SOUTHERN LEYTE STATE UNIVERSITY

Institute of Arts & Sciences

Summary

 Ethics is generally thought of as the study of right action and morals is the system through which
that action is applied.
 Ethics is not just values education, not catechism, not moral theology, and not just applied
ethics.
 There are three categories or sub-branches of Ethics, and they are Descriptive Ethics,
Metaethics, and Normative Ethics.
 The commission on Higher Education states that “ethics deals with the principles of ethical
behaviour in the modern society at the level of the person, society, and in interaction with the
environment and other shared resources.” (CMO 20 series 2013)
 The importance of studying Ethics is for the students to explore, understand, and critically reflect
on their personal value system. The attainment of this realization would help and empower
students to make sound moral decisions sensitive to the common good.
 Scholars from various disciplines have entered into the field, creating new approaches to the
study of ethics such as behavioural ethics and applied ethics. Ethics gives a sense of justification
in one’s judgment and helps ensure that decisions in work are not made from purely subjective
factors.
 Moral experiences are normally felt at the very least, when there is an effort on the part of man
to guide one’s conduct by reason-that is, to do what there are the best reasons for doing while
giving equal weight to the interests of each individual affected by one’s decision.
 Moral Issue is a situation that calls for moral valuation. For instance, the all-out war against
drugs by President Rodrigo Duterte is an example of a moral issue.
 Moral judgment is the moral agent’s or person’s assessment on the ethical actions or behaviour
of someone.
 Moral Decision, on the other hand, is the moral agent’s or person’s act of choosing and acting a
particular moral choice as he or she is confronted by the choices of what to perform.
 Moral Dilemma is a moral situation in which a difficult choice is to be made between two or
more conflicting alternatives.
 The three elements of dilemma are as follows: (1) there are two or more actions that you can
possibly do; (2) there is moral reason for doing such actions; (3) and you cannot do all the
possible actions presented to you as they are in conflict with each other.
 Moral standard is a code of what is right or wrong reference to specific behaviors or beliefs.
(O’Connor, 1997)
 There are six characteristics of a true moral standard. (1) Moral standards involve behaviors that
seriously affect other people’s well-being. (2) Moral standards take a more important
consideration than other standards including self-interest. (3) Moral standards do not depend on
any external authority but in how the person perceives the reasonableness of the action. (4)
Moral standards are believed to be universal. (5) Moral standards are based on objectivity. (6)
Moral standards are associated with vocabulary that depicts emotion or feelings.
 Freedom is one of the inborn properties and it is the human capacity to act and or not act as he
or she choose or prefer, without any external compulsion or restraint.
 Human acts, in contrast to acts of man, are actions that proceed from insight into the nature and
purpose of one’s doing and from consent of free will.
 Culture is derived from the Latin word “cultus” which means care or cultivation.
 According to Edward B. Tylor, an anthropologist, “culture is that complex whole which includes
knowledge, beliefs, law, art, moral, custom, and other capabilities and habits as a member of
society.”
 There are five basic elements of culture and these are Symbols, Language, Beliefs, Values, and
Norms.
 Culture is always transmitted, shared, and acquired through learning. It satisfies the human need
and tends towards the participation of the members of the society.
 Its function is to mold and establish a social identity that brings people as well to the knowledge
of common objectives which members would try to achieve. In this effect, culture plays a vital
role in the development of the human person including his or her moral behaviour.
 These are the points on how culture influences moral development of the people. (1) Culture is
always social and communal by which the relationship of the people towards one another and
their experiences as a people are the culture’s meadow. (2) Culture defines the normative
principles and behaviors of the society. (3) Culture sets boundaries and limitations as they live
and relate with one another. (4) Culture helps in generating the character and identity of its
people including their moral character. (5) Culture identifies the authorities or the governing
individuals or groups.
 Many cultures in the world have their own beliefs, values, and practices that have developed in
their own particular historical, political, social, and environmental contexts. Thus, it makes sense
that they would differ in perspectives specifically to the context of what is right and wrong.
 Cross-cultural relationship is an idea that people from different cultures can have relationships
that acknowledge respect and begin to understand each other’s perspectives.
 Cultural Relativism is the ability to understand a culture on its own terms and not to make
judgments using the standards of one’s own culture.
 Dr. James Rachels laid out five claims of cultural relativist as to why right or wrong is only a
matter of cultural standards. He refuted these five claims saying that cultural standards. He
refuted these five claims saying that cultural relativism is not plausible in the ethical-moral
context. The five refutations are as follows: (1) Different societies have different moral codes but
there are moral values which are shared by all cultures. (2) The moral code of the society
determines what is right or wrong within that society but people-society can be of error. (3) We
can appeal to broader universal principles when we criticize erroneous cultural moral claims. (4)
The moral code of a particular society has no special status but the society’s moral code could be
better or worst depending on the reasonableness and the nature and quality of the
consequences it effects to the society. (5) It is arrogant to judge other cultural but we cannot
tolerate everything. There are warlike societies and we cannot tolerate their inhuman acts.
Moral progress is not possible in the cultural relativist perspective.
 Furthermore, Dr. Rachels argue with three substantial points on why cultural relativism poses a
threat. The three points are as follows: (1) We cannot call out societal practices that promote
harm. (2) We cannot justifiably criticize our own culture’s harmful practices. (3) The idea of
social progress becomes doubtful.
 Dr. Patricia Licuanan enumerated the strengths and weaknesses of the Filipino values and traits.
The strengths are as follows: Pakikipagkapwa-Tao, Family Orientation, Joy and Humor, Flexibility-
Adaptability-Creativity, Hard work and Industry, Faith and Religiosity, and Ability to Survive. The
weaknesses of Filipino values are as follows: Extreme Personalism, Extreme Family-
Centeredness, Lack of Discipline, Passivity and Lack of Initiative, Colonial Mentality, Kanya-kanya
Syndrome, and Lack of Self-Analysis.
 Filipino values are ambivalent. They are potential for good or evil, help or hindrance to personal
and national development, depending on how they are understood, practiced or lived. They can
be used in a good or evil context for every value has a counter value.
 Moral character refers to the existence of virtues such as integrity, courage, fortitude, honest,
and loyalty. It is also a disposition or the tendency to act or think in a particular way for which a
person can be held morally responsible.
 In the Confucian traditions, moral development was attributed to the “four beginnings” and
these are as follows: the (1) Heart of Compassion which leads to JEN, (2) Heart of Righteousness
which leads to YI, (3) Heart of Propriety which leads to LI, (4) Heart of Wisdom which leads to
ZHI. Jen means goodwill, sympathy towards others, and generosity. Yi means righteousness and
the respect of duty towards humanity and nature. Li deals with outward behaviour such as
etiquette, customs and rituals. Zhi means wisdoms and this is the result or product of practicing
Jen, Yi, and Li. Each of these beginnings do not capture the concept of self. It is only when they
are put together that the potential self is revealed.
 Lawrence Kohlberg developed a moral theology which was developmental in nature. Moral
reasoning has six development stages which he clusters it to three levels. These are as follows:
(Pre-conventional level) (1) Obedience and Punishment; (2) Naively egoistical; (Conventional
level) (3) “Good Boy-Good Girl” Orientation; (4) Law and Social Order; (Post-Conventional level)
(5) Legalistic Social Contract; (6) Universal Ethical Principles.

Assessment which is align to the Intended Learning Outcomes

As you have read the all text discussions above, tell me what you think about this matter.

1.) What is ethics in your own understanding?

__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________

2.) What is the object of study of ethics?

__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________

3.) How do you differentiate normative ethics from descriptive ethics?

__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________

4.) Why do we need to study ethics?

__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________

5.) What is a moral standard in your own understanding?

__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
6.) Why is a genuine moral standard objective and considered to be universal?
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________

7.) Why is that social etiquettes, policies, laws and divine commandment cannot be considered a
moral standard through it may be considered moral gauges to many people?
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________

8.) Why is it important to own-possess moral standards than just by mere following it?
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________

9.) What is human freedom in your own understanding?

__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________

10.) Why is human freedom essential to a human being?

__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________

11.) Explain the statement, “human freedom is complementary to reason”.

__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________

12.) Explain why only human beings can ethical?

__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________

13.) Explain the meaning of culture and five elements if culture.

__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________

14.) How does culture shape the moral behaviour of a person?

__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
15.) Different cultures have different beliefs, practices, social norms and others. In your own
knowledge, describe and enumerate the differences and similarities between Southern Leyteños and
Waraynons in terms of the following: Language and Beliefs “folk beliefs” & Values and Social Norms.
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________

16.) What is cultural relativism in your own understanding?

__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________

17.) Explain the dangers of cultural relativism.

__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________

18.) Explain and enumerate the Filipino values and character traits.
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________

19.) Why is it that the Filipino values and character traits are ambivalent in nature?
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________

Output of Module 1: This is aligned to the Intended Learning Outcomes

You are required to make a poster making or digital storytelling using the power point
presentation as your output in this module. You are going to reflect and express your
reflections through poster making or digital storytelling about the Filipino values and
specifically your family values in general. Reflect about on how your values help you become
a morally sound person who is a discern individual sensitive to the common good.
References:

Bulaong, Oscar Ir., & Calano, Mark Joseph T., & Lagliva, Albert M., & Mariano, Michael Ner E., &
Principe, Jesus Deogracias 2. (2018). Ethics Foundations of Moral Valuation. Manila: Rex Book Store.

Cohen, Stephen. (2004). The Nature of Moral Reasoning: The Framework and Activities of Ethical
Deliberation, Argument, and Decision-Making. Australia: Oxford University Press

Curzer, Howard J. (1999). Ethical Theory and Moral Problems. Canada: Wadsworth Publishing
Company.
Donaldson, Thomas. (1986). Issues in Moral Philosophy. USA: McGraw-Hill Inc.
Gallinero, Winston B., & Morte, Arnel A., & Salado, Fritzie B., & Fernandez, Guiraldo Jr., Villaroya, Al
Franjon M., & Enaya, Beljun P. & Fernandez, Errol C., & Balotol, Ruben Jr. (2018). Ethics. Malabon
City: Mutya Publishing House Inc.

Leaño, Roman Jr., & Gubia-on, Arthur B. (2018). Ethics for College Students. Manila: Mindshapers
Co. Inc.
Moga, Michael D. (2010). Towards Authentic Morality. Mandaluyong City, Philippines: National
Book Store

Peschke, Karl H. (2007). Christian Ethics: Moral Theology in the Light of Vatican II Manila,
Philippines: Logos Publication Inc.

Roa, Floriano C. (2011). Business Ethics and Social Responsibility. Second Edition. Quezon City,
Philippines: Rex Bookstore Inc.

Salibay. Esteban Ir. (2013). Christian Morality in Contemporary Society: A Worktext and Textbook
for College Students. Quezon City, Philippines: C & E Publishing Inc.
 Module 2
FEELINGS, IMPARTIALITY, MORAL FRAMEWORKS IN DECISION MAKING

INTENDED LEARNING OUTCOMES

By the students finished the learning experience, they should be able to:

1.) Assess reasonable and emotional responses to personal moral experiences

2.) Classify the role of mental moral frames in moral experience
3.) Check real-life cases against the 7-step model, a model that uses reason and impartiality
4.) Connect moral behaviour in terms of planning and execution to moral experiences

Tell Me What You Already Know!

 Answer the following essay questions.

1.) In your own idea, what is feelings?

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

2.) How does feelings affect your moral decision making?

