Philosophical Ethics

Extracts, Encapsulations, and Evaluations

i
Philosophical
Ethics
Extracts, Encapsulations, and Evaluations

Jake Bendo Calagos

iii
 PHILOSOPHICAL ETHICS
Extracts, Encapsulations, and Evaluations (First Edition)

Copyright ©2020 by Jake Bendo Calagos

ISBN 978-621-96006-4-4

Published by G.E. Manaog Publishing Consultancy Services

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be

reproduced in any form or by any means without
written permission from author.

Cover Design and Layout by Quincy Alivio

The National Library of the Philippines CIP Data

Calagos, Jake Bendo.

Philosophical ethics : extracts, encapsulations, and evaluations /
Jake Bendo Calagos. -- [Rizal, Philippines] :
G.E. Manaog Publishing Consultancy Services,[2020],©2020.
80 pages, cm

ISBN 978-621-96006-4-4

1. Ethics, Philosophy. I. Title.

170 BJ1012 P020200090

Published in the Philippines

iv
In memory of Demetrio Cardinas and Joey Acosta

v
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Perpetual gratitude to the following for their assistance:

My Family
Fr. Gwen Barde, CP
CKC College Department
Nikko Panganoron
Dr. Gina A. Opiniano
Dr. Charlie M. Dagwasi
Philosophical Association of the Philippines

vi
 CONTENTS

Preface viii
About The Course 1
Introduction 3
Module 1 Evolution Of The ‘Good’ The
Greek Perspective 9
Module 2 Plato’s Lysis:
The Complexity Of Desire 13
Module 3 The Myth Of Gyges,
And Egoism Versus Altruism 18
Module 4 Aristotle’s Virtue Ethics 24
Module 5 St. Thomas Aquinas:
Natural Law And Conscience 31
Module 6 Immanuel Kant:
Categorical Imperativ 40
Module 7 Utilitarianism:
Jeremy Bentham 51
Module 8 Utilitarianism:
John Stuart Mill 58
Module 9 The Self In Relation To
Culture And Environment 63
References 67
About The Author 70

vii
 PREFACE

This work is designed as a handbook for a one semester course

on Ethics: Foundations of Moral Valuation. The topics of
Essential Concepts and Principles, Basic Discourses, and
Relativism and Pluralism are not included in this book for
they shall be dealt through synchronous online modality. The
book presents the moral theories and contextualized practical
situations to aid comprehension. Each module of this book
complies with the CHED Memorandum Order No. 20, series
of 2013. The modules are arranged historically. Each module
has three parts:
Extract — Extracted analysis of philosophical theories and
texts arranged historically with contextualized situational
articulations.
Encapsulation — A concise, and precise summary as if
an encapsulated nutrients available for intellectual intake.
Evaluation — Evaluation activity to assess learning.
This work is a supplement material for comprehensive learning
of the course through critical thinking and philosophical
articulation. Scientia maxime cum virtute! Knowledge is best
with virtue!

viii
 ABOUT THE COURSE

Objectives
The course will explore the basic concepts in ethics, moral
theories, and applications of ethics. The exploration will
involve critical thinking and training students to articulate
philosophically.

Learning Outcomes in this Book

Upon completion of the course, the students will be able to:
1. Explain the relevance of the course, articulate the Levels
of Adjectives, and contextualize causal understanding of
an action;
2. Articulate the development of the source of the evaluative
adjectives in the Greek perspective;
3. Articulate the difference of ‘moral’ from ‘ethical,’ the
Socratic method of dialogue, and ‘desire’ as determiner
of moral alignment;
4. Explain and situate responsible authority, egoism, and
altruism;
5. Explain the notion of ‘teleology,’ and the way of the
phronimos;
6. Articulate and contextualize the levels of law, and the
notion of informed conscience;
7. Apply the concepts of autonomous will, duty, and
categorical imperative to moral actions, and be able to
evaluate actions by using the universalizability test;

1
 PHILOSOPHICAL ETHICS

8. Explain the Principle of Utility, learn Felicific Calculus, and

contextualize Act-Utilitarianism and Rule Utilitarianism;
9. Explain the idea of Qualitative Utilitarianism; and
10. Explain the concept of cultural relativism.

Methodologies
The course will employ the following methodologies: Offline
and online discussions, comparative study analysis, and
evaluation techniques.

2
 INTRODUCTION

Lesson Objectives
1. Explain Ethics as a branch of Philosophy;
2. Articulate the focus of the course which is analyzing the
foundations evaluative adjectives that give valuations
to actions;
3. Explain the importance of causal understanding of an
action; and
4. Relate to a local social setting the idea of evaluative
predicates.

Extract
In his introductory book in Philosophy, Paul Gerard Horrigan
briefly introduces Ethics:
Ethics is defined as the practical science of the
morality of human conduct. It is a practical science
for its data directly implies rules or directions for
thought or action, and in this case, directions for
human conduct. By human conduct is meant only
such human activity that is deliberate and free. Ethics
is the science of the morality of human conduct.
Human conduct is an activity that can be in accord
with the dictates of reason or against it.1

1
Paul Gerard Horrigan, Introduction to Philosophy, 179, accessed July 7, 2020, www.justgetstart-
ed19.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/introduction-to-philosophy-by-paul-gerard-horrigan.pdf .

3
 PHILOSOPHICAL ETHICS

What makes our actions right or wrong? How is goodness

accounted and appraised? Why does one have to live well?
These are the primary questions of moral discourse which
the students of ethics shall explore. In this module, critical
thinking and training students to articulate philosophically shall
be involved in the exploration in this course.

PHILOSOPHY
The word ‘Philosophy’ comes from two Greek words: φιλω
(Philo) which can mean “love,” “friend,” or “lover,” and
σοφία (Sophia) which translates to “wisdom.” Φιλοσοφία
means “love of wisdom.” At first, the early Greek thinkers
had described themselves as “wise men” but tradition has
it that, out of humility, Pythagoras had called himself a
“philosopher” (philosophus) or “friend or lover of wisdom.”2
From then on, the term “philosopher” had replaced that of
“wise man.”3
Philosophy can be understood in two ways: as a “way of life”
and as a “speculative discipline.” Philosophy as a way of life
is a way of responding to the world. Living morally is a way of
responding to the world. It is reflective of life. It is understood
as a way of being or way of living. As a speculative discipline,
Philosophy is a distinct science in the tree of knowledge. It is
considered as a science because it follows distinct methods
and aims. The methods of philosophizing are logic, analytic
tradition, phenomenology, and existentialism.

2
Paul Gerard Horrigan, Introduction to Philosophy, 1.
3
Ibid.

4
 E X T R A C T S , E N C A P S U L AT I O N S , A N D E VA L U AT I O N S

In general, Philosophy is a rational investigation of the

truths and principles of being, knowledge, or conduct.4
Metaphysics deals with the truths and principles of being,
Epistemology for knowledge, and Ethics for conduct.
Metaphysics, Epistemology, and Ethics are the main branches
of Philosophy.

Evaluative Adjectives are Valuations of our

Actions

EAT SLEEP WALK WORK

Notice that the above mentioned are acts that are part of being
an animal (active living) but for a human person they are not
simple enough. There has to be a qualification.

