Chapter 6

SYNTHESIS: MAKING INFORMED DECISIONS

I. INTRODUCTION

What is the value of a college-level class in Ethics? We have been introduced

to four major ethical theories or frameworks: utilitarianism, natural law ethics,
Kantian deontology, and virtue ethics. None of them is definitive nor final. What
then is the use of studying them? Each represents the best attempts of the best
thinkers in history to give fully thought-out answers to the questions “What
ought I to do?” and “Why ought I to do so?” This quest has not reached its final
conclusion; instead, it seems that the human condition of finitude (limited) will
demand that we continue to grapple (wrestle, struggle, fight) with these questions.
The story of humanity appears to be the never ending search for what it
means to be fully human in the face of moral choices.

The preceding (previous) chapters clarified several notions (ideas,

thinking): (1) These questions of what the right thing to do is and why are questions
that all human beings-regardless of race, age, socioeconomic class, gender,
culture, educational attainment, religious affiliation, or political association –
will have to ask at one point or another in their lives; (2) Neither the laws nor rules of
one’s immediate community or of wider culture or of religious affiliation can
sufficiently answer these questions, especially when different duties, cultures, or
religions intersect (overlap, interconnected) and conflict; (3) Reason has a role
to play in addressing these questions, if not in resolving them. This last element,
reason, is the power that identifies the situations in which rules and principles
sometimes conflict with one another. Reason, hopefully, will allow one to finally
make the best decision possible in a given situation of moral choice.

Chapter 1 pointed out one of the capacities reason provides us – it enables

us to distinguish between human situations that have a genuinely moral character
from those that are non-moral (or amoral). It shows us that aesthetic (artistic, visual)
considerations and questions of etiquette (good manners) are important facets
(parts, aspects) of human life, but they do not necessarily translate into genuine
ethical or moral value. However, reason also reminds us that the distinctions
(difference, characteristics) are not always easy to identify nor explain. The choice
of clothing that one is to wear, in general, seems to be merely (only) a question of
aesthetics (visual), and thus one is taste. In many urban centers in the Philippines
in the twenty first century, people wear a wide variety of clothing styles and such a
situation does not seem to attract attention. Yet in some cultures, what a woman
wears (or does not wear) may bring upon harsh punishment to her according to the
community’s rules. Afghanistan in the 1990s was rule by the Taliban, and women
were expected to wear the full-body burga; a woman caught in public with even a
small area of her body exposed could be flogged (whipped, beat) severely. How is
one to make an intelligent, sensible decision when confronted by such possible
quandaries (difficulties, dilemmas) in specific situations?

The ethical or moral dimension compared to the realms (areas) of the

aesthetic (visual) or of etiquette is qualitatively weightier, for the ethical or moral
cuts to the core of what makes one human. Mistakes in aesthetics (“crimes,” as it
were, against the “fashion police”) or in etiquette (which can be considered “rude,” at
worst) can be frowned (not smile) upon by members of one human society or
another, but need not merit the severest of punishments or penalty. Reason,
through proper philosophizing, will aid an individual (and hopefully her wider
community) to make such potentially crucial distinctions (differences,
characteristics).

Ethics teaches us that moral valuation can happen in the level of the
personal, the societal (both local and global), and in relation to the physical
environment. Personal can be understood to mean both the person in relation to
herself, as well as her relation to other human beings on an intimate or person-to-
person basis. Ethics is clearly concerned with the right way to act in relation to
other human beings and toward self. How she takes care of herself versus how
she treats herself badly (e.g., substance abuse, suicide, etc.) is a question of
ethical value that is concerned mainly with her own person. Personal also
refers to a person’s intimate relationships with other people like her parents,
siblings, children, friends, or other close acquaintances. When does one’s
relationship lead to personal growth for the other? When does it ruin the other?
For most people, it is clear enough that there are right and wrong ways to deal
with these familiar contacts. Ethics can help us navigate (find the way) what
those ways can be.

The second level where moral valuation takes place is societal. Society in
this context means one’s immediate community (one’s neighborhood, barangay, or
town), the larger sphere (one’s province, region, or country), or the whole global
village defines as the interconnection of the different nations of the world. One must
be aware that there are many aspects to social life, all of which may come into play
when one needs to make a decision in a moral situation. All levels of society
involve some kind of culture, which may be loosely described as the way of
life of a particular community of people at a given period of time. Culture is a
broad term: it may include the beliefs and practices a certain group of people
considered valuable and can extend to such realms as art (e.g., music, literature,
performance, and so on), laws (e.g., injunctions or rulings against taboo or
prohibited practices), fields of knowledge (e.g., scientific, technological, and
medical beliefs and practices at a given point in time), and customs of a
community (e.g., the aforementioned rules of etiquette). Ethics serves to guide
one through the potentially confusing thicket (undergrowth) of an individual’s
interaction with her wider system of values.
 Of specific interest for the individual living in the twenty first century is the
interplay between her membership in her own society and her membership in the
larger human, that is, the global community. In an age defined to a large extent by
ever-expanding globalization, how does one negotiate the right thing to do when
one’s own culture clashes with the outside community’s values? Again, ethics will
assist one in thinking through such difficulties. This will be discussed further as
this chapter progresses.