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

3.) What is a moral courage and what is its role in actualizing your moral decision?
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

4.) What are the steps in order to have an impartial decision making?
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

5.) What are the moral norms or frameworks in making moral decisions?
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Module Introduction

This module is designed for self-paced independent study. In this module, you will
learn and understand the nature of feelings and how feelings affect our day to day activities
and decisions including moral decisions. You will also learn the role of emotions and how
our primitive emotions be converted of becoming a purposeful and useful one which is a
moral courage. Upon realizing the need for reason and impartiality to rule supreme over
one's moral decision making, you will also learn the seven steps processes for moral
decision making. Following faithfully the steps will help you to be factual and objective of
the present issue or case and be more attentive to the consequences of choosing a
particular decision or action. Following the steps will also help you tame and channel your
emotions that, in return, will serve as fuel towards a purposeful, fruitful, and meaningful
actions which will yield positive results for social resiliency and progress. You will also learn
the different moral frameworks which will serve as the scaffolds in moral decision making.
At this point, it is really expected of you to have deeper insight of what it means to a true
moral agent, that is, a person who is a true moral agent must be a rationally informed
individual who makes rational decision sensitive to the common good. Furthermore, and
most importantly, you will be applying all the concepts being taught through case analysis of
any given moral case literature. As you go along with your readings discussions, specific
questions discussions are included in order to foster better understanding and appreciation
of the readings at hand as you reflect on the contents of the readings based in your own
context. You will also be required to make a case presentation using power point
presentation of your case analysis you had conducted on the chosen moral case literature.
The case presentation will serve as your output in this module.

This module is divided into eight separate topics: The nature, and philosophical
insights on feelings, non-deliberate nature of feelings, and how emotions help in making
right decisions, Definition and nature of moral courage, moral imagination, and will: Seven
steps process for moral decision making: Virtue ethics; Natural law ethics: Deontological
ethics: Utilitarian ethics: Principles of justice- Justice as fairness.

Learning Plan: Feelings and Emotions: An Embodiment or Obstacle towards Right

Decision?

Try to imagine yourself that you are in this situation. You are walking one day near the river
and suddenly you hear frantic cries for help. Two men are struggling in the water and clearly
drowning. With dismay you see that one is your father, whom you love dearly, and the other
a famous scientist, whom the newspaper report is close to a cure for cancer. Whom should
you save? What is the reason? Obviously, most of us will say that we will save our beloved
father first and then the famous scientist will be next. The immediate reason for this act or
decision is that we value much our beloved father which makes him the first priority. Such
immediate action and the reason behind it are carried out from and by our emotions or
feelings. Emotions or feelings are embedded in everyone's life. The moment we open our
eyes as we wake up every morning, our emotions or feelings are already present and
activated in our very selves. Our emotions or feelings directs or influences our day to day
activities and decisions. Emotions, that is to say our feelings and intuitions, play a major role
in most of the ethical decisions people make. Most people do not realize how much their
emotions direct their moral choices. But actually, experts certainly think that it is impossible
to make any important moral judgments without emotions.

Emotions, evoked by suffering such as and empathy, often lead people to act ethically
toward others. Indeed, empathy is the central moral emotion that most commonly
motivates prosocial activity such as altruism cooperation, and generosity. While we may
believe that our moral decisions are influenced most by our philosophy or socio-religious
values, in truth our emotions play a significant role in our ethical decision-making. But what
is emotions? By definition, emotion is a complex psychological state that involves three
distinct components: a subjective experience, a physiological response, and a behavioral
or expressive response. According to the Cannon-Bard theory of emotion, emotions result
when the thalamus sends a message to the brain in response to a stimulus, resulting in a
physiological reaction. We react to a stimulus and experience the associated emotion at the
same time. According to this theory, we react to a stimulus and experience the associated
emotion at the same time. The physical reactions are not dependent upon the emotional
reaction, or vice versa. For example: I see a snake, I feel afraid and I begin to tremble. As the
event occurs, the thalamus transmit signal to the amygdala and to the autonomic nervous
system. The amygdala is a small, oval-shaped structure in the brain that plays an
important role in emotional processing, including emotions such as fear and anger. The
autonomic nervous system, is in-charge of involuntary responses that result in physical
reactions such as muscle tension, shaking, and sweating. Our emotions lead us to feel a
certain way when something good or bad happens to us or around us. This may make our
hearts race and blood boil, our faces color, have us on the verge of tears, create "butterflies
in our stomach," make us want to hide from others or utter an "eww." From these feelings
and emotions, we evaluate the situation at hand, and pass moral judgement on either
ourselves, the individual's involved or the situation in general.

David Hume, a Scottish philosopher in the eighteenth century, placed himself in opposition
to most moral philosophers in the ancient and modern time. He refuted the famous idea
that reason has dominion over feelings or emotions. In his book, "Theory of the Mind", he
asserted that (1) reason alone cannot be a motive to the will but rather it is a "slave of the
passions" (2) Moral distinctions are not derived from reason. (3) Moral distinctions are
derived from the moral sentiments. The feelings of approval (esteem, praise) and
disapproval (blame) are felt by the spectators who contemplate a character trait or action.
(4) Some virtues and vices are natural but others, including justice, are artificial. Though
reason is needed to discover facts of any concrete situation but it insufficient to yield a
judgment that something is virtuous or vicious. A person gains awareness of moral good and
evil by experiencing the pleasure of uneasiness of disapproval. David Hume describes
emotions or feeling as passions. Passion has two classifications namely direct and indirect.
Direct passions are caused from direct sensation of pain or pleasure. The notion of good
and evil arise immediately from the experience of pleasure and pain. Desire, aversion, hope,
fear, grief, and joy are examples of direct passions. Indirect passions are caused by the
sensation of pain or pleasure derived from other idea or impression. For example, you win
in the contest, "Battle of the Brains, the passion that emanates from the pleasure you get
for possessing something admirable is an indirect passion. So, pride for instance,is an
indirect passion that emanates from the pleasure you get in winning the contest. The direct
passion in getting that pleasure is definitely joy. Humility, ambition, vanity, love, hatred,
envy, pity, malice, and generosity are examples of indirect passions. David Hume, however,
admitted that there are instances that passions can be unreasonable. For Hume, this could
happen when we make mistakes in judgment or our opinions are wrong. As a point of
defense to his assertion, it is not actually passion who is unreasonable in the first place but
rather the mistake of judgment or opinion which is prior to that passion. Once our judgment
or opinion is corrected, passion yields to reason without any opposition.

On the other hand, James Rachels, an American philosopher in the twentieth century,
asserted that feelings cannot be trusted pertaining to moral decision making. Feelings can
be irrational and merely a product of prejudice, selfishness, or cultural conditioning. Thus,
feelings alone cannot supported be relied and it must be obstacle in by rational mal
arguments. Furthermore, feelings can be an making the right decisions. The three reasons
are as follows: (1) Feelings is non-deliberate in nature; (2) Feelings has this "partial
nature"; (3) Feelings is capricious in nature. It is definitely obvious that some actions out
from feelings or emotions are non-deliberate in nature. It simply means that some actions
out from feelings are carried in a spontaneous manner with the absence of intellectual
deliberation and full understanding of the act. Aaron Been Zeev's assertion on the non-
deliberate nature of feelings are summarized as follows: (1) Responsibility entails free
choice and if we are not free to behave in a certain manner, then we are not responsible for
this behavior. (2) Free choice entails an intellectual deliberation in which alternatives are
considered and the best one is chosen. Without such consideration, we clearly cannot
understand the possible alternatives and are not responsible for preferring one of them. (3)
Since intellectual deliberation is absent from emotions or feelings, we cannot be
responsible for our emotions. The partial nature of emotions or feelings is explained two
aspect. First, decisions based on feelings are focused only on narrow area. For example,
you are overwhelmed with sadness and despair after you broke up your girlfriend or
boyfriend. You are in a narrowly focused state wherein you have an extremely hard time
taking other aspects that lie outside the center of attention into consideration. You are
dreaded and your activities are all about her or him so that you can get back yourself
together and think straight again. Second, emotions or feelings drow its perspective from
personal interest. This means that our emotions or feelings address our subjective concerns
and takes actions primarily to satisfy such concerns. An example for this is when you decide
to stop schooling in order not to see your girlfriend or boyfriend again. The capricious
nature of our emotions or feelings simply means that they are arbitrary. For example,
there are times that you feel giving alms to the street children and sometimes not. As to
sum up, there are aspects or situations that have nothing to do in moral situations that
could rile up your emotion, and this emotion will certainly influence your subsequent moral
judgment.

One of the central brain systems associated with emotion, emotional memory and decision-
making processes is the amygdala. The information perceived from the environment is
processed in this area and consequently, an action is taken. The amygdala plays a role in
how you feel, such as when you decided not give any comments or suggestions because of
what you brain perceives as possible threats, like making a mistake, being laughed at, in the
environment. Aside from the subjective and physiological response we experience, we move
to the behavioral or expressive response experience wherein we pass moral judgments.
Moral judgment stems from a complicated interaction of cognitive and emotional
mechanisms. In the study of moral judgments, emotions and the utilitarian brain, it was
found that the patients with bilateral ventromedial prefrontal cortex (VMPFC) damage
experienced decreased emphatic concerns and guilt when given a moral decision-making
task (Moll & de Oliveira-Souza, 2007). More specifically, it was found that patients with
VMPFC damage made more utilitarian decisions, "less "emotional", in "high conflict"
personal moral dilemmas compared to controls. For example, when asked if they would kill
a stranger to save the lives of five other people, it was easier for them to agree "yes" than
the control group. Thus, suggesting that the VMPFC, is important for the experience of
prosocial moral emotions when it came to personal moral and "more emotional" decisions.
Furthermore, while the VMPFC has also being identified as having an important role in
moral judgment and moral emotions, it is still unclear the specific neural mechanisms that
occur. Still though, it is suggested by the study that the complex feelings that emerge,
especially regarding these moral dilemmas, are not in conflict but rather arise from an
integration between the moral emotions and cognitive mechanisms by this part of the brain.
So then, the next question to ask is: what are these moral emotions? It can be hard to
define exactly what moral emotions are. This is because emotions in general are evoked in
response to external circumstances. So, technically, any emotion could be a moral emotion
depending on the subjective experience, the physiological response and the behavioral and
expressive response to the giving moment. Haidt classified moral emotions into two
prototypes: disinterested elicitors and prosocial action tendencies (Haidt, 2003). He
explored the emotional families including other condemning emotions: contempt, anger
and disgust; the self-conscious emotions: shame, embarrassment, and I guilt; the other-
suffering: empathy and the other-praising; awe and elevation. In general, he defines moral
emotions as "those emotions that are linked to the interests or welfare either of society
as a whole or at least of persons other than the Judge or agent" (Haidt, elevation. 2003).
On the other hand, Tagney et al seem to classify these emotions into negative and positive
"self-conscious" emotions (Tagney et al, 2007). They state that these self-conscious moral
emotions provide immediate punishment or reinforcement of behavior and feedback on
our social and moral acceptability (Tagney et al, 2007).

Emotion is never truly divorced from decision making, even when it is channeled aside by an
effort of the will. It is not possible to see the world with complete objectivity as our
observations affect what we perceive. But on the other hand, Mary Midgley, a moral
philosopher, says that sensitivity requires rationality to complete it and vice versa, We
rely on our reason to guard against feelings that may reflect a bias, or a sense of
inadequacy, or a desire simply to win an argument, and also to refine and explain a felt
conviction that passes the test of critical reflection and discussion. We rely on feelings to
move us to act morally and to ensure that our reasoning is not only logical but also
humane. This is now the true worth of our emotions. Our emotions or feelings makes
morality possible. As children, we manifest empathy before developing our rational
abilities. Empathy involves feeling to what other person experiences. We experience
another human being directly as a person. It enables us to identify with others and may
generate a perception of the other who deserves concern and respect. Our conscience, as
describe best, reflects our integration of our moral sentiments and principles. We should
however test our conscience by explaining the reasons for our moral presumptions and we
should listen carefully to what other people may have.