EAT

SLEEP
WELL
WALK

WORK

You should not just eat delicious food. You should also eat
nutritious food. You don’t just simply sleep. You must have
enough sleep. You have to walk properly. You have to work

4
Dictionary.com, s.v. “philosophy,” accessed June 29, 2020, www.www.dictionary.com/browse/
philosophy .

5
 PHILOSOPHICAL ETHICS

productively. Why should there be a proper way? Where is the

qualification (i.e. well) coming from? Look into the evaluative
terms or objectives of appraisal.
Example: lengthy sleep - adjective of description
bad sleep - adjective of appraisal
There are two levels of adjectives. Evaluative adjectives come
to refer to dispositions to behave in certain ways relatively
independent of social function. We shall deal with the
foundations of these evaluative adjectives that give value to
our actions. A Descriptive Adjective talks about how we look
at the subject. This is also known as Objective Adjectives. An
Evaluative Adjective talks about the subject’s evaluation of
an object.

The Three Dominant Aspirations (ethical

framework) to Analyze the ‘Good’
• VIRTUE — You habitually do the act because it is nice.
• DEONTOLOGICAL — You need to do otherwise...
• UTILITARIAN — You do the act because of pleasurable
result.
The aspiration of Virtue is focused on the “person.” The
Deontological aspiration is focused on the “act.” The Utilitarian
aspiration is focused on the “end.”

Causal Understanding of the Act

Why do we ought to do what is good? Let’s try an example.
Read the Parable of the Good Samaritan at Luke 10: 25-37.
What justifies the action of the Samaritan and those who did

6
 E X T R A C T S , E N C A P S U L AT I O N S , A N D E VA L U AT I O N S

not help the injured? Why is it called “good?” If you were on

the Samaritan’s shoes, would you have the chance to examine:
“Why did you help?” Is pressure the reason for you were
running for public office? Is it because of the doctrine of your
faith? Is it because of ‘conscience’?
We just decide in some moments. You are left to decide on your
own according to what you will do to the old man. There is a
sense of evaluation. Others will just go on and not evaluate.
What makes the act good? You can justify in three ways.
Intrapersonal Justification would tell that there is something
inside the lady that prompted her to act. Interpersonal
Justification would tell that she acted even if it was against
her will (to satisfy communal expectation). Metapersonal
Justification would tell about her being a ‘believer’.

Contextualization
In many places, adjectives of appraisals or evaluative predicates
have something to do with quasi-material reality. For example,
you stop because you smell something bad (e.g. the manure
of a cow). Suppose you coincidently and surprisingly meet
a person you don’t like, hence you exclaim at him/her: “Tae
ka!” You describe a person according to a material reality. How
come a material you do not like describes a person you do not
like? Why does this happen. It is because one does not have a
vocabulary. You describe a person according to the thing you
like or you don’t like. How can a person merit the appraisal
of a material?

7
 PHILOSOPHICAL ETHICS

Encapsulation
Philosophy is a rational investigation of the truths and
principles of being, knowledge, and conduct. Ethics deals
with the foundations of moral valuations. The foundations
evaluative adjectives give value to our actions. There are
two levels of adjectives: Adjectives of Description and
Adjectives of Appraisal. The three dominant aspirations
to analyze the ‘Good’ are virtue, deontology, and utility.
Adjectives of Appraisal or evaluative adjectives may have
something to do with.

Evaluation
Write A on the space before the number if the word is an
Adjective of Appraisal and D if the word is an Adjective of
Description.
_____ 1. plenty _____ 9. pleasant
_____ 2. delicious _____ 10. wrong
_____ 3. good _____ 1. pungent
_____ 4. broken _____ 12. five
_____ 5. blue _____ 13. top
_____ 6. tall _____ 14. proficient
_____ 7. angelic _____ 15. versatile
_____ 8. devilish

8
 MODULE 1

EVOLUTION OF THE ‘GOOD’

THE GREEK PERSPECTIVE

Lesson Objectives
1. Explain the development of the source of evaluative
adjectives in the Greek perspective; and
2. Identify the Greek basis of evaluation of an act.

Extract
What is the source of evaluative predicates? We cannot trace
the predicates so we just look at how they are used in literature,
particularly Greek.

See Table 1 - 3
on the next page

9
 PHILOSOPHICAL ETHICS

Table 1
CONTEXT
SOURCE OF
PERIOD (Historical
EVALUATION
Background)

HOMERIC FUNCTION Portrays society as —

700-500 BCE For all assignments, HIGHLY

you fulfill your function ORGANIZED
(Iliad and regardless of others who
Odyssey) have nothing to do with As each Greek gods
your function (corrupt, have distinct function,
The basis for prostitutes). so shall everyone do
this evaluation is his/her function.
EXTERNAL.
If one is dysfunctional,
he/she is immoral.

Table 2
CONTEXT
SOURCE OF
PERIOD (Historical
EVALUATION
Background)

THEOGNIS DISPOSITION Portrays

500-400 BCE Look on the person’s SHATTERED

tendency to do good. SOCIETY
The basis for
this evaluation is Religion is no longer
INTERNAL. the basis. Being good
is a private matter.
One evaluates the
individuals than the
organization. The
monarchy is no longer
trusted.

10
 E X T R A C T S , E N C A P S U L AT I O N S , A N D E VA L U AT I O N S

This is still a powerful source of evaluative predication. Why is

function still important? It is so because a group is considered
as a body with organs that need to function. Since Homer came
up with organized literature, scholars thought that Greece was
organized at that time. However the writings around 500 BCE
tell otherwise.
Through the writings of Theognis of Megara, it can be viewed
that function is not the basis of evaluation. Virtue should prevail
regardless of the social status.

Table 3
CONTEXT
SOURCE OF
PERIOD (Historical
EVALUATION
Background)

400-350 BCE NATURE NATURE

Since nature relativism

cannot speak:

350 BCE –
SOPHISTS

(Argument/
Demonstration)

Rhetoric was used. The “good” was based on the matter of

Argumentation and Demonstration. The good depended on
who wins the debate.Socrates will gather students to rigorize
that ‘good’ is universal by friendship. Choices of friends will
reflect your goodness.

11
 PHILOSOPHICAL ETHICS

Encapsulation
The highest ‘good’ , αγαθος (agathos) used by the
Greeks depended on the source of evaluation. The
sources of evaluative predication are Function,
Disposition, and Nature.

Evaluation
Determine the source of evaluation of each item. Write F for
Function, D for Disposition, and N for Nature.
__________1. A lawyer will prove his client is less guilty.
__________2. The good Samaritan
__________3. COVID19 Frontliners
__________4. Medical representative
__________5. Real estate broker
__________6. Utility worker
__________7. Ex-convict
__________8. Pandesal vendor
__________9. Mayor
__________10. Candle seller at the church.

12
 MODULE 2

PLATO’S LYSIS:
THE COMPLEXITY OF DESIRE

Lesson Objectives
1. Distinguish moral from ethical;
2. Explain the Socratic method of dialogue in ethical
thinking; and
3. Explain the desire of liberation with being
knowledgeable as being a pre-requisite.

Extract

ETHOS, MORAL, ETHICAL, AND DESIRE

ήθος (ethos) means ‘distinguishing character’. “Who you are
is what you do.” Ethos is borne out of the quality of life of the
individual.

I am a student. Either is used according to how

I am a Christi Regian. one wants to be appraised.

13
 PHILOSOPHICAL ETHICS

Communal ethos (e.g. “You should be a student.”) which are

essential characteristic customs and conventions are called
“mores.”The concept of communal ethos is called “morality.”
If one is not able to meet the communal standards, he/she is
considered immoral. To be ethical is beyond the bounds of
communal standards. An ethical act is a generally acceptable
act.
Where does, for example, “mainam”or “maupay” come from?
Is it from your expectation on how you should define your life
or from mores? Suppose you have to assert a function, such as
you have to be employed: You should not just be an employee.
You should be an excellent one hence, you become ethical and
moral. Where does this demand for alignment come from? The
demand is based on what the community desires. Desire is the
determiner of the alignment.
For Socrates, this desire, the desire for the source of ‘good’
should not come from the outside (society). Desire must be
viewed in the inside (soul or “psuke”). If everyone can know
“or” search for his/her desire from the inside, we will have
a universal definition of the good. We can know good by
education.