The latter part of the twentieth century gave birth to an awareness among
many people that “community” does not only refer to the human groups that one
belongs to, but also refers to the non-human, natural world that serves as
home and source of nurturance (care for, develop) for all beings. Thus, ethics
has increasingly come to recognize the expansion of the question “What ought I to
do?” into the realm (area) of human beings’ responsibilities toward their natural
world. The environmental crises that currently beset our world, seen in such
phenomena as global warming and the endangerment and extinction (destruction,
loss) of some species, drive home the need to think ethically about one’s relationship
to her natural world.

Applying rational deliberation to determine a person’s ethical responsibility

to herself, society, and environment is the overall goal of a college course in
Ethics. We shall explore all of these later in this chapter. In order to do this, we
must first attempt to explore the self that must undertake this challenge. We are
talking about the

moral agent, the one who eventually must think about her choices and make
decisions on what she ought to do. We cannot simply assume that ethics is an
activity that a purely rational creature engages in. Instead, the realm of morality
must be understood as a thoroughly human realm. Ethical thought and decision
making are done by an agent who is shaped and dictated upon by many factors
within her and without. If we understand this, then we shall see how complex
the ethical situation is, one that demands mature rational thinking as well as
courageous decision-making.

II. LEARNING OUTCOMES (Week 16 - 17 )

 Identify the different factors that shape an individual in her moral decision-
making;
 Internalize the necessary steps toward making informed moral decisions;
 Apply the ethical theories or frameworks on moral issues involving the self,
society, and the non-human environment
III. CONTENT

THE MORAL AGENT AND CONTEXTS

The one who is tasked to think about what is “right” and why it is so,
and to choose to do so, is a human individual. Who is this individual who must
engage herself in ethical thought and decision-making? Who one is, in the most
fundamental sense, is another major topic in the act of philosophizing. The ancient
Greeks even had a famous saying for it: “Epimeleia he auto,” usually translated into
English as “Know thyself.” In response to this age-old philosophical challenge, The
Filipino philosopher Ramon C. Reyes (1935-2014), writing in his essay ‘Man and
Historical Action,” succinctly (briefly) explained that “who one is” is a cross-point. By
this, he means that one’s identity, who one is or who I am, is a product of many
forces and events that happened outside of one’s choosing. Reyes identifies four
cross-points: the physical, the interpersonal, the social, and the historical.
Who one is, firstly, is a function of physical events in the past and material factors
in the present that one did not have a choice in. You are a member of the species
Homo Sapiens and therefore possess the capacities and limitations endemic to
human beings everywhere. You inherited the genetic material of both your biological
parents. Your body has been shaped and continues to be conditioned by the given
set of environmental factors that are specific to your corner of the globe. All of these
are given; they have happened or are still happening whether you want to or not.
You did not choose to be a human being, nor to have this particular set of biological
parents, nor to be born in and/or grow up in such a physical environment (i.e., for
Filipinos to be born in an archipelago with a tropical climate situated near the
equator along the Pacific Ring of Fire, with specific set of flora and fauna, which
shape human life in this country to a profound degree).

An individual is also the product of an interpersonal cross-point of many

events and factors outside of one’s choosing. One did not choose her own
parents, and yet her personality, character traits, and her overall way of doing things
and thinking about things have all been shaped by the character of her parents and
how they brought her up. All of these are also affected by the people
surroundings her: siblings, relatives, classmates, playmates, and eventually
workmates. Thus, who one is – in the sense of one’s character or personality – has
been shaped by one’s relationships as well as the physical factors that affect how
one thinks and feels. Even Jose Rizal once argued that what Europeans mistook
as Filipino “laziness” was actually a function of the tropical climate and natural
abundance in the archipelago: Filipinos supposedly did not need to exert themselves
as much as Europeans in their cold climates and barren lands were forced to do.
 A third cross-point for Reyes is the societal: “who one is” is shaped by
one’s society. The term “society” here pertains to all the elements of the human
groups – as opposed to the natural environment – that one is a member of.
“culture” in its varied aspects is included here. Reyes argues that “who one is” is
molded in large part by the kind of society and culture – which, for the most part, one
did not choose – that one belongs to. Filipinos have their own way of doing
things (e.g., pagmamano), their own system of beliefs and values (e.g., closely-
knit family ties, etc.), and even their own notions of right and wrong (e.g., a
communal versus an individualistic notion of rights). This third cross-point
interacts with the physical and the interpersonal factors that the individual and her
people are immersed into or engaged in.

The fourth cross-point Reyes names is the historical, which is simply

the events that one’s people has undergone. In short, one’s people’s history
shapes “who one is” right now. For example, the Philippines had a long history
of colonization that affected how Philippine society has been formed and how
Philippine culture has developed. This effect, in turn, shapes the individual who is a
member of Philippine society. A major part of Philippine history is the
Christianization of the islands during the Spanish conquest. Christianity, for good
and bad, has formed Philippine society and culture, and most probably the
individual Filipino, whether she may be Christian herself or not. The historical
cross-point also interacts with the previous three. Each cross-point thus,
croses over into the others as well.

