Chapter I

THE ETHICAL DIMENSION OF HUMAN EXISTENCE

I. INTRODUCTION

In August 2007, newspapers’ reported what seemed to be another sad incident

of fraternity violence. Cris Anthony Mendez, a twenty year old student of the University
of the Philippines was rushed to the hospital in the early morning hours, unconscious,
with large bruises on his chest, back, and legs. He passed away that morning, and the
subsequent autopsy report strongly suggests that his physical injuries were most
probably the result of “hazing” (the term colloquially used to refer to initiation rites in
which neophytes may be subjected to various forms of physical abuse). What exactly
happened remains an open question, as none of those who were with him that night
came forward to shed light on what had transpired. Needless to say, none of them
came forward to assume responsibility for the death of Cris.

Even as the leaders of the Sigma Rho fraternity publicly condemned the death of
Cris, those members of theirs who had been with him that night vanished, avoiding and
refusing to cooperate with legal authorities. Meanwhile, UP students and the general
public clamored for justice. In a move that surprised the student body, the UP president
called on all fraternities to justify their continued existence. Meanwhile, the case of the
tragic death of Cris Anthony Mendez was left unresolved. It remains that way up to this
day.

No one knows just what exactly happened. No charges have been filed, no fixed
testimony has been forthcoming. But there is more to this for us than just a criminal
mystery. Pondering on the death of Cris, we may find ourselves asking questions such
as “What is the value of one’s life?” “What exactly were the wrongs done to Cris
by his so-called fraternity brothers?” or perhaps even “Is there any good to
fraternities?”These questions that concern good and bad, or right and wrong – and
these are questions concerning value – are the kind of questions that we deal
with in ethics.

II. LEARNING OUTCOMES (Week 2 – 3 )

 Identify the ethical aspect of human life and scope of ethical thinking
 Define and explain the terms that are relevant to ethical thinking
 Evaluate the difficulties that are involved in maintaining certain commonly-held
notions on ethics

III. CONTENT
VALUE

Ethics, generally speaking,

 is about matters such as the GOOD THINGS that we should FOLLOW and
the BAD THING that we should AVOID; the RIGHT WAYS in which we could
or SHOULD ACT and the wrong ways of acting.
 It is about what is ACCEPTABLE and UNACCEPTABLE in human behavior.
 It is an agreement with concepts of GOOD and BAD.
 Refer to as MORALITY, GOODNESS, HONESTY, PRINCIPLES.
 Ethics is concerned exclusively with HUMAN BEINGS.
 The science of ethics is the answer to the questions pertaining to THE LAST
END OF MAN AND THE MEANING OF HIS LIFE.
 Ethics POINTS OUT THE RIGHT WAY TO MAN’S ULTIMATE DESTINY. Men
are usually classified and differentiated according to race (nation, tribe),
religion, age, sex and nationality. Other classifications are based on
 professions and social positions. Some men are lawyers, doctors,
businessmen, some are workers, farmers, educators; some are rich, others
are poor. In our social organization each man has special mission to fulfill
for which he must be prepared by specialized education or by special calling.
But whether man is concerned with learning or with doing something, his
thoughts and actions contain a final purpose or goal. Therefore, the
greatest accomplishment of man in the world is to know the purpose of his
existence, and the consequence of his actions as a whole. The attainment
of this end is closely bound to man’s actions and it is through ethics that we
learn when and why our actions are good or bad, right or wrong with regard to
the ultimate end.

 It may INVOLVE OBLIGATIONS that we are EXPECTED TO FULFILL, prohibitions

that we are required to respect, or ideals that we are encouraged to meet.
 Ethics as a subject for us to study is about establishing the bases for the values
with particular and special significance to human life.
 Ethics suggests an idea of correct or incorrect practices relative to business
ethics, legal ethics, nursing ethics, environmental ethics, nuclear ethics,
biomedical ethics and sexual ethics.
 Business, legal and nursing ethics – would deal with conduct
appropriate to the corresponding areas of professional practice.
Ex: Pay your correct tax & permits, defending a right client to win
his case, treating patients fairly and giving correct medicines to the
right patient.
 Environmental ethics –would cover acceptable or unacceptable
action affecting the environment. Ex: Abiding with the laws or
programs – muyung system, proper waste management, clean and
green programs.
 Nuclear ethics – would include questions of right and wrong
regarding the use, handling, and distribution of nuclear power.
 Biomedical ethics –would be concerned with the rightness or
wrongness of procedures that are performed in the practice of
medicine and the provision of health care.
 Sexual ethics –would refer to the correctness or wrong doing of
conduct involved in sexual relationships. Ex: Sex inside marriage.
 Christian Ethics – is based on the knowledge of God. Without the
love of God, true ethical behavior is impossible.
ETHICS – having to do with right and wrong, good behavior and conduct.
Ethical behavior cannot be imposed (forced) on us. It must come from within.
ETIQUETTE – socially correct behavior and good manners
ETHICS SPEAKS TO THE INWARD CONDITION, while ETIQUETTE DEALS
WITH OUTWARD BEHAVIOR