Lysis
Visit www.classics.mit.edu/Plato/lysis.html to read and analyze
Plato’s Lysis.

Evaluation
Analysis of Lysis: Answer the following questions based on
Lysis.
1. What was the project of Lyis?

14
 E X T R A C T S , E N C A P S U L AT I O N S , A N D E VA L U AT I O N S

2. What was the project of Hippothales?

3. How does the Lyceum set people free?
4. What kind of society operates during this period?
5. Identify the kind of friendship between Lysis and
Menexenus have.
6. Identify the kind of friendship that Hippothales and
Ctesippus.
7. Identify the kind of friendship that Lysis and Hippothales,
and Menexenus and Ctesippus have.
8. What method will not make Lysis enslaved?
9. How will Lysis be liberated?
10. A person will be useful if he/she is
11. The highest love is
12. The highest liberation is
13. If you are in a situation where you are the only one who
can function, then you are the ______________ person.
14. If a person is __________, he or she will be useful and
good.
15. A ground for desire of friendship that is about shared
interest.
16. A kind of friendship that supplies each other.
17. A kind of friendship that can cater to both good and bad
persons.
18. kind of friendship that is independent of anyone.
19. A kind of friendship also known as “connatural.”
20. The ultimate friend is “some-me” or “some-I” and not
“somebody”. The ultimate friend is the eidetic friend. The
______________ friend is the ultimate friend.

15
 E VA L U AT I O N - A N S W E R S H E E T

16
E VA L U AT I O N - A N S W E R S H E E T

17
 MODULE 3

THE MYTH OF GYGES,

AND EGOISM VERSUS ALTRUISM

Lesson Objectives
1. Reflect on dealing with power responsibly; and
2. Differentiate Egoism from Altruism.

The Myth of Gyges

(The Republic, Book 2)
The liberty which we are supposing may be most
completely given to them in the form of such a
power as is said to have been possessed by Gyges the
ancestor of Croesus the Lydian.
According to the tradition, Gyges was a shepherd
in the service of the king of Lydia; there was a great
storm, and an earthquake made an opening in the earth
at the place where he was feeding his flock. Amazed
at the sight, he descended into the opening, where,
among other marvels, he beheld a hollow brazen
horse, having doors, at which he stooping and looking
in saw a dead body of stature, as appeared to him,
more than human, and having nothing on but a gold
ring; this he took from the finger of the dead and re-
ascended. Now the shepherds met together, according

18
 E X T R A C T S , E N C A P S U L AT I O N S , A N D E VA L U AT I O N S

to custom, that they might send their monthly report

about the flocks to the king; into their assembly he
came having the ring on his finger, and as he was
sitting among them he chanced to turn the collet of
the ring inside his hand, when instantly he became
invisible to the rest of the company and they began
to speak of him as if he were no longer present. He
was astonished at this, and again touching the ring he
turned the collet outwards and reappeared; he made
several trials of the ring, and always with the same
result-when he turned the collet inwards he became
invisible, when outwards he reappeared. Whereupon
he contrived to be chosen one of the messengers who
were sent to the court; where as soon as he arrived
he seduced the queen, and with her help conspired
against the king and slew him, and took the kingdom.
Suppose now that there were two such magic rings,
and the just put on one of them and the unjust the
other; no man can be imagined to be of such an iron
nature that he would stand fast in justice. No man
would keep his hands off what was not his own when
he could safely take what he liked out of the market, or
go into houses and lie with any one at his pleasure, or
kill or release from prison whom he would, and in all
respects be like a God among men. Then the actions
of the just would be as the actions of the unjust; they
would both come at last to the same point. And this
we may truly affirm to be a great proof that a man is
just, not willingly or because he thinks that justice is
any good to him individually, but of necessity, for
wherever anyone thinks that he can safely be unjust,

19
 PHILOSOPHICAL ETHICS

there he is unjust. For all men believe in their hearts

that injustice is far more profitable to the individual
than justice, and he who argues as I have been
supposing, will say that they are right. If you could
imagine any one obtaining this power of becoming
invisible, and never doing any wrong or touching
what was another’s, he would be thought by the
lookers-on to be a most wretched idiot, although they
would praise him to one another’s faces, and keep up
appearances with one another from a fear that they
too might suffer injustice. (Republic, 2.359a–2.360d)5

Extract
Glaucon, the main speaker of this reading from Plato’s Republic
implies that when you have power, you can be invisible. If the
protagonist is not the shepherd, would he or she still do the
same? The Myth of Gyges implies the bad side of freedom. Do
we do something good because someone is watching? A good
act can be rooted in either egoism or altruism. Egoism is the
belief or practice of seeking one’s own self-interest. Altruism,
on the other hand, is the belief or practice of selflessness for
the well-being of others. So if no one is watching, can we still
do good? For Plato, Yes! This is so because inside us there is
the eidos “who knows with you,” the eidetic good – the soul
that gives us knowledge of the good. This eidos is the ultimate
friend that is honest to you.

5
Plato, “The Myth of Gyges,” Stephen Hicks, Ph.D., accessed June 29, 2020, www.www.stephen-
hicks.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/republic-2-gyges-text.pdf .

20
 E X T R A C T S , E N C A P S U L AT I O N S , A N D E VA L U AT I O N S

There is a need to have standards. The best reference to this

concept of standard is numbers (its characteristic of pattern).
Moral estimation occurs hence, we could say that the source
of ‘good’ is mathematical.

Encapsulation
‘Ethos’ is individual, while ‘mores’ is communal.
Desire is the determiner of the alignment. The four
kinds of friendship are Reciprocal, Neutral, Ultimate,
and Congenial. Egoism is the belief or practice of
seeking one‟s own self- interest. Altruism, on the
other hand, is the belief or practice of selflessness for
the well-being of others. Plato‟s source of the good is
mathematical.

Evaluation

Answer any of the following questions:

1. What would you do if you were the shepherd who found

the ring? Would you do the same?
2. Do you think the Myth of Gyges is still relevant today? Use
the Philippine situation during this COVID-19 pandemic
as an example.
3. It was said that the just and unjust man would act exactly
the same if both possessed the ring. Why would this be so?

21
 E VA L U AT I O N - A N S W E R S H E E T

22
E VA L U AT I O N - A N S W E R S H E E T

23
 MODULE 4

ARISTOTLE’S VIRTUE ETHICS

Lesson Objectives
1. Explain eudaimonia;
2. Articulate Aristotle’s notion of virtue; and
3. Respond on situations in a phronitic way.

Extract
Aristotle’s ethics can be largely found in his Nichomachean
Ethics. For him, morality could be a science and we cannot go
back to the “world of forms” that Plato asserts. What we have
is potential. Substance is only a potential and not a finished
product. A substance is meant to become. Aristotle’s notion is
employed in the Sciences. For example, “Medicine” aspires
for its “good” called “Health,” “Carpentry for Building,”
“Engineering for Bridges,” etc. All Sciences aspire to a certain
good. For Aristotle, there is an eidetic good in the soul, and
one has to live in the world to find it. Put it simply, “good”
is something you work on. On the human being, “Human
Conduct” aspires for its Teleological/Purposive Good. All
activities are geared towards the end of all purposes in life.

