ETHICS PRELIM o Normative ethics is concerned with

moral norms.
PPT
▪ A moral norm is a norm in the
• Philosophy sense of being a standard with
- the science of all things by their ultimate which moral agents ought to
principles and causes, as known by natural comply.
reason alone. ▪ "Thou shall not murder" is an
example of a moral norm: It is
• Empiricism meant to guide our actions, and
- knowledge by means of experience to the extent that people do
not comply, we may be judged
• Rationalism morally—that is, morally
- knowledge by means of reason blamed. This is then the
o Man is a rational animal. meaning of a moral norm.

• Ethics or Moral Philosophy - Two central concepts of normative

- may be defined in a provisional way, as the (prescriptive) ethics:
scientific study of moral judgments. o The right and the morally good.
- The practical science of the morality of the
human conduct. a. The concept of the right is: (verb)
- Fundamental issues of practical decision o the concept of duty,
making. o the concept of which actions we ought
- Major concerns: the nature of the ultimate to perform, which it would be wrong
value and the standards by which humans can not to perform.
be judged right or wrong.
- The Greek word “ethos” which can mean b. The concept of the morally good (adj.)
custom, habit, character, or disposition. o a target of the theory of value, or
- Morality can be defined as the standards that axiology
an individual or a group has about what is right o Greek: “axios” - worth; “logos” - study
and wrong, or good and evil. of = study of axiology
- Morality is often defined in one of two ways: o refers to morally good properties of
human beings.
1. Normative Ethics (prescriptive) o Virtuous character traits such as
o actions are judged by their merits, kindness, courage and honesty are
allowing societies to develop codes of examples of states that are generally
conduct or behavior. thought to be morally good.
o How should people act? o the term "right" is usually reserved for
o Objective actions,
o GOLDEN RULE o the "morally good" is for states of
▪ If your actions to another character, including motives.
person align with how you want o Ethics is concerned with other people’s
to be treated, they are moral. interest, with the interest of the
▪ Try and define how people society, with God’s interest, with
should act. “ultimate goods”, and so on.
o adjective which comes from "norm", it
means standard, or rule, or principle, as - Normative ethics is interested in both: It aims to
opposed to what is "normal" for people determine which actions are right, and which
to do, that is, what they actually do. states of character are morally good.
o For example, the rules
of mathematics are normative because a. Which actions are right?
reasoning can be assessed against these o The central question of normative
rules and judged correct or incorrect, ethics involves asking which actions fall
irrespective of whether this usage is the into the category of the right and the
normal usage. If everyone were to category of the wrong. This is called the
calculate: theory of right action.
- 3 + 3 = 33 → a mistake, ▪ It is an investigation and an
o Misunderstanding the rules (norms) of attempt to answer the
mathematics. So even if this mistake question:
were "normal”, a normative appraisal ✓ "What ought I to do?"
would hold everyone's actual thinking ✓ "What is the right thing to
to the rule which legislates how they do?"
ought to think, and judge it incorrect. ✓ Besides the already
mentioned terms, "right,"

NJAA - BSN
 "wrong," and "ought," ▪ Important concepts for the theory
other important normative of virtue include terms such as
concepts relating to action good, bad, virtuous, vicious, honest,
include "obligatory," courageous, and praiseworthy.
"forbidden," "permissible," - Only good people can make good moral
and "required." decisions.
- The best way to be moral is to constantly seek
❖ Theory of right action: Concept of right to improve oneself.
❖ Theory of virtue: Concept of morally good - a theory of right action aims to specify which
❖ Theory of virtue: Theory of value actions are right
- a theory of virtue should specify the virtues,
- A normative theory aims to answer the that is, traits of character it is good or bad to
question of "what makes actions right or possess.
wrong." o It should say, for example, that courage is a
- This usually amounts to drawing out basic virtue, and cowardice a vice.
principles as standards of right action. o It should explain why we should think of
- These basic principles may be employed as a traits like these as virtues or vices.
moral guide to human beings in their lives, o The form of this justification might be:
deciding whether particular courses of action— Courage is a virtue because it tends to bring
or particular types of action—are right or benefits to other people. Here again, the
wrong. state of character is assessed against a basic
- The principle of utility in utilitarianism, for normative principle, namely, that it is right
example, is a fundamental moral principle to bring benefits to other people.
according to which right actions are those that
maximize happiness. 2. Descriptive Ethics
- In Kantianism (Immanuel Kant), the categorical o What do people think is moral?
imperative is such a fundamental principle from o Subjective
which right actions are derived as duties. o Does not actually claim that things are
- Which states of character are morally good? right or wrong, but simply studies how
individuals or societies define their
b. What states of character are desirable, or morals.
morally good? o What makes something right or wrong
o Here normative ethics attempts to answer in a specific culture?
the question: "What sort of person ought I o Descriptive ethics defines morals in
to be?" This is called the theory of virtue, or terms of their cultural or personal
virtue ethics. significance.
▪ The focus of this aspect of o Morals are seen as a part of a greater
normative ethics is character. system that is not objective or unbiased
▪ A virtue is a morally desirable state but is created by a culture, like
of character such as courage. language.
▪ The theory of virtue is directed not o Descriptive ethics investigates the
at what actions one ought to do, attitudes of individuals or groups of
but what person one should be. people. (Comparative ethics)
✓ What is a virtuous person o What ought to be noted is that culture
like? is generational and not static.
✓ What is a vicious person Therefore, a new generation will come
like? with its own set of morals and that
✓ What makes traits of qualifies to be their ethics. Descriptive
character virtuous or ethics will hence try to oversee whether
vicious? ethics still holds its place.
▪ Virtue ethics emphasizes an o It would be describing the norms or
individual’s character as the key ethical systems used in a given
element of ethical thinking. geographical locale or a given culture.
▪ A virtue is an excellent trait of o it simply involves describing how people
character. behave and/or what sorts of moral
▪ It is moral excellence. standards they claim to follow.
▪ A trait or quality that is deemed to o Descriptive ethics is about what
be morally good and thus is valued motivates pro-social behavior, how
as a foundation of principle and people reason about ethics, what
good moral being. people believe to have overriding
▪ Personal virtues are characteristics importance, and how societies regulate
valued as promoting collective and behavior (such as by punishing people
individual greatness. for doing certain actions).

