Brotherhood o : LESSON 1 tT Violence? At the end of this lesson, you are expected t6: 1, _ identify the details of a Teport on a case of fraternity hazing; 2. _ reflect on fraternity hazing as a real-world issue; and 3. recognize the real-world issu le as the context fro i i of ethics, m which we begin our study Astudy on ethics could have all definition of terms, or one could trace matter: to realize why thinking about exercise, but responding to the urge! nt call on how we deal with very real situations that confront us in the world, THINK Let us start with a very real issue not uncommon in our academic setting: that of fraternity hazing. . In August 2007, newspapers reported what seemed to be yet another sad incident of fraternity violence.' Cris Anthony Mendez, a twenty-year-old student of the University of the Philippines (UP), was rushed to the hospital in the early morning hours, unconscious, with large’ bruises on his chest, back, and legs. He passed away that morning, and the subsequent autopsy report strongly Suggests that his physical injuries were most probably the result of “hazing” (the term colloquially Used to refer to initiation rites in which neophytes may be subjected to various forms of physical abuse). What exactly happened remains an open question, as none of those who were with him that night came forward to shed light on what exactly had transpired. Needless to say, none of them came forward to. assume responsibility for the death of Cris. Even as the leaders of the Sigma Rho fraternity publicly denounced thé death of Cris, those members of theirs who had been with him that night vanished, avoiding and refusing to cooperate with legal authorities. Meanwhile, UP students and the general public clamored for justice. In a move that surprised the ‘Student body, the UP chancellor called on all fraternities to justify their continued existence. Meanwhile, the case of the tragic death of Cris Anthony Mendez was left unresolved. ltremains that way up to this day. UNIT| THE ETHICAL DIMENSION OF HUMANEXISTENCEharges have bee, exactly happened. No cl \ bach St ees toahcoring But there is more to this for y, as definitive testimony iminal mystery. ; ; = dering on the death of Cris, we may find ourselves asking a aie is the value of one’s life?”, “What exactly wee, the wron ce or so-called fraternity brothers?”, or perhaps even, Is there a fratomiles’™ These questions that concern good and bad, or ight and these are questions concerning value—are the kind of questions that in ethics. N filed, ng S than just Westions 198 done to NY good to Wrong—ang ‘We deal With EXPERIENCE We can expand the discussion of violence in schools from the issue of fraternity hazing to the wider problem of bullying. What forms of bullying have you observed? Have you ever been a victim of bullying? Do you think there is any way that one can justify bullying? ASSESS Consider the ‘following questions: 1. Inthe story reported, what wrong things done are 2. What do you know about the hazing? you able to identify? e possible forms—and consequences—ot Discuss with your classmate: S: what are the possible pros and cons—positive and negative aspects—of hi \olding on to fraternities and their traditions? Which aspects seem to Carry greater weight or importance? 4. Consider: Did you and your classmates agree or disagree with each other about your answers in item number 3 above? On which Points did you agree and on which points did you disagree? Bol CHALLENGE reality be a good thing, or is it definitely a bad thing? What are your reasons for your answer? 4 ACourse Module for EthicsHARNESS OES ad ean seeped student life, the real world “out there” of work col , sibilities can als; An o scion, of violence, also a place of ‘0 be a place of intimidation, of aes bullying and h it live Measures an individual person miei ; ‘azing. What do you think are iskind of unpleasantness, and what changes should in soci * help address this problem? : pea dba UNIT THE ETHICAL DIMENSION OF HUMANEXISTENCE 5LESSON 2 — Valuation e end of this lesson, you are expected to: ntify the different ways we speak of—and think about—valu les; e the characteristics of these different ways we speak of gin to identify what characterizes Pita coed ically At the 1. ider 2. recognizt and in doing so, to also be: ethical valuation; and complexity of situations wherein the distinction of what kind of of valuation is in order is not very clear-cut. A study on ethics can become concerned with enforcing certain rules ( should tell the truth and you should not lie) or it can become enamored ie encouraging ideals (we should try to become more compassionate to others). While all these certainly belong to an ethics course, we are choosing here instead to begin our study by speaking more concretely, noting how a real-life issue (such as we saw in Lesson 1) gets us to react with a value judgment: this is good, that is bad. To say that we make value judgments, however, is perhaps a bit too broad, because we do make all sorts of valuations, not all of which belong to the realm of the ethical. In this . lesson, we explore these differences. 