However, being a product of all these cross-points is just one side of “who
one is.” According to Reyes, “who one is” is also a project for one’s self. This
happens because a human individual has a freedom. This freedom is not absolute:
one does not become something because one chooses to be. Even if one wants to
fly, she cannot, unless she finds a way to invent a device that can help her do so.
This finite freedom means that one has the capacity to giver herself a particular
direction in life according to her own ideal self. Thus, for Reyes, “who one is” is a
cross-point, but in an existential level, he argues that the meaning of one’s
existence is in the intersection between the fact that one’s being is a product
of many forces outside her choosing and her ideal future for herself. We can
see that ethics plays a big role in this existential challenge of forming one’s self.
What one ought to do in one’s life is not dictated by one’s physical, interpersonal,
social or historical conditions. What one ought to do is also not abstracted from
one’s own specific situation. One always comes from somewhere. One is always
continuous being shaped by many factors outside of one’s own free will. The human
individual thus always exists in the tension between being conditioned by external
factors and being a free agent. The human individual never exists in a vacuum as if
she were a pure rational entity without any embodiment and historicity. The moral
agent is not a calculating, unfeeling machine that produces completely objective and
absolutely correct solutions to even the most complex moral problems.
 Using Reyes’s philosophical lens, we can now focus on one of the major
issues in ethical thought: What is the relationship between ethics and one’s own
culture? The following section focuses on this philosophical question.

CULTURE AND ETHICS

A common opinion many people hold is that one’s culture dictates what is
right or wrong for an individual. For such people, the saying “when in Rome, do
as

the Romans do” by St. Ambrose applies to deciding on moral issues. This
quote implies (indicates) that one’s culture is inescapable, that is, one has to look
into the standards of her society to resolve all her ethical questions with finality. How
she relates to herself, her close relations, her own society, with other societies, and
with the natural world are all predetermined by her membership in her society and
culture.

Generalizations concerning supposed Filipino traits sometimes end up as

empty stereotypes (boxes, groups) especially since one may be hard put to
think if any other culture does not exhibit such traits. For instance, in the case
of what many assume is a trait that Filipinos possess, namely hospitability, can we
say that chinese are not hospitable? Most probably, they are hospitable too, but
they may exhibit such hospitability in radically different ways. Thus, to simply say
that there is a “Filipino way” of doing things, including a “Filipino way” of
thinking about what the right thing to do and why, remains a matter for
discussion. Is there really a Filipino morality that may distinct from a Chinese
morality? We hear claims from time to time that “ Americans are individualistic:
Filipinos are communal,” a supposed difference that grounds, for some
people radically different sets of moral values. But one may ask: Is there really
any radical difference between one culture’s moral reasoning and another’s? Or do
all cultures share in atleast some fundamental values and that the differences are
not on the level of value but on the level of its manifestation in the context of different
socio-historical-cultural dimensions? One culture, because of its particular history,
may construct hospitality in a particular way and manifest it in its own custom and
traditions. Yet, both cultures honor hospitality.

The American philosopher James Rachels (1941-2003) provide a clear

argument against the validity of cultural relativism in the realm of ethics. Rachels
defines cultural relativism as the position that claims that there is no such
thing as objective truth in the realm of morality. The argument of this position is
that since different cultures have different moral codes, then there is no one correct
moral code that all cultures must follow. The implication is that each culture has its
own standard of right or wrong, its validity confined within the culture in question.
However, Rachels questions the logic of this argument: first, that cultural
relativism confuses a statement of fact (that different cultures have different moral
codes), which is merely descriptive, with a normative statement (that there cannot be
objective truth in morality). Rachels provides a counter-argument by analogy: Just
because some believed that the earth was flat, while some believe it is spherical
(round), it does not mean that there is no objective truth to the actual shape of the
earth.

Beyond his criticism of the logic of cultural relativism, Rachels also employs a
reductio ad absurdum argument. It is an argument which first assumes that the
claim in question is correct, in order to show the absurdity (meaninglessness) that
will ensure if the claim is accepted as such. He uses this argument to show what he
thinks is the weakness of the position. He posits (speculate, imagine) three absurd
consequences of accepting the claim of cultural relativism. First, if cultural
relativism was correct, then one cannot criticize the practices or beliefs of another
culture anymore as long as that culture thinks that what it is doing is correct. But if
that is the case, then the Jews, for example, cannot criticize the Nazis’ plan to
exterminate (eliminate) all Jews in World War II, since obviously, the Nazis believed
that they were doing the right thing. Secondly, if cultural relativism was correct, then
one cannot even criticize the practices or beliefs of one’s own culture. If that is the
case, the black South African citizens under the system of apartheid, a policy of
racial segregation that privileges the dominant race in a society, could not criticize
that official state position. Thirdly, if cultural relativism was correct, then one cannot
even accept that moral progress can happen. If that is the case, then the fact that
many societies now recognize women’s right and children’s rights does not
necessarily represent a better situation than before when societies refused to
recognize that women and children even had rights.

Rachels concludes his argument by saying that he understands the

attractiveness of the idea of cultural relativism for many people, that is, it recognizes
the differences between cultures. However, he argues that recognizing and
respecting differences between cultures do not necessarily mean that there is no
such thing as objective truth in morality. He argues instead that though different
cultures have different ways of doing things, cultures may hold certain values in
common. Rachels posits (speculate, imagine) that if one scrutinizes the beliefs and
practices of different cultures, however far apart they are from each other, no culture,
whether in the present world or in the past, would promote murder instead of
prohibiting it. Rachels argues that a hypothetical culture that promotes murder
would immediately cease to exist because the members would start murdering each
other. Rachels ends his article on cultural relativism by noting that someone can
recognize and respect cultural differences and still maintain the right to criticize
beliefs and practices that she thinks are wrong, it she performs proper rational
deliberation.

This, however, should not be taken as a reconciliation of all differences in the

name of some abstract universal value system. The cultural differences between
one society and another in terms of norms, practices, and beliefs are not trivial
matters that one can disregard. They are actually part of “who one is” and cannot be
set aside. One should instead think of a common human condition, a set of
existential situations that human beings share and that are fleshed out through a
group’s unique set of historical experiences and manifested in a group’s particular
cultural constructions.

