Rules and laws both govern behavior and maintain order, but they differ significantly in scope, enforcement,

and their
relationship to freedom. Here's how they compare and contrast in the context of freedom:

1. Definition and Nature

 Rules: Guidelines or standards set by individuals, organizations, or communities to regulate behavior in specific
contexts. They are generally informal and apply to a limited group of people.

o Example: A school's rule might require students to wear uniforms.

o Impact on Freedom: Rules limit individual freedom within the specific context where they apply, but
they are not universally binding.

 Laws: Formalized regulations enacted by governments and enforced by legal authorities. Laws apply to all
members of a society.

o Example: Traffic laws mandate that drivers stop at red lights.

o Impact on Freedom: Laws limit personal freedom more broadly but are designed to protect the
collective freedoms and rights of society.

2. Purpose

 Rules: Created to ensure order and cooperation within specific environments, such as families, schools, or
organizations.

o Relation to Freedom: Rules restrict behavior to promote harmony within the group, often balancing
individual freedom with the group's needs.

o Example: A sports team rule against arguing with referees preserves fairness but limits a player's ability
to express frustration.

 Laws: Established to maintain justice, protect rights, and promote the safety and welfare of society as a whole.

o Relation to Freedom: Laws often balance individual freedom with societal interests, ensuring that one
person's freedom does not infringe on another's rights.

o Example: Laws against theft protect everyone's freedom to own property.

3. Enforcement

 Rules: Enforced by the entity that creates them, such as parents, teachers, or employers. Consequences are
typically less severe, such as warnings, fines, or removal from a group.

o Relation to Freedom: Rules can sometimes feel arbitrary or overly restrictive, especially if they are
poorly communicated or inconsistently enforced.

 Laws: Enforced by government authorities, such as police and courts. Penalties for breaking laws are formal and
often severe, including fines, imprisonment, or other legal actions.

o Relation to Freedom: Legal enforcement ensures accountability but can significantly restrict personal
freedom if laws are unjust or overly punitive.
4. Scope and Universality

 Rules: Apply only in specific contexts or to specific groups. They are not universal and vary widely between
settings.

o Example: A workplace rule prohibiting personal phone use during work hours restricts freedom only in
that context.

 Laws: Apply universally to all members of a society within a given jurisdiction.

o Example: A law against public smoking applies to everyone in a city or country, limiting individual
freedom for the collective good.

5. Flexibility and Change

 Rules: Easier to change or adapt to new circumstances. They are often subject to the discretion of the rule-
makers.

o Relation to Freedom: Greater flexibility allows rules to adapt to evolving needs, which can sometimes
expand freedoms.

 Laws: More rigid and require formal processes to amend or repeal, such as legislation or referendums.

o Relation to Freedom: The rigidity of laws ensures stability but can delay progress in expanding freedoms
(e.g., civil rights laws).

Balancing Freedom

1. Rules are more localized and may be easier to challenge or negotiate, offering individuals some flexibility in their
freedom within specific settings.

2. Laws have a broader impact on freedom and are essential for ensuring that individual freedoms coexist with
societal stability and justice.

3. Both rules and laws, when well-designed, balance personal freedoms with the greater good. However, poorly
designed or overly restrictive rules and laws can infringe on freedoms unnecessarily.

Conclusion

In relation to freedom, rules govern smaller, specific domains, allowing for some flexibility, while laws provide a broader
and more formal framework that ensures individual freedoms do not undermine societal well-being. Both are necessary
for maintaining order, but their impact on freedom depends on their design, enforcement, and alignment with principles
of justice and equity.

Yes, rules can become laws, and laws can inform or influence rules. These transitions occur depending on the context,
purpose, and governing authority. Here's how and when these changes typically happen:
1. When Rules Become Laws

Rules can become laws when they are formalized, codified, and given legal authority through legislative or regulatory
processes. This often happens when the rules address issues that require universal application and legal enforcement.

Examples:

 Seatbelt Rules Becoming Laws: In many countries, wearing seatbelts started as a safety rule promoted by
organizations or car manufacturers. Over time, governments recognized its importance for public safety and
made it a legal requirement.

 Workplace Safety Regulations: Companies may initially establish rules for safety, but governments may later
incorporate them into formal labor laws or occupational safety regulations.

 Community Norms Becoming Laws: Rules within a community, such as waste disposal or noise restrictions, may
become municipal laws or ordinances when the issue affects the broader public.

When It Happens:

 When the issue has widespread implications or requires uniform enforcement.

 When voluntary compliance is insufficient.

 When there is public or political pressure to formalize a rule for societal benefit.

