1

MIDTERM PRIMER

SUBJECT: SOCIAL FOUNDATIONS OF ETHICS

Term Outcomes:
 Emphasize the importance of ethics in dealing with practical social dilemma
 Relate the ideals and principles in ethics with the post-modern social realities of families
 Assess the relevance of consequentialism to human relations ethics
 Exhibit mastery in Asian/Oriental philosophy through the deliberation of Confucian ethics

TOPICS
1. The Concepts of Justice, Fairness, and Equality: Ethics for Future Parents and Spouses
2. Consequentialism and non-consequentialism: Ethics for Friendship and Acquaintances
3. The Golden Rule: Ethics on Community Engagement

PERFORMANCE TASK: Textual Analysis / Film Analysis

Goal : To exhibit mastery in literary analysis as applied in Philosophy and Ethics.

Skill/s Required : Social-analysis and Research
Integral Values : Sympathy and Self-expression

Methods:
1. Individually, select whether you submit a textual or film analysis.
2. For textual analysis, read Plato’s Allegory of the Cave
Link: X:\web\local\apache\services\xfer\39DFF1D6-6962-B880\CAVE.wpd (stanford.edu)
3. For film analysis, watch the movie Bar Boys
Link: https://youtu.be/UzvAKY6Xbno
4. Make a critique paper that should exhibit your reflective analysis relative to your chosen option.
Thus, it should contain the following parts:
a) Title of the Paper (ex.: A Post-modern Analysis on Plato’s Allegory of the Cave)
b) Background Information (what article/film is all about?)
c) Summary (a 1 paragraph discussion on the plot of the article/film)
d) Personal Reflections (a 3 paragraph discussion on the values gained through the article/film)
e) Impact to the Post-modern World (how would this film/article impact people in this era?)
f) Save your works in .doc format. Submit by turning in your file in Google Classroom. The
file should be named using this format: Name_Title_DegreeProgram.
Example: JuanDelaCruz_APostModernAnalysisonPlato’sAllegoryoftheCave_BSRT
5. Deadline shall be during the last day of Midterm Examination.

2
MODULE 4
THE CONCEPTS OF JUSTICE, FAIRNESS, & EQUALITY:
ETHICS FOR FUTURE PARENTS AND SPOUSES
Lvl. 4.1 - Zacynthus

In Greece, children usually stay with their families until they marry, and their grandparents
usually live with the family of their children until they die. There are very few retirement
homes in the country, and generally, you keep the family close.

Most Essential Learning Outcomes

At the end of this module, the learners are expected to:
 Give their own definition of Morality
 Apply principles discussed previously, in the conditions of morality
 Enhance previous knowledge relevant to the topic being discussed

Motivational Activity: Karen is a single mother of three. Maria, 10, is a smart, talented but
underachieving and petulant child. Greg, 12, is a hard-working, sweet boy who needs little attention to
remain an average student. Valerie, 14, was born with a debilitating chronic illness. Given constraints
upon her time, Karen has decided to divide her time equally amongst all three children.
Some questions to ask yourself:
1. What is fairness?
2. Is fairness the same as equality?
3. Which is more important, equality or equity?
4. Are fairness or equality useful concepts for a family to consider?
5. How do you decide which child should most benefit?
6. How do you measure benefit
7. How do you decide which child should make the greatest sacrifice?
8. How do you measure harm?
9. Do you think Karen did the moral thing?

INTRODUCTION

Social Ethics: How to Live in the Modern World

Moral philosophy is concerned with determining the virtues and reasons behind ethics. Laws are
the practical, political, and codified applications of those ethics. Between those two systems are social
ethics, the formal name for the moral standards, norms, and unofficial code of conduct that’s expected
from a person in the world, or in one’s particular society, culture, or community.
Social ethics are built on the shared values of many. But social values are different from those
individual values. Individual values are virtues that each person seeks out for oneself, and they can be
as varied as the person. These personal values don’t necessarily become social values, nor do they
become part of the framework that is social ethics. This is because of the intent of the value itself.
Individual values, while virtuous and good (bravery, courage, and integrity are all examples) merely
benefit the individual, or at least frame how that individual should lead his or her individual life. Social
values, by contrast, are explicitly concerned with the welfare of others. The drive to help others—or
even the abstract idea of “other people”—is what makes a value a social value. Having those social
values in mind affects an individual’s thoughts and behaviors. Individuals then take on these ethics, and
that, in turn, helps build the social ethics of a society.

3
How Social Ethics are Created
Obligations to others in a community is what drives social ethics. We have an obligation to help
others, be they less fortunate or not, because sharing fuels society. Each of us is a part of society, and
as we enjoy the benefits of living in that society, we are obligated to take part in it to help it function. Part
of that is sharing, either directly via giving money or food to the less fortunate, for example, or indirectly,
by using each of our unique talents and abilities to prop up one another, so that we may help society
both operate and progress. Social accountability also factors into social ethics. Because we each have
a role, we are trusted to fulfill that role, and thus we are accountable for our actions. This relationship
between individual and society is precious and fragile, because other people are counting on you and
your contributions to help make society hum. A refusal to play a part affects others—and it’s unethical to
impinge the happiness of others or to prevent them from living their best life.
While every society or culture has its ethical standards, how are these created or developed over
time? Some factors include dominant religious beliefs, economic factors, and practicality. These
prevailing social values are the ones that help a society meet its goals, particularly those that relate to
peace and prosperity. Governmental organizations then respond to emerging norms by setting laws
based on prevailing ethical standards. This can be a difficult task, however, as some of the more
controversial topics in modern society are controversial specifically because their ethical nature is not
clear-cut.
For the sake of comparison, take murder and assisted suicide. It’s a universal moral norm that an
individual taking the life of another human is wrong. But what about assisted suicide? There are several
moral factors that complicate the issue. Some may find it extremely ethical to help another person
achieve his or her goal—of ending a life beset with pain and sickness—out of the belief that humans
should control their own destiny. Others may liken the practice to murder, because they believe that
humans don’t have the right to determine when life ends. Both are legitimate arguments within the field
of ethics, but the laws about assisted suicide vary from place to place. In this instance, it is up to those
in charge of the jurisdiction to consciously respond to the dominant moral opinions of the community
and set the law that best reflects those concerns. This is how social ethics become laws and thus
become ingrained as moral or ethical norms.