Thus, the challenge of ethics is not the removal of one’s culture because that
is what makes one unique. Instead, one must dig deeper into her own culture in
order to discover how her own people have most meaningfully explored possibly
universal human questions or problems within the particularity of her own people’s
native ground. Thus, hospitality, for example, may be a species-wide question. But
how we Filipinos observe and express hospitality is an insight we Filipinos
must explore because it may be in our own practices that we see how best we
had responded to this human question. It may be best because we responded
specifically to the particularity of our own environmental and historical situation. One
can then benefit by paying attention to her own unique cultural heritage, because
doing so may give her a glimpse into the profound ways her people have grappled
(faced) with the question of “What ought I to do?”

Ethics , therefore, should neither be reduced to one’s own cultural standards,

nor should it simplistically dismiss one’s unique cultural beliefs and practices. The
latter can possibly enlighten her toward what is truly ethical. What is important is
that one does not wander into ethical situations blindly, with the native assumption
that ethical issues will be resolved automatically by her beliefs and traditions.
Instead, she should challenge herself to continuously work toward a fuller maturity in
ethical decision-making. Moral development then is a prerequisite if the individual
is to encounter ethical situations with a clear mind and with her values properly
placed with respect to each other. We shall discuss moral development further but
let us now focus on the relationship between one’s religion and the challenge of
ethical decision-making.

RELIGION AND ETHICS

Many people who consider themselves “religious” assume that it is the

teachings of their own religion that define what is truly ‘right” or “wrong,” “good”
or “bad.” The question of the proper relationship between religion and ethics,
therefore, is one that demands philosophical exploration. There are many different
religions in the world. Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism are four of
the largest religious groups in the world at present, based on population. The
Philippines is predominantly Roman Catholic, yet many other religions continue to
flourish in the archipelago. Beyond all the differences, however, religion in essence
represents a group’s ultimate, most fundamental concerns regarding their existence.
For followers of a particular religion, the ultimate meaning of their existence, as well
as the existence of the whole of reality, is found in the beliefs of that religion.
Therefore, the question of morality for many religious followers is reduced to
following the teachings of their own religion. Many questions arise from this
assertion. This is where a philosophical study of ethics enters.

Many religious followers assume that what their religion teaches can be found
either in their sacred scripture (e.g., the Bible for Christians, the Qur’an for
Muslims, etc.) or body of writings (e.g., the Vedas, including the Upanishads,
and other texts for Hindus; the Tao Te Ching, Chuang-tzu, and other Taoist
classics for Taoists) or in other forms (other than written texts) of preaching
that their leaders had promulgated and become part of their traditions. A
critical, philosophical question that can be asked, vis-à-vis ethics, is “What exactly
does sacred scripture (or religious teaching) command? This is a question of
interpretation since even the same passage from a particular religious tradition (e.g.,
“An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth” Genesis 21:24) can have many different
interpretations from religious teachers even from within the same tradition.
Therefore, based on what Ramon C. Reyes says concerning an individual’s cross-
points, one can see that the reading or interpretation of a particular passage or text
is the product of an individual’s embodiment and historicity and on the other hand,
her existential ideal. This does not mean that religious teaching is relative to the
individual’s particular situation (implying no objective and universal truth about the
matter) but that any reading or interpretation has a historical particularity affected by
the situatedness of the reader. This implies that the moral agent in question must
still, in full responsibility, challenge herself to understand using her own powers of
rationality, but with full recognition of her own situatedness and what her religious
authorities claim their religion teaches.

Second, one must determine what justifies the claim of a particular religious
teaching when it commands its followers on what they “ought to do” (whether in
general or in specific situations). Relevant to this is Plato’s philosophical
question in his dialogue Euthyphro, which was mentioned in an earlier chapter:
“Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved
by the gods?” Philosophers have modified this question into a moral version: When
something is “morally good,” is it because it is good in itself and that is why God
commands it, or is it good because God simply says so? If a particular preacher
teaches her followers to do something because it is what (for example) their sacred
scripture says, a critical-minded follower might ask for reason’s as to why the sacred
scripture says that. If the preacher simply responds ‘that is what is written in the
sacred scripture”, that is tantamount (the same as) to telling the follower to stop
asking questions and simply follow. Here, the critical-minded follower might find
herself at an unsatisfying impasse (dead end). History reveals that there were
people who twisted religious teaching that brought harm to their followers and to
others. An example is the Crusades in the European Middle Ages, European
Christians, who followed their religious leaders’ teaching, massacred Muslims, Jews,
and even fellow Christians to recapture the Holy City of Jerusalem from these so-
called heathens. A contemporary (current, modern) example is when terrorists
whoa re religious extremists use religion to justify acts of violence they perform on
fellow human beings. The problem here is not that religion misleads people; the
problem is that too many people perform heinous (wicked) acts simply because they
assumed they were following the teachings of their supposed religion, without
stopping to think whether these actions are harmful. The philosophical-minded
individual therefore is tasked to be critical even of her own set of beliefs and
practices and to not simply follow for the sake of blind obedience.

These critical questions about one’s culture and religious beliefs show us the
need for maturity or growth in one’s morality, both in terms of intellect and character.
The responsible moral agent then is one who does not blindly follow externally-
imposed rules, but one who has a well-developed “‘feel” for making informed moral
decisions. The following section discusses this need for developing one’s feel for
morality.