3, assess the THINK We have used an actual tragic case of hazing as a way to begin our exploration of the study of ethics. We have stated earlier that generally speaking, ethics is about matters such as the good that we should pursue and the bad that we should avoid; the right ways in which we could or should act and the wrong’ ways of acting. It might alternatively be thought of in terms of obligations that we are expected to fulfil, prohibitions that we are required to respect, or ideals that we are encouraged to meet. Ethics as a subject for us to study is about determining the grounds or bases for certain significant values. Having recognized that notions of good and bad, and right and wrong, are the primary concern of ethics, in order for us to get started, it would be useful to clarify what we mean here by “values.” First, we must recognize that there are instances when We make value jugamen et are not considered to be a part of ethics. Our tendency to translate SO ee a ue re thinking immediately in monetary terms—of cash and property Prebkotvclus sa net bog we mean here when we speak of “value.” We often tend to things e8 “goods; So TE area item; we speakofthese material quite the un oclendlng ot : he some time we can already sense that this is not /e are looking for when we think about ethics. 6 —ACourso Module for Ethies >»ofcourse, there are many ethical issu "1 les orthe taking and losing of goods, and ts is that th j n now is ‘e value judgment made on a item being worth a certain amount (for A res example, that a Cup of rice is valuel! at twelve pesos, or that a one way bus ticket from Manila to Naga costs a little over oO la.one wey, Due any context, an ethical value judgment Usa Poses) is not in itself, without rat involve the use and misuse of money, e will be explored later, but the point right As we noted, we have a sens it i i terme of making ajudgment ‘eaiotn good ane 1 speak not of goods, but in certain new movie that | had just seen was a“ "¢ us consider | cou ea er articular song that | had j a ‘good one because | enjoyed it, or that api 9 ‘ad just heard on the radio was a “bad” one because it had an unpleasant tone, but these are not part of a discussion of ethics. | may have an opinion as to what is the “right” dip (sawsawan) for my chicken barbecue, or | may maintain that it is “wrong” to wear a leather vest over a Barong Tagalog, and these also are not concerns of ethics. These are valuations that fall under the domain of aesthetics. The word “aesthetics” is derived from the Greek word aisthesis (“sense” or “feeling”) and refers to the judgments of personal approval or disapproval that we make about what we see, hear, smell, or taste. In fact, we often use the word “taste” to refer to the personal aesthetic preferences that individuals have on these matters, Such as “his taste in music” or “her taste in clothes.” So when we like or dislike a painting or a sculpture, a song or a movie, we are making aesthetic value judgments. : Let us now turn to actions. Surely, it seems obvious that when we say that this action is right and that action is wrong that we are now talking about ethics. But wait, it is not that simple. A notion of right and wrong actions can easily appear in acontext that is not a matter of ethics. Consider this example: | am in the process of learning how to bake, | am told that the right thing to do would be to mix the dry ingredients first, such as flour or sugar before bringing in any liquids, like milk or cream: this is the right thing to do in baking. This does not belong to a discussion on ethics. Or take, for example, when I'was learning how to play basketball, | was instructed that it is against the rules to walk more than two steps without dribbling the ball. Again, obeying this rule to not travel is something that makes sense only in the context of the game, and is not an ethical prohibition. We derive from the Greek word fechne the English words “technique” and “technical” which are often used to refer to a proper way (or right way) of doing things, but a technical’ ‘valuation (or right and wrong technique of doing things). may not necessarily be a matter of ethics as these examples show. In addition, we also have asense cof approval or disapproval concerning certain actions that may be considered of relative triviality in nature. Thus, for instance, 1 May think that it is “right” to knock politely on someone's door, while it is “wrong” to barge into someone's office. Perhaps | may approve of a child who knows how to ask for something properly by saying, “please,” and | also disapprove of a woman | can see picking her nose in public. These and other similar examples belong to the ARTME TBRARY DEPART 0 ye THE (MENSION OF HUMAN EXISTENCE 7category of etiquette, which is concerned with right and wror _ py the society 10 which we belong, but those traréareesiong 9 actions main | not quite grave enough to belong toa discussion on ethics. To ent be congiat can differentiate how I may be somewhat disappointed seeing a hae int he YY Young r refuse to offer his seat on the bus to an elderly lady, but my indignati Young would be much greatet Ion and s} if | were to see aman deliberately push anoth amoving bus. er One out of Recognizing the characteristics of aesthetic and technical valuatio as the realm of etiquette, we can arrive at some kind of rough guide, by &S Well as to what might belong to a discussion of ethics. Ethics, then, seems Sle human actions that are characterized valuations that we make in a sphere of well-being or human life itself. Therefore, certain gravity and that concern human matters that concern life and death such as wal, capital punishment, or abortion and matters that concern human well-being such as poverty, inequality, or sexual identity