1

MODULE IN
ETHICS
 2

PREFACE

This module in SOCSCI 212 – ETHICS, is a product of the collaborative effort of

selected faculty members from across the campuses of Eastern Samar State
University as an answer to the challenges brought forth by the pandemic to the
education system.

Theodore Roosevelt said, “To educate a man in mind and not in morals is to educate
a menace to the society”. Thus, this module will cover the most vital moral principles
with the aim to inculcate among the learners the values of morality which will help
them draw a clearer line between what is right and what is wrong.

Although this would not equate to the experience of learning the subject in a
classroom, it will, at the very least, allow students to grasp the necessary concepts
as the makers of this module put forth the best of their knowledge in utilizing
information from reliable sources and references.

The developers of this module is hoping to bring forward the most precious values of
humanity that will lead towards acquiring true morality.
 3

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Preface . . . . . . . . . . i
Chapter One MORAL AND NON-MORAL STANDARDS . . 1
Chapter Two THE MORAL EXPERIENCE. . . . 9

Chapter Three THE MORAL DILEMMA. . . . . 13

Chapter Four FREEDOM AS A BASIC REQUIREMENT OF

MORALITY. . . . . . . . . 18

Chapter Five WHAT IS CULTURE . . . . . 24

Chapter Six CULTURAL RELATIVISM. . . . . 31

Chapter Seven THE FILIPINO WAY. . . . . 37

Chapter Eight UNIVERSAL VALUES. . . . . 42

Chapter Nine UNIVERSAL VALUES AND HUMAN SURVIVAL 47

Chapter Ten DEVELOPMENT AND STAGES OF MORAL

CHARACTER. . . . . . . . . 56

Chapter Eleven PERSONAL GROWTH AND STAGES OF

DEVELOPMENT. . . . . . . . 66

Chapter Twelve REASON AND IMPARTIALITY AS

REQUIREMENTS FOR ETHICS. . . . . . 71

Chapter Thirteen FEELINGS AND REASON: Upsurge of Feelings

is Natural and What We Do with Them is What Make Us Ethical or
Unethical. . . . . . . . . . 73

Chapter Fourteen SEVEN STEPS OF MORAL REASONING. 78

 4

Chapter Fifteen THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN REASON AND

WILL.. . . . . . . . . . 82

Chapter Sixteen MORAL THEORIES AND MENTAL FRAMES: Why

are they important? . . . . . . . 87

Chapter Seventeen ARISTOTLE AND ST.AQUINAS on VIRTUE

ETHICS . . . . . . . . . 93

Chapter Eighteen IMMANUEL KANT’S THEORY of RIGHTS 97

Chapter Nineteen UTILITARIANISM . . . . 103

Chapter Twenty JUSTICE and FAIRNESS . . . 107

Chapter Twenty One GLOBALIZATION AND ITS ETHICAL

CHALLENGES . . . . . . . . 112

Chapter Twenty Two MILLENNIALS AND FILINNIALS: Ethical

Challenges and Responses. . . . . . . 118

Chapter Twenty Three ETHICS OF TAXATION . . . 122

 5

CHAPTER 1: MORAL AND NON-MORAL STANDARDS

When classes were suspended due to the COVID-19 pandemic, you have
been staying at home most of the time. In the television, social media, or in print you
see different ways by which people display their behavior. Some might be appealing
to you; others may make you feel disgusted. But why such reactions? What makes
you happy when you like a Facebook post; and sad when the post seems not right?
LEARNING OUTCOMES
At the end of this lesson, you should be able to:
1. define ethics and morality and differentiate them;
2. identify the nature and purpose of morality, and
3. differentiate between moral and non-moral standards.

Activity

Take a deep breath and say the word “morality” in your mind three times.
Then, on a separate sheet of paper write a one-sentence description for each picture
using your understanding of the word morality as the guide of your judgment.

Photo A

Source: en.wikipedia.com

Analysis: do you think doing right actions is important? Why?

Ethics
Ethics is the philosophical study of what it means to live a good life, to act correctly,
and to fulfill one's duty and obligation to do good. Axiology, a philosophy concerned
with human values, includes it as a sub-branch of philosophy. As a result, ethics is
defined as the philosophical study of morals, sometimes known as moral philosophy.
It is made up of universal concepts or principles regarding what constitutes
goodness.
We can conclude that ethics is theoretical since it attempts to critically think
on the nature of goodness or ideals of what is moral and what is not. The ethical
principles that govern professional practice are also standards that govern
professional practice. Physicians and nurses are some of the many health
professionals who give frontline services in this COVID-19 pandemic. The reason
why they risk their lives in the name of their professions is because they are ethically-
bound to the life-giving oath that they have taken.
 6

Morality
Morality on the other hand is about the rules that govern the promotion of
human goodness so that individuals and the society may flourish (Pojman, 2005).
Morality then speaks of norms (Pojman, 2005) or rules of human conduct. If ethics is
theoretical, morality is practical and
most of the time relative. What we
believe to be moral in our culture may
not be for the other. Religion also
influences our view of morality. For
example, Muslims consider eating
pork as haram or forbidden because
the Holy Quran says that pork is
impure while for Catholics, a fiesta is
incomplete without lechon baboy.
Despite the fact that legality
and morality should always go hand in
hand, this is not always the case. Law
is a system of rules in a specific
country enacted by its ruling agency
and once violated a corresponding
punishment is given. Cheating during
a quiz may be morally unacceptable
but you can’t be put to jail just
Photo D

ETHICS AND MORALITY

Source: en.wikipedia.com Morality deals primarily between bad

and good—some things are right, others
are wrong. Morality is the code or rules
in which our actions are judged against
shared values. Ethics are principles
that form those moral codes (Boone,
2017).

because you let your classmate copy your answers. Hence, what is immoral may
sometimes be not illegal
Why be ethical?
` Morality is, as Socrates said, “How we ought to live.” It is therefore important
that we study Ethics so that we would be able to align our thinking, feeling, and
action to what is good and beneficial not only to ourselves but to a much larger
community as well. For Boone (2017), Ethics helps us understand the world by
providing structure to it through the standards, virtues, and rules that it provides that
guide our behavior; he explains why it is important for us to act ethically with these
points:
 7

1. Acting ethically is a requirement for life. Ethics help us choose the best
way to act so that the things that we do will not be aimless, pointless, and random;
hence, we live a life that is happy, productive, and purposeful.
In this time of pandemic, you have a moral obligation to yourself to keep your
mind and body healthy by following certain health measures.
2. Acting ethically is a requirement for society. Kindness matters; it helps unite
the society. As members of a much wider community there are roles to play and rules
to follow. Ethics helps build relationships that keeps the society from falling apart.
That is why, people are advised to stay at home in order to save other
people’s lives during this pandemic. If a Manila-based worker wants to go back to his
province, he needs to see his plan according to a much larger scheme of things
before deciding and not just according to his individual needs. One must do his or her
part in making everyone safe and avoid the risk of viral contagion by not travelling; it
is in this sense that the Balik/Hatid Probinsya Program of Senator Bong Go becomes
problematic.
3. Acting ethically has a religious purpose. Because we need incentives to act
morally, religion provides such reward. Acting according to the norms of religion
would make you take hold of the promise of an eternal reward, doing otherwise
would entail an after-life suffering. That is why, for some people, doing what is right
would mean following the commands of the holy text of their religion.
In 2021, the Philippines will celebrate its 500 years of being Christianized.
Christianity was signalled in the country when Magellan and his troops first landed in
Homonhon Island, Eastern Samar. Our country is the only predominantly Catholic
nation in the Asian region. In the present COVID-19 situation, it was featured in the
news that President Duterte said to shoot all those who would violate the lockdown
rules. Is his statement morally upright based on the teachings of Christianity?
4. Acting ethically is for the benefit of oneself. Kindness begets kindness. Even
when one behaves appropriately because of self-interest, surely good things will
follow. For Eastern philosophy, a good act brings good karma.
We have this proverb “Ang susi sa kaligayahan ay ang pagiging
mapagmapasalamat”. That is why, you feel happy when you pack food for our
COVID-19 frontliners because you feel grateful for their heroism. That feeling of
happiness is a personal gain yet it benefits not only yourself but others as well.
5. We act ethically because humans are basically good. This is the major claim
of moral philosophy. Humans are naturally good and they try to behave accordingly.
Do humans act accordingly because they have to, or do they pursue an ethical life
because there are acts that in themselves are naturally good and worth pursuing?
What do you think?
 8

The Purpose of Morality Source: pinterest.ph

Living ethically assures that

everyone will flourish. Although morality
may restrict our freedom, acting morally
upright brings greater freedom to do
good to oneself and to others. Pojman
(2005, p.7) enumerates these purposes
of morality:
1. To keep the society intact
Photo E
2. To improve human life
3. To encourage growth
4. To ensure justice and order in
resolving indifferences
5. To recognize individual actions by
providing due compensation that corresponds to such actions.

The Nature of Moral Principles

To lead a moral life, one follows moral principles. These are practical guides
that govern our actions and these principles have these traits or characteristics
(Pojman, 2005):
1. Prescriptivity. As what the word “prescribe” means, moral principles are
imperatives, they give commands. For example, “Do not steal” or “Love your
enemies.”
2. Universality Moral principles must apply to all relevantly similar situation. If
cheating is prohibited in a certain exam, then in all kinds of exam, cheating must not
be tolerated. The key here is consistency. Just like the golden rule, do not do to other
people all the things that you don’t want to be done to you.
3. Overridingness. Moral principles take precedence over other principles or one
moral principle may take over another. For example, civil disobedience may be
morally upright when it is done with a higher cause. That is why, going to rallies
during the Martial Law or in the present Anti-Terrorism Bill mañanita rallies are
considered right even when they mean social disobedience because they serve a
greater purpose and that is to defend human freedom.
4. Publicity. Moral principles should be known by all who should follow them; they
shouldn’t be a secret because we use these principles to give commands, to assign
rewards or punishment or to give advice.
5. Practicability. Moral codes should be workable and they should not lay a heavy
burden to those who follow them. In other words, they could be done. If posting in
Facebook your criticism about the government would mean terrorism, then the Anti-
 9

Terrorism Bill is impractical because turning a blind eye to what the government is
doing is not a practice of democracy.
Moral versus Non-moral Standards
Moral standards are principles that have moral impact. This definitely point
out to knowing what is good and bad. Moral standards provide a structure on how
you are going to live your life and how you relate with others in harmony as it outlines
the values that you share with others to promote goodness to everyone, or the
common good. That is why, not keeping your word, taking advantage of others, or
tarnishing your friend’s reputation in social media are seen as moral misconducts
because they do not promote goodness. Rules about table manners, classroom
procedures and routines, or dressing up for a party are considered non-moral
standards because they are outside the scope of morality, they do not have ethical
considerations and would not give a great dose of guilt when not followed. To violate
a moral code with intention is to be immoral. An amoral act is neither moral nor
immoral. Feeling angry is natural, anger is amoral; but the act of killing someone due
to anger is another thing—it is immoral.
By now, you shouldn’t be surprised if in the preceding activity only the middle
picture speaks about morality. Answering your phone in a meeting, although it is
disturbing to others, does not mean immorality but stealing (the middle picture) does.
To sleep during a classroom discussion does not have a great moral impact but the
intention for doing so may convey a moral question.
ASSESSMENT
On a separate sheet of paper, answer the following questions directly:

[Grab your reader’s attention with a great quote from the document or use this space to
emphasize a key point. To place this text box anywhere on the page, just drag it.]

1. In the Venn Diagram below, mention the similarities and differences of Ethics and
Morality.

Ethics Morality
 10

2. Describe the nature and purpose of morality.

3. In the T-Chart provided below, write the differences of moral and non-moral
standards.

Moral Standards Non-moral Standards

REFERENCES

Ariola, M. (2014). Philosophy of Man. Unlimited Books.

Boone, B. (2017). Ethics 101: From Altruism and Utilitarianism to Bioethics to

Political Ethics, An Exploration of the Concepts of Right and Wrong. NY: Adams
Media.

Pojman, L.P. (2005). How Should We Live? : An Introduction to Ethics. CA: Cengage
Learning.
 11

CHAPTER 2: THE MORAL EXPERIENCE

In the first lesson, we have discussed how ethics and morality are defined.
We also drew a line between moral and non-moral standards. These standards
provide structure to moral experience. Have you ever asked yourself: “Am I good?”
“If so, why am I doing things that are morally wrong?” “If man is basically good, why
do I have the tendency to do bad things?” “Why should I consider others even when
they are mean and uncomprehending?” These questions make you reflect critically
to find out the goodness of your experience as a moral being; and that’s what ethics
is all about—to have a rational understanding of the goodness of your experience.
LEARNING OUTCOMES
At the end of this lesson, you should be able to:
1. identify the two elements of moral experience;
2. explain the nature of banned acts; and
3. distinguish the two parts of moral experience.
Activity
Below is a poem attributed to St. Teresa of Calcutta. Read and internalize
the poem and answer the given question.

The poem tells us to love others and forgive

them with their wrong doings. In your overall
life experience, is it easy to forgive? What
makes you say it is or it isn’t?

Photo A

Source: en.wikipedia.com

Analysis: Based on your answer in the activity, how can you say that an experience
is moral?
The Moral Experience
 12

We can't promote the good without morals. We learnt in Module 1 that

becoming morally upright is in your best interests. Moral experience is made up of
you and your deeds. According to Thomas Hobbes (see Pojman, 2005), each of us
has our own personal interests. Hence, in order to avoid conflicts, the society must
formulate contracts or moral codes that must be adhered to so that everything will be
in order; otherwise, there will be
MORAL EXPERIENCE “war against all.” Imagine if people
can just do whatever they want
A moral experience has two elements: without restrictions. They can fight
the moral agent who is the doer of the over a slice of bread and kill each
action and the moral act that comprises other. Your neighbor, without
the things done by the agent. Moral permission, can butcher your pig for
experience is seen in the different the fiesta and you will take his cow
ethical frameworks called the moral as a form of revenge. Without
theories. morality, life will be in chaos.
The moral experience has
two elements: moral agent and moral act. The moral agent is the doer of the act—
you. Only humans have the concept of morality. Non-human animals might have
morally upright behaviors similar to humans (e.g. caring for the young) but they do
not have the ability to reason out or judge their actions based on moral principles.
These human-like moral behaviors of animals are called protomoral behaviors (see
Skutch, 2007). In this sense, the moral agent—Humans—it is thought that they have
this ability. to make sound moral judgment through his reasoning ability.
Moral acts are the things that moral agents do. These behaviors to be
considered as moral acts should be inside the ethical domain or within moral
standards discussed in Module 1. Each moral act has an object who receives the
action, an intention that motivates the action, and the situation that provides the
context of the action. For example, you stole your classmate’s pen before taking the
final exam because you have no money to buy one and you are in desperate need to
take the test or else you will fail the course. The act is stealing. The object of the act
is your classmate; the intention is for you to pass the course; and the situation is that
you don’t have the money to buy for a pen.
The Nature of Prohibited Acts
By their very nature, prohibited acts cannot be habitual and enduring, if they
do, they cease to become prohibited (Skutch, 2007) and thus become a norm.
For example, if stealing becomes habitual and enduring, then no one will
produce a merchandize, save money in the bank, or hold on to earned wealth.
People will live a hand to mouth existence like the primitive times. With that, it would
be impossible to steal because there is nothing more to steal. Another, when lying
becomes a norm, then It will be a strange thing to do if you reveal the truth.. In
reality, liars succeed in deceiving us because most people tell the truth than they lie.
Hence, moral codes prohibit acts that in themselves cannot be sustained and
maintained (Skutch, 2007).
The Innate Foundation of Moral Experience
 13

There are two impulses or motives that the moral experience is anchored.
First, those that are directed towards self-preservation and second, those that are
directed to others. We said that a moral act has intentions. These intentions or
motives urge us to perform acts that benefit ourselves and those that promote the
welfare of others be it to our own blood or others who are unrelated to us (Skutch,
2007).

Self-regarding motives or virtues

1. Prudence. The rational self-love; it forbids us to overly indulge with pleasure
without thinking of the future (Skutch, 2007). Prudence is defined as doing the right
thing at the right moment, with the right person, for the right reason, and to the
appropriate degree.
2. Temperance. It’s standing firm to have only what is enough despite great
enticement or opposing drive and works together with prudence (Skutch, 2007). In
Filipino, we call it pagtitimpi.
3. Fortitude. Perseverance even in the face of
challenges so to achieve a very important goal. Anybody can
4. Patience. It is not acting on impulse. It is about become angry—
taking time to think through a certain act before doing
it. “Being patient does not imply allowing ourselves to that is easy. But to
be constantly mistreated, enduring hostility, or
allowing others to use us,” Pope Francis wrote in be angry with the
Amoris Laetitia. Patience grows when I acknowledge
that other people have the right to live in this world as
right person and to
well. ”Other-regarding motives or virtues the right degree and
Altruism is the act of helping others. Altruism
and all other-regarding virtues can all be called as
at the right time
benevolence. The fact that we become happy when
we are able to help others unselfishly may, at the
and for the right
surface, seem a selfish act. However, if you look purpose, and in the
deeper, you would see that benevolence is not
derived from self-interest because both exists right way—that is
separately on their own and does not require each
other in order to exist. Moreover, it is only when one difficult.
has reached a high self-awareness that he is able to
Google iimage
become mindful about the needs of other and satisfy Source: pintenest.phil
them (Skutch, 2007). Simply put, one must gain himself first before he can deny it.
That is why, even if it is hard for you to forgive someone who has done you
wrong, you take time to reflect on your experience and pattern in out because it is
innate for a person to be benevolent.
ASSESSMENT
 14

Surname: Given Name: M.I.:

Student Number Course/Year/Section

Subject: SOCSCI_212 Chapter: CHAPTER 2: THE MORAL

ETHICS EXPERIENCE

Assessment Questions:

1. Enumerate and discuss the elements of moral experience.

2. Explain the nature of prohibited acts.
3. Describe innate foundations of moral experience using your personal
experience.

REFERENCES
 15

Pojman, L.P. (2005). How Should we Live?: An Introduction to Ethics. CA: Cengage
Learning.

Skutch, A.F. (2007). Moral Foundations: An Introduction to Ethics. VA: Axios Press.
CHAPTER 3: THE MORAL DILEMMA
Since we have already tackled what a moral experience is, we now go with
your experience of coming to a choice of what and how to act when two opposing
actions that are morally relevant come together. This is more than just answering the
question: “Sino ba ang pipiliin ko, ang mahal ko o ang mahal ako?” In your life, you
were presented with many choices to decide on a single matter. Choosing morally
appropriate action can be difficult but because you are a moral agent, you need to be
critical and bravely choose what is best not just based on self-interest but on the
common good.
LEARNING OUTCOMES
At the end of this module, you should be able to:
1. determine the levels of moral dilemmas;
2. define the nature of moral challenges; and
3. explain the nature of moral reasoning.
Activity
Look at the pictures below. Imagine yourself that you are working for the
government as a law enforcer and at the same time you have a strong belief as a
Christian in the sanctity of life and that your education made you learn that every
person with an alleged crime has the right to fair trial.

Source: Ressurgent.PH

Will you follow the walking order of then President Ferdinand Marcos or will you stick
to what you have learned in church and in school? Why?
Analysis: Why do you think people have difficulty in making a decision that is
significant to his moral standing?
Moral Dilemma
 16

Sometimes choosing is a hard thing to do. Just like in the activity, orders
coming from powerful persons that you are working for might not be aligned with the
beliefs of your religion or with what your education says. Not following orders from
your boss might make you lose your job. Setting aside your ideals might also give
you a gnawing conscience.
As moral agents, encountering moral dilemmas is not an uncommon
experience. Read this excerpt adopted from Morrow (2018, p. 14):
In 1981, the long-running advice column "Dear Abby" published
the following letter:
Greetings, Abby! I needed some Scotch tape, so I went to my
son's desk and found the first few pages of a letter he'd written
to his girlfriend. “I am just interested in becoming stoned,
spending money, and having sex,” it said.
I didn't read any farther.
My initial thought was to confront him about it, but he'd claim I'd made a mistake. The
father is torn between maintaining his son’s privacy and in making sure that his
child’s well-being is protected. Not only that, he thinks he cannot do both at the
same time and would need to choose only one act. If he keeps quiet about what he
read from his son’s desk, his son might continue his vices. If he doesn’t, it would
entail that he does not have respect for his son’s privacy. If you’re in the position of
this confused father, what will you do?
One is in moral dilemma when he is in conflict between two moral principles
to which he feels committed and no matter what he will choose something bad will
eventually happen (Pojman, 2005; Kowalski, 2011).

Photo C

Source: en.wikipedia.org

Why are we experiencing moral dilemma? For MacNiven (1993), moral

dilemmas happen because the moral principles that control our thoughts and actions
have broken down and can no longer guide us; unless we have an adequate way to
solve our moral dilemmas, our moral system will continue to fail. Sometimes we
solve moral dilemmas by ranking the priorities of our personal obligation. If the father
thinks that his top priority is to protect his child from his vices, then he will talk to his
son about it even when that means breaching his son’s privacy. In other times, we
 17

consider a more general obligation, our obligation for the greater good. If following
the order of the President to kill people is just a matter of taking orders as a job then
it does not come from a universal principle that promotes the common good but only
for self-interest; so, you will refuse to shoot people dead even when it means losing
your job.
However, not all dilemmas
MORAL DILEMMA
are moral dilemmas. Choosing
what color of dress to wear in a A moral dilemma is a circumstance
party, deciding on what snacks to where a moral agent is confronted with
have or where to book your next two or more morally relevant actions
weekend getaway are not moral which he can perform; however, he
dilemmas. Moral dilemmas are cannot perform all of the actions and
those conflicting choices under the thus needs to choose.
scope of moral standards that we
have learned in Module 1.
Levels of Moral Dilemma
1. Individual or Personal Level. This involves making moral judgment and
eventually come up with a sound moral decision that concerns the individual life of a
person. It does not bear a great impact to the society at large.
For example: A woman was about to deliver her first born. However, her
pregnancy was ectopic and she only has this chance to have a baby. Because of
complications, she was rushed to the operating room unconscious. The doctors
talked with her husband and said that they can only save one life, the mother or the
baby. If you were the husband, whose life would you want to save?
2. Organizational Level. This is about the moral dilemma of a person in an
organization. Workplaces, business establishments, schools, and other
organizations have regulations, procedures or even values that may challenge the
moral principles of a member of that organization.
For example: One teacher believes that students should get the grade that
they worked for and frowns at the practice of mass promotion. When the school year
ends, she submitted the grades of her class to the principal. The principal asked her
to change the grades of 10 of her students who got failing marks so that they can
pass and move to the next grade level. If not, her teacher performance report will be
affected. If you are the teacher, will you change the grades?
3. Systemic Level. This is in the level of society at large. Moral dilemmas
concerning the different social institutions that affect the life of the whole society
covers this level.
For example: The President’s war on drugs poses a systemic moral dilemma.
Eradicating the sale and use of illegal drugs in the country is a good thing. However,
the problem lies in the implementation of the war on drugs. The country also does
not have enough budget to spend for the total rehabilitation of those involved in drug
trade. But is killing the only solution?
Moral Reasoning
 18

We said that a moral dilemma urges us to choose, to come up with a decision

because we cannot perform all the morally relevant options. It is in this sense that
we need to come up with a sound moral reasoning. But what is it?
The art of moral reasoning is demonstrating that one claim is supported by
other statements. Meaning, your contentions are backed up with moral principles and
not just a mere opinion. That is why, one needs to be critical in making a sound
moral judgement. In moral reasoning, your opinion does not matter unless you can
prove it under a certain framework or a moral theory. A person who does morally
sound decision does not do or say things without concrete basis.
Moral reasoning entails introspection. Moral reasoning entails determining
what your own values indicate about a specific experience, determining whether your
values contradict with one another, and debating the issue thoroughly. It also means
to evaluate what someone has already done or is about to do. Through moral
reasoning we see the consequences of our
action and from these consequences we
judge its goodness. We also reason
according to the roles we play (e.g. as a
friend; as a family member; as a leader) as
these roles demand moral obligations
(Morrow, 2018).
When you think you cannot have a
sound moral reasoning, it is best that you
do not make any decisions yet until you
are able to come up with a convincing moral conclusion. Be careful with your
emotions as these may interfere with sound
Source: pinterest.phil

reasoning. That is why, you don’t make a decision when you are overly happy or
deeply sad. If you're a Christian and want to know how to make a decent moral
decision, here's a technique recommended by St. Ignatius of Loyola, the founder of
the Society of Jesus (Jesuits): https://www.ignatianspirituality.com/making-good-
decisions/an-ignatian-framework-for-making-a-decision/

ASSESSMENT
On a separate sheet of paper, do the following:
1. Write your personal experience about having a
moral dilemma. What happened? What were the
options that you needed to choose from? What was
your decision? How did you decide? Limit your story
to three paragraphs only.
2.) Then, answer these questions and provide
explanations to your answers. Limit your answers to
each in exactly five sentences: Photo D

a. In what level was your dilemma?

Source: en.wikipedia.org
 19

b. Was your decision based on moral reasoning or a mere opinion?

REFERENCES

Kowalski, D.A. (2012). Moral Theories at the Movies: An Introduction to Ethics.