MORAL DELIBERATION

There is a big difference between a young child’s reasoning on the right

thing to do and the manner a morally mature individual arrives at an ethical
decision. This necessary growth, which is a maturation in moral reasoning, has
been the focus of study of many theorists. One of them is the American moral
psychologist Lawrence Kohlberg (1927-1987) who theorized that moral
development happens in six stages, which he divided into three levels. The first
level is what he called pre-conventional and it corresponds to how infants and
young children think. This pre-conventional level, whose reasoning is centered
on the consequence of one’s actions, is divided into two stages. The first stage of
reasoning centers around obedience and the avoidance of punishment: to a young
child’s mind, an action is “good” if it enables one to escape from punishment,
“bad” if it leads to punishment. Later, a child enters the second state of
reasoning and learns to act according to what she thinks will serve her self-
interest; thus, what is “good” at this age is what the child thinks can bring her
pleasure. Kohlberg used the term pre-conventional to refer to these two stages
since at this age, a young child basically thinks only in terns of the pain (punishment)
or pleasure (reward) brought about as a consequence of her actions. Thus, her
concentration is on herself and what she can feel, instead of her society’s
conventions (resolutions) on what is right or wrong.

The second level of moral development according to Kohlberg is the

conventional since this is the age in which older children, adolescents, and young
adults learn to conform to the expectations of society. This is the time when one
learns to follow the conventions of her group. This second level is divided into two
stages: the third and fourth stages of moral development. The third stage is when
one begins to act according to what the larger group she belongs to expects of her.
The individual here assumes that what will benefit her best is when the other
members of her group approve of her actions. The general tendency at this age is to
conform first to the values of one’s immediate group, such as her family, playmates,
or later on, barkada. Older children and adolescents eventually begin to value the
expectations of the larger group they belong to, whether it be their school, religion, or
state. The fourth stage is achieved when a person realizes that following the
dictates of her society is not just good for herself but more importantly, it is
necessary for the existence of society itself. The individual at this stage values most
the laws, rules, and regulations of her society, and thus her moral reasoning is
shaped by dutifulness to the external standards set by society.

In Kohlberg’s reasoning, people who merely follow the rules and regulations
of their institution, the laws of their community or state, the doctrine of their religion –
even if they seem to be the truly right thing to do – are trapped in this second or
conventional level, which is still not yet the highest. The point of Kohlberg’s theory
is not to ascertain what defines the goodness or rightness of the act. Thus, in this
sense, Kohlberg’s idea is not an ethical theory. Instead, it is a psychological theory
that attempts to describe the stages of a person’s growth in moral thinking. The
morally mature individual, for Kohlberg, must outgrow both (1) the pre-
conventional level, whose pleasure-and pain logic locks one into self-centered
kind of thinking, an egoism, as well as (2) the conventional level, which at first
glance looks like the sensible approach to morality. The second level might, de
facto, be the way that many (if not most) adults think about morality, that it is simply
a question of following the right rules. The great insight of Kohlberg, however, is
that a truly morally mature individual must outgrow even the simple following of
supposedly right rules. This is where the third level comes in.

The third and highest level of moral development for Kohlberg is what he
calls post-conventional since the morally responsible agent recognizes that what is
good or right is not reducible to following the rules of one’s group. Instead, it is a
question of understanding personally what one ought to do and deciding, using one’s
free will, to act accordingly. This level, which is also divided into two stages (the
fifth and the sixth), represents the individual’s realization that the ethical principles
she has rationally arrived at take precedence over even the rules or conventions that
her society dictates. Moral maturity therefore is seen in an agent who acts on what
she has understood, using her full rationality, to be what is right, regardless of
whether the act will bring the agent pleasure or pain and even regardless of whether
the act is in accordance with one’s community’s laws or not. An agent has attained
full moral development if she acts according to her well-thought-out rational
principles. In the earlier stage of this level of moral development in the fifth stage,
the moral agent sees the value of the social contact, namely, agreements that
rational agents have arrived at whether explicitly or implicitly in order to serve what
can be considered the common good are what one ought to honor and follow. This
notion of common good is post-conventional in the sense that the moral agent binds
herself to what this theoretical community of rational agents has identified as morally
desirable, whether the agent herself will benefit from doing so or not. Additionally,
this notion of the common good is not reducible to pre-existing communal rules,
traditions, or laws since even these must be weighed using rational discourse. Thus,
what is good or right is what honors the social contract; what contradicts it is bad.

The sixth and highest stage of moral development that exists even beyond
the fifth stage of the social contract is choosing to perform actions based on
universal ethical principles that one has determined by herself. One realizes
that all the conventions (laws, rules, and regulations) of society are only correct if
they are based on these universal ethical principles; they must be followed only if
they reflect universal ethical principles. This is, for Kohlberg, the full maturity of
post-conventional thinking since this stage recognizes that in the end, the question of
what one ought to do goes back to the individual moral agent and her own rationality.
Kohlberg’s insight is that, ultimately, one must think for herself what she
ought to do. This stand recognizes the supposed fact that there might be instances
when the agent must choose to go against what the community of rational thinkers
deems as good is she really thinks she must, assuming that she has committed her
full rationality in arriving at that decision.

One does not have to agree completely with Kohlberg’s theory of moral
development to see its overall value. This theory helps, at the very least, point out
the differences in moral reasoning: the more mature kind is seen in people who are
not anymore dictated by the logic of reward and punishment, or pain and pleasure.
Simply following rules even if, theoretically, they are the correct ones, does not
necessarily qualify as morally mature behavior. One must make free use of her
own power of reasoning in case of moral choice and not remain a creature of
blind obedience to either pain and pleasure or to the demands of the group, if
one aspires to moral maturity.