IV. ACTIVITY / QUIZ: #1

1. Explain Ethics.
2. Identify the good things and attitudes within you wherein you choose to follow.
3. Enumerate the bad things and attitudes within you that you should avoid.
4. Give the right ways and attitudes on how you should act to overcome the bad
things in you.
III. CONTENT:

CLARIFICATIONS AND TERMINOLOGY

Recognizing the ideas of good and bad, and right and wrong, are the
primary concern of ethics.

Kinds of Valuation

Our first point of clarification is to recognize that there are instances when we
make value judgments that are not considered to be part of ethics. For instance, I
could say that this new movie I had just seen was a “good” one because I enjoyed
it, or a song I had just heard on the radio was a “bad” one because it had an
unpleasant tone, but these are not part of a discussion of ethics. I may have an
opinion as to what is the “right” dip (sawsawan) for my chicken barbecue, or I
maintain that it is “wrong” to wear a T-shirt over a Barong Tagalog and these are
not concerns of ethics. These are valuations that fall under the area of
aesthetics. The word “aesthetics” is derived from the Greek word aisthesis
(“sense” or “feeling”) and refer to the judgments of personal approval or
disapproval that will make about what we see, hear, smell, or taste. In fact, we
often use the word “taste” to refer to the personal aesthetic preferences that we
have on these matter, such as “his taste in music” or “her taste in clothes.”

Similarly, we have a sense of approval or disapproval concerning certain actions

which can be considered relatively more minor in nature. Thus, for instance, I may
think that it is “right” to knock politely on someone’s door, while it is “wrong” to
push into one’s office. Perhaps, I may approve of a child who knows how to ask for
something properly by saying, “please” and otherwise, disapprove of a woman that I
see picking her nose in public. These and other similar examples belong to the
category of etiquette, which is concerned with right and wrong actions, but
those which might be considered not quite grave enough to belong to a discussion
on ethics. To clarify this point, we can differentiate how I may be displeased seeing
a healthy young man refuse to offer his seat on the bus to an elderly lady, but my
anger and shock would be much greater if I were to see a man deliberately push
another one out of a moving bus.

We can also consider how a notion of right and wrong actions can easily appear
in a situation that is not a matter of ethics.This could also be when learning how to
bake, for instance, I am told that the right thing to do would be to mix the dry
ingredients first, such as flour or sugar before bringing in any liquids, like milk or
cream; this is the right thing to do in baking, but not one that belongs to a
discussion of ethics. This could also be when learning how to play basketball. I
am instructed that it is against the rules to walk more than two steps without
dribbling the ball; again, obeying this rule to not travel is something that makes
sense only in the context/area of the game and is not on ethical prohibition. We
derive from the Greek word techne the English words “technique” and “technical”
which are often used to refer to proper way (or right way) of doing things, but a
technical valuation (or right and wrong technique of doing things) may not
necessarily be an ethical one as these examples show.

Recognizing he characteristics of aesthetic and technical valuation allows us to

have a rough guide as what belongs to a discussion of ethics. They involve
valuations that we make in a scope of human actions, characterized by certain
gravity (seriousness, importance) and concern the human well-being or human life
itself. Therefore, matters that concern life and death such as war, capital
punishment, or abortion and matters that concern human well-being such as
poverty, inequality, or sexual identity are often included in discussions of
ethics,

One complication that can be noted is that the difference between what belongs
to ethics and what does not is not always so clearly defined. At times, the question
of what is grave or trivial (major or minor) is debatable, and sometimes some of the
most heated discussions in ethics could be on the fundamental question of whether
a certain sphere (scope) of human activities belongs to this discussion. Are clothes
always just a matter of taste or would provocative (tempting, inviting) clothing call for
some kind of moral judgment? Can we say that a man who verbally abuses his
girlfriend is simply showing bad manners or does this behavior deserve stronger
moral condemnation (attack, blame, sentence, judgment)?
IV. ACTIVITY / QUIZ: #2