Psychologists have long acknowledged that emotion or feeling serves as a red flag. It
signals that something is happening and that it needs attention. In many instances, we
feel that something is wrong when we make incorrect judgment. Such red flag signal
notifies us to adjust or make corrections of our judgment and behavior. The surge of
negative emotions also triggers counterfactual thinking. Counterfactual thinking is a
psychological concept about the human tendency to create possible alternative scenarios
other than what had actually happened. This means that we repeatedly replay the situation
and think about what went wrong and what would be the best thing to do. Such analysis
provides us an opportunity to reflect and prepare oneself in making a different and better
choice in the future. Other studies suggested that negative feelings make a perfect occasion
to develop emotional responses and align it with moral attitudes and goals. (Glovich and
Medvec, 1995) Both our feelings and reason reflect our participation in the moral
community. As children, our moral community is our family which eventually broaden that
includes our friends and classmates. As adults, our moral community extends from our
family, friends, and classmates to our city, country, and the whole world in which our moral
and legal rights and duties are defined by international law and state law.

Learning Plan: Moral Courage and Moral Imagination

Moral courage is the courage to put your moral principles into action even though you
may be in doubt, or afraid, or face adverse consequences. Moral courage involves careful
deliberation and mastery of the self. Moral courage is essential not for only a virtuous life,
but also a happy one because integrity is essential to self-esteem. But how can one
practice moral courage? This is where "will” comes into play. Will, generally, is the faculty
of the mind- a mental capacity to act decisively on one's desire. Will does not refer to any
particular desires but rather it is a mental capacity that selects, at the moment of
judgment, the strongest desire among the various desires present. As we become
conscious of ourselves, we realize that our essential qualities are endless urging, craving,
striving, wanting, and desiring. These are characteristics that of which we call our urging,
craving. striving, wanting, and desiring. These are characteristics that of which we call our
"will”. Arthur Schopenhauer, a German philosopher in the eighteenth century, says that the
"will" is the innermost essence, the core, of every particular thing and also of the whole. It
appears in every deliberate conduct of man. Contrary to his predecessors and
contemporaries that the "will" is dependent upon knowledge, for him the "will" is primary
and it uses knowledge in order to find an object that will satisfy its cravings. Aristotle, on
the other hand, expressed that the "will" is the product of intellect and sensation and that
the “will” gave the person the capacity for "exciting movement in space". For him, the
"soul" of man is distinguished by two functions, these are the judging capacity which is the
intellect and sensation which is the senses. These two faculties, intellect and senses, are
combinedly used by man in day to day decision making. Aristotle discussed the difference
between what people decide to do and what they actually do. The role of the intellect is to
decide the matter on what is just and what is the best thing to do. The role of the will, an
“informed emotion" in Hume's perspective, is to put the decision into action. However, we
cannot deny that in many instances man refused to act on what he thinks is right. This is
what we call "akrasia". Akrasia is the lack or absence of moral courage. The opposite of
moral courage is moral weakness. Moral weakness does not mean of the absence of the
knowledge of good. A morally weak person does the opposite side in spite of the knowledge
of the good. This is due to the overpowering of reason by man’s raw desires who lacks
practice of virtues. It is therefore necessary to have a habitual practice of our virtues and
have mastery and control over our desires. A virtuous person, who constantly practice his or
her virtues and has mastery over his or her desires, always contemplate on what is really a
good action or good decision on a particular moral situation. Such constant contemplation
and discernment of our actions and decisions is crucial in order to elicit a "decerned and
informed” decision or action.

Acting morally often requires more than just strength of character. In order to act morally in
any complicated moral issues and circumstances, it is important to note that the moral
agent or person must have the ability to imaginatively discern various possibilities within a
given moral situation In order to envision the potential help and harm that are likely to
result from a given action. This is what we call "moral imagination". Moral imagination is
the ability to discover and evaluate possibilities within a particular set of circumstances by
questioning and expanding one's operative mental framework. In managerial moral
decision making, moral imagination entails perceiving the norms, social roles, and
relationships entwined in any situation. Moral Imagination differs from other forms of free
reflection because it is grounded in practice and distinguished by the following three
characteristics: (1) Beginning not with the general but with a particular situation; (2)
Entailing the ability to disengage from one's primary framework or to extend or adapt that
framework in a meaningful way; (3) Dealing not merely with fantasies with possibilities or
ideals that are viable and actualizable. Such possibilities have a normative or prescriptive
character; they are concerned with what one ought to do.
Learning Plan: Reason and Impartiality and the Seven Steps Model in Moral Decision
Making

As discussed in the previous discussion, moral imagination is our creative ability to imagine
various possibilities for acting or doing. This is a necessary component and an initial step
towards a fruitful and discerned decision and action. However, this is not sufficient alone
and a sound moral reasoning is still needed. So, what is moral reasoning? What is reason?
What is impartiality? These two words, "reason and impartiality" are the essential
components of a good decision or action. A good decision or action must be reasonable and
it must also Impartial. Reason is the power of the mind to think, understand, and form
judgments by the process of logic. In relation to ethics and morality. reason is the basis for
morality. According to Immanuel Kant, acting morally is acting rationally. In acting morally
or in making decisions, one must able to reflect on different actions to make and then
choose what best or rightful action to make. In reflecting or discerning the different actions
to make, one must be able to know and understand the nature, the grounding or supporting
principle, the consequences, and the affected individuals of every possible different actions
to make. Impartiality, on the other hand, is commonly understood as the principle of
justice. In simple terms it means of “not being biased". It is based on objective criteria
rather than on the basis of bias, prejudice, or preferring to benefit one person over
another for improper reasons. In short, impartiality stresses that everyone should be given
equal importance and consideration and not favor one class or one person in subjective
manner. In ethics, reason and impartiality are basically intertwine concepts. A reasonable
act is an impartial act. An impartial act is, at the very least, a reasonable act. How is it to be
reasonable and impartial? According to Dr. James Rachels, in order for our decisions and
actions to be reasonable and impartial, we need to think on how our decisions and actions
affect the situation and the people around without favor to any party. For example, when
you saw your classmate stealing money and your classmate denied it during the
investigation of your teacher. Your teacher asks you if you saw the incidence and if you can
tell names. What will you do? Will you tell the truth to your teacher? An impartial choice
involves basing your decision on how all the persons in the situation will be affected and not
just at the advantage of one person. Reason and impartiality are the minimum conception
of morality, Rachels says that “morality is at the very least an effort to guide one's action
based on the most logical choice while giving equal importance to the interests of each
person affected by one's decision." A key distinguishing feature of a moral dilemma is that
it typically arises when individuals or groups might be harmed, disrespected, or unfairly
disadvantaged. Most ethical decisions lie in gray area. Often times you are faced with a
situation where there are no clear cut or obvious choices and the situation cannot be
determined by simple quantitative analysis of data. Ethical decision making requires
Interpretation of the situation, application of your values, and estimating the consequences
of your actions. In real life, our situations do not only involve between right and wrong or
good and bad. Oftentimes it is about choosing between good and better or bad and worst.

Knowing at hand, based on our own experiences, that there are no obvious choices in some
situations, so how do we make ethical decisions? Genuine ethical decision making is a
systematic process of evaluating and choosing among alternatives in a manner that
consistent with moral principles. Scott Rae, a theologian and professor of Christian ethics at
Biola University Talbot School of Theology, adapted the seven steps model in ethical
decision making. The seven steps are as follows: (1) Gather facts; (2) Identify stakeholders;
(3) Articulate dilemma; (4) List the alternatives; (5) Compare the alternatives with the
principles; (6) Weight the consequences; and (7) Make a decision.

Gather Facts:
The simplest way of clarifying an ethical dilemma is to make sure the facts are clear. We
need to ask if we have all the facts that are necessary in order to make decisions. We need
to assess on what we know and what do we still need to know as we gather many facts as
we can. We need to take note that some facts may eventually turn out to be misleading, or
not true at all. So, our vigilance and meticulousness in establishing the facts will always be
tested in any given ethical situation Good and sound decisions are always based on clear,
concrete and factual data or information.

Identify Stakeholders:
Good and sound decisions are also prosocial in nature. This means that moral decisions and
actions should always give equal importance to the interests of each person affected. So,
aside from getting the facts clear, there is a need to identify all the persons involved and will
be affected in an ethical situation. There is a need to identify the primary and secondary
stakeholders affected. We need to look into the situation through the eyes of the people
affected.

Articulate Dilemma:
As discussed in the previous learning plan, dilemma is a moral situation in which a difficult
choice is to be made between two or more conflicting alternatives. In this process, we need
to articulate the conflicting alternatives-the ethical principles and values of the moral
situation in order to get a clear-cut picture of it. Confusion arises which will definitely
obstruct the evaluating process if we cannot clearly see the conflict at hand. Ethical interests
are stated in terms of legitimate competing interests or goods. The competing interests are
what create the dilemma. Moral principles, values, and virtues must support the competing
interests. In the absence of these supports to the conflicting interests, then most likely there
is no ethical dilemma existing. More often, people held these positions, "ethical interests",
strongly and with passion because of the ethical principles and values beneath them

List Alternatives:
As we already establish the conflicting ethical interests, it is natural that we will have the
feeling of confusion. In chess parlance, we may say "stalemate"! We cannot easily choose a
particular choice since all the choices have important values for consideration. It is now high
time to think and consider other alternatives that might serve as bridge of reconciliation
between these conflicting interests. Using our moral imaginative capacity, we need to think
and imagine of other alternatives aside from the conflicting interests at hand. This is
important to note since oftentimes people fail to see better alternatives better solutions
which are actually present.

Compare Alternatives with the Principles:

After thinking imaginatively and listing all the possible alternatives, we need to check these
possible alternatives if indeed they reconcile the conflicting ethical interests, We need to
check and see if these alternatives are better alternatives compare to the identified
conflicting alternatives. If such alternatives fail to embrace the conflicting ethical principles
and values and in no way better alternatives compare to the conflicting alternatives at hand,
then such alternatives may not be considered as moral choices

Weight Consequences:
As we already think and compare other alternatives with the conflicting principles at hand if
these alternatives will fully reconcile and eliminate the conflict, we also need to evaluate
and consider the consequences of these alternatives specially to the people affected.
Definitely, any alternatives who fully reconcile or eliminate the conflicting interests and
principles will greatly yield positive consequences. But we still need to identify these
consequences in order to have informed moral choices. However, there are ethical
situations or issues which we cannot think of any other possible alternatives that will
reconcile or eliminate the conflict. This is where this process is highly significant which will
require full attention and articulation. If the conflicting interests and principles will not yield
a dear decision, then we need to consider the consequences of these conflicting
alternatives. We need to work out the positive and negative consequences of each by
identifying and weighting these consequences in terms of their reasonable moral worth.
Maybe, some might have greater weight than others.

Make a Decision:
As we have undergone the tedious process of gathering data, articulating the conflicting
interest with their moral principles and values, and weighting the consequences of each of
the conflicting interests, so we definitely need to decide on the matter. Moral deliberation
cannot go forever as the moral issue or situation must be urgently decided. Otherwise,
failure to decide promptly may paralyze the expected outcome. There is no easy and
painless decision to a moral dilemma. But we must avoid "analysis paralysis" or the state of
over-analyzing a situation in order to responded appropriately.

