LESSON 1: ETHICS

 Ethics- Is a branch of philosophy that studies morality or the rightness or wrongness of

human conduct.
Ethics is derived from the Greek word ethos which means character, custom, or manners.
Ethics centers on norms of human conduct
 Morality- Speaks of a code or system of behavior in regards to standards of right or
wrong behavior
Morality and ethics are oftentimes used interchangeably but both carry the concept of
moral standards or rules with regard to behavior
Influences the concept of morality
 Religion
 Culture
 Social contract to live in harmony
 Evolutionary trait to survive
 Empathy
Importance of rules to human beings
Rules refer to explicit or understood regulations or principles governing conduct within a
specific activity or sphere dictates what is allowed or not allowed in a particular situation
1. Rules protect social beings by regulating behavior
 -rules limit behavior by imposing consequences to those who will violate them
 - to gain acceptance in a society
 -fear to be imprison
 Example: panopticon
2. Rules help to guarantee each person certain rights and freedom
 -Rules are framework for society
 -nation of laws Constitution
 -checks and balance of power between government and its people
 -grants freedom and protection
3. Rules produce a sense of justice among social beings
 -prevents exploitation and domination of the strong/privilege
 Rules provide justice richest and powerful people have limitations that they need to
abide like the rest
 Justice- giving what is due
4. Rules are essential for a healthy economic system
 It ensure product safety, employee safety, and product quality.
 Regulate monopolies and competitiveness
Non-Moral and Moral Standards
 Moral standard- These are moral values and moral principles that people have for kinds
of actions they believe are morally right/acceptable and wrong/unacceptable,
 Non-moral standard- Rules that are unrelated to moral or ethical considerations they
are not necessarily linked to morality or lack ethical sense
Example: rules of etiquette, fashion standards, games, house rules
Religious rules, some traditions, ordinances are technically non-moral standards.
Distinctions
 Moral Standards involve serious wrong or significant benefits.
Example: lying, deception, killing
Compared to non-moral standards for example; violating rules in sports does not necessarily
affect one’s life or wellbeing
 Moral Standards are not established by authority figures- moral standards are not
invented, formed, or generated by authoritative bodies or persons for they are socially
constructed
Moral standards cannot be nullified by the decisions of particular authoritative body
Concept of superiority and achieve social reality apart from the individual
 Moral Standards have the trait of universalizability- everyone should live up to moral
standards must apply to all who are relevantly in the same situation
Example: murder is a criminal offense, stealing is wrong
Consistency
 Moral Standards are based on impartial consideration- it goes beyond certain personal
interests in which each person’s interests are impartially counted as equal and giving
equal consideration to the interests of all concerned parties
Impartiality- free of bias or prejudice
Example: observance of laws-objectivity

Dilemma and Moral Dilemma

 Dilemma- refers to a situation in which a tough choice has to be made between two or
more options, especially more or less equally undesirable ones, not all dilemmas are
moral dilemmas
Example: A friend discovers her best friend’s boyfriend is cheating. She must decide whether to
tell her friend or keep it a secret.

