Moral Assumptions

(Foundation of Morality)
Introduction
Certain assumptions are essential in ethics. Acts are considered moral or immoral, ethical
or unethical, acceptable or unacceptable because of these assumptions. These assumptions are
necessary because without them, no moral valuation can be passed on to certain acts. Here, we
speak of reason and freedom as necessary assumption of moral valuation. Acts can only be judged
to be moral or immoral, ethical or unethical when these assumptions are present. Their absence
makes these acts morally or ethically valueless. In some references, moral assumptions are referred
to as the elements of morality. This means that without reason, freedom and voluntariness an act
is not moral or ethical.

What are assumptions and what makes them so important? To illustrate their meaning and
significance, let us take the example of my duty to do my work. It is assumed that when I report
to work that I will be doing my job. The company or organization that hired me assumes that I will
perform the tasks for which I was hired. For that reason, the company pays me for the services I
render to it. The company assumes that I am doing my job. If it does not, there is no reason for it
to keep me and pay me. Assumption is therefore based on the belief that I am doing my job whether
or not it is true that I am doing it. The significance of that assumption is that the company pays my
salary. Because if it does not, it has ceased to believe that I am doing my task or the assumption
no longer stands to be true. Let us see why assumptions are necessary components of morality or
ethics.

Learning Outcomes
1. Define moral assumption;
2. Identify the assumptions of ethics or morality; and
3. Distinguish the differences among moral or ethical, immoral or unethical and amoral.

Activating Prior Learning

Decide whether the situation below suggests moral implication.
Suppose, the children in the neighborhood are playing one morning. As is the case when
children play, they end up quarrelling. Suppose a boy pushes a playmate who falls down and starts
to bleed immediately. With this scenario, consider whether the boy who pushed the playmate is
morally responsible or not. Articulate your reaction. Commented [J1]: This doesn’t fit as APL. It should be
rephrased like this – DO YOU RECALL THAT WHEN YOU
WERE CHILDREN, QUARRELS HAPPENED DURING OR AFTER
A GAME. HAVE YOU OR YOUR FRIENDS EXPERIENCED BEING
SHOVED OR PUSHED AND FELL. IS THERE MORAL
RESPONSIBILITY OF THE PERSON WHO PUSHED? In this way
the task is activation prior knowledge or learning. FOLLOW
THIS GUIDE IN ALL LESSON’S APL
 Presentation of Contents
One crucial assumption in making moral valuation of certain acts and ascribing moral
responsibility to a moral agent is reason. Reason is the first element of a human act. We
assume that any person is a thinking being. By that, he or she is aware of the purpose of his or her
action. Furthermore, this assumption is also true about the consequences of such action. Meaning,
the person is also aware of the effects of the act. In other words, the person can make judgment
whether an action is right or wrong. Through reason, one can assess the rightness or the wrongness
of an act.

By this, we understand that it is not possible to ascribe moral responsibility to a child who
is way below the age of reason. The child cannot make a judgment whether his or her act is right
or wrong. By the same token, we cannot judge the action of an insane person as right or wrong
because the person has no way of evaluating the rightness or the wrongness of his or her act.
Reason, therefore, is essential before we can ascribe moral valuation to any act or any moral
responsibility to the doer of the act. Hence, only acts performed with deliberation or performed by
anyone who knows the consequences of the act are moral or ethical acts.

When reason cannot be ascribed to such acts, absolutely no moral implication is applicable.
One can get so mad over an act performed by 3-year old child but we are in no position to ascribe
to the child any form of moral or ethical guilt or responsibility. Reason therefore is absolutely
required or is assumed to be a basis for declaring the rightness or wrongness of an act.