NJAA - BSN
 o We know that empathy helps motivate • Why study Ethics?
pro-social behavior (such as giving to - His understanding of moral problems will be
charity) and we know that our beliefs widened
about what has overriding importance - His critical faculties will be trained
is somewhat based on the culture we - It will enable a person to understand better
live in. what his conscience is, how he acquired it, how
far he is likely to be able to trust to its
• Cultural Relativism deliverances with safety, and how he can
- The ability to understand the culture on its own improve it and make it more intelligent.
terms and not to make judgments using the - Self-realizations.
standards of one’s own culture.
- Culture: derived from the Latin word “cultura” • Kohlberg’s Theory of Moral Development
or “cultus” which means care or cultivation. a. LEVEL 1 – Pre-conventional (6 yrs. old and
- Culture as cultivation implies that every human below)
being is a potential member of his own social - Children accept and believe the rules of
group. authority figures, such as parents and
- He cannot develop inborn talents without other teachers.
people. - A child focuses largely on external
- His accomplishments not only help him achieve consequences that certain actions may
self-actualization but also make him/her a bring.
contributing member of society. ✓ Step 1
- Punishment and obedience
• Man as a Moral Agent orientation.
- The idea of moral agency o It focuses on the child’s
- Moral Agent is a being capable of acting with desire to obey rules and
reference to right and wrong. avoid being punished.
- An intelligent being who has choices and the o An action is perceived as
power to choose. morally wrong because the
o Moral action - an action that springs person is punished; the
from choice, and is not necessitated worse the punishment for
either by mental propulsions or the act is, the more “bad”
external circumstances: Intelligent, free, the act is perceived to be.
accountable. - Obey rules to avoid punishment.
o Instinctive Action - the result of an
undeviating and unfailing but blind ✓ Step 2
propulsion. - Instrumental orientation.
o Divine Action- which though certain as o It expresses the “what’s in
instinct, is yet in the fullest sense it for me?” behavior is
intelligent and free. defined by whatever the
- It does not necessarily mean that they are individual will gain.
successfully making moral decisions. It means o Ex: a child is asked by his
that they are in a category that enables them to parents to do a chore. The
be blamed. child asks “what’s in it for
- To be blamed: to have rights and duties. me?” and the parents offer
- Must be a living creature. the child an incentive by
- Must be able to comprehend abstract moral giving him an allowance.
principles and apply them to decision making. - Naive Hedonism.
- Must have self-consciousness, memory, moral - Conforms to get rewards and to
principles, other values have favors returned.
o Reasoning faculty – devise plans for
achieving his objectives, to weight b. LEVEL 2 – Conventional (7 to 11 yrs. old)
alternatives, and so on. - A child’s sense of morality is tied to
- What you will learn and gain from conforming personal and social relationships.
to your principles. - Children continue to accept the rules of
- Advantages and disadvantages of violating your parents and leaders, but this is now due to
moral principles. their belief that this is necessary to
- A moral agent lives in a society with others who guarantee positive relationships and order
they consider to have moral rights. in the community
- A being capable of moral agency is one who ✓ Step 3
possesses the means of judging rightly, and - Good Boy, Nice Girl Orientation
power to act accordingly; but whether he will (people pleaser).
do so or not, depends on the voluntary exercise
of his faculties.

NJAA - BSN
 o Children want the approval - Conforms to maintain
of others and act in ways to communities.
avoid disapproval. - Emphasis on individual rights.
o Emphasis is placed on good ✓ Step 6
behavior and people being - Universal ethical orientation.
“nice” to others. o Laws are valid only insofar
- Good boy/girl morality. as they are grounded in
- Conforms to avoid disapproval or justice, and a commitment
dislike by others. to justice carries with it an
✓ Step 4 obligation to disobey unjust
- Law and Order orientation laws.
(harmony). o People choose the ethical
o the child blindly accepts principles they want to
rules and convention follow, and if they violate
because of their those principles, they feel
importance in maintaining a guilty.
functioning society. o In this way, the individual
o Rules are seen as being the acts because it is morally
same for everyone, and right to do so (and not
obeying rules by doing what because he or she wants to
one is “supposed” to do is avoid punishment), it is in
seen as valuable and their best interest, it is
important. expected, it is legal, or it is
o The individual believes that previously agreed upon.
he/she should not a violate - Individual principles of conscience.
a law.
o Most active members of CANVAS
society remain at stage
I. Model for Ethical Decision Making
four, where morality is still
predominantly dictated by 1. GATHER THE FACTS
an outside force. - Frequently ethical dilemmas can be resolved
- Conforms to avoid censure by simply by clarifying the facts of the case in
authorities. question.
- In those cases that prove to be more difficult,
c. LEVEL 3 – Post-conventional (11 yrs. old gathering the facts is the essential first step
and above) prior to any ethical analysis and reflection on
- A person’s sense of morality is defined in the case.
terms of more abstract principles and - In analyzing a case, we want to know the
values. available facts at hand as well as any facts
- People now believe that some laws are currently not known but that need to be
unjust and should be changed or ascertained.
eliminated. - Thus, one is asking not only “What do we
- They no longer believe that laws must be know?” but also “What do we need to know?”
blindly obeyed without question. in order to make an intelligent ethical decision.
✓ Step 5
- Social Contract orientation. 2. DETERMINE THE ETHICAL ISSUES
o the world is viewed as - The ethical issues are stated in terms of
holding different opinions, competing interests or goods.
rights, and values. - It’s these conflicting interests that actually
o Those LAWS that do not make for an ethical dilemma.
promote the general - The issues should be presented in a
welfare should be changed ______versus _________ format in order to
when necessary to meet reflect the interests that are colliding in a
the greatest good for the particular ethical dilemma.
greatest number of people. - For example, in business ethics there is often a
o This is achieved through conflict between the right of a firm to make
majority decision and profit and its obligation to the community. In
inevitable compromise. this case, the obligation pertains to the
o Democratic government is environment
theoretically based on stage
five reasoning. 3. WHAT ETHICAL PRINCIPLES HAVE A BEARING
ON THE CASE

NJAA - BSN
- In any ethical dilemma, there are certain moral - Frequently the decision that is made is one that
values or principles that are central to the involves the least number of problems or
conflicting positions being taken. negative consequences, not one that is devoid
- It is critical to identify these principles, and in of them.
some cases, to determine whether some
principles are to be weighted more heavily than II. Lawrence Kohlberg’s Stages of Moral Development
others.
- Psychologist’s theories of moral development
- Clearly, biblical principles will be weighted the
provide an insight into how moral disagreement
most heavily.
developed and even how they untangle it.
- There may be other principles that speak to the
- Lawrence Kohlberg, a professor of psychology
case that come from other sources.
in Harvard University is a prominent moral
- There may be constitutional principles or
development theorist, but his thinking grew out
principles drawn from natural law that
of Jean Piaget’s writing on children’s intellectual
supplement the biblical principles that come
development.
into play here.
o His theory is descriptive, rather than,
- The principles that come out of your mission
proven facts.
and calling are also important to consider.
- Kohlberg presumes that there are six stages of
moral development that people go through in
4. LIST THE ALTERNATIVES
much the same way as infants learned first to
- Part of the creative thinking involved in
roll over, to sit, to crawl, to stand and finally to
resolving an ethical dilemma involves coming
walk.
up with various alternative courses of action.
- Kohlberg clearly emphasized the following
- Although there will be some alternatives that
system of his theory:
you will rule out without much thought, in
o Everyone goes through each stage in
general the more alternatives that are listed,
the same order, but not everyone goes
the better the chance that your list will include
through all the stages and
some high-quality ones.
o A person at one stage can understand
- In addition, you may come up with some very
the reasoning of any stage below him
creative alternative that you had not considered
but cannot understand more than one
before.
stage above.
- These correlates, especially the latter one, are
5. COMPARE THE ALTERNATIVES WITH THE
important when it comes to assessing the
PRINCIPLES
nature of disagreement about ethical judgment.
- At this point, the task is one of eliminating
Perhaps the easiest way is to remember them is
alternatives according to the moral principles
by differing kinds of justification involved in
that have a bearing on the case.
each stage.
- In many instances, the case will be resolved at
this point, since the principles will eliminate all
- There are three levels in his theory and each
alternatives except one.
level is divided into stages. The schema will
- In fact, the purpose of this comparison is to see
show the stages of moral development:
if there is a clear decision that can be made
without further deliberations.
- If a clear decision is not forthcoming, then the
next part is the model that must be considered.
At the least, some of the alternatives may be
eliminated by this step of comparison.