 Moral/ Ethical Dilemmas- are situations in which a difficult choice has to be made
between 2 courses of action, either of which entails transgressing a moral principle. In
short, it involves conflicts between moral requirements
Key Features of Moral Dilemma
1. the agent is required to do each of two (or more) actions;
2. the agent can do each of the actions; but cannot do both or all the actions
 Often condemned to a moral failure, no matter what he does, he will do something
wrong, or fail to do something that he ought to do.
Three levels of moral dilemma
1. Personal Dilemmas- are those experienced and resolved on the personal level.
  Since many ethical decisions are personally made, many, if not most of, moral dilemmas
fall under, or boil down to this level.
 2. Organizational Dilemmas- refer to ethical cases encountered and resolved by social
organizations. This category includes moral dilemmas in business, medical field, and
public sector.
 Example: healthcare orgs- euthanasia, right to die
 Business-related dilemmas- employee rights, harassment, misleading advertising, job
discrimination, labor unions
 Public government- accepting gifts, transparency, agenda setting
3. Structural Dilemmas- refer to cases involving network of institutions and operative theoretical
paradigm. As they usually encompass multi-sectoral institutions and organizations, they may be
large in scope and extent than organizational dilemmas.
 Example: prices of medicine in the Philippines (conflict between the buyers and involved
researchers)
 Political dynasties
Only human beings can be ethical
One basic tenet in ethics is the belief that only human beings can be truly ethical. Most
philosophers hold that unlike animals, human beings possess some traits that make it possible for
them to be moral.
a. Only human being are rational, autonomous, and self-conscious.
 These qualities are believed to confer a full and equal moral status to those that possess
them as these beings are the only ones capable of achieving certain values and goods.
 These qualities are deserve full and equal moral status. In short, these are only exclusive
to humans.
 Example: appreciation of art, literature, music that come with deep personal relationships
 -Human have the ability to select his actions and is not led by blind instinct
 - capable of self-respect through empathy
b. Only humans can act morally or immorally
 Only beings that can act morally or immorally can sacrifice their interests for the sake of
others
 Other species do things out of instinct
c. Only human beings are part of the moral community
 The so-called moral community is not defined in terms of the intrinsic properties that
beings have, but rather in terms of the essential social relations that exist between or
among beings. Distinctively, only human beings can possess or practice values such as
love, honor, social relationships, forgiveness, compassion, and altruism.
 Only human beings can communicate with each other in truly meaningful ways, and can
form deep personal relationships with each other (showing concern)
 Only humans has the ability to participate in collective cognition.
Minimum requirement for morality: reason and impartiality
 “Moral judgments must be backed by sound reasoning and that morality requires the
impartial consideration of all parties involve” (Rachels, 1941)
Reason and Impartiality
  Reason- as a requirement for morality entails, that human feelings may be important in
ethical decisions, but they ought to be guided by reason. It helps us to evaluate our
feelings and intuitions.
 Impartiality- known as evenhandedness or fair-mindedness involves the idea that each
individual’s interests and point of view are equally important. Decisions must be based
on objective criteria rather than on the basis of bias, prejudice, or preferring the benefit to
one person over another for improper reasons.

LESSON 2: ETHICS
Culture in moral behavior (this are the images given on the ppt)

 Kayan Tribe from Thailand

 Dead Bodies in Indonesia
 Lip plate in Ethiopia
 Ifugao warrior and his trophies
 Tatbir
 Finger Cutting
Culture Definition

 Culture- Refers to the cumulative deposit of knowledge, experience, beliefs, ideas, values,
attitudes, meanings, hierarchies, religion, notions of time, roles, spatial relations, concepts of the
universe, and material objects
Culture in short…

 Includes all the things individuals learn while growing up in a particular group: attitudes,
standards of morality, rules of etiquette, perceptions of reality, language, notions about the proper
way to live, and other ideas about how the world works we call this cultural knowledge
Culture in moral behavior

 Culture is way of life- that includes moral values and behaviors, along with knowledge, beliefs,
symbols that they accept “generally without thinking about them, and that are passed along by
communication and imitation from one generation to the next”
 Social Learning- process by which individuals acquire knowledge from others in the groups to
which they belong.
“It is improbable, if not impossible, to live in a society without being affected by culture”

 It is hard to grow in a particular culture without being impacted by how it views morality or what
is ethically right or wrong.
 This is the case because individuals are a product of their culture and learning a culture is an
essential part of a human. De Guzman and Pena, 2016
Moral Standards as Social Convention

 Social Facts- are values, beliefs, cultural norms, and social structures that transcend the individual
and control them. These are external to us and are outside of our control.
 Social Convention- those agreed upon by people in society these are the usual, customary, and
acceptable ways through which things are done within a group. There is a blanket of legitimacy.
Cultural Relativism

 Is the idea that a person’s beliefs, values, and practices should be understood based on that
person’s own culture, rather than be judged against the criteria of another
 Other cultures are not wrong, rather different…
Cultural Relativism: An Analysis
1. Valuable lessons from ethical relativism:

