GEC107 ETHICS (2nd Sem 2019-2020) NOTES FILE 2

VALUE

Ethics (Normative Ethics), generally speaking, is about matters such as the good thing that we
should pursue and the bad thing that we should avoid; the right ways in which we could or
should act and the wrong ways of acting. It is about what is acceptable and unacceptable in
human behavior. It may involve obligations that we are expected to fulfill, prohibitions that we
are required to respect or ideals that we are encouraged to meet. Ethics (Normative Ethics, to be
specific) as a subject for us to study is about determining the grounds for the values with
particular and special significance to human life.

CLARIFICATIONS AND TERMINOLOGY

Recognizing the notions of good and bad, and right and wrong, are the primary concern of
ethics (normative ethics). In order to start, it would be useful to clarify the following points.

Kinds of Valuation

FIRST POINT OF CLARIFICATION

1. There are instances that our value judgment is not considered as part of ethics, like, you find a movie
“good” or a song “bad,” or you know of a “good” sawsawan for sinugbang tuna, or it is “wrong” to wear
barong tagalog tuck in, all these are not part of ethics. These are under aesthetics.

The word “aesthetics” is derived from the Greek word aesthesis (“sense” or “feeling”) and refers to the
judgments of personal approval or disapproval that we make about what we see, hear, smell, or taste. In
fact, we often use the word “taste” to refer to the personal aesthetic preferences that we have on these
matters, such as “his taste in music” or “her taste in clothes.”

2. There are instances considered as trivial in nature, like how to knock at the door politely, it’s wrong to
barge at one’s office, use of please as gauge of politeness, mangulangot is wrong if done in public, all
these are part of etiquette, which is concerned with right and wrong actions, but not grave enough to
be part of ethics. To clarify this point, we can differentiate how I may be displeased seeing a healthy
young man refuse to offer his seat on the bus to an elderly lady, but my indignation and shock would be
much greater if I were to see a man deliberately push another one out of a moving bus.

3. There are technical valuation, like, learning how to bake, there are the right way to do first in baking,
there are rules in basketball, so there right ways in playing.

We derive from Greek word techne the English word “technique” and “technical” which are often used
to refer to a proper way (or right way) of doing things, but a technical valuation (or right and wrong
technique of doing things) may not necessarily be an ethical one as these examples show.

4. Recognizing the characteristics of aesthetics and technical valuation allows us to have a rough guide as
to what belongs to a discussion of ethics. They involve valuations that we make in a sphere of human
actions, characterized by certain gravity and concern the human well-being or human life itself.
 Therefore, matters that concern life and death such as war, capital punishment, or abortion, and
matters that concern human well-being such as poverty, inequality, or sexual identity are often
included in discussion of ethics. However, this general description is only a starting point and will
require further elaboration.

5. One complication that can be noted is that the distinction between what belongs to ethics and what does
not is not always so clearly defined. At times, the question of what is grave or trivial is debatable, and
sometimes some of the most heated discussions in ethics could be on the fundamental question of
whether a certain sphere of human activities belong to the discussion.

1) Are clothes always just a matter of taste or would provocative clothing call for some
kind of moral judgment?

2) Can we say that a man who verbally abuses his girlfriend is simply showing bad
manners or does this behavior deserve stronger moral (ethical) consideration?

Ethics and Morals

SECOND POINT OF CLARIFICATION

We have terms like ethical, unethical, immoral, amoral, morality, etc. We have to be careful in the use of “not”
when applied to moral or ethical as this can be ambiguous. If one says that lying is not ethical, it is ambiguous.
It has two meanings – lying is not part of ethical discussion or the act of lying would be an unethical act.

The term morals may be used to specific beliefs or attitudes that people have or to describe acts that people
perform. Sometimes it is said that an individual’s personal conduct is referred to as his morals, and if he falls
short of behaving properly, this can be described as immoral. However, we also have terms such as “moral
judgment” or “moral reasoning,” which suggest a more rational aspect. The term ethics can be spoken of as the
discipline of studying and understanding ideal human behavior and ideal ways of thinking.