Learning Plan: Moral Norm/Principle: Virtue Ethics

In the previous learning plan, we have already discussed the Scott Rae seven steps model in
moral decision making. In the case of ethical dilemmas, we need to articulate the conflicting
interest with their principles and values beneath them. So, in order to articulate fully the
dilemma in applying the model in our decision, we need to know and understand further
the moral principles and norms. In ethics, a principle or theory is a structured set of
statements used to explain a set of facts or concepts. So, a moral principle or theory, then,
explains why a certain action is ought to act certain way. A moral principle or theory, then,
becomes a standard or ‘norm" in tor wrong and why we which it serves as basis and guide
in determining whether the action or decision is good or bad. Now, since any moral
situations and issues comes in different forms, levels, and complexity, a "systems thinking”
approach is used in order for the principles or theories to work. This means that the systems
thinker starts to wonder on the real-world phenomenon and looks into the parts as
dynamics aspects of the whole. It is the interrelationships of the elements of the whole that
interests the systems thinker. System thinkers and organizational leaders use mental
frames to simplify the world they are observing and to make the decision-making
processes more efficient. Mental frames are selective, reductive excessively narrow parts
as arrow way by which a question or information used to take a decision is expressed,
presented, worded, formulated, categorized, and pictured. Mental frames are principles
of selection, emphasis, and presentation composed of little tacit theories about what
exists, what happens, and what matters. They are important in decision making not only
by simplifying the chaotic situation that the person faces, but also by defining the problem
itself. Now, in the next paragraph and learning plan, we are going to discuss explicitly but
briefly the moral principles and norms as they will serve as our mental frameworks in
articulating and analyzing the conflicting interests of the moral situation or issue.

Virtue ethics

Virtue ethics is the ethical framework that is concerned with understanding the good as a
matter of developing the virtuous character of the person. The primary focus of virtue
ethics is the heart of the moral agent or the person making the decision rather than the
reasoning to a right action. It focuses on the formation of one's character brought about
by determining and doing virtuous acts. Aristotle, the forerunner of virtue ethics, begins his
discussion by showing that every person's act is directed towards a particular purpose or
aim which in Greek term is called "telos". According to him, there is always a purpose why
a person does something and such action manifest a "good" for what the person aspires.
There is a hierarchy of "telos", in as much that a person is aware which he or she intends
that most of his or her actions are not but such can be utilized purpose can only to achieve a
particular pourpose that such purpose can be utilized for higher and highest goal or activity.
So, what purpose is the highest purpose? What is the ultimate good? Aristotle gives two
criteria in order for one to recognize the highest good of man. The first criterion is "final".
This means that the purpose- the good in be final. In other words, as a final end, it cannot
anymore be utilized for the sake of arriving at a much and higher end. The second criterion
is "self-sufficient". This means that satisfaction in life is a arrived once the highest good-
purpose is attained. Nothing else is sought after and desired since the achieved goal and
purpose is considered as the best possible good in life. A similar example for this would be
the NBA basketball tournament. All the teams must strive to win every game they play in
order to advance themselves to the playoffs, quarter-finals, semi-finals, and finals. Winning
the finals- the championship games is the final good. It means that it is the final end since it
cannot anymore be utilized for higher end. It is also self-sufficient in which the highest
praise and satisfaction are already attained. Such highest praise and satisfaction are the
ultimate goal of the tournament. Other goals such as striving to reach the playoffs, quarter-
finals, and semi-finals are what we calls subordinate goals. They are not the dominant or
ultimate goal which is the highest goal but they are necessary goals to be achieve in order to
arrive at the highest goal. So back to the necessary Boy question again. What is the highest
good- the highest goal for Aristotle? Generally, Aristotle says that wealth, power, and
pleasure as the final end of the human being fits to the first criterion since not
“happiness” per se. They are not chosen for themselves but they only serve as means to
achieve "happiness". Thus, they are not "self-sufficient" in nature. Again, these ends are
ultimately for the sake of the final end which is "happiness". Therefore, Aristotle point
this direction that happiness is the final end of a human being. Happiness, therefore, is
the self-sufficient final end of man. Happiness, as the final end, is the ultimate purpose
why every man's actions are always directed to a certain end. In Greek term, this is what
we call "eudaimonia". It means of “a life well-lived" or it also means or it also means of
"human flourishing". This is really what every human being wants to achieve. Every
person must strive to do good in as much that they also strive to be virtuous in order to
achieve "eudaimonia". But before elaborating on what it means to live in eudaimonia, we
need to know first on how do we achieve eudaimonia. As to simplify the question, how do
we reach or arrive at the highest good? Aristotle proceeds his discussion by the question,
person must investigate or reflect first on how he or she functions which enables him or her
to achieve the ultimate good. The activity of reason is what differentiates man from the
living species. If man only eat and drink in order to survive, grow, and develop, then there is
no difference between him or her to the rest of the plants. If man only sense or feel the
things around him or her and respond appetitively, then there is no difference between him
or her to the rest of the animals. Function of man, therefore, is the activity of reason,
Human actions are always in accordance to reason. So, any person for that matter utilizes
his or her reason in every action he or she makes in order to qualify “a truly human act".
But Aristotle says that one cannot perform his or her function if he or she cannot perform
it well. In other words, a person must perform well as he utilizes his or her reason. Man
should seek for the best possible actions in order for him or her to function well. Thus, the
highest purpose of a human person is all about to function according to reason and to
perform an activity well or excellently. This excellent way of doing things is what Aristotle
call "virtue". In Greek term it is called "arete". But what does it mean to be excellent? What
exactly makes man being excellent? Excellence is the activity of the soul and therefore, one
needs to understand the very structure of the human soul which must be directed by his or
her rational activity in an excellent way. The human soul is divided into two parts: the
irrational elements and the rational elements. The irrational elements are the vegetative
and appetitive or sentient aspect. The vegetative aspect functions by giving nutrition and
physical activity for the growth of the person. The sentient or appetitive aspect are the
desiring faculty of man. The desiring faculty is brought forth by the sensing activity of man
in which he or she desires on what he or she sense from the reality, The desiring aspect is
an impulse that naturally runs counter to reason and most of the time refuses to go along
with reason. For example, a married man is sexually attracted to his neighbor who is also
married. Due to his attraction, he eventually courted his neighbor and they have an extra-
marital relationship. Such action is brought forth from his appetitive activity which he has a
sexual attraction. Such appetitive impulse refuses to go along with the right reason which
strongly forbids him through his conscience to engage in extra marital affairs. Now, these
irrational elements are not the realm where "virtue or excellence" is exercise since it
cannot be dictated by reason. Now, the rational aspect is definitely the realm where
virtue or excellence is exercised. It is in this aspect where a person can attain “excellence
or virtue”. The attainment of virtue is simply by rationally examining one's daily actions in
life. In rationally examining one's action, person may be able to know the "knowledge of
the good". As the person knows the "knowledge of the good", he actually performs
correctly and excellently, thus, he is acting as a virtuous person. Aristotle offers no
specifics on what it means to be virtuous. Having a virtue simply means the right thing, at
the right time, in a right way, in the right amount, towards the right people. In other words,
a virtuous person knows how to handle himself or herself. He or she knows what to do all
the time. He or she knows how to get along with others. He or she has good judgments in
which he or she can read a room and knows exactly what's right and when. Naturally, these
noble characters or descriptions of a virtuous person are products from constant learning
and habitual practice. In other words, virtue is a skill, a way of living, something that can
only really be learned through experience. Now, knowing the right thing to do is not easy
specially when one is confronted with conflicting complicated choices. One needs to
develop this knowledge by exercising the faculty of practical reason in daily life. In
attaining a practical reason, a person may initially commit mistakes, but through these
mistakes, that person may be able to sustain practical wisdom in order to boost one's ability
to determine a morally right choice or action. In other words, a person is able to grow
maturely in his or her capacity in knowing what is good or not and what is the right thing to
do. Going back to the rational aspect, Aristotle carefully makes a sharp distinction between
knowing the good and acting on what is good. Knowing the good does not necessarily
make a person morally virtuous. As to understand this aspect, Aristotle clarifies that the
rational faculty of a person is further divided into two parts which are the "moral" aspect
and "intellectual" aspect. Excellence is exercise both through these two aspects. One can
attain intellectual virtue through teaching and learning experiences. Intellectual virtue or
excellence is classified further as "philosophic excellence or wisdom" and "practical
excellence or wisdom". Philosophic wisdom deals with attaining knowledge about the
fundamental principles and truth that governs the universe. Practical wisdom, on the
other hand, is excellence in knowing the right conduct in carrying the particular task.
Again, both of these can be attained through teaching and learning. In the case of
philosophic wisdom, one can attain this excellence through formal and informal education
and practice. Examples of philosophic wisdom or excellence are those practicing experts,
scientists, and professionals from various fields of study. Practical wisdom, on the other
hand, can also be attained through teaching and learning experiences. As discussed earlier,
the ability to know exactly about the right conduct in carrying a particular task is develop
through learning from one's experiences and as well from teaching. A person may easily
commit mistakes, but at the end, that person will soon realize and will grow morally mature.
A person will also learn from other persons which Aristotle call as "exemplars". According to
Aristotle, it is a built-in nature of a human being that every man is able to recognize these
"exemplars”, people who already attained practical wisdom. From them, a person will
attain practical wisdom through their teachings and through learning from their deeds.
Again, intellectual virtue does necessarily make a person morally virtuous. Knowing the right
moral conduct of a given particular moral situation does not necessarily mean doing it. A
person needs to develop and attain 'moral virtue or excellence". Moral virtue or excellence
is a trait, character, disposition of the person to act correctly or appropriately on a
particular moral task or situation. As discussed earlier, a morally virtuous person knows
how to handle himself or herself. He or she knows what to do all the time. He or she
knows how to get along with others. He or she has good judgments in which he or she can
read a room and knows exactly what's right and when. These noble characters of a
morally virtuous person are products or result from habitual practice and learning.
Therefore, intellectual virtue or excellence complements moral virtue or excellence. In
other words, as the person strives for moral excellence, he or she should also need guidance
from his or her own practical wisdom and also from the guidance of his or her exemplars
Thus, both intellectual and moral virtues are developed in time in order to attain a
“virtuous character". A virtuous person, upon discerning about the good or virtuous act,
should always target the mean, the middle, the intermediate, or in Greek terms, the
"mesotes". This means that a morally virtuous person is primarily concern with achieving
an appropriate action in a manner that is not excessive nor deficient. See the illustration
below:

Excess Virtue Deficiency

Recklessness Courage Cowardice
Impulsiveness Self-Control Indecisiveness
Prodigality Liberality Meanness
Boastfulness Truthfulness Mock modesty
Flattery Friendliness Churlishness
Ostentation Magnificence Unworldliness