Plymouth,
UK: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
MacNiven, D. (1993). Creative Morality. NY: Routledge
Morrow, D.R. (2018). Moral Reasoning: A Text and Reader on Contemporary
Ethics and Moral Issues. NY: Oxford University Press.
Pojman, L.P. (2005). How Should we Live?:An Introduction to Ethics. CA: Cengage
Learning

CHAPTER 4: FREEDOM AS BASIC REQUIREMENT OF MORALITY

Now that you are always staying at home, it would be nice if you would talk to
your elders about the way they lived during their younger days. Surely, music will
never go out of the topic. Ask your loved ones to sing you Andy Williams' Born Free:
"Born free, as free as the wind blows; Born free to follow your heart." Is your
definition of freedom the same as the one expressed in the song? Freedom is
defined in many ways. Some say it is doing what you want when you want it. Others
would claim that it is not unlimited. In the first module, we said that morality restricts
our freedom only to experience greater freedom. What does freedom got to do with
morality?
LEARNING OUTCOMES
At the end of this module, you should be able to:
1. explain the view of determinism and how it becomes a threat to ethics;
2. explain the reason that only humans are moral beings; and
3. relate freedom with morality.
Activity
Even with the current pandemic, students from UP and other young people
like you went to the streets to defend our freedom of speech and expression that can
be curtailed when the Anti-Terrorism Bill is passed. Look at these photos.
 20

Photo A Photo B

Source: Resurgent.Phil

Based on your current belief of freedom, are these protests right? Why or why not?

Analysis: Based on the activity, why do you think freedom is necessary to human
life?

The Case of Determinism

Determinism is a model of thought that says that human beings, because of
their genetic make-up and social experiences especially during their formative years,
are “programmed” to act according to these two factors. For determinism, we are
already pre-determined or pre-destined to do what we are programmed to do without
thinking about them or feeling sorry about them.
If we are to consider this, ethics then becomes irrelevant. Why would you still do
moral reasoning and come up with a sound moral judgment, which what ethics is,
when your behavior is not of your own choice but only an answer to your
programming? We become robots. For determinism, this means that we are not
human beings, just human Source:pinterest.phil
animals.
Deterministic views pose
an issue on free will. It puts ethics
in jeopardy by implying that genes
render ethics obsolete. Hence, it
implies that moral advice, educa
tion, or learning experiences are
also useless. More than that, the
threat comes from the idea that we humans are just sophisticated animals, made to
follow genetic instructions and can do nothing about it (Blackburn, 2001).
Nuns vow to be chaste their whole life. If we take determinism so seriously, it
would follow that, because human beings are genetically and evolutionarily
programmed to copulate (or have sex), nuns
will do everything just to get laid. Therefore,
it will be useless to make them have such
vow because no one can. But nuns can!
Homo sapiens: The Moral Creature
Our brain has four lobes. The frontal
lobe includes an area that functions for
judgement. Our brains are designed to make
decisions, to see alternatives and choose.
Non-human animals have different brain
structure than ours. Our manner of choosing
Photo D
 21

is not based plainly on biological instincts as that of the other animals but with our
ability to think about our actions and use our freedom to choose. Non-human animals
also do not have free will. Hence, they are slaves of nature; they act according to
how they are genetically programmed. Though they may show benevolent human-
like acts called protomoral behaviors (see Skutch, 2003), these behaviors are not
moral because they are not done with reason and with freedom but due to their DNA
programming.
Another thing that makes humans the only moral creature is culture. Non-
human animals do not have a culture. Socio-cultural factors like history, beliefs,
ideals, and worldviews shape our moral principles. Culture is a factor in shaping
moral codes and these moral principles are themselves part of culture. That is why,
we say that morality could vary from one culture to another.
Remember, morality is how we ought to live. Let us not forget the word
“ought” in there because it is in having the freedom to choose that that “ought” would
require us to think hard about our actions and only humans among all other animals
have that ability. Rationality is the capacity to think hard in order to make an upright
decision. Both rationality and freedom are required in making moral acts and only
humans have both; these two then make humans as the only moral creature. If
human beings act according to their DNA-programmed instincts and not according to
freewill, then there is no need for moral reasoning. They will not need the freedom
and will to think and decide about what’s right and what’s wrong, will not ever
experience moral dilemma, are not bound to make choices and hence, will have an
existence similar to that of the birds, dogs, and other non-human animals or will live a
brutish life. That is why, in teleseryes, a protagonist will confront a conscience-
numbed antagonist with the line: “Hayop ka!”
Freedom
We have been talking about freedom—but what really freedom is? Why
would people risk their lives in this time of pandemic in going to streets to
demonstrate for us so we can maintain our freedom of speech and expression that is
threatened by the new Anti-Terrorism Bill? It goes to show that freedom is basically
important. Here are some of the things people say about the different sorts of
freedom:

Photo F
 22

Photo G

Source:pinterest.phil

These pictures above show how freedom is defined in the context of same-
sex union, media and expression, and religion. In the light of ethics and morality, we
will consider St. John Paul II’s definition.
Skutch (2007) identified two
meanings of freedom in relation to
morality:
1.) Freedom from prior
determination. This means that we
are not tied to the influence of any
Photo H
past (e.g. DNA-programming; early
experiences; ex-girlfriend), and we
use ourAlegoo.com
Source: free will. Free will means having a firm stand to make a choice without being
hindered
2.) Freedom to express one’s
MORAL FREEDOM
own nature. This can imply two
things. A.) Being able to satisfy a Moral freedom is to choose and do the
particular desire without external right thing that should be done without
obstacles like laws and customs as being hindered.
these desires are part of our total
nature. It is being away from the
things that stops us from expressing our total personality. For example, marrying
someone you love based on your sexual preference. B.) Being able to satisfy our
primary needs which, being an animal, are biologically-determined, without being
hindered by our own attitudes. This is something internal. For example, being able
to control your desire to steal for food and instead find acceptable means to feed a
hungry stomach.
We have previously learned that morality is about how we ought to live. John
Paul II’s definition of freedom relates with morality as it points out the capacity to do
what should be done and not merely what is wished to be done. As we said, ethics is
about coming up with and executing a morally upright decision through moral
reasoning. If we will just do whatever we want, then we become like irrational non-
human animals that are slaves of passions and impulses. Moral freedom, on the
other hand, allows us to think deeply about what is good and wrong, and then to
choose freely whether or not to do what we "ought" to do. Ethical freedom means
being able to do what is good without being hindered and being able to hinder
oneself to do evil.
ASSESSMENT

Surname: Given Name: M.I.:

 23

Student Number Course/Year/Section

Subject: SOCSCI_212 Chapter: CHAPTER 4: FREEDOM AS

ETHICS BASIC REQUIREMENT OF
MORALITY

Assessment Questions:

1. Based on the post below, explain the view of determinism and how it
becomes a threat to Ethics.

2. Why are humans moral beings? Explain.

 24

REFERENCES

Balckburn, S. (2001). Ethics: A Very Short Introduction. NY: Oxford University Press,
Inc.
Skutch, A.F. (2007). Moral foundations: An Introduction to Ethics. VA: Axios Press

CHAPTER 5: WHAT IS CULTURE?

All of us are born into a culture. It is something that is inherited from ours. It
speaks of the way we communicate, the way we relate with others and the way we
view things coming our way. Culture is embedded in us and we cannot escape form
it. It helps define our moral behavior.

LEARNING OUTCOMES
At the end of the lesson, you are expected to:
1. articulate the definition of culture;
2. attribute facets of personal behavior to culture; and
3. feel proud of one’s culture and express the desire to propagate it.

Activity: Make a personal data containing your name, what you eat, your residence,
your language, how you dress, your sports, your family, family celebrations and your
arts and music.
On a separate sheet of paper, answer the following questions:
1. What do my personal data speak of my personality?
2. How does culture affect my way of seeing things and relating with others?
3. What are my manifestations that I feel proud of my culture?

Culture defined
 25

A simple definition of culture is that it is a way of life. It is characterized as the

people’s way of life which is shared by other people in a certain cultural region. It is
not safe to assume that everyone in a given society shares the same culture or
people who are far from each other can no longer share the same way of life. Culture
occupies a large domain in the life of man. Everything a man does in his everyday
living is dominated by his cultural orientation. From the way he pray to the way he
carries himself in the social world is a manifestation of one’s cultural heritage. With
this, culture can be defined as the values, beliefs, behaviour and material objects that
together form a people’s way of life (Macionis, 2007). Culture encompasses a broad
spectrum of an individual’s social and personal life. Edward Tylor defined culture as
that complex whole that includes knowledge, beliefs, art, law, morals, customs,
traditions and any other capabilities and habits acquired by man as member of
society. Marvin Harris claims that culture is totally socially acquired lifeways of a
group of people. It includes patterned of repetitive ways of thinking, feeling and acting
that are characteristics of the members of a particular society or segment of society.
Clifford Geertz defines culture as ideas based on cultural learning and symbols. It
has been characterized as sets of control mechanisms from the governing of
behaviour. Our membership to society is governed by the guidelines which are
handed, twisted, revised, and taught across generations.
Culture is far too complex and dynamic to be boxed in a single adjective.
Possession of culture can be likened to an organizational membership. There are
cultures existing within a big culture and there are cultures that remain despite the
negative connotation and unfavorable effects to its members.
Characteristics of Culture
Anthropologists, sociologists and behavioral scientists in the study of culture
came up with a list of traits and characteristics shared by all cultures.

1. Culture is learned.
We acquire knowledge that are passed on to us by our parents, primal adults
and the people around us both directly and indirectly. Children absorbed the
information given to them from the day they were born. This form of learning cannot
be attributed to biological factors alone. Cultural leaning, then is based on the ability
or human capacity to use symbols that do not have a direct or natural connections to
the things they represent.

2. Culture is collective or shared.

Culture is social in nature and not by any means to be defined as a private or
personal values of property. The knowledge one has now is a product of
accumulation of bits and pieces within a society or culture. We become enculturated
to the society and society to which we belong. We pass knowledge across
generation. As generations learn and pass the knowledge of society, the knowledge
is absorbed through society and thus continue to be shared within that society.

3. Culture is transmitted orally and in writing.

 26

Sharing and learning of culture can be done either consciously or

unconsciously, within generations or across generation in unlimited ways. Oral
transmission of culture is potent through the life cycle of man. Even among societies
with no structure of formal instruction or education, it is a mode of learning and
bringing up the young. Written transmission is relatively modern. With writing,
learning and cultural transmission became precise, extensively complicated, highly
symbolic, and heavily cumulative.

4. Culture is symbolic.
Culture operates within a realm of symbol construction and symbol usage. It
is learned, shared and transmitted using a complex set of symbols used to
communicate called language. It can be oral or written, gestures, hand signs, body
language, facial expressions. Culture is transmitted through the aid of language. It
enables us to recall knowledge encountered in the past giving us a notion of time. On
the other hand, we use symbols to communicate our emotional condition. Symbols
we use and see are bound by the culture to which they were formed.

5. Culture is holistic and integrated.

Parts of culture are intricately connected to one another into a holistic entity.
For Durkheim, culture is a product not of a single individual but of a collective. A
collective consciousness or awareness exists beyond the individual. Various
elements of the culture tend to fit each other for smoother and better adaptive
process. This means that elements within the culture need to function harmoniously,
otherwise strain or frictional conflict occurs. Culture is patterned by specific
dimension of social life such as economic and political activities.

6. Culture is adaptive.
Cultural adaptation is the evolutionary process that modifies the social life of
the people in the given natural environment. It is an adjustment strategy people
utilize or employ to respond to the changes in the natural or social environment, or
the method used to react properly with respect to stimuli that are available. The
strategy could be biological, technological or socio-behavioral in nature.

7. Culture satisfies needs.

Culture defines the activities of man. It is likewise within a culture where these
activities can be gratified. Gratification refers to the granting of a quality of life or
lifestyle for personal or social gratification. Culture has the capacity to satisfy and
grant the needs – biological and social, of people. It allows the smooth and efficient
interaction among members of the society for the satisfaction of the needs. There
may be differences in the steps we all follow and the people we interact before we
reach our goal, but the origin of the gratification will be the same.

8. Culture is compulsory.
Being a member of a society also means that you become a subject of the
society to which you are born and socialize. One learns culture by conditioning.
 27

Conditioning can be the observance of reward and punishment given an act.

Compulsory in this sense of the word does not mean it is permanent and immovable.
Culture changes and is in flux.
9. Culture is dynamic.
No culture is static and permanent. Since membership to culture is
continuously changing by the influx and changes in and among members; people
move in and out of a culture. Cultural communications is transforming at fast pace by
the technological development happening, concepts and ideas are being modified
and transformed with respect to occurring events and changing political environment,
the overall culture is constantly changing.

10. Culture is cumulative.

Every time the transmission of knowledge is conducted through socialization,
accumulation occurs-from old to new. The cycle happens repeatedly and every time,
knowledge is accumulated and transformed. Knowledge that was formed and
developed within a particular culture is a process of transmission from one
generation into another, through sharing and cultural learning sharing.

11. Culture interacts and undergoes transformation.

All human cultures and societies interact to other cultures which are either
related or totally distinct from one another. This contact could either result to copying
or borrowing of some aspects of one culture resulting to the transformation of one
culture or both. Interaction can happen in the form of domination or colonialism. A
dominated society is forced and the subjected to the culture of the defeated and this
may result to the acceptance of the dominant religion, political authority, educational
system, and even the way of speaking and thinking.

The Influence of Culture in Moral Development

Culture is one’s person’s social heritage that has been passed from one
generation to the next basically through the relationships that binds the society
together. It necessarily says on what are things a member of the society must do,
what to do, and how to do things. It teaches and conditions members on how to
relate and live with the other members of the society and even to people outside of
their own culture.

Culture functions to mold and establish a social identity that brings people as
well to the knowledge of common objectives which member would try to achieve.
Culture, indeed, provides norms, customs, laws, and moral demands that are to be
followed. In general, culture plays a vital role the development of the human person.
In every aspect of the human person, the cultural background can be very visible.
Culture has an essential influence on the moral development of the human person
since morality is just one of the cultural aspects.

Culture influences the moral development of the people through the following
points:
 28

1. Culture is always social and communal by which the relationship of the people
towards one another. And their experience as a people are the culture’s meadow. It
is in this relationship and communal experience that culture influences the moral
development of its members. It is important to note that morality as principle is
promoted because primarily of the relationship within the community. Laws and rules
and standards of attitudes and behaviors are set and promulgated by the community
to promote the relationship that binds them together as a people.

2. Culture defines the normative principles and behaviors of the society. It defines
which particular principle and behavior that should be kept that would serve the best
interest of the community. There would be a definition on what are the principles also
that should not be promoted or rejected. These defined normative principles and
behaviors inform and indoctrinate the members as they live and relate with the
community. These would shape also the kind of moral judgement a person has,
which is most of the time congruent to the general moral judgment.

3. A culture as best exemplified in the experience of the people, develops

restrictions and sets boundaries and limitations as they liver and relate with one
another. These would create an atmosphere of promoting the welfare of the
community. Indeed, anyone who tries to step beyond these is subject to punishment
or consequences set by the community embedded in the culture.

4. Culture helps in generating the character and identity of its people, it also includes
the moral character. Culture conditions the mind- the way people think and the way
we perceive the world and their relationship with one another. If a culture is
aggressive, those who are in it become aggressive in their relationship with one
another. Conversely, if a culture is unjust, the same may be developed among the
people who are in it.

5. Culture identifies the authorities or the governing individuals or groups. They are
the symbol of guidance and control. In many cultures, men always are most of the
time looked up to as leaders overseeing the order of the community. They are
expected to give guidance to the body. People submit themselves to the authority: be
it patriarchal or matriarchal. By their very authority as they represent the populace,
the members look at them as people who promote and keep the set of rules and laws
that govern the community. Their moral judgements are considered essential in
moral issues of the community.

In sum, culture is very significant in the development of the human person

and in his moral development. It has a tight grip on the moral development of the
people. It is the conditioning principle of the moral development of its members.
Although it may not always promote what is good and just for all, it is certain that
there are principles, attitudes and behaviors that actually hinder good relationships
and violate the welfare of the others. There are aspects of culture that are difficult to
eliminate, yet they should be subject to people’s discernment that proper changes
and modifications have to be done for the sake of the welfare and justice for
everybody.
 29

ASSESSMENT

Surname: Given Name: M.I.:

Student Number Course/Year/Section

Subject: SOCSCI_212 Chapter: CHAPTER 5: WHAT IS

ETHICS CULTURE?

Activity: Make a personal data containing your name, what you eat, your
residence, your language, how you dress, your sports, your family, family
celebrations and your arts and music and answer the following questions:
1. What do my personal data speak of my personality?
2. How does culture affect my way of seeing things and relating with others?
3. What are my manifestations that I feel proud of my culture?
 30

REFERENCES

Abesamis, JT and M. Franco (2014). Society and Culture A Liberal Approach to

Understanding

Humanity, Malabon City: Mutya Publishing House, Inc.

Alata, EJ and EJ Ignacio (2019). Building and Enhancing New Literacies Across the

Curriculum, Manila: Rex Book Store.

Bulaong, O., et. al (2018). Ethics Foundation of Moral Valuation, Manila: Rex Book
Store.

Lanuza, G. and S. Raymnudo (2016). Understanding Culture, Society and Politics,

Manila,

Rex Book Store.

Leano, R. and A. Gubian-on (2018). Ethics for College Students, Manila:

MIndshapers Co.

Inc.

Riodique, F. (2016). Understanding Culture, Society and Politics, Manila:

Mindshapers Co.

Inc.
 31

CHAPTER 6: CULTURAL RELATIVISM

All of us are born into a culture. As we grow, we meet other cultures and are
oftentimes shaped by it. As bearers of culture, our task is to be tolerant of other
cultures and see what is good in some and adapt the same in our lives.

LEARNING OUTCOMES

At the end of the lesson, you are expected to:

1. define cultural relativism;

2. recognize differences in moral behavior of different cultures;

3. evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of cultural relativism; and

4. appreciate the differences among cultures

Activity:

On a sheet of paper, in five sentences, give your own view about the racial
discrimination being experienced by the colored men and women in the United
States of America, in particular with the death of George Floyd.

Introduction

The recent event that shook human rights advocates in the world particularly
in the United States of America was the death of George Flyod, a black American.
His last words continue to haunt us today: “Sir, I cannot breathe” brings to mind the
deep-seated concept and understanding of being able to subjugate people because
of their sex, color and religion.

In the world today, we recognize that the many cultures of the world have
their own beliefs, values and practices that have developed in particular, historical,
social, material and ecological contexts and that it makes sense that they would differ
 32

from our own and that none are necessarily right or wrong, good or bad. Then, we
are engaging in cultural relativism.

Cultural Relativism defined

Cultural relativism is the ability to understand a culture on its own terms and
not to make judgements using the standards of one’s own culture. Its goal is to
promote understanding of cultural practices that are not typically part of one’s own
culture. Using the perspective of cultural relativism leads to the view that no one
culture is superior that another when compared to systems of morality, law, politics
and etc. It is a concept that cultural norms and values derive their meaning within a
specific social context. This is also based on the idea that there is no absolute
standard of good and evil. Therefore every decision and judgment of what is right
and wrong is individually decided in each society. It also means that any opinion on
ethics is subject to the perspective of each person within their particular culture.
Overall, there is no right or wrong ethical system.

Cultural relativism is considered to be more constructive and positive

conception as compared to ethnocentrism. It permits to see an individual’s habits,
values and morals in the context of his or her cultural relevance by comparing it to
one’s own cultural values and by deeming the most superior and greater of all.
Anthropologists believe that all cultures are equally legitimate expressions of human
existence, to be studied from a purely neutral perspective.

Cultural relativism and ethics

Cultural relativism is closely related to ethical relativism. Ethical relativism

views truth as variable and not absolute. What constitutes right and wrong is
determined solely by the individual or by society. Since truth is not objective, there
can be objective standard which applies to all cultures. No one can say if someone
else is right or wrong. It is a matter of personal opinion and no society can pass
judgement on another society.

The advantages and disadvantages of Cultural Relativism

ADVANTAGES OF CULTURAL DISADVANTAGES OF CULTURAL

RELATIVISM RELATIVISM

1.It promotes cooperation. 1.It creates a system that is fuelled by

personal bias.
We are so different from each other
that we have many things to share. Every society has a certain natural
Every individual has a different bias to it because of how humanity
perspective based on their operates. People tend to prefer to be
upbringing, experiences and with others who have similar thought
personal thoughts. By embracing or feelings, so they segregate
the many differences we have, the themselves to become
cooperation creates the potential for neighborhoods, communities and
a stronger society. social groups that share specific
 33

perspectives. When people are given

the power to define their own moral
code, then, they will do so based on
their personal bias.

2.It creates a society where equality 2.It would create chaos.

is possible.
People who can follow their own
In some cases, people rise by moral code because there is no
stepping on top of other people. For wrong or right would be allowed to
some, it is a sociable way of pursue any life they preferred under
creating discrimination. Today this is the theory of cultural relativism. There
seen in the discrimination of women, is no real way to protect the people in
the limited opportunities that such a society, so each person can
minority people face, and the be responsible to protect themselves.
violence we all experience due to It creates a system that emphasize
political oppression. that only the strongest can survive.

Cultural relativism allows the

individual to define their moral code
without defining the moral code of
others. Each man lives on his own.
That separation creates equality
because each person can set
his/own definition of success.

3.People can pursue a genuine 3.It is an idea that is based on the

interest. perfection of humanity.

Today more than ever, people are Many people strive to do good every
drawn to certain career options day and most want to have the
because they have no other choice. chance to seek happiness in some
In cultural relativism, you get to way. This makes cultural relativism
pursue your own interest without inviting. However, people are not
restrictions. You set the definitions perfect. We are forgetful, we lie, in
of what you can have and what you other words, we backslide. Without a
cannot have. When done earnestly, group moral code in place to govern
each person would get to focus on decisions, anything could happen
his/her strengths instead of his/her when we experience these moments
weakness. of imperfection.

4.Respect is encouraged by cultural 4.It could promote a lack of diversity.

relativism.
Cultural relativism promotes an
As people are from different individualistic point of view, which at
cultures, they bring with them first glance seems to promote
different ideas and their definitions diversity but in reality it removes one
of success are different from the from a society. The only standards
 34

rest. Such a system promoted the that are in place are those which are
individual’ definition instead of a set by then individual involved, which
group definition, a society can means everyone is pursuing one’s
evolve because there is a natural own position of strength. Diversity
level of respect built into the cannot be created when the
process. One is given the right to emphasis of a society in individualistic
pursue life in his own terms gain that can come at the expense of
others.

5.It preserves human culture. 5.It draws people away from one
another.
Humanity is a very diverse set of
thoughts, traditions, ideas and Cultural relativism can both promote
practices. Over time, the traditions people coming together to share their
of humanity are set aside so that a strengths and can encourage people
set of standards can be appeased. to draw apart from one another.
Because each person is uncertain of
Under the theory of cultural
what codes and standards another is
relativism, such an appeasement
following, the natural inclination for
may not be necessary. It wouldn’t
self-preservation causes people to
even be a consideration.
draw away. One might desire to
develop a close-knit community at
first, but each demon causes people
to back away instead of closing ranks.

6.It creates a society without 6.It could limit moral progress.

judgement.
The idea of moral progress makes
We are so trained to judge others in one more inclusionary than
today’s world that we don’t even exclusionary. This inclusion is
give it a second thought. Under the reflected in the laws and customs of
theory of cultural relativism, the culture. In cultural relativism,
judgment goes away. The only everyone would be left to one’s own
person that judges you is yourself. choice without exception and there
People who might disagree with you would be complete agreement in
are able to set their own codes and either choice. Within the society,
standards for their own either choice could be seen as a
individualistic bubble. Instead of moral progress, but in reality, it could
worrying about others, you only hold people back.
worry about yourself.

7.It can be excluded from cultural 7.It could limit humanity’s progress.
relativism.
Cultural relativism is often seen as
Under the theory of cultural progression but it is not always that
relativism, each culture can be way. When the ability to judge one
treated as an individual. Moral standard from another is removed,
codes of a culture can be defined then the comparative process of
 35

and an expectation implemented placing a current society or culture is

that people follow it. Although other removed as well. No definition of
cultures may not set up such a success can be implemented
restriction, and others might say because each is successful in its own
such a restriction is not a form of way.
cultural relativism, people in such a
system can do what makes sense to
them. You are focusing on the
customs of a culture not the morality
that is imposed upon those customs.

8.We can create personal moral 8.Cultural relativism can turn

codes based on societal standards perceptions into truth.
with ease.
In the world of cultural relativism, that
To determine if a decision is right or bias becomes a truth that can be
wrong, cultural relativism allows acted upon. The decision to act
individuals to consult with the becomes a righteous one because of
standards of their society or culture. the individual truth that the culture
It is a simple test to determine the allowed through the bias it
course that a person should take in perpetrates.
such a circumstance. By consulting
with the moral code of the culture,
one question must be asked: does
the action conform to the cultural
moral code? If the answer is
positive, then the action is permitted.

9. It stops cultural conditioning.

People tend to adapt their attitudes,

thoughts and beliefs to the people
they are with on a regular basis.
This is a cultural conditioning and it
prevents people from, having an
individualistic perspective. Cultural
relativism stops it.

The advantages and disadvantages of cultural relativism presented above are

based on the theoretical implementation of such a system. Originally proposed by
Franz Boas in 18887, it is an idea that has never been implemented on a large
scale. Moral standards make sense in a person’s culture. By creating individualized
cultures

on a singular or larger scales, it becomes easier to keep and embrace the traditions
that humanity has developed with the passage of time.
 36

The call perhaps for us today is to be more multi-culturally literate. And we

can do the same by:

1. Learn about other cultures. The first step to multi-culturalism is to know about
cultures other than your own. For it follows that if we do not know others’ culture, the
less welcoming and tolerant we become.