are often included in discussions of ethics. However, this general description is only a starting point and will require further elaboration. One complication that can be noted is that the distinction between what belongs to ethics and what does not is not always SO clearly defined. At times, the question of what is grave or trivial is itself debatable, and sometimes some of the most heated discussions in ethics could be on the fundamental question of whether a certain sphere of human activities belongs to this discussion. For example: are clothes always just a matter of individual taste or would some kind of clothing (if for instance, it seems to be quite revealing) call for some kind of ethical judgment? Can we say thataman whe his girlfriend is simply showing bad manners ‘or does this behavior 10 verbally abuses deserve from us some stronger moral condemnation? Everyday we make all sorts of value judgments on songs and videos, deciding on whether or not we like them, maybe even commenting ‘about these to others. But have you ever found yourself disapproving of a song’s lyrics or @ video's content, and for more serious reasons than that they were not to your taste, but that you found something offensive about it? Something you think everyone else should also find offensive? Why was that? EXPERIENCE ASSESS Identify the following: 4, Whats the Greek term to refer to practical knowledge? 2. Whats the Greek term to refer to feeling or sense? 3. What is the term to refe fi fer tc i generally trivial? 10 socially accepted behavior on matters that are f Verurer 409 eee cea Ban 8 —Acourse Moduie for Ethics’ iia eaReferring back to item nu " 4 Mber 3, give a couple of examples of this. Give a couple of examples of matt ers it likely belong to a discussion of ethics. PETE het we CHALLENGE ae erase epi ae are expected to fulfil, (b) prohibitions we are on IS we art ICOl . these are ethical in nature or not. encouraged to meet. Discuss whether HARNESS The world of artistic creativity is one of infinite possibilities, and we tend to say that, “beauty ig in the eye of the beholder,” that aesthetic taste is a personal matter and no one can impose on us that we either like or dislike this particular TV show or that particular song. But what if a work of art provokes a stronger sense of disapproval in us? Can and should artwork be subjected to ethical judgment? For instance, in 2011, the Cultural Center of the Philippines (CCP) mounted an exhibit * that included Mideo Cruz’s “Politeismo,” an installation comprised of an amalgam of many images, including a statue of Jesus wearing Mickey Mouse ears, @ crucifix adorned with a bright red phallus, and a picture of the face of Jesus with a wooderi ash tray again with a phallus tacked on the middle. Apparently conceived as a piece to promote critical thought and perhaps debate on idolatry, it was seen by many in this predominantly Catholic country to be a deliberate insult to their faith. Given the public outcry and the strong denouncement from various religious and secular leaders, the-exhibit was abruptly closed. In addition to being threatened and having his work vandalized, Cruz was charged with ‘obscenity. However, he (as well as the administrators of the CCP) were acquitted of these charges by the courts in 2013. Acase such as this allows us to consider questions on aesthetics, such as, ‘ls it the point of the work of art to be appealing or to be thought-provoking?” It also allows us to consider political questions, ‘such as, “Who gets to decide which artists and which projects may or may not receive funding from the state?” Our concern here is ethical, and perhaps we can recognize that a number of highly significant ethical questions can be raised: Does the artist have-an ethical obligation to the sensibilities of his audience? What constitutes offense, and at what point is offense severe enough as to require control? Are there—or should there be—ethical restrictions to freedom of expression? ‘ Discuss, making use either of this example or other real-world examples that you may find online. UNIT] THE ETHICAL DIMENSION OF HUMAN EXISTENCE 9LESSON 3 See ar Thinking of Ethics Atthe end of this lesson, you are expected to: employ technical terms precisely when entering into a discussion on eth ics; 2. distinguish between a descriptive and a normative study of ethics; ang 3, _ understand the role played by reasoning in a course on ethics. Astudy on ethics may once in a while involve learning some completely ney words, but more often, it will probably involve realizing that what matters is ins some familiar and maybe even common terms with greater care and in more stity defined ways, so that our thinking will be clearer. This lesson is about appreciating how clarification on the words we use is an important step in our goal to think property about ethics, which is ultimately a matter of finding the best reasons for making our determinations of good and bad, right and wrong. THINK We obviously have already been making ethical judgments before we take a college level course on ethics. Way before you have started reading this, you have already formed judgments about what friends owe to each other, or how parents ought to treat their children. Maybe you have already had to wrestle with the difficult question of what to do, while caught in a certain situation wherein lying would seem to benefit you rather than telling the truth, or your being concerned with someone's