Ethics is acknowledged as an intellectual discipline belonging to philosophy. However, acceptable and

unacceptable behaviors are also generally described as ethical and unethical, respectively. In addition, with
regards to the acceptable and unacceptable ways of behaving in a given field, we have the term professional
ethics (legal ethics, medical ethics, media ethics, etc).

Therefore various thinkers and writers posit a distinction between the terms moral and ethics and they may have
good reasons, but there is no consensus as to how to make the distinction. Ordinary conversation presents a
much less rigid distinction between these terms, and we will use the terms ethical and moral (like, ethics and
morality) interchangeably.

Descriptive and Normative

THIRD POINT OF CLARIFICATION

A descriptive study of ethics reports how people, particularly groups, make their moral valuation without
making any judgment either for or against these valuations. This kind of study is for social scientist, historian,
sociologist, anthropologist,.

A normative study of ethics, as is often done in philosophy or moral theology, engages the question:

what could or should be considered as the right way of

acting?
In other words, a normative discussion describes what we ought to maintain as our standard or bases for moral
valuation.

When engaging in a discussion of ethics, it is always advisable to recognize whether one is concerned with a
descriptive view (filial piety and obedience are persuasive characteristics of Chinese culture) or with a
normative perspective (like, studying how Confucian ethics enjoins us to obey our parents and to show filial
piety.)

Philosophical discussion of ethics goes beyond recognizing the characteristics of some descriptive theory; also,
it does not simply accept as correct any normative theory. A philosophical discussion of ethics engages in a
critical consideration of the strengths and weaknesses of these theories.

This is our concern.

Issue, Decision, Judgment, and Dilemma

FINAL (FOURTH) POINT OF CLARIFICATION

Let us distinguish a situations that call for moral valuation. It can be called a moral issue, like, imagine a
situation wherein a person cannot afford a certain item, but then the possibility presents itself for her to steal it.
This is a matter of ethics (and not just law) insofar as it involves the question of respect for one’s property . We
should add that “issue” is also often used to refer to those particular situations that are often the source of
considerable and inconclusive debate (thus, we would often hear topics such as capital punishment and
euthanasia as moral issues).

A situation confronted by the choice of what act to perform, it is called moral decision, I choose not to take
something I did not pay. When a person is an observer who makes an assessment on the actions or behavior of
someone, she is making a moral judgment. For instance, a friend of mine chooses to steal from a store, and I
make an assessment that it is wrong.

Finally, going beyond the matter of choosing right over wrong, or good over bad, and considering
instead the more complicated situation where in one is torn between choosing one of two goods or choosing
between the lesser of two evils: this is referred to as a moral dilemma. We have moral dilemma when an
individual can choose only one from a number of possible actions, and there are compelling ethical reasons for
the various choices. A mother may be conflicted between wanting to feed her hungry child, but then
recognizing that it would be wrong for her to steal is an example of moral dilemma.

Reasoning

Ethics is interested with questions:

Why do we decide to consider this way of acting as acceptable while that way of acting, its
opposite, is unacceptable?

To put it in another way,

what reasons do we give to decide or to judge that a certain way of acting is either right or
wrong?

A person’s fear of punishment or desire for reward (Punishment and reward) can provide him a reason for
acting in a certain way. It is common to hear someone say:
 “I did not cheat on the exam because I was afraid that I might get caught,”

or

“I looked after my father in the hospital because I wanted to get a higher allowance.”

In a certain sense, fear of punishment and desire for reward can be spoken of as giving someone a “reason” for
acting in a certain way.

But the question then would be:

Is this reason good enough?

That is to say, this way of thinking seems to be a shallow way of understanding reason because it does not show
any true understanding of why cheating on an exam is wrong

or

why looking after a member of my family is in itself a good thing.

The promise of rewards and the fear of punishments can certainly motivate us to act, but are not in themselves a
determinant of the rightness or wrongness of a certain way of acting or of the good or the bad in a particular
pursuit.

Is it possible to find better reasons for finding a certain way of acting either acceptable or unacceptable?

I am in situation wherein I could obtain a higher grade for myself by cheating. I make the decision not to do
so. Or I know that my friend was in a position to get a better grade for herself by cheating. She refuses to do so;
I then make the judgment of praising her for this. In making this kind of moral decision or moral judgment, the
question can be asked: why?