The significance of studying the different ethical theories and frameworks

becomes clear only to the individual who has achieved, or is in the process of
achieving, moral maturity. For someone, who is still in Kohlber’s pre-conventional
or conventional stages, moral valuation remains a matter of seeking reward or
avoiding punishment, or at best, a question of following the dictates of other
people.

For one who is well on the way to moral maturity, the task of using one’s
reason to understand moral issues becomes a real possibility and an authentic
responsibility. Part of this maturity is also the realization that ethical thinking is
not a completely intellectual task, but one that also involves the feelings. In
the next section, we shall have a brief treatment of the role of emotions and
feelings in moral deliberation. Armed with this clarification, let us afterward turn to
the challenge of making sense of moral problems.

FEELINGS IN MORAL DELIBERATION

 Emotions or feelings have a long been derided (put down) by purely
rationalistic perspective as having no place in a properly executed moral
decision. This prejudice (bias), however, needs to be re-examined thoroughly.
Although some emotions or feelings can derail (disrupt, disorganize) one from a
clear minded decision in an ethical situation, It is also not possible that human
choice can be purged (removed) of all feelings; the moral agent, after all, is neither
robot nor computer. A more realistic attitude toward decision-making is to appreciate
the indispensable role emotions have on an agent’s act of choosing. Aristotle
precisely points out that moral virtue (right principle) goes beyond the mere act of
intellectually identifying the right things to do. Instead, it is the condition of one’s
character by which the agent is able to manage her emotions or feelings. Note that
Aristotle does not say, “remove all feeling.” Instead, he sees that cultivating one’s
character lies in learning to manage one’s feelings. The emotions are, as much as
reason itself, part of what makes one a human being. There is a popular
Filipino saying: “tulak ng bibig; kabig ng dibdib” (literally), “the mouth says one
thing, but the heart drives you to another thing,” This saying can mean that what an
individual says, and in that sense what an individual’s mind or intellect dictates what
one ought to do, can sometimes be overcome by what her feelings actually drive her
to do. Thus, part of the genius of Aristotle is is realization that it is possible that
there can be a disconnect between intellectual knowledge of the good and the actual
ability of an individual to perform accordingly. The latter is mainly a function of
character formation, that is, of habituating the proper management of one’s
feelings. Aristotle accepts that feelings cannot be set aside in favor of some
illusory (deceptive), purely intellectual acceptance of the good. Instead, he sees
moral virtue as a matter of habitually managing one’s feelings in the rightful
manner. As his famous line from Book II of Nicomachean Ethics puts it: “Anyone
can get angry – that is easy…; but to do this to the right person, to the right extent, at
the right time, with the right motive, and in the right way, that is not for everyone, not
is it easy.” Doing the right thing for Aristotle is being able to manage one’s
feelings so that she is actually driven or propelled to do what she already sees
(intellectually) as right.

The responsible moral agent then as a supposedly “dispassionate” moral

decision-maker is an unrealistic ideal. The passions or feelings do not
necessarily detract (lessen, reduce) from making an informed moral decision.
One can even argue that making a moral decision, because it is all about what she
values, cannot involve her most serious feelings. What she must do then is to
educate and to cultivate her feelings so that they do not remain in the pre-
conventional level, that is, of self-centered feelings reducible to individualistic notions
of pleasure and plain. The morally developed or mature individual or agent
therefore must have honed (improved, enhanced) her intellectual capacity to
determine the relevant elements in a moral situation, including the moral
principles to explore. On top of that, she must also have cultivated her feelings so
that she neither simply gives in to childish emotions, nor does she also dismiss the
“right feelings” required for a truly informed moral decision. The mature moral
agent realizes that she is both a product of many forces, elements, and events,
all of which shape her situation and options for a decision. She also realizes
that she is not merely a puppet of external causes. Instead, a meaningful
moral decision is one that she makes in full cognizance (understanding) of
where she is coming from and of where she ought to go. At this point, we are
ready to identify the steps in making informed moral decisions.

IV. QUIZ

1. Making informed decisions in the scope of morality or goodness requires first

understanding who one is, in order to explain reasons that comes up with as
the mediator who must choose in a moral situation. Agree or disagree?
Explain your answer.

2. Reyes explains that one’s self is a cross-point of many forces and factors that
shape one’s choices but do not dictate upon them. The mature moral agent
or mediator must understand how her society, history, culture, and even
religion shape who she is. She must also realize though that her choices in
the end cannot simply be a mere product of these outside forces, but must be
made in the spirit of freedom. Explain this statement.
III. CONTENT

MORAL PROBLEMS

What must a morally mature individual do when she is confronted with moral
problem? In order to answer this question, we must first understand that there are
different types of moral problems, each one requiring a particular set of rational
deliberations. We may attempt to construct an outline of what we ought to do when
confronted with the potential ethical issue.

The first step that we ought to take if there is a potential ethical issue is
to determine our level of involvement in the case at hand. Do we need to make
a moral decision in a situation that needs action on our part? Or are we trying to
determine the right thing to do in a particular situation being discussed? In the latter
situation, we may be making a moral judgment on a particular case, but one that
does not necessarily involve ourselves. We may just be reading about a case that
involves other people but we are not part of the case. In any Ethics class, students
are made to imagine what they would do in a particular situation. Their moral
imagination is being exercised in the hope of cultivating moral reasoning and giving
direction to the needed cultivation of their feelings through habits. But they must be
able to distinguish between making a judgment on a particular ethical situation and
coming up with a morally responsible decision for a situation that they are actually a
part of being a moral agent specifically refers to the latter situation. We must
therefore identify which activity we are engaged in, whether we are making a
judgment on a case that we are not involved in or if we truly need to make
decision in a situation that demands that we act.