6. WEIGH THE CONSEQUENCES

- If the principles do not yield a clear decision,
then a consideration of the consequences of
the remaining available alternatives is in order.
- Both positive and negative consequences are to
be considered.
- They should be informally weighed, since some
positive consequences are more detrimental
than others.

7. MAKE A DECISION
- Deliberations cannot go on forever.
- At some point, a decision must be made.
- Realize that one common element in ethical
dilemmas is that there are no easy and painless
solutions to them.

NJAA - BSN
 1. Pre-conventional level

(Individuals do not yet speak as members of society, instead they see morality as something external to themselves)

Stage Description Content Social Perspective

Stage 1 The first stage is Right is a literal obedience This stage takes an egocentric
characterized by a view to rules and authority, point of view, a person at this
Punishment and that right action is to avoiding punishment, and stage does not consider the
Obedience behave according to not doing physical harm. interests of others and does
socially acceptable What is right is to avoid not relate two points of view.
norms imposed by breaking rules, to obey for Actions were justified in terms
some authority figure obedience’s sake and to of physical consequence rather
(e.g., parent, teacher) avoid physical damage to in terms psychological interests
in order to avoid people and authority. Thus, of others. Authority’s
punishment. follow and obey because of perspective is confused with
the consequence of one’s own.
punishment and due to
superior power of
authorities.

Stage 2 Is characterized by a What is right is following This stage takes a concrete

view that right rules when it is to individualistic perspective. A
Individual and behavior means acting someone’s immediate person at this stage separates
Instrumental exchange in one’s own best interest. Right is acting to his own interests and points of
interests. meet one’s interests and view from those of authorities
needs and letting others do and others. The person
the same. Right is also what integrates or relates conflicting
is fair, that is, what is an individual interests to one
equal exchange, a deal, am another through instrumental
agreement. The reason for exchange of service, need for
doing what is right is to others and other’s goodwill.
serve one’s own Perhaps through fairness giving
needs/interests in a world each person the same amount.
where one must recognize
that other people have their
interests as well.

2. Conventional Level

(It speaks on isolated individuals rather than as members of the society. It sees individual exchanging favors, but there is
still no identification with the values of the family/community)

Stage 3 Characterized by an It sees what is right is living This stage takes the perspective
attitude which one up according to the of the individual in relationship
Mutual and seeks to do that will expectations by people that to other individuals. Thus, a
Interpersonal gain the approval of are close to them, like the person in this stage is aware of
conformity others. family, community. Being the shared feelings, agreement
good and having good and expectations that take
behavior means having good primacy over the individual
motives and interpersonal interests.
feelings such as empathy,
love, trust, concern.
 Is characterized by What is right is fulfilling This stage differentiates societal
abiding the law and one’s own duty to which one point of view from interpersonal
respecting authority and had agreed. The reasons for agreement or motives. A person
Stage 4 performing one’s duty doing what is right are to at this stage takes the viewpoint
so that social order is keep the institutions going as of the system, which defines
Law and Order maintained. a whole. roles and rules, individual
relations in terms of one’s own
place in the system.

3. Post-conventional level

(Moral decisions are generated from the rights, values or principles that are or that could be agreeable to all individuals
composing or creating a society designed to have fair and beneficial practices)

Stage 5 Is characterized by What is right is the awareness This stage takes a ‘prior-to-
thinking about a of the fact that people hold a society’ perspective. It means
Social contract and society in a very variety of values and opinion that individuals are aware of
Individual rights theoretical way, that most values and rules are the values and rights prior to
stepping back from relative to one’s group. The social attachment and
their own reason for doing what is right, contract. The person
established society is in general, feeling obligated integrates perspective by
and considering the to obey the law, because one formal mechanism of
rights and values of has made a social contract to agreement, contract,
the society ought to make and abide by laws for the objective impartiality and due
uphold. good of all and to protect their process.
own rights and the rights of
others. Like, family, friend. One
is concerned that laws and
duties be based from a rational
calculation of the overall
‘utility’. ‘The greatest good for
the greatest number’

Stage 6 Is characterized by The right action on this stage is This stage takes the
an attitude of guided by universal ethical perspective that a person
Universal ethical respect for principles, particularly law, takes a stand in view of moral
principles universal principle social agreement is usually principle from which social
and the demands of valid because it is anchored to agreement are derived on
individual principles. When law perhaps which they are grounded.
conscience. violates the universal principle,
one is often acts in accordance
with the principle. The
principle of equality, justice,
respect and others. These are
not only values but regarded as
principle that is of used in
order to generate decisions.
III. Ethical Dilemma - The Institute for Global Ethics also
proposed the following ethical dilemma to
- also known as a moral dilemma
promote a global understanding of ethics
- situations in which there is a choice to be made
and to promote ethical decision making:
between two options, neither of which resolves
▪ The mood at Bailey Ville High
the situation in an ethically acceptable fashion.
School is tense with anticipation.
In such cases, societal and personal ethical
For the first time in many, many
guidelines can provide no satisfactory outcome
years, the varsity basketball team
for the chooser.
has made it to the state semifinals.
- Ethical dilemmas assume that the chooser will
The community is excited too, and
abide by societal norms, such as codes of law or
everyone is making plans to attend
religious teachings, in order to make the choice
the big event next Saturday night.
ethically impossible.
Jeff, the varsity coach, has been
waiting for years to field such a
- Ethical Dilemma Situations:
team. Speed, teamwork, balance:
o Personal Friendships
they've got it all. Only one more
▪ Michael had several friends
week to practice, he tells his team,
including Roger and Daniel. Roger
and not a rule can be broken.
has recently met and started dating
Everyone must be at practice each
a wonderful lady named Phyllis. He
night at the regularly scheduled
is convinced this is a long-term
time: No Exceptions. Brad and Mike
relationship. Unknown to Roger,
are two of the team's starters. From
Michael observed them at a
their perspective, they're
restaurant several days ago and
indispensable to the team, the guys
realized Phyllis is the wife of his
who will bring victory to Bailey Ville.
other friend Daniel.
They decide-why, no one will ever
▪ Michael is deciding whether to tell
know-to show up an hour late to
Roger that Phyllis is married when
the next day's practice.
he receives a call from Daniel.
▪ Jeff is furious. They have
Daniel suspects his wife is having an
deliberately disobeyed his orders.
affair and since they and Michael
The rule says they should be
share many friends and contacts, he
suspended for one full week. If he
asks if Michael has heard anything
follows the rule, Brad and Mike will
regarding an affair.
not play in the semifinals. But the
▪ To whom does Michael owe greater
whole team is depending on them.
friendship to in this situation? No
What should he do?
matter who he tells, he is going to
end up hurting one, if not both
IV. Law, Religion and Culture
friends. Does he remain silent and
hope his knowledge is never a. LAW
discovered? - It is supposed the law is one’s guide to ethical
behavior.
o Societal Dilemmas - In the Philippines, Filipinos are constrained to
- An article on List Verse compiled a list of obey the laws of the land as stated in country’s
Top 10 moral dilemmas and asked readers criminal and civil codes.
to consider what they would do in those - The term positive law refers to the different
situations. Here is an example of one of the rules and regulations that are posited or put
Top 10 ethical dilemmas they proposed: forward by an authority figure that require
▪ A pregnant woman leading a group compliance.
of people out of a cave on a coast is
stuck in the mouth of that cave. In a b. RELIGION
short time, high tide will be upon Does Morality Depend on Religion?
them, and unless she is unstuck, by James Rachels
they will all be drowned except the (Chapter 4 of Rachels, The Elements of Morality 6th ed)
woman, whose head is out of the
cave. Fortunately, (or “The Good consists in always doing what God wills
unfortunately,) someone has with at any particular moment”.
him a stick of dynamite. There Emil Brunner, The Divine Imperative (1947)
seems no way to get the pregnant
woman loose without using the “I respect deities. I do not rely upon them.”
dynamite which will inevitably kill Musashi Miyamoto, at Ichijohi Temple (CA. 1608)
her; but if they do not use it
everyone will drown. What should
they do?
NJAA - BSN
1. The Presumed Connection between Morality and Religion