Asking why brings us to a higher level of thinking.

Perhaps one can rise above the particulars of a specific situation, going beyond whatever motivation or
incentive is present in this instance of cheating (or not doing so).

In other words, our thinking may take on a level of abstraction, that is, detaching itself from the particular
situation and arriving at a statement like,

“Cheating is wrong,”

by recognizing proper reasons for not acting in this way. Beyond rewards and punishments, it is possible for our
moral valuation – our decisions and judgments – to be based on a principle.

Thus, one may conclude that cheating is wrong based on a sense of fair play or a respect for the importance and
validity of testing.

From this, we can define principles as rationally established grounds by which one justifies and maintains
her moral decisions and judgments.

But why do we maintain one particular principle rather

than another?
 Why should I maintain that I should care for fair play and
that cheating is, therefore, wrong? Why is fair play better
than cheating or diskarte?

In case of fraternity hazing, why is it wrong to cause

another person physical injury or to take another’s life?

We can maintain principles, but we can also ask what good reason for doing so. Such reasons may differ. So,
for example, what makes death in a hazing a tragedy?

One person may say that life is sacred and God-given.

Another person may declare that Human life has a

Priceless dignity.

Still Another may put forward the idea that taking

another’s life does not contribute to human happiness
but to human misery instead.

How exactly do we arrive at any of these claims?

This is where We turn to theory.

A moral (ethical) theory, is a systematic attempt to establish the validity of maintaining certain moral principles.

Insofar as a theory is a system of thought or of ideas. It can also be referred to as framework.

We can use this term, “framework,” as a theory of interconnected ideas, and at the same time, a structure
through which we can evaluate our reasons for valuing a certain decision or judgment.
There are different frameworks that can make us reflect on the principles that we maintain and thus, the
decisions and judgment we make. By studying these, we can reconsider, clarify, modify, and ultimately
strengthen our principles, thereby, informing better both our moral judgments and moral decisions.

Read this:
In The Apology of Socrates written by Plato, Socrates
makes the claim that it is the greatest good for a person
to spend time thinking about and discussing with others
these questions on goodness and virtue.

Let us explore some notions of ethics that are commonly maintained, but further thought on these notions will
reveal that these are quite problematic. These involve either an appeal to a particular form of authority or to a
particular way of understanding the self.

SOURCES OF AUTHORITY

Several common ways of thinking about ethics are based on the idea that the standards of valuation are imposed
by a higher authority that commands our obedience: authority of the law, authority of one’s religion, and
authority of one’s own culture.
LAW

Law is one’s guide to ethical behavior. Laws from Philippine national level to barangay level constrained
Filipinos to obey and follow. The term positive law refers to the different rules and regulations that are posited
or put forward by an authority figure that require compliance.

Many acts are unethical like murder, theft, are also forbidden by law. The law as basis of ethics has the benefit
of providing us with an objective standard that is obligatory and applicable to all.

But we cannot simply identify ethics by simply looking at law.

Law has a prohibitive nature. The law does not tell us what we should do; it works by constraining us from
performing acts that we should not do. To put it slightly differently, the law cannot tell us what to pursue only
what to avoid.

Would we be satisfied thinking about ethics solely from the negative perspective of that which we may not do,
disregarding the important aspect of a good which we could and maybe even should do, even if it were not
required of us by the law?

There maybe acts that are not forbidden by law but are unethical to us, like, a company pads its profits by
refusing to give its employees benefits may do so within the parameters of the law. Ex. Contractual hiring.

The fact that one can make such a negative value judgment of the practice where there is no violation of the law
is already a hint that one can look to something beyond the law when making our ethical valuations.

To make this point concrete, recall the story of a toddler who had been run over by a couple of vehicles. While
there were many passers-by who witnessed what had happened, for quite a long while, no one did anything to
help. The child later died in the hospital. The law does not oblige people to help others in need, so none of these
passers-by were guilty of breaking any law. However, many people reacting to this sad news report share a
sense that those passers-by were somewhat ethically culpable in their negligence. In view of all this, perhaps
one should think of ethics in a way that does not simply identify it with obedience to the law.