1. Choose or select whether the given word or statement is:

 Right or wrong * good or bad * Not concern of Ethics
 Write the WORD (right or wrong, good or bad) for the 2nd and 3rd column.
 If you answered the 2nd and 3rd column, no need to answer the 4th column.
Proceed to the justification or explanation of your answer.
 Write check (/) mark if you choose the 4 th column. Write your explanation to the
5th column.
 If you answered or put check (/) mark to the 4 th column, no need to answer the
2nd and 3rd column. Proceed to the justification or your explanation.

Right or Good Not JUSTIFICATION /

Wrong or Bad concern REMARKS
of Ethics
1. Cheating
2. Not following
procedures in baking
3. Abortion
4. Lesbianism (LGBT)
5. Same sex marriage
6. Divorce
7. Pre-marital sex or
fornication
8. Drug Addition
9. Gossiping
10. Adultery
11. Wearing T-shirt over
a Barong Tagalog
12. Loving your enemy
13. Honesty
14. Lying
15. Respect
16. Self-discipline
17. 4Ps Program of the
government
18. Hypocrisy
19. Ignoring the advices
of parents or guardians
20. Green Jokes
21. Spitting moma
everywhere
22. Violating rules of the
school
23. Watching movies that
made you enjoy
24. Watching
pornography
25. Having a failing grade
26. Offering a seat to an
elder
27. Throwing your dirt
anywhere
28. Humility
29. Greedy
30. Pride
31. Generosity
32. Cooking Tinolang
Manok with wrong
procedure

33. Drunkenness
34. Joining gamblers
35. Anger
36. Bitterness
37. Listening to Christian
songs
38. Crab Mentality
39. Jealousy
40. Peacemaker
41. Envy
42. Self-Control
43. Faithfulness
44. Hatred
45. Joyful
46. Bullying
47. Loyalty
48. Prosperity
49. Worry
50. Poverty
51. Revenge
52. Loving your enemy
53. Forgiveness
54. Patience
55. Unbelief
56. Murmuring
57. Grief
58. Selfish
59. Deceiving others
60. Tactless
 III. CONTENT

ETHICS AND MORALS

Our second point of clarification is on the use of the words “ethics” and
“morals.” This discussion of ethics and morals would include similarities such as
ethical, unethical, immoral, amoral/unprincipled, morality, and so on. As we proceed,
we should be careful particularly on the use of the word “not” when applied to the words
“moral” or “ethical” as this can be unclear. One might say that cooking is not ethical,
that is, the act of cooking does not belong to a discussion of ethics; on the other hand,
one might say that lying is not ethical, but the meaning here is that the act of lying would
be an unethical act.

Let us consider those two words further. The term “morals” may be used to
refer to specific beliefs or attitudes that people have or to describe acts that
people perform. Thus it is sometimes said that an individual’s personal conduct is
referred to as his morals, and if he falls short of behaving properly, this can be
described as immoral. However, we also have terms such as “moral judgment” or
“moral reasoning,” which suggest a more rational aspect. The term “ethics” can be
spoken of as the discipline of studying and understanding ideal human behavior
and ideal ways of thinking. Thus, ethics is acknowledged as an intellectual discipline
belonging to philosophy (thinking/idea). However, acceptable and unacceptable
behaviors are also generally described as ethical and unethical, respectively. In
addition, with regard to the acceptable and unacceptable ways of behaving in a given
field, we have the term “professional ethics” (e.g. legal ethics for the proper
comportment/attitude of lawyers and other people in the legal profession; medical ethics
for doctors and nurses; and media ethics for writers and reporters).

Therefore, various thinkers and writers imagine a difference between the terms
“moral” and “ethics” and they may have good reasons for doing so, but there is no
agreement as to how to make that difference. Ordinary conversation presents a much
less strict difference between these terms.