In 1987 the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) sued Judge Roy Moore of Gadsden, Alabama, for displaying
the Ten Commandments in his courtroom. Such a display, it said, violates the separation of church and state.
The ACLU may not have liked Moore, but Alabama voters did. I 2000, Moore successfully campaigned to
become chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, running on the premise to “restore the moral foundation
of law.” Thus the “Ten Commandments Judge became the most powerful jurist in the state of Alabama.

Moore was not through making his point, however. In the wee hours of July 31, 2001, he had a granite
monument to the ten Commandments installed in the Alabama state judicial building. This monument weighed
over five thousand pounds, and was anyone entering the building could not miss it. Moore was sued again, but
the people were behind him: 77% of Americans thought that he should be allowed to display his monument.
Yet the law did not agree. When Moore disobeyed a court order to remove it, the Alabama Court of the
Judiciary fired him, saying that he had placed himself above the law. Moore, however, believed that he was
putting God above the law.

Few people, at least in the United States, would find this remarkable. Among western democracies, the U.S. is
an unusually religious country. Nine out of ten Americans say they believe in a personal God; in Denmark and
Sweden, the figure is only one in five. It is not unusual for priests and ministers to be treated as moral experts.
Most hospitals, for example, have ethics committees, and these committees usually include three types of
members: healthcare professionals to advise about technical matters, lawyers to handle legal issues, and
religious representatives to address the moral questions. When newspapers want comments about the ethical
dimensions of a story, they call upon the clergy, and the clergy are happy to oblige. Priests and ministers are
assumed to be wise counselors who will give sound moral advice when it is needed.

Why are clergymen regarded this way? The reason is not that they have proven to be better or wiser than other
people - as a group, they seem to be neither better nor worse than the rest of us. There is a deeper reason why
they are regarded as having special moral insight. In popular thinking, morality and religion are inseparable:
People commonly believe that morality can be understood only in the context of religion. So, because the
clergymen are the spokesmen for religion, it is assumed that they must be spokesmen for morality as well.

It is not hard to see why people think this. When viewed from a nonreligious perspective, the universe seems to
be a cold, meaningless place, devoid of value and purpose. In his essay, A Free Man’s Worship, written in 1902,
Bertrand Russell expressed what he called the scientific view of the world:

That Man is the product of causes which had no prevision of the end they were achieving; that his origin, his
growth, his hopes and fears, his loves and his beliefs, are but the outcome of accidental collocations of atoms;
that no fire, no heroism, no intensity of thought and feeling, can preserve an individual life beyond the grave;
that all the labors of the ages, all the devotion, all the inspiration, all the noonday brightness of human genius,
are destined to extinction in the vast death of the solar system, and that the whole temple of Man’s
achievement must inevitable be buried beneath the debris of a universe in ruins - all these things, if not quite
beyond dispute, are yet so nearly certain, that no philosophy which rejects them can hope to stand. Only within
the scaffolding of these truths, only on the firm foundation of unyielding despair, can the soul’s habitation
henceforth be safely built.

From a religious perspective, however, things look very different. Judaism and Christianity teach that the world
was created by a loving, all-powerful God to provide a home for us. We, in turn, were created in his image, to
be his children. Thus, the world is not devoid of meaning and purpose. It is, instead, the arena in which God’s
plans and purposes are realized. What could be more natural, then, than to think that morality is a part of the
religious view of the world, whereas the atheist’s world has no place for values?

2. The Divine Command Theory

In the major theistic traditions, including Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, God is conceived as a lawgiver who
has laid down rules that we are to obey. He does not compel us to obey them. We were created as free agents,
so we may choose to accept or to reject his commandments. But if we are to live as we should live, we must
follow God’s laws. This conception has been elaborated by some theologians into a theory about the nature of
right and wrong known as the Divine Command Theory. Essentially, this theory says that morally right means
commanded by God and morally wrong means forbidden by God.

This theory has a number of attractive features. It immediately solves the old problem about the objectivity of
ethics. Ethics is not merely a matter of personal feeling or social custom. Whether something is right or wrong is
perfectly objective: It is right if God commands it, wrong if God forbids it. Moreover, the Divine Command
Theory suggests an answer to the perennial question of why anyone should bother with morality. Why not
forget about ethics and just look out for oneself? If immorality is the violation of God’s commandments, there is
an easy answer: On the day of final reckoning, you will be held accountable.

There are, however, serious problems for the theory, Of course, atheists would not accept it, because they do
not believe that God exists. But there are difficulties even for believers. The main problem was first noted by
Plato, the Greek Philosopher who lived 400 years before the birth of Jesus.
Plato’s writings were in the form of dialogues, usually between Socrates and one or more interlocutors. In one
of these dialogues, the Euthyphro, there is a discussion concerning whether right can be defined as that which
the gods command. Socrates is skeptical and asks: Is conduct right because the gods command it, or do the
gods command it because it is right? This is one of the most famous questions in the history of philosophy. The
British philosopher Antony Flew suggests that one good test of a person’s aptitude for philosophy is to discover
whether he can grasp its force and point.

The point is that if we accept the theological conception of right and wrong, we are caught in a dilemma.
Socrates question asks us to clarify what we mean. There are two things we might mean, and both lead to
trouble.

• First, we might mean that right conduct is right because God commands it. For example, according to
Exodus 20:16, God commands us to be truthful. On this option, the reason we should be truthful is simply
that God requires it. Apart from the divine command, truth telling is neither good nor bad. It is God’s
command that makes truthfulness right.

But this leads to trouble, for it represents God’s commands as arbitrary. It means that God could have given
different commands just as easily. He could have commanded us to be liars, and then lying, not truthfulness,
would be right. (You may be tempted to reply: But God would never command us to lie. But why not? If he did
endorse lying, God would not be commanding us to do wrong, because his command would make it right.)
Remember that on this view, honesty was not right before God commanded it. Therefore, he could have had no
more reason to command it than its opposite; and so, from a moral point of view, his command is arbitrary.

Another problem is that, on this view, the doctrine of the goodness of God is reduced to nonsense. It is
important to religious believers that God is not only all-powerful and all-knowing, but the he is also good; yet if
we accept the idea that good and bad are defined by reference to God’s will, this notion is deprived of any
meaning. What could it mean to say that God’s commands are good? If X is good means X is commanded by
God, then God’s commands are good would mean only God’s commands are commanded by God, an empty
truism. In 1686, Leibniz observed in his Discourse on Metaphysics:

So, in saying that things are not good by any rule of goodness, but sheerly by the will of God, it seems to me that
one destroys, without realizing it, all the love of God and all his glory. For why praise him for what he has done if
he would be equally praiseworthy in doing exactly the contrary?