LESSON INPUTS

Karen’s Problem: Choosing between talent, need and goodness

Karen's problem is impossibly difficult. It is parent's bad dream. But as extreme as this appears,
it is common variation that many a parent face when making out a will. Every choice has it proponents,
each choice its critics.
This vignette raises some of the most perplexing issues in all of moral philosophy. It pits three
interests — that of the talented, the needy and the average — against one another and asks us to
decide what is the fair way to divide our time and resources. While posed in terms of domestic
considerations, the issues it addresses apply to the larger world as well. A school board, for example,
has a budget and must decide whether to spend its money on average students (the largest number),
talented students (those who may make the largest contribution to society) or handicapped students
(who, per capita, are the most expensive to educate).

Those In Need: The difference between can’t and won’t

Since biblical times people have been instructed to care for those in need, the orphaned and the
widowed. But this can't mean all orphans and all widows. There’s the old joke about a man who kills his
parents and then asks mercy from the court because he is an orphan. Only a ludicrously strict reading of
the injunction would move a court to such pity. The widow from a wealthy family who has no financial
worries does not require special consideration in terms of money. If orphans and widows need special
attention it is because, generally, they are vulnerable, particularly in traditional societies in which nearly

4
all means of support are out of their control. When the husband and father died, wives and children had
to depend upon the goodwill of others for their survival.
This concept of caring for the needy has been extended over the centuries to include, amongst
others, people who are poor, unemployed and disabled. The question of how far to spread welfare and
who is to be supported by it remains a difficult matter of public policy. Social policy debates over
revamping New Deal and Great Society legislation have revolved around, including the most recent
Social Amelioration Program of our Government, at least in part, the following questions:
 Do you support all the poor or only the deserving poor?
 How do you define "deserving" and how do you determine if the person deserves society's
support or not?
 Does making an effort count?
 What about those who can't make an effort, or is it the case that everyone can make an
effort no matter how limited they may be?
 Who is handicapped and how much does a society need to do in attempting to make the
environment handicapped-accessible?
Knowing when someone is making a real effort is no easy matter. Sometimes we can't tell
ourselves whether we are lazy or whether something else is interfering with our will power. For example,
if you are sick and didn't do much for about a week. You didn’t know if this was because you didn’t feel
like working or because you wasn’t able to work. The dividing lines between lack of motivation, physical
enervation and depression were blurred. Maybe we are using the illness as an excuse to get out of
doing some unpleasant chores. Maybe we just wanted a good reason to get away from some
responsibilities.
If we couldn't tell the difference between "can't" and "won't" about ourselves, how nearly
impossible to tell about another. But this is the kind of judgment you do make about those who depend
upon us. And it is this sort of question that Karen faces in an immediate way. There are three people
who are reliant upon her in varying degrees. She feels responsible for all and has responded to them by
giving each an equal amount of time.
Karen could have reached her decision for one of two reasons: out of sheer despair in trying to
find a better way to handle the demands or a belief that fairness means absolute equality.
From one point of view, an equal division of time between all concerned is unfair. For example,
Karen probably would not think that the best way to feed her family is by giving each an equal portion of
food. Some people need to eat more than others, some have higher metabolism rates. Likewise, she
may also choose to reward one with a treat because he or she helped in a special way. It is unfair to
treat people differently for arbitrary reasons, such as simple dislike, but there may well be good reasons
to treat people unalike as a matter of fairness.

Merit: What a person deserves

One way to analyze Karen's decision is to distinguish between need and merit. All three need
Karen but for different reasons. Children need a parent's attention and affection. The children, however,
are different from one another. Maria is intelligent and talented. She is also a pain in the neck. I guess
that if you ask Maria what she wants from her mother, she might say, "To be left alone." However, Karen
shouldn't give Maria only what she wants for it may not be in her daughter's interests in the long-run.
Besides, wants are complex, especially so for an almost-teenager. If Karen were to leave her alone,
Maria's talents may remain dormant. This would be unfair to the Maria who isn’t yet, the adult
Maria-to-be. Maria's real need, therefore, is to be encouraged, coaxed and cajoled by her mother, to be
supported to overcome her petulance and develop both her mind and her talents. She deserves Karen’s
attention not because she merits it based upon what she does but because of who she is, that is, she is
Karen’s daughter.
Greg, you are told, is a likable kid. He is hard-working but lacks Maria's abilities. Unlike his sister,
Greg is a hard-worker. Despite this, he his school grades are mediocre. His mother's encouragement

5
wouldn't make much of a difference. He simply lacks his sister's potential. Maria's ability, however, are
latent. By objective measurements used in school, Greg surpasses his sister. But no matter how hard
his mother works with him he will never be more than an average student. However, neglecting him isn’t
an ethical choice since he is as deserving as Maria, for the same reason, mainly, he is Karen’s child.
At the same time, you can say he deserves more from Karen than does Maria because his
efforts should be rewarded. He has taken responsibility for himself in the way that Maria has not. From
one point of view, he should be rewarded for acting responsibly. That would mean giving less to Maria.
There is another child in this family. Valerie is disabled. She didn’t cause her condition. She
doesn’t deserve her lot. She is a victim of circumstances. If she doesn’t receive extraordinary attention,
she will always have something less than a full life. However, to give her what she needs in order to
reach an acceptable level means taking something away from the other two children, who are deserving
in their own right.