24
 E X T R A C T S , E N C A P S U L AT I O N S , A N D E VA L U AT I O N S

Eudaimonia
To recognize that the end is “to be happy” makes it no longer
explainable. For Aristotle, the end is eudaimonia.6 Eudaimonia
is the summation of ‘good’ evaluated. We can come up with
short-term “goods” toward the good end. Eudaimonia is
recognized when one dies. For Plato, we have an innate good
but for Aristotle, we have hexis or disposition. A hexis can be
either good or bad. Good hexis is called “virtue” and bad hexis
is called “vice”. For example:

good health
eating
obesity

All have the capacity to allow “good” to conquer over the

“bad”. We cannot attain eudaimonia directly. Hence, we have to
live a virtuous life to attain it. Following Aristotle, it can be said
that “life is like playing ‘Hit the Mark.’” We are made to believe
with the imperative of “Bayan muna bago sarili.” however, in
his socio-political philosophy he would imply that we have to
start with a “good self”, then we need to be educated and teach
to attain the desired “end.”

6
Alisdair MacIntyre, A Short History of Ethics: A History of Moral Philosophy from the Homeric
Age to the Twentieth Century, 2nd ed., (Great Brittain: Routledge, 1998), 42.

25
 PHILOSOPHICAL ETHICS

Virtue
We try to balance our life every day. Virtue is the hexis/
disposition/tendency lying in a mean between two opposites
(excess and deficient poles) which is dependent on practical
situations. For example, “courage” is a virtue between two
opposites. 7

courage
rashness cowardice

The excess pole is “rashness” (you just attack without knowing

all the facts), and the deficient pole is “cowardice”. Aristotle’s
notion of “morality” appears to be “person-based.” It is
directing to the telos (end/purpose) in life.

Phronimos
For Plato, useless desires should be erased. However for
Aristotle, every desire is potential towards the purpose. One’s
character is developing as there is constant interaction between
the faculties of the part of the soul hence, one becomes a
phronimos. At the event of a certain situation, the practical
intelligence (based on experience) will tell.8

7
Alisdair MacIntyre, A Short History of Ethics, 43.
8
“Alisdair MacIntyre, A Short History of Ethics,” 49.

26
 E X T R A C T S , E N C A P S U L AT I O N S , A N D E VA L U AT I O N S

Categorical Syllogism Practical Syllogism

All men are mental. Helping is good.
I am a man. A child needs help.

I am mental. I help a child.

For the phronimos, rationality must not be theoretical

but practical. The phronimos is thrown in relationship, in
community. The philosopher-king idea of Plato might not be
useful.

PHRONIMOS PHILOSOPHER-KING
Goes to the market. Not often exposed.
Gets confronted. Adheres to
‘Ultimate Good’
Adheres to ‘Nego-
tiated Good’ (what
can we only do?

A phronitic person is one who is able to maintain composure. A

child has to be trained in middle ground for him/her to belong
to the polis.
Let’s try an example situation: On your way home, you are
about to approach a group of “solvent boys.” For you, they
appear to be preparing to attack you. How will you come up

27
 PHILOSOPHICAL ETHICS

with an action? A platonic solution would be to meditate and

wait for a voice that will tell you what to do. An Aristotelian
basis is that if there is a situation, the reason will solve. To
stay as a phronimos, you must draw power from your practical
intelligence which was nurtured by one’s or other’s experience
of reaction — “fight or flight or freeze.” You can also trust your
instinct. Trust your practical reasonability. Between reason and
situation is “will.”

‘Enkrateia’ and ‘Akrasia’

For Aristotle, there are two kinds of “will” — enkrateia
and akrasia. Enkrasia is the will from the good judgment
and good intention to act.9 Akrasia is willing to act against
better judgment. The latter is also known as “weak will.” For
Aristotle, we need to maintain enkratic will.10

Encapsulation
Aristotle’s project was to come up with a Science of
the ‘Good’. Life is geared towards the ‘practical good’
(not innate but to be worked on). The teleological
good is Eudaimonia, the summation of good
evaluated. In the middle, one is living a virtuous life.
A Phronimos is a virtuous person does not even have
to control oneself because one’s resolution has been
so habituated to always rightly act.

9
Richard Kraut “Aristotle’s Ethics,” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, June 15, 2018, accessed
June 29, 2020, www.plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-ethics/#Akr .
10
Ibid.

28
 E X T R A C T S , E N C A P S U L AT I O N S , A N D E VA L U AT I O N S

Evaluation
Identify the implied Filipino virtues in the Myth of Gyges.
Write your answers below.

29
 E VA L U AT I O N - A N S W E R S H E E T

30
 MODULE 5

ST. THOMAS AQUINAS:

NATURAL LAW AND CONSCIENCE

Lesson Objectives
1. Explain the four levels of law;
2. Articulate the Natural Law and its injunctions; and
3. Explain the importance of informed conscience.

Extract

THE FOUR LEVELS OF LAW

The four levels of law are Eternal, Divine, Natural, and
Human. Thomistic morality is viewed in terms of “law.” It is
concerned on how we align our actions with God’s command.
Eternal law is about the regulations about God which are only
known by him alone. It is about the plan and purpose of all
things. Divine law is derived from eternal law as it appears in
human history as divine commands through the revelations of
creation, tradition, and transmission. Aquinas divides the divine
law into two: the Old Law and the New Law (corresponding
to the Old and New Testaments). The Old Law is about the
10 commandments while the New Law is about the teachings
of Jesus. The natural law is about the laws through which the

31
 PHILOSOPHICAL ETHICS

divine laws are enshrined. The natural law is that code to which
we incline by nature. The natural law has seven injunctions:
self-preservation, reproduction, rearing of offspring, seeking
God, living in society, avoiding offense, and shunning
ignorance. Natural law is not about the laws of science. Human
law is about our way of adapting to natural law. We formulate
and legislate rules, regulations, and laws as we try our best to
align ourselves continuously to the natural law. For example
the law against murder.
The Natural Law:
Summa Theologiae, Part I-II,
Question 94, Article 2
by St. Thomas Aquinas
Since, however, good has the nature of an end, and
evil, the nature of a contrary, hence it is that all those
things to which man has a natural inclination, are
naturally apprehended by reason as being good, and
consequently as objects of pursuit, and their contraries
as evil, and objects of avoidance. Wherefore
according to the order of natural inclinations, is the
order of the precepts of the natural law. Because
in man there is first of all an inclination to good in
accordance with the nature which he has in common
with all substances: inasmuch as every substance
seeks the preservation of its own being, according to
its nature: and by reason of this inclination, whatever
is a means of preserving human life, and of warding
off its obstacles, belongs to the natural law. Secondly,
there is in man an inclination to things that pertain to
him more specially, according to that nature which
he has in common with other animals: and in virtue

32
 E X T R A C T S , E N C A P S U L AT I O N S , A N D E VA L U AT I O N S

of this inclination, those things are said to belong

to the natural law, “which nature has taught to all
animals,” such as sexual intercourse, education of
offspring and so forth. Thirdly, there is in man an
inclination to good, according to the nature of his
reason, which nature is proper to him: thus man has
a natural inclination to know the truth about God,
and to live in society: and in this respect, whatever
pertains to this inclination belongs to the natural law;
for instance, to shun ignorance, to avoid offending
those among whom one has to live, and other such
things regarding the above inclination.11
The article talks about the specifications concerning the
Natural Law. In reading Aquinas, we have to consider how
we, human beings, are both unique and at the same time
participating in the community of the rest of creation.12
Our presence in the rest of creation does not only mean that
we interact with creatures that are not human, but that there is
also in our nature something that shares in the nature of other
beings.13
First, man has an inclination to good that is common with other
beings (plants, animals). This inclination is self-preservation.
Second, Man has an inclination to “things which nature has
taught to all animals” thus common with other animals such as
sexual intercourse, rearing, and educating an offspring. Third,

11
Aquinas, “Summa Theologiae,” Minnesota State University Moorhead, accessed June 25, 2020,
www.web.mnstate.edu/gracyk/courses/web%20publishing/aquinas-Natural-Law.htm.
12
Oscar G. Bulaong, Jr. Mark Joseph T. Calano, Albert M. Lagliva, Michael Ner E. Mariano, Jesus
and Deogracias Z. Principe, Ethics: Foundations of Moral Valuation, 1st ed. (Manila: Rex Book
Store, 2018), 58.
13
Ibid.