2. Familiarize oneself with how discrimination and prejudice appear in one’s own
culture. We need to be able to spot and identify and confront patterns of
discrimination and prejudice in our own lives.

3. As you are, so you will behave. The key to genuine multicultural literacy is core
values, that is- what one really believes about people who are different from us.

ASSESSMENT

Surname: Given Name: M.I.:

Student Number Course/Year/Section

Subject: SOCSCI_212 Chapter: CHAPTER 6: CULTURAL

ETHICS RELATIVISM

Assessment Questions:

Part I. Give your personal comment about the situations below (Reference:
The Challenge of Cultural Relativism by JAMES RACHELS retrieved from
https://faculty.uca.edu/rnovy/Rachels--Cultural%20Relativism.htm)

1. Darius, a king of ancient Persia, was intrigued by the variety of cultures he

encountered in his travels. He had found, for example, that the Callatians (a
tribe of Indians) customarily ate the bodies of their dead fathers. The Greeks,
of course, did not do that�the Greeks practiced cremation and regarded the
funeral pyre as the natural and fitting way to dispose of the dead. Darius
thought that a sophisticated understanding of the world must include an
appreciation of such differences between cultures. One day, to teach this
lesson, he summoned some Greeks who happened to be present at his court
and asked them what they would take to eat the bodies of their dead fathers.
They were shocked, as Darius knew they would be, and replied that no
amount of money could persuade them to do such a thing. Then Darius called
in some Callatians, and while the Greeks listened asked them what they would
take to burn their dead fathers' bodies. The Callatians were horrified and told
Darius not even to mention such a dreadful thing.

Are the practices of the Greeks (cremation) and Callatians (eating the body of their
dead father) acceptable to you? Why?

2. Eskimos customs turned out to be very different from our own. The men often
had more than one wife, and they would share their wives with guests, lending
 37

them for the night as a sign of hospitality. Moreover, within a community, a

dominant male might demand and get regular sexual access to other men's
wives. The women, however, were free to break these arrangements simply
by leaving their husbands and taking up with new partners�free, that is, so
long as their former husbands chose not to make trouble. All in all, the Eskimo
practice was a volatile scheme that bore little resemblance to what we call
marriage.

Are the Eskimos immoral because of their sexual practice? State your argument,
whether you agree or not.

Part II. Essay. Make your argument on the statement below.

1. It is important to have a universal standard of morality, e.g. the Ten

Commandments, where all peoples have to abide.
 38

REFERENCES

Alata, EJ and EJ Ignacio (2019). Building and Enhancing New Literacies across the

Curriculum, Manila: Rex Bookstore.

Lanuza, G and S. Raymundo (2016). Understanding Culture, Society, and Politics,

Manila:

Rex Book Store.

Leano, R and A. Gubia-on (2018). Ethics for College Students, Maniula:

MIndshapers Co.,

Inc.

CHAPTER 7: THE FILIPINO WAY

We all are born into a culture. In our case, it is the Filipino culture. We had
been brought up by this culture and the way we look at things and how we relate with
one another speak volumes of who we are and what we had been through.

LEARNING OUTCOMES
At the end of the lesson, you will be expected to:
1. analyze crucial qualities of the Filipino moral identity in their own moral
experiences;
2. evaluate elements that need to be changed; and
3. feel proud of one’s heritage.

Activity
On a separate sheet of paper, fill up a T-chart on the strength and weaknesses of the
Filipino.
Introduction
Our culture is a big reflection of our great and complex history. It is product of
the interaction we had from the different people we have interacted with as a nation.
A blend of the Malayo- Polynesian and Hispanic culture with the influence from
Chinese, Indians, Arabs and other Asian cultures really contribute to the customs and
traditions of the Philippines.
Our culture is unique compared to other Asian countries and beliefs applied
everyday in the life of the Filipinos reveal how rich and blessed the culture, we
Filipinos have.
 39

One way to understand better our Filipino culture, it is proper and fitting that
we take stock of ourselves by taking a look at our characteristics and see how these
can strengthen the good in our cultural values and correct what is excessive in them
and supply for their deficiencies.
By asking ourselves these questions we will be able to see the light of the
why and how of our being Filipinos: From whom do we draw our self-identity? Where
do we find the deepest meaning in our lives? How do we react to suffering? How do
we commit ourselves to our ideals of life? What is our view of the world in all its depth
and hidden reality?
1. Filipino’s self-identity
We are family-oriented. The anak-magulang relationship is of primary
importance to us Filipinos. Ama, ina, anak are culturally and emotionally significant
to us Filipinos who cherish our filial attachment not only to our immediate family, but
also to our extended family (ninongs, ninangs, etc). This family-centeredness
supplies a basic sense of belonging, stability and security. It is from our families that
we Filipinos draw our sense of identity.
2. Meaning in Life
We are meal-oriented. (salu-salo, kainan). Because Filipinos consider almost
everyone as part of the family (parang pamilya), we are known for being gracious
hosts and grateful guests. Serving our guests with the best we have is an inborn
value to Filipinos, rich and poor alike. We love to celebrate any and all event with a
special meal. Even with unexpected guests, we Filipinos try our best to offer
something, meager as it may be, with the traditional greeting: Tuloy po kayo at
kumain muna tayo.
3. Sufferings in Life
We Filipinos are kundiman-oriented. The kundiman is a sad Filipino song
about wounded love. Filipinos are naturally attracted to heroes sacrificing everything
for love. We are patient and forgiving to a fault (magpapaka-alipin ako nang dahil sa
iyo). This acceptance of suffering manifests a deep, positive value of Filipinos’
kalooban.
4. Life-Commitment
We Filipinos are bayani-oriented. A bayani is a hero. We Filipinos are natural
hero-followers. For all our patience and tolerance, we will not accept ultimate failure
and defeat. We tend instinctively to always personalize any good cause in terms of a
leader, especially when its object is to defend the weak and the oppressed. To
protect this innate sense of human dignity, Filipinos are prepared to lay down even
their lives.
5. World-View
We Filipinos are spirit-oriented. We are often said to be naturally psychic. We
have a deep-seated belief in the supernatural and in all kinds of spirits dwelling in
individual persons, places and things. Even in today’s world of science and
 40

technology, Filipinos continue to invoke the spirits in various undertakings especially

in faith-healings and exorcisms.
Characteristics of Filipino Culture
To the student: On a piece of paper, attach a cut-out picture on the following
characteristics of the Filipino culture. Beside it, write a three-sentence description of
it.

1. The Filipino people are very resilient.

2. Filipinos are very religious.
3. Filipinos are very respectful.
4. Filipinos help one another.
5. Filipinos value traditions and culture.
6. Filipinos have the longest Christmas celebration.
7. Filipinos love art and architecture.
8. Filipinos are hospitable people.

Filipino Family Values

To the student: On a piece of paper, describe the following Filipino Family

Values in the way you experience these with your own families.
1. Paggalang
2. Pakikisama
3. Utang na Loob
4. Pagpapahalaga sa Pamilya
5. Hiya
6. Damayan
7. Compassionate
8.Fun-loving trait
Weaknesses of the Filipino Character
1. Passivity and lack of initiative
2. Colonial Mentality
3. Kanya-kanya syndrome
4. Extreme personalism
5. Extreme family centeredness
6. Lack of discipline
7 Lack of self-analysis and reflection
 41

8. Ningas cogon
9. Gaya-gaya mentality
To the student: On a piece of paper, suggest one or two courses of action of
every observed weak Filipino character.

ASSESSMENT

Surname: Given Name: M.I.:

Student Number Course/Year/Section

Subject: SOCSCI_212 Chapter: CHAPTER 7: THE FILIPINO

ETHICS WAY

Assessment Questions: (For items 1 and 2 you only have to choose one, either #1
or #2).

1. Make an analysis of the song Ako ay Pilipino on the qualities of the moral
identity of the Filipino.

2. Create a poem (free verse) or compose a song to symbolize your Filipino

identity in terms of description of your Filipino cultural heritage and unique
qualities.

3. Write a personal essay about your own analysis of what we are at present
i.e. slow economic progress, high cases of graft and corruption, lack of
social cohesion, etc. and why we are like that vis-a-vis our value system
and way of life. From that standpoint how do you project our country will
become in the next ten years or so.
 42

REFERENCES
Abesamis, JT and M. Franco (2014). Society and Culture A Liberal Approach to

Understanding Humanity, Malabon: Mutya Publishing House, Inc.

Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines (2004). Acts and Decrees of the
Second

Plenary Council of the Philippines, Manila: Catholic Bishops Conference of

the Philippines.

_______________________________________ (2008). Catechism for Filipino

Catholics,

Manila: Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines.

Leano, R. and A. Gubia-on (2018). Ethics for College Students, Manila: Mindshapers
Co.

Inc
 43

CHAPTER 8: UNIVERSAL VALUES

Embedded in our personality are universal values enshrined in our hearts by
the Creator. These values are of paramount importance in one’s life. These are what
one cherish and treasure such that they provide motivation and guidance to one’s
actions.

LEARNING OUTCOMES

After undergoing the lesson, you are expected to:

1. describe human values;

2. explain that human values are necessary for human survival; and

3. strive to live a value-laden life

Activity

On a sheet of paper, draw a big circle with your name on it. Around your
name, write the values that you cherish most in life.

Universal Values Defined

Values represent aspirations and goals: the motives and purposes we seek.
They are emotionally charged. They give power to our ideas and understandings
such that they constitute the driving force behind individual and group behaviors. The
term is also used to designate the moral characteristics that are inherent in a subject
such as piety, responsibility, secularism and respect among others. Universal,
however is an adjective that is related to what belongs or which relates to the
universe. The concept refers to the set of all things created and what is common to
all its kind.
 44

These concepts enable us to approach the notion of universal value.

Universal values are formed by implied behavioral standards that are necessary to
live in a harmonious and peaceful society. It is a notion that is associated with
morality and ethics. All people have certain values that come from their depths and
guide their actions. Because humans do not think all the same way, values can vary
from one person to the next. However, universal values have to be socially shared.
Universal values are acquired from family upbringing and education because the
process of socialization involves the internalization of timeless concepts.

Schwartz’s Concept of Universal Values

The results of a 44 countries study conducted by S. H. Schwartz and his

colleagues suggest that there are fifty-six specific universal values and ten types of
universal values surveyed from a wide range of different cultural types. Below are
each of the value types with the specific related values alongside:

1. Power – social status and prestige, control or dominance over people and
resources

2. Achievement – personal success by demonstrating competence according to

social standards

3. Hedonism – pleasure or sensuous gratification of oneself

4. Stimulation – excitement, novelty and challenge in life

5. Self-direction – independent thought and action – choosing, creating and

exploring

6. Universalism – understanding, appreciation, tolerance and protection for the

welfare of all people and for nature

7. Benevolence – preservation and enhancement of the welfare of people with

whom one is in frequent personal contact

8. Tradition – respect, commitment, and acceptance of the customs and ideas that
traditional culture or religion provide

9. Conformity – restraint of actions, inclinations and impulses likely to upset or harm

others and violate social expectations or norms

10. Security – safety, harmony, and stability of society, of relationships and of self

Interestingly, Schwartz tested an eleventh possible universal value which was

spirituality or the goal of finding meaning in life, however, he found out that not all
cultures seem to recognize it.

UN Charter of Universal Values

The values enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations (UN) states that
respect for fundamental human rights, social justice and human dignity, and respect
 45

for the equal rights of men and women serve as overarching values to which
suppliers of good and services to the UN are expected to adhere.

The former UN Secretary General, Khofi Ann in a speech in Germany

emphasized that certain fundamental values are essential to international relations in
the 21st century and probably beyond. These are: progress, equal rights, human
dignity, freedom, equality, solidarity, tolerance, respect for nature and shared
responsibility.

Basic Human Values

The function of most of these basic values is to make it possible for every
human being to realize or maintain the highest level or most basic universal values of
life, love and happiness. Here are some of the basic universal human values:

BASIC UNIVERSAL HUMAN VALUES DEFINITION

1. Happiness 1. reward for a religious life by an

afterlife in paradise

2. ultimate value of religious people

3. Peace 4. basic condition for freedom and

happiness

5. not just the absence of war

6. Love 7. feelings or experience of deep

connectedness or oneness with
another human being, any animal,
plant, tree or unnamable

8. experience of something far

beyond any comprehension and
totally indescribable

9. may happen when one opens to

the beauty and nature of other
people or to the beauty and
mystery of nature in general or
even beautiful things

10. Freedom 11. experience of the unrestricted

12. independent of the social pressure

of another

13. related with empathy, integrity, and

respect

14. Safety 15. free of threat, fear and survival-

 46

stress

16. freedom form emotional fear,

helplessness and anxiety

17. Intelligence 18. capacity for logic, understanding,

self-awareness, learning, emotional
knowledge, reasoning, planning,
creativity and problem solving

19. ability to perceive or infer

information and retain it as
knowledge to be applied towards
adaptive behaviors within an
environment or context

20. Respect 21. comes basically out of the

understanding that deep down the
other person is the same as we are
ourselves

22. the most basic principle of any

social communication coming out
of our perception, empathy and
awareness that the other is
basically as we are ourselves

23. Equality 24. originated from old French or Latin

words as aequalis, aequus,
aequalitas (even, level, equal)

25. right to claim equal liberties with

others

26. absence of discrimination

27. Justice 28. proper administration of the law

29. fair and equitable treatment of all

individuals under the law

30. needed to realize and maintain our

highest human values of freedom,
peace, love and happiness

31. Nature 32. understanding our physical

dependence of nature

33. awareness of being a part of the

whole system of the created world
 47

34. Health 35. a state of total physical, mental,

and social well-being, rather than
just the absence of disease or
infirmity

36. a resource for everyday existence

rather than the goal of life

37. a positive idea that emphasizes

social and personal resources as
well as physical abilities

ASSESSMENT

On a separate sheet of papers, do as directed.

1. Write a cinquain describing any of the basic human values explained in the
lesson.

2. Compose a diamante poem on any of the basic human values explained in the
lesson.

3. Make a three-column chart on the eleven basic human values. On the first
column fill it up with the 11 Basic Human Values. On the second column, relate how
this value is being applied today. On the third column, make your personal
commitment how you will live out these values in your daily living.

REFERENCES

Bulaong, O. (2018). Ethics Foundation of Moral Valuation, Manila: Rex Book Store.

Leano, R. and A. Gubia-on (2018). Ethics for College Students, Manila: Mindshapers
Co. Inc.

Quisumbing, L. and ML Baybay (2009). Learning to Know for a Peaceful and

Sustainable

Future, UNESCOAPCEIU.

Quisumbing, L. and J. dLeo (2005). Learning to Do Values to Learning and Working

Together

in a GlobalizedWorld, Bonn, Germany: UNESCO-UNEVOC International

Centre for

Technical and Vocational Education and Training

 48

CHAPTER 9: UNIVERSAL VALUES and HUMAN SURVIVAL

If a value has the same value or worth for everyone, it is said to be universal.
Universal values apply across the world (across country, culture and religion).

LEARNING OUTCOMES:

At the end of the lesson, you are expected to:

1. understand the ideas of universal values;

2. determine the process on the uncovering of the universal values; and

3. value the importance of universal values.

Activity

Write a detailed description of yourself. What are your life's objectives? How
do you set your life's objectives? How do you know what's right and what's wrong?
What have been your life's accomplishments and failures?

Introduction

The phrase "value" refers to something that a person or a community

considers is valuable enough to be pursued, promoted, or favoured. This can be a
physical object (money, food, art), a mental state (peace, security, certainty), or a
behavior resulting from such objects or mental states (protecting innocents, telling
the truth, being creative). A desire isn't the same as a value Desire is defined as a
strong desire for something without giving it much thought; it can stem from an
instinct, drive, or physical necessity. A value may come from a desire or a sequence
 49

of wishes, but it does so after consideration of whether or not the object of my desire
is good. Philosophers frequently focus on the word good when discussing how we
get from our desires to our values. G. E. Moore (1873-1958), a philosopher,
contended that the term "good" cannot be defined because there is no standard
against which we may determine what it means. He dubbed this incapacity to define
evaluative terms "the naturalistic fallacy," because it thinks that evaluative
terminology can match something in nature or reality. He maintained that good was a
non-naturalistic characteristic that science could not verify (Baldwin, 2010).

As they connect to his or her upbringing and social setting, every individual
will value specific goods, states of mind, or behaviors. As a result of its geographical
position, historical trajectory, or ideational background, any society will privilege
specific items, states, and behaviors. To assert that there exist universal values, on
the other hand, entails attempting to discover something that applies to all people
and societies as a result of their shared humanity. Scientific research, social science
testing, or philosophical meditation could all lead to universal ideals. More
malevolent means, such as imperial actions, ideological and religious preaching, or
economic exploitation, may also be to blame.

To investigate universal values, one must pay attention not just to the values
themselves but also to how they have manifested themselves in the contemporary
world order. The subject of ethical investigation is values. The phrases ethics,
morality, and values are sometimes used interchangeably. Although these terms are
often used interchangeably in English, philosophers separate them in the following
way. Morals and morality, according to most philosophers, come from rationality,
although values can come from social settings, emotional dispositions, or rationality.
Although these terms are often used interchangeably in English, philosophers
separate them in the following way. Morals and morality, according to most
philosophers, come from rationality, although values can come from social settings,
emotional dispositions, or rationality.

On the other hand, ethics is the study of morals, including its origins,
applications, justifications, and linkages. A number of attempts have been made to
describe universal human values. Professor Hans Kung, a Catholic theologian from
the University of Tubingen in Germany, was instrumental in the establishment of the
Parliament of World Religions, which produced the Declaration Towards a Global
Ethics. Sri Ravi Shankar, a Hindu spiritual teacher, has produced a Universal
Declaration of Human Values. Both of these documents place a strong emphasis on
values, and they overlap in a number of ways. What are the best ways to find
universal values? There are a variety of approaches to determining whether such
values exist. Those approaches may probably be divided into three groups: scientific,
historical, and dialectic. 

Three philosophers can be used to symbolize these categories: Aristotle,

Mencius, and Jürgen Habermas. Aristotle (384-322 B.C.) is regarded as one of
Ancient Greece's three major thinkers. As a young man, he travelled from Macedonia
to Athens, where he studied Plato, another renowned philosopher (428-348 B.C. ),
 50

who was a disciple of Socrates (470-399 B.C.), perhaps antiquity's greatest Greek
philosopher. Socrates did not write anything down, instead questioning the citizens of
Athens about their values. He would frequently raise more questions than answers
during those interrogations, pointing out how established traditions may not always
reflect what is best for the individual person. Plato maintained that ethics and morals
should be understood through the concept of virtues, or the standard of excellence
within particular occupations as a guide for how to act, in numerous dialogues using
Socrates as the major figure. Being a good captain, for example, entails preventing a
ship from crashing. E4J University Module Series: Integrity & Ethics Module 2:
Universal Values and Ethics 4 that the ship's cargo and passengers reach safely in
port, and that the ship is seaworthy. However, when it comes to universal principles,
we're talking about what it means to be a good human being, not just a good pilot.

Aristotle endeavored to establish Plato's core theory about virtues in practical

data; as a result, he took a scientific method to determining what is good and what is
a universal value. Aristotle accomplished this by contrasting humans with non-human
animals and different political societies. Understanding the virtue of a human being,
according to Aristotle, entails identifying the activities that the best individuals engage
in and that make them happy. Human beings are distinguished from other animals by
two activities, according to him: they think and they live in political groups. Other
species, such as other primates and dolphins, are known to have some ability for
critical reflection. Other species, such as primates, dolphins, and even ants, are
known to live in what appear to be structured political groups. Humans, on the other
hand, are the only animals who use language, allowing them to critically reflect on
their thoughts and actions. The Greek word logos implies both language and reason,
and it is this phrase that gives Aristotle the key to discovering what is good and
valuable in people. The confluence of these two kinds of activities defines humans.
Aristotle came to the conclusion that the best person is one who engages in both
critical reflection and political participation. The intellectual virtues were the first set of
activities, while the practical virtues were the second set. People, according to
Aristotle, need to be taught in virtues. Many things, such as wealth, food, drink, sex,
or power, may be desired by people who feel they will make them happy. According
to Aristotle, each of them is significant, but all of them must be enjoyed in moderation
in order to be fully valued. Universal principles can only develop if we use our logic to
think and create a culture where thinking is encouraged and knowledge is
appreciated (Shields, 2016). Focusing on history and tradition is a second way to
uncover universal ideals. Mencius (372-289 B.C.) was a Chinese philosopher who
flourished around the same time as Aristotle. Mencius was a disciple of Confucius,
the renowned Chinese philosopher, just as Aristotle was a student of Plato who
studied under Socrates (551- 479 B.C.). Some claim Mencius studied under
Confucius' grandson, though this is debatable. Mencius is known as the "second
great Confucian scholar" because he expanded and built on Confucius' views in
significant ways. Confucius, possibly China's most famous philosopher, advocated
for a virtue-based moral framework. The most important virtue was ren, which means
compassion to others. This compassion, however, was not directed at everyone, but
primarily at those who were part of specific social systems, beginning with the family.
 51

This means that being a good person necessitates an awareness of one's role in
society as well as the traditions and rules that come with it. Respect for one's elders
is a major Confucius concept.

Universal or Core Ethical Values

Six basic ethical ideals are: trustworthiness, respect, accountability, fairness,

caring, and citizenship. When we use key ethical values as the foundation for ethical
reasoning, we can spot circumstances where we are so focused on defending one
value that we compromise another – for example, when we are loyal to friends and
hence do not always speak the truth about their conduct.

1. Trustworthiness

Honesty, integrity, reliability, and loyalty are some of the behavioral attributes
that are associated with trustworthiness.

Honesty

Honesty is the most fundamental ethical value there is. Honesty is associated
with honorable people, and we like and trust those who are truthful.

Honesty in communications refers to the intention to communicate the truth

as best we can and to avoid communicating in a way that is likely to deceive or
mislead.

There are three dimensions to consider:

Truthfulness entails not purposefully distorting information (lying). The

distinction between truthfulness and truth itself is intent. Being mistaken is not the
same as lying, because even honest mistakes can erode confidence.

Sincerity/non-deception – a sincere individual does not act, say half-truths, or

remain silent with the goal of instilling false or misleading beliefs or impressions.

Honesty – In trusting relationships, honesty may force us to volunteer

information that another person need.

Stealing, cheating, fraud, and deception are all prohibited by honesty in

behavior. Cheating is not only unethical, but it also takes advantage of those who
aren't. It's a betrayal of faith and justice. Even while all falsehoods are dishonest, not
all of them are immoral. Dishonesty is only permissible in a few situations. For
example, when police lie undercover or when one lies to criminals or terrorists in
order to save lives. However, ethically sanctioned lying is uncommon - for example,
in the case of saving a life.

Integrity

An ethical individual makes the same decisions in every setting - at work and
at home, in public and alone. The person of integrity devotes time to self-reflection so
that the events, crises, and demands of the day do not dictate the moral trajectory of
their lives. They maintain their dominance.
 52

The four adversaries of integrity are:

• Self-interest — what we want

• Self-protection — what we don't want

• Self-deception — a reluctance to view a situation clearly

• Self-righteousness — the idea that the end justifies the means.

Reliability

When we make pledges or commitments to others, we have ethical

obligations that go beyond legal requirements. Promise-keeping has an ethical
dimension that requires us to make all reasonable attempts to honor our promises.

It is also important to:

Avoid making bad-faith excuses – Honorable people don't explain

disobedience or make up excuses to get out of obligations.

Avoid making imprudent commitments – Think about whether you are willing
and likely to keep a promise before making one. Consider unforeseen or future
occurrences that could make keeping your pledge difficult, unattractive, or
impossible. All we can do at times is pledge to try our best.

Avoid ambiguous commitments – Because others will expect you to do what

you say you'll do, make sure the other person understands what you're promising to
do when you make a promise.

Loyalty

Loyalty is defined as the act of advocating and safeguarding the interests of a

group of people, an organization, or a group of associations. There is an expectation
of loyalty in some partnerships, such as husband-wife, employer-employee, and
citizen-country.

Loyalty should be prioritized. Because there are so many individuals and

organizations claiming our loyalty, it is often impossible to honor all of them at the
same time. As a result, we must assign a numerical value to our loyalty
commitments. In our personal lives, it's completely acceptable and ethical to protect
the interests of our children, parents, and spouses, even if it means putting other
children, neighbors, or coworkers on the back burner.

Confidential Information Protection. We must maintain secrets or information

obtained in confidence in order to be loyal.

Conflicting Interests Should Be Avoided. Employees and public servants have

an added duty to make all professional judgments based on merit rather than
personal motives. Their purpose is to keep the public's faith in them.

2. Respect
 53

Respect is about valuing everyone's inherent value and dignity, including

one's own. Regardless of who they are or what they have done, we have a moral
obligation to treat them with respect. Even when dealing with disagreeable people,
we have a responsibility to be the best we can be in all situations.

Respect is concerned with:

Respect, decency, and civility - A respectful person is a good listener.

Respectful people treat others with attention, adhering to accepted standards of taste
and decency, and don't use intimidation, coercion, or violence to teach discipline,
maintain order, or accomplish social justice unless in exceptional and limited
circumstances.