In the illustration above, courage is the midpoint between two extremes. It is the midpoint
between recklessness and cowardice. The virtue of courage is manifested in different
situations. For example, a person happens to witness a thief who is carrying with a deadly
weapon suddenly snatches the bag of the lady along the corner of the street. How is the
virtue of courage manifested? Considering that the person is not a combatant and the thief
is a notorious guy who carries a deadly weapon, so what shall that person do? That person
must assess first the situation and then make an appropriate decision and action which
shows his or her virtue of courage. Probably, it would be an excess if the person will decide
to run after the thief and engage in fighting. It would also be deficient when that person will
just pass away ignoring the incidence and ignoring the woman who was shocked intense
fear. Now, Aristotle's discussion ultimately leads to defining what exactly moral virtue is all
about. Moral virtue is "a state of character concerned with choice, lying in the mean, that
is, the mean relative to us, this being determined by a rational principle, and by that
principle by which the man of practical wisdom would determine it". Moral virtue is firstly,
the condition arrived at by a person who has the character identified out of his or her
habitual exercise of particular actions. One's character is seen as a growth in terms of the
continuous preference for the good. Secondly, the action done, that normally manifests
feelings and passions, is chosen because it is in the middle. Thirdly, practical wisdom is the
rational faculty that serves as guide for proper identification of the middle or mean. A
virtuous person learns from his or her experiences, thus, develops his or her capacity to
know the proper way of carrying out his or her feelings, passions, and actions. Practical
wisdom aids in making a virtuous person develop this habit of doing the good. Habits are
not just simply borne out repetitive and non-thought-of activities. These are products of
the constant application of reason in the person's actions. As discussed earlier, though
Aristotle makes a clear distinction, but he attempts to establish union between the person's
moral action and knowledge that enables him or her to achieve proper functioning as a
person- as a moral agent. But why do we need to do good? What is the bottom line of doing
good? Happiness is the final end on why man needs to function virtuously or excellently.
As discussed earlier, this is called ”eudalmonia" in Greek term. It means of “a life well-
lived" or it also means of "human flourishing". A life of eudaimonia is a life of striving. It is
a life of pushing one's self to the limits and finding success. It is a life which will be full of
happiness that comes from achieving something really difficult rather than just handed
over to the person. A person who choose to live or attain in this kind of life has this
disposition in mind that he or she is never done improving. That person is constantly
setting news goals for improvement and working on it to develop new muscles. It also
means that he or she will also face disappointments, sorrows, and failures. A life of
eudaimonia is not literally a life full of cupcakes and rainbows but rather sweet pleasure
of going into the bed after the end of a very exhausting day. It is a sweet pleasure of
knowing that the person accomplished a lot and pushes himself or herself to be the best
person he or she can be. This is the morality of Aristotle. It is being the best person he or
she could be. The person will hone his or her strengths while also working hard on his or
her weaknesses. For Aristotle, a person who lives like this, is the person who can do good
things. That's it!

Learning Plan: Moral Norm/Principle: Natural Law Ethics

In October 2016, Pantaleon Alvarez, who is the speaker of the house at that time, was
intending a bill which would amend the Family Code of the Philippines. His bill, when it
becomes a law, will recognize same sex union in a sense that it allows and recognizes the
same rights being enjoyed by married heterosexual couples. But it pushes a lot of reactions
and criticisms. His fellow legislators had already expressed to the media of their refusal to
support such initiatives. People will say that it is funny to see two men kissing. Some will say
that it is awkward to imagine two men sexually mating. Others will say that it is "irregular".
But the bottom of this issue is that it is "unnatural". What is unnatural is unacceptable. Only
that is natural is acceptable. So, what is "natural" then? The idea of 'natural" becomes the
center of debate. It becomes confusing as the debate and discussions went further into the
realm where it becomes subjective. Undeniably, the concept of "natural" or shall we say the
natural law theory is the mental framework of this issue. There have been various thinkers
in history that could present their own ideas of what natural law theory is all about. But in
this discussion, we will focus on Saint Thomas Aquinas on his idea about the “natural law
theory". Saint Thomas Aquinas was a very influential thinker during the middle ages. His
works and his dedication to the Catholic Church inspires his fellow thinkers at that time. His
thoughts and ideas which were written and preserved in his books are still relevant and
significant until today. As to begin with the discussions, Saint Thomas Aquinas “natural law
theory” is part of the discussion of his whole moral theory. Furthermore, his whole moral
theory is part of his great grandeur vision of the Christian faith. The Summa Theologiae",
which is the magnum opus voluminous works of Saint Thomas Aquinas, is categorized into
three parts. The first part of his works talks or speaks about God and His nature. The
second part talks or speaks about man and the dynamics of human life. Third part talks or
speaks about Jesus Christ as the fundamental end of man in returning back to God. Let me
express first that the idea of Saint Thomas Aquinas, in Summa Theologiae, speaks of the
Christian faith that everything is created by God. We are created by God. We arecreated
by God in order to ultimately return back to Him. Saint Thomas Aquinas is quite
knowledgeable of Plato's idea of the "good" that it is the source of everything. In the
Neoplatonist perspective such as of Plotinus, the idea of the "good", which is the source of
everything becomes identified with the "nous" which is the “one and the beautiful”. The
"nous" which is "the one and the beautiful”, is the ultimate reality. In other words, the
“nous" is the uncreated perfect reality which is beauty in itself. It is the foundation and
reason of everything existing as it gives rise to the multiplicity of everything. Everything
comes from the "nous" as everything emanates from the "nous". Emanation is not creation.
Emanation from the Latin word "emanare” which means "to flow from" or "to pour forth".
This means that all things are derived from the first reality which is perfect by steps of
degradation to lesser degrees of the first reality. At every step of degradation, the
emanating beings becomes less pure, less perfect, and less divine. The "nous" is the perfect
reality in which the metaphysical realities such as the heaven, angels, and saints emanates
from the "nous". The physical realities which is the entire cosmos emanates from the
metaphysical realities. This is the reason why the physical realities are less perfect, less pure,
and less beings compare to the metaphysical one. Now, Saint Thomas Aquinas does not
agree with the idea of emanation as he was influence much of Aristotle's idea of "causes”.
But le of the "nous" which is the source of everything in which everything will also go back
to the “nous” in return has a great impact on Aquinas thoughts and gives contribution to his
moral theory. For Aquinas, God had created all things. As borrowed from the ideas of
Aristotle, God is the uncreated perfect reality which causes everything. God is the first cause
and the ultimate cause of everything. Now, let us have a clear understanding first that
creation is not emanation. In emanation, everything will just flow naturally from the source.
The source itself does not create and the lesser realities come from the source itself. But in
creation, the creator definitely creates in order for a thing to exist. The creator is the
“efficient” cause who designs and makes the thing to exist. In other words, the intrinsic and
extrinsic nature of a thing or creature is part of the design and intentionality of the creator.
Now, for Saint Thomas Aquinas, God is the ultimate creator of all things that exist. God, as
the ultimate creator, has a grand plan and grand design to all His creation. All the creatures
and things, either spiritual or corporeal and or living or non-living, that exist that are
created, have these fixed essences in their nature. Essences are what determine their
nature. A mango tree is different from a Jackfruit tree because of its nature inscribe in each
of their essences. It is also true with the lion and tiger in the case of animals and also with
President Rodrigo Duterte and President Barack Obama in the case of humans. All things
that exist have their own "essences" which define or give meaning to their own nature. The
nature which is affixed in their essences is definitely the ground or basis of assessment on
how created being functions excellently. Thus, the criterion of what makes a created good-
labeled to be good is definitely based on the functionality inscribe in nature- in essences. For
example, a good knife is labeled as good because it cuts. It is definitely sharp. Thus, it
functions well based on its functionality. Again, God creates and all His creation have these
fixed essences designed by Him. God has a care for all His creation. He creates things in all
things in a way that they can survive, nurture, and realize themselves based on their
functionality inscribe in the nature. God also creates with intentionality that all His creation
will simply go back to Him. It is in this juncture that the Neo- Platonist idea was injected or
has influence to Aquinas thoughts. All of God's creation definitely comes from Him and well
surely come back to Him as they were designed to be back to Him. Now,
this aspect of "returning back to Him" is what Aquinas call as "participation". In other words,
all created beings participate in God's design and creation that everything will simply
"return back to Him". Corporeal non-living realities and as well of the plants and animals
participates in the process through their functionality or essences. In other words, they will
be utilized but cared by men in order for men to survive, nurture, and realize themselves as
men. On the part of man, since man has this innate gift of rationality, therefore it is only
man who can participate freely to God's plan. Thus, the Eternal Law of God which is His
grand plan may have a glimpse of revelation through human understanding with the aid of
reason. God's eternal law which is His eternal plan cannot be grasp by man. It is only the
natural law in nature or the law of His corporeal creation that the human reason will able to
grasp. All the natural forces and natural behaviors observe by men are parts and parcel of
the natural law. All the physical principles and laws of nature derived from science are parts
and parcel of the natural law. The moral laws man in which man is able to grasp is also part
of the natural law. But before elaborating more on moral natural law, let me proceed first to
God's grand plan which is His Eternal Law. So, man is able to have a glimpse of
understanding about the Eternal Law upon his or her knowledge of the natural law. Thus, it
is through the knowledge of the natural law that human beings were able to understand
God's plan towards His creation through reflections and contemplations of God's purpose to
man. But the full details of God's plan is nevertheless, unknown to man. Now, the civil law,
which is the law of man and a well the ecclesiastical law, which is the law of the Church is
definitely within the context of natural law derived by man with the aid of reason. Such civil
law and ecclesiastical law must be a reflection of God's eternal plan which is His Eternal Law.
Now, how does man derive the moral natural law? Aquinas started his discussion on the
aspect of natural inclination of man and as well of the animal which man himself was able to
recognize and discern upon. The next paragraph will discuss in brief the nature and starting
point of natural law.
The word “natural law” refers to the moral insights which people are capable of knowing
through the aid of reason which is independent of the verbal revelation of God. The
natural moral law is the law of human conduct which arises from human nature as
ordered to its ultimate end and which is recognized by the natural light of reason
independent of positive Christian revelation.

The Natural Law has three essential characteristics (1) Universality; (2) Unity and
Invariability, 3) Immutability. Natural law is universal as its primary principles are self-
evident for all individuals with fully developed reason. It is also one and the same for all as it
means that all people possess equal rights and equal moral dignity as persons. It is also
immutable or not changeable as there can never be change in whatever is fundamentally
good or evil.

God, who is the creator of humans, has built the laws within their beings into them. The
laws are to be found in the heart of every human persons through the light of reason which
shows the individual the difference between good and evil. Every human being is born with
the natural inclination to do good and to avoid evil and with a capacity to distinguish
between right and wrong. The inclination towards good and the capacity to know the good
should necessarily be developed and reinforced in accordance to one's talents and
potentialities. There is a need to enlighten the intellect and to cultivate and motivate the
will in order to aim always for the highest good which is God.

In this juncture, let me demonstrate on how human beings able to derived something out
from man's natural inclination to do good and his capacity to know the good. As human
beings live with the rest of God's creation, humans do not only interact with the creatures.
Humans see and understand that there is something in one's nature that shares in the
nature of other beings. A cat and a dog cower and then run when they feel threatened.
Similarly, humans have the natural inclination to preserve one's life. It is for this reason that
the “law to preserve human life" is a natural law. Furthermore, man see and understand
that they have something in common with the other animals and that is the desire that the
other animals will have a sexual intercourse with their heterosexual partners and the care of
one's offspring. Therefore, it is a natural law that sex is for procreation and not for lust. It
is a natural law that sex is for the heterosexual partners for the purpose of family
building- procreation. Lastly, it is a natural law that cohabitation is only for the
heterosexual partners together with their generated offspring. The third inclination of
humans are their inclination to do good according to the nature of their reason. Reason
not the only third Inclination that humans have. Reason is definitely the defining part of
human nature. Human are enjoined to make full use of their reason and determine when
the performance of their natural inclination is appropriate.
 Natural Law Derived The Natural Inclinations Natural Law Derived
(Prohibition) Which are Basic Goods (Injunction)
Do not kill Life Promote life & health
Do not prevent reproduction Reproduction Procreate
Do not harm & neglect one's Educate One's Offspring Care & educate one's
offspring
offspring
Seek God
Live in Society
Avoid Offense
Shun Ignorance

As shown in the illustration above, "Life is the first natural inclination. "Reproduction" and
"Educate one's offspring” is the second inclination. Natural laws were derived from these
natural inclinations of man which are also shared by animals. The rest of the natural
inclinations which are the basic goods are the third inclination which are only for humans.
Using your own reason, what do think are the natural laws which will be derived from these
inclinations?