Second element or assumption is freedom. It is considered an important element in making

moral valuation and without which, no amount of reasoning can justify the ethical value of an act.
We say, moral action can only emanate from individuals who act according to their choice or free
will to do good. Moral valuation and moral responsibility cannot therefore be ascribed to actions
devoid of the freedom to act and as such they are not qualified as moral action. Forcing someone
to do an act will not make the person morally responsible for the action taken. For instance, forcing
someone to contract marriage, this individual may later separate from the partner. Should the
person act on that possibility, his action is without moral implication and is free to act on it because
there was no marriage at all that took place since the person was forced under the threat of being
killed or for any other reason.

An act is considered human act with moral responsibility when it is undertaken on the
basis of free choice or with a sense of freedom. Without the element of freedom, no amount of
explanation can declare someone morally responsible over the act.
 Summary
Filipinos easily blame others for certain actions committed. We have the commonly used
expression: “Kasalanan mo ang nangyari.” (What happened was your fault.) Analyzing such
accusation, we realize that it has some tone of moral valuation or judgment. Kasalanan is sin and
in the Filipino context, the utilization of the word is ethically loaded with strong religious
connotation. A person who commits sin has a moral responsibility and has also offended God not
only another person to whom the moral agent has done something wrong. A person who is accused
in these terms, may finally end up accepting not only that he or she is at fault but more significantly,
accepts that he or she, is a bad person if he/she will use the catholic equivalent of moral significance
and does not conform to God’s law or commandments.

Based on the discussion above, there is a need to be extra cautious about accusing someone
to have committed a sin or is morally guilty even when evidences favor it. To ascertain the full
implication of any accusation, there is a need to clarify it vis-a-vis the two moral assumptions of
reason and freedom. Too often, Filipinos make others suffer from moral and religious perspectives
when it should not be the case because the act is not grounded on the assumptions of reason and
freedom.

One who acts with complete or deliberate reason and freedom or voluntariness has
the full moral responsibility of the consequences of his actions.

Assessment
Short Answer Question. Answer briefly the following. Commented [J2]: Assessments like this one should have
an accompanying rubric scoring guide so that the students
would know how they are evaluated. THIS GUIDE SHOULD
1. Without freedom can someone be considered morally responsible to his moral actions
BE FOLLOWED IN EVERY ASSESSMENT TASK THAT REQUIRE
and decisions? Explain why or why not? DIVERGENT ANSWERS

2. Mr. X is a young lad but has proven medically to be mentally ill. Due to hardship
in life, his parents could not afford to bring him to the mental hospital for further
treatment. One day, Mr. X was standing at their front yard and Miss Y, a young beautiful
student passed by. Mr. X suddenly grabbed the lady on her long hair causing the
lady to stumble and had her knees injured. Is Mr. X. morally responsible for his
action towards Miss Y? Explain.

3. Boy X is a three year old naughty boy. He happened to break an expensive jar
in the National Museum considered to be a precious artefact by the curators/ museum
authorities. Now, people are confuse about the situation. Is the boy morally
accountable for his action? Why? How about the parents? Why?

4. Mr. X is found guilty of committing murder. After he was placed under

psychological evaluation, as part of the standard investigation, the psychologist
found out that Mr. X was suffering from acute psychological disorder called paranoia.
 If you were to analyze his case, is Mr. X morally responsible for his action?
Why?

Reflection
Has it not been often the case that I am unforgiving to others and try not to understand their
situation? Am I not too judgmental especially to people who cannot defend themselves? Have I
given the full “ benefit of the doubt” to actions of others before making the judgment
on their actions?

The Minimum Requirement (Elements) of Morality:

Reason and Impartiality Commented [J3]: The lesson is very short. Integrate it in
the preceding or next lesson, where appropriate
 Introduction
Under certain situations, most people would almost always try to get most if not all the
benefits that they could possibly derive. When decisions are to be undertaken, they grab all
advantages for themselves and leave nothing to other people concerned because they claim it is
their right. Oftentimes decisions are one-sided by obstinately believing that we have all the rights
and others do not have. This is a biased or subjective way of looking for solutions to conflicts or
problems. People decide which is more favorable for them taking all the possible advantages and
never consider the interest of others who might be affected by the solutions arrived at.