 There is no universal truth, so this encourage tolerance by being open-minded

 Our feelings and beliefs are only products of cultural conditioning thus, it do not reflect the truth.
 Believes that culture and morality is conventional.
2. The theory’s ethical faults

 Cultural Relativism discourages analytical thinking and independent decision making in ethics as
it requires unsuspecting compliance and subscription to social norm. Thus, in order to be ethical,
folkways and cultural norms should be followed uncritically

 Concept of tolerance is self-contradictory

 It begs the question, then is the culture of slavery, racism, and oppression morally acceptable?

 Cultural Relativism ins only practicable if people do not belong to more than one institution
Rachel’s Evaluation of Cultural Relativism

 He explains that the cultural relativists’ approach is to argue from facts about the differences
between cultural outlooks to a conclusion about the status of morality.
  Example: The Greeks believed it was wrong to eat the dead, whereas the Callatians (an Indian
Tribe) believed it was right. Therefore, eating the dead is neither objectively right nor objectively
wrong. It is merely a matter of opinion which varies from culture to culture.
 Cultural Differences argument- different cultures have different moral codes. Therefore, there is
no objective truth in morality.
Against the Cultural differences argument:

 People in some societies (primitive tribes) believe that the Earth is flat, whereas Europeans hold
that the Earth is (roughly) spherical. Therefore, there is no objective truth in geography. Belief in
the shape of the earth is only a matter of opinion, and opinions vary from culture to culture.  is
this argument valid?
 With this, we can say that just because various societies disagree with something, it does not
mean that there is no objective truth
 Cultural Relativist goes wrong in sweeping a conclusion about an issue from the mere fact that
people disagree about it…
Another one…
 Eskimos see nothing wrong with infanticide, whereas we believe that infanticide is immoral.
With this, the first assumption is that Eskimos have very different values from ours however:
 Eskimos protect its babies if conditions permit. They nurse their infant for very long time.
 Infanticide especially among girls (males are primary food providers, hunters suffer high casualty
rate) is a recognition that drastic measures are sometimes needed to ensure the family’s survival.
 This shows that it is wrong to conclude that there is disagreement about values and morality just
because customs differ.
The bad consequences of cultural Relativism
A. We could no longer say that the customs of other societies are morally inferior to our own

 Example: We could not say that Anti-Semitism and Slavery are wrong
B. We could decide whether actions are right or wrong just by consulting the standards of our society

 The implication is that people will think that their own society’s code is perfect, rather than
thinking of ways it might be improved. In short, cultural relativism would stop us from criticizing
our own
C. The id a of moral progress is called into doubt

 There is no standard by which we judge the new ways as better or progressive. (e.g. Social
reform)
Asian Moral Standing

 Eastern Ethics: is very much about the protocol of showing respect and the notion that one must
do what is right and expected of him and the universe will take care of the rest
 Western Ethics: is basically about finding truth or what is rationally or logically true. It puts
emphasis on justice and law.
Filipino Moral Character: Strengths and Weaknesses
Filipino Cultural Morality centers on ideally having a smooth interpersonal relationship with others
through:
1. Pakikisama- maintain good public relations
2. Hiya- concern with how one appears in the eye of other
3. Amor Propio- comes from the tendency of a person to protect his or her dignity and honor
4. Utang na Loob-debt of gratitude, balance of obligations and debts
5. Filipino Hospitality- innate ability and trait of Filipinos to be courteous and entertaining to their guests
6. Respect for elders
Universal Values: values generally shared by cultures

 Strong proof that cultural relativism is wrong

 Values that must be generally shared by many cultures are:
1. Truth Telling- communication in all forms is universal, saying the truth is the most important reason on
what someone is paying attention to what anyone communicates
2. Valuing or Respecting Life- necessitates the prohibition of murder. If everyone is trying to kill each
other, everyone is on guard and avoiding people that will make societies impossible to emerged.