2. When Laws Influence or Become Rules

Laws can influence or become rules when they are interpreted or adapted by smaller entities, such as organizations,
schools, or businesses, to create specific guidelines that align with the broader legal framework.

Examples:

 Anti-Discrimination Laws Influencing Workplace Rules: National laws prohibiting workplace discrimination may
lead companies to create internal rules about hiring practices, employee conduct, and diversity training.

 Traffic Laws Informing School Rules: A law requiring traffic safety may result in schools creating rules about
student drop-off and pick-up procedures.

 Legal Framework Informing Sports Rules: International doping laws influence the rules of sports organizations,
ensuring fair play and compliance with legal standards.

When It Happens:

 When organizations or groups need to operationalize broad legal requirements in a specific context.

 When legal principles are applied to smaller-scale or more localized scenarios.

 When laws provide a framework but allow flexibility in implementation.

Key Differences in Transition

Aspect Rules Becoming Laws Laws Influencing Rules

Authority Requires legislative or governmental action. Requires adaptation by organizations or smaller entities.

Expands from a local or specific group to society-

Scope Narrows from societal application to a specific context.
wide.

To apply legal principles in specific or operational

Purpose To ensure uniformity and enforceability.
contexts.

A workplace safety rule becomes an occupational

Example Anti-discrimination laws inform hiring policies.
law.

Conclusion

The transition between rules and laws occurs when broader societal interests or legal frameworks necessitate a change
in scope or enforcement. Rules become laws to ensure universal compliance and legal accountability, while laws
influence rules to provide localized or context-specific guidance. Both processes ensure adaptability and relevance in
governance and regulation.

LET US LOOK INTO THE RELATIONSHIP OF FREEDOM AND RULES/LAW:

WHAT IS FREEDOM? DICTIONARY MEANING: he power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants
without hindrance or restraint. (OXFORD)

CAN FREEDOM AND RULES CO EXIST? ARE THEY ENEMIES? CAN FREEDOM EXIST WHILE RULES EXIST?

ARE YOU FREE? DO YOU HAVE FREEDOM? DID YOU CHOOSE TO ENROLL NURSING AS YOUR COURSE?

…..IF YOU SAY NO AND LATER ON YOU FIND IT HARD THEN YOU QUIT ONLY TO BECOME A TAMBAY…..WHO WOULD
YOU BLAME? AY BASOL NA TA IN BAGA NA GAMIN….IS THAT IT?

Freedom means to be fully responsible for your actions and the consequences of those actions. According to Sigmund
Freud, “Most people do not really want freedom, because freedom involves responsibility, and most people are
frightened of responsibility.”

Herein lies the whole paradox! People crave freedom. But not everyone wants to take the responsibility!
Responsibility is the price one pays for freedom.

DRIVING A CAR: ANYONE CAN DRIVE A CAR BUT NOT ANYONE CAN DRIVE RESPONSIBLY

Jean-Paul Sartre
 Sartre argued that human beings are fundamentally free to make choices, but this freedom comes with the weight
of responsibility for those choices.

  With this freedom comes the responsibility to take ownership of our decisions. We cannot blame others or
external circumstances for our actions.

 Bad Faith (Mauvaise Foi): Sartre described "bad faith" as the act of denying one’s freedom or responsibility by
blaming external factors or conforming to societal expectations.

Example: If a person chooses a career they dislike to satisfy societal expectations, they are acting in "bad faith." To live
authentically, they must acknowledge their freedom to make choices and take responsibility for those decisions, even
if it involves risk or uncertainty.

1. John Stuart Mill: Liberty and Harm Principle

o Mill, a proponent of liberalism, argued for individual freedom but stressed that it must not harm
others (the harm principle).

o Responsibility: Freedom is not unlimited; it must coexist with respect for the rights and well-being of
others.

o Example: Freedom of speech is essential, but it does not justify inciting violence or spreading harmful
misinformation.

2. Mahatma Gandhi: Freedom as Self-Discipline

o Gandhi advocated for Swaraj (self-rule), emphasizing that true freedom requires self-discipline and
responsibility to the community.

o Responsibility: Individual freedom should contribute to the greater good, not selfish desires.

o Example: Gandhi’s insistence on nonviolence (Ahimsa) demonstrates freedom exercised with moral
restraint and accountability.

3. Hannah Arendt: Freedom in Action

o Arendt viewed freedom as the capacity to act and initiate change within a community.

o Responsibility: Freedom is exercised through participation in public life and requires accountability to
others in a shared political space.

o Example: A citizen’s freedom to vote carries the responsibility to make informed decisions for the
collective good.