Philosophy – rooted in the greek words that translate to “love of wisdom”

Philia – is the noun often translated into English as some form of

“friendship” or “love”

Sophia – the noun often translated into English as “wisdom”

Philosophy– had been first used by thinkers to refer to their striving to better in
a maintained and systematic manner. Philosophy remains as the unique discipline that
asks significant questions that other fields are unable to address. The different
branches or areas of philosophy corresponds to some of these questions, generally
stated as follows:

Metaphysics wonders as to what composes the whole of reality

Epistemology asks what is our basis for determining what we know

Axiology refers broadly to the study of value and is often divided into
aesthetics(visual/artistic) which concerns itself with the value of beauty and ethics,
which concerns itself with the value of human actions.
Descriptive and Normative study of Ethics

Our third point of clarification is to distinguish between a descriptive and a

normative study of ethics. A descriptive study of ethics reports how people,
particularly groups, make their moral valuations without making any judgment either for
or against these valuations. This kind of study is often the work of the social scientist:
either a historian (studying different moral standards overtime) or a sociologist or an
anthropologist (studying different moral standards across cultures). A normative study
of ethics, as is often done in philosophy or moral theology, engages the question: What
could or should be considered as the right way of acting? In other words, normative
discussion recommends what we ought to maintain as our standards or bases
for moral valuation. When engaging in a discussion of ethics, it is always advisable
recognize whether one is concerned with a descriptive view ( e.g. noting how good and
obedient are the attitudes of children to their parents are all present characteristics of
Chinese culture) or with a normative perspective (e.g. studying how Confucian ethics
enjoins us to obey our parents and to show good duties and attitudes of children to
parents). We need to go further. A philosophical discussion of ethics goes beyond
recognizing the characteristics of some descriptive theory; also, it does not simply
accept as correct any normative theory. A philosophical discussion of ethics engages in
critical consideration of the strengths and weaknesses of these theories.

Issue, Decision, Judgment, and Dilemma

As the final point of clarification, it may be helpful to distinguish a situation that

calls for moral valuation. It can be called a moral issue. For instance, imagine a
situation wherein a person cannot afford a certain item, but then the possibility presents
itself for her to steal it. This is a matter of ethics (and not just law) insofar as it involves
the question of respect for one’s property. We should add that “issue” is also often
used to refer to those particular situations that are often the source of considerable and
inconclusive debate (thus, we would often hear topics such as capital punishment and
euthanasia as moral “issues”).

When one is placed in a situation and confronted by the choice of what act to
perform, she is called to make a moral decision. For instance, I choose not to take
something I did not pay for. When a person in an observer who makes an assessment
on the actions or behavior of someone, she is making a moral judgment. For
instance, a friend of mine choose to steal from a store, and I make an assessment that
it is wrong.

Finally, going beyond the matter of choosing right over wrong, good over bad,
and considering instead the more complicated situation wherein one is torn between
choosing one of two goods or choosing between the lesser of two evils: this is referred
to as a moral dilemma. We have a moral dilemma when an individual can choose only
one from a number of possible actions, and there are compelling ethical reasons for the
various choices. A mother may be conflicted between wanting to feed her hungry child,
but then recognizing that it would be wrong for her to steal is an example of a moral
dilemma.

IV. ACTIVITY / QUIZ: #3

1. Differentiate descriptive study of ethics and normative study of ethics. Which do

you prefer among the two? Justify your answer.

2. Explain moral issue, moral decision, moral judgment and moral dilemma. Select
from your experiences applying all of these moral valuations.
III. CONTENT

REASONING

Why do we suppose that a certain way of acting is right and its opposite wrong?
The study of ethics is interested in questions like these: Why do we decide to consider
this way of acting as acceptable while that way of acting, its opposite, is unacceptable?
To put it in another way, what reasons do we give to decide or to judge that a certain
way of acting is either right or wrong?

A person’s fear of punishment or desire for reward can provide him a reason for
acting in a certain way. It is common to hear someone say: “ I did not cheat on the
exam because I was afraid that I might get caught,” or “I looked after my father in
the hospital because I wanted to get a higher allowance.” In a certain sense, fear
of punishment and desire for reward can be spoken of as giving someone a “reason”
for acting in a certain way. But the question then would be: Is this reason good
enough? That is to say, this way of thinking seems to be a shallow way of
understanding reason because it does not show any true understanding of why cheating
on an exam is wrong or why looking after a member of my family is in itself a good
thing. The promise of rewards and the fear of punishments can certainly motivate
us to act, but are not in themselves a determinant of the rightness or wrongness
of a certain way of acting or of the good or the bad in a particular pursuit. Is it
possible to find better reasons for finding a certain way of acting either acceptable or
unacceptable?