 This proves that there are some moral rules that all societies will have in common because those
rules are necessary for society to exist.
Kohlberg’s Stages of Moral Development
Kolhberg’s theory of moral development states that we progress through three levels of
moral thinking that build on our cognitive development.
LEARNING OBJECTIVE
 Summarize Kohlberg’s stages of psychosocial development
KEY POINTS
 Lawrence Kohlberg expanded on the earlier work of cognitive theorist Jean Piaget to
explain the moral development of children, which he believed follows a series of stages.
 Kohlberg defined three levels of moral development: preconventional, conventional, and
postconventional. Each level has two distinct stages.
 During the preconventional level, a child’s sense of morality is externally controlled.
Children accept and believe the rules of authority figures, such as parents and teachers, and
they judge an action based on its consequences.
 During the conventional level, an individual’s sense of morality is tied to personal and
societal relationships. Children continue to accept the rules of authority figures, but this is
now because they believe that this is necessary to ensure positive relationships and societal
order.
 During the postconventional level, a person’s sense of morality is defined in terms
of more abstract principles and values. People now believe that some laws are unjust and
should be changed or eliminated.
 Kohlberg’s theory has been criticized for its cultural and gendered bias toward white, upper-
class men and boys. It also fails to account for inconsistencies within moral judgments.

TERM
Morality Recognition of the distinction between good and evil or between right and wrong;
respect for and obedience to the rules of right conduct; the mental disposition or characteristic of
behaving in a manner intended to produce good results.

FULL TEXT
Lawrence Kohlberg expanded on the earlier work of cognitive theorist Jean Piaget to explain the
moral development of children. Kohlberg believed that moral development, like cognitive
development, follows a series of stages. He used the idea of moral dilemmas—stories that
present conflicting ideas about two moral values—to teach 10- to 16-year-old boys about
morality and values. The best-known moral dilemma created by Kohlberg is the “Heinz”
dilemma, which discusses the idea of obeying the law versus saving a life. Kohlberg emphasized
that it is the way an individual reasons about a dilemma that determines positive moral
development.
After presenting people with various moral dilemmas, Kohlberg reviewed people’s responses
and placed them in different stages of moral reasoning. According to Kohlberg, an individual
progresses from the capacity for pre-conventional morality (before age 9) to the capacity for
conventional morality (early adolescence), and toward attaining post-conventional morality
(once Piaget’s idea of formal operational thought is attained), which only a few fully achieve.
Each level of morality contains two stages, which provide the basis for moral development in
various contexts.

Kohlberg’s stages of moral development

Kohlberg identified three levels of moral reasoning: pre-conventional, conventional, and post-
conventional. Each level is associated with increasingly complex stages of moral development.

Level 1: Preconventional
Throughout the preconventional level, a child’s sense of morality is externally controlled.
Children accept and believe the rules of authority figures, such as parents and teachers.  A child
with pre-conventional morality has not yet adopted or internalized society’s conventions
regarding what is right or wrong, but instead focuses largely on external consequences that
certain actions may bring.

Stage 1: Obedience-and-Punishment Orientation

Stage 1 focuses on the child’s desire to obey rules and avoid being punished. For example, an
action is perceived as morally wrong because the perpetrator is punished; the worse the
punishment for the act is, the more “bad” the act is perceived to be.

Stage 2: Instrumental Orientation

Stage 2 expresses the “what’s in it for me?” position, in which right behavior is defined by
whatever the individual believes to be in their best interest. Stage two reasoning shows a limited
interest in the needs of others, only to the point where it might further the individual’s own
interests. As a result, concern for others is not based on loyalty or intrinsic respect, but rather a
“you scratch my back, and I’ll scratch yours” mentality. An example would be when a child is
asked by his parents to do a chore. The child asks, “what’s in it for me?” and the parents offer the
child an incentive by giving him an allowance.

Level 2: Conventional

Throughout the conventional level, a child’s sense of morality is tied to personal and societal
relationships. Children continue to accept the rules of authority figures, but this is now due to
their belief that this is necessary to ensure positive relationships and societal order. Adherence to
rules and conventions is somewhat rigid during these stages, and a rule’s appropriateness or
fairness is seldom questioned.