Learning Plan: Moral Norm/Principle: Deontological Ethics

The word "deontology” comes from the Greek word "deon” which means "being
necessary”. Deontology simply refers to the study of duty and obligation. In other words,
deontological ethics, as a moral theory, is a non-consequentialist approach wherein it
evaluates the intrinsic nature of an act based on duty and also with the validity of the
motive of an act. Immanuel Kant, a German philosopher who is the proponent of this
theory, begins his discussion about reason and the autonomy of the rational will. Kant
believe that reason is autonomous. For him, reason is “the be all and end all" of
everything. He maintained that all truths and all knowledge are derive from human
reason. Therefore, all laws and all moral principles are also derived from human reason.
According to Kant, reason commands and we must obey it without questioning. So, for
Kant, morality is a “priori". It means that morality is not based and not derived from
experience but from pure reason. The moral code or maxim is universal since it is derived
from reason. Thus, the moral maxims apply to everybody. The moral maxims are also
absolute, complete, and fixed. The moral maxims are also immutable as it is fixed. So, as to
get the glimpse of the discussion, the moral codes or maxims derived from one's reason
are universal, absolute, and immutable which make them duty-bound that necessarily
demand action. This is what Kant calls as "Categorical Imperative". It means that all
universal maxims derived from reason are precisely must to do maxims. But how do we
derive the duty-bound universal moral maxims or codes from our reason? Kant offer two
formulas for his "Categorical Imperative". The first formulation is the “Universalizability
Principle". It says that "act only in accordance to a maxim by which you can at the same
time will that is shall become a universal law". Any codes or maxims can only be
considered “universal moral maxims" once it has been deliberated thoroughly by reason
as universal one. For example, when you see a little two-year-old boy who is walking down
the street, what will you do? Your mind will tell you to get that boy out from the street and
return him back to his house. Now, for that action to become a universal maxim, you need
to assess and deliberate the situation if indeed such action is universalizable. Universalizable
simply means of any actions in mind which is evaluated as "right-to-do" action in all cases of
the same nature and circumstances. Since the act of getting the little boy out from the
street is the "right-to-do" action in all cases for that matter, then the act itself is a universal
maxim. Thus, that act is now an obligatory act which demands action regardless of your
feelings or mood for that matter. The second formulation is the "Humanity Principle". It
says that "act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person
or in the person of any other, never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an
end". Honestly, this is the part of Kant's idea which I like most. We should never treat our
fellow human beings only as a mere means to our ends but rather as means and ends to
himself or herself. We are living in a community or society in which we relate and interact
with each other. Definitely, we need each other's help in order to attain our targets and
missions and as well in order to survive. In short, we are inter-dependent to each other.
Such inter-dependency makes us "means" to some other's end. Yet, this is just okay if we
are also the ends as well. For example, the owner of the prestigious hospital needs a group
of medical practitioners and experts to work in his hospital. These practitioners working in
his hospital are not just “means” to his ends but they are the “means and ends” in
themselves. The opportunity to work in the prestigious hospital which offers lucrative
benefits and opportunities for these professionals to practice and enhance their skills is an
end for themselves.

Learning Plan: Moral Norm/Principle: Utilitarian Ethics

The word utilitarian is derived from the Latin word "utilis" which means usefulness.
Utilitarian ethics is a consequentialist theory which measures the morality of an action
based on the consequences and not on the motive or intention of the moral agent. This is
simply a critique to deontological ethics which only looks into the intrinsic nature and
intention of the action. For the utilitarian thinkers, it is greatly important to consider the
outcomes of the action and mere intentions are irrelevant. The first who proposed the idea
of utilitarianism was David Hume, a philosopher during the modern period. But the ones
who have made the idea more depth and more profound were Jeremy Bentham and John
Stuart Mill. Jeremy Bentham is considered the father of utilitarianism. His idea or version
of utilitarianism is summarized into three points. First, the basis of measure for the
morality of an action is the consequences it produced. If it produced pleasure, then it is
good. If not, then it is bad, The consequences are the sole basis of morality. Jeremy
Bentham rejects the importance of motive because it is only known to the person who has
it. It would be difficult to praise or blame a person's action if motive alone will determine
the act as good bad. Motives are also personal. Thus, it is difficult or impossible to know this
motive with a high degree of certainly. Second, the amount of pleasure produced is what
matters. Jeremy Bentham emphasizes that a good act is not just any act that will produce
pleasure. We need to look into the amount of pleasure produced when we do that act. For
instance, there are three options you can choose in a particular situation. The first option
produces relatively low pleasure. The second one produces relatively high pleasure. The
third one produces very high pleasure. For Bentham, doing the third option is the right act.
In other words, doing the first and second options are not the right act. So, how do we
measure and determine the right act? Bentham offers the method of computing pleasure
which he calls "felicific calculus". The morality of an action is determined by the amount of
pleasure it produces minus the amount of pain it also produces. If the amount of pleasure
is greater than the amount of pain, the action is said to be good. But if the amount of pain
is greater than the amount of pleasure, then action is said to be bad. We need to
remember that choosing the right means to choose the option who produces the greater or
greatest amount of pleasure among the choices. Bentham elaborated further that in
determining the amount of pleasure or pain being produced, we need to look into the
following: (1) intensity of the pleasure or pain produced: (2) duration of pleasure or pain;
(3) frequency of occurrence of pleasure or pain: (4) time of occurrence in which pleasure
or pain will be realized soon. Third, the number of people being affected should also be
considered in determining the amount of pleasure being produced. Now, this is the final
position of Bentham in determining if the action is good or bad. The good action is an
action that produces the greatest amount of pleasure to the greatest number of people.
John Stuart Mill idea of utilitarianism is somehow similar in certain points Jeremy Bentham
though there is a major difference of their perspectives. Similar to Bentham, Mill believes
that human beings pursue happiness naturally but will avoid pain or suffering for that
matter. Since man naturally seeks happiness, then what constitutes good act is happiness.
Now, this is the point where Mill used the word "happiness" instead of the word “pleasure”
by Bentham. For Mill, happiness is not merely of one person but of the greater number of
people. The nature of happiness for Mill is not the same that of Bentham where the concept
of pleasure is quantitative nature. The amount of pleasure produced is determine by the
criteria discussed earlier. However, "happiness", for Mill, is qualitative in nature. According
to Mill, the idea of pleasure has two forms and these are the physical and the mental.
Physical pleasure is a sensual pleasure such as sexual intercourse, eating, drinking, and
among others. The mental pleasure refers to the Intellectual, spiritual, and moral pleasures.
The physical pleasure is animalistic or beastly pleasure. Mental pleasure is the superior
pleasure in which it gives man a dignity when being pursued. Therefore, Mill refers his idea
of happiness to these mental pleasures. Happiness pursues mental pleasures. Thus,
happiness for Mill is qualitive in nature in a sense that it is not physical which can bound for
quantification.

Learning Plan: Moral Norm/Principle: Justice as Fairness Ethics

John Rawls is one of the most important political philosophers during the twentieth century.
He is the proponent of the "Justice as Fairness theory". In his work "A Theory of Justice"
John Rawls proposes "justice as fairness" as an ethical framework. Actually, there are a lot
of theories concerning justice. For instance, Bentham and Mill proposes the "principle of
utility" as the main idea of justice. Plato, Nozick and the rest of the ethical philosophers also
offer varied ideas concerning about justice, Now, the "justice as fairness" framework
focuses on how much justice should be distributed that would yield fairness for those who
have more and those who have less in life. John Rawls based his theory on the hypothetical
ground of the "social contract theory” of Thomas Hobbes. According to Hobbes, men live in
the chaotic "state of nature” before there was ever a state being created or established.
Men soon realized that it is not healthy and safe to live in the “state of nature”. Thus, they
decided to gather together surrendering their absolute rights in order to agree among
themselves in establishing a state. Now, John Rawls inserted his ideas into this juncture that
when these men decided to gather together among themselves to form a state, these men
are in the “veil of ignorance". This is the “Original Position" of John Rawls. This means that
under the "veil of ignorance", these men had forgotten temporarily their personal and
social disposition as individual. This further mean that when these men gather together,
what they have in mind is only for the best interest of each members and not for their
own personal Interest. Rawls further asserted that in this juncture, these men would
choose the alternative that supports or favors to the most disadvantage. That is why these
men were under the “veil of ignorance” in order for them to set aside their own personal
interests and only promoting on what is best for each individual especially the
disadvantageous one who are participating the agreement in establishing a state. Now,
Rawls asserted that in the "Original Position”, two principles were derived in the process.
The first principle states that "each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive
scheme of equal basic liberties compatible with similar scheme of liberties of others. This
is basically the principle of equality wherein all members of the society should have equal
rights and liberties. These equal rights and liberties refer to the political condition of every
citizens. Examples of this principle are the "right to vote", "right to have due process of
law”, and the “right to have equal protection of the law". Regardless of one's socio-
economic disposition, each citizen is entitled to enjoy the basic rights and liberties provided
by law, The second principle states that "social and economic inequalities are to be
arranged so that they are both reasonably expected to be to everyone's advantage and
attached to positions and offices open to all". The second principle is the principle of
difference. This means that socio economic inequalities in a society must be arrange that
favors the disadvantage in order to have an equal play in the economic field. Now,
following the line of reasoning proposed by Rawls, the concern of an ethical society and of
the individual person should be towards the care and support of its most disadvantage
citizens, as they are the ones who are least able to defend and speak for themselves. This
is also a duty-oriented position which it establishes the duty of moral equality. Such moral
equality cannot be bargained away regardless of social interest or the welfare of the
society as a whole.

Learning Plan: Application of the Seven Steps Model and the Moral Frameworks

This case literature in ethics has been adapted from Scott Rae's original. This is all about
medical ethics. The place where this situational case had happened is here in the Philippines
wherein the concern personalities in the story are immigrants from India. There is a sixty-
seven-year-old Indian woman who was diagnosed with cancer which is usually treated by
chemotherapy. In the hospital the patient was recognized as a fully competent individual
who can make her own decision. She knows that something is wrong with her and appears
fearful and anxious about what getting well might involve She lives with her son and his
wife. The family appears to be happy. Her son has taken the responsibility for her as her
husband had already died long ago. The son translates for her almost all information
needing translating. The son does not want her to know anything more than the bare
minimum about the treatment as he fears she will give up on life and resign herself to dying.
The son was strongly motivated by cultural and values. The patient does not know her full
diagnosis and full effects of chemotherapy. She knows she is sick and the treatment will
make her feel sick to her stomach and as well as losing her hair, If you were the doctor,
what will you do? Will you follow the family's wishes? Or will you decide to let the patient
know about her diagnosis even if it increases her fear and alienates you from them?

Gather Facts:

We need to go back over to the information given and then write down the facts.

 There is a sixty-seven-years-old Indian woman was diagnosed with cancer which is

usually treated by chemotherapy.
 In the hospital, the patient was recognized as a fully competent individual who can
make her own decision.
 She knows that something is wrong with her and appears fearful and anxious about
what getting well might involve.
 She lives with her son and his wife.
 The family appears to be happy.
 Her son has taken the responsibility for her and her husband had already died long
ago.
 The son translates for her with almost all information needing translating.
 The son does not want her to know anything more than the bare minimum about
the treatment as he fears she will give up on life and resign herself to dying.
 The son was strongly motivated by cultural and family values.
 The patient does not know her full diagnosis and full effects of chemotherapy.
 She knows she is sick and the treatment will make her feel sick to her stomach and
as well as losing her hair.