RELIGION

“Love the Lord, Your God, therefore, and always heed his charge: his statutes, decrees, and commandments.”
As a foundation of ethical values, this is referred to as the divine command theory.

Our religious background is there to back up our moral valuations.

Code of prohibitions like thou shall not kill, thou shall not steal, thou shall not commit adultery

Religion is not simply prohibitive, but it also provides ideals to pursue, like, to forgive those who sinned against
us or charitable to those who have less.

Problems:
1. Multiple religions with conflicting ethical standards;
2. On the conceptual level: Is it the case that something is right only because God commanded it, or is it the case
that something is right in itself and that is why God commanded it? Is killing inherently wrong in itself or it is
wrong because God commanded it?
Let us clarify: our calling into question of the divine command theory is not a calling into question of one’s
belief in God; it is not intended to be a challenge to one’s faith. Instead, it is an invitation to consider whether
there may be more creative and less problematic ways of seeing the connection between faith and ethics, rather
than simply equating what is ethical with whatever one takes to be commanded by God.

CULTURE

From reality of diversity of culture, there are different ways of valuations, meaning there is no single universal
standard, thus what is ethically acceptable or unacceptable is relative to, or that is to say, dependent on one’s
culture, this is cultural relativism.

1. Cultural relativism is premised on the reality of difference.

2. Under cultural relativism, we are in no position to render any kind of judgment on the practices of
another culture. This seems to be a generous and an open-minded way of respecting others. But what if
the practice seems to call for comment? What if a particular African tribe thought it is advantageous and
therefore right for them to wipe out a neighboring people through a terrible practice of genocide? What
if some Middle Eastern country was highly repressive toward women reaching to the point of violence?
What about the traditional practice of head-hunting that is still maintained by certain societies in the
Cordilleras? Are we in no position to judge any of this as wrong? Would we be satisfied with concluding
that we cannot judge another culture? But this is the implications of cultural relativism.
3. With cultural relativism, we realize that we are in no position to render judgment on the practices of
even our own culture. If our culture was the basis for determining right and wrong, we would be unable
to say that something within our cultural practice was problematic, precisely because we take our culture
to be the standard for making such judgments. It is possible that we may not be satisfied with the
thought of not being able to call our own culture into question.
4. It is becoming difficult to determine what exactly defines one’s culture. How different is the Filipino
culture from Ibaloi culture to T’boli and to the settlers of Mindanao, to the Sangir-B’laan? What
happens in a family of mixed marriages – father is Ilocano, mother is Mamanwa and you are born and
grow up in Manila? What is your culture?
5. Rational Critical thinking can help in solving the limitation of cultural relativism. Look for values shared
by cultures. Values determine by culture is becoming questionable in a transcultural world.

SENSES OF THE SELF

It is sometimes thought that one should not rely on any external authority to tell oneself what the standards of
moral valuation are, but should instead turn inwards. In this section, we will look into three theories about ethics
that center on the self: subjectivism, psychological egoism, ethical egoism.

SUBJECTIVISM (Egoism)

The starting point of subjectivism is the recognition that the individual thinking person (the subject) is at the
heart of all moral valuations. She is the one who is confronted with the situation and is burdened with the need
to make decision or judgment. From this point, subjectivism leaps to the more radical claim that the individual
is the sole determinant of what is morally good or bad, right or wrong. A number of clichés familiar to us would
echo the idea:

“No one can tell me what is right and wrong.”

“No one knows my situation better than myself.”
“I am entitled to my own opinion.”
“It is good if I say that it is good.”
There is something appealing about these statements because they seem to express a cherished sense of personal
independence. But a close look at these statements may reveal problems and in seeing these, we see the
problems of subjectivism.

“No one can tell me what is right and wrong.” In a sense, there is validity to this. No one can compel
another to accept a certain value judgment if she herself does not concur with it. However, we know that this
statement cannot be taken as absolute. We realize, in many instances, that we had maintained an idea or an
opinion that further discussion reveals it was actually erroneous. We realize that we can be mistaken and we can
be corrected by others. Why is this not also possibly applicable when we are speaking of ethics?