Tolerance - An ethical person accepts and respects individual differences and

opinions, judging others solely on the basis of their character.

3. Responsibility

There are numerous options available in life. Being responsible entails taking
control of our decisions and, as a result, our life. It entails taking responsibility for
what we do and who we are. It also entails accepting that our actions, as well as our
inactions, have consequences.

4. Accountability

An accountable person is not a victim, and he or she does not transfer

responsibility or take credit for others' labor.

Pursuit of Excellence

When others rely on our knowledge, competence, or willingness to

accomplish jobs safely and successfully, the pursuit of excellence takes on an ethical
component.

Diligence. Responsible people are trustworthy, cautious, well-prepared, and

well-informed.

Perseverance. Responsible people finish what they start, overcome hurdles

and making reasons rather than giving up.

Continuous Improvement. People that are responsible search for methods

to improve their work.

Self-Restraint

Self-control is exercised by responsible people, who resist their desires and

cravings (such as lust, hatred, gluttony, greed and fear). If necessary, they postpone
gratification and never feel compelled to "win at any costs."

4. Fairness
 54

Fairness is a difficult idea to grasp. Disagreeing parties tend to believe that

only one position is correct: their own. While certain situations and judgments are
unquestionably unjust, fairness usually refers to a range of morally defensible
outcomes rather than the discovery of a single fair one.

Process

A fair individual gathers and evaluates information in order to make decisions

in an open and unbiased manner. Fair individuals don't wait for the truth to come to
them; instead, they seek out pertinent information and opposing viewpoints before
making critical decisions.

Impartiality

Decisions should be made without bias or preference.

Equity

It's crucial not to take advantage of other people's weaknesses,

disadvantages, or ignorance. In order to be fair, an individual, a company, or a
society must remedy mistakes quickly and voluntarily.

5. Caring

Caring is at the heart of ethical behavior. It's difficult to be completely ethical

while being unconcerned about the welfare of others. That's because, at the end of
the day, ethics is about our obligations to others. We must sometimes inflict suffering
on those we love, and certain decisions, while moral, do cause grief. However, no
more harm should be done than is absolutely necessary.

6. Citizenship

The concept of citizenship encompasses how we should act as members of a

community. The good citizen not only knows and obeys the laws, but also volunteers
and keeps up with current events. Citizens contribute far more than their "fair" share
to make society work today and in the future. Citizenship can take numerous forms,
including resource conservation, recycling, public transit use, and litter cleanup.

Universal Values are necessary for human survival

Values that are universal are clear that we need for us human beings to
survive because it informs us our thoughts, actions, and words. Universal values are
helping us to grow our everyday as a dignified person, it help us also to develop our
skills, talents and human dignity. Universal values also helping us to create better
future. Every one of us has the right and responsibility to make good judgments
every day.

Our values inform our thoughts, words and actions. 

Our values are significant because they enable us to develop and grow. They
assist us in imagining the future we want to live in.
 55

Every day, every person and every organization is involved in hundreds of

decisions. Our choices reflect our values and ideas, and they are always made with a
specific goal in mind. The satisfaction of our individual or collective (organizational)
needs is the goal.

We make a conscious decision to focus on what is important to us when we

make decisions based on our values. When a group's ideals are shared, it creates
internal cohesion.
Individual values, relational values, organizational values, and societal values are the
four categories of values found in an organizational context.

Individual values

Individual values are the ideas you live by and what you deem vital for your own self-
interest. They represent how you show up in your life and your individual demands.
Enthusiasm, inventiveness, humility, and personal fulfillment are examples of
individual values.

Relationship values

Relationship values reflect how you interact with others in your life, whether
they are friends, family, or coworkers. Openness, trust, generosity, and care are all
values that can be found in a relationship.

Organizational values

The way your company presents itself and functions in the world is reflected
in its values. Financial growth, teamwork, productivity, and strategic alliances are all
organizational values.

Societal values

The way you or your company interacts with society is reflected in your
societal values. Future generations, environmental awareness, ecology, and
sustainability are all societal values.

ASSESSMENT

On a sheet of paper answer the following:

1. Show your understanding of universal values through a drawing or a collage.

2. Determine the process on how universal values can be uncovered.

3. Why is universal value important? Explain.

 56

REFERENCES

Baldwin, T. (2010). "George Edward Moore." The Stanford Encyclopedia of

Philosophy.

Edward N. Zalta, ed. Available from

https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2010/entries/moor

CHAPTER 10
DEVELOPMENT AND STAGES OF MORAL CHARACTER
Morals are ideals and principles based on what a person or society considers to be
the suitable, proper, or acceptable ways of acting. A person's or a group's values are
the moral ideas and beliefs that they believe are important in life and that they use as
guiding principles in their daily lives.

LEARNING OUTCOMES

At the end of the chapter, you should be able to:

a. examine the meaning and significance of moral character formation;

b. describe the phases of moral growth; and
c. value the relevance of understanding the stages of moral development.

Activity
On a piece of paper in three to five sentences, discuss the need to know the
difference between right from wrong and vice versa.

Introduction

Morality is a set of beliefs that distinguishes between what is right and good
and what is wrong or terrible. Moral growth describes how a person's moral
convictions evolve as he or she grows older and matures. Moral ideas are related to,
but not identical to, moral behavior: it is possible to know what is right to do, but it is
not always possible to do it yet not carry it out. It's also not the same as
understanding social conventions, which are arbitrary customs that keep society
running smoothly. Social customs may have a moral component, but their primary
 57

function is practical. Motor vehicles, for example, traditionally stay on the same side
of the road (to the right in the United States, to the left in Great Britain). The
convention ensures a safe and seamless flow of traffic. Following the rules includes a
moral component, as driving on the wrong side of the road can result in injury or even
death. In this sense, picking the wrong side of the street is ethically wrong, despite
the fact that it is also unusual.

Biographical introduction

Lawrence Kohlberg's work is an exemplary example of Piagetian-inspired

research. Kohlberg has concentrated on moral development, proposing a stage
theory of moral thinking that goes well beyond Piaget's original conceptions.

Kohlberg, who was born in 1927, grew raised in Bronxville, New York, and
went to Andover Academy in Andover, Massachusetts, a private high school for
intelligent and typically wealthy students. He did not immediately enroll in college,
opting instead to assist the Israeli cause by serving as the Second Engineer on an
outdated freighter transporting refugees from Europe to Israel. He then enrolled in
the University of Chicago in 1948, scoring so well on the admissions tests that he just
needed to complete a few courses to earn his bachelor's degree. He accomplished
all of this in a single year. He continued his studies in psychology at the University of
Chicago, initially intending to work as a clinical psychologist. He grew interested in
Piaget quickly, though, and began questioning children and adolescents about moral
issues. His doctoral dissertation (1958a), the earliest version of his new stage theory,
was the outcome.

Kohlberg is a laid-back, modest man who is also a true scholar; he has

pondered a wide range of themes in psychology and philosophy for many years, and
has done much to help others recognize the wisdom of many of the "classic
psychologists," such as Rousseau, John Dewey, and James Mark Baldwin. Kohlberg
has worked as a professor at the University of Chicago (1962-1968) and has been a
Harvard University professor since 1968.

Piaget's stages of Moral Judgment

Piaget looked into various elements of moral judgment, but his findings were
mostly consistent with a two-stage approach. Children under the age of ten or eleven
consider moral difficulties in one way, whereas older children do so in a different way.
Younger children, as we have seen, see rules as set and absolute. They believe that
rules are given to them by adults or God, and that they are unchangeable. The
perspective of the older child is more relativistic. He or she realizes that if everyone
agrees, it is permissible to amend the rules. Rules are neither sacrosanct or
absolute, but rather tools that humans utilize to work together. Children's moral
reasoning experiences various adjustments around the same time (10 or 11 years).
Younger children's moral judgments are based on consequences, but older children's
moral judgments are based on intentions. When, for example, the young child hears
about one boy who broke 15 cups trying to help his mother and another boy who
broke only one cup trying to steal cookies, the young child thinks that the first boy did
 58

worse. The child primarily considers the amount of damage--the consequences--

whereas the older child is more likely to judge wrongness in terms of the motives
underlying the act (Piaget, 1932).

Piaget's work on moral judgment contains many more specifics, but he

discovered a series of changes that occur between the ages of 10 and 12, precisely
as the kid begins to enter the general stage of formal processes.

Intellectual growth, on the other hand, does not end here. This is only the
start of formal operations, which will go at least until the age of 16. As a result, one
may anticipate that moral thought will continue to grow throughout adolescence. As a
result, Kohlberg conducted interviews with both children and teenagers on moral
difficulties, and he discovered stages that go much beyond Piaget's. He discovered
six stages, but only the first three have many similarities to Piaget's stages.

Kohlberg's method

The core sample for Kohlberg's (1958a) study included 72 boys from both middle-
and lower-class Chicago families. They were ten years old, thirteen years old, and
sixteen years old at the time. Later, he added delinquents, younger children, and
boys and girls from other American towns and nations to his sample (1963, 1970).

The basic interview consists of a sequence of conundrums such as these:

Heinz Steals the Drug

A woman in Europe was on the verge of dying from a rare form of cancer. The
physicians thought there was one medicine that could help her. It was a type of
radium that had recently been found by a druggist in the same town. The medicine
was costly to produce, yet the druggist was charging ten times the cost of production.
He bought the radium for $200 and charged $2,000 for a single dose of the
medicine. Heinz, the sick woman's husband, approached everyone he knew for a
loan, but he was only able to get roughly $ 1,000, which was only half of the total
cost. He informed the druggist that his wife was dying and requested that he sell it for
a lower price or allow him to pay later. "No, I discovered the drug and I'm going to
make money from it," the druggist replied. As a result, Heinz became frantic and
broke into the man's store in order to grab the medicine for his wife. Should the
spouse have acted in this manner? (1963, p. 19) (Kohlberg)

Kohlberg’s morality of justice

Lawrence Kohlberg and his colleagues created one of the most well-known
accounts of how morality and justice arise (Kohlberg, Levine, & Hewer, 1983; Power,
Higgins, & Kohlberg, 1991). Kohlberg postulated six stages of moral development,
divided into three levels, based on a stage model similar to Piaget's. As people
establish attitudes about justice, they go through the stages in a predictable order.
Preconvention, conventional, and (you got it) post convention were his levels'
names.

Pre conventional justice: Obedience and Mutual Advantage

 59

The pre-conventional stage of moral development roughly corresponds to the

preschool years of life and Piaget's preoperational stage of thought. At this age, the
youngster is still largely self-centered and unconcerned about the moral
consequences of his or her activities. As a result, morality takes on a somewhat
skewed perspective. The infant develops an ethics of obedience and punishment at
first (Kohlberg's Stage 1), a sort of "morality of staying out of trouble." Whether or not
activities are rewarded or penalized by authorities such as parents or instructors
determines their rightness or wrongness. If helping yourself to a cookie results in
warm smiles from grownups, then the cookie is morally "good." If it instead results in
a reprimand, it is morally “wrong.” The youngster does not consider why an activity is
applauded or chastised; in fact, according to Kohlberg, he would be unable to
consider the reasons even if adults provided them.

The youngster eventually learns not only how to react to favorable

consequences, but also how to create them by trading favors with others. Stage 2 is
created by the new ability, which is an ethics of market exchange. The ethically
"good" behavior at this point is one that benefits not just the child, but also another
person directly engaged. A lack of reciprocity is considered a "poor" behavior. If
trading your lunch sandwich for your friend's lunch cookies is mutually agreeable, the
deal is morally acceptable; otherwise, it is not. For the first time, a sense of fairness
is introduced into the child's thinking. However, it continues to overlook the greater
context of actions—the consequences for others who aren't there or directly involved.
In Stage 2, for example, paying a classmate to complete another student's homework
—or even to prevent bullying or perform sexual favors—would be considered morally
"good" if both parties saw the agreement as fair.

Conventional justice: Conformity to peers and society

As children enter school, their lives grow to encompass a bigger number and
variety of peers, as well as (eventually) the entire community. The shift leads to
conventional morality, or ideas that are based on what a wider group of people agree
on—hence Kohlberg's usage of the term "conventional." Stage 3 is frequently
referred to as the ethics of peer opinion because the child's reference group is
initially his or her immediate classmates. If peers feel, for example, that it is morally
acceptable to be nice to as many people as possible, the child is more likely to agree
with the group and consider politeness as a moral “good” rather than an arbitrary
social practice. Because the child is considering the reactions of many people rather
than just one, this approach to moral belief is a little more stable than the method in
Stage 2. However, if the group settles on views that adults deem morally incorrect,
such as "Shoplifting for Candy Bars is Fun and Desirable," it can still lead astray.

As the youngster grows older and his or her social sphere expands, he or she
obtains an increasing number of peers and friends. As a result, he or she is more
prone to face debates over ethical concerns and ideas. The young person
progressively defines moral views in terms of what the majority of society believes as
the complications are resolved. This leads to Stage 4, the ethics of law and order, in
which the young person increasingly frames moral beliefs in terms of what the
 60

majority of society thinks. Now, an action is ethically desirable if it is legal or, at the
very least, widely accepted by the majority of people, including persons the kid does
not know. This attitude produces a more stable set of beliefs than the preceding
stage, yet it is still susceptible to ethical errors. For example, a community or society
may agree that persons of a given race should be treated with purposeful disrespect,
or that a factory owner has the right to dump waste water into a public lake or river.
Further stages of moral evolution are required to create ethical rules that dependably
avoid blunders like these.

Post conventional justice: Social Contract and Universal Principles

As a person's ability to think abstractly (or "formally," in Piaget's definition)

grows, ethical beliefs move from acceptance of what the community believes to the
process by which those beliefs are produced. Stage 5, the ethics of social contract, is
the new focus. Now, an action, belief, or practice is ethically good if it is the result of
fair, democratic processes that respect the rights of those involved. Consider the
rules that force motorcyclists to wear helmets in certain locations. In what way are
the regulations governing this type of action ethical? Was it developed after talking
with and obtaining the consent of the appropriate individuals? Have bikers been
consulted, and have they given their consent? What about doctors or the relatives of
cyclists? Reasonable, thoughtful people can't agree on how thorough and equitable
these consultations should be. Individuals, regardless of their viewpoint on wearing
helmets, are thinking according to Stage 5, the ethics of social contract, by focusing
on the methods by which the law was developed. In this sense, even though
opposing viewpoints contradict each other, ethically good opinions on both sides of
an issue might exist.

Paying attention to due process appears to be a good way to avoid unthinking

adherence to traditional moral ideas. It can, however, fail as an ethical technique on
occasion. The issue is that a social contract ethics places more faith in democratic
processes than they deserve, and does not pay enough attention to the content of
the decisions made. In theory (and rarely in fact), a society may democratically
decide to exterminate all members of a racial minority, but would doing so through
due process make it ethical? Some people go to Stage 6, which is the ethics of self-
chosen, universal standards, after realizing that ethical means can sometimes serve
unethical purposes. The morally good activity is founded on personally held beliefs
that apply both to the person's immediate existence and to the greater community
and society at this stage. A belief in democratic due process (Stage 5 ethics) is one
of the universal values, but others include the dignity of every human existence and
the sacredness of the natural environment. Even if the universal principles entail
occasionally disagreeing with what is usual (Stage 4) or even with what is legal, a
person's beliefs will be guided by them in Stage 6. (Stage 5).

Gilligan’s Morality of Care

Kohlberg's stages of moral justice, as rational as they sound, are insufficient

for understanding the formation of moral views. Consider the following scenario: you
have a student who requests an extension to a deadline for an assignment.
 61

Kohlberg's theory's justice orientation would lead you to question whether granting
the request is fair. Will the late student be able to put in more effort than the other
pupils on the assignment? Would the extension put a strain on you because you'd
have less time to grade the assignments? These are critical considerations for both
students and teachers' rights. However, there are other factors, such as your and the
seeking student's responsibility to each other and to others. Is there a valid personal
reason for the student's lateness (sickness, death in the family, etc.)? Will the
assignment's educational value be compromised if the student is forced to turn it in
early? These later concerns are less about justice and rights and more about caring
for and assuming responsibility for pupils. To be fully understood, they require a
framework other than Kohlberg's.

Carol Gilligan has created one such framework, based on a morality of care,
or a set of beliefs about human responsibilities, care, and consideration for others.
Gilligan offered three moral perspectives that represent various levels of ethical care
or breadth. Carol Gilligan has created one such framework, based on a morality of
care, or a set of beliefs about human responsibilities, care, and consideration for
others. Gilligan offered three moral perspectives that represent various levels of
ethical care or breadth. In this regard, her approach is comparable to Maslow's
motivation theory in that it is "semi-developmental" (Brown & Gilligan, 1992; Taylor,
Gilligan, & Sullivan, 1995).

Position 1: Caring as Survival

A survival orientation is the most basic form of caring, in which a person is

primarily concerned with his or her own well-being. If a teenage girl with this ethical
perspective is debating whether or not to have an abortion, she will be totally
concerned with the abortion's repercussions on herself. The ethically just decision
will be the one that causes her the least amount of stress and causes the least
amount of disruption in her life. Others' responsibilities (the baby, her father, or her
family) play little or no role in her decision-making.

A survival attitude is obviously unsuitable for classrooms on a large scale as a

moral perspective. Classroom life can become pretty nasty if each student solely
looked out for himself or herself! However, there are times when concentrating solely
on yourself is both a sign of good mental health and useful to teachers. It is both
healthy and morally desirable for a youngster who has been bullied at school or
sexually molested at home, for example, to speak out about how the bullying or
abuse has affected the victim. This simply entails prioritizing the victim's own needs
over the needs of others, including the bully's or abuser's. In this scenario, speaking
up demands a survival mindset and is beneficial because the youngster is taking
care of herself.

Position 2: Conventional Caring

Caring for others is a more complex moral viewpoint in which a person is

concerned about the happiness and wellbeing of others, as well as reconciling or
integrating conflicting needs. When considering an abortion, for example, the
 62

adolescent in this situation might evaluate what other people would desire. Is her
father, parents, and/or doctor in favor of her keeping the child? What is morally right
becomes whatever would delight the most people. This position is more difficult
ethically and intellectually than Position 1 since it demands coordinating the needs
and values of multiple people. However, it is frequently morally insufficient since it
overlooks one important person: the self.

Students that operate from Position 2 in the classroom can be quite desirable
in some respects, such as their eagerness to please, consideration, and ability to
blend in and work cooperatively with others. Teachers may be tempted to reward
students for developing and employing these skills because they are usually
appreciated in a crowded classroom. However, emphasizing Position 2 ethics has
the drawback of neglecting the student's development—his or her own academic and
personal aims and ideals. Personal objectives, beliefs, and identity all require
attention and care at some point, and instructors are responsible for supporting
pupils in discovering and clarifying them.

Position 3: Integrated Caring

In Gilligan's approach, integrated care, or the synchronization of personal

needs and ideals with those of others, is the highest developed form of moral caring.
Now, the morally just decision considers everyone, including yourself, rather than just
yourself. If you're thinking about having an abortion, a woman in Position 3 would
consider not only the father's, unborn child's and family's repercussions, but also the
ramifications for herself. What impact would having a kid have on her own desires,
values, and plans? This perspective leads to more broad moral beliefs. However,
because the greatest possible spectrum of people is being considered, they are also
more prone to dilemmas.

When teachers allow kids a lot of freedom to make decisions, integrated care
is more likely to emerge in the classroom. There is little place for addressing
anyone's needs or values, whether their own or others', if students have limited
freedom in their activities. If the teacher merely says: When you tell someone, "Do
the homework on page 50 and turn it in tomorrow morning," the important issue is
compliance rather than moral choice. But what if she says something like this
instead: "Over the next two months, devise an inquiry project on our town's utilization
of water resources. "Organize it whatever you want—talk to people, read widely
about it, and share it with the class in a way that will be important to all of us,
including yourself." Because it asks students to make value judgements, an
assignment like this raises moral issues that are both educational and moral. Why?
For starters, students must determine which aspects of the issue are most important
to them. A decision like this is largely based on personal principles. Furthermore,
students must consider how to make the issue relevant and important to the rest of
the class. Third, because the deadline is so far away, students may have to choose
between personal commitments (such as spending time with friends or family) and
educational priorities (working on the assignment a bit more on the weekend). As you
may expect, some students may struggle to make appropriate decisions when given
 63

this level of autonomy -- and as a result, their professors may be hesitant to assign
such a task. The challenges in making decisions are, however, part of Gilligan's
point: integrated care is more demanding than caring based solely on survival or
consideration of others. It's possible that not all students are prepared.

Character Development: Integrating ethical understanding, care, and action

All of the theories discussed thus far provide frameworks for understanding
how children develop into adolescents and adults. Maslow, Kohlberg, and Gilligan's
are more particular than Erikson's in that they concentrate on the development of
ethical understanding. However, from the perspective of a teacher, the theories are
all constrained in two ways One concern is that they place a greater emphasis on
cognition—what youngsters believe about ethical issues—than on emotions and
behavior. The other is that they don't speak anything about how to promote ethical
growth. Teachers' jobs include encouraging pupils, and doing so properly
necessitates an awareness of not only what students know about ethics, but also
what they don't know not only how people feel about it, but also what ethical acts
they are willing to do.

Many educators have identified these educational demands, and some have
devised practical programs that combine ethical awareness, care, and action. The
programs are commonly referred to as character education as a whole, however
individual programs go by a variety of titles (moral dilemma education, integrated
ethical education, social competence education, and a variety of other topics). The
programs differ in their specifics, but they always combine a concentration on ethical
knowledge with an awareness of ethical feelings and acts (Elkind & Sweet, 2004;
Berkowitz & Bier, 2006; Narvaez, 2010). Character education programs go far
beyond simply educating pupils to follow ethical norms like "always speak the truth"
or "always do what the teacher says." Such rules need little thought on the part of the
student, yet there are often times when an ostensibly universal rule must be
changed, "bent," or even ignored. (If telling the whole truth could harm someone's
feelings, it might be more considerate—and hence more ethical—to soften the truth a
little, or even to say nothing at all.)

Character education, on the other hand, is about encouraging pupils to

consider big concerns in their lives, such as “What type of person should I be?” or
“What is the best way for me to live my life?” Answering such broad questions
thoughtfully helps to address a slew of more specific problems with ethical
ramifications, such as "Should I pay attention to the teacher right now, even if she's a
little dull, or should I just tune out?" or “Should I offer to help my friend with her
homework if she is having trouble, or should I wait until she learns to do it on her
own?” Most of the time, there isn't enough time to deliberate or intentionally reason
about such issues. Intuitive, instinctive, and embodied answers are required, which
means they must be based on fairly immediate emotional responses (Narvaez,
2009). Character education aims to improve students' abilities to respond to ethical
decisions on a daily basis not only consciously and rationally, but also intuitively and
 64

emotionally. Students can live a good, ethically responsible life to the extent that this
goal is accomplished.

Schoolwide programs of Character Education

Despite the enormous variability among students, the most comprehensive

approaches to character education commit a whole school to building students'
ethical character (Minow, Schweder, & Markus, 2008). All members of the staff,
including teachers and administrators, as well as custodians and educational
assistants, are dedicated to building healthy relationships with kids. The overarching
idea emerges as one of cooperation and mutual care, rather than competitiveness.
Fairness, respect, and honesty pervade classroom and school activities; for example,
rather than rewarding obedience or punishing wrongdoers, discipline focuses on
resolving disagreements between students and between students and teachers. The
strategy necessitates a heavy emphasis on democratic meetings and discussions,
both in classrooms and elsewhere in the school.

ASSESSMENT:

On a sheet of paper, write the letter of the correct answer.

1. How many main stages of moral development are there?

a. 1 b. 3
c. 5 d. 7
2. How many levels of moral development are there in each stage?
a. 2 b. 4
c. 6 d. 8
3. Does everyone achieve the last stage of moral development?
a. YES b. NO
4. On this stage, children are good so that they can be seen as good to other people.
a. Pre conventional/Premoral b. Conventional
c. Post Conventional d. None of the above
5. If a child is good because they do not want to avoid punishment, which stage are
the students in?
a. Pre conventional/Premoral b. Conventional
c. Post Conventional d. None of the above
6. On this stage, individual judgment is based on individual rights and justice for the
greater good.
a. Pre conventional/Premoral b. Conventional
c. Post Conventional d. None of the above
7. On this stage, the child is aware of wider rules of society. At this point, a student is
good because of what society says.
a. Pre conventional/Premoral b. Conventional
c. Post Conventional d. None of the above
 65

8. A child at this stage begins to understand that different individuals have different
viewpoints. In other words, they may understand that what “dad” thinks is right and
may be different from what his/her teacher thinks is right.
a. Pre conventional/Premoral b. Conventional
c. Post Conventional d. None of the above
9. People at this stage develop their own set of moral guidelines that may or not fit
into the law. Things like human rights, justice, and equality are most important even if
they have to go against society and have to face consequences.
a. Pre conventional/Premoral b. Conventional
c. Post Conventional d. None of the above

10. According to Kohlberg, most people will reach the highest stage of moral
development.
a. TRUE b. FALSE

REFERENCES

Berkowitz, M. & Bier, M. (2006). What works in character education: A Research-

driven

Guide for Educators. St. Louis, MO: Center for Character and Citizenship.

Brown, L. & Gilligan, C. (1992). Meeting at the crossroads: Women’s Psychology and

Girls’

Development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Elkind, D. & Sweet, F. (2006). How to do character education. Accessed February 1,

2011

at http://www.goodcharacter.com/Article_4.html.