Thus, if we choose the first of Socrates two options, we seem to be stuck with consequences that even the most
religious people would find unacceptable.

Unfortunately, however, this second option leads to a different problem, which is equally troublesome. In taking
this option, we have abandoned the theological conception of right and wrong - when we say that God
commands us to be truthful because truthfulness is right, we are acknowledging a standard of right and wrong
that is independent of God’s will. The rightness exists prior to and independent of God’s command, and it is the
reason for the command. Thus, if we want to know why we should be truthful, the reply Because God
commands it does not really tell us, for we may still ask but why does God command it? and the answer to that
question will provide the underlying reason why truthfulness is a good thing.

All this may be summarized in the following argument:

✓ Suppose God commands us to do what is right. Then either (a) the right actions are right because he
commands them or (b) he commands them because they are right.

✓ If we take option (a), the God’s commands are, from a moral point of view, arbitrary; moreover, the doctrine
of the goodness of God is rendered meaningless.

✓ If we take option (b), then we will have acknowledged a standard of right and wrong that is independent of
God’s will. We will have, in effect, given up the theological conception of right and wrong.

✓ Therefore, we must either regard God’s commands as arbitrary, and give up the doctrine of the goodness of
God, or admit that there is a standard of right and wrong that is independent of his will, and give up the
theological conception of right and wrong.

✓ From a religious point of view, it is unacceptable to regard God’s commands as arbitrary or to give up the
doctrine of the goodness of God.

✓ Therefore, even from a religious point of view, a standard of right and wrong that is independent of God’s
will must be accepted.

Many religious people believe that they must accept a theological conception of right and wrong because it
would be impious no to do so. They feel, somehow, that if they believe in God, they should say that right and
wrong are to be defined in terms of his will. But this argument suggests otherwise: It suggests that, on the
contrary, the Divine Command Theory itself leads to impious results, so that a devout person should not accept
it. And in fact, some of the greatest theologians, such as St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274), rejected the theory
for just this reason. Thinkers such as Aquinas connect morality with religion in a different way.
3. Religion and Moral Issues

Some religious people will find the preceding discussion unsatisfying. It will seem too abstract to have any
bearing on their actual moral lives. For them, the connection between morality and religion is an immediate,
practical matter that centers on particular moral issues. It doesn’t matter whether right and wrong are defined
in terms of God’s will or whether moral laws are laws of nature: Whatever the merits of such theories, there are
still the moral teachings of one’s religion about particular issues. The teachings of the Scriptures and the church
are regarded as authoritative, determining the moral positions one must take. To mention only one example,
many Christians think that they have no choice but to oppose abortion because it is condemned both by the
church and (they assume) by the Scriptures.

Are there, in fact, distinctively religious positions on major moral issues, which believer are bound to accept? If
so, are those positions different from the views that other people might reach simply by trying to reason out
the best thing to do? The rhetoric of the pulpit suggests that the answer to both questions is yes. But there are
several reasons to think otherwise.

In the first place, it is often difficult to find specific moral guidance in the Scriptures. Our problems are not the
same as the problems faced by the Jews and the early Christians many centuries ago; thus, it is not surprising
that the Scriptures might be silent about moral issues that seem urgent to us. The Bible contains a number of
general precepts, such the injunctions to love one’s neighbor and to treat others as one would wish to be
treated oneself, that might be thought relevant to a variety of issues. But worthy as those precepts are, they do
not yield definite answers about exactly what position one should take concerning the rights of workers, the
extinction of species, the funding of medical research, and so on.

Another problem is that in many instances the Scriptures and church tradition are ambiguous. Authorities
disagree, leaving the believer in the awkward position of having to choose which element of the tradition to
accept and which authority to believe. Read plainly, for example, the New Testament condemns being rich, and
there is a long tradition of self-denial and charitable giving that affirms this teaching. But there is also an
obscure Old Testament figure named Jabez who asked God to enlarge my territories (I Chronicles 4:10), and
God did. A recent book urging Christians to adopt Jabez as their model became a best-seller.

Thus, when people say that their moral views are derived from their religious commitments, they are often
mistaken. In reality, something very different is going on. They are making up their minds about the moral
issues first and then interpreting the Scriptures, or church tradition, in such a way as to support the moral
conclusion they have already reached. Of course, this does not happen in every case, but it seems fair to say
that it happens often. The question of riches is one example; abortion is another.

In the debate over abortion, religious issues are never far from the center of discussion. Religious conservatives
hold that the fetus is a human being from the moment of conception, and so they say killing it is really a form of
murder. They do not believe it should be the mother’s choice whether to have an abortion, because that would
be like saying she is free to commit murder.

The key premise in the conservative argument is that the fetus is a human being from the moment of
conception. The fertilized ovum is not merely a potential human being but an actual human being with a full-
fledged right to life. Liberals, of course, deny this - they say that, at least during the early weeks of pregnancy,
the embryo is something less than a full human being.

The debate over the humanity of the fetus is enormously complicated, but here we are concerned with just one
small part of it. Conservative Christians sometimes say that, regardless of how secular thought might view the
fetus, the Christian view is that the fetus is a human being from its very beginning. But is this view mandatory
for Christians? What evidence might be offered to show this? One might appeal to the Scriptures or to church
tradition.

The Scriptures. It is difficult to derive a prohibition of abortion from either the Jewish or the Christian
Scriptures. The Bible does not speak plainly on the matter. There are certain passages, however, that are often
quoted by conservatives because they seem to suggest that fetuses have full human status. One of the most
frequently cited passages is from the first chapter of Jeremiah, in which God is quoted as saying: Before I
formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born, I consecrated you. These words are presented
as though they were God’s endorsement of the conservative positions: They are taken to mean that the unborn,
as well as the born, are consecrated to God.

In context, however, these words obviously mean something quite different. Suppose we read the whole
passage in which they occur:

Now the word of the Lord came to me saying, Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you
were born, I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations.

Then I said, Ah, Lord God! Behold, I do not know how to speak, for I am only a youth. But the Lord said to me,

Do not say I am only a youth for to all to whom I send you shall go, and whatever I command you shall speak. Be
not afraid of them, for I am with you to deliver you, says the Lord.

Neither abortion, the sanctity of fetal life, nor anything else of the kind is being discussed in this passage.
Instead, Jeremiah is asserting his authority as a prophet. He is saying, in effect, God authorized me to speak for
him; even though I resisted, he commanded me to speak. But Jeremiah puts the point more poetically; he has
God saying that God had intended him to be a prophet even before Jeremiah was born.

This often happens when the Scriptures are cited in connection with controversial moral issues. A few words are
lifted from a passage that is concerned with something entirely different from the issue at hand, and those
words are then construed in a way that supports a favored moral position. When this happens, is it accurate to
say that the person is following the moral teachings of the Bible? Or is it more accurate to say the he or she is
searching the Scriptures for support of a moral view he or she already happens to think is right, and reading the
desired conclusion into the Scriptures? If the latter, it suggests an especially impious attitude - an attitude that
assumes God himself must share one’s own moral opinions. In the case of the passage from Jeremiah, it is hard
to see how an impartial reader could think the words have anything to do with abortion, even by implication.