33
 PHILOSOPHICAL ETHICS

man has an inclination to good according to the nature of his

reason. With this, man has an inclination to know the truth
about God and to live in society. For example, being well-
informed, and not coercing others.

CONSCIENCE-BASED ETHICS
There are two levels of conscience for St. Thomas Aquinas:
Deep Conscience or Synderesis, and Surface Conscience or
Conscientia. Deep Conscience or Synderesis is connected to
Divine Law. It will go against the Surface Conscience. Surface
Conscience is based on cultural or external law – how we are
brought by. It is said: “Trust the voice of God.” However, your
everyday-bible will not tell you. In some moments, the voice of
God resides in the people. Hence, we need to develop Informed
Conscience (rear and educate). In situations, the project is to
align the three laws: Divine, Natural, and Human.
For example, a married couple had a fight. The husband was
comforted by a workmate. The husband develops attraction and
is about to commit adultery. He starts to contemplate. Informed
conscience says:
• Divine Law — Marriage is indissoluble.
• Natural Law — monogamy
• Human Law — Adultery is a crime.
Why do we still err? Is it because it is a product of
“Determination” (of Synderesis)? This is so because of
freedom caused by uneducated conscience acting upon surface
conscience. Alignment of the consciences can be viewed this
way:

34
 E X T R A C T S , E N C A P S U L AT I O N S , A N D E VA L U AT I O N S

Surface
Conscience

Deep Conscience

Encapsulation
The four levels of law are Eternal Law, Divine Law,
Natural Law, and Human Law. The three inclinations
of man according to Natural Law are self-preservation,
things which nature has taught to all animals, and the
inclination to know truth about God and to live in society.
The two levels of Conscience are Surface Conscience or
Conscientia, and Deep Conscience or Synderesis. One
needs to develop Informed Conscience. Bothe levels of
conscience need to be aligned.

35
 PHILOSOPHICAL ETHICS

Evaluation

A. Natural Law

Categorize situations below to an appropriate inclinations in

the table according to Natural Law.

Abortion Anthro-Bestial Sex

Suicide Red Tape
Kotong Cops Illegal Logging
Breastfeeding Attending the Mass
Pre-marital Sex Makahiya leaves folding

In Common with In Common with

Uniquely Human
Other Beings Other Animals

36
 E X T R A C T S , E N C A P S U L AT I O N S , A N D E VA L U AT I O N S

B. Conscience

Present an account of Two-Level Conscience Alignment and

Informed Conscience Alignment of Dangerous Drug Use.

1. Surface Conscience: ___________________________

_____________________________________________

Deep Conscience: ___________________________

_____________________________________________

2. Divine Law: __________________________________

_____________________________________________

Natural Law: __________________________________

______________________________________

Human Law: ___________________________

_____________________________________________

Essay: Situate Aquinas’ four levels of law in Philippine

legislation. Write your essay on the provided space.

37
 E VA L U AT I O N - A N S W E R S H E E T

38
E VA L U AT I O N - A N S W E R S H E E T

39
 MODULE 6

IMMANUEL KANT:
CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE

Lesson Objectives
1. Explain the enlightenment in ethics led by Kant;
2. Apply the concepts of autonomous will, duty, and
categorical imperative to one’s moral actions; and
3. Evaluate actions using the universalizability test.

Extract

HISTORICAL REVIEW
Greek morality is concerned with reason. Medieval morality
is concerned with faith. Modern morality is concerned with
the will. In Greek morality, ethics is characterized in terms of
virtue and requires reason. In medieval morality, faith grounded
in synderesis is achieved by grace. The emphasis was on the
alignment of conscientia and synderesis by faith through the
education of conscience. From ratio to fides to voluntas.

Modern Philosophical Ethics

The impetus which led to the period of will was during the

40
 E X T R A C T S , E N C A P S U L AT I O N S , A N D E VA L U AT I O N S

time Charlemagne when the Phronimos were the tribunal. The

priests/confessors were the tribunal for moral deliberation.
Christian morality became powerful. Kings were powerful if
they were crowned by the pope. Eventually many abused this
power to validate morality. The people felt the oppression.
Christian moralizing became imperial.

IMMANUEL KANT
Immanuel Kant, a central figure in modern philosophy,
highlighted reason and autonomy over emotion and dependence
on authority or grace. This is a reflection of his youthful reaction
against Pietism, which his parents practiced.

The People Who Influenced Kant

Alexander Baumgarten — According to Alexander
Baumgarten, we are capable of attending to layers of duty.14
For example:
duty to God - praying
duty to others - moral
duty to self - taking a bath
duty to animals - feed the dog

This tells us how we complicate. What could be the duty or

deon where all possible duties will follow? For example,
is taking a bath a duty or an option? How about applying
perfume? How prayers? Try to list all the things you do from
morning to night. Have you ever asked who told you to do those

14
James Fieser, Moral Philosophy Through the Ages (California: Mayfield, 2001), 175.

41
 PHILOSOPHICAL ETHICS

things? Albert Camus would say: “The rock you carry: You
think somebody put it but actually it was you.” This implies
Deontic Layers. There is an External Deontic Layer, and an
Internal Deontic Layer. In simple words, there is an external
commander and an internal commander both telling us what to
do. We are powerful on account of our internal deontic layer.
We can come up with duties that come from inside us. Then
we can counter the external deontic layer. Even the body is an
external commander. For example, a diabetic who is craving
for soda.
Christian Wolff — For Christian Wolff, we are not only
capable of moral activities and commitment. We also aspire
moral perfection.15
We improve such standards of perfection (even if it seems
external). For example, why do you program your way of
eating? We come up with strategies programming actions
for our self-preservation (e.g. protection, health, etc.).
‘Perfection’ in Medieval Philosophy came from God. This
sets the human standards -coming up with parameters to be
morally perfect (to perfect our moral lives). Standards are
imposed because we need them.
The two philosophers influenced Kant in formulating his
ethical theory. Kant was influenced by Baumgarten who
believed that the task of morality is to inform us of our various
duties, specifically duties to ourselves and to others. Wolff
influenced Kant with his idea of moral perfection of the self
and contributing to help other’s pursuit of moral perfection.
Human reason informs us of this rule and guides us in

15
Fieser, Moral Philosophy Through the Ages, 175.

42
 E X T R A C T S , E N C A P S U L AT I O N S , A N D E VA L U AT I O N S

applying it. However, Kant proposed what he thought a better

principle that captures our duty dedicated by reason and that
is his ‘categorical imperative’. Like Wolff, Kant believed that
morality comes from the authority of the human reason and is
not simply established by God.

On Anthropology
Kant championed Anthropology as the new Theology with
four fundamental questions: What can I know?, What should
I do?, What can I hope for?, and What is Man? Notice that
knowledge, morality, and religion are possible because of
human capacity.

Will
Why do you act? What drives you to act? What commands you?
It is the ‘will’ that is the lawgiver. The original concept of the
will is that which is good without qualification. Kant provided
a more technical statement of its intrinsic moral value by
distinguishing between autonomy and heteronomy of the will.
There are two kinds of will: Heteronomous and Autonomous.16
A heteronomous will is ruled by natural rule (e.g. giving alms).
Your life will be complicated for adhering to a multitude of
wills that you have done so much yet not achieved anything.
Kant suggests following the lawgiver inside you so that it will
be simpler. Our will can be operative of an external lawgiver.
To make life simpler, we need to develop our internal lawgiver.