Kohlberg, L., Levine, C., & Hewer, A. (1983). Moral stages: A Current Formulation
and a

Response to Critics. Basel: S. Karger.

Minow, M., Shweder, R., & Markus, H. (Eds.). (2008). Just schools: Pursuing
Equality in

Societies of Difference. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Narvaez, D. (2010). Moral complexity: The Fatal Attraction of Truthiness and the
Importance

of Mature moral functioning. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5(2),

162–181.

Taylor, J. & Gilligan, C., & Sullivan, A. (1995). Between voice and silence: Women
and girls,
 66

Race and Relationship. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

CHAPTER 11: PERSONAL GROWTH AND STAGES OF

DEVELOPMENT
From birth through adulthood, moral development is concerned with the
emergence, change, and comprehension of morality. Morality develops during the
course of a person's life and is influenced by their experiences and conduct when
confronted with moral concerns at various stages of physical and cognitive
development. In a nutshell, morality refers to an individual's developing sense of
good and wrong: As a result, young children have moral judgment and character that
differs from that of an adult. Morality is frequently used interchangeably with the
terms "rightness" and "goodness." It is a psychological phrase that refers to a code of
conduct that is drawn from one's culture, religion, or personal philosophy that directs
one's action and behavior. Social development, physical development, and cognitive
development are examples of different types of development.

LEARNING OUTCOMES

At the end of this lesson, you should be able to:

1. examine the ethical dimensions of the stages of moral development;

2. differentiate the stages of moral development; and

3. recognize the implications of personal growth and stages of moral development.

Activity

On a sheet of paper, make a timeline on your personal journey as a student.

Highlight the important decisions you made.

Introduction
 67

For Reidenbach and Robin's model of corporate moral growth, the following
classificatory variables are employed. “Management philosophy and attitudes, proof
of ethical ideals represented in the culture of the firm, and the existence and
proliferation of organizational cultural ethics and artifacts.”

The model is divided into five stages: amoral, legalistic, responsive, emergent ethical,
and ethical. Lawrence Kohlberg's stages of moral development inspired the idea.
According to Redenbacher and Robin, a direct application of Kohlberg models is not
viable since people do not evolve in the same way that organizations do. In a
nutshell, the Kohlberg model is as follows:

Level 1: Pre Conventional Morality

Stage 1: Obedience and punishment: Behavior driven by avoiding

punishment

Stage 2: Individual Interest: Behavior driven by interest and awards

Level 2: Conventional morality

Stage 1: Interpersonal: Behavior driven by social approval

Stage 2: Authority: Behavior driven by obeying authority and conforming to

social order.

Level 3: Post Conventional Morality

Stage 1. Social Contract: Behavior Driven by balance of social order and

individual rights.

Stage 2: Universal Ethics: Behavior driven by internal moral principles

According to Reidenbach and Robin, not all individuals go through the six
stages, and neither do corporate organizations. In addition, corporate moral
development is not necessarily a continuous process. An organization's ethical
climate changes dramatically as new management or mergers take place, signaling
either progress or regression in its moral evolution. The stages of moral
development

Stage 1. The amoral organization

This style of organization is characterized by a “win at all costs” mentality. Its

main interest is not ethics. It's a business that's entirely focused on efficiency and
likelihood. It only considers ethics when it is caught in some sort of wrongdoing. The
only social obligation of a business in this form of organization is to produce a profit.
Top management rules by power and authority, as well as through a reward structure
that encourages go along conduct. Those who follow the rules without question are
rewarded, whereas those who criticize management are eventually kicked out of the
organization. Employees are viewed as nothing more than a device to increase
production and profit for the company.
 68

Stage 2. The legalistic corporation

Companies in stage two” follow the letter of the law rather than the spirit of
the law. In this stage of moral development, an organization shows a regard for rules,
codes, and regulations. This corporation is concerned with adhering to state
regulations, prioritizing the legality of an action over its morality. It places a significant
amount of responsibility on its legal team to ensure that business policies are carried
out in line with state legislation in order to avoid legal entanglements. What is legal
corresponds to what is right from this standpoint. While stage one is concerned with
the legality of how profit is made, stage two is concerned with the legality of how
profit is made.

Stage 3. The responsive corporation

This type of business begins to value things other than profit and legality. It is
in these companies' best interests to do the right thing, but they see it as a means to
an end rather than an end in itself. In other words, these companies are more likely
to cave in to public pressures and thus recognize that business has a responsibility to
function with society in mind. They have an ethical code that aims to align company
objectives with society demands. This nascent concern is motivated by a knowledge
of the organization's wider social function, rather than a sense of doing the right thing
for the sake of doing the right thing. At this point, success is a matter of convenience.

Stage 4. The emergent ethical organization

This type of company works hard to strike a better balance between earnings
and ethics. It acknowledges that business and society have social interactions. Any
company action is given weight based on its ethical implications as well as its
potential for profit. Many measures are in place to ensure that the company and its
various agents conduct business in an ethical manner. To demonstrate what
happens at this stage, Reidenbach and Robin use the examples of Boieng and
General Mills. Employees can report ethical transgressions by calling a toll-free
number set up by Boieng, which facilitates ethics training sessions. General Mills
hires people who share the company's values in terms of culture and ethics. It also
includes a set of rules for interacting with vendors and competitors and customers.
While responsive firms are beginning to establish ethical processes to boost the
likelihood of ethical action, Reidenbach and Robin point out that these organizations
are not yet totally comfortable with their execution.

In other words, while stage four companies appreciate the need of ethics,
they lack the expertise required to administer and maximize the effectiveness of
ethical systems. Nonetheless, there is a concerted effort to ensure that earnings are
made in a moral manner.

Stage 5. The ethical organizations

 69

Normative moral theories are being used as a guide to develop diverse

organizational activities at this point. There is also an ongoing ethical training
program that is interwoven with the technical training of the employees. This culture
has a strong feeling of responsibility and commitment to do what is right and fair. The
primary difference between stages four and five is the corporation's level of
commitment to channeling its resources toward the objective of making the
organization completely ethical in every way. These five stages show how companies
differ in their understanding and perception of ethics and how it relates to business.
As a company advances through the stages, ethics becomes more ingrained in its
operations. This stage explains how many companies attempt to instill ethical
behavior in their dealings with diverse stakeholders.

ASSESSMENT
Surname: Given Name: M.I.:

Student Number Course/Year/Section

Subject: SOCSCI_212 Chapter: CHAPTER 11: PERSONAL

ETHICS
GROWTH AND STAGES OF
DEVELOPMENT

Assessment Questions:

1. Assess three organizations/agencies/office etc., either private or public and

rate them according to the five stages of moral development. Use the scale
1, 2, and 3 where 1 is the lowest and 3, the highest. Make your own
conclusion, based on the results, where in the five stages of moral
development they fall.

2. Assess yourself on what stage of moral development you are experiencing

right now. See if the descriptions fit you. Discuss.
 70

REFERENCES

Hasnas, J., The Normative Theories of Business Ethics: A Guide for the Perplexed,
’Business

Ethics Quarterly

Reidenbach,R., E. and Donald, R. “ A Conceptual Model of Corporate Moral

Development,”

Journal of Business Ethics

Velasquez, M. (2012) Business Ethics; Concepts and Cases. 7th ed. New Jersey:

Pearson Education,
 71

CHAPTER 12: REASON AND IMPARTIALITY AS REQUIREMENTS

FOR ETHICS

Philosophers may discuss impartiality as though it were the same as moral

impartiality. Or, at the very least, the former word is frequently employed without the
qualifier ‘moral,' even when the intended meaning is a particularly moral one. This is
misleading, because impartiality in its broadest sense is best understood as a formal
idea, but moral impartiality is a substantive concept, and one about which there is
much debate. This post will mostly focus on moral impartiality, specifically the kind of
impartiality that is typically found in normative moral and political theories. Impartiality
(also known as evenhandedness or fairness) is a principle of justice that states that
choices should be made based on objective standards rather than bias, prejudice, or
favoring one group over another for improper reasons.

LEARNING OUTCOMES

At the end of the chapter, you should be able to:

1. define impartiality as fair, equitable, unprejudiced, unbiased to a certain situation;

2. recall immediate response to moral dilemmas; and

3. explain the total importance of impartiality.

Introduction

A right to good administration:

 72

Every person has the right to have his or her business handled by the union's
institutions, bodies, offices, and agencies in an unbiased, fair, and timely manner.

A right to an effective remedy and a fair trial:

Everyone has the right to a fair and public hearing before an independent
and impartial tribunal established by law within a reasonable time frame.

Principle of impartiality

1. The general principle of impartiality – Members must ensure that bias, conflict
of interest, or undue influence of others do not compromise, and cannot reasonably
be deemed to compromise, their professional judgment.

2. Exercising Professional judgement- A member using professional judgment

must do so in a way that is free of prejudice (real or perceived) and guarantees that
they are able to provide advise that is not influenced by personal feelings or interests.

3. Resolve desist from acting- Members may be put in circumstances where their
objectivity is jeopardized. If the conditions of an instruction, a member's relationship
with a user, or other factors enhance the possibility of a member's professional
judgment being compromised throughout the course of a piece of work, the member
may be better off declining the instruction. If a member discovers circumstances that
compromise, or appear to compromise, their professional judgment after accepting
an instruction. The member must refrain from intervening, which could entail
clarifying the problem to the user and assisting them in making alternate
arrangements.

4. What would a fair minded observer think? - When considering impartiality,

members should consider if there is a conflict of interest between the advice they
give and the decisions they make.

1. Ethical bias – Members can reduce the risk of acting in a biased manner by
being aware of the possibility for bias and factoring it in when making decisions or
giving advise to ensure that they are operating impartially.

2. Institutional bias or group think- Members should be aware of the potential

influence of "group thought" on their decision-making as another danger to
impartiality. The tendency for one's own judgment to be influenced by the apparent
majority view of assumptions, methods, processes, or approaches, resulting in a
reduction in the variety of ideas in the market, is known as groupthink.

One of the risks of group think is that it can lead to poor behavior or
systematic business failures as a result of a work environment where perspectives
are not questioned and people operate in the same way as others without sufficient
rationale.
 73

3. Conflict of interest- can be complicated and necessitate professional judgment.

This handbook is designed to help members understand their duties when it comes
to conflicts of interest and how to use professional judgment in those situations.

ASSESSMENT

Surname: Given Name: M.I.:

Student Number Course/Year/Section

Subject: SOCSCI_212 Chapter: CHAPTER 12: REASON AND

ETHICS IMPARTIALITY AS
REQUIREMENTS FOR ETHICS

Assessment Questions:

1. Duterte: 4Ps beneficiaries, soldiers to get COVID-19 vaccine priority

(headline of Philippine Star, October 14, 2020). Comment if this decision of
the president is fair, equitable or unprejudiced. Cite any of the Principles
Impartiality discussed in the lesson.

2. Cite an experience in life that would demonstrate the following concepts

below and include the lessons you have learned out of those experience:
2.1 Fair
2.2 Equitable
2.3 Unprejudiced
2.4 Unbiased

3. What is your stand on the moral dilemmas of impartiality?

4. What is the importance of impartiality and objectivity?

 74

REFERENCES

Zalta,E.,(February6,2017)impartaility.,Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

https://plato.standford.edu., Retrieved 23 June 2020.

Institute and Faculty of Actuaries.,Section 5: Principle https://www.actuaries.urg.uk.

Retrieved 23 June 2020.

CHAPTER 13: FEELINGS AND REASON: UPSURGE OF FEELINGS

IS NATURAL AND WHAT WE DO WITH THEM IS WHAT MAKES US
ETHICAL OR UNETHICAL

In fact, we must work to promote mature, serious consideration on holy and

secular ethical issues and ideals. This is done with a worldwide goal in mind, trying to
appeal to everybody interested in ethics. We are motivated not just by our admiration
for non-Christian ethical viewpoints, but also by our conviction that Christians who
are committed to ethical reflection must likewise value other traditions. We welcome
submissions that are both comparative and secular in nature, as well as ones that
are distinctive to an ethical tradition (such as Christianity, Buddhism, and so on). On
a social level, ethical incidents can lead to the oppression or emancipation of entire
populations. Slavery in the United States was justified on the basis of a number of
theological and philosophical justifications. African-American persecution has been
motivated not just by economic and political factors, but also by faulty, poisonous
ideas of God's will. Oppression in the modern world is still accepted philosophically
and theologically.
 75

Ethical thought can also aid in the process of liberation. From Martin Luther
King to Cornel West, Christian ethics has been used to challenge social oppression.
We hope that by continuing to address this issue, we will be able to contribute to
social justice, equality, and liberty.

LEARNING OUTCOMES

At the end of the chapter, you should be able to:

1. analyze one’s personal feelings in a moral experience;

2. determine the difference between reasonable and emotional responses; and

3. resolve to get hold on one’s personal feelings in a moral experience.

Activity

On a piece of paper, recount a recent personal experience. Take note of your

personal feelings during that experience.

Feelings and Reason:

Reason and emotion are frequently seen to be incompatible. From one

perspective, our emotions are like rambunctious infants, demanding and fanciful, who
need to be restrained by the adult mind. The rational mind, on the other hand, is cold
and calculating, and it need the warmth of the feelings to grasp what actually counts.
I don't believe either of these viewpoints is incorrect when properly understood. If
they imply that emotions and reason are two independent forms of agency fighting for
mastery, they may be perplexing.

Plato's tripartite notion of the soul contributes to this perplexity (e.g. in The
Republic). In the Critique of Practical Judgement (e.g. Book I, Ch.3), Kant assumes
that the logical comprehension of moral imperatives can inspire conduct
independently of our passionate emotions, even in the rejection of them. Unlike
Plato and Kant, we must remember that humans (and other animals) are single
agents who have evolved the resources of emotion and reason to safeguard the
things we care about, not to battle against each other. In light of this, I believe it is
correct to state that reason elaborates emotion.

To explain: Nowadays, most emotion philosophers and psychologists believe that

emotions serve a descriptive role (alongside their motivational function). Emotions
give us information about the state of the world, such as whether it is dangerous,
enviable, or nasty. Naturally, the traits we're talking about are dependent on the
person caring about particular things; they're personal in this way. However, if a
 76

person is concerned about certain things (for example, the integrity of his body or the
well-being of his loved ones), it is absolutely possible that a scenario threatens or
benefits him. The ability to make reasoned inferences is now added to the mix. This
permits emotions to vastly increase their capacity to track the things that matter to an
individual, to assess whether the initial emotional representation is right, to infer
consequences, and to have additional emotions toward those outcomes. This, I
believe, is reason's basic goal.

At the same time, as Hume famously declares in A Treatise of Human Nature,

saying that reason is a slave to passions is misleading. In my book, I suggest that our
basic homeostatic regulatory systems provide the motivating juice that drives all
cognition. Emotions are one type of cognitive resource for constructing these
systems, with reasonable inferences being another. This indicates that where one
concern-regulating system is logically elaborated and the other is not, one can
overturn the other.

As a result, we may rationally conclude that acting rashly (for example, by fleeing
from giving an important speech) could jeopardize one's reputation and, as a result,
we refrain from doing so. As a result, there's potential for motivational conflict, but it's
not as straightforward as reason vs. emotion. We may just as easily claim that one
feeling is controlling another emotion or that one way of thinking is controlling another
way of thinking in this situation.

Although there is no universally accepted definition of reason, it is commonly

employed as a contrast or complement to faith. Reason, in this perspective, refers to
the faculties of rational contemplation, sensations and experience, memory and
inference, as well as any a priori or posteriori judgment that can be made without
relying on an unsubstantiated religious conviction. In this scheme, faith is beyond
reason, but it may or may not be incompatible with reason.

Conscience- The ability to detect what appears to be morally right or wrong, a

virtue or vice, is known as conscience. Religious ethicists dispute to what extent
a person's conscience is normative: a person's conscience prompts them to
consider what is ethically required, as well as the responsibility that comes with it.
Problem cases are people whose consciences are messed up but not as a result
of any wrongdoing on their part.

Guilt and Shame- There is a difference between objective guilt and guilt feelings.
It is possible to be guilty of an act (betrayal of a friend) but not feel guilty. Shame
is generally regarded to differ from guilt in the sense that you may feel shame
about the European colonization of Africa, even though you are not personally
responsible.

Courage - In English, classical, medieval, and some modern applications of the

phrase presume that courage entails taking a risk for a good, or at least allegedly
good, purpose. In the framework of Aristotle's description of an excess that fails
 77

to achieve a golden mean, risk-taking that is not for the good has traditionally
been defined using various adjectives such as daring or recklessness
(moderation). Current usage in English is vague and ambiguous.

Reason and emotion in ancient sources

While the current, and, in our opinion, most plausible, account of emotions
construes emotions in terms of cognitive judgments (anger cannot be successfully
analyzed solely in terms of physiological sensations, because sensations can exist
without anger), emotions were frequently regarded as distinct from reason in Ancient
Greece.

1. Ethics are not the same as our feelings. Our emotions aren't always reliable
predictors of whether or not a given behavior is unethical (e.g., taking a long lunch or
spending too much personal time on the Internet while at work). To protect ourselves,
we all build defense mechanisms, so we may not feel horrible about a particular
unethical behavior. It's possible that some people enjoy acting unethically.

2. Ethics are not the same as religion. Although most religions promote high ethical
norms, not everyone follows them. Everyone is bound by ethics.

3. Ethics are not necessarily synonymous with the law. There will be times when
ethical action and the law coincide (e.g., in the cases of murder, discrimination,
whistleblower protection, and fraud). Such examples demonstrate the value of a
sound legal system. However, there will be occasions when the law overrides ethics,
resulting in ethical corruption that serves exclusively the interests of a few small
groups.

4. Ethics are not about following cultural norms. Only ethical civilizations can benefit
from following cultural norms. Although most civilizations would prefer to think of
themselves as ethical, all societies have and will continue to be afflicted by unethical
conventions (e.g., slavery in the United States prior to the Civil War and sweatshops
in developing countries).

5. Ethics are not synonymous with science. We can't rely on science to tell us what
to do. The sciences can provide us insights into human behavior, but ethics gives us
the reasons for what we should do and how we should do it.

6. Ethics are not the same as values. Although ethics and values are intertwined,
they are not the same thing. Values are long-held convictions that a particular action
or result is desirable or good. cited in Wayne D. Hoyer and Deborah J. MacInnis,
Consumer Behavior (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2001), 416. Milton Rokeach, The
Nature of Human Values (New York: Free Press, 1973), 5, as cited in Wayne D.
Hoyer and Deborah J. MacInnis, Consumer Behavior (Boston: Houghton Mifflin,
2001), 416. Internal judgements are formed as a result of them, and how a person
behaves is determined as a result of them. Which ideals should be pursued and
which should be avoided are determined by ethical considerations. Importance of
 78

Philosophy, 2001, retrieved October 7, 2011, Jeff Landauer and Joseph Rowlands,
"Values."

ASSESSMENT

Surname: Given Name: M.I.:

Student Number Course/Year/Section

Subject: SOCSCI_212 Chapter: CHAPTER 13: FEELINGS AND

ETHICS REASON: UPSURGE OF
FEELINGS IS NATURAL AND
WHAT WE DO WITH THEM IS
WHAT MAKES US ETHICAL OR
UNETHICAL

Assessment Questions:

1. Write an essay about a personal experience where your emotion got the
better of you.
2. Discuss whether your responses on that personal experience reasonable or
emotional.

3. Write an example of the criteria below where it can be considered unethical.

Example of an act under the Why is it unethical?

category

Example: Every human person has the same

Cultural norm: Subordination of women dignity and must be treated equally

1. Feeling / emotion:
 79

2. Law:

3. Religious belief (any religion):

4. Science:

5. Community values:

REFERENCE

Velasquez, M. et al.,(2010) What is Ethics,? Santa Clara University, Markula;

Center For

Applied Ethics.

CHAPTER 14: SEVEN STEPS OF MORAL REASONING

Human beings in today's generation are complex creatures. Humans

experience the environment in a number of ways through a range of perceptive
capacities, unlike other organisms who are merely motivated by the survival instinct.
Bacteria are primarily motivated by food. Bacteria are only motivated to reproduce
themselves: plants are solely interested in food and growth, whereas animals are
only interested in feeding themselves and reproducing. Aside from our logical ability,
which allows us to reckon reality via imaginative and calculative lenses, our moods
play an important role in defining how we navigate through diverse situations. We
don't just know about the world and other people; we also sense their existence and
worth.
 80

When others commend us on a job well done, we are positioned. When we are
accused of something we did not do, we become enraged. When we are threatened
by someone, we get terrified, and we experience sorrow and despair in the face of
seemingly insurmountable difficulties. We act most of the time based on how we feel.
This is something we have in common with animals to some extent. When we are
hungry, we seek food, and when we are lonely, we seek connection. Unlike animals,
who are naturally hardwired to respond in line with their feelings, we have the ability
to reflexively assess a situation before acting in accordance with our feelings. To put
it another way, while sentiments provide us with an initial assessment of a situation,
they should not serve as the primary basis for our motivations and actions.

A person who is enraged at a perceived rival or competitor is unlikely to be

able to analyze the potential ramifications of his or her rash actions. Feelings yearn
for quick gratification, and it is our reason that keeps these desires in check.
Feelings that aren't based on logic are blind. Although it is not the main determining
element in making such decisions, reasoning sets the route for making ethical and
unbiased decisions, particularly in moral contexts.

LEARNING OUTCOMES

At the end of the chapter, you will be able to:

1. explain the seven steps of moral reasoning; and

2. Share a real life case using the 7- step model.

Activity

On a piece of paper, share one’s memorable experience where you used moral
reasoning.

STEPS IN MORAL REASONING MODEL

1. Stop and think- Before making any judgments, think about the circumstance,
your place in it, and other relevant aspects, such as the individuals involved and the
potential implications of your decisions on them. This entails taking a step back from
the issue to ensure that you do not act rashly.

2. Clarify goals - It's equally important to define your short-term objectives. Often,
one makes a decision based on what she or he hopes to achieve. Short-term
ambitions can sometimes get in the way of long-term goals in the heat of the
moment. As a result, you must decide whether you are willing to forego more
essential life goals in order to attain your short-term objectives.
 81

3. Determine facts- Make sure you have all of the facts before making a decision. A
wise decision is one that is based on facts that can be confirmed. You must first
determine whether what you know is sufficient to warrant action. If you make a
decision without checking facts, you may come to regret it later when new
information about the case becomes available. Never make a decision based on
rumors. Make sure your sources are trustworthy and honest.

4. Develop options- Once you have a firm understanding of your objectives and
data, brainstorm other strategies to exhaust all feasible choices. The pressure of a
circumstance makes you believe you have fewer options than you actually do. Clear
your mind and consider additional innovative approaches to clarify your objectives
and carry out your acts with the least amount of ethical compromise.

5. Consider consequences – Filter your options and distinguish between ethical

and unethical ones, keeping in mind both your motivations and the potential
consequences of your ACTION. Consider the long-term repercussions and act in
accordance with justice and fairness principles. Consequences are historical facts
that have an impact on other people's life. A decision transforms a thought into a
reality.

6. Choose – Make a choice. If you're having trouble deciding, seek advice from
individuals who may have knowledge or experience with your issue. Look for people
who have a good reputation and compare your reasoning to your moral analysis.
Once you've made your decision, summon the courage to do the right thing, even if
it's difficult and counter-intuitive.

7. Monitor and modify- After seeing what happens as a result of your decision, be
humble enough to change your actions or conduct as needed. Pride may prevent you
from recognizing that you may not have given enough thought to a decision. As you
become more conscious of the implications of your behavior, particularly on the lives
of others, muster the courage and drive to make necessary changes. Do not be
afraid to revise your decisions in light of new information about the scenario.

These seven steps might assist you in making moral decisions that are not taken
lightly. The shed light on the numerous components of moral issues that must be
considered before decisions are made. However, your willingness to commit to an
activity based on moral beliefs is critical. After a long period of thought, you must
have the essential resolve to put your decision into action.

ASSESSMENT:

Surname: Given Name: M.I.:

Student Number Course/Year/Section

Subject: SOCSCI_212 Chapter: CHAPTER 14: SEVEN STEPS OF

 82

ETHICS MORAL REASONING

Assessment Questions:

1. Make a reflection on the issue of mercy killing by applying the seven steps
of moral reasoning.
2. Defend your idea in this quotable quote:” When we shrink from the sight of
something, when we shroud it in euphemism, that is usually a sign of inner
conflict, of unsettled hearts, a sign that something has gone wrong in moral
reasoning.” ( 200 words, Arial, size 11)
 83

REFERENCES:

Pasco, Marc Oliver D., Suarez, Fullente V. Rodriguez, Agustin Martin G. ”Ethics”,
C&E Publishing, Inc.,2018

Kohlberg, Lawrence: Power, Clark (1981). “Moral Development, Religious Thinking,

and the Questions of a Seven Stage”. In Kohlberg Lawrence(ed). Essays on Moral
Development Vol. 1 Philosophy of Moral development. San Francisco, CA: Harper
and Row ISBN p78000047605

CHAPTER 15: THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN REASON AND WILL

Reason and will are typically thought to be diametrically opposed. This fact
stems from the evolution of natural law and legal positivism doctrines throughout
history. Natural law was originally conceived as a concept that described the nature
of morality rather than the nature of law. The revelation of the Gods could be
understood by man (using reason). He was able to comprehend how he should treat
other people in his environment as a result of this. 2017 (Minnevick).