Conclusion

The philosophy of freedom with responsibility is rooted in the recognition that freedom is not merely the absence of
constraints but also the ability to act in ways that respect the autonomy, rights, and well-being of others. Sartre's
existentialism provides a profound framework for understanding personal freedom and responsibility, while other
thinkers like Kant, Mill, and Gandhi contribute complementary perspectives on the balance between individual liberty
and societal accountability.
EXERCISING ONES FREEDOM RESPONSIBLY IN ESSENCE INCREASES OR HELPS US GROW IN FREEDOM (SEE NOTES)
RULES ARE NOT MENT….

EXERCISING FREEDOM RECLESSLY, THINKING THAT I CAN DO ALL THINGS IN THE WORLD WIHOUT TAKING
RESPONSIBILITY IS ACTUALLY DETREMENTAL OR BINABAWASAN NYA YUNG FREEDOM MO…

EX: DRIVING, BECAUSE A LOT OF DRIVERS DO NOT USE THE SEATBELTS NAGING LAW NA MAY BAYAD NA…OR
LISENSYSA UMADO TI CHECK POINT TUMAK TAK TI ORAS….ETC.

IN FACT (SEE NOTES)

THIS ALL BOILS DOWN TO OUR MORAL BACKGROUNDS IN RELATION TO OUR UNDERSTANDING OF FOLLOWING RULES
AND OUR USAGE OF FREEDOM

LAST PART: a person can be held morally responsible for an action only if they had the freedom to choose and to act
otherwise.

RECAP

Moral and non moral standards:

Ethics v morality

Ethics: guidelines….morality: personal conception of what is good or bad

When to use freedom? In choosing the between the good or the bad MORALITY

…ethics looks into the question of the reasonableness of standards are they “good”. The study of morality

… as we mature in reason ethics allows us to question ethical beliefs that we simply acquired in the past

SEE NOTES: IN GUIDING US IN EVALUATING….

WHAT IS THE MEANING OF RIGHT/GOOD FOR YOU? EXPLAIN ….IN ESSENCE ETHICS AIMS TO ….

IN CONCLUSION: ETHICS IS A STUDY OF MORALS/ MORAL STANDARDS OF AN INDIVIDUAL OR A SOCIETY.

RECITATION: COLOR CODING

Moral standards are principles or rules that guide individuals in determining what is right or wrong in their behavior and
decision-making. These standards are rooted in societal, cultural, religious, or personal beliefs and serve as a foundation
for moral reasoning and ethical behavior.

The Consequences Standard is a moral framework or ethical approach that evaluates the morality of an action based on
its outcomes or consequences. This standard is often associated with consequentialism, a family of ethical theories
where the rightness or wrongness of actions depends entirely on their results.

Key Features of the Consequences Standard

1. Focus on Outcomes:

o Actions are judged as morally right or wrong based on the goodness or badness of their results.

o Example: Lying might be considered acceptable if it leads to greater happiness or prevents harm.

2. Impartiality:

o The standard often requires considering the consequences for everyone affected, not just oneself.
 o Example: A decision benefiting the majority at the expense of a minority might be justified if the overall
outcome is positive.

3. Quantification of Good:

o Attempts to measure or estimate the "good" (e.g., happiness, well-being) produced by an action.

o Example: In utilitarianism, the goal is to maximize happiness or minimize suffering.

4. Flexibility:

o The standard allows for different actions to be justified depending on the context and the outcomes they
produce.

o Example: Stealing food might be considered morally acceptable if it prevents starvation.

Examples of Theories Using the Consequences Standard

1. Utilitarianism:

o Principle: An action is right if it maximizes overall happiness or utility.

o Proponents: Jeremy Bentham, John Stuart Mill.

o Example: Vaccinating a population despite minor risks to some individuals is justified by the greater
health benefits for society.

2. Egoism:

o Principle: An action is right if it maximizes good consequences for the individual.

o Proponents: Ethical egoists like Ayn Rand.

o Example: Pursuing one’s own career advancement, as long as it leads to personal success and well-being.

3. Altruism:

o Principle: An action is right if it benefits others, even at a cost to oneself.

o Example: Donating a kidney to save another person’s life.

Strengths of the Consequences Standard

1. Practicality: Encourages consideration of real-world outcomes when making decisions.

2. Flexibility: Allows adaptation to complex situations by focusing on the specific effects of actions.

3. Broad Appeal: Provides a common ground for decision-making across cultures and perspectives.

Criticisms of the Consequences Standard

1. Uncertainty:

o It is often difficult to predict or measure all the consequences of an action.

o Example: A policy might have unforeseen negative side effects.