The scriptural passage that comes closest to making a specific judgment about the moral status of fetuses
occurs in the 21st chapter of Exodus. This chapter is part of a detailed description of the law of the ancient
Israelites. Here the penalty for murder is said to be death; however, it is also said that if a pregnant woman is
caused to have a miscarriage, the penalty is only a fine, to be paid by her husband. Murder was not a category
that included fetuses. The Law of Israel apparently regarded fetuses as something less than full human beings.

Church Tradition. Even if there is little scriptural basis for it, the contemporary church’s stand is strongly
antiabortion. The typical churchgoer will hear ministers, priests, and bishops denouncing abortion in the
strongest terms. It is no wonder, then, that many people feel that their religious commitment binds them to
oppose abortion.

But it is worth noting that the church has not always taken this view. In fact, the idea that the fetus is a human
being from the moment of conception is a relatively new idea, even within the Christian church. St. Thomas
Aquinas held that an embryo does not have a soul until several weeks into the pregnancy. Aquinas accepted
Aristotle’s view that the soul is the substantial form of man. We need not go into this somewhat technical
notion, except to note that one implication is that one cannot have a human soul until one’s body has a
recognizably human shape. Aquinas knew that a human embryo does not have a human shape from the
moment of conception, and he drew the indicated conclusion. Aquinas’s view of the matter was officially
accepted by the church at the Council of Vienne in 1312, and to this day it has never been officially repudiated.

However, in the 17th century, a curious view of fetal development came to be accepted, and this has
unexpected consequences for the church’s view of abortion. Peering through primitive microscopes at fertilized
ova, some scientists imagined that they saw tiny, perfectly formed people. They called the little person a
homunculus, and the idea took hold that from the very beginning the human embryo is a fully formed creature
that needs only to get bigger and bigger until it is ready to be born.

If the embryo has a human shape from the moment of conception, then it follows, according to Aristotle’s and
Aquinas’s philosophy, that it can have a human soul from the moment of conception. The church drew this
conclusion and embraced the conservative view of abortion. The homunculus, it said, is clearly a human being,
and so it is wrong to kill it.

However, as our understanding of human biology progressed, scientists began to realize that this view of fetal
development was wrong. There is no homunculus; that was a mistake. Today we know that Aquinas’s original
thought was right - embryos start out as a cluster of cells; human form comes later. But when the biological
error was corrected, the church’s moral view did not revert to the older position. Having adopted the theory
that the fetus is a human being from the moment of conception, the church did not let it go and held fast to the
conservative view of abortion. The council of Vienne notwithstanding, it has held that view to this day.

Because the church did not traditionally regard abortion as a serious moral issue, Western law (which
developed under the church’s influence) did not traditionally treat abortion as a crime. Under the English
common law, abortion was tolerated even if performed late in the pregnancy. In the United States, there were
no laws prohibiting it until well into the 19th century. Thus, when the U.S. Supreme Court declared the absolute
prohibition of abortion to be unconstitutional in 1973, the Court was not overturning a long tradition of moral
and legal opinion. It was only restoring a legal situation that had always existed until quite recently.

The purpose of reviewing this history is not to suggest that the contemporary church’s position is wrong. For all
that has been said here, its view may be right. I only want to make a point about the relation between religious
authority and moral judgment. Church tradition, like Scripture, is reinterpreted by every generation to support
its favored moral views. Abortion is just an example of this. We could just as easily have used shifting moral and
religious views about slavery, or the status of women, or capital punishment, as our example. In each instance,
people’s moral convictions are not so much derived from their religion as superimposed on it.

The various arguments in this chapter point to a common conclusion. Right and wrong are not to be defined in
terms of God’s will; morality is a matter of reason and conscience, not religious faith; and in any case, religious
considerations do not provide definitive solutions to the specific moral problems that confront us. Morality and
religion are, in a word, different. Because this conclusion is contrary to conventional wisdom, it may strike some
readers as anti-religious. Therefore, it should be emphasized that this conclusion has not been reached by
questioning the validity of religion. The arguments we have considered do not assume that Christianity or any
other theological system is false; these arguments merely show that even if such a system is true, morality
remains an independent matter.
c. CULTURE o That means you use your own culture as the
- Cultural Relativism holds that the norms of a center and evaluate other cultures based on
culture reign supreme within the bounds of the it.
culture itself. o You are judging, or making assumptions
- How is culture defined? about the food of other countries based on
o What if someone told you their culture was your own norms, values, or beliefs. Thinking
the internet? Would that make sense to “dried squid is smelly” or “people shouldn’t
you? eat insects” are examples of ethnocentrism
o Culture is the beliefs, behaviors, objects, in societies where people may not eat dried
and other characteristics shared by groups squid or insects.
of people. o Cartoon showing a person offering another
o Given this, someone could very well say man some deep-fried crickets. The man
that they are influenced by internet culture, who is being offered the crickets says "um, I
rather than an ethnicity or a society. think I'll pass."
o Culture could be based on shared ethnicity, o Is ethnocentrism bad or good? On the one
gender, customs, values, or even objects. hand, ethnocentrism can lead to negative
o Can you think of any cultural objects? Some judgments of the behaviors of groups or
cultures place significant value in things societies. It can also lead to discrimination
such as ceremonial artifacts, jewelry, or against people who are different. For
even clothing. For example, Christmas trees example, in many countries, religious
can be considered ceremonial or cultural minorities (religions that are not the
objects. They are representative in both dominant religion) often face
Western religious and commercial holiday discrimination. But on the other hand,
culture. ethnocentrism can create loyalty among the
o In addition, culture can also demonstrate same social group or people in the same
the way a group thinks, their practices, or society. For example, during the World Cup
behavioral patterns, or their views of the or Olympics, you may tend to root for your
world. For example, in some countries like own country and believe that the players or
China, it is acceptable to stare at others in teams representing your country are much
public, or to stand very close to others in better. National pride is also part of
public spaces. In South Africa, if you board a ethnocentrism.
nearly empty bus or enter a nearly empty o To avoid judging the cultural practices of
movie theater, it is regarded as polite to sit groups that are different to yours, we can
next to the only person there. On the other use the cultural relativism approach.
hand, in a recent study of Greyhound bus o Cultural relativism refers to not judging a
trips in the US, a researcher found that the culture to our own standards of what is
greatest unspoken rule of bus-taking is that right or wrong, strange or normal. Instead,
if other seats are available, one should we should try to understand cultural
never sit next to another person. Numerous practices of other groups in its own cultural
passengers expressed that “it makes you context. For example, instead of thinking,
look weird”. “Fried crickets are disgusting!” one should
o These are all examples of cultural norms instead ask, “Why do some cultures eat
that people in one society may be used to. fried insects?”. You may learn that fried
Norms that you are used to are neither crickets or grasshoppers are full of protein
right nor wrong, just different. Picture and in Mexico, it is famous Oaxaca regional
walking into a nearly empty movie theater cuisine and have been eaten for thousands
when visiting another country, and not of years as a healthy food source!
sitting next to the only person in the o Cartoon showing a person offering another
theater. Another person walks up and tells man some deep-fried crickets. The man
you off for being rude. You, not used to who is being offered the crickets asks to
these norms, feel confused, and anxious. know more about them.
This disorientation you feel is an example of o Some people worry that the concept of
culture shock. culture can also be abused and
o Cartoon showing two people in an empty misinterpreted.
movie theater. One person is saying "you're o If one culture behaves one way, does that
a jerk" to the person who sat far away from mean all cultures can behave that way as
him. well? For example, many countries and
international organizations oppose the act
- What is cultural relativism? of whaling (the fishing of whales) for
o Have you ever seen or eaten food from environmental reasons. These
another country, such as dried squid or environmental organizations say that there
fried crickets and think of it as weird and are not many whales left and such fishing
gross? This is an example of ethnocentrism. practices should be stopped. However,