16
Garth, Kemerling, “Kant’s Moral Order,” Philosophy Pages, (November 23, 2011): accessed
November 30, 2018, www.www.philosophypages.com/hy/5i.htm#gdwl.

43
 PHILOSOPHICAL ETHICS

An autonomous will is an internal lawgiver. We are capable of

legislating our lives. We can act spontaneously. Our will, when
responds to the lawgiver, it acts upon condition.

Duty
An act can be the result of a series of motivation. There are
two kinds of duty: Motivational and Deontological. Let us
take an example: What motivates you to eat the ice cream? Is
it hunger, thirst, and the longing for something sweet? If the
motivation rests on the thin layers, then the duty comes from
the ice cream. Following the example, the motivational duty
articulation would be: “The ice cream is delicious because it is
for me (‘end-motivation’).” The deontological duty articulation
would be: “The ice cream is delicious because of ice cream.”

Imperative
When there is a lawgiver, what propels you do to what? It is
command that propels you. We experience the claim of reason
as an obligation, a command that we act in a particular way or
an imperative.17
There two kinds of command: Hypothetical and Categorical.
In hypothetical imperative, an act is performed for the sake of
an end or purpose while a categorical imperative demands a
performance of an action for its own sake.

17
Jake Calagos, “Immanuel Kant’s Humanity Formula: Understanding One’s Non-pursuit of Crimi-
nal Justice” (undergraduate thesis, Saint Anthony Mary Claret College, Quezon City, 2019), 45.

44
 E X T R A C T S , E N C A P S U L AT I O N S , A N D E VA L U AT I O N S

Categorical Imperative
The Categorical Imperative is Kant’s fundamental moral
principle. Constrained by the principle of universalizability
(derived from the formula of universal law), the practical reason
of any rational being understand the categorical imperative to
be: “Act according to that maxim whereby you can at the
same time will that it should become a universal law.”18
That is, each individual agent regards itself as determining, by its
decision to act in a certain way that everyone (including oneself)
will always act according to the same general rule in the future.19
He claims that it is absolute (no exceptions, never overridden
by other moral considerations). It is used to determine whether
an action is morally permissible. This expression of the moral
law, Kant maintained, provides a concrete, practical method for
evaluating particular human actions of several distinct varieties.20
Although he held that there is only one categorical imperative
of morality, Kant found it helpful to express it in several ways.
These are the Formula of the Universal Law, Humanity Formula,
Autonomy Formula, and the Kingdom of Ends Formula.21
We shall only deal with the first two.

Formula of Universalizability
The first formula of the Categorical Imperative states: “Act
only according to that maxim whereby you can at the
same time will that it should become a universal law.”22

18
Garth, Kemerling, “Kant’s Moral Order,” Philosophy Pages.
19
Ibid.
Jake Calagos, “Immanuel Kant’s Humanity Formula: Understanding One’s Non-pursuit of
20

Criminal Justice,” 47.

21
Ibid.
22
Garth, Kemerling, “Kant’s Moral Order,” Philosophy Pages.

45
 PHILOSOPHICAL ETHICS

A maxim is the reason for one’s action. Every voluntary

action has a maxim. All maxims have the following format:
“I will perform action A in circumstances C for motive M.
A,C, and M in this sentence are “blanks” that would have to be
filled with the details of the particular action being evaluated.
The universal format is: “Everyone will perform action A
in circumstances C for motive M. The universal law is not
intended as a prediction of how people will behave. Instead, it is
a means for determining whether you could coherently will that
everyone will act on the same maxim that you have acted on.
Example: “I will steal my neighbor’s jewelries and have them
pawned, in this time of pandemic where the supply of necessary
goods is at risk, so that I can be stable.”
Will it make the world good? The effect would be the loss of
trust to each other.
The universal law would be:
“Everyone will steal his/her neighbors’ jewelries and have them
pawned, in this time of pandemic where the supply of necessary
goods is at risk, for the motive of stability.”
One cannot coherently will that everyone will follow such a
law. Hence, the action is impermissible because it cannot be
universalizable.

Formula of Humanity
The second formula of the Categorical Imperative states:
“Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in
your own person or in the person of another, always at

46
 E X T R A C T S , E N C A P S U L AT I O N S , A N D E VA L U AT I O N S

the same time as an end and never simply as a means.”23

This places more emphasis on the unique value of
human life as deserving of our ultimate moral respect
and thus proposes a more personal view of morality.24
Kant believes that only humans are rational, and
that only rational beings have intrinsic value. 25
To treat someone merely as a means is to use that person as a
tool for getting what the doer of the action wants, and ignoring
the fact that that person also has wants worth fulfilling. The two
formulas are not equivalent. If they were equivalent, they would
always yield the same moral judgments when applied to cases.
But there are at least some cases in which they yield conflicting
judgments. Usually this is because of an act according to the
humanity formula that is compelled by an autonomous will. It
may appear as conflicting but not because an autonomous will
is universally binding making the act universalizable.

Encapsulation
Immanuel Kant’s ethics is deontological where an
action is performed because of duty that is necessary.
Striving for moral perfection makes duty necessary. An
autonomous will must drive one to act. A categorical
imperative must propel one to act.

23
Garth, Kemerling, “Kant’s Moral Order,” Philosophy Pages
24
Robert Johnson and Adam Cureton, “Kant’s Moral Philosophy,” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philos-
ophy (July 7, 2016): accessed November 30, 2018, www.plato.stanford.ed/entries/kant-moral/ .
25
Ibid.

47
 PHILOSOPHICAL ETHICS

A categorical imperative demands a performance

of an action for its own sake. The Formula of
Universalizability states: “Act only according to that
maxim whereby you can at the same time will that
it should become a universal law.” The Formula of
Humanity states: “Act in such a way that you treat
humanity, whether in your own person or in the person
of another, always at the same time as an end and
never simply as a means.” The two formulas are not
equivalent. If they were equivalent, they would always
yield the same moral judgments when applied to cases.

Evaluation

CINEMATIC FORUM
I. Watch the movie: The Innocents directed by Anne
Fontaine.
II. Answer the following assessment questions:
1. Articulate the act of the Mother Superior in a maxim
format.
2. Identify the scene that depicts an application of the
Humanity Formula of the Categorical Imperative.

48
E VA L U AT I O N - A N S W E R S H E E T

49
 E VA L U AT I O N - A N S W E R S H E E T

50
 MODULE 7

UTILITARIANISM:
JEREMY BENTHAM

Lesson Objectives
1. Explain the principle of utility;
2. Use felicific calculus in evaluating actions; and
3. Recognize act-utilitarianism and rule-utilitarianism in
house, local, and international scenarios.