Identity Stakeholders:

 Sixty-year-old Indian woman

 Her son
 Her son’s wife
Articulate Dilemma:

Follow the family’s VERSUS Tell the patient about her

wishes diagnosis and condition

Deontological Principle Deontological Principle

The dilemma dies on the two conflicting options illustrated above. The first option which is
to follow the family’s wishes is in conflict with the second option which is to tell the patient
about her condition. If the doctor will choose the first option, then he or she will patient’s
right to give informed consent specially that chemotherapy is a very invasive treatment. The
doctor also fails to deliver his or her obligation to act in the patient’s best interest. Lastly,
the doctor also ignores the law regarding informed consent must be applied, thus he or she
will violate the law if he or she will choose the first option. On the other hand, if the doctor
choose the second, the he or she ignores the family wishes which has strong impact to
them. Choosing the second option is also a form of disrespect towards family’s culture and
values. As a result, the doctor alienates himself or herself from the family members. So, in
this case, there would be no easy option since there are arising conflicts which are worthy of
considerations. The ethical principle which has bearing on his case is the deontological
principle, it says that universal maxims or codes must always be followed regardless of one’s
feelings without exceptions. In the first option, maxim of recognizing and respect cultural
values, tradition, and norms is definitely a universalizable maxim. Thus, it is a duly or
obligation for everyone to recognize and respect one’s cultural values, traditions and norms.
On the second option, the right of a person to have an informed consent, the obligation of
the medical team to act in the patient’s interest, and as well the law regarding the informed
consent must be applied, all these are universalizable maxims and rights which are ought to
be followed without any questions. Now, we can see and understand in this discussion that
there are indeed conflicting universal maxims which must be resolve in order to elicit a valid
moral decision.

List Alternatives

 Attempt to convince the family of the seriousness of the treatment and why she
needs to know
 Call an ethics committee conference to discuss the case and try to convince the
family to tell her
 Ask the patient directly if she wants to know the details of all that is happening
 Compare Alternatives with the Principles:

MAXIMS MAXIMS
 Respect for one’s cultural  Patient’s right to have
values, traditions, and informed consent
ALTERNATIVES norms  Doctor’s obligation to act
in the patient’s best
interest
 Law requiring the
application of an informed
consent

Attempt to convince the Uncertain Uncertain

family of the seriousness of Most likely the attempt will be Most likely the attempt will be
the treatment and why she a failure a failure
needs to know
Call an ethics committee Uncertain Uncertain
conference to discuss the case Most likely the attempt will be Most likely the attempt will be
and try to convince the family a failure a failure
to tell her
Ask the patient directly if she Disrespect if the mother will Realized and respected in
wants to know the details of agree and ask for the details of either cases
all that is happening her condition The right to know and not to
Realized if the mother will opt know are either respected
not to know

Weight Consequences:

MORAL CHOICES POSITIVECONSEQUENCES NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES

Follow the family’s wishes  Family is happy  Patient continues to be
 Cultural values, traditions, and fearful and anxious about
norms are respected the treatment
 Patient may discover soon
and trust is compromised
Tell the patient about her  Patient might be happy  Family feels alienated
diagnosis and condition  Cultural values have been
violated
 Family may take the patient
to another hospital
 Patient may give up
Ask the patient directly if  Patient will speak for herself and  Family is unhappy and
she wants to know the make decision cultural values are
details of all that is  Both law and culture are disrespected if the mother
happening satisfied if the mother will chooses to know
choose her son to decide for
that matter
 Patent will be relieved in a sense
that her rights are respected
Make a Decision:

What do you think? We have had to think through our ideas of respect for family and
culture. But how far should we go in respecting this cultural approach? Is the patient’s best
interest compromised? Is her dignity as an individual respected? Scott Rae suggest, “Here it
seems the alternative that involves asking the patient if she wants to know the details of her
situation satisfies most of the virtues and values at stake and produces the best, balance of
consequences too.”

Performance Tasks

As you have read the text discussions (starting from feelings an demotions up to the
application of the seven steps model and ethical frameworks), tell me what you think about
this matter.

1. In your own understanding, what is emotion?

___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________

2. Give some instances in your own experiences that your emotions reign supreme in your
decision.

___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________

3. In what way our emotion is of great help for morality to be possible?

___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________

4. Explain what is moral courage and moral emotion.

___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________

5. Explain what is virtue ethics.

___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
 6. Explain what is natural law ethics.

___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________

7. Explain what is deontological ethics

___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________

8. Explain what is justice as fairness ethics.

___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________

9. Explain briefly the seven steps model decision making.

___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________

Summary

 Emotion is a complex psychological state that involves three distinct components: a

subjective experience, a physiological response, and a behavioral or expressive response.
 According to the Cannon-Bard theory of emotion, emotions result when the thalamus sends
a message to the brain in response to a stimulus, resulting in a physiological reaction.
 Our emotions lead us to feel a certain way when something good or bad happens to us or
around us.
 From these feelings and emotions, we evaluate the situation at hand, and pass moral
judgement on either ourselves, the individual's involved or the situation in general.
 David Hume, in his moral theory, asserted that (1) reason alone cannot be a motive to the
will but rather it is a "slave of the passions". (2) Moral distinctions are not derived from
reason. (3) Moral distinctions are derived from the moral sentiments. The feelings of
approval (esteem, praise) and disapproval (blame) are felt by the spectators who
contemplate a character trait or action. (4) Some virtues and vices are natural but others,
including justice, are artificial.
 David Hume describes emotions or feeling as passions. Passion has two classifications
namely direct and indirect. Direct passions are caused from direct sensation of pain or
pleasure
 Indirect passions are caused by the sensation of pain or pleasure derived from other idea or
impression.
 According to James Rachels, feelings cannot be trusted pertaining to moral decision making.
Feelings can be irrational and merely a product of prejudice, selfishness, or cultural
conditioning. Thus, feelings alone cannot be relied and it must be supported by rational
arguments
 Feelings can be an obstacle in making the right decisions. The three reasons are as follows:
(1) Feelings is non-deliberate in nature; (2) Feelings has this "partial nature": (3) Feelings is
capricious in nature.
 One of the central brain systems associated with emotion, emotional memory and decision
making processes is the amygdala.
 The amygdala plays a role in how you feel, such as when you decided not give any
comments or suggestions because of what your brain perceives as possible threats, like
making a mistake, being laughed at, in the environment.
 Moral judgment stems from a complicated interaction of cognitive and emotional
mechanisms. In the study of moral judgments, emotions and the utilitarian brain, it was
found that the patients with bilateral ventromedial prefrontal cortex (VMPFC) damage
experienced decreased emphatic concerns and guilt when given a moral decision-making
task (Moll & de Oliveira-Souza, 2007).
 VMPFC is important for the experience of prosocial moral emotions when it came to
personal moral and "more emotional" decisions. Furthermore, VMPFC has also been
identified as having an important role in moral judgment and moral emotions.
 Moral emotions are those emotions that are linked to the interests or welfare either of
society as a whole or at least of persons other than the judge or agent.
 Sensitivity requires rationality to complete it and vice versa. We rely on our reason to guard
against feelings that may reflect a bias, or a sense of inadequacy, or a desire simply to win
an argument, and also to refine and explain a felt conviction that passes the test of critical
reflection and discussion. We rely on feelings to move us to act morally and to ensure that
our reasoning is not only logical but also humane. This is now the true worth of our
emotions. Our emotions or feelings makes morality possible.
 Psychologist have long acknowledged that emotion or feeling serves as a red flag. It signals
that something is happening and that it needs attention. In many instances, we feel that
something is wrong when we make incorrect judgment. Such red flag signal notifies us to
adjust or make corrections of our judgment and behavior.
 Moral courage is the courage to put your moral principles into action even though you may
be in doubt, or afraid, or face adverse consequences. Moral courage involves careful
deliberation and mastery of the self. Moral courage is essential not for only a virtuous life,
but also a happy one because integrity is essential to self-esteem.
 Will, generally, is the faculty of the mind- a mental capacity to act decisively on one's desire.
Will does not refer to any particular desires but rather it is a mental capacity that selects, at
the moment of judgment, the strongest desire among the various desires present.
 Arthur Schopenhauer, a German philosopher in the eighteenth century, says that the "will"
is the innermost essence, the core, of every particular thing and also of the whole. It
appears in every deliberate conduct of man.
 For Arthur Schopenhauer, the "will" is primary and it uses knowledge in order to find an
object that will satisfy its cravings.
 Aristotle, on the other hand, expressed that the "will" is the product of intellect and
sensation and that the "will" gave the person the capacity for "exciting movement in
space".
 The role of the will, an "informed emotion" in Hume's perspective, is to put the decision into
action.
 Akrasia is the lack or absence of moral courage.
 Akrasia is due to the overpowering of reason by man's raw desires who lacks habitual
practice of virtues. It is therefore necessary to have a habitual practice of our virtues and
have mastery and control over our desires.
 Moral imagination is the ability to discover and evaluate possibilities within a particular set
of circumstances by questioning and expanding one's operative mental framework.
 Reason and impartiality are the essential components of a good decision or action.
 Reason is the power of the mind to think, understand, and form judgments by the process
of logic.
 Reason is the basis for morality. According to Immanuel Kant, acting morally is acting
rationally.
 In acting morally or in making decisions, one must able to reflect on different actions to
make and then choose what best or rightful action to make.
 Impartiality, on the other hand, is commonly understood as the principle of justice.
 It is based on objective criteria rather than on the basis of bias, prejudice, or preferring to
benefit one person over another for improper reasons.
 According to Dr. James Rachels, in order for our decisions and actions to be reasonable and
impartial, we need to think on how our decisions and actions affect the situation and the
people around without favor to any party.
 Reason and impartiality are the minimum conception of morality. Rachels says that
"morality is at the very least an effort to guide one's action based on the most logical
choice while giving equal importance to the interests of each person affected by one's
decision."
 Genuine ethical decision making is a systematic process of evaluating and choosing among
alternatives in a manner that is consistent with moral principles.
 Scott Rae, a theologian and professor of Christian ethics at Biola University Talbot School of
Theology, adapted the seven steps model in ethical decision making. The seven steps are as
follows: (1) Gather facts; (2) Identify stakeholders, (3) Articulate dilemma: (4) List the
alternatives; (5) Compare the alternatives with the principles; (6) Weight the
consequences; and (7) Make a decision.
 Virtue ethics the ethical framework that is concerned with understanding the good as a
matter of developing the virtuous character of the person. The primary focus of virtue
ethics is the heart of the moral agent or the person making the decision rather than the
 reasoning to a right action. It focuses on the formation of one's character brought about by
determining and doing virtuous acts.
 Every person's act is directed towards a particular purpose or aim which in Greek term is
called “telos”.
 Aristotle says that wealth, power, and pleasure as the final end of a human being fits to the
first criterion since it is clear that having such conditions will serve as means to achieve
"happiness". But they are not "happiness" per se. They are not chosen for themselves but
they only serve as means to achieve "happiness". Thus, they are not "self-sufficient" in
nature.
 Therefore, Aristotle point this direction that happiness is the final end of a human being.
Happiness, therefore, is the self-sufficient final end of man. Happiness, as the final end, is
the ultimate purpose why every man's actions are always directed to a certain end. In
Greek term, this is what we call "eudaimonia". It means of "a life well-lived" or it also
means of "human flourishing". This is really what every human being wants to achieve.
 The activity of reason is what differentiates man from the living species.
 The function of man, therefore, is the activity of reason. Human actions are always in
accordance to reason. So, any person for that matter utilizes his or her reason in every
action he or she makes in order to qualify a “truly human act”.
 Man should seek for the best possible actions in order for him or her to function well. Thus,
the highest purpose of a human person is all about to function according to reason and to
perform an activity well or excellently.
 Virtue or excellence is exercised in the realm of the rational aspect of the soul. It is in this
aspect where a person can attain "excellence or virtue". The attainment of virtue is simply
by rationally examining one's daily actions in life. In rationally examining one's action, a
person may be able to know the "knowledge of the good". As the person knows the
"knowledge of the good", he actually performs correctly and excellently, thus, he is acting
as a virtuous person.
 The noble characters or descriptions of a virtuous person are products from constant
learning and habitual practice. In other words, virtue is a skill, a way of living, something
that can only really be learned through experience.
 Moral virtue or excellence is a trait, character, disposition of the person to act correctly or
appropriately on a particular moral task or situation.
 A morally virtuous person knows how to handle himself or herself. He or she knows what to
do all the time. He or she knows how to get along with others. He or she has good
judgments in which he or she can read a room and knows exactly what's right and when.
These noble characters of a morally virtuous person are products or result from habitual
practice and learning. Therefore, intellectual virtue or excellence complements moral
virtue or excellence.
 Moral virtue is “a state of character concerned with choice, lying in the mean, that is, the
mean relative to us, this being determined by a rational principle, and by that principle by
which the man of practical wisdom would determine it".
 A virtuous person learns from his or her experiences, thus, develops his or her capacity to
know the proper way of carrying out his or her feelings, passions, and actions. Practical
 wisdom aids in making a virtuous person develop this habit of doing the good. Habits are
not just simply borne out repetitive and non-thought-of activities. These are products of
the constant application of reason in the person's actions.
 Happiness is the final end on why man needs to function virtuously or excellently. As
discussed earlier, this is called "eudaimonia" in Greek term. It means of "a life well-lived" or
it also means of "human flourishing".
 It is a life which will be full of happiness that comes from achieving something really difficult
rather than just handed over to the person. A person who choose to live or attain in this
kind of life has this disposition in mind that he or she is never done improving. That person
is constantly setting news goals for improvement and working on it to develop new
muscles.
 Natural law refers to the moral insights which people are capable of knowing through the
aid of reason which is independent of the verbal revelation of God.
 The natural moral law is the law of human conduct which arises from human nature as
ordered to its ultimate end and which is recognized by the natural light of reason
independent of positive Christian revelation.
 The Natural Law has three essential characteristics: (1) Universality; (2) Unity and
Invariability: (3) Immutability
 God, who is the creator of humans, has built the laws within their beings into them. The
laws. are to be found in the heart of every human persons through the light of reason
which shows the individual the difference between good and evil.
 Every human being is born with the natural inclination to do good and to avoid evil and
with a capacity to distinguish between right and wrong. The inclination towards good and
the capacity to know the good should necessarily be developed and reinforced in
accordance to one's talents and potentialities.
 There is a need to enlighten the intellect and to cultivate and motivate the will in order to
aim always for the highest good which is God.
 Deontological ethics, as a moral theory, is a non-consequentialist approach wherein it
evaluates the intrinsic nature of an act based on duty and also with the validity of the
motive of an act.
 Kant believe that reason is autonomous. For him, reason is "the be all and end all” of
everything. He maintained that all truths and all knowledge are derive from human reason.
Therefore, all laws and all moral principles are also derived from human reason. According
to Kant, reason commands and we must obey it without questioning.
 Moral codes or maxims derived from one's reason are universal, absolute, and immutable
which make them duty-bound that necessarily demand action. This is what Kant calls as
"Categorical Imperative". It means that all universal maxims derived from reason are
precisely must to do maxims.
 Kant offer two formulas for his "Categorical Imperative”. The first formulation is the
"Universalizability Principle". It says that "act only in accordance to a maxim by which you
can at the same time will that is shall become a universal law". Any codes or maxims can
only be considered "universal moral maxims" once it has been deliberated thoroughly by
reason as universal one.
 The second formulation is the "Humanity Principle". It says that "act in such a way that you
always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never
simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end".
 Utilitarian ethics is a consequentialist theory which measures the morality of an action
based on the consequences and not on the motive or intention of the moral agent.
 For the utilitarian thinkers, it is greatly important to consider the outcomes of the action
and mere intentions are irrelevant.
 Jeremy Bentham is considered the father of utilitarianism. His idea or version of
utilitarianism is summarized into three points. First, the basis of measure for the morality
of an action is the consequences it produced. Second, the amount of pleasure produced is
what really matters. Third, the number of people being affected should also be considered
in determining the amount of pleasure being produced.
 In Felicific Calculus, the morality of an action is determined by the amount of pleasure it
produces minus the amount of pain it also produces. If the amount of pleasure is greater
than the amount of pain, the action is said to be good. But if the amount of pain is greater
than the amount of pleasure, then action is said to be bad.
 Bentham elaborated further that in determining the amount of pleasure or pain being
produced, we need to look into the following: (1) intensity of the pleasure or pain
produced; (2) duration of pleasure or pain; (3) frequency of occurrence of pleasure or pain;
(4) time of occurrence in which pleasure or pain will be realized soon.
 The final position of Bentham in determining if the action is good or bad is based on this:
"Good action is an action that produces the greatest amount of pleasure to the greatest
number of people"
 The mental pleasure refers to the intellectual, spiritual, and moral pleasures. The physical
pleasure is animalistic or beastly pleasure. Mental pleasure is the superior pleasure in
which it gives man a dignity when being pursued.
 Mill refers his idea of happiness to these mental pleasures. Happiness pursues mental
pleasures. Thus, happiness for Mill is qualitive in nature in a sense that it is not can bound
for quantification.
 Justice as fairness framework focuses on how much justice should be distributed that would
yield fairness for those who have more and those who have less in life.
 John Rawls based his theory on the hypothetical ground of the "social contract theory".
 In the "Original Position", two moral principles were derived in the process. The first
principle states that each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive scheme of
equal basic liberties compatible with similar scheme of liberties of others. This is basically
the principle of equality wherein all members of the society should have equal rights and
liberties. These equal rights and liberties refer to the political condition of every citizens.
 The second principle states that "social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that
they are both reasonably expected to be to everyone's advantage and attached to positions
and offices s open to all". The second principle is the principle of difference. This means
that socio-economic inequalities in a society must be arrange that favors the disadvantage
in order to have an equal play in the economic field.
 The concern of an ethical society and of the individual person should be towards the care
and support of its most disadvantage citizens, as they are the ones who are least able to
defend and speak for themselves.
 This is also a duty-oriented position which it establishes the duty of moral equality. Such
moral equality cannot be bargained away regardless of social interest or the welfare of the
society as a whole.

