favourite bag lying on the floor.
Dilemmas presuppose freedom. Freedom-loving societies have customary ways of training the
young to exercise their freedom. Parents regularly give their children opportunities to choose. Later in
life, they come face to face with hard choices. The dilemmas come along. There is such a thing as a
dilemma because there is such a thing as freedom. If there is no ability or power of choice, then any
incident simply happens without any interference. There would also be no obligation to do any act in
expectation of the responsibility following the act.
Freedom and Moral Choice
Without freedom it is impossible to make a moral choice. If we are to have free will we must
have the ability to make a decision that is unhindered. Kant believed that we must have free will if we
are held morally responsible for our actions. If God did not give us free will then our decisions cannot be
considered immoral or moral as we would have had to act in the way we did. Thus we cannot be held
responsible; a good moral action cannot be praised as you had no other option, whilst an immoral action
cannot be punished as once again there was no free choice. In other words, making moral choice is a
necessary consequence for being free, a consequence of being a human person.
Because a human person has freedom, he/she has a choice and so is responsible for the
consequences of his/her choice. The lower forms of animals have no choice since they are bound by
instinct and so cannot be held responsible for their behavior.

The ethics of absolute freedom, it would seem, are not absolutely free. To be free we must take
on the responsibility of choosing for all men, we must desire and work for the freedom of all men, and
we must create ourselves within the context of the relationships and obligations we have to other
people.

Reasons and Impartiality: Minimum Requirement for Morality

The role of reason in Ethics is very significant. As Mañebog et al claim, any utterance to become
a genuine moral or value judgment, it must be supported by pertinent reasons. For instance, if a person
tells us that a certain act is immoral, he has to prove it by explaining the why’s and the how’s such an
action becomes immoral. In this case, the role of reason is involved in determining whether an act is
truly moral or immoral. If reasons are not provided, then the claim must be considered absurd. If in
trying to justify his claim, he explains that an act is wrong simply because that is his belief or that’s how
he feels it, then his argument remains absurd. This raises the distinction between ethical judgment and
simple expressions of personal beliefs and emotions. Only ethical judgment requires sound reasoning,
while personal beliefs and emotions do not. Say for instance, if I claim that food with chilli is very
delicious, I am not necessitated to explain my claim.
Emotivism however discards moral truths because of its claim that morality is not testable by
empirical observation and experimentation, thus, matters concerning morality are reduced to mere
objects of feelings. This likewise reduces man’s nature to mere emotions, which in the sense rejecting
the rationality in man. Emotivists fall short in concluding that man has only feelings, and has no reasons,
for in fact, reason’s vital role in Ethics cannot be denied. The claim that moral truths are truths of reason
takes precedence over the emotivism’s claim.
The minimum requirements of morality are reason and impartiality. “Moral judgments must be
backed up by good reason and impartiality. Morality requires the impartial consideration of each
individual’s interests.” Moral judgments, or resolving a dilemma of moral judgments must be backed up
by good reason.
Reason and impartiality refer to a mental activity following the basic principle of consistency,
the lack of contradiction between one idea and another. It is a process of deriving necessary conclusion
from premises, avoiding all forms of deception or fallacy or reasoning.
A logical, impartial, objective reason avoids ambiguities like equivocation, circular reasoning,
amphibology, etc. Coherent reasoning is needed to establish truth and meaningfulness of moral
judgments.

“Morality requires impartial consideration of each individual’s interest. In arriving at a sound

moral judgment you must listen to everyone trying to speak. Biases and prejudices must be placed
between brackets, suspended. Everyone’s message, silent or verbal, should be allowed to be unveiled.
Everyone has always something to tell. No has a monopoly of the truth. A moral subject must be seen
from various perspectives and standpoints.

Reference: Angulo, Joselito B., et al. (2019). Ethics: A Heuristic Approach. Mindshapers Co., Inc. Corpuz,
Ruben A. and Corpuz, Brenda B. (2020). Ethics: Life As It Ought To Be. Lorimar Publishing Inc. Banach, D.,
(n.d.). The Ethics of Absolute [Link] from [Link]
doi=[Link].3285&rep=rep1&type=pdf#:~:text=The %20ethics%20of%20absolute%20freedom%2C
%20it%20would%20seem%2C%20are%20not,we%20have %20to%20other%20people.