INTRODUCTION
When we merit an action according to its costs and benefits,
we are employing a consequentialist way of moral valuation.
Such ethical theory is utilitarianism. For utilitarianism, actions
and behaviors are considered good if they produce great
pleasure for the great number of people through its usefulness.
Utilitarianism has its origins from the Hedonism of Cyrenaics
and Epicureans who were masters of human disposition:
pleasure and pain. The two foremost Utilitarian thinkers are
Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) and John Stuart Mill (1806-
1832).26

26
Bulaong, Jr., et al., Ethics: Foundations of Moral Valuation, 28.

51
 PHILOSOPHICAL ETHICS

Extract

JEREMY BENTHAM
Jeremy Bentham was a friend of James Mill. James Mill is
John Stuart Mill’s father. He first wrote about the greatest
happiness principle of ethics and was known for a system of
penal management called “panoptikon.” 27

Principle of Utility
The principle of utility is based on psychological egoism – the
belief or practice of seeking for pleasure (self-interested). The
usefulness of actions is based in its promotion of happiness. The
things we do must make us happier. Our actions are governed by
two sovereign masters: pleasure and pain.28 Bentham equates
pleasure or happiness and “good.” People’s actions and those
of governments could and should, be evaluated according to
their practical consequences or how much good they produce.
Notice that the moral permissibility of an act was determined
by virtue (person), then by duty (action), and for Bentham, by
the utility (effect). Action has no morality with respect to the
effect. For him, ethics is quantitative. To know which act has
more quality, the evaluation has to be quantitative (put it to a
vote; how many people are affected?)
Let’s have a Utility Exercise on how different Kantians and
Benthamite Utilitarianists would respond:

27
Ibid., 29.
28
Ibid.

52
 E X T R A C T S , E N C A P S U L AT I O N S , A N D E VA L U AT I O N S

Scenario 1: Stealing to impress friends

Kant: The act does not merit a moral judgment.
Bentham: What matters is the effect: my friends will be
impressed and value me more.
The end can be sought even if you have an unjustifiable
end.
Scenario 2: Skipping school to help comfort a friend
Kant: The act is not universalizable.
Bentham: Morality is on the effect: I am able to console
my friend.
Scenario 3: Bring back the Death Penalty
Kant: Capital punishment is against the Humanity
Formula.
Bentham: The effect is good: justice and deterrence.
Scenario 4: Raising the legal drinking age to 21 years old
Kant: Young people drinking is not permissible.
Bentham: We will have mature drinkers since maturity is
reached at this age!
Notice that scenarios 3 and 4 come up with measures or
Utilitarian Legislations
The fundamentals of Utilitarianism are first, all seek pleasure and
avoid pain, and second, all seek utility (the balance of pleasure
over pain). The British utilitarian concern is Egalitarianism
where every individual’s utility counts. Thus, the goal is to
achieve utility. Quality is judged quantitatively. For example,
a day-off:

53
 PHILOSOPHICAL ETHICS

What to do? Perhaps:

Play 1. Go on a date
Pray 2. Visit a counselor
Go on a date 3. Play
Visit a counselor 4. Pray
Study 5. Study
For Bentham, all actions are equal valuations. So how do we
judge which of them has more value? He proposed the criteria:
the Felicific/Hedonic Calculus with its 7 Quantitative
Criteria.29 These are: Intensity (How strong? Which has
stronger pleasure), Duration (How long does the pleasure
last? Which would last longer in terms of pleasure?), Certainty
(How likely is it to happen? Which has more certainty of
pleasure when done?), Propinquity (How near at hand is it?),
Fecundity (How likely is it to produce more pleasure? Which
will generate more when done?), Purity (How free of pain is
it? Which gives you the purest pleasure without pain?), and
Extent (the number of people affected by it).
Formula: U = C (I+D+Pr) + F (Pu+E)
For example:
Sample choice: 1st = 10 points
2nd = 8 points
3rd = 6 points
4th = 4 points
5th = 2 points

Mike P. Sinn, “Felicific Calculus,” Think by Numbers, accessed June 29, 2020,
29

www.thinkbynumbers.org/tools/felicific-calculus/.

54
 E X T R A C T S , E N C A P S U L AT I O N S , A N D E VA L U AT I O N S

ACTION I D C Pr F Pu E

MOBILE
4 4 4 6 2 6 4
LEGENDS

WATCHING
6 6 8 10 10 10 8
K-DRAMA

DATING 10 2 10 2 8 4 10

COUNSEL-
2 8 2 4 4 2 2
ING

STUDYING 8 10 6 8 6 8 6

(For your assessment, solve and find the top pleasurable activity.)

ACT UTILITARIANISM AND RULE

UTILITARIANISM
Bentham’s utilitarianism can be viewed as ‘act-utilitarianism’
where morality involves in examining the pleasurable and
painful consequences of our individual actions. Doing
a utilitarian analysis for every moral choice is virtually
impossible. 30Thus, most contemporary utilitarians prefer ‘rule
utilitarianism’. Rule utilitarianism is about following the rules
that in the long run produce the most overall utility. With rule
utilitarianism, the utilitarian analysis is done only once, when
deciding which rules to follow. After that, moral choice is just
a matter of following the rules.

30
Fieser, Utilitarianism (October 1, 2017): accessed June 29, 2020 www.www.utm.edu/staff/jfieser/
class/300/utilitarian.htm .

55
 PHILOSOPHICAL ETHICS

Spontaneous Moral Predication

“What has an aptness to produce pleasure in us is what

we call ‘good’ and what is apt to produce pain in us
we call ‘evil’.”31
— John Lock

Encapsulation

The principle of utility is based on psychological egoism

– the belief or practice of seeking for pleasure. Our
actions are governed by two sovereign masters: pleasure
and pain. Bentham equates pleasure or happiness and
‘good’. For him, ethics is quantitative. To know which
act has more quality, the evaluation has to be quanti-
tative. He proposed the criteria: the Felicific/Hedonic
Calculus with its 7 Quantitative Criteria. These are:
Intensity (How strong? Which has stronger pleasure),
Duration (How long does the pleasure last? Which
would last longer in terms of pleasure?), Certainty (How
likely is it to happen? Which has more certainty of plea-
sure when done?), Propinquity (How near at hand is it?),
Fecundity (How likely is it to produce more pleasure?
Which will generate more when done?), Purity (How
free of pain is it? Which gives you the purest pleasure
without pain?), and Extent (the number of people affect-
ed by it). Rule utilitarianism is about following the rules
that in the long run produce the most overall utility.

31
John Locke, “An Essay Concerning Human Understanding”, Modern Philosophy: An Anthology
of Primary Sources, Roger Ariew, and Erik Watkins, eds., (Indiannapolis: Hackett Publishing
Company, 2019), 384.

56
 E X T R A C T S , E N C A P S U L AT I O N S , A N D E VA L U AT I O N S

Evaluation
Place your solution on the Felicific Calculus activity on this
sheet.

57
 E VA L U AT I O N - A N S W E R S H E E T

58
 MODULE 8

UTILITARIANISM:
JOHN STUART MILL

Lesson Objectives
1. Explain the idea of qualitative differences;
2. Distinguish the difference of qualitative utilitarianism
from quantitative utilitarianism; and
3. Apply qualitative utilitarianism in valuating moral
actions.

REVIEW
The principle of utility presupposes that “one man is worth
just the same as another man” and so there is a guarantee that
in calculating the greatest happiness “each person is to count
for one and no one for more than one.”32 There are two main
points to remember about Bentham’s formula. First, democracy
is integral to utilitarianism hence, the way we determine
what to do is to take a vote, and whatever the majority wants
wins. Second, it does not matter where good or bad things
happen to fall, so long as en toto more pleasure is produced

32
William Sweet, “Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832),” Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy: accessed
June 29, 2020, www.www.iep.utm.edu/bentham/.

59
 PHILOSOPHICAL ETHICS

than pain. Utilitarianism is a consequentialist principle. What

makes a given action just are the consequences that the action
produced, where the merits of the consequences are assessed
by how much pleasure is produced. It does not matter, morally
speaking, who is having wants, just as long as we satisfy as
many wants as possible. The idea is to act so as to produce the
greatest happiness for the greatest number. It can be said that
for Bentham, there is no difference between wanting to stay at
home and watch K-Drama, and wanting to read Tolstoy’s War
and Peace. As long as a given set of choices produces equal
amounts of pleasure, then we can be indifferent in our choices
between them. In deciding state affairs, there is a need to vote.
And when x wins over y, we know that x would produce more
happiness and so should be adopted as a social policy.