NJAA - BSN
 other countries argue that whaling is a violates the societal and ethical standards by which we
cultural practice that has been around for have been taught to govern our lives.
thousands of years. Because it may be part
of a country’s oceanic culture, this country VI. What is Ethics?
may say that such a cultural practice should
- The Latin word “mos” or “moris” (and its plural
not be opposed based on cultural
mores) from which the adjective moral is
differences, say, by an inland country that
derived is equivalent to ethos.
does not understand. Who gets to define
- Etymologically, ethics is but a survey of patterns
what a moral cultural behavior is? Is
of behavior that is done by the human being in
whaling immoral? Two different cultures
general or a society in particular.
may have very different answers, as we saw
- Ethics, generally speaking is about matters such
in the above example. Another more
as the good thing that we should pursue and
extreme instance would be female genital
the bad thing that we should avoid; the right
cutting in some parts of the world. Locally,
ways in w/c we could or should act and the
it is argued that the practice has cultural
wrong ways of acting.
roots, but such a practice has raised
- It is about what is acceptable and unacceptable
concerns among many international human
in human behavior.
rights organizations.
- It may involve obligations that we are. Ethics as
o Anthropologists say that when we think
a subject for us to study is about determining
about different cultures and societies, we
the grounds for the values w/ particular and
should think about their customs in a way
special significance to human life.
that helps us make sense of how their
cultural practices fits with their overall
VII. Senses of the Self
cultural context. For example, having
several wives perhaps makes economic
• Subjectivism - The starting point of subjectivism is
sense among herders who move around
the recognition that the individual thinking person
frequently. Through such an understanding,
(the subject) is at the heart of all moral valuations.
polygamy makes cultural sense. She is the one who is confronted with the situation
and is burdened with the need to make a decision
V. Branches of Ethics or judgment. From this point, subjectivism leaps to
the more radical claim that the individual is the sole
1. Normative Ethics - The largest branch, it deals
determinant of what is morally good or bad, right or
with how individuals can figure out the correct
wrong.
moral action that they should take.
Philosophers such as Socrates and John Stuart • Ethical Subjectivism:
Mill are included in this branch of ethics.
- The basic thought of Ethical Subjectivism is the
idea that our moral opinions are based on our
2. Meta-Ethics - This branch seeks to understand
feelings and nothing more. On this view, there
the nature of ethical properties and judgments is no such thing as “objective” right and wrong.
such as if truth values can be found and the
theory behind moral principles. - Subjectivism teaches that there are no objective
moral truths out there.
3. Applied Ethics - This is the study of applying o There are no objective moral facts.
theories from philosophers regarding ethics in Therefore 'murder is wrong' can't
be objectively true
everyday life. For example, this area of ethics
asks questions such as "Is it right to have an
- Many forms of subjectivism go a bit further and
abortion?" and "Should you turn in your friend
teach that moral statements describe how the
at your workplace for taking home office speaker feels about a particular ethical issue.
supplies?" o Moral statements are just factual
statements about the attitude the
4. Moral Ethics - This branch questions how speaker holds on a particular issue
individuals develop their morality, why certain o So, if I say "Lying is wrong", all I'm doing is
aspects of morality differ between cultures and telling you that I disapprove of telling lies
why certain aspects of morality are generally
universal. - Some forms of subjectivism generalize this idea
to come up with:
5. Descriptive Ethics - This branch is more o Moral statements are just factual
statements about the attitude normal
scientific in its approach and focuses on how
human beings hold on a particular issue.
human beings actually operate in the real
world, rather than attempt to theorize about - And this may ultimately lead us to this
how they should operate. conclusion about moral truths:
o Moral judgements are dependent on the
Knowing how to best resolve difficult moral and ethical feelings and attitudes of the persons who
dilemmas is never easy especially when any choice think about such things
NJAA - BSN
• Good points of subjectivism: - Moral statements seem more than statements
about feelings
a. Reflects the subjective elements of morality. o By and large if a person says something is
o it reflects the close relationship between wrong, we usually get the message that
morality and people's feelings and opinions they disapprove of that something, but
- indeed it can cope with the contradictory most of us probably think that the other
moral views we often find ourselves person is doing more than just telling us
wrestling with about their feelings.
b. Reflects the evaluative elements of moral
statements. - How can we blame people if moral truths are
o moral statements in everyday life make always subjective?
judgements ("lying is wrong"), factual o If moral statements have no objective truth,
statements ("cats have fur") don't then how can we blame people for
behaving in a way that 'is wrong', i.e., if
c. Shows that moral judgements communicate "murder is wrong" has no objective truth,
dis/approval. then how can we justify punishing people
o it reflects the communication of approval for murder?
and disapproval that seems to go along with o One answer is that we can justify
the everyday making of moral statements punishment for murder on the basis of the
objective truth that most normal people in
d. May clarify what people are arguing about. society disapprove of murder. If we do this,
o subjectivism may enable people disagreeing we should not pretend that our justification
over the rightness or wrongness of some is based on anything other than the
issue to see that the real dispute is not majority view.
about objective truth but about their own
preferences • Psychological Egoism
- “Human beings are naturally self-centered, so
e. Reflects the persuasive intentions behind all our action is always already motivated by
ethical discussions. self-interest.” This theory that describes the
o subjectivism may also enable people underlying dynamic behind all human actions.
engaging in moral argument to realize that As a descriptive theory, it does not direct one to
they are not arguing about objective truths act in any particular way. Instead, it points out
but trying to persuade their opponent to that there is already an underlying basis for how
adopt their point of view one acts. The ego or self has its desires and
interest, and all our actions are geared toward
I disapprove: but surely ethics is about more than satisfying these interests.
feelings.

• Bad Points of Subjectivism: • Ethical Egoism

- it differs from psychological egoism in that it
- The problem with subjectivism is that it seems does not suppose all our actions are already
to imply that moral statements are less inevitably self-serving. Instead, ethical egoism
significant than most people think they are - prescribes that we should make our own ends,
this may of course be true without rendering our own interest, as the single overriding
moral statements insignificant. concern. We may act in a way that is beneficial
to others, but we should do that only if it
- "If I approve of something, it must be good" ultimately benefits us.
o Subjectivism seems to tell us that moral
statements give information only about - Ethical egoism is the view that people ought to
what we feel about moral issues. pursue their own self-interest, and no one has
o If the simplest form of subjectivism is true any obligation to promote anyone else’s
then when a person who genuinely interests. It is thus a normative or prescriptive
approves of telling lies says "telling lies is theory: it is concerned with how people ought
good" that moral statement is unarguably to behave. In this respect, ethical egoism is
true. It would only be untrue if the speaker quite different from psychological egoism, the
didn't approve of telling lies. theory that all our actions are ultimately self-
o So, under this theory it seems that all the interested. Psychological egoism is a purely
speaker has to do to prove that lying is descriptive theory that purports to describe a
good is to show lots of evidence that they basic fact about human nature.
do indeed approve of lying - perhaps that
they tell lots of lies and feel good about it, • Arguments In Support of Ethical Egoism
indeed are surprised if anyone criticizes 1. Adam Smith (1723 - 1790)
them for being a liar, and that they often
- Scottish political economist and philosopher
praise other people for telling lies. - Everyone pursuing his own self-interest is the
o Most people would find this way of
best way to promote the general good. This
approaching ethics somewhat unhelpful, argument was made famous by Bernard
and wouldn't think it reflected the way in Mandeville (1670-1733) in his poem "The Fable
which most people talk about ethical issues. of the Bees" and by Adam Smith (1723-1790) in