After ascertaining our involvement in the potential moral situation, we

then need to make sure of the facts. The first fact to establish is whether we are
faced with a moral situation or not. Are we truly confronted with a genuinely moral
situation, or one that merely involves a judgment in the level of aesthetics or of
etiquette and therefore is just an amoral or non-ethical question? But if the situation
we are involved in truly has a moral weight, if it strikes one to the core because it
involves what it truly means to be human, then we must now establish all the facts
that might have a bearing on our decision. We must set aside all details that have
no connection to the situation. We must also identify whether an item in
consideration is truly factual or merely hearsay, anecdotal, or an unfounded
assumption, and thus unsupportable. This is where such things as “fake news”
and “alternative facts” have to be weeded out. Letting such details seep into our
ethical deliberation may unfairly determine or shape our ethical decision-making
process, leading us into potentially baseless choices or conclusions. The
responsible moral individual must make sure that she possesses all the facts
she needs for that particular situation, but also only the facts that she needs
no more, no less.

The third step is to identify all the people who may potentially be
affected by the implications of a moral situation or by our concrete choice of
action. These people are called the stakeholders in the particular case. Identifying
these stakeholders forces us to give consideration to people aside from ourselves.
The psychological tendency of most of use when confronted with an ethical choice is
to simply think of ourselves, of what we need, or of what we want. This is also where
we can be trapped in an immature assumption that the only thing important is what
we “feel” at that moment, which usually is reducible to Kohlberg’s notion of pre-
conventional thinking. When we identify all the stakeholders, we are obliged to
recognize all the other people potentially concerned with the ethical problem at hand,
and thus must think of reasons aside from our own self-serving ones, to come up
with conclusions that are impartial (in the sense that they take consideration of
everyone’s welfare), though still thoroughly involved.

Aside from identifying the stakeholders, we must also determine how

they may be affected by whichever choice the agent makes in the given ethical
situation, as well as to what degree. Not all stakeholders have an equal stake in a
given moral case; some may be more favorably or more adversely affected by a
particular conclusion or choice compared to others. A person’s awareness of these
possibilities is necessary to gain a more comprehensive assessment of the matter at
hand in order to arrive at hopefully stronger reasons for making ad definite ethical
conclusion or choice.

After establishing the facts and identifying the stakeholders and their
concerns in the matter, we must now identify the ethical issue at hand. There
are several types of ethical problems or issues:

a. The first one is a situation in which we need to clarify whether a

certain action is morally right or morally wrong. This is where the
different ethical theories or frameworks can serve. Why is murder said to
be an unethical or immoral act? How will utilitarianism explain the moral
significance of this action? How about the natural law theory?
Deontology? Virtue ethics?

b. The second type involves determining whether a particular action in

question can be identified with a generally accepted ethical or unethical
action. An example would be the issue of the ethical value of the death
penalty. Can we say that death penalty is tantamount to murder? What
would the different ethical theories or frameworks say regarding this
 issue? There is hardly an ethical problem if the agent’s question is clearly
about performing a widely-considered unethical or immoral action, such as
“ought I to murder my neighbor?” Murder in almost all, if not all, societies is
unquestionably considered one of the worst acts a human being can
perform. The situation in question only assumes an ethical identity if, in
this case, there is a querry as to whether a particular act of killing a human
being is tantamount (equal) to murder or not. The issue of legalizing the
death penalty, for example, is precisely an ethical issue or question, since
for some people, the act in which a state executes someone guilty of a
heinous crime should not be considered an act of murder, which is always
wrong. The ethical debate surrounding the imposition of the death penalty
is generally not about whether some acts of murder are justifiable or not,
but rather whether legally-sanctioned execution ought to be considered as
murder or not.

c. The third type points to the presence of an ethical dilemma. Dilemmas

are ethical situations in which there are competing values that seem to
have equal worth.

The final step, of course, is for the individual to make her ethical
conclusion or decision, whether in judging what ought to be done in a
given case or in coming up with a concrete action she must actually
perform. Real ethical decisions are often very difficult enough to
make and for so many different reasons.

THE VALUE OF STUDYING ETHICAL THEORIES OR FRAMEWORKS

The role of ethical theories or frameworks in the continuing cultivation

of one’s capacity for moral choice is very necessary. These ethical
theories or frameworks may serve as guideposts, given that they are the
best attempts to understand morality that the history of human thought has
to offer. As guideposts, they can shed light on many important
considerations. They can clarify many important aspects of morality.
Utilitarianism pays tribute to the value of impartiality, arguing that an act
is good if it will bring about the greatest good for the greatest number of
those affected by the action, and each one of those affected should be
counted as one, each equal to each. Utilitarianism puts more value on the
idea of “common good”.

The natural law theory, puts more emphasis on the supposed

objective, universal nature of what is to be considered morally good,
basing its reasoning on the theorized existence of a “human nature”.
 Kantian deontology puts the best on rational will, freed from all other
considerations, as the only human capacity that can determine one’s
moral duty. Kant focuses on one’s autonomy or self-rule as constitute or
set up of what one can consider as moral law that is free from all other
ends and inclinations or feelings including pain and pleasure as well as
conformity to the rules of the group.