 2. Injustice:

o It may justify harmful actions toward a minority if the overall outcome is beneficial.

o Example: Sacrificing one innocent person to save many.

3. Neglect of Intentions:

o The moral worth of intentions or motivations is overlooked.

o Example: An accidental act that causes harm could be judged harshly despite the lack of bad intent.

4. Demandingness:

o It can place excessive moral demands on individuals to always act for the best overall outcome.

o Example: Always prioritizing others’ well-being might lead to burnout.

Application of the Consequences Standard

The consequences standard is widely used in:

 Public Policy: Evaluating laws or programs based on their societal outcomes.

 Business Ethics: Assessing decisions in terms of their economic, social, and environmental impacts.

 Personal Decisions: Choosing actions that maximize personal or collective well-being.

By focusing on outcomes, the Consequences Standard offers a pragmatic approach to morality but must be balanced
with considerations of justice, rights, and intentions to avoid ethical pitfalls.

The Non-Consequences Standard, also known as Deontological Ethics, evaluates the morality of actions based on
inherent principles, rules, or duties, rather than their outcomes or consequences. This approach emphasizes the intrinsic
morality of the action itself, focusing on whether it aligns with established moral norms or duties.

Key Features of the Non-Consequences Standard

1. Focus on Principles:

o Actions are deemed right or wrong based on their adherence to moral rules or duties, regardless of the
outcomes.

o Example: Telling the truth is considered morally correct, even if it causes harm.

2. Intrinsic Morality:

o Certain actions are considered inherently good or bad, independent of their results.

o Example: Murder is wrong, regardless of any benefits that might arise from it.

3. Universal Rules:

o Advocates for universal moral principles that apply to all people in all situations.

o Example: Kant's categorical imperative states that one should act only according to maxims that can be
universally applied.

4. Respect for Persons:

 o Emphasizes treating individuals as ends in themselves, not as means to an end.

o Example: Exploiting someone for personal gain is inherently wrong.

Examples of Non-Consequentialist Theories

1. Kantian Ethics:

o Principle: Morality is determined by adherence to universal maxims and respect for rational agents.

o Proponent: Immanuel Kant.

o Example: Lying is always wrong because it violates a universal moral duty.

2. Divine Command Theory:

o Principle: Actions are right or wrong based on adherence to divine laws or commands.

o Example: Following the Ten Commandments, such as “Thou shalt not steal,” regardless of the outcome.

3. Rights-Based Ethics:

o Principle: Actions are right if they respect the rights of individuals.

o Example: Freedom of speech should be upheld even if it leads to controversial outcomes.

4. Natural Law Theory:

o Principle: Morality is grounded in the natural order and human purpose.

o Example: Actions that preserve human life and dignity are inherently good.

Strengths of the Non-Consequences Standard

1. Moral Clarity:

o Provides clear rules that guide behavior in complex situations.

o Example: "Do not kill" offers a straightforward moral guideline.

2. Protects Individual Rights:

o Prevents actions that harm individuals, even for the sake of the greater good.

o Example: Opposing torture, even if it might save lives.

3. Consistency:

o Ensures that moral principles are applied uniformly across situations.

o Example: Treating everyone equally under moral law.

4. Emphasis on Intentions:

o Recognizes the importance of motives and integrity in moral evaluation.

o Example: Helping someone out of genuine care, even if the outcome is imperfect.
Criticisms of the Non-Consequences Standard

1. Rigidity:

o Strict adherence to rules may lead to undesirable outcomes.

o Example: Refusing to lie to protect someone from harm.

2. Conflicting Duties:

o Rules or principles may clash, creating moral dilemmas.

o Example: The duty to tell the truth versus the duty to protect others.

3. Neglects Outcomes:

o Ignores the practical consequences of actions, which can sometimes lead to harm.

o Example: A strict policy of honesty might cause unnecessary distress.

4. Cultural and Contextual Challenges:

o Universal principles may not account for cultural differences or unique circumstances.

o Example: Different societies may prioritize different duties or rules.

Applications of the Non-Consequences Standard

1. Personal Integrity:

o Individuals use principles like honesty or loyalty to guide their behavior.

o Example: Choosing not to cheat on an exam, even under pressure.

2. Justice Systems:

o Legal frameworks often reflect deontological principles, such as respecting rights and upholding fairness.

o Example: The presumption of innocence in criminal law.

3. Professional Ethics:

o Professions establish codes of conduct based on duties rather than outcomes.

o Example: A doctor’s obligation to confidentiality, even if revealing information could be beneficial.

By prioritizing rules, duties, and principles, the Non-Consequences Standard offers a framework for ethical consistency
and fairness, but it may require balancing with practical considerations to address real-world complexities.