I am in a situation wherein I could obtain a higher grade for myself by cheating. I

make the decision not to do so. Or I know that my friend was in a position to get a
better grade for herself by cheating. She refuses to do so; I then make the judgment of
praising her for this. In making this kind of moral decision or moral judgment, the
question can be asked: Why?

Asking the question ”why” might bring us to no more than a superficial discussion
of rewards and punishments, as seen above, but it could also bring us to another
level of thinking. Perhaps one can rise above the particulars of a specific situation,
going beyond whatever motivation or incentive is present in this instance of cheating(or
not doing so). In other words, our thinking may take on a level of idea, that is, detaching
itself from the particular situation and arriving at a statement like, “Cheating is wrong.”
By recognizing proper reasons for not acting in this way. Beyond rewards and
punishments, it is possible for our moral valuation – our decisions and
judgments – to be based on a principle. Thus, one may conclude that cheating is
wrong based on a sense of fair play or a respect for the importance and validity of
testing. From this, we can define principles as rationally established grounds by which
one justifies and maintains her moral decisions and judgments.

But why do we maintain one particular principle rather than another? Why should
I maintain that I should care for fair play and that cheating is, therefore, wrong?
Returning to the case of fraternity hazing where we started this chapter, why is it
wrong to cause another person physical injury or to take another’s life? We can
maintain principles, but we can also ask what good reasons for doing so. Such reasons
may differ. So, for example, What makes the death of Cris such a tragedy? One
person may say that life is sacred and God given. Another person may declare that
human life has a priceless dignity. Still another may put forward the idea that taking
another’s life does not contribute to human happiness but to human misery instead.
How exactly do we arrive at any of these claims? This is where we turn to theory. A
moral theory is a systematic attempt to establish the validity of maintaining certain
moral principles. Insofar as theory is a system of thought or of ideas, it can also be
referred to as a framework. We can use this term, “framework.,” as a theory of
interconnected ideas, and at the same time, a structure through which we can evaluate
our reasons for valuing a certain decision or judgment.

There are different frameworks that can make us reflect on the principles that we
maintain and thus, the decisions and judgments we make. By studying these, we can
reconsider, clarify, modify, and ultimately strengthen our principles, thereby informing
better both our moral judgments and moral decisions.

In the Apology of Socrates written by Plato, Socrates makes the claim that it is
the greatest good for a person to spend time thinking about and discussing with others
these questions on goodness and virtue(features/qualities).Hopefully, as we pursue
these topics, you will come to agree with Socrates that this effort is indeed a good thing.

SOURCES OF AUTHORITY

Several common ways of thinking about ethics are based on the idea that the
standards of valuation are imposed by a higher authority that commands our obedience.
In the following section, we will explore three of such ideas: the authority of the law,
the authority of one’s religion, and the authority of one’s own culture.

LAW

It is supposed that law is one’s guide to ethical behavior. LAW – is a rule and

measure of acts whereby man is forced to act or is controlled from acting. In the
Philippines, Filipinos are forced to obey the laws of the land as stated in the country’s
criminal and civil codes. Making this even more particular, in Cebu, residents are
constrained to follow any provincial laws or city ordinances. One can easily imagine this
becoming even more localized to the barangay or village level, where local or municipal
layers of obligation are there for residents to follow. The term positive law refers to the
different rules and regulations that are posited or put forward by an authority figure that
require compliance.

At first glance, this seems to make a lot of sense. We recognize that there are
many acts that we immediately consider unethical (e.g. murder or theft), which we also
know are forbidden by law. Furthermore, the law is enforced by way of a system of
sanctions administered through persons and institutions, which all help in compelling us
to obey. Taking the law to be the basis of ethics has the benefit of providing us with an
objective standard that is obligatory and applicable to all. So, we would not be
surprised if we were to hear someone say, “Ethics? It is simple. Just follow
whatever the law says.”

However, there are some problems with this. Of course, we do maintain that,
generally speaking, one should obey the law. However, the idea that we are examining
here is a more controversial one: the more radical claim that one can look to the law
itself in order to determine what is right or wrong. But the question is: can one simply
identify ethics with the law?