Stage 3: Good Boy, Nice Girl Orientation

In stage 3, children want the approval of others and act in ways to avoid disapproval. Emphasis
is placed on good behavior and people being “nice” to others.

Stage 4: Law-and-Order Orientation

In stage 4, the child blindly accepts rules and convention because of their importance in
maintaining a functioning society. Rules are seen as being the same for everyone, and obeying
rules by doing what one is “supposed” to do is seen as valuable and important. Moral reasoning
in stage four is beyond the need for individual approval exhibited in stage three. If one person
violates a law, perhaps everyone would—thus there is an obligation and a duty to uphold laws
and rules. Most active members of society remain at stage four, where morality is still
predominantly dictated by an outside force.

Level 3: Postconventional

Throughout the postconventional level, a person’s sense of morality is defined in terms of more
abstract principles and values. People now believe that some laws are unjust and should be
changed or eliminated. This level is marked by a growing realization that individuals are separate
entities from society and that individuals may disobey rules inconsistent with their own
principles. Post-conventional moralists live by their own ethical principles—principles that
typically include such basic human rights as life, liberty, and justice—and view rules as useful
but changeable mechanisms, rather than absolute dictates that must be obeyed without question.
Because post-conventional individuals elevate their own moral evaluation of a situation over
social conventions, their behavior, especially at stage six, can sometimes be confused with that
of those at the pre-conventional level. Some theorists have speculated that many people may
never reach this level of abstract moral reasoning.

Stage 5: Social-Contract Orientation

In stage 5, the world is viewed as holding different opinions, rights, and values. Such
perspectives should be mutually respected as unique to each person or community. Laws are
regarded as social contracts rather than rigid edicts. Those that do not promote the general
welfare should be changed when necessary to meet the greatest good for the greatest number of
people. This is achieved through majority decision and inevitable compromise. Democratic
government is theoretically based on stage five reasoning.

Stage 6: Universal-Ethical-Principal Orientation

In stage 6, moral reasoning is based on abstract reasoning using universal ethical principles.
Generally, the chosen principles are abstract rather than concrete and focus on ideas such as
equality, dignity, or respect. Laws are valid only insofar as they are grounded in justice, and a
commitment to justice carries with it an obligation to disobey unjust laws. People choose the
ethical principles they want to follow, and if they violate those principles, they feel guilty. In this
way, the individual acts because it is morally right to do so (and not because he or she wants to
avoid punishment), it is in their best interest, it is expected, it is legal, or it is previously agreed
upon. Although Kohlberg insisted that stage six exists, he found it difficult to identify individuals
who consistently operated at that level.

Critiques Of Kohlberg’s Theory

Kohlberg has been criticized for his assertion that women seem to be deficient in their moral
reasoning abilities when compared to men. Carol Gilligan (1982), a research assistant of
Kohlberg, criticized her former mentor’s theory because it was based so narrowly on research
using white, upper-class men and boys. She argued that women are not deficient in their moral
reasoning and instead proposed that males and females reason differently: girls and women focus
more on staying connected and maintaining interpersonal relationships.

Kohlberg’s theory has been criticized for emphasizing justice to the exclusion of other values,
with the result that it may not adequately address the arguments of those who value other moral
aspects of actions. Similarly, critics argue that Kohlberg’s stages are culturally biased—that the
highest stages in particular reflect a westernized ideal of justice based on individualistic thought.
This is biased against those that live in non-Western societies that place less emphasis on
individualism.

Another criticism of Kohlberg’s theory is that people frequently demonstrate significant

inconsistency in their moral judgements. This often occurs in moral dilemmas involving drinking
and driving or business situations where participants have been shown to reason at a lower
developmental stage, typically using more self-interest driven reasoning (i.e., stage two) than
authority and social order obedience driven reasoning (i.e., stage four). Critics argue that
Kohlberg’s theory cannot account for such inconsistencies