The topic on the minimum requirement or conception of morality aims at helping people
to be objective in their decisions. This perspective requires the consideration of the interests of the
people who would be affected by any decision. Very often, an acceptable decision to all parties
that may be involved is difficult to reach because decisions only favor one party and not the others.
For instance, when siblings will have to divide their inheritance, the eldest desires always to get
the larger or the best of it. When dividing a property like land inheritance, the eldest among the
siblings would always want to apportion what is to his or her advantage and never to consider the
interests of the younger siblings. Alternatives in such a case are never fair and do not represent a
good solution. Fairness is difficult to achieve. Let us give it a try by considering reason and
impartiality.

Learning Outcomes

1. Express objectivity in decision making;

2. Analyze moral situations; and
3. Resolve conflicts or problems on the basis of moral obligation. Commented [J4]: THERE ARE NO ACTIVITIES THAT
FOLLOW THE LESSON TO DEVELOP OR MEASURE THESE
OBJECTIVES. WHAT FOLLOWS IS A SUMMARY

Activating Prior Learning

Give examples of conflict where people are not able to arrive at an equitable solution to a
problem or so called difficult situation that people do not know how to resolve it.

Presentation of Contents
Definitions do not make one instantly moral but it is by trying to be. To help us continue
in our journey to appropriate what is morally right and avoid what can possibly lead us to be just
the opposite; let us consider the “minimum conception of morality” by James Rachels (2003). He
says: “Morality is, at the very least, the effort 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
who will be affected by what one does.”

Rachels(2003) mentions two important things; reason and impartiality. When deciding, he
suggests that one should have a good reason or reasons for deciding so. A good reason is not one
that is one-sided or looks only at the interest of the one making the decision. “When I decide and
I look only at the advantages I get from my decision; it does not make me a better moral agent.”
He describes what it takes to be a better moral agent. He describes an enlightened moral agent as
a conscientious moral agent.

A conscientious moral agent according to him is the one who is concerned impartially.
That means someone who considers the interests of everyone affected by what one does or decides.
The conscientious moral agent takes every effort to carefully analyze every fact and examines their
implications and consequences if they will be acted upon; accepts principles of conducts only after
having scrutinized them to be sure that they are acceptable not only for the one deciding but
including everyone who will be affected by the decision later on. Further, Rachels insists that a
conscientious moral agent is the one who is willing “to listen to reason” which means that the
moral agent is willing to make changes or revise earlier conviction. Finally, the conscientious
moral agent is willing to act on the bases of such deliberations.

Summary
Learning to be impartial is too often difficult and painful because it implies the willingness
to give up some of our interests in favor of others’ interests. People cannot simply give up certain
advantages because they have been so used to it that losing them is unacceptable and would require
sometimes a radical change in their life.

For example, giving up a business enterprise which one has been managing for a long time
but legally does not belong to him or to her would not be easy. It would demand radical shift in
one’s life – habits, lifestyle, economic status, associations, security and even one’s identity.

To be impartial means “free from biases”. It is the readiness to re-examine facts and data
and willingness to re-consider past decisions and adopt new ones. To be able to achieve this, it
would necessitate appealing to reason. Only a rational person would be willing to change,
challenge traditions, consider one’s real duties and obligations and to be selfless in one’s
perspective and in making decisions. Like Rachels’s reflection, it would take a conscientious moral
agent who is willing to “listen to reason” and act accordingly.