One point to be raised is the prohibitive nature of law. The law does not tell us
what we should do; it works by constraining us from performing acts that we should not
do. To put it slightly differently, the law cannot tell us what to pursue, only what to
avoid. Would we be satisfied thinking about ethics solely from the negative perspective
of that which we may not do, disregarding the important aspect of a good which we
could and maybe even should do, even if it were not required of us by the law?

In line with this, we might find that there are certain ways of acting which are not
forbidden by the law, but are ethically questionable to us. For instance, a company
that pads its profits by refusing to give its employees benefits may do so within the

parameters of the law. The company can do so by refusing to hire people on a

permanent basis, but offering them six month contracts. Constrained to work under this
contractual system, the employees are thus deprived not only of benefits, but also of job
security. Here, no law is violated, yet one can wonder whether there is something
ethically questionable to this business practice. The fact that one can make such a
negative value judgment of the practice where there is not violation of the law is already
a hint that one can look to something beyond the law when making our ethical
valuations.

To make this point concrete, recall the story of a toddler who had been run over
by a couple of vehicles. While there were many passers by who witnessed what had
happened, for quite a long while, no one did anything to help. The child later died in the
hospital. The law does not oblige people to help others in need, so none of these
passers-by were guilty of breaking any law. However, many people reacting to
this sad news report share a sense that those passers-by were somewhat
ethically culpable in their negligence. In view of all this, perhaps one should
think of ethics in a way that does not simply identify it with obedience to the law.

RELIGION

Religion is the belief in and worship of a super human power or powers,

especially a God or gods. Religion a belief in a god or gods and the activities that are
connected with this belief such as praying or worshipping in a building such as a church
or temple.

It expresses a claim that many people of religious sensibility find appealing and
immediately valid: the idea that one is obliged to obey her God in all things. As a
foundation for ethical values, this is referred to as the divine command theory. The
divinity called God, Allah, or Supreme being commands and one is obliged to obey her
creator. There are persons and texts that one believes are linked to the Divine
(heavenly/Godly). By listening to these figures and reading these writings, an individual
discovers how the Divine wants her to act. Further, someone maintaining a more
radical form of this theory might go beyond these instruments of divine revelation and
claim that God “spoke” to her directly to instruct her what to do.

Religion- similar to faith, belief, divinity, worship, creed, teaching, doctrine,

theology, sect, church, denomination. Religion is the belief in and worship of a
superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods. Religion - is a
social-cultural system of designated behaviors and practices, morals, worldviews, texts,
sanctified places, prophecies, ethics, or organizations, that relates humanity to
supernatural, transcendental, or spiritual elements. Examples of religion: Christianity
(2.1B), islam (1.3 B), Nonreligious (Atheist- 1.1B), Hinduism (900M), chinese traditional
religion (394M), Buddhism (376M), primal-indigenous (300M), African traditional &
diasporic (100M).

At first glance, this seems to make a lot of sense. Many of us been brought up
with one form of religious upbringing or another, so it is very possible that there is a
strong feeling I us to refer to our religious background to back up our moral valuations.
We are presented with a more or less clear code of prohibitions and many of these
prohibitions given by religion – “Thou shall not kill,” “Thou shall not steal,” and “Thou
shall not commit adultery” – seem to naturally coincide with our sense of what ethics
should rightly demand. In addition, there is an advance here over the law because
religion is not simply prohibitive but it also provides ideals to pursue. For
instance, one may be called to forgive those who sinned against him or be charitable
to those who have less. Further, taking religion as basis of ethics has the advantage of
providing us with not only a set of commands but also a Supreme Authority that can
inspire and compel our obedience in a way that nothing else can. The Divine can
command complete obedience on one’s part as the implications of her actions involve
her ultimate destiny. Thus, we would not be surprised if we were to hear someone say,
“Ethics? It is simple. Just follow whatever your religion says.”

However, there are some problems with this, First, on the practical level, we
realize the presence of a multiplicity of religions. Each faith demands differently from its
members, which would apparently result in conflicting ethical standards. For instance,
certain religions have prohibitions concerning what food may be consumed, while others
do not share the same limits. Are we then compelled to judge others negatively given
their different morality? Are we called upon to convert them toward our own faith? How
about the problem of realizing that not everyone is devout or maintains a religious faith?
Would we be compelled to admit then that if religion is the basis of morality, some
people would simply have no moral code? Differences, however, are not confined to
being problematic of varying religious traditions. Experience teaches us that sometimes
even within one and the same faith, differences can be a real problem. For instance,
we can easily imagine a number of Christians agreeing that they should read and find
their inspiration from the Bible, but we could also easily imagine them disagreeing on
which particular lines they need to focus on. Which of the passages from the sacred
scriptures are they supposed to follow? All of them or only some? If so, which ones?
Which pastor am I supposed to obey if I find them debating over how to interpret the
scriptures, not to mention ethical issues? The problem of difference thus remains.