NJAA - BSN
 his pioneering work on economics, "The Wealth - This is something people are routinely praised
of Nations." for doing, encouraged to do, and in some
- In a famous passage, Smith wrote that when circumstances even required to do, such as
individuals single-mindedly pursue “the when you pay taxes to support the needy.
gratification of their own vain and insatiable According to Rand, no one has any right to
desires” they unintentionally, as if “led by an expect or demand that I make any sacrifices for
invisible hand,” benefit society as a whole. This the sake of anyone other than myself.
happy result comes about because people - Russian-born American author and philosopher
generally are the best judges of what is in their Ayn Rand, smiles and stands outdoors with her
own interest, and they are much more arms folded, in front of the Grand Central
motivated to work hard to benefit themselves building, midtown Manhattan, New York City.
than to achieve any other goal. - A problem with this argument is that it seems to
- An obvious objection to this argument, though, assume that there is generally a conflict
is that it doesn’t really support ethical egoism. It between pursuing your own interests and
assumes that what really matters is the well- helping others. In fact, though, most people
being of society as a whole, the general good. It would say that these two goals are not
then claims that the best way to achieve this necessarily opposed at all. Much of the time
end is for everyone to look out for themselves. they complement one another.
But if it could be proved that this attitude did - For instance, one student may help a
not, in fact, promote the general good, then housemate with her homework, which is
those who advance this argument would altruistic. But that student also has an interest
presumably stop advocating egoism. in enjoying good relations with her housemates.
She may not help everyone in all circumstances,
2. Prisoner's Dilemma but she will help if the sacrifice involved is not
- Another objection is that what the argument too great. Most people behave like this, seeking
states is not always true. Consider the a balance between egoism and altruism.
prisoner’s dilemma, for instance. This is a
hypothetical situation described in game 4. More Objections to Ethical Egoism
theory. You and a comrade, (call him X) are - Ethical egoism is not a very popular moral
being held in prison. You are both asked to philosophy. This is because it goes against
confess. certain basic assumptions that most people
- The terms of the deal you are offered are as have regarding what ethics involves. Two
follows: objections seem especially powerful.
o If you confess and X doesn’t, you get six - Ethical egoism has no solutions to offer when a
months and he gets 10 years. problem arises involving conflicts of interest.
o If X confesses and you don’t, he gets six Many ethical issues are of this sort. For
months and you get 10 years. example, a company wants to empty waste into
o If you both confess, you both get five years. a river; the people living downstream object.
o If neither of you confesses, you both get Ethical egoism advises that both parties actively
two years. pursue what they want. It doesn’t suggest any
- Regardless of what X does, the best thing for sort of resolution or commonsense
you to do is confess. Because if he doesn’t compromise.
confess, you’ll get a light sentence; and if he - Ethical egoism goes against the principle of
does confess, you’ll at least avoid getting extra impartiality. A basic assumption made by many
prison time. But the same reasoning holds for X moral philosophers—and many other people,
as well. According to ethical egoism, you should for that matter—is that we should not
both pursue your rational self-interest. But then discriminate against people on arbitrary
the outcome is not the best one possible. You grounds such as race, religion, sex, sexual
both get five years, whereas if both of you had orientation or ethnic origin. But ethical egoism
put your self-interest on hold, you’d each only holds that we should not even try to be
get two years. impartial. Rather, we should distinguish
- The point of this is simple. It isn’t always in your between ourselves and everyone else, and give
best interest to pursue your own self-interest ourselves preferential treatment.
without concern for others. Sacrificing your own o To many, this seems to contradict the very
interests for the good of others denies the essence of morality. The golden rule—
fundamental value of your own life to yourself. versions of which appear in Confucianism,
Buddhism, Judaism, Christianity, and
3. Ayn Rand's Objectivism Islam—says we should treat others as we
- This seems to be the sort of argument put would like to be treated. One of the
forward by Ayn Rand, the leading exponent of greatest moral philosophers of modern
“objectivism” and the author of "The times, Immanuel Kant (1724-1804), argued
Fountainhead" and "Atlas Shrugged." Her that the fundamental principle of morality
complaint is that the Judeo-Christian moral (the “categorical imperative,” in his jargon)
tradition, which includes—or has fed into— is that we should not make exceptions of
modern liberalism and socialism, pushes an ourselves. According to Kant, we shouldn’t
ethic of altruism. Altruism means putting the perform an action if we cannot honestly
interests of others before your own. wish that everyone would behave in a
similar way in the same circumstances.

NJAA - BSN
VIII. Morality and Ethics • FREE WILL vs. DETERMINISM
- It includes cognates such as ethical, unethical,
immoral, amoral, 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
ambiguous. 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.
- 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 • NATURAL LAW vs. MAN’S LAW
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.
- However, acceptable and unacceptable
behaviors are also generally described as
“ethical” and “unethical”, respectively. • WHAT ARE HUMAN ACTS?
- In addition, with regard to the acceptable and - Human acts are those acts that man does with
unacceptable ways of behaving in a given field, full knowledge and of his own will.
we have the term “professional ethics” - It pertains to every action that proceeds from
- Therefore, various thinkers and writers posit a the deliberate will of a human being.
distinction between the terms “moral” and
“ethics” and they may have good reasons for • WHAT ARE ACTS OF MAN?
doing so, but there is no consensus as to how to - Acts that one performs without the knowledge
make that distinction. Ordinary conversation of the intellect and without the decision of the
presents as much less rigid distinction between will.
these terms, and in this book, we will lean in - Acts of man are not the concern of morals,
that direction as we do not need to occupy since they are not voluntary.
ourselves here with the question how different - The natural acts of vegetative and sense
thinkers and writers construe that distinction. faculties (digestion, beating of the heart,
growth, corporal reactions, and visual or
NOTES auditory perceptions).
- Acts of persons who lack the use of reason
• META-ETHICAL vs. DESCRIPTIVE vs. NORMATIVE (children or insane persons)
- Acts of people who are asleep or under the
influence of hypnosis, alcohol, or other drugs. In
this case, however, there may still be some
degree of control by the will. Also, there is
indirect responsibility if the cause of the loss of
control is voluntary.
- Acts performed under violence or threat of
violence.

• IGNORANCE
- Lack or absence of knowledge in a person
capable of knowing a certain thing or things.

a. Invincible Ignorance
o The type of ignorance which cannot be
dispelled by ordinary diligence.
NJAA - BSN
 o It may be impossible for the individual
to remove his ignorance because he has
no way of suspecting that he is
ignorant.

Example: A waiter is not aware of the poison on the

food that he serves.

b. Vincible Ignorance
o The type of ignorance which can and
should be dispelled.

Example: A manila resident who violates traffic laws

due to his ignorance of such laws is still responsible.

NJAA - BSN