What Aristotle’s virtue ethics in the end indicates is the need for the
habituation of one’s character to make any and all of these previous
considerations possible. The possible way to sustain a moral agent so that
she is able to maintain the effort to implement such difficult demands on
the part of reason is that solid resolve of one’s character, which can
only be achieved through the right kind of habituation

SELF, SOCIETY, AND ENVIRONMENT

In the area of the self, one has to pay attention not just on how one
deals with oneself, but also how one interacts with other individuals in
personal relations. One may respond to the demand for an ethically
responsible “care for the self” by making full use of the four ethical
theories or frameworks.

1. John Stuart Mill’s utilitarianism, its emphasis on maximizing

pleasure and minimizing pain. Jeremy Bentham, its emphasis is the
number of people affected by an action. Greatest happiness for
Bentham then means quantity, but not just for oneself since the other
half of his maxim or feelings refers to the “greatest number” that
points to the extent or number of people affected by this happiness.

2. Thomas Aquinas’S natural theory states as its first natural inclination

or feeling the innate tendency that all human beings share with all
other existing things; namely, the natural tendency to maintain
oneself in one’s existence. Aquinas specifies that taking care of
one’s being is a moral duty that one owes to herself and to God.
The moral philosophy of Aquinas calls on a person to go beyond what
she thinks she wants and to realize instead what her innermost nature
inclines or puts her to do, which is the promotion of life, of the truth,
and of harmonious coexistence with others.

3. Kant’s deontology celebrates the normal ability of the moral agent or

mediator, which sets it above only emotional beings. Kant’s principle
of universalizability challenges the moral agent or mediator to think
beyond her own preferences and desires, and to instead consider what
 everyone ought to do. Kant’s goes beyond simply telling people to not
use others as instruments. Many people lose sight of what is truly
important because they become consumed with many other perceived
goals: financial wealth, revenge, domination, and so on. Lastly,
Kant’s principle of autonomy teaches one that no one else can tell her
what she ought to do in a particular situation; the highest authority is
neither the king nor the general nor the pope.

4. Aristotle’s virtue ethics teaches one to cultivate her own intellect as

well as her character to achieve eudaimonia or happiness in her
lifetime. For Aristotle, one’s ethical or moral responsibility to herself is
one of self-cultivation. Life for Aristotle is all about learning from one’s
own experiences so that one becomes better as a person. But make
no mistake about this, one must become a better person and not just
live a series of endless mistakes. Finally, Aristotle’s virtue ethics
theory teaches that one must always find and act on the mesotes or
middle whether in treating oneself or any other human being. This
mesotes or go-between points to the difficulty of knowing what must be
done in a specific moral situation, which involves identifying the
relevant feelings that are involved and being able to manage them.

SOCIAL LIFE: IN THE PHILIPPINE CONTEXT AND IN THE GLOBAL

VILLAGE

One’s membership in any society brings forth the demands of

common life in terms of the group’s rules and regulations. Philippines
society, for example, is made up of many ethno linguistic groups,
each with its own possibly unique culture and set of traditions.

Mill’s utilitarianism doctrine will always push for the greatest

happiness principle as the prime determination of what can be considered
as good action, whether in the personal scope or in the societal realm.

Thomas Aquinas, in his natural law theory, has a clear conception of

the principles that should guide the individual in her actions that affect her
larger society.

Immanuel Kant argues for the use of the principles of universalizability

and of humanity as end in itself to form a person’s autonomous notion of
what she ought to do. These principles can and should apply directly to
the construction of ethical duty in one’s social life.

Aristotle’s virtue ethics prescribes mesotes or go-between as the

guide to all the actions that a person has to take, even in her dealing with
the larger community of people. Virtues such as justice, liberality,
magnificence, friendliness, and rightful anger suggests that they are
socially-oriented Aristotelian virtues. Temperance once again presents
itself as one Aristotelian virtue that will be vital here: in the name of other
virtues such as justice, much temperance is needed in dealing with the
other participants in social interaction.

We have seen here how each of the four ethical frameworks we have
covered can be used as a productive starting point for thinking through
what a person’s moral responsibility is toward herself, her close relations,
her fellow members in society, and her fellow human beings in a global
society. All four frameworks concern one’s relationship with humans.

A CLOSING THAT IS REALLY AN OPENING

At the end of this introduction to ethical study, we should already have

more or less clear idea of how to make informed moral decisions. You
should, at this point, have sufficient mental and emotional equipment to
arrive at a sound judgments for cases in discussion or for enacting real-
life decisions. The four classical ethical theories or frameworks that
we have taken up are in no way complete.

In the end, there is only a beginning: We do not have a computer

program here that can automatically calculate what is the right thing to do
in a given situation. Realizing the limitations of human understanding and
of the ability to make choices, but at the same time hoping that one’s best
attempt at doing what is right does mean something in the end-these are
part and parcel of making informed moral decisions. Do not worry, you
can do it.

IV. QUIZ

1. Real ethical decisions are often very difficult enough to make and for
so many different reasons. Agree or disagree? Justify your answer.
2. The moral agent or mediator must be mature enough to be able to
cultivate the necessary steps to ensure a sound or complete, well-
informed moral decision. With the help of the different ethical theories
or frameworks, the morally mature agent or mediator will be able to
appreciate her responsibility toward herself, her society, and the
environment. Explain this statement.