Assessment
Answer the following questions shortly by starting with Yes, because …. and No,
because….
1. Is reason indispensable for an informed for moral decision?
__________________________________________________________________

2. Impartiality necessary to resolve conflicts?

__________________________________________________________________

3. And you apply impartiality when you are involved in a case?

________________________________________________________________ if
__________________________________________________________________

4. Mr. X and Mrs. Y are both illegal drug users. They both snatched from victims
in the public crowded places, transport and other possible avenues. Are they
morally accountable or not?
__________________________________________________________________

Reflection
Am I overwhelmed by my emotion too often and make decisions that are
unreasonable? Did I not put aside my education and make relentless pursuit even of the
innocent just to satisfy my desire to avenge or take advantage? Are not my decisions too
often inconsiderate and prejudicial or so bias of others? How can I be more reasonable
and fair in my own actions and of judging others’ actions.

Standards of Moral Valuation Based on the Self Commented [J5]: Comments on the preceding lesson
applies here

Introduction
 In the preceding discussions, it was clear that the standards we refer to when making moral
judgments originate from external sources – culture, rules, practices, authority, and the like. It
came out that outside references have been considered too strongly influence people’s decisions
and choices.

In this topic, the concern is to point out that not only external references do exist in making
moral valuations but also, there are moral valuations inspired by personal choices therefore
originating from a more subjective or internal point of view.

In fact, the new generation would feel very much that way. They would rather consider
their own thoughts and opinions when deciding on certain matters and less on what others might
say about what they think is right or wrong. They are freer and more independent. Or, perhaps they
would give importance to their feelings and emotions if they have to decide on something. That is
their natural way and they are quite known for that – the millennials. Whereas before when
traditions had strong influence on people, everybody was quite concerned about one’s reputation
in the community. People would always consider what people around them might say about their
decisions or about what they are going to do or are actually doing. Therefore, it is not impossible
to say that one should not rely on any external authority to tell oneself what standards of moral
valuations to follow, but we should instead turn inwards.

We look now into three theories about ethics that focus on the self: subjectivism,
psychological egoism and ethical egoism.

Learning Outcomes:
1. Identify the different subjective standards as frame of reference for moral valuation;
2. Analyze each of these subjective standards; and
3. Use these frame of references in decision making. Commented [J6]: There is no activity to develop or assess
this objective

Activating Prior Learning

In a small group, share your personal references or bases when making a decision? Are
there personal guides that help you come up with a stance or a decision?

Presentation of Contents
Bulaong Jr. et al. (2018) discussed the three senses of the self as these are presented below. Commented [J7]: Always have an introductory sentence
before presenting an author and the quoted material
1. Subjectivism
 It suggests that the individual thinking person is at the heart of all moral valuations. The
person is the one confronted with the situation and is burdened with the need to make decision or
judgment. From this point of view, subjectivism leaps to the more radical claim that the individual
is the sole determinant of what is morally good or bad, right or wrong. Bulaong Jr. et al. suggest
some clichés expressive of this mentality:
• “No one can tell me what is right and wrong.”
• “No one knows my situation better than myself.”
• “I am entitled to my own opinion.”
• “It is good, if I say that it is good.”

2. Criticism: There is something appealing about these statements because they seem to express
personal independence. But a closer look at these statements, reveal real problems of subjectivism.
It is probable that out of extreme situation and profound disappointment, people may possibly
console themselves with these clichés. But objectively; however, we may ask ourselves how many
times did we make decisions and found out that we were wrong. Or, we failed to recognize that
our experience is practically just a speck in comparison to the profoundness of the experience of
others. Or, if only we can be honest and humble enough, then we would admit that our opinions
are not as founded as the opinions of more mature people and less wiser than the opinion of the
most foolish among us. And that finally, we realize that the initial good/decision is not as good as
we thought it was.

1. Psychological Egoism
It is a theory that describes the underlying dynamic behind all human actions. As a descriptive
theory, it does not direct one to act in a particular way. Instead, it points out that by nature, humans
are self-interested and are after their own satisfaction and therefore in all their undertakings they
are ultimately looking for self-fulfillment and satisfaction, aware or unaware. As such, the ego or
self has its desires and interests and all actions are geared toward the satisfaction of these interests.
It would seem that there is no problem with this position if we consider actions done on a daily
basis: watch a movie, read books, entertain visitors, etc. It is acknowledged that we do things in
pursuit of some interests all the time. The question; however, is do we try to consider actions that
normally are directed toward others?