Merit: The relationship to being good

If Karen were to give her attention based upon personal likes and dislikes, she probably would
give the least to Maria. Maria is, after all, a difficult child. Greg, on the other hand, is earnest and Valerie
can’t help but elicit a strong sense of sympathy. If Karen were to give more attention to the one that
could use it the most, it would probably be Maria since the extra effort is likely to lead to greater results.
She, after all, has untapped talent and intelligence. In so doing, she would be penalizing Greg since he
would lose his mother's attention relative to his sister through no fault of his own. Furthermore, Maria
gets the additional time only because of an unfulfilled potential, not through a deserving effort. Although
Greg tries hard and his sister does not, she would get more from his mother than he does. Valerie would
also suffer.
This vignette echoes the parable of the prodigal son found in the Christian bible. In this story, a
older brother leaves home upon receiving his share of his father's property. Through foolish spending
and debauchery, he becomes penniless. Repenting his ways, he returns to his father's home, asking
forgiveness. His father gives him a robe, a ring, shoes and slaughter's a sheep on his behalf. The
younger son, seeing this, becomes angry since he had remained loyal to his father. He complained that
despite his steadfastness, he never received such treatment from his father. The father answers by
explaining that the older son had always been with him but the younger was as good as dead but now is
alive again.
The parable stands for God's forgiveness of sinners. But from a moral point of view, it is
questionable. It seems to say that those who are a constant can be taken for granted; those who stray
and return will be showered with love. But why should Greg lose his mother's attention because Maria is
indolent? At the same time, Maria may have a greater need for her mother's attention. She may have a
greater psychological need than Greg — more unsure of herself, more confused, more vulnerable.
There is no way to really know, without understanding more of the history and dynamics of the family
life.
Greg merits more of Karen's attention if merit is measured by being a good person. Maria merits
more of Karen's attention is merit is measured in terms of potentialities. And Valerie deserves the most
attention is merit is measured in terms of need. Greg is now getting enough from his mother, but Maria
could use more. Maria, therefore, is needier than Greg. But Greg's needs may grow if time is diverted to
his sister. Like the elder son in the biblical parable, Greg may turn resentful. In order to mollify his hurt
feelings, Karen would then have to turn her attention once more to her son.
What moral guidance can anyone give Karen? I’m not sure. She is faced with a choice: one child
has to be sacrificed in order to save another. Given these complexities, Karen's decision is a fair one,
although mechanical. Love, affection and care can't be toted up as in a ledger. But time is an objective
measure by which she can keep herself on track. Although she may do better if she concerned herself
less with the clock, it does provide her with a helpful structure. The claims of equality and considerations
of need and merit are difficult matters both conceptually and practically. Philosophers, politicians and
social scientists struggle with them. Karen's solution, I believe, is fair. Other decisions are possible and

6
could also be viewed as fair. What makes this anecdote so difficult is that each of the three competing
claims are legitimate and each in its own right demands consideration.

CONCLUSION

Justice, Fairness, and Equality: In Classical Perspective

Plato’s most influential work in his “middle dialogues” era is The Republic. It’s a book about justice,
both in an ideal government and an ideal individual. It begins with a Socratic conversation about the
nature of justice before continuing into a lengthy discussion of the cardinal virtues of justice, wisdom,
courage, and moderation—both in the individual and the whole of society.
He tied ethics into the political sphere, such was the importance of it to the government-centric,
close-knit city state of Athens. To Plato, ethics were crucial to the concept of justice at the political level.
He held that just individuals made up a just society, and that both should be driven by three main virtues:
temperance, wisdom, and courage. These first three, when properly developed and balanced, result
then the fourth virtue: justice.
Partially to explain what a just individual might strive for, Plato used The Republic to demonstrate
the notion of a just city, or Kallipolis, for the sake of comparison. In this model the city is split into three
classes:
• Guardians: These are the rulers of Kallipolis. To Plato a ruler must be someone whose chief
concern is justice and truth, and who has learned more essential knowledge along the way than
someone in any other class. By this, Plato means that only philosophers are truly qualified to rule.
• Auxiliaries: The warrior or military class, tasked with defending the city from invading enemies
and with keeping the peace inside the city.
• Producers: The largest class of society, it’s what today we’d call the working class or the
middle class. Plato includes here everybody who isn’t a ruler or a warrior, everyone from doctors to
artists to judges to craftsmen. They are so named because they produce goods and services.

In an individual person, each of these classes corresponds to a part of his or her soul. The
Guardians are wise and all-knowing, so they are reason personified. Spirit, which means the mind’s
emotional systems and impulses, goes along with the reactive and regulatory Auxiliary. Producers
correlate to the appetitive, because both are about propagation, either of the city or the self. As justice in
the city results from the ideal balance of all three classes living together (although under the rule of the
Guardians), so too does Plato view individual justice, or harmony, as the different soul parts living in
proper balance, but with reason ruling above all.

“There are three classes of men; lovers of wisdom,

lovers of honor, and lovers of gain.”

—Plato

SUMMARY:
 Social ethics are built on the shared values of many. But social values are different from those
individual values. Individual values are virtues that each person seeks out for oneself, and they can
be as varied as the person.
 To Plato, ethics were crucial to the concept of justice at the political level. He held that just
individuals made up a just society, and that both should be driven by three main virtues:
temperance, wisdom, and courage.

7
MODULE 5
CONSEQUENTIALISM AND NON-CONSEQUENTIALISM:
ETHICS ON FRIENDSHIP AND ACQUAINTANCES
Lvl. 4.2 - Zacynthus

The whole Greece has more than 250 days of sun on average. That’s more than 3000
sunny hours per year. Some islands even see around 300 days of sun per year!

Most Essential Learning Outcomes

At the end of this module, the learners are expected to:
 Emphasize ethics as the vital ground for friendship
 Apply principles discussed previously, in the conditions of human relations
 Enhance previous knowledge relevant to the topic being discussed

Motivational Activity: Brad and Kevin are good friends. They both enjoy running. However, there is
only one opening on the school track team. Brad, the far superior of the two runners, decides not to try
out because he knows that if he does, Kevin won’t make the team, and he knows how important it is to
Kevin to make the team.
Some questions to ask yourself
1. Should friends compete with one another?
2. In your scale of values, how important is friendship?
3. Is friendship a more important value than success?
4. How do you define success?
5. Did Brad make the right moral choice?