“No one knows my situation better than myself.” Once again, in a sense, there is some validity to this.
This particular person who is put in a certain situation, which calls for a decision, has knowledge of the factors
that affect her situation and decision. But to take this fact as a ground for not listening to others is to have a
mentality that imagines the one’s own situation or concern is so personal and unique that there is no way
another person can possibly understand her and give her any meaningful advice. But does not it make greater
sense to recognize the reality that many human experiences are common and that others may have something
useful to suggest?

“I am entitled to my own opinion.” Here, once again, is a valid point that is often misused. Certainly,
each person has the right to believe what she believes and has the right to express this. But this right is often
stubbornly misconstrued as some kind of immunity from criticism and correction. A bigoted racist has an
opinion against anyone who is dark-skinned, an anti-Semite has an opinion against Jews, and misogynist has an
opinion against women. We realize that these opinions are highly problematic because there is no basis for
considering any of these groups of people as inferior. We would rightly be indignant about an employer who
pays his female employees less than the male employees. Simply because he is of the opinion that women are
inferior to men. But isn’t he entitled to his own opinion? To insist on one’s right in to having opinions whatever
these happen to be is to exhibit a closed-mindedness that rightly invites censure from someone trying to think
more critically about values.

We say this as we want to be immune from criticism and correction, so this is immaturity and defensive or
defense mechanism. A racist will always have opinions against other people. A misogynist always has opinion
against women.

The self cannot be the basis for ethics.

PSYCHOLOGICAL EGOISM

“Human beings are naturally self-centered, so all our actions are always already motivated by self-interest.”
This is the stance of psychological egoism – this is the theory that describes the underlying dynamic behind all
human actions. As a descriptive theory, it does not direct one to act in any particular way. Instead, it points out
that there is already an underlying basis for how one acts. The ego or self has its desires and interest, and all our
actions are geared towards satisfying these interests.

We do things in pursuit of our own self-interest all the time.

What about actions that are directed to others? Like generosity. Help friends, Gawad Kalinga projects, the
psychological egoist would maintain that underlying such apparently other-directed behavior is a self-serving
desire, even if one does not acknowledge it or is even conscious of it. The idea is that whether or not the person
admits it, one’s actions are ultimately always motivated by self-serving desire.
This theory has a couple of strong points: 1. Its simplicity and 2. Its plausibility. It is not only plausible, but
irrefutable.

Psychological egoism is an irrefutable theory because there is no way to try to answer it without being
confronted by the challenge that, whatever one might say, there is the self-serving motive at the root of
everything. The psychological egoist can and will insist on his stand no matter how one might try to object. This
opens up two questions: first, “Because we cannot refute it, shall we accept it as true?” and “Do we accept the
consequences of this theory?”

Does man capable of benevolence? Yes, we don’t have to accept that man is self-centered at all times, just
prove it.

Do we want to give up on our moral intuition concerning the goodness and value of generosity versus the
wrongness of selfishness just for the sake of this theory? How are we going to decide? If we use psychological
egoism, it does not matter, the answer is one and simple, self-centeredness. Question – is generosity and
altruism self-centeredness? So heroes are self-centered? What is ethics all about then?

ETHICAL EGOISM

Ethical egoism differs from psychological egoism in that it does not suppose all our actions are already
inevitably self-serving. Instead, ethical egoism prescribes that we should make our own ends, our own interests,
as the single-overriding concern. We may act in a way that is beneficial to others, but we should do that only if
it ultimately benefits us. This theory acknowledges that it is a dog-eat-dog world out there and given that,
everyone ought to put herself at the center. One should consider herself as the priority and not allow any other
concerns, such as the welfare of other people, to detract from this pursuit.

It is clear that we have our interests and desires, and would want them satisfied. Why should I have any concern
about the interests of others? This question challenges the core of ethics and destroys the fundamental of being
ethical: why not look only after one’s own self?

Human history is full of accounts of tyrants, dictators, rebellion and activism. Think all of these with ethical
egoism theory in mind. Think of the destruction of the world – ethical egoism and climate change.

Is it possible to wonder whether there is a way of recognizing our being in the world with others, of thinking of
our own well-being concomitantly with the well-being of others. Perhaps this is what the study of ethics is all
about.