Assessment which is align to the Intended Learning Outcomes

As you have read the all text discussions above, tell me what you think about this matter.

1.) Explain on how our emotions are of great help for morality to be possible.

_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________

2.) Explain moral courage as fuel morality.

_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________

3.) Explain ethics as a moral norm.

_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________

4.) Explain natural law ethics as a moral norm.

_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________

5.) Explain deontological law ethics as a moral norm.

_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________

6.) Explain utilitarian ethics as a moral norm.

_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
7.) Explain “justice as fairness” as a moral norm.

_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________

8.) Analyze the given moral issue. Use the seven steps model of moral decision making with the
applicable moral principles and make a decision.

The given case is (St. Scholastic vs Leus). Cheryll was hired by St. Scholastica’s College
Westgrove (SSCW), a Catholic educational institution. She was a non-teaching personnel. She
was engaged in pre-marital sexual relations in which she got pregnant out of wedlock. She got
married to the father of her child. But sadly, she was dismissed by SSCW, in that order.

Circumstances of her case:

 Cheryll and her boyfriend conceived a child out of wedlock.

 When SSCW learned of the petitioner’s pregnancy, Sr. Edna advised her to file a
resignation letter effectively. In response, the petitioner informed Sr. Quiambao that
she would not resign from her employment just because she got pregnant without the
benefit of marriage.
 Sr. Edna dismissed Edna and maintained that pre-marital sexual relations, even if
between two consenting adults without legal impediment to marry, is considered a
disgraceful and immoral conduct or a serious misconduct, which are grounds for the
termination of employment.

Apply the Seven Steps Model of Moral Decision / Judgment:

Gather facts:

___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________

Identify Stakeholders:

___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
Articulate Dilemma:

____________________________ __________________________
VERSUS

__________________________ ________________________

___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________

List the Alternatives:

 ________________________________________________________________________
 ________________________________________________________________________
 ________________________________________________________________________

Compare Alternatives with the Principles:

Alternatives Principle A Principle B

___________________ _____________________
___________________ _____________________
 Weight Consequences:

Moral Choices Positive Consequences Negative Consequences

Make a Decision: (What can you say about the decision of the school? Is the school had acted on
sound decision?)

_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________

Output of Module 2: This is aligned to the Intended Learning Outcomes

You are required to make a power point presentation of your moral case analysis. Search any
moral case literature in different ethics books or in the internet. Try to analyse the case using the
seven steps model of moral decision making including with the principles applied. Your ppt
presentation should be submitted together with the output of this module.
References:

Anderson, A. K. (2007). Feeling emotional: the amygdala links emotional perception and
experience. Social cognitive and affective neuroscience, 2(2), 71-72

Bulaong, Oscar Jr., & Calano, Mark Joseph T., & Lagliva, Albert M., & Mariano, Michael Ner E., &
Principe, Jesus Deogracias Z. (2018). Ethics Foundations of Moral Valuation. Manila: Rex Book
Store.

Cohen, Stephen. (2004). The Nature of Moral Reasoning: The Framework and Activities of Ethical
Deliberation, Argument, and Decision-Making. Australia: Oxford University Press

Curzer, Howard I (1999), Ethical Theory and Moral Problems. Canada: Wadsworth Publishing
Company

Donaldson, Thomas (1986). Issues in Moral Philosophy. USA: McGraw-Hill Inc.

Gallinero, Winston B., & Morte, Arnel A., & Salado, Fritzie B., & Fernandez, Guiraldo Jr., Villaroya, Al
Franjon M., & Enaya, Beljun P., & Fernandez, Errol C., & Balotol, Ruben Jr (2018). Ethics. Malabon
City Mutya Publishing House Inc

Haidt, J. (2003). The moral emotions. In R.J Davidson, K.R. Scherer, & H.H. Goldsmith (Eds.).
Hockenbury, D. H., & Hockenbury, S. E (2010). Discovering Psychology. New York, NY: Worth
Publishers.

Leaño, Roman Jr., & Gubia-on, Arthur B. (2018) Ethics for College Students. Manila: Mindshapers
Co. Inc

Moga, Michael D. (2010). Towards Authentic Morality. Mandaluyong City, Philippines National
Book Store.

Moll, J., & de Oliveira-Souza, R. (2007). Moral judgments, emotions and the utilitarian brain.
Trends in cognitive sciences, 11(8), 319-321.

Peschke, Karl H. (2007). Christian Ethics: Moral Theology in the Light of Vatican II. Manila,
Philippines: Logos Publication Inc.

Roa, Floriano C. (2011). Business Ethics and Social Responsibility. Second Edition. Quezon City,
Philippines: Rex Bookstore Inc.

Salibay, Esteban Ir. (2013). Christian Morality in Contemporary Society: A Worktext and Textbook
for College Students. Quezon City, Philippines: C & E Publishing Inc.
Tangney, J., Stuewig, J., & Mashek, D. (2007). Moral emotions and moral behaviour. Annual
Review of Psychology, 58, 345-72