INTRODUCTION

Consequentialist Ethics: An Overview

Consequentialism is one of the main ethical theories of the past few hundred years. Very generally
put, it stresses that the focus of an ethical matter and its ethical weight resides on the person, or agent,
by way of that person’s actions or consequences. In other words, this focus and weight lead to
quantifiably useful or generally positive ends, such as the well-being of humans and animals.
There are a few different kinds of consequentialism. One of them is found in the broad school of
thought called utilitarianism. Very generally put, utilitarianism states that morality is about maximizing
the most pleasure and minimizing the most pain as much as possible. A utilitarian is someone who
believes that it’s important to act in an ethical fashion to spread happiness, relieve suffering, create
freedom, or help humanity thrive and survive, or any one of these notions. Further, that person feels a
moral obligation to do so, and that the outcome is always more important than the intent.
Another type of consequentialist moral philosophy is rule consequentialism, also called rule
utilitarianism. Rule consequentialism follows all the same ideas of consequentialism, but with a
backbone or framework of a legal system or ethical code. For example, the right action among several
choices has been laid out within the ethical system already, and therefore has been accepted as a
moral truth by the community, because it provides the best possible outcome. This is seen a lot in
lawmaking and law enforcement. For example, a community may think it is moral to make bank robbers
perform community service work because it helps the community—that is, this service work provides a
societal benefit beyond just a jail sentence.

8
 In opposition to rule utilitarianism is the bit more theoretical, less practical, and more pensive style
of consequentialist moral philosophy called act utilitarianism. In this school, an agent’s moral action is
right if, and only if, it produces at least as much happiness as another choice that the agent could have
chosen. This one is a bit more subjective, because how does one weigh out the happiness of theoretical
actions?
There’s also the matter of ethical altruism. Like other kinds of utilitarianism, ethical altruism is
consequence-minded and -oriented. This philosophy judges that the best moral acts are the ones that
lead to the most happiness for others—but only others. Happiness comes at the detriment of the agent,
and this is the most moral act possible. It’s all about the happiness of others at the complete and total
sacrifice of one’s own happiness.

LESSON INPUTS

The Problem: Competition vs. Friendship

Friendship requires certain qualities — generosity, forgiveness, sincerity and loyalty amongst
them. These traits are necessary for sustained, close relationships. But society often expects different
values from us. In order to succeed, you need a minimum level of ambition and the willingness to
compete. But what happens when these two sets of values find themselves present in the same place
at the same time?
When I heard this story about Kevin and Brad, I thought about the two Roman philosophers and
friends, Damon and Pythias. Pythias was sentenced to die because of his plot against the life of King
Dionysius of Syracuse. However, he wanted to arrange family matters before his execution, so his
friend Damon persuaded the king to hold him prisoner in his friend’s stead. “If Pythias doesn’t come
back, take my life instead,” he told the king. The day of the execution arrived and Damon prepared
himself for death when, at the last moment, Pythias returned. Dionysius was so moved by the friends’
willingness to die for each other that he pardoned Pythias and begged to become part of their
philosophical circle.
Perhaps Kevin’s coach will take his cue from Dionysius and find a place for both friends on the
team. But you know that won’t happen. After all, Damon and Pythias lived 2,400 years ago. Times have
changed. Besides, no one knows if the story is even true. The real world, I'm told, doesn't work that way
at all. Friends don’t offer their lives for one another; friends don’t give up places on teams because their
friends want it more than they do. Each person should do the best that he can and let the
friendship-chips fall where they will. The right thing to do is to try your best. It is wrong to give up your
place, your reward, to someone who isn’t as good as you are. Being good means doing your best. It has
nothing to do with a good person.

Male and Female Values

Yet you all recognize that friendship is an important value. Our lives would be poorer without a
good friend. And most of us would really value a friend who was willing to give us a gift and would be
honored if the gift were heartfelt. So what happens when the value of friendship clashes with the values
of success and competition? What happens to someone like Brad, who wants to be a good friend, a
good person in the second sense of the word, that is, he is loyal to his friend. Brad is genuinely a “nice”
guy in the fullest sense of that word. Leo Dorocher gave the his answer when he said, “Good guys finish
last.” New York Times sports columnist Harvey Araton once wrote, “Monuments and trophy cases are
built faster for jocks who score than for champions of virtue.” Dorocher may not reflect everyone’s
attitude towards winning, Females seem to have a different approach says Diana Nyad, a former world
champion swimmer and now radio commentator on a National Public Radio in the US. “Most male
coaches of male youth teams need the win too badly to play the inferior kids when the big game is on
the line.” Nyad says. “On the other hand, most female coaches of female youth teams deem it more
important for every girl on the team to play some part.” Nyad continues, “For women, sports have meant
freedom — freedom from the constricting Victorian garb, freedom from the shackles of perpetual

9
pregnancy, freedom to get an education. For men, sports have meant a proving grounds for
comparative worth within the society.”
When Nyad looks at the situation here, she says, “Brad has engaged in a traditionally female
approach and behavior. If he had taken the traditional male approach, he would have considered the
record of his school first. The track team — and the good name of his school — would have received
more honors within the community, a better chance for quality recruitment, and more respect within the
school itself, had Brad participated instead of Kevin.”
It is precisely for these reasons that I admire Brad so much. For him friendship is more important
than sports. That he chooses friendship over competition and success is what I find so appealing about
his decision.