SUMMARY

In summary, the different topics in this NOTES from law, religion, culture, subjectivism, psychological egoism,
to ethical egoism, I summarized it as the call to go BEYOND the limitations of all the topics for that is where
ETHICS lie. Ethics lies beyond all these human limitation – one has to think of our own well-being in
consideration of the well-being of others.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

NOTES FROM ANOTHER SOURCE:

In the most famous of Plato’s dialogues, Politeia (The Republic), the character Socrates is

challenged by the following example: Suppose a person obtained the legendary ring
of Gyges, which has the magical property of rendering the wearer invisible. Would that
person still have any reason to behave justly? Behind this challenge lies the suggestion,
made by the Sophists and still heard today, that the only reason for acting justly is that
one cannot get away with acting unjustly. Plato’s response to this challenge is a long
argument developing a position that appears to go beyond anything the historical
Socrates asserted. Plato maintained that true knowledge consists not in knowing
particular things but in knowing something general that is common to all the particular
cases. This view is obviously derived from the way in which Socrates pressed his
opponents to go beyond merely describing particular acts that are (for example) good,
temperate, or just and to give instead a general account of goodness, temperance,
or justice. The implication is that one does not know what goodness is unless one can
give such a general account. But the question then arises, what is it that one knows
when one knows this general idea of goodness? Plato’s answer is that one knows the
Form of the Good, a perfect, eternal, and changeless entity existing outside space and
time, in which particular good things share, or “participate,” insofar as they are good.

It has been said that all of Western philosophy consists of footnotes to Plato. Certainly
the central issue around which all of Western ethics has revolved can be traced to the
debate between the Sophists, who claimed that goodness and justice are relative to the
customs of each society—or, worse still, that they are merely a disguise for the interest
of the stronger—and the Platonists, who maintained the possibility of knowledge of an
objective Form of the Good.

But even if one could know what goodness or justice is, why should one act justly if one
could profit by doing the opposite? This is the remaining part of the challenge posed by
the tale of the ring of Gyges, and it is still to be answered. For even if one accepts that
goodness is something objective, it does not follow that one has a sufficient reason to do
what is good. One would have such a reason if it could be shown that goodness or justice
leads, at least in the long run, to happiness; as has been seen from the preceding
discussion of early ethics in other cultures, this issue is a perennial topic for all who think
about ethics.

According to Plato, justice exists in the individual when the three elements of the soul—
intellect, emotion, and desire—act in harmony with each other. The unjust person lives in
an unsatisfactory state of internal discord, trying always to overcome the discomfort of
unsatisfied desire but never achieving anything better than the mere absence of want.
The soul of the just person, on the other hand, is harmoniously ordered under the
governance of reason, and the just person derives truly satisfying enjoyment from the
pursuit of knowledge. Plato remarks that the highest pleasure, in fact, comes
from intellectual speculation. He also gives an argument for the belief that the human
soul is immortal; therefore, even if a just individual lives in poverty or suffers from
illness, the gods will not neglect him in the next life, where he will have the greatest
rewards of all. In summary, then, Plato asserts that we should act justly because in doing
so we are “at one with ourselves and with the gods.”

AdvertisementToday, this may seem like a strange conception of justice and a farfetched

view of what it takes to achieve human happiness. Plato does not recommend justice for
its own sake, independent of any personal gains one might obtain from being a just
person. This is characteristic of Greek ethics, which refused to recognize that there could
be an irresolvable conflict between the interest of the individual and the good of the
community. Not until the 18th century did a philosopher forcefully assert the importance
of doing what is right simply because it is right, quite apart from self-interested
motivation (see below Kant). To be sure, Plato did not hold that the motivation for each
and every just act is some personal gain; on the contrary, the person who takes up
justice will do what is just because it is just. Nevertheless, he accepted the assumption of
his opponents that one could not recommend taking up justice in the first place unless
doing so could be shown to be advantageous for oneself as well as for others.
Although many people now think differently about the connection between morality and
self-interest, Plato’s attempt to argue that those who are just are in the long run happier
than those who are unjust has had an enormous influence on Western ethics. Like Plato’s
views on the objectivity of goodness, the claim that justice and personal happiness are
linked has helped to frame the agenda for a debate that continues even today.