Legal positivist beliefs have long been regarded as deriving from the human being's
free choice. This suggests that if a law is written by man, it is legal even if it is devoid
of all logic and morals. We can perceive two opposing legal principles here. The first
concept is natural law (and reason), while the second is legal positivism (and free
will). 2017 (Minnevick).

LEARNING OUTCOMES:

1. Define Reason and Will;

2. Differentiate knowing and actually executing a good moral decision; and

3. Judge their own moral behavior in terms of planning and execution in important
moral experiences.

In the classical natural law tradition, the concept of reason was important.
People needed reason to understand the natural rules. Plato claimed that
understanding his idea of Ideas required the use of reason. Cicero took the concept
of reason even farther by claiming that reason was a God-given gift. As a result,
 84

reason was essential in the interaction between man and God. Natural law became
available and applicable to all human beings as a result of reason (which had been
given to all individuals). The Role of Reason and Will in Suárez and Finnis' Theories
In this chapter, we'll look at two competing viewpoints on reason and will. Suárez,
one of the most influential exclusively penal law scholars, presents the first, whereas
Finnis presents the second..

Suárez was one of the most influential solely criminal law philosophers of all
time. He established a philosophy on the principles of reason and will that Finnis
would eventually reject several centuries later. Suárez described free and purposeful
human activities as a sequence of interconnected elements. He explained that the
human mind was sophisticated enough to understand and see a probable
consequence at the end of that chain of events through the use of reason.
Furthermore, Suárez stated that even if a person might envision a probable "good"
conclusion from a series of events, the circumstance still needed that the person
actively desire that "good" outcome for himself. In the end, Suárez believed that
desire to be the human mind's free "will." Suárez defined the ‘reason' as the thoughts
that followed that desire (for example, an intelligent human mind's ability to
contemplate multiple consequences via different choices). So far, Suárez has agreed
with St Thomas Aquinas' ideas.

In contrast to St Thomas Aquinas, Suárez believes that one's deeds begin

with one's decision. This meant that human activity was motivated by the ‘will' of a
superior, and that the political arena was ruled by the ‘will' of a higher. St. Thomas
Aquinas made a distinction in this regard. He added a component to a person's
decision-making process that he named "command." He was referring to an order
that came from one's reason. It would serve as a model for how one should behave.
This 'command' could be explained as the result of one's intelligence guiding one's
decisions and, as a result, actions. The intention of the ‘command' was to compel
one to take an action with the goal of achieving ‘the good of an end' and taking into
account the appropriateness of the means. Rather than the free will, these two goals
should be attributed to "reason." However, the free ‘will' was presupposed by the
‘command,' because one's desire for a specific goal guided one's actions.

The following will be mentioned to summarize what Suárez has said

regarding the conceptions of reason and will, as well as to demonstrate the
differences between Suárez's thoughts and those of St Thomas Aquinas. Suárez and
St Thomas Aquinas both agreed that the human mind's free "will" was reflected in the
desires that people had while deciding between options in situations with multiple
outcomes. They also agreed that thoughts arising from that desire, such as weighing
the benefits and drawbacks of a certain option, were given to reason. Suárez, on the
other hand, felt that human activity was driven by the ‘will' of a superior and that the
political arena was controlled by the ‘will' of a higher. However, St Thomas Aquinas
added a component to a person's decision-making process that he dubbed
"command." He was referring to an order that came from one's reason. The
'command' served as a guideline for people's actions.
 85

Overall, reason has been a major aspect of natural law systems since the
beginning. Humans have been able to comprehend the underlying morals of the
natural laws thanks to reason. 106 Reason was crucial to Plato because it allowed
the human mind to comprehend good and evil ideas as well as recognize specific
subjects that existed in reality. Reason, according to Cicero, was a gift from the
Gods to humanity. This gift was given to all people in order for them to grasp what
the natural law was and to be able to enjoy certain rights derived from it. St Thomas
Aquinas went much further, explaining why he believes reason and God are one and
the same. He also said that unethical and illogical laws were not laws at all. Natural
law was an abstract concept that the human mind might understand through
reasoning during Plato's day. Natural law evolved into a more understandable idea of
a collection of norms and duties that comprised the law of nations as a result of
Grotius' works.

Suárez also proposed theories that were relevant to both the principles of
reason and free will. Reason and will, in his opinion, were two distinct components at
opposite ends of a chain of human activities. The intellect that humans possessed
was represented by reason. Humans used this intelligence to evaluate the results of
various acts. Humans' desire to choose the most desired outcome for themselves
was an expression of free will. Suárez claimed that human beings' desire was guided
by their reason. Their logic necessitated a specific course of action and, as a result, a
specific result. Finnis refined natural law theories into a basic picture of what
humanity regarded to be good in his work. Practical logic might explain this general
understanding of what was good. (Randall, 2009)

Again, we observe a link between reason and will in the preceding paragraph.
They are, however, distinct elements with different legal traditions. As previously
stated, reason has been explored in the context of natural law traditions. The natural
law and legal positivism schools have both discussed free will. As previously stated,
the natural law and legal positivism traditions are diametrically opposed. As a result,
this implies that reason and will are both conflicting notions. Reason and will have
quite different definitions at their heart. Morality and reason have always been linked
in history. As we can see from Kelsen's arguments, free will has not been linked to
morals. The Nazi Third Reich in Germany provided a real example of a legal regime
in which free will stood on its own. Fortunately, following legal theories created by
intellectuals like as Finnis, Dworkin, and Raz have highlighted the importance of free
will being influenced by reason as well.

Following a review of historical perspectives on the concepts of reason and

will, it is obvious that both are essential components of any ‘good' legal system. Such
a legal theory should always be the foundation of a well-functioning legal system. A
good legal system requires both the principles of reason and will. They are reliant on
each other. This implies that the concepts of reason and will are diametrically
opposed. Consider a battery with two poles, one negative and one positive. They are
both necessary for the battery to function, yet their polarities are completely different.
 86

ASSESSMENT:

Given Name: M.I.:

Surname:

Student Number Course/Year/Section

Subject: SOCSCI_212 Chapter:

ETHICS CHAPTER 15 : THE
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN
REASON AND WILL

Assessment Questions:

1. Distinguish reason from will through a real-life experience.

Describe how your personal will prevailed over your reason and
how reason took precedence over your will.

2. Cite a life-changing experience in the past which made you

alter/change your view of your moral behavior in the present.
 87

REFERENCES:

Francisco Suárez, De Legibus Deo Legislatore (first published in Coimbra 1612)

Book I, ch 9.

John Mitchell Finnis, Natural Law and Natural Rights (Clarendon Press 1980).

Minnevik, Natalie, Reason and Will A Historical Review from the Point of View of the
Theories

of Natural Law, Legal Positivism and the Analytical Philosophies of Law

Presented by

Dworkin and Raz.

St Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica Ia-IIae, 5 vols (first published 1485, Fathers
of the

English Dominican Province trs, Christian Classics 1948)

CHAPTER 16: MORAL THEORIES AND MENTAL FRAMES: Why

they are important

Moral theories aren't just theories in the sense that they're dismissed. They,
too, are founded on repeated observations, are likely to incorporate hypotheses, and
seek to explain and justify a variety of moral or ethical judgments in specific
instances.

Moral theories, on the other hand, are not the same as scientific theories.
Observation of nature provides the evidence that scientific theories attempt to
explain. Our considered moral judgments are the facts that moral theories attempt to
explain; judgements that have, we might say, passed the test of competent logical
and critical reasoning. There is a clear distinction here. We employ our considered
judgments to give the data by which we appraise the adequacy of moral theories in
the case of moral theories.

Even with this distinction acknowledged, moral theories are used, and they
are typically used in very similar ways to their scientific counterparts.

A useful theory gives a framework for the strategist to grasp the dynamics of the
complex strategic environment, as well as recognizable signs or warning signals of
change and agreed-upon ways to cope with it. A theory is simply one's interpretation
of cause and effect.
 88

LEARNING OUTCOMES:

1. Explain the role of mental frames in moral experience; and

2. Classify the dominant mental frames.

Moral Theories

Throughout history, a variety of moral theories and traditions have arisen. We'll go
over each one in detail below, with explanations and comparisons to other moral
theories.

Consequentialism

Unlike virtue and deontological theories, consequentialist theories maintain that only
the results, or outcomes, of actions are morally significant. Acts are regarded
ethically correct purely on the basis of their results, according to this viewpoint.
Utilitarianism is the most popular variant of consequentialism.

Deontology

Deontological views (derived from the Greek term deon, which means duty)
claim that certain behaviors are intrinsically right or wrong, that is, right or wrong in
and of themselves, regardless of the consequences that may result from such
actions.  The conformance of a choice or action to a moral norm is what makes it
right. As a result, an actor has a moral obligation to act in line with a moral standard,
regardless of the (possibly positive) consequences of doing so.

Parents, for example, may be said to have a responsibility to care for their
children. On a deontological basis, parents must fulfill this commitment, even if failing
to do so would result in a significant benefit to the parents (increased financial
savings, for example).

Some actions, according to the deontological viewpoint, cannot be justified by

their consequences. In other words, the ends do not justify the means for the
deontologist.

Indeed, Immanuel Kant, perhaps the most well-known proponent of

deontological ethics, observed, "Act so that you respect humanity, both in your own
person and in the person of another, always as an aim and never only as a means."
Kant, like other deontologists (Thomas Hobbes and John Locke, for example),
believed that our moral obligations are founded on a logical norm. The standard in
Kant's case is a categorical imperative. This single rationality principle encompasses
all of our specific responsibilities.

Justice as Fairness
 89

Justice as fairness is a concept of justice proposed by John Rawls in his book

A Theory of Justice. This view of justice is concerned with society's fundamental
structure, or "society's key political, constitutional, social, and economic institutions
and how they fit together over time to build a cohesive framework of social
cooperation." “Justice as fairness is not a complete contact theory,” says Rawls, who
constructs justice as fairness in a relatively restrictive framework. Its goal is to
demonstrate how a cooperative surplus of resources should be distributed to
individuals in society. As a result, justice as fairness is predicated on two implicit
assumptions about the cultures in question: first, that social cooperation is viable and
can benefit everyone; and second, that there is a reasonable surplus of accessible
resources to distribute. When resources are scarce, justice as fairness cannot be
utilized to determine the right distribution of sacrifices to be made by society's
members. It cannot, more broadly, assist us in identifying just social policies in
cultures where background constraints (e.g., lack of natural resources, cultural
barriers,war) have rendered mutually beneficial social cooperation impossible.

The method for establishing how the basic framework should be laid out is
based on a thought experiment in which rational, mutually disinterested persons
adopt principles of justice while hidden behind a veil of ignorance, which means they
are unaware of specific details about themselves (e.g., personal values, race,
gender, level of income) or the society in which they live (e.g., societal stage of
development, economic circumstances). However, when deciding on these
principles, the parties have a broad understanding of social, psychological, and
economic issues, as well as an understanding of the circumstances of justice in the
society to which they belong.

These individuals will probably embrace two principles of justice based on this
hypothetical beginning condition, which Rawls refers to as the "original position." The
first is the equal liberty principle, which states that "each person has an equal right to
the most comprehensive scheme of basic liberties consistent with a similar scheme
of liberties for others." The second is that "social and economic inequalities are to be
organized in such a way that they are both reasonably expected to be to everyone's
benefit, and tied to offices and posts open to everyone."

The whole implementation of justice as fairness can be thought of as a four-

step process. The first stage involves deliberations over the two principles. After
establishing the two principles, the parties gradually lift the veil of ignorance,
determining more particular principles of justice as they have more detailed
knowledge about society at later phases. The parties learn more about the political
and economic situations of society in the second stage, and then draft a constitution
that is consistent with the two principles. The parties agree on legislation and policies
that implement the two principles within the agreed-upon constitutional framework in
the third stage. The parties have all available information about their society at this
point, and they apply the existing laws and policies to specific instances.
 90

One of Rawls' main goals in presenting justice as fairness is to demonstrate

that the society it produces may last endlessly. Rawls accomplishes this goal by
employing the just savings principle, an intergenerational savings rule aimed to
ensure that future generations have enough resources to maintain just institutions.
Rawls further claims that the society created by the two principles is compatible with
citizens' interests and that persons can develop the required willingness to follow
these principles. As a result, the society that results from the application of justice as
fairness is stable and can be anticipated to last perpetually.

However, the arguments presented by Rawls in A Theory of Justice

supporting the stability of justice as fairness are not compelling. Rawls fails to
account for tolerable plurality, which is a necessary component of any constitutional
democracy with guaranteed liberties. As a result, in Political Liberalism, Rawls
recasts his arguments for the stability of justice as fairness, attempting to show that,
despite reasonable disagreement on many issues, citizens will agree on a limited,
political conception of justice through an overlapping consensus of their individual
viewpoints.

Utilitarianism

According to utilitarianism, activities are morally correct if and only if they

maximize the good (or, alternatively, minimizes the bad). Many utilitarians, like
Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill (as well as many contemporary utilitarians),
consider pleasure or well-being to constitute "the good." Thus, activities are ethically
correct if and only if they enhance pleasure or well-being or limit suicidality, according
to this viewpoint.

Hedonistic utilitarianism is a term used to describe this approach. The

rightness of our activities is determined only by the consequences of pleasure or pain
for hedonistic utilitarians.

Other goods may be considered in utilitarian theories. Preference

utilitarianism, for example, considers not only pleasures but also the fulfillment of any
preference.

Utilitarianism can be divided in a variety of ways. Act-utilitarianism asserts

that each and every individual action requires a utilitarian analysis. We can assess
the moral rightness or wrongness of each action we propose to conduct by
performing this computation.

By defining moral standards that, when followed, produce the optimal results,
rule-utilitarianism alleviates the load that act-utilitarianism places on practical
thinking. The rule "do not kill" is an example of rule-utilitarianism. As a general rule,
we would be better off, that is, we would achieve the best results or state of affairs, if
we all followed the rule "don't kill."

Virtue Ethics
 91

Focuses on the character of the agent.  A virtuous agent will act morally.

The ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle is credited with establishing virtue ethics.
Ethics, according to virtue theories, is about actors, not actions or consequences.
Having the right character qualities (virtues) and, as a result, having the appropriate
moral character is what it means to live an ethical, or good, life.

Mental Frames

Peter Senge refers to assumptions regarding cause and effect as mental

models in his landmark book The Fifth Discipline. Mental models, according to
Senge, are "deeply established beliefs, generalizations, or even ideas and images
that impact how we see the world and act" (Senge 1990: 8). Mental models are
helpful and, in some cases, necessaryWe form views about causation and
consequence through nature. One person's mental model may be that the promise of
monetary rewards motivates others to do their best work. Someone person could
believe that the intrinsic satisfaction of the effort itself is the best determinant of good
and conscientious work. Both mental models can be described in terms of cause and
effect. A good mental model is one that can be disproved. That is, we can test
models and hypotheses by experiments or simply by continuing to observe events
and outcomes.

We employ a method known as systems thinking to put theories or mental

models to work.  While strategic thinking considers the large picture, systems
thinking starts with a real-world occurrence and a desire to comprehend the cause-
and-effect interactions that define a "system." A systems thinker considers the
elements of an organization as dynamic features of the whole in order to understand
how it functions.  The systems thinker is fascinated by the interrelationships between
the elements of an organization.

Though a mental model—a theory about cause and effect—may help us grasp
the dynamics and workings of the world around us, blindly following established
models can be perilous.  We have failed as systems thinkers when we close our eyes
to contradictory facts and fail to perceive the flaws in our beliefs about cause and
effect. Of course, history is littered with examples of people doggedly holding to old
paradigms in the face of overwhelming evidence that a new way of thinking is
required.

Mental models serve as the lenses through which we see the world. We focus
on what is happening inside our frames, ignorant to what is happening outside of
them, which can lead to deadly blind spots. Frames are useful in that they guide our
attention to the information we're looking for. However, they can limit our peripheral
vision, preventing us from spotting vital information and, potentially, opportunities.
Mental models, once liberated, can become chains.

Consider Donald Schon's concept of a generative metaphor as an example of

how mental models and frames can grow out of hand.  A generative metaphor is a
 92

"implicit metaphor that has the power to cast a spell over a group of people." Every
solution is interpreted in terms of the implied metaphor.” Some workplace cultures,
for example, employ sports as a generative metaphor, characterizing events in sports
jargon and presenting remedies as "game plans."  This type of generative metaphor
can be beneficial, but it can also limit creativity and problem-solving because the
"team" may lose out on ideas and solutions that aren't unique to the metaphorical
world at hand.

ASSESSMENT

Surname: Given Name: M.I.:

Student Number Course/Year/Section

Subject: SOCSCI_212 Chapter: CHAPTER 16: MORAL

ETHICS THEORIES AND MENTAL
FRAMES: Why they are
important

Assessment Questions:

1. Analyze the given situation: A student of Mr. Jarvis’ class was absent for a
week without notice. On the following week, the student reported to class
with bruises. Based on this, explain the possibility of what happened to the
child using your mental frames as basis.

2. Classify the following situations by using the different mental frames:

a. Jarwina saw a female colleague riding a motorcycle with an
unknown man. Jarwina assumed that this man is the boyfriend of
her colleague.
b. Mikaela always leaves the office late in the afternoon. The guard on
duty assumed that Mikaela is a hardworking employee.
c. Secretary Anyos said that after marrying someone you will have a
beautiful life forever. A netizen assumed that he is stupid.
d. Marcela always comes to the office with a messy hair. Her
officemates thought that Marcela is having a problem with her
husband.
e. Edwarda always feels like vomiting every morning. Her mother
assumed that her daughter is pregnant.

3. Submit a Reflection Paper. What is the bigger context in which I make my

individual decisions
 93

REFERENCES

John Rawls, Political Liberalism: Expanded Edition (New York: Columbia University

Press,
2005), xli (fn 7).
John Rawls, A Theory of Justice: Revised Edition (Cambridge: The Belknap Press of
HarvardUniversity Press, 1999), 15.
John Austin, Lectures on Jurisprudence and the Philosophy of Positive Law (St. Clair
Shores,
MI: Scholarly Press, 1977)

John Finnis, Natural Law and Natural Rights (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1980)

Joseph Raz, The Authority of Law: Essays on Law and Morality (Oxford: Clarendon
Press,
(1979)
Michael Moore, “Law as a Functional Kind,” in George, Natural Law Theory, 188-
242

CHAPTER 17: ARISTOTLE AND ST. AQUINAS ON VIRTUE ETHICS

Prudence, or practical wisdom, according to Aristotle, is a virtue of mind that
is practical rather than theoretical, as well as deliberative rather than intuitive. It is the
intellectual virtue that perfects thinking in the arena of human action decision-making.
This virtue entails being good at thinking about how to have a fulfilled life in general
and being successful in doing so. Only the prudent person can be truly just, bold, and
temperate, and only the prudent person can be truly good. There is a basic
relationship between prudence and moral virtue, according to Aristotle. This link is
contingent on the presence of specific inherent characteristics. Despite the
significance of prudence and the ethical life, Aristotle believes that the human
individual, equipped with the divine element of reason, is capable of a better manner
of living.

LEARNING OUTCOMES

The student should be able to:

1. articulate what virtue ethics is;

2. critique virtue ethics; and

3. make use of virtue ethics.

This is the life of contemplation, the life dedicated to the appreciation of truth,
the life most akin to that of the gods. Aristotle is St. Thomas Aquinas' Philosopher. In
his Commentary on Aristotle's 'Nicomachean Ethics,' Aquinas carefully follows
 94

Aristotle's account of prudence. Prudence, he teaches, is a practical intelligence

virtue that is particularly linked to the moral virtues. To be ethically excellent, one
must possess moral characteristics that necessitate prudent judgment. Other famous
experts of his time, particularly St. Albert the Great, advocated more accurate
interpretations of Aristotle's notion of prudence than Aquinas' in his Super Ethica. He
changes and deepens parts of Aristotle's views on prudence in both his Commentary
on Aristotle's "Nicomachean Ethics" and other more theological writings, such as his
Summa Theologiae. For example, Aquinas feels that Aristotle's definition of ultimate
end or human flourishing, as defined by Aristotle himself, can only be realized
imperfectly in this world.

The basic concern of the virtue theorist is: how can I live a good life? The best
existence, according to Aristotle, was that of a completely realized human being: one
who excelled in all human capacities, such as the capacity for emotion, practical
reason, and theoretical rationality. This was a life full of human achievement. The
virtues of a person are the traits (kindness, generosity, courage...) that enable it to
excel as a human being, just as the virtues of a tool (e.g., a pen) are those features
(e.g., having flowing ink) that enable the tool to execute its rightful purpose (e.g.,
writing). Virtues are tendencies to act in specific ways for specific causes and
feelings. Amy possesses the attribute of courage if she is willing to take calculated
risks for the sake of vital goals without becoming panicked. Amy suffers from the vice
of cruelty if she enjoys injuring others without regard for their well-being. Virtue
ethics, unlike utilitarianism and deontology, does not provide a formula for deciding
how to act. Rather, it can only serve as a model for how we should want to be, for the
type of character we should strive for: possessing the characteristics that
characterize a fully developed human person.

The eternal law's precepts that control the behavior of beings with reason and
free will are known as the natural law. According to Aquinas, the first commandment
of the natural law is the rather vacuous imperative to do good and avoid evil. It's
worth mentioning that Aquinas believes in natural law as a basis for morality: The
rational essence of human beings, according to Aquinas, determines what is good
and bad. As a result, both good and evil are objective and universal.

Aquinas, on the other hand, is a natural law legal theorist. According to him,
a human law (that is, one enacted by humans) is legitimate only if its substance is
consistent with the content of natural law; as Aquinas puts it, "[e]very human law
possesses precisely so much of the nature of law as is derived from the law of
nature." But if it deviates from the natural law in any way, it is no longer a law, but a
perversion of law.” (ST I-II, Q.95, A.II).

ASSESSMENT

Surname: Given Name: M.I.:

 95

Student Number Course/Year/Section

Subject: SOCSCI_212 Chapter: CHAPTER 17: ARISTOTLE

ETHICS
AND ST. AQUINAS ON
VIRTUE ETHICS

Assessment Questions:

1. In your own words, discuss your own virtue ethics which made you excel as a
God-fearing human being by citing personal experiences.

2. Rolanda, a government employee is known to be a dedicated and committed

public servant. One day, she was offered to do a favor by forging the signature of
the head of office where she was assigned in exchange for P100, 000.00. She
secretly agreed and got the money as promised. Two weeks after, criminal and
administrative charges were filed against her and now she is doomed to answer
her liabilities. Critique the strength of the virtues of Rolanda in completely yielding
to doing the criminal and administrative acts.

3. Using the same situation, make a Reaction Paper asserting the virtue ethics
that Rolanda could have applied and the possible ways which she could have
done to avoid committing such act.

REFERENCES

Aquinas, Thomas. On Law, Morality and Politics (Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing

Co., 1988)
Bentham, Jeremy. Of Laws In General (London: Athlone Press, 1970)
Bentham, Jeremy. The Principles of Morals and Legislation (New York: Hafner Press,
1948)
George, Robert, “Natural Law and Positive Law,” in George, The Autonomy of Law,
321- 334
George, Robert. Natural Law Theory: Contemporary Essays (Oxford: Clarendon
Press, 1992)

CHAPTER 18: Immanuel Kant’s Theory of Rights

Kant's rights-based liberalism is frequently contrasted with later Fichte and
Hegel's communitarian authoritarianism, and the concept of autonomy is widely
regarded as the theoretical fount of Kant's theory of natural rights, providing the
analytical link between Kant's moral philosophy and his political and legal theory. The
 96

author contends that this viewpoint is incorrect: Without Kant's substantive account of
human nature, which specifies both the legitimate moral objectives that people
should aim for and the anthropological limits of human perfectibility, the concept of
autonomy becomes less content and incapable of offering practical political and legal
prescriptions. Kant's rights theory is influenced by both sets of considerations. In his
later writings, Kant develops a socially sensitive account of the self, and comes to
believe that individual liberty is dependent in great part on the achievement of
particular favorable sociocultural and political arrangements, contrary to popular
belief. Natural rights, like human liberty, are not ahistorical, universal criteria of
political justice for Kant, but rather the historical consequence of a long enlightened
process. As a result, what is correct will be determined by what is timely. Kant is
more closer to Fichte and Hegel than is commonly recognized in this area.

LEARNING OUTCOMES

After this lesson, the student should be able to:

1. articulate the rights theory;

2. differentiate a legal and a moral right; and

3. make use of the rights theory.

Unlike Mill, Kant felt that certain activities (such as murder, theft, and lying)
should be outlawed at any costs, even if the conduct would produce more happiness
than the alternative. There are two questions Kantians must ask themselves anytime
they decide to act.:  I Can I rationally wish for everyone to do as I propose? If the
response is no, we must refrain from carrying out the activity. (ii) Do I act in a way
that respects human goals rather than exploiting them for my personal gain? If the
response is no, we should not carry out the action. (Kant thought these questions
were interchangeable.)

Kant's thesis is an example of a deontological moral theory, which holds that

the rightness or wrongness of actions is determined by whether they satisfy our
obligations rather than their consequences.

Kant felt that there existed a supreme moral principle, which he called The
Categorical Imperative. The CI dictates our moral obligations.

Morality and imperatives:  What does it mean when the categorical

imperative determines one's duty?