Consider for instance the act of generosity. The position of the psychological egoist is that he
or she would maintain that underlying such apparently other-oriented behavior is a self-interested
desire, even when it is not being acknowledged or that the doer is not conscious of it. Helping
another might seem an act of altruism. But the psychological egoist has inherent self-interest in
expressing an act of service. In the end, the act no matter how it appears to be other-oriented, it is
by nature an act that is self-serving.
2. Ethical Egoism
Ethical egoism differs from psychological egoism in that the latter does not suppose that
all actions undertaken are self-serving. But ethical egoism is a position that self-interest and
personal ends are the single overriding concern. Ethical egoism is totally driven by selfish motive
with no interest or concern for another. Actions are taken with the sole concern that the ultimate
benefit will be for the self. One considers oneself as the sole priority and does not allow any other
concern benefiting another. Ethical egoism is totally motivated by self-satisfaction and nothing
more.

Summary
There are certainly individuals who are influenced or work with the three senses of the self
– subjectivism, psychological egoism and ethical egoism. They work from the perspective of the
self. The self is their only point of reference in terms of their logic, choices, and decisions. There
can be no problem with this since it is normal that individuals think and plan according to their
needs, desires, their feelings or emotions and according to what they think is the right thing to do.
They plan according to what is pleasurable or what makes sense for them. However, the problem
with this is when people absolutize the self as their sole point of reference preventing them to see
things from others’ point of views.

The world is not only about our world. The world is also a “we-world” according to the
existentialist philosopher, Heidegger. He further explains that this “we-world” is to be understood
in the sense of “being-with-others-in-the-world.” It means that we are not alone in this world but
that we share the world with others. By so doing we transform it and as a consequence of that
collaboration, I am also transformed as well as the other. Mutual recognition and sharing makes
our existence more meaningful. More so, we include others now in our moral valuations, that
is, we become more considerate of the situation and more generous of the advantages and interests
of others.

The challenge therefore for people who view things only from their own perspective would
be to learn to accept others in their life and view things from this new perspective shared with
others. It would be something totally different if one could see and feel the world from another’s
point of view. Psychologists call this empathy, the ability of an individual to feel what others
subjectively feel. When one is capable of this, we become more understanding of the person
because we have understood him or her the way one understands oneself. With this, our judging
will no longer only be based from the perspective of the self but it will include the other’s
perspective.

Assessment
Categorize the following situations among the different senses of the self or
subjective standards. Choose the letter of your answer based on the following choices
and write it on the space before each item.
 A. Subjectivism B. Psychological Egoism C. Ethical Egoism

_________1. I know I am right at this one, no one else.

_________2. It is alright, I will lend you that much but you have to grant favor to my
requests.
_________3. People want always something in return to the service they render.
_________4. I will never get involved in politics. There is nothing I can get from it.
_________5. Nobody can really grasp the depth of the problem I am going through.
_________6. You are wasting your time and money; I will never join your organization for it has
nothing to offer me.
_________7. Those people pretending to be philanthropist want prestige, honor and glory.
_________8. Trust no one, trust only yourself!
_________9. No matter how you convince that they are good and sincere Christians, deep in their
hearts, they are afraid of going to hell that is why they give alms to the poor.
_________10. Nobody could convince her. She had the absolute idea that what she did was the
right one.

Reflection
Have I outgrown my childish perspective? Have I learned to see things from the perspective
of others? Am I ready and willing to accept others as they are and start a dialogue with them? Have
I been so self- centered, egoistic and selfish? What actions prove that I am such. What must
I begin to do now to improve myself. Am I ready to ask others’ opinion and conduct self-
introspection? Sing the Song Who Am I popularized by Gary Valenciano. Sing it. Then reflect
and write your answer to every line asking Who am I?

Unit 2