Second, on what may be called a more conceptual level, we can see a further
problem where one requires the believer to clarify her understanding of the connection
between ethics and the Divine. This problem was first explained in the history of
thought by Plato in his dialogue titled Euthyphro.

CULTURE

Culture- the customs, arts, social institutions and achievements of a particular

nation, people or other social group. Culture – all the ways of life including arts, beliefs
and institutions of a population that are passed down from generation to generation.
Culture – the way of life for an entire society. It includes codes of manners, dress,
language, religion, rituals and arts.

Our exposure to different societies and their cultures makes us aware that there
are ways of thinking and valuing that are different from our own, that there is in fact a
wide diversity of how different people believe it is proper act. There are
aesthetic/visual differences (Japanese art vs. Indian art), religious differences
(Buddhism vs. Christianity), and etiquette differences (conflicting behaviors
regarding dining practices). In these bases, it may become easy to conclude that this
is the case in ethics as well. Examples: Nudity/no dress can be more taboo/prohibited
in one culture than in another, relations between men and women can show a wide
variety across different cultures, choosing from greater liberally and equality on one
hand, to greater inequality and a relation of dominance versus submission on the other.
From the reality of diversity, it is possible for someone to jump to the further claim that
the complete variety/mixture at the work in the different ways of valuation means there
is no single universal standard for such valuations, and that this holds true as
well as in the area of ethics. Therefore, what is ethically acceptable or
unacceptable is relative to, or that is to sa y, dependent on one’s culture. This
position is referred to as cultural relativism.

There is something appealing/asking to this way of thinking because cultural

relativism seems to conform to what we experience, which is the reality of the
differences in how cultures make their ethical valuation. Second, by taking one’s
culture as the standard, we are provided a basis for our valuations. Third, this teaches
us to be tolerant of others from different cultures, as we realize that we are in no
position to judge whether the ethical thought or practice of another culture is
acceptable or unacceptable. In turn, our own culture’s moral code is neither superior
to nor inferior to any other, but they would provide us the standards that are appropriate
and applicable to us. So, we would not be surprised if we were to hear someone say,
“Ethics? It is simple. Just follow whatever your culture says.”

Filipino values: respect to the elderly, close family ties, a sense of hospitality,
and also of solidarity/unity with others at times of distress/suffering.

Four criticisms of James Rachels to Cultural Relativism:

1. The argument of cultural relativism is based on the reality of difference.

Because different cultures have different moral codes, we cannot say that any
one moral code is the right one. But is it a case of the presence of disagreement
means there are no right or wrong answers? Isn’t it a common experience to be
confronted by a disagreement between persons and then to have the conflict
clarified later as to who is right or wrong? In other words, Disagreement may
mean that the question of who is right or wrong it not immediately evident,
but it does not necessarily mean that there is no one correct resolution.

2. Under cultural relativism, we realize that we are in no position to render any

kind of judgment on the practices of another culture. This seems to be a
generous and an open-minded way of respecting others.

3. Under cultural relativism, we realize that we are in no position to render

judgment on the practices of even our own culture. If our culture was the basis
for determining right and wrong, we would be unable to say that something within
our cultural practice was problematic, precisely/exactly because we take our
culture to be the standard for making such judgments.

4. Perhaps the most evident contemporary difficulty with cultural relativism is that
we can maintain it only by following the presumption/opinion of culture as a
single, clearly-defined substance/core or as something fixed and already
determined.

We can conclude this criticism of cultural relativism by pointing out how it is a

problem in our study of ethics because it tends to deprive us of our use of critical
thought. On the positive side, cultural relativism promotes a sense of humility,
that is, urging us not to imagine that our own culture is superior to another. Such
humility, however, should go hand in hand with a capacity for rational, critical
discernment that is truly appreciative of human values. Unfortunately, what
happens in cultural relativism is that it basically renders us incapable of discerning
about the values we may wish to maintain as we are forced to simply accept
whatever our culture gives us. It keeps us from exploring whether there are values
that are shared between cultures; it keeps us from comparing and judging – either
positively or negatively – the valutions that are made by different cultures.