What is an imperative?  A command is what an imperative is. "Pay your

taxes!" as well as "Stop kicking me!" and "Don't murder animals!" are all imperatives.

Hypothetical Imperatives: these commands are conditional on you having a

relevant desire. For example, “study biology in college if you want to go to medical
school.” This directive does not apply to you if you do not wish to attend medical
 97

school. Another example is when your father says, "If you're hungry, eat something!"
- if you're not hungry, you can ignore the demand.

Categorical Imperatives:  These commands are given without reservation.

“Don't cheat on your taxes,” for example. You are not permitted to cheat, even if
doing so might benefit your interests.

What is the connection between morality and categorical imperatives? 

Morality must be founded on the categorical imperative, since morality is such that
you are compelled to follow it, and you cannot refuse to do so or say that it does not
apply to you.

How does the categorical imperative work?  There are three different
versions of the categorical imperative. That is to say, there are three ways to express
what it is. Kant believes that all three say the same thing, but whether this is accurate
is currently debatable. Although the second formulation is the most straightforward,
the first is definitely a categorical imperative. The initial formulation is as follows.

1) First formulation (The Global Law Formula): "Act solely on that maxim by which
you can intend that it become a universal law [of nature] at the same time."

a) What is the definition of a maxim? A maxim is a rule or principle that guides your
actions.  For example, I might make it a rule to donate at least as much to charity
each year as I spend on eating out, or to do just what will assist a member of my
family.

b) Basic concept: The directive essentially indicates that you are not permitted to do
anything that you would not willingly allow everyone else to do.  You are not
permitted to make personal exceptions. If you want other people to follow their
commitments, for example, you must also honor your own promises.

c) More specifically, it states that every maxim you follow must be such that you are
willing to make the case that everyone follows that maxim in identical circumstances. 
For example, if I wanted to get whatever I wanted, I'd have to be willing to make the
case that everyone usually lied to get what they wanted - but no one would believe
you if that happened, so the lie would not work and you wouldn't get what you
wanted. So, if you wanted such a maxim (of lying) to become a universal law, you'd
be thwarting your own aim - so, lying is forbidden by the categorical imperative. It's
illegal because the only way to get away with lying is to establish an exception for
oneself.

Kant on Moral Worth

The Moral Worth of Persons:  Kant also offers some thoughts on what
characterizes a decent person. Keep in mind that Kant intended this to fit in with the
rest of his theory, and the categorical imperative will define what one's responsibility
 98

is. To some extent, though, one can interpret this as a separate theory and assume
that one's obligation is determined by a different criterion.  Keep in mind that the
following discussion is about how one views people rather than their acts. A person's
activities are either right or bad, and he or she is morally worthy or unworthy (i.e., is
morally base). The moral value of a person is determined by her acts, but there is
more to it than determining if the behaviors are right or evil.

a) Background concepts:  This chart should help explain the basics.

Our Perfect obligations (justice duties) are negative in that they

forbid us from performing certain behaviors and can only be
accomplished in very particular ways.

Our imperfect responsibilities (virtue duties) are positive in that

they force us to execute particular types of activities on
occasion. 

Illustration:  We have a flawless responsibility to not murder. This indicates that we

must never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, We have
an imperfect responsibility to assist those in need. This means that, when it does not
contradict with our faultless duties, we should do so on occasion.

Examples:

Duties                        Perfect                                               Imperfect

To Others             tell truth                                               assist others in need

don’t break promises                        help others achieve goals

                           don’t steal, murder, enslave

To Self           no suicide or             

develop talents

                              other forms of self-destruction

b) The basic idea:  Kant claims that a person's goodness or badness is determined
by the motive for their activities, not by the goodness of the actions' outcomes. What
I mean by "motivation" is what drove you to take the action (i.e., your reason for
doing it). Kant claims that moral worth (i.e., being a good person) can only be
achieved if one is driven by morality.  To put it another way, if a person's emotions or
 99

desires drive them to accomplish anything, that action cannot be considered morally
valuable. Although it may appear strange, there is strong reason to agree with Kant.

c) Why motivation is what matters. Imagine you've won the jackpot and are unsure
what to do with your winnings. I consider what would be the most enjoyable thing to
do with it: purchase a yacht, travel around the world in first class, have that knee
operation, and so on. I decide that giving the money to charity and enjoying that
unique feeling you get from making people happy would be more fun, so I donate all
of my lottery winnings. According to Kant, I am not a morally good person since I did
this; after all, I simply did what I thought would be the most enjoyable, and there is
nothing noble about such a self-centered goal. It was only fortunate for those charity
that I felt donating money was entertaining. Only when you do something because
you know it is your job and you would do it regardless of the consequences can you
claim moral merit.

d) Why consequences don't matter:  The following example demonstrates why

Kant is unconcerned with consequences. Consider two persons who are out late one
night drinking at a pub, and each of them decides to drive home quite inebriated.
They're driving in opposite directions in the middle of nowhere. One of them
encounters no one on the road and thus makes it home safely, despite driving
recklessly. The other alcoholic has a bad luck and runs over a person while walking
at night, killing the pedestrian with his automobile. Kant would argue that both drunks
are equally bad based on their acts, and that the fact that one got lucky does not
make them any better than the other. After all, they both made the identical
decisions, and the differences in their behaviors had nothing to do with either of their
control. People who behave for the right reasons follow the same logic. Both people
are morally respectable if they behave for the right motives, even if one of their
activities happens to result in negative outcomes due to poor luck.

e) The wrong interpretation:  Consider the example of the lottery winner who
donates to charity. Assume he donates to a charity with the goal of saving hundreds
of starving children in a faraway country. The food arrives in the village, but when a
group of rebels learns that they have food, they come to grab it, killing all of the
village's children and adults.  The planned result of feeding hungry youngsters was
positive, but the actual results were negative. Kant isn't arguing that we should
consider the intended consequences while making moral judgments. Kant claims
that, independent of the planned or real effects, moral worth is appropriately
appraised by examining the reason for the action, which may be selfish even if the
intended consequences are good.

f) Kant does not forbid happiness:  An attentive reader may notice that one of the
selfish person's desired outcomes in the case above is to make himself happy, and
therefore it may appear that intended consequences do matter. It would appear that
Kant is stating that if one of my goals is to make myself happy, my behavior is
 100

unworthy.  This is a blunder. Even according to Kant, the result of making myself
happy is a good result. Kant plainly believes that happiness is a positive thing.
There's nothing wrong with doing something only for the sake of making oneself
happy; this isn't selfishness.  You can gain moral worth by doing things you enjoy,
but you can't do them because they're fun; you have to do them because they're
required by duty. Also, there is a popular misconception that Kant believes it is
always bad to do anything that just makes you happy, such as buying an ice cream
cone. This is not correct.  Kant believes that you should do things to make yourself
happy as long as they are not immoral (i.e., against your duty) and that you would
stop from doing them if they were. It is not sinful to eat ice cream, so go ahead and
do it.  It won't make you a morally good person, but it also won't make you a bad one.
In this approach, many behaviors that are acceptable but not compelled by obligation
are neutral.

g) Summary:  A decent person, according to Kant, is one who always does their duty
because it is their responsibility. It's fine if they enjoy doing it, but they must be willing
to do it even if they didn't like it. The overarching concept is that in order to be a
decent person, one must be good for the sake of goodness. Perfect responsibilities
(duties of justice) can be effectively enforced by the public, legal use of coercion,
according to him, while imperfect duties (duties of virtue) are suitable for moral
judgment but not for coercion.

ASSESSMENT

Surname: Given Name: M.I.:

Student Number Course/Year/Section

Subject: SOCSCI_212 Chapter: CHAPTER 18: Immanuel Kant’s

ETHICS Theory of Rights

Assessment Questions:

1. Sanda is a ten-year old girl who is suffering from Polio. As days go by, the
doctor decided to isolate Sanda because of a pulmonary complication and
needs to be brought to a secluded place somewhere in the middle of a farm
the family owns. Her mother disapproves of the doctor’s decision as this
would affect the girl physically and emotionally. Assess and decide the
mother’s act using Kant’s Theory of Rights.

2. Expound on the saying that “a law may be legal but not necessarily moral.”
Cite a real law that is morally questionable. Explain why.

3. Francisca, a sales agent, offered a house and lot to her friends who are
 101

newly married, which the latter agreed to buy on the condition that the
property will be paid for 5 years on installment basis. After three years, the
couple failed to pay the remaining balance because the wife had an ailment
which made them prioritize hospitalizations and other medical-related
needs. The sales agent decided to continue the payment without the
couple’s consent and later forced them to sign a waiver for the subject
property asserting that the same is stipulated in the agreement. The agent
successfully transferred the property in her name without paying the couple
all the previous payments already made. She explained that there is need
to transfer the property so that ownership will not be returned to Jerica Real
State Company. Write an Analysis Paper highlighting why the option
taken by the agent may be legal but not moral.

REFERENCES

Kant, Immanuel, :Categorical Imperative”. In Groundwork of the Metaphysics of

Morals,

translated by H.J. Paton, 162-76. New York: Harper and Row Publishers Inc.,

1964

CHAPTER 19: UTILITARIANISM

Ethical norms are sometimes overlooked while making decisions, despite
their importance as a guide for making decisions. The study of what is morally right
or bad is known as ethics. We have a tendency to misread the motivation and desire
to perform things in our daily lives. Our decisions must have a positive impact on the
world. Some of the greatest utilitarian’s are Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) and John
Stuart Mill (1808-73) who prominently contributed the impact in understanding why
agents act in accordance of the majority.

LEARNING OUTCOMES

Upon completion of this lesson, you should be able to:

1. define utilitarianism in different philosophical perspectives;

2. differentiate the quantitative and qualitative principle of utility; and

3. apply the principle of utility.

Activity

Study the situation below:

This is a classic trolley dilemma situation. If someone pushes the overweight guy, the
train driver can immediately apply the emergency brake after hitting him, saving the
 102

five others on board. Is it, therefore, for the greater good? What about the latter's
side? As a result, there are ramifications to every action that we typically overlook.
Examine and evaluate.

1. A consequentialist theory, a subclass of teleological moral theory, is the most

popular moral philosophy in the last two centuries. A consequentialist theory judges
the rightness of an act in terms of an external goal or purpose.

2. According to consequentialist theory, actions, laws, or policies should be taken

after weighing the potential consequences, rather than based on an agent's purpose
or personal desire. Absolutists, on the other hand, argue that if an action is wrong in
the first place, it should not be done regardless of the outcome.

3. "Utilitarianism" is the most influential consequentialist theory.

What is Utilitarianism?

1. The name "utilitarianism" comes from the Latin word "utilize," which meaning "to
use." It basically states that what is good is useful, and that the moral value of
activities is decided by the utility of their results.

2. This idea can be used to apply to specific activities as well as general laws.

Act Utilitarianism (Classical Utilitarianism)

1. . In each given situation, you should take the action that would benefit the greatest
number of people.

For instance, if a driver is stopped at a checkpoint in a high-traffic location and does

not have his registration or driver's license, but the traffic cops let him go (after taking
some money from him), The drivers in the cars behind him, as well as the driver
himself and the police officers, are all pleased. This one activity provides the greatest
amount of joy to the greatest number of people in the shortest amount of time.

Rule Utilitarianism

1. A version of the theory that states that we should live by laws that, in general, will
lead to the greatest good for the largest number of people.

Example: Cheating and refusing to act by accepting bribes, as in the previous

example for act utilitarianism, will result in a very negative society. This is not
acceptable in rule utilitarianism because the motives are questionable and they are
not judged as single actions, but rather as long-term consequences if universally
followed.

Origins and Nature of the Theory

The idea of utilitarianism was created by Jeremy Bentham, but John Stuart Mill later
systematized and changed parts of Bentham's utilitarian principles.
 103

Jeremy Bentham John Stuart Mill

The principle of utility thus states that an Advocates the greatest happiness
action is right insofar as it tends to principle’ which states that it is the
produce the greatest happiness for the greatest happiness of the greatest number
greatest number. that is the measure of right and wrong.

Quantitative hedonist or quantitative Qualitative hedonist-

utilitarian--- The physical, the moral, the
Lower pleasure- can be both experience
religious and the political- the physical
by humans and animals such as food,
source
drinks and sex.

Higher pleasure- Mill basically means

intellectual, which includes artistic,
political and even spiritual pleasures.

Source: en.wikipedia.org

An Analysis of Utilitarianism

1. Utilitarianism appears to be a direct counter-response to Kantian Ethics. While

Kant contends that a person's motivation to execute his duty justifies an act,
Bentham and Mill argue that actions are assessed based on their consequences.
Utilitarianism appears to be a direct counter-response to Kantian Ethics.

2. Utilitarianism appears to be appealing as a moral philosophy. Essentially based

on the principles of pleasure and suffering. Furthermore, the utilitarian concept
inspires and urges people to act morally.

Understanding Utilitarianism principle in other perspective

For example, a pharmaceutical corporation may operate on the premise that it will
issue an officially approved drug with some side effects if it helps more people fight a
specific condition than the number of people who are concerned by a minor side
effect. If the benefits are sufficiently substantial and the difficulties with side effects
are appropriately restricted, then the phar's behavior is justified on utilitarian grounds.

ASSESSMENT

Surname: Given Name: M.I.:

Student Number Course/Year/Section

 104

Subject: SOCSCI_212 Chapter: CHAPTER 19 : UTILITARIANISM

ETHICS

Assessment Questions:

1. Make an outline of the different meaning of utilitarianism in the different

philosophical perspectives.
2. Make a T-Square Table and write the differences of quantitative and qualitative
principle of utilitarianism.
3. By applying the utility principle, give your opinion about the constitutionality or
legal infirmity, if there is any, of the Anti-Terror law. Explain and defend your view.
 105

REFERENCES

De Guzman, Jens Micah, et al. Ethics (Principles of Ethical Behavior in Modern

Society)

https://areebahashim.weebly.com

CHAPTER 20: JUSTICE AND FAIRNESS

Justice and fairness are difficult concepts or notions to define without the
assistance of the other. Justice and fairness are often used interchangeably, and we
have come to understand that what is right is also fair, and that in order to be
perceived as fair, we must be just. However, not all justice is equal, and not all justice
is equal.

Justice, in a wide sense, is action taken in line with the provisions of a law
(Vice, 1997). Some people believe that justice is a result of God's will or mandate,
while others feel that justice is inherent in nature. Others believe that justice consists
of universally applicable rules that come from some form of consensus. This type of
justice is frequently regarded as being superior to a society's legal system. We are
more prone to label anything "unjust" when it appears to contravene some universal
rule of behaviour.

LEARNING OUTCOMES

Upon completion of this lesson, you should be able to:

1. use basic concepts across the domains of knowledge;

2. advocate respect for human rights; and

3. manage one’s knowledge, skills, and values for responsible and productive living
 106

Activity

The Fair Eggs-periment

(Materials: a clear drinking glass filled with one cup of water, a fresh egg, a
tablespoon of salt, a permanent marker, and a permanent marker.)

Place the egg in the glass of water with care. Tell the pupils that the egg (you may
call it "Eddie") "represents someone who is being treated unfairly." Sinking to the
bottom depicts how miserable, despondent, defeated, unappreciated, and unloved
someone who has been left out or abused might feel. Set the egg aside after
removing it from the water. Add salt to the water one tablespoon at a time.

Explain that the salt represents different ways to be fair to others as you stir in each
spoonful. Consider the following example: according to the rules. Explain that the
salt represents different ways to be fair to others as you stir in each spoonful. For
instance, when playing a game, obeying the rules, taking turns and sharing, treating
people with honesty and respect, and intervening to help someone who is being
treated unfairly. Return the egg to the water once all of the salt has been added. (If
you want, use the permanent pen to draw a smiley face on the egg.) It will now float.
Explain how "Eddie" is now being supported with kindness and "held up" by other
people's fairness and acceptance. (10-Minute Life Lessons, by Jaime Miller.

1. What is “fairness?”
2. How do you know when something is unfair?
3. What makes a person fair?
4. What does being fair have to do with one’s character?

Justice and fairness are difficult concepts or notions to define without the
assistance of the other. Justice and fairness are often used interchangeably, and we
have come to understand that what is right is also fair, and that in order to be
perceived as fair, we must be just. However, as you will see after reading this lesson,
all justice is not equal, and all justice is not equal. Let us take a closer look at the
statement.

Modern cultures and civilizations are bound together by the moral fabric of
justice. It is a moral and ethical idea in which what is ethically correct is regarded as
just. We discuss social justice, which is an egalitarian idea that aims for equal rights
for all members of society. In this sense, justice entails giving each individual in
society what he or she is entitled to. Justice for all has become a fashionable motto in
all societies, and it is a norm that all societies strive to accomplish. Although life is not
always fair to all, the concept of justice strives for equality for all. Justice is often seen
as a quality of being just or fair. In the field of law, justice is seen as meting out
punishment to the culprit who has done a crime or harmed another individual. In
broader terms, justice is giving a person his due.
 107

Giving each person what he or she deserves, or, in more conventional terms,
giving each person their due, is what justice entails. Justice and fairness are two
phrases that are commonly used interchangeably nowadays. However, there have
been some more diverse interpretations of the two names. Fairness has also been
used to refer to the ability to make judgements that are not unduly generic but
precise and unique to a given circumstance. While justice normally refers to a
standard of rightness, fairness often refers to the ability to judge without regard to
one's feelings or interests. In any event, the idea of being regarded like one who
deserves it is appealing.

Fairness is concerned with morally correct, honorable, and equal acts,

processes, and outcomes. The virtue of fairness, in essence, creates moral criteria
for decisions that have an impact on others. On the basis of relevant criteria, fair
decisions are made in an appropriate manner.

Fairness refers to how managers and coworkers treat people regardless of their age,
color, gender, national origin, disability, religious beliefs, or sexual orientation.

Generalization

The concepts of social stability, interdependence, and equal dignity are the
underpinnings of justice. The stability of a society—or any organization, for that
matter—depends on the extent to which its members believe they are being treated
fairly, as ethicist John Rawls has pointed out. When some people of society believe
they are being treated unfairly, the groundwork for social unrest, upheavals, and
strife has been established. The members of a society, according to Rawls, are
dependent on one another, and they will only maintain their social unity if their
institutions are just. Furthermore, as philosopher Immanuel Kant and others have
pointed out, human beings are all equal in this regard: they all have the same dignity,
and they all deserve to be regarded as equals as a result of that dignity. Individuals'
inherent human dignity is breached whenever they are treated unequally based on
arbitrary and irrelevant attributes.

As a result, justice is an essential component of ethics and should be

prioritized in our moral life. We must ask whether our activities treat all people
equitably while evaluating any moral decision. If not, we must consider if the disparity
in treatment is justified: are the standards we're applying appropriate for the
situation? However, when making ethical decisions, fairness is not the only factor to
consider. Justice principles may need to be overcome on occasion in favor of other
moral claims, such as rights or the welfare of society. Nonetheless, justice is a
reflection of our mutual awareness of each other's essential dignity, as well as an
acknowledgement that we must respect each other as equals if we are to live
together in an interdependent community.

But, when it comes to making ethical decisions, justice isn't the only factor to
consider. Principles of justice must sometimes be set aside in favor of other moral
claims, such as rights or the well-being of society. Nonetheless, justice is a
 108

manifestation of our mutual awareness of each other's fundamental unity, as well as

an acknowledgement that we must respect each other as equals if we are to live
together in an interdependent community.

ASSESSMENT

Surname: Given Name: M.I.:

Student Number Course/Year/Section

Subject: SOCSCI_212 Chapter: CHAPTER 20: JUSTICE AND

ETHICS FAIRNESS

Assessment Questions:

1. When do we say that there is fairness in justice? Explain and cite examples. Is
justice and fairness the same?

2. Does being fair mean you always treat people equally? Explain your
answer.

3. Here are some examples of being fair and just and of not being fair and just.
Draw a table and align your answers appropriately to which the following examples
belong.

playing by the rules

widespread economic and social inequality

allowing everyone an equal opportunity to succeed

oppression of cultural and religious groups throughout the world

being open-minded

violence against women

the infanticide of baby girls in India and China

sharing and listening to others

include considering all the facts in a situation before making a decision

taking turns
 109

REFERENCES

beyondinteractibility.org/essay/principles_of_justice

goodcharacter.com/middle_school/fairness/

school.cms.k12.nc.us/beverlywoodES/Documents/Janjustice.pdf

reference.com/word-view/examples-being-fair-ed338b02c3968581

reference.com/world-view/current-examples-injustice-e60fd86902426fa9

differencebetween.com/difference-between-justice-and-vs-fairness

scu.edu/mcae/publications/iie/v3n2/homepage.html.

josephsononbusinessethics.com/2010/12/fairness/

https://youtu.be/18hBt-JY458

https://cubegroup.com.au/why-equality-and-fairness-matters/

https://quotesgram.com/qoutes-about-justice-and-fairness/
 110

https://www.pinterest.com/pin/174584923029374330/

http://www.sliderbase.com/spitetem-371-2.html

https://www.ajeforum.com/the-difference-between-educational-equality-equity-
and-justice-and-why-it-matters-by-joseph-levitan/

CHAPTER 21: GLOBALIZATION AND ITS ETHICAL CHALLENGES

Globalization has been in the air for a while now. In politics and economics, it
has become one of the most commonly used terms. It is being promoted as a
universal goal for all of humanity. As it reshapes our lives, the way we make a living,
and the way we relate, the dynamic force of globalization will continue to modify our
perception. Economic, technical, cultural, and political developments are all taking
place. Ethics perspectives on moral decision-making tend to emphasize safeguarding
the best interests of global communities, in which ethical conducts are integrated to
achieve both national and global goals.

LEARNING OUTCOMES:

At the end of this lesson, the learner is expected to:

1. Identify the important moral challenges of globalization.

What is Globalization?

We frequently hear the term "globalization" used in a variety of settings to

refer to increased trade, foreign corporations, and even the ongoing economic crisis.
 111

Globalization has been fueled primarily by technological advancements.

Advances in information technology have had a significant impact on the economy.

free movement
of goods,
services and
people across
a process of the world in an
interaction and integrated result of the
integration manner opening up of
among the the global
people, economy and
companies, and the increase in
government of trade between
different nations
nations
Globalizati countries
represents the on liberalize their
desire to move import
from national protocols and
to a global welcome
sphere of countries foreign
economic and liberalize their investment into
political visa rules and sectors that are
activity procedures so mainstays of its
as to permit the economy
free flow of
people from
country to
country

Source: en.wikipedia.com

“Globalization is both an active process of corporate expansion across

borders and a structure of cross border facilities and economic
linkages that have been steadily growing and changing.”
-- Edward S.
Herman

In many circumstances, globalization entails political decisions about

deregulation, free trade, and market integration. It alters people's lifestyles and living
conditions all across the world, providing new opportunities for some while posing
risks and challenges to others. Individuals, businesses, governments, and
multinational organizations that are freed from the confines of the nation state face
the same challenges.

Reasons for Globalization

There are several important variables that have influenced the globalization process:

1. Improvements in transportation – Improvements in transportation also imply

that products and people can travel more swiftly and at a lower cost.

2. Freedom of trade – Organizations like the World Trade Organization promote

free trade between countries, which help to remove barriers between countries.
 112

3. Improvements of communications – People in various nations may now

communicate more easily thanks to the internet and mobile technology.

4. Labor ability and skills – Clothing and other labor-intensive sectors can benefit
from lower labor costs and less legal limitations.

Salient Features of Globalization

Hereunder are the general characteristics of globalization:

1. Liberalization. It represents the freedom of entrepreneurs to start any industry,
trade, or commercial endeavor they want, whether it's in their own country or
elsewhere.

2. Free Trade. It stands for the unrestricted flow of trade between all nations. It
advocates for industry and trade to be free of overbearing regulatory and protective
laws and restrictions.

3. Globalization of Economic Activity. Domestic and international markets both

influence economic activity. It refers to the process of home economies becoming
more integrated with the global economy.

4. Liberalization of Import-Export System. It refers to the liberalization of import-

export activity, which involves the free flow of commodities and services across
international borders.

5. Privatization. Globalization refers to the removal of the state from the ownership
of means of production and distribution, as well as the free flow of industrial,
commerce, and economic activity between people and their businesses.

6. Increased Collaborations. A aspect of Globalization is that it encourages

company collaboration in order to ensure quick modernization, development, and
technical improvement.

7. Economic Reforms. Globalization advocates for the integration and

democratization of the world's culture, economy, and infrastructure through global
investments, and it encourages fiscal and financial changes in order to strengthen
free trade, free entrepreneurship, and market forces around the world.

Globalization and Its Ethical Challenges

Globalization's demands for a fundamental shift in values, with a focus on

human security, democracy, and economic justice, have put morality to the test all
across the world. Each person must change their ideas and actions to contribute to
 113

the creation of a more compassionate, humane, and peaceful society by thinking

globally and acting collectively.

Through communication, transportation, and trade, globalization has resulted

in the integration of regional economies, civilizations, and cultures. Globalization, on
the other hand, is frequently fueled by a mix of economic, technological,
sociocultural, political, and biological elements.
It also encompasses cross-national processes such as internationalization,
liberalization, universalization, and westernization, which have resulted in
globalization of not just corporate operations but also political, educational, cultural,
and social activities. People moving across borders has made it simpler to impact
ethical issues in cross-cultural situations.
Meanwhile, ethics plays a significant role in people's lives. It makes an
attempt to discriminate between right and wrong, as well as good and terrible. With
the emergence of internationalization in tackling ethical concerns posed by
international terrorism, cybercrime, international syndicates, global warming, and
climate change, among others, strategies in resolving national moral issues that will
conflate have been shaped.