Quality, Efficiency and Human Relations

So Leo Dorocher’s sentiment may be popular only amongst males. It also may be factually
incorrect. Not only may there be no conflict between being nice and being successful, but being
successful may have something to do with being nice. Let’s take a look at business. Studies done of
organizations indicate that generally three factors contribute to the success of any business, group or
association: quality, efficiency and decent human relations. All three are needed in varying degrees,
depending upon the nature of the group. It isn't merely that someone can do or make the best (he may
also be obsessively meticulous and plodding) or can turn out the most (she may be sloppy). The third
factor is the intangible human one, the chemistry between people, the ambiance that makes people
want to be there. People have to work well together, treat one another more-or-less decently and feel an
important part of the over-all effort. This is why a good personnel officer who keeps employees relatively
happy and satisfied often turns out to be a key to a company’s long-term success.
A number of years ago, in the professional basketball draft, the country's most talented player
was nearly the last taken. Despite his impressive statistics and demonstrated ability in college, he had a
reputation for being difficult, egotistical, moody and emotionally erratic. It wasn't that the pros thought he
wouldn't produce for them but that his presence on the team would be so disruptive that he would be a
liability, not an asset. His temper tantrums almost outweighed his considerable athletic prowess, as far
as the NBA was concerned. This really has nothing to do with ethics, for the ultimate value is still
winning. You see this when violent, racist players stay around because they contribute to the team’s
successes, despite their unethical antics.

Giving Up One’s Life for Another

Brad doesn't give the coach the chance to choose for himself who best contributes to the team.
The Damon and Pythias legend is enduring and compelling because the friends were willing to die for
each other. Although nothing is more important than preserving life and none more valuable than one's
own, sometimes life is most honored by giving it up for someone else. Voluntarily dying for another is
exemplary. It does depend, however, upon particular circumstances.
I've wondered about such loyalty and have occasionally asked people what or who they are
willing to die for, the only consistent answer is: "My children." But even this response is hedged, subject
to contingencies. "It depends upon how old my children are," is the qualifier. "Sure I'd sacrifice my life
for my children at two or ten. But if they are twenty-five or thirty, I'm not so sure."
This reflects a cultural disposition, which expects parental sacrifice for the lives of little ones, but
contemporary society is far more lenient about expecting sacrificial acts for one's adult children. Indeed,
you think that there is something peculiar about parents who deny themselves pleasures in order to
support their thirty year-old son or daughter.
Sacrifice for the sake of friendship is different from family affairs. You make our friends, you can
quit whenever you want and there is nothing legally binding about the relationship. Families impose
enforceable duties but not so friendships. All that is found in a friendship issues from the heart. Still,
hearts have perverse reasons known only to the unconscious.

10
Competition: Are men and women different?
I often find that it is useful when thinking about ethical problems to substitute different groups of
people in the given situation. So I ask myself, would I have the same reaction to this vignette if Brad
were a Brenda? Females are supposed to be self-sacrificing and many women accept this role so
readily that they don't even think about what they are giving up. Many of the couples I have seen once
exhibited this stereotypical behavior, where the wife put aside her own desires and goals in order to
accommodate her husband’s. Now they face a crisis because the wife is no longer content playing that
part and the husband is baffled about what he sees as unwarranted and unreasonable new demands.
I wouldn't cheer for Brenda the way I do for Brad. This doesn't mean that I hold men and women
to different ethical standards. I don't believe, as some do, that men and women use different standards
in judging ethics and therefore are to be judged by standards internal to their own gender. I believe that
ethics is universally applicable and there are moral standards that apply to all people, everywhere.
However, ethics still must be applied to particular situations. Therefore, the evaluation of ethical
standards depends upon who and how the standards are implemented, and under what circumstances.
When power is unfairly distributed, to laud the sacrifices of the disadvantaged is tawdry. I don't know
all that went into Brad's decision not to compete with Kevin for the position. Maybe Brad makes
sacrifices all the time, maybe his self-sacrificing is part of a pattern in his life that reveals low
self-esteem. Perhaps, subtly, Kevin intimidated Brad. But it doesn't strike me this way. Instead, I see a
young man who is sensitive to his friends needs and accepts them as more important than the
accolades he may receive as a varsity runner.
Brad has given Kevin a gift. But not everyone thinks such gifts are desirable. Anna Seaton
Huntington, a two-time Olympic rower, writes that
“The Olympic motto is faster, higher, stronger — not nicer. If one friend backs off, then what
value would the gold medal have held for his friend if it had been a gift? . . . It is those rules, sometimes
merciless, that allow them to measure themselves, to earn their self-respect. . .”
What Huntington overlooks is that in a zero-sum competition, where there is only one winner,
the self-respect of one person is often gained at the sense of failure on the part of everyone else. There
is one winner while everyone else is a loser. If Brad tried out for the team, I fail to see how this would
enhance Kevin’s self-esteem. On the other hand, by Brad making way for Kevin, Brad can take pleasure
in the way that anyone does who makes another happy.

Good Sportsmanship
How Brad carries this off is nearly as important as the act itself. If he expects something in return
or in any way makes Kevin feel guilty, then his action is tainted. I don't know how he can successfully do
this, although Esther Kim shows that it can be done grace and even love. Perhaps Brad's relationship
with Kevin is different than were the female martial artists. If his motivation weren't as pure, then
perhaps he shouldn't make the sacrifice. This I can't know unless I knew more about the friendship than
I do. After all, sports at their best, should be about teaching sportsmanship. What better example of
what sportsmanship is than a gift from the heart to someone you love.
How lucky Kevin is to have made such a friend and what I fine person Kevin must be to have a
friend willing to do such an unselfish thing for him.

CONCLUSION

The Ethical Algorithm

It’s in analyzing and weighing consequences that Bentham made his most lasting contribution to
moral philosophy. For example, the different consequences from an action can, and most often will be,
notably different from each other. It’s hard to argue that a good intention matters the most in a moral
decision when the theoretical good of that intention leads to a quantifiably bad or misery-causing
outcome. And so, to fine-tune his argument that consequences can and should be measured as
scientifically and logically as possible, he developed a moral algorithm called Utility Calculus, or

11
Hedonism Calculus. (While it’s not the same theory as Voltaire’s notion of
pleasure-seeking-is-the-one-true-way hedonism, Bentham does advocate the pursuit and maximization
of pleasure, which is the entire point of hedonism, and so the name does seem appropriate.) With his
system, Bentham quantifies the moral aspects of actions in this way: The greater the good of an action,
the more “hedons” or “positive utility units” it’s worth.
 Intensity. What is the intensity or level or pleasure and/or pain that the action leads to?
 Duration. What is the duration of that pleasure or pain the action creates?
 Certainty. Is there a notable amount of certainty or uncertainty of pleasure or pain resulting
from the action?
 Propinquity. How soon after the action does the pleasure or pain kick in? Is it near or far?
For example, the benefits of eating healthy take a while for the

SUMMARY:
 Consequentialism judges that the best moral acts are the ones that lead to the most happiness
for others—but only others.
 There are four quantifiers that Jeremy Bentham postulated in view of positive utility units
 As compared to our previous topic on family, sacrifice for the sake of friendship is different from
family affairs. You make our friends, you can quit whenever you want and there is nothing
legally binding about the relationship. Families impose enforceable duties but not so
friendships.