IV. ACTIVITY / QUIZ: #4

1. Select a situation wherein you applied reward and punishment. Give reasons
why you were motivated to do the certain act or way without thinking either
acceptable or unacceptable.

2. Differentiate the sources of authority such as authority of the law, authority of

one’s religion, and the authority of one’s own culture. Give example of the law, of
one’s religion, and one’s own culture which are ethically acceptable or
unacceptable.

III. CONTENT
SENSES OF THE SELF

It is sometimes thought that one should not rely on any external authority to tell
oneself what the standards of moral valuation are, but should instead turn inwards.

Three Theories about ethics that center on the Self:

1. Subjectivism – the starting point of subjectivism is the recognition that the

individual thinking person (the subject) is at the heart of all moral valuations. She
is the one who is confronted with the situation and is burdened with the need to
make decision or judgment. From this point, subjectivism increases to the
more radical claim that the individual is the sole determinant of what is
morally good or bad, right or wrong. Example of familiar ideas of
individual: Express a sense of personal independence and a problems of
subjectivism (from negative to positive)

 No one can tell me what is right and wrong – we realize that we can be
mistaken and that we can be corrected by others.
 No one knows my situation better than myself – recognize the reality
that many human experiences are common and that others may have
something useful to suggest
 I am entitled to my own opinion –Ex: Female are inferior to men – resulted
to lower salary- according to the employer - to insist on one’s right in to
having opinions whatever these happen to be is to exhibit a closed-
mindedness that rightly invites criticism from someone trying to
think more critically about values.
 It is good if I say that it is good – have the very basis for that valuation –
But when “I”, as subject, am asking what is right or wrong, good or bad,
with subjectivism, there is no other basis that I can look toward.

2. Psychological Egoism – a theory that describes the underlying dynamic behind

all human actions.
 Descriptive theory – it does not direct one to act in any particular way. Instead,
it points out that there is already an underlying basis for how one acts.

Ego or self has its desires and interests, and all our actions are geared toward
satisfying these interests.
Some actions that we do on a day-to-day basis:
 I watch a movie or read a book because I want to
 Go for a walk and do some window shopping in the mall because I enjoy
that
 I take a certain course in college because I think it will benefit me
 I join an organization because I will get some good out of it

We do things in search of our own self-interest all the time

Commonly say are directed toward the other: Examples:

1. An act of generosity, in which someone helps a friend with her thesis rather
than play videogame
2. Makes use of her free Saturday. Helping build houses for Gawad Kalinga
A self serving desire, even if one does not acknowledge it or is even
conscious of it. One’s actions are ultimately always motivated by SELF-
SERVING DESIRE.

Strong Points of Psychological Egoism

1. Simplicity – when an idea is marked by simplicity, it has a unique

appeal to it.

2. Plausibility – it is plausible/reasonable/possible that self-interest is

behind a person’s actions. It is clearly the motivation behind many
of the actions one perform which are obviously self-serving; it
could very well also be the motivation behind an individual’s
seemingly other-directed actions. It is not only plausible
3. (reasonable, possible), but also irrefutable (approve, true).

3. Ethical Egoism – differs from psychological egoism in that it does not suppose
all our actions are already to be expected self-serving. Ethical egoism
recommends that we should make our own ends, our own interests, as the
single overriding concern. We may act in a way that is beneficial to others, but
we should do that only if it ultimately benefit us. This theory acknowledges that it
is a dog-eat-dog world out there and given that, everyone ought to put herself at
the center. One should consider herself as the priority and not allow any
other concerns, such as the welfare of other people, to take away from this
search.

It is clear that we have our interests and desire, and would want them
satisfied. Thus, this question can be asked: Why should I have any concern
about the interests of others? In a sense, this challenges in a fundamental way
the idea of not just a study of ethics, but also the effort being ethical: Why not
just look after one’s own self? To examine ethical egoism, we will take a look
into Plato’s Republic, which is Plato’s response to the statement that one
should only care about one’s own interests.

IV. ACTIVITY / QUIZ: #5

1. Differentiate the three theories about ethics that center on the self such as
subjectivism, psychological egoism and ethical egoism.

2. Select a situation wherein you applied these theories about ethics that center
on the self.