As a result of the aforementioned phenomenon, ethical perspectives on moral

decision-making tend to focus on safeguarding the best interests of global
communities, in which ethical conducts are integrated to attain both national and
global goals.
Ethical Issues of Globalization

Globalization includes the expansion of the global economy, but it also

involves normative difficulties. The following are some of the ethical difficulties that
were identified:

1. Reducing protectionism is inequitable unless it is done equitably. Protectionism is

an economic policy of limiting imports from other countries by tariffs on imported
goods, import quotas, and a range of other government-imposed restrictions.

2. Inequality of power, example with no or few trade unions leads to massive

exploitation by multinationals.

3. The global divide between affluent and poor continues to widen. Only 5% of the
world's population lives on less than $2 a day and receives only 5% of global
revenue.

4. Economic globalization disenfranchises the poor, devastates the environment, and

harms culture.
 114

5. Inequity and poverty among the poor are exacerbated by globalization.

6. Many worldwide issues, such as pollution or resource scarcity; global warming;

global tourism expansion; the spread of AIDS and other health dangers enabled by
global transportation; online fraud; and terrorism, are by-products of the global
economy's expansion.

7. Poverty. There are still too many people who die because they are too poor to
live.

8. Both within and between countries, income disparities have widened. According to
a recent UN study, global commerce boosts wealth, but the benefits of trade are not
evenly distributed. What constitutes a just distribution of an increasing pie? This
presents certain ethical concerns.

9. Unskilled, semiskilled, and traditionally skilled personnel are in short supply as a

result of international commerce and technological progress.

10. Around 180 million people are malnourished, over 850 million are illiterate, and
nearly everyone lacks access to basic sanitation. Every day, 300,000 children under
the age of five die from preventable causes.

11. The World Trade Organization (WTO) disregards labor rights and environmental
concerns.

12. Brain drain – Another ethical issue is the “brain drain” effect of globalization,
which refers to brilliant or educated people from Third World countries leaving their
home countries for better possibilities in First World countries. As a result, Third
World countries are short on educated locals.

13. Natural Resources – Tropical rainforests are being cut down for fuel and
livestock grazing meadows all over the world. This loss in rainforests will have a
significant impact on global oxygen levels.

Solutions to Ethical Problems of Globalization

Some of the solutions to the problems of globalization are:

1. Countries must take shared responsibilities for controlling the hazards that have
resulted as a result of it. Poor countries should get assistance from wealthy countries
in order to help them achieve economic growth and development.

2. To solve the global challenges of poverty and malnutrition, coordinated action is

required. The nature of the answer must be adapted to the issues at hand.
 115

3. In the case of pandemics, the most important thing is to support countries where
outbreaks occur and to assist individuals who are most vulnerable to illness.

4. Widespread threats, such as climate change or a major financial crisis, may

necessitate international cooperation. Almost every time, an international effort is
required.

5. Long-term political expediency is essential when tackling threats such as the

Islamic state, ebola, the financial crisis, climate change, or rising inequality.

Ethical Challenges for Business Working in a Globalized World

Business ethics is a subset of applied ethics that looks at ethical principles

and moral issues that occur in the workplace. It covers all facets of business behavior
and is applicable to both individuals and large organizations. Its goal is to instill in
corporate employees a sense of value orientation in terms of how to do business
responsibly. (Velazques, 2009).

Hypocrisy in pursuit of self-interest, corruption, egoism, violence, and the

quest of material prosperity are all prominent in today's world, which has suffered a
serious and all-pervasive erosion of values. Everyone is in a mad scramble to get
more and more, mostly through devious means. Desire knows no bounds. Further
criminalization of the broken polity, relationships with underworld associates,
unethical use of religion, corruption, terrorism, and trade union militancy are all
indicators of the urgent need to take a value-based approach to the prevailing cause-
and-effect syndrome. Values and ethics are particularly important in this
environment. For s, corporate ethics are required. Ethics is needed to business for
several reasons as stated below (Chavan, 2010):

1. Ethics establishes a person's legitimacy in the eyes of the general public.

2. Good decision-making is aided by ethics.
3. Profits and ethics
4. Ethics, not law, can defend society.
5. Globalization's ethical impact on stakeholders.

ASSESSMENT

Surname: Given Name: M.I.:

Student Number Course/Year/Section

Subject: SOCSCI_212 Chapter: CHAPTER 21: GLOBALIZATION

ETHICS AND ITS ETHICAL
CHALLENGES
 116

Assessment Questions:

1. How is our world connected with other countries? Cite an example on how
people and nation can be interconnected in a good way. Cite another
example in which the result is disadvantageous to some.

2. Since globalization cannot be prevented, what will Third World countries

like the Philippines do to cushion its negative impact economically and
culturally?

3. Answer briefly: As an individual aspiring success, how are you going to

apply the solutions to the different ethical challenges in globalization.
 117

REFERENCES:

Agdalpen, Renato T. et al. 2019. “Ethics: Ako at ang Kagandahang Asal Bilang
Isang Filipino”, Mindshapers Co., Inc.

Leaño, Jr., Roman D., et al., 2018. “Ethics for College Students”, Mindshapers Co.,
Inc.

CHAPTER 22: MILLENNIALS & FILINNIALS: ETHICAL

CHALLENGES & RESPONSES
This lesson will look at the challenges that Millenials and Millennials face.
We'll discuss each generation's ethical outlook and cultural identity, as well as their
work ethics.

LEARNING OUTCOMES

At the end of this lesson, you should be able to:

1. compare the responses of baby boomers and millennials to shared moral

dilemmas;

2. state qualities of the filinnials and millennials; and

3. apply the different principles and behaviors of Filinnials and Millennials

according to its ethical standard of the society.

Millennials and Filinnials

 118

According to the Center for Generational Kinetics, there are five

generations that currently make up our civilization, with the following birth years for
each generation: (‘’An Intro to Generations,’’n.d.):

Gen Z, iGen, or Centennials: Born 1996

Millennials or Gen Y: Born 1977 to 1995

Generation X: Born 1965 to 1976

Baby Boomers: Born 1946 to 1964

Traditionalists or Silent Generation: Born 1945 and before

The children of baby boomers and elder Gen Xers make up the millennial
generation. The phrase "filinnials" refers to Filipino Millennials.

Seven basic traits are ascribed to the Millennials: “special, sheltered,

confident, team-oriented, conventional, pressured, and achieving. Their beig ‘team-
oriented,’ nonetheless, is questioned, as one study reveals that they have “a sense of
entitlement and narcissism, based on personality surveys showing increased
narcissism among Millennials compared to preceding generations when they were
teens and in their twenties”. Some psychologists thus consider Millennials (including
Filinnials) to be part of what is called ‘Generation Me,’ instead of ‘Generation We.’

Millennials grew up in an era when the internet began to have a significant

impact on the entertainment industry. Despite being the most ethnically and racially
diverse generation in comparison to previous generations, millennials appear to be
the most educated.

Ethical Outlook and Cultural Identity

In a 2013 poll in the United Kingdom, Millennials were judged to be

more open-minded about difficult topics than their parents. A Pew Research Poll from
2013 found that 84 percent of Generation Y participants supported marijuana
legalization. The same research center published a report in 2014 finding that adult
Millennials are disconnected from institutions and networked with friends. Some
authors label Millennials' attitude to social change as "pragmatic idealism," describing
it as "a deep desire to make the world a better place paired with a realization that
doing so necessitates creating new institutions while working and outside of existing
institutions."

Because of their projected tendency to delay various rites of passage into

adulthood for longer durations than most generations before them, and to live with
their parents for longer periods than prior generations, millennials are also known as
the "Boomerang Generation" or "Peter Pan Generation."

Generation Y people are more optimistic and adaptable to change than

previous generations. According to a Pew Research Center survey from 2008,
Millennials are "the most likely of any generation to self-identify as liberals" and are
"more supportive of progressive domestic social agenda than earlier generations."
 119

According to a poll, the majority of millennials of all religions, races, and

ethnicities support access to inexpensive contraception. (Grossman,n.d.). “”And 56
percent of people agest 18 – 35 say that in some situations, choosing to have
abortion “is the most responsible decision that a woman can make” (Grossman,n.d.).

A sampling of other findings reveals the following (Grossman,n.d.):

a. One-quarter of millennials say that marriage has become old

fashioned and out of date, while 71 percent disagree.

b. Millennials fall into a four-way split on “pro-life” and “pro-

choice” labels. While 25 percent say they are exclusively “pro-life” and 27 percent
say they’re “pro-choice,” 22 percent rebuff both labels and nearly 27 percent say that
both labels described them equally well.

c. 7 percent of millennials identify either as lesbian, gay,

bisexual, or transgender.

Work Ethics

Millennials, on the other hand, are tech-savvy, appreciative of diversity, and

excellent at multitasking, whereas Boomers are hardworking, idealistic, and
committed to harmony, and Gen Xers are entrepreneurial, adaptable, and self-reliant,
and comfortable with technology. (Verschoor, n.d.).

In terms of negative traits and workplace attributes, Boomers are said to be

self-centered with a sense of entitlement, workaholics, self-motivated, and don't
appreciate feedback, whereas Millennials are said to lack basic literacy
fundamentals, have very short attention spans, aren't loyal to organizations, demand
immediate feedback and recognition, integrate technology into the workplace, and
expect to have a large number of employees. (Verschoor, n.d.).

According to one study on generational analysis, a large number of

Millennials regard certain workplace activities to be ethical, including (Verschoor,
n.d.):

The increasing use of social networking looks to bring challenges, as a large

percentage of Millennials upload problematic information on their own social
networking sites, such as (Verschoor, n.d.):

Millennials want tight relationships with their bosses and frequent feedback.
They usually link job satisfaction to open communication, strong supervisory
connections, and more immediate feedback.

Generation Y members are also known for their preference for a flat corporate
culture, a focus on work-life balance, and social awareness. Millennials prioritize
meaningful work, finding a creative outlet, and prioritizing familial values over
corporate principles. Their widespread usage of social media has honed their
collaborative skills and resulted in a preference for a team-oriented environment.

Secularism and humanism

 120

Secularism is a non-theistic belief system or worldview that denies the

existence of supernatural or divine realities. As a result, atheism, agnosticism,
naturalism, materialism, scientism, Darwinism, and other ideologies that reject all
spiritual explanations of the world are included.

Humanism is a school of thinking that emphasizes the value of human

beings and places a premium on man's reasoning over faith or religious teaching.

ASSESSMENT

Surname: Given Name: M.I.:

Student Number Course/Year/Section

Subject: SOCSCI_212 Chapter: CHAPTER 22: MILLENNIALS &

ETHICS FILINNIALS: ETHICAL
CHALLENGES & RESPONSES

Assessment Questions:

1. From the lesson discussion you have read, you are going to discuss some
ethical outlooks and cultural identities of the Millennials and Filinnials.
Discuss some feature of their work ethics.

2. As a Filinnial/Millennial, how will you respond to the challenges of

globalization and the difference of mindset caused by differing generational
relations to technology and social media?

3. Make a table and write the different qualities of the baby boomers,
millenials and fillinials.
 121

REFERENCES

De Guzman, Janes Micah. ETHICS (Principles of Ethical behavior in Modern

Society)

CHAPTER 23
ETHICS OF TAXATION

Any discussion of ethics at its core involves understanding right and wrong.
This may seem simple on the surface, but as anyone who has studied philosophy will
readily admit, there is much more complexity to this practice. In professions like tax
preparation, accountancy, and other similar professions, ethical questions are likely
to arise on a regular basis. Naturally, federal and local laws govern a great deal of
these decisions, as well as ethical codes laid out by professional organizations. At
the end of the day, making that crucial distinction between right and wrong in a given
scenario requires tax professionals to use their training to make an informed
judgment. In addition to equipping students to navigate complex tax laws, there are
several sources and books available to reinforce understanding the importance of
ethics relating to taxation.

LEARNING OUTCOMES

At the end of this lesson, you should be able to:

1. understand ethics of taxation, the obligation of citizens to pay taxes, and the
State’s duty to spend and utilize taxes properly; and
2. differentiate the three philosophical approaches in understanding ethics of
taxation as a whole.
 122

The share of the economy controlled by the state in the Western world has
increased dramatically over the last century, and demands on the state are expected
to increase as people live longer, implying that taxes will continue to rise for the vast
majority of the population. What are the advantages and disadvantages of requiring
such a large number of individuals to pay such a large sum of money? To address
this, we can pose a number of questions, such as how much tax should be collected
in total, whether taxing aims are legitimate, and how taxpayers should behave. We'll
answer these problems using political philosophy arguments and the three
approaches to ethics listed below:

• Utilitarianism, which states that we should strive for the highest total happiness
possible for all people. In the economic sphere, we can define happiness as the
fulfillment of our desires, and utilitarianism as the pursuit of maximum fulfillment of
desires.

• Deontology, which is based on the concept of obligation.

• Virtue ethics focuses on the virtues we should have and what a virtuous life
entails. It's important to employ a broad definition of virtues here, one that includes
not only qualities like honesty, but also virtues like using one's abilities and living a
meaningful life.

The Total Amount of Tax

The most essential economic aims for a utilitarian are to ensure that enough
products and services are accessible to allow everyone to live a decent life, and that
these resources are dispersed widely enough for all or most people to benefit from
them. A pure utilitarian would only worry about overall satisfaction, not the distribution
of it, but when it comes to taxation, we're talking about the distribution of it. If each
person has modest resources, the overall pleasure should be higher than if the same
total resources are concentrated in the hands of a few individuals. Taxation and
government spending are the most obvious means of achieving redistribution and
ensuring that everyone receives something.

There's a sense of unease here. Taxation and spending aid in the allocation
of resources, but excessive tax rates restrict investment and incentives, making it
difficult to develop sufficient overall resources. As a result, too much redistribution
may result in a too tiny pie to distribute. As a result, utilitarians must establish a
balance. Economists, not philosophers, are the ones who will advise them on how to
achieve this interest balancing in the most productive way. This comes as no
surprise. Utilitarianism is nothing more than a set of computational rules. The
computations for utilitarians must be done by professionals from other areas.

The deontologist, unlike the utilitarian, does not instruct us to perform

calculations. Instead, he or she establishes absolute obligations. Respect for other
 123

people's property rights is a common example of such a requirement. Because tax is

the coercive transfer of property away from taxpayers, this may be construed to
suggest that there should be no tax at all. The duty to protect property rights, on the
other hand, could be used to argue that any social resources used should be paid
for, even if the resources were not requested. To avoid being a thief, anyone who
utilizes a public hospital, or even a public road, should ensure that they pay the
appropriate tax. It is, however, difficult to make this argument impenetrable. Is it
reasonable to expect individuals to refuse to use public roads if they do not wish to
pay a tax? They'd have to relocate to the middle of nowhere. But, because they
already own their homes, why should they be forced to do so? As a result,
deontology does what it does all the time. It offers arguments which pull in opposite
directions, and leaves us completely uncertain about what to conclude.

When it comes to the subject of taxation justice, virtue ethics can be a little
more useful. If tax rates are reasonable, some virtues appear to be more likely to be
practiced than if they are very high. It is important to make the most of one's abilities.
Financial incentives can motivate people to use their skills, but high taxes reduce
take-home earnings, dampening those incentives. Another virtue is generosity,
whether it is in the form of money or in the form of time. Persons with higher take-
home income are more likely to feel able to afford charitable donations, and people
with higher pay rates are more likely to take time off from paid job to conduct charity
work or other forms of civic engagement, such as serving as school governors or
magistrates. Independence is a third virtue. It is preferable to earn what one requires
rather to rely on government assistance. Lower tax rates make it easier to achieve
financial independence.

Let us also consider political arguments based on taxation's coercive nature.

Robert Nozick claimed in Anarchy, State, and Utopia (1974) that forced taxes are a
violation of our rights. Property was primarily distributed among us through a long
process of acquisitions and subsequent exchanges. If the initial acquisitions and
subsequent trades were fair, then the current distribution of property is fair, and
interfering with it by force would be unjust. It's OK if people agree to pay for things
like police protection individually; nevertheless, the majority should not force the
unwilling minority to contribute.

Liam Murphy and Thomas Nagel presented one of the most interesting
critiques to this line of reasoning in The Myth of Ownership: Taxes and Justice
(2002). They argue that we should not think of income and wealth distribution in
terms of a natural distribution with a taxing state meddling with it. Rather, it is the
state that provides the stability that allows for significant earnings. They argue that
there would be no property security, no system of enforceable contracts, and so on in
a world without government. As a result, total wealth levels would be significantly
lower than they are now. It is not true that existing money would be allocated
differently in the absence of a taxing state: wealth would be scarce.
 124

This appears to be correct. However, Murphy and Nagel's reasoning is

insufficient to justify high taxation and a large state. Assume we had a rudimentary
state that provided only security and a legal framework for commerce. As a result,
there would be no government benefits, and all schools, hospitals, and roads would
be run as for-profit businesses. Although the distribution of income and wealth in that
minimal state may differ significantly from what it is now, the total income and wealth
may not. As a result, Nozick could respond that this distribution should be assumed
to be simply with a minimal state. If this is the case, any compulsory taxation to
expand the state would be a violation of people's rights.

This approach does not prove that a large state is bad, but it does put the
burden of proof on proponents of large states to explain that they are justifiable
despite the coercion involved.

The Legitimate Objectives of Taxation

Tax can be used for a variety of objectives, and it's usually evident what
ethicists of various stripes would say about them. We can begin with maintaining
peace and order, as well as providing more comprehensive public services such as
healthcare and education. Taxation for these items will be approved by utilitarians
because it allows more commodities and services to be produced, as well as more
non-materialistic desires to be gratified. Virtue ethicists would applaud these services
since they allow people to put their abilities to good use and live happy lives.
When it comes to aid to the poor, utilitarians will support it since shifting
resources from the affluent to the poor increases the poor's happiness more than it
decreases the rich's. Virtue ethicists will support it since redistribution can help the
poor prosper and develop virtues, and caring for the less fortunate is a virtue in and
of itself (although voluntary charity may be a greater virtue than forced payment).
Deontologists can also see a moral need to care for the impoverished. Immanuel
Kant, the greatest of all deontologists, believed in a duty to the poor, albeit he did not
envision a tax-funded welfare state as a solution. None of this, however, implies that
any ethicist would advocate for the unfettered provision of any of these beneficial
items through the tax system. As we have seen, the repercussions of the overall level
of taxation must be considered.

The promotion of equality, in the sense of equality of economic outcome (i.e.

wealth) rather than equality of opportunity, is a more contentious goal. Taxation can
readily be used to make the distribution of income and wealth more equitable, either
by moving funds from the wealthy to the poor, or by imposing more taxes on the
wealthy or by providing the same state services to everyone while taxing the rich
more than the poor in order to pay for them. Greater equality may also be an
accidental outcome of using the tax system to do other things. But it can also be a
goal in itself. Is it legitimate to pursue equality through taxation?
 125

Greater economic equality has a utilitarian justification. If more equal societies

are happier, more stable, had lower crime rates, and so on, a utilitarian would wish to
promote equality unless it conflicted with other utilitarian goals. We must leave it to
sociologists to determine whether more equal societies do indeed have those
benefits.

On the basis of justice, one can also argue for equality. The premise is that if
there is no positive reason for persons obtaining uneven shares of available
resources, then they should receive equal shares; otherwise, those who receive less
than they would under an equal distribution are treated unfairly.

To evaluate the validity of this argument, we should look at John Rawls' work,
particularly his book A Theory of Justice (1971). Rawls stated that social imbalances
should be managed so that the individuals with the fewest advantages benefit the
most. However, he says an unequal system might actually benefit the disadvantaged
more than an economically egalitarian one. For example, inequalities of income
would be perfectly acceptable if they were a necessary result of there being
incentives which encourage skilled people to work hard and entrepreneurial people to
take risks, so long as the result was that those with the least income-earning
potential were still made better off than they would otherwise have been. That looks
sensible. Why not let the rich grow richer, if the poor are helped by their doing so?
The poor will possibly even be grateful.

Not everyone accepts that inequalities like these would be just. For example,
in his book Rescuing Justice and Equality (2008), Gerald Cohen argued that Rawls
was far too permissive of inequality. He pointed out that we are free and conscious
beings. However, the talented person who says that he or she will only work hard,
and thereby benefit the whole economy, if enough money is offered, is acting like a
vending machine. A vending machine will only give you what you want if you put the
money in. But we are not vending machines. We can work out what we would do,
given the financial incentives. Then we can decide to do it anyway, without the
incentives.

We could figure out what we would do in Rawls' society, which includes

inequities, to provide the correct incentives to generate wealth, and then do the same
things without the incentives – and without the disparity, according to Cohen. Cohen
contended that this would provide us with even more justice than Rawls' method.
Cohen could not claim that this strategy would be practical – people do respond to
money incentives after all – but he could argue that it would be just. At least, if we
accept the basic premise that equality is generally more just than inequality, he may
say that. Should we, however, accept that premise?

Rawls makes a compelling case for equality. In his opinion, the best way to
determine what methods of distribution of goods and resources are reasonable is to
consider what individuals would desire if they were constructing a society in which
 126

they would live but had no idea what family, abilities, or other conditions they would
have. They could only hope for an average share in that situation, and they would
have no incentive to accept anything significantly worse. As a result, they would
prefer an egalitarian society, with the allowances for inequalities that we have
outlined.

But it is not at all clear that people would only accept inequalities which
benefited the worst-off, as Rawls supposes. Suppose people had a choice between
two societies, X and Y. In both societies, everyone would have at least a tolerable
standard of living, and no-one would suffer abject poverty. In society X, the worst-off
person would have an income of P15,000 a year, a few people would have incomes
of P20,000, and the great majority would have incomes of P25,000. In society Y, the
worst-off person would have an income of P14,000, a few people would have
incomes of P19,000, and the great majority would have incomes of P27,000.
Someone making a choice of which society they would prefer to be part of, but who
did not know who they would be within it (Rawls’ ‘veil of ignorance’), could
reasonably take a chance on being someone with the income of the majority, and so
prefer society Y. Rawls was wrong to assume that he or she must rationally prefer
society X.

The Conduct of Taxpayers

Most taxpayers pay their taxes, without fuss. But not all taxpayers act in this
way. So lastly let’s look at whether two other forms of behavior can be ethically
acceptable: tax evasion, and tax avoidance.

Tax evasion involves knowingly mis-reporting the facts: for example, declaring an
income of P50,000 when the true figure is P60,000; or declaring that an asset is
owned by one company in a group when it’s really owned by another, so paying less
tax.

It would be very hard to give an ethical justification for tax evasion. One way
to try to do so would be to argue that the state, in imposing taxation, engaged in theft,
and that in order to prevent the theft one could lie to the state, just as one could lie to
a thief. This argument would have some plausibility in the context of a regime that
was imposed, rather than one democratically chosen in free elections. That is, it is
possible to see a regime that is not freely elected as merely a gang of bandits, even if
they are sometimes benevolent bandits. But there are many countries in which
governments are freely elected, and therefore their taxation demands may be
considered legitimate.

Tax avoidance, unlike tax evasion, does not entail withholding information or
lying. Instead, it entails structuring economic transactions in such a way that less tax
is due than would otherwise be the case. Complex systems utilized by some
organizations incorporating networks of firms and partnerships in multiple countries
 127

provide the most ethically problematic instances in this field. Tax evasion is
accomplished by adhering to the letter of the law rather than breaching it. That is to
say, while the tax savings achieved may be consistent with the law's language, it is
evident that if Parliament or other legislative bodies in other countries had considered
comparable methods, they would have created different laws to counteract them.

A utilitarian, concerned with the greater good, might be unconcerned about

tax evasion. After all, wealth is not destroyed when taxes are avoided; it is just
preserved in the private sector rather than being transferred to the public sector. This
would decrease their contentment more than it would raise the satisfaction of those
who are better off because their tax loads have been decreased. However, that loss
to the poor may not occur. When pension funds own shares in firms, for example,
regular people's pensions can be raised when those companies avoid paying taxes.
Tax evasion is likely to be frowned upon by a virtue ethicist. After all, manipulating
regulations with the knowledge that one is exploiting them in unanticipated ways to
disperse the disadvantage away from oneself is hardly noble. A deontologist would
not advocate for tax avoidance but would not necessarily condemn it. Deontologists
might readily argue that there is a duty to observe the law; nonetheless, obeying the
law is a difficult task.

ASSESSMENTS:

On a separate sheet of paper, do the following activities:

Ten (10) points each.

1. On the table below show the differences of the three philosophical approaches in
understanding ethics of taxation.

UTILITARIANISM DEONTOLOGY VIRTUE ETHICS

 128

2. In not more than ten (10) sentences explain the possible moral
effects/consequences of the citizens’ duties to pay taxes regularly. Cite a
philosophical approach as basis for your answer.

3. The State has the moral obligation to utilize taxes properly even if it has to resort
and use illegal ways and means. Comment.

REFERENCES:

Baron, Richard. www.rbphilo.com.

Cohen, Gerald A. 2008. Rescuing Justice and Equality, Harvard University Press

Murphy, Liam, et al., 2002 The Myth of Ownership: Taxes and Justice, Oxford
University Press.
 129

Nozick, Robert. 1974. Anarchy, State, and Utopia, New York: Basic Books.

Rawls, John. 1971. A Theory of Justice, Harvard University Press.