“The said truth is that it is the greatest

happiness of the greatest number that is the
measure of right and wrong.”
—Jeremy Bentham

12
MODULE 6
THE GOLDEN RULE:
ETHICS ON COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
Lvl. 6 - Mantinea

Many Greek structures such as doors, windowsills, furniture, and church domes are painted a turquoise
blue, especially in the Cyclades Islands. It is used because of an ancient belief that this shade of blue
keeps evil away. They called the color kyanos, which the words “cyan” and “cyanide” are derived from.

Most Essential Learning Outcomes

At the end of this module, the learners are expected to:
 Emphasize ethics as the vital ground for responsible citizenship
 Apply principles discussed previously, in the conditions of human relations
 Enhance previous knowledge relevant to the topic being discussed

Motivational Activity: One Thursday afternoon, at about 2:30, Raymond parks his car next to a county
truck. As he leaves his car, he notes that two uniformed traffic personnel are asleep in the cab. When
Raymond returns more than an hour and a half later the truck is parked in the same place and the two
are still asleep. He decides to report the incident to the nearest police department.
Some questions to ask yourself
1. What obligations do you have to the community?
2. Do you have a right to make sure that your taxes are used properly?
3. Do you have a responsibility to do something when you think public money is being misspent?
4. How do you distinguish between acting responsibly and being a meddler?
5. Did Raymond do the right thing by reporting what he saw?

INTRODUCTION

The Interplay of Jen and Li in Confucian Ethics

Kong Qiu, known in the West under the Latinized form of his name Confucius, was a philosopher
born in China in 551 B.C. Confucius wrote aphorisms and ethical modelsfor everything from family life to
public life to educational systems. One of most broad and all-encompassing philosophical and ethical
frameworks bears his name: Confucianism.

What is Jen?
Two of the basic concepts of Confucianism are called jen and li. Jen is the idea that humans are
made distinctively human by an innate, natural goodness. Confucius himself said that jen was the main
human virtue or “the virtue of virtues,” and that any and all other virtues are an outgrowth of this one. It’s
telling though, and in line with other difficult to quantify and difficult to universalize concepts of ethics
across the board, that Confucius never gave a specific definition of jen, merely characterizing and
describing it in practice. To Confucius, jen, and all its attendant qualities, is more important than life
itself. In other words, it is more important for us to maintain the ethical, natural standard of humans, that
innate goodness, than it is to pursue one’s own personal fulfillment. In this regard, jen is quite similar to
the Western philosophical concept of “the greater good.”
Jen gives dignity to human life, and this plays out in two ways. The first is that jen drives humans to
be kind to other humans—thus it’s a natural imperative to bekind. The other is also just as natural: jen
provides self-esteem for the individual, which in turns leads that person to commit moral acts.

13
 Confucianism also teaches that there isn’t a set amount of jen in any one person, nor is it the same
in everyone. Indeed, everyone has some natural human goodness in them, but some have more than
others.
However, it is possible to obtain more jen, as Confucius also taught of our abilityto obtain perfection
(or at least something close to that). How does one get more jen, and thus become more perfect? To
find jen, and peace, and goodness, it is more ethical to reject the notion of satisfying one’s needs and
desires and work instead at bringing kindness and goodness to others. Therefore, the predominant
motivator of human action, or the first principle of Confucianism, is to act according to jen, and to seek
to extend jen to others. This increases the jen of others and also one’s own jen. Confucius realized that
a well-ordered culture or society was necessary in order for jen to be expressed or shared.

What is Li?
This is where the other major aspect of Confucianism, li, comes in. Li is the guide of human action
that leads to gains, benefits, and a stable, pleasant order of things. Li is the system or moral framework
by which one can share and spread jen.
Confucius broke down the system of li into several “senses,” the first being the First Sense, or a
guide to human relationships, or how humans ought to interact with one another in the most moral way
possible. (In other words, “propriety.”) Propriety is all about people being open and kind to one another;
it is about focusing on positive words and actions rather than negative ones—which is to say choosing
good concrete moral acts instead of actively choosing bad ones. And what is, exactly, a good way to act,
so as to be the most kind and pass on the most jen in a gentle way? Confucius called that the Law of the
Mean, or “the middle.” For Confucius, the most moral choice often meant that one should aim to shoot
right down the middle so as to maximize happiness for all.

The Five Relationships

Another element of the First Sense of li is “The Five Relationships.” Again, this is the way
that Confucius argues things ought to be done, in accordance with maximizing jen. In this
regard, the Five Relationships show us how to take the best moral actions in social interactions
with friends and family. But these are specific actions, rather than universal actions, as
Confucius has broken down all human engagements into one of five categories. They are:
• Father and son. The father should be loving to his boy, the boy ought to be
reverential to his father.
• Elder brother and younger brother. The elder brother should be gentle to his
young brother, while the younger brother needs to be respectful to his older sibling.
• Husband and wife. A husband is to be “good” to his wife. A wife should “listen” to
her husband.
• Older friend and younger friend. The older should be considerate of the younger,
and the younger should be deferential to the older.
• Ruler and subject. Rulers ought to be kind and just. Subjects in turn should and
must be loyal.

The idea of age factors into almost all five relationships. This is a concept called “respect
for the age,” as Confucius wrote that age—and by extension, life experience—gives value and
wisdom to lives, institutions, and even objects.