Extract

John Stuart Mill

John Stuart Mill was born on May 20, 1806 in Pentonville,
London, United Kingdom. He was the son of James Mill, a
friend and disciple of Jeremy Bentham. His ethical theory
and his defense of utilitarian views are found in his long essay
entitled Utilitarianism (1861).33

Qualitative Utilitarianism
He makes a significant change in the utilitarian theory by
introducing the idea of qualitative differences among wants.
For him, utilitarians should aim not at simply satisfying wants,

33
Bulaong, Jr., et al., Ethics: Foundations of Moral Valuation, 31.

60
 E X T R A C T S , E N C A P S U L AT I O N S , A N D E VA L U AT I O N S

but satisfying better wants. How do we distinguish between

wants? Mill answers:
“Of two pleasures, if there be one to which all or almost
all who have experience of both give a decided preference,
irrespective of any feeling of moral obligation to prefer it,
that is the more desirable pleasure.”34
In other words, to compare wants, find someone who has, for
instance, read Tolstoy and watched K-Drama and which is
preferred. Who will decide the better want? Let the people
experience both/all then let them decide. Still, democracy is
necessary.

Encapsulation
For Mill, quality is more preferable than quantity. For
quantitative utilitarianism utility is judged quantitatively
where the given actions are subjected to felicific calculus.
For qualitative utilitarianism, utility is judged on the
better want distinguished by the experience of pleasure.
Utilitarians should aim at satisfying better wants.

Evaluation
Give two examples of individual and three examples
of communal/state situations where Mill’s Qualitative
Utilitarianism is employed.

34
Russ Shafer-Landau, Ethical Theory: An Anthology (New Jersey: John Wiley and Sons, 2007),
286.

61
 E VA L U AT I O N - A N S W E R S H E E T

1. ______________________________________________

________________________________________________

________________________________________________

2. ______________________________________________

________________________________________________

________________________________________________

3. ______________________________________________

________________________________________________

________________________________________________

4. ______________________________________________

________________________________________________

________________________________________________

5. ______________________________________________

________________________________________________

________________________________________________

62
 MODULE 9

THE SELF IN RELATION TO

CULTURE AND ENVIRONMENT

Lesson Objectives
1. Explain the importance of the self in relation to others;
and
2. Articulate the problem of multiplicity of cultures and
the solution of cultural relativism.a

INTRODUCTION
The self does not just need to be mindful of himself/herself. It
is necessary for the self to be mindful of interacting with other
individuals, groups of individuals, cultures. Being mindful
of being an interactive being regulates one’s response as an
existing being in the world.

63
 PHILOSOPHICAL ETHICS

Encapsulated Extract

CULTURAL RELATIVISM
There are numerous cultures.
Each has its own established
practices, and traditions based on
the established beliefs justified as
true by its members. Each claims
that they hold or share with some
other cultures, the true and valid
beliefs. This can result to conflicts.
The American philosopher James
Rachels provides his notion of
cultural relativism. 35 For him,
‘cultural relativism’ recognizes
the differences among cultures
but it does not mean that there
is no objective truth in morality.
36
Scrutiny of the beliefs will either
cease cultural practices to exists or
otherwise.

35
Bulaong, Jr., et al., Ethics: Foundations of Moral Valuation, 104.
36
Ibid., 105.

64
 E X T R A C T S , E N C A P S U L AT I O N S , A N D E VA L U AT I O N S

Evaluation

ESSAY WRITING on Rachels’ Cultural Relativism

Give three taboo cultural practices from three different
indigenous tribes in the Philippines and articulate through
affirmation/negation each practice using Rachel’s notion of
“cultural relativism.” Write your essay on the next page.

65
 E VA L U AT I O N - A N S W E R S H E E T

66
 REFERENCES

Aquinas, Thomas. “Summa Theologiae.” Minnesota State University

Moorhead. Accessed June 25, 2020. www.web.mnstate.edu/
gracyk/courses/web%20publishing/aquinas-Natural-u-Law.htm
Bulaong, Oscar, Jr., Mark Joseph T. Calano, Albert M. Lagliva, Michael
Ner E. Mariano, and Jesus Deogracias Z. Principe. Ethics:
Foundations of Moral Valuation. Quezon City: Rex Book Store,
Inc., 2018.
Calagos, Jake.“Immanuel Kant’s Humanity Formula: Understanding One’s
Non-pursuit of Criminal Justice.” Undergraduate thesis, Saint
Anthony Mary Claret College, Quezon City, 2019.
Chrismas, Matthew, Duncan Pritchard, Jane Suilin Lavelle, Michaela
Massimi, Alasdair Richmond, and Dave Ward. Philosophy for
Everyone. 2nd ed. New York: Routledge, 2014.
Fieser, James. Moral Philosophy Through the Ages. California: Mayfield,
2001. _________. “Utilitarianism.” (October 1, 2017). Accessed
June 29, 2020. www.www.utm.edu/staff/jfieser/class/300/
utilitarian.htm
Horrigan, Paul Gerard. Introduction to Philosophy. 2002,
www.justgetstarted19.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/
introduction-to-philosophy-by-paul-gerard-horrigan.pdf
Johnson, Robert and Adam Cureton. “Kant’s Moral Philosophy.” In
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Last modified July 7,
2016: Accessed November 30, 2018. www.plato.stanford.ed/
entries/kant-moral/
Kemerling, Garth. “Kant’s Moral Order.” In The Philosophy Pages.
Last modified July 19, 2012. Accessed November 30, 2018.
www.www.philosophypages.com/hy/5i.htm
Kraut, Richard. “Aristotle’s Ethics.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
June 15, 2018. Accessed June 29, 2020. www.plato.stanford.
edu/entries/aristotle-ethics/#Akr

67
 PHILOSOPHICAL ETHICS

Locke, John. “An Essay Concerning Human Understanding”, In Modern

Philosophy: An Anthology of Primary Sources. Edited by Roger
Ariew, and Erik Watkins. Indiannapolis: Hackett Publishing
Company, 2019.
MacIntyre, Alasdair. A Short History of Ethics: A History of Moral
Philosophy from the Homeric Age to the Twentieth Century. 2nd
ed. London: Routledge, 1998.
Plato. “Lysis or Friendship”. Translated by Benjamin Jowett. Accessed July
4, 2020. www.classics.mit.edu/Plato/lysis.html
Plato. “The Myth of Gyges.” Stephen Hicks, Ph.D. Accessed June 29, 2020.
www.www.stephenhicks.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/
republic-2-gyges-text.pdf
Shafer-Landau, Russ. Ethical Theory: An Anthology. New Jersey: John
Wiley and Sons, 2007.
Sinn, Mike P. “Felicific Calculus.” In Think by Numbers. Accessed June 29,
2020, www.thinkbynumbers.org/tools/felicific-calculus/
Sweet, Willian. “Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832).” In Internet Encyclopedia
of Philosophy. Accessed June 29, 2020, www.www.iep.utm.
edu/bentham/

68
 ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Jake Bendo Calagos is an instructor at Christ the King

College in Calbayog City, He teaches philosophy and
religious education and is currently the Leadership
Development Program Officer of the Student Affairs
and Services. He completed his seminary formation at
St. Anthony Mary Claret Seminary and received his Bachelor
of Arts in Philosophy (Cum Laude) at St. Anthony Mary
Claret College in Quezon City. He is a recipient of the Gerry
Roxas Leadership Award, the Alfonso T. Yuchengco National
Discipline Award, and multiple Gawad Cordis Mariae Filius
(CMF) Awards.

70
We’ll dwell in life’s turbulent shores.