The Concept of Yi
Confucius gave a name to the natural sense of humans to go and be good: yi. It is necessary to
have yi to have jen. Yi is a natural sense that humans get, because they are humans and can think and
reason, and more important, feel, the moral sense when something is right or when something is wrong.
Yi also includes our natural ability to know the right thing to do in most any circumstance. This isn’t a

14
moral wisdom (or chih), which can be both learned and natural, but intuition—it’s justthere. You’re going
to have some sense of right or wrong. How you act is a different matter entirely.
Confucianism is, then, a form of deontology, not consequentialism. The acts themselves are good,
regardless of intention or consequence. Acting from a sense of yi is very close to the ideal of practicing
jen. The reason is, if an action is done for the sake of yi—an innate moral ability to do good—it’s the
right thing to do. But if an action is done out of a sense of jen, that respect for others and a desire to
spread goodness, then the act adds good and moral intention to the already moral act.

LESSON INPUTS

The Problem: Civic Duty vs. Being a Busybody

Raymond’s vignette is a story our obligations in the public realm. Often there isn’t much of a
question about what you owe the government, although you may play around the edges. You pay our
taxes — more or less on time. You report to the barangay when summoned — if you can't find a good
excuse. You follow the law — except those that are simply so petty that you can ignore them or get
away with breaking them. But this situation is different because Raymond’s actions aren’t about
following rules as they apply to himself, but rather it is about what to do when others may not be fulfilling
their obligations.
If Raymond decides to report the sleeping employees, he could also be accused of being a
busybody. It’s easy to abide by the cliché, Let sleeping dogs lie, so to speak. But, here again, there is
more than meets the eye. So one way to start thinking about the problem is to change the conditions
just a little. Say Raymond owned his own business and saw two of his employees napping in the middle
of the afternoon. He’d be a damn fool and a poor businessman if he ignored it. Maybe he’d talk to them
privately, maybe he would put them on notice or maybe he would even fire them. If he didn’t do anything
about lazy employees who worked for him, you would say that he is a bad manager and worse owner.

Everyone is the Public

Public business isn’t the same as private business, though. If I own something, then I am
responsible for it. Everyone owns the government in a democratic society, at least in theory, so
everyone is responsible in theory. Social psychologists know that it just doesn’t work this way. Most of
the time when everyone is responsible, no one acts responsibly. That’s why generally private homes
are taken care of better than public housing and employees who have a stake in their work through
some sort of ownership tend to be better motivated than people who simply work for a fixed salary.
Similarly, private pchools often provide better services in instruction and frontline as compared to public
schools. This may be an accurate description of people’s behavior, but a description doesn’t tell us what
you ought to do.
The reason Raymond should do something about workers who don’t do what they are supposed to
is, in one sense, a matter of fairness. Start from the premise that working conditions should be fair. This
means, at the least, that people receive a decent wage for a job fairly done. Then assume that a person
is, in fact, receiving a good salary and getting fair compensation for his labor. The other half of the
work-fairness equation then is that a person who isn’t working when he is supposed to is to take
something that he isn’t entitled to — namely, money without having earned it. Under such conditions,
one ethical consideration is whether others have to work harder to make up for the work not done by the
slackards. Another ethical issue is the breaking of an agreement by employees whose condition for
employment is an understanding regarding the amount of work expected from them. Employees, in their
words, have responsibilities to both their coworkers and
their employer.
Occasionally we may have reported rude or incompetent employees to their boss. On a personal
note, as a customer I expect respectful and prompt service. Owners have a right to know why I, as a
consumer, am upset. This gives them the chance to make changes if they so choose. With my
complaint I am trying to persuade the business to alter something I don't like. As a customer, I have a

15
right to complain, although I may choose not to exercise it. I may think the situation is hopeless; I may
feel uncomfortable with confrontation. But there is nothing wrong with complaining — provided there is
some objective basis to the complaint.
Raymond's reaction is based upon a sense of civic duty. Reporting public employee's who aren't
doing their job is like turning off a running fire hydrant: both are wasting taxpayers — and his — money.
He has a civic duty to ensure that to the best of his ability the government runs efficiently.

Assuming Too Much

Raymond doesn't stand in the same relation to these workers as an employer does to an
employee nor as a customer to an owner. As an owner he could penalize poor work; as a customer he
take his business elsewhere. Furthermore, he isn't directly hurt by their laziness. It isn't even certain
what it is that they should be doing.
And it is here that Raymond has gone wrong. Raymond takes action without first checking the
facts. He assumes that the two in the truck cab are shirkers, but he is not certain. Perhaps they were
done with the day's work and decided they would rather doze on the seat than go home to sleep. Or
maybe they were early for their next job and needed to wait somewhere. Other possibilities, however
unlikely, come to mind. The point is that Raymond really doesn't know what is going on. He has an
interpretation of what he sees but he makes no effort to check out this interpretation with a, more
informed source.
In addition, he doesn't know what the consequences are of his making the report. The
possibilities range from the supervisors having a good laugh ("Imagine someone thinking that public
employees should put in an honest day's work!") to the slackers being fired. Raymond's objective was to
get them to do the work for which they are getting paid. But is he willing to risk them getting fired
because of his indignation? Is their offense so grave that they ought to be deprived of their jobs?
A large problem with public ownership is that few people take responsibility for it. Often what
belongs to everyone belongs to no one. Raymond is an exception to the rule of indifference. He has a
proprietary sense about government and its workers. He responds as though he employed them, which
in a sense he does. But in his desire to act as a responsible citizen he ignores the human relations
dimension.
The best thing would be for him to go to the truck, talk to the workers and ask if everything was
all right.
"I've noticed that you have been here for a few hours. I just want to make sure you're O.K.," he
could say to them.
Then if they told him to mind his own business, he might pursue it further. Either he could
continue to talk to them (if he had the nerve) or report their rudeness, at least, to their supervisor.
But without first talking to them, giving them a chance to explain themselves or putting them on
warning, Raymond is putting them at an unfair disadvantage. It seems to me that the only reason he
doesn’t to talk to them is because he doesn’t have the courage to. With this small example you can see
why the Greeks considered courage a necessary virtue, for without it the right thing often gets left
undone.

CONCLUSION

Social Responsibilities May Differ According to Gender and Place

What if it wasn’t a Raymond who saw the sleeping workers but Raymonda? Wouldn’t you judge
the situation differently?
It is true that a woman may feel that she is taking putting herself at risk by confronting two
strange men. People aren’t required to put themselves in harm’s way for trivial reasons. It’s a matter of
proportionality. This is another variation of the more familiar, “The punishment should fit the crime.”
Furthermore, in this instance, it seems that the problem can be handled in another way. So for
Raymonda the moral thing may also be the prudent one.

16
 Another possible assumption for this case was pointed out by Confucian scholar Whalen Lai,
according to him,

“A good reason to report on lazy municipal workers (higher morals aside) is that
you pay our taxes and city workers are supposedly to be answerable to us. You do not
pay them to be lazy. In imperial China it would have been different. Their law was
imperial law and came down from above, so the last person you want to antagonize is
the yamen runner. Whether he does his job or not is something he answers to his
superior for. Not to you. Being the contact person between you and the state, you don’t
want to ruffle his feathers because if he wants to make trouble for you, there be no end to
being harassed. The idea of government of the people, for the people, by the people is
alien. And Chinese children were brought up with the fear of the policeman. All citizens,
innocent or guilty, feared the policeman. He wasn’t your servant; he was an extension of
the mandarin and all the way back to the emperor. Even now, politicians point to the
relative "peace and quiet" of Chinatown as compared with say the black ghettos. But that
is in part due to this thing about the Chinese running their own business (through their
network of connections, not without its share of corruption) and on not ‘making trouble’
(alerting the authorities) that in traditional times usually only meant courting trouble for
oneself."

Lai makes an important point and it is similar to the questions above. You have to take the entire
situation into account — who is doing what under what circumstances; what is the likely outcome and is
the benefit worth the risk?
This vignette is a striking example of the need to take into account the context of the situation. In
other words, what is right hinges on the circumstances surrounding the incident. It is a good illustration
of how ethics is often relative.

SUMMARY:
 Confucianism is, then, a form of deontology, not consequentialism. The acts themselves are
good, regardless of intention or consequence.
 Public business isn’t the same as private business, though. If I own something, then I am
responsible for it.
 Everyone owns the government in a democratic society, at least in theory, so everyone is
responsible in theory.

“Real knowledge is to know

the extent of one’s ignorance.”
—Confucius

17
 ----------------------------------------------SELF-ASSESSMENT----------------------------------------------
Read and analyze the following questions below. This will test the basic knowledge that you have
gained this semester. Answer key is provided at the references page.

Part I. Multiple Choice

1. Confucious is an oriental Philosopher who started his teachings in ______.

a) Japan b) Kazakhstan c) Taiwan d) China

2. The five basic human relationship is anchored on what specific aspect of Confucian thought?
a) Li b) Yi c) Jen d) Yang

3. According to him, “an unexamined life is not worth living”.

a) Socrates b) Plato c) Aristotle d) Protagoras

4. The idea of greater good for the greater number is evident on what political system?
a) Monarchy b) Democracy c) Sultanate d) Aristocracy

5. Consequential ethics is at the same time judging the situation’s morality based on:
a) Outcomes b) Basis c) Process d) Inputs

Part II. Ethical Problem Analysis

Harry comes from a small-farm family. He wants to be a lawyer but can’t afford a top
school. However, he gets an appointment to a military academy where he will get an excellent
education, tuition free. The academy has an honors system. Anyone caught cheating will be
expelled. The code also requires that cadets report anyone they suspect of cheating. Hector
discovers that his roommate and friend, Andrew, whom he has known since childhood, has
submitted a partially plagiarized term paper. Harry cannot convince Andrew to admit the
infraction to school authorities. According the academy’s rules, Harry must now report his friend.
However, he refuses to do this. He resigns from the academy instead.

Base on the given situation, answer the following by yourself. There is no wrong answer. This is for
self-review and reflection only.
1. Does Harry’s background make a difference in how you judge his decision?
2. How important a part should Harry’s career goals play?
3. Do you think that Harry’s loyalty should be foremost to his friend or the military?
4. What does Harry owe his friend?
5. What does Harry owe himself?
6. Under what circumstances do you think it is right for someone to jeopardize his
own future?
7. Do you think that Harry upheld the honor system or violated it?
8. Do you think Harry did the moral thing by leaving the academy as he did?

18
 ETHICS
MIDTERM

References and Resources:

Digman, J. M. (1997). Higher-order factors of the Big Five. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 73, 1246–1256.
Frei, R. L., & McDaniel, M. A. (1998). Validity of customer service measures in personnel selection:
A review of criterion and construct evidence. Human Performance, 11, 1–27.
Hogan, R. (1983). Socioanalytic theory of personality. In M. M. Page (Ed.), 1982 Nebraska
symposium on motivation: Personality—Current theory and research (pp. 55–89). Lincoln: University of
Nebraska Press.
Hogan, R., & Blake, R. (1999). John Holland’s vocational typology and personality theory. Journal
of Vocational Behavior, 55, 41–56.
Holland, J. L. (1985). Manual for the self-directed search. Odessa, FL:Psychological Assessment
Resources.
Hough, L. M. (1992). The “Big Five” personality variables–construct confusion: Description versus
prediction. Human Performance, 5,139–155.
Hough, L. M., Eaton, N. K., Dunnette, M. D., Kamp, J. D., & McCloy, R. A. (1990).
Criterion-related validities of personality constructs and the effect of response distortion on those
validities. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 581–595.
Judge, T. A., Heller, D., & Mount, M. K. (2001). Five-Factor Model of personality and job
satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 530–541

Reviewed and Approved by:

MARILYN T. ALCALA, LPT, Ph. D.

Dean

***********************************************************************************************************

19