feelings conflicted with the urgency and necessity of getting a certain job done. So ‘a course on ethics is not so much about learning something ‘completely new, but a matter of spending time and making the effort of thinking carefully of the kinds of choices that we and other people are called on to make on a daily basis. An important step in thinking carefully is to clarify the ways we think and talk about ethics. Clarifications Our first set of clarifications is on the use of the words “ethics” and “morals.” This discussion of ethics and morals would include 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 quite equivocal. One might say that, “cooking is not ethical,” by which one means that the act of cooking does not belong to a discussion of ethics (we are saying that cooking isin itself neither right nor wrong); on the other hand, one might say that, “stealing is not ethical, but this time the meaning is that the act of taking something that is not yours would indeed be an unethical act (we are saying that stealing is wrong). So when using negation, one has to carefully discern which of these two meanings is being expressed. 10 ACourse Module for Ethicsas a further note to the previous point, the word used to oppose “ethical” is ‘unethical”, and the word used to oppose “moral” is “immoral”. The word “amoral” is sometimes used to describe those situations or contexts that are neither right or wrong morally speaking but fall outside the domain of ethics, that is to say, neutral matters, such as Cooking or reading a book, or doing your laundry. . You may have noticed that we seem to be going back and forth on our use of those two main terms. Let us consider them further. According to some, the term “morals” may be used to refer to specific beliefs or atitudes that people have or to describe acts that People Perform. Thus, it is sometimes said that an individual’s personal conduct is referred to as his morals, and if he falls short of behaving properly, this can be described as immoral. However, we also have terms such as “moral judgment” or “moral reasoning,” which Suggest a more rational dimension at work. Along similar lines, the term “ethics” according to some can be used to refer to the discipline of studying and understanding 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 being ethical and unethical, respectively. In addition, with regard to the acceptable and unacceptable ways of behaving in a given field, we have the term “professional ethics” (such as, for instance, legal ethics for the proper comportment of lawyers and other people in the legal profession, medical ethics for doctors and nurses, and media ethics for writers and reporters). So, it is the case that various thinkers and writers tend to posit some kind of distinction between the terms “moral” and “ethics” and perhaps they have good reasons for doing so, but sadly there is no consensus as to how to make that distinction. Ordinary conversation presents a much less rigid distinction between these terms, and in this book, we will lean in that direction, as we do not need to occupy ourselves here with the question of how different thinkers and writers might construe. that distinction. So, in this text, we will be using the terms “ethical” and “moral” (likewise, “ethics” and “morality”) interchangeably. Another point of clarification is to distinguish between a descriptive and a normative study of ethics. A descriptive study of ethics reports how people, particularly groups, make their moral valuations without making any judgment either for or against these valuations. This kind of study is often the work of the social scientist: either a historian (studying different moral standards over time) Or a sociologist or an anthropologist (studying different moral standards across Cultures). A normative study of ethics, as is often done in moral Philosophy or moral theology, engages the question: What could or should be considered as the right Way of acting? In other words, a normative discussion prescribes what we ought to maintain as our standards or bases for moral valuation. When engaging in a discussion of ethics, it is always advisable to recognize whether one is concerned With a descriptive view (e.9-, noting how filial piety and obedience are pervasive Characteristics of Chinese culture) or with a normative perspective (eg., studying how Confucian ethics enjoins us to obey our parents and to show filial piety). UNIT] THE ETHICAL DIMENSION OF HUMANEXISTENCE — 44We need to go further. A philosophical discussion of ethic: recognizing the characteristics of a description of the ethics of a peopl 90es eyo, time and place; but italso does not simply accept as correct any pari ato, theory. A philosophical discussion of ethics engages in a critical Saal Nor; in the strengths and weaknesses of these theories. This will be our prim, deration ot i iar throughout this work. ; Y Concem clarification, it may be helpful to recognize that a si it ‘As our final point of that calls for moral valuation can be called a moral issue. For instance, j a situation wherein a perso! presents itself for her to steal it. as it involves the question of respe ituation n cannot afford a certain item, but then the eed This is a matter of ethics (and not just law) Tee .ct for one’s property. We should add that “ssue is also often used to refer to those particular situations that are often the source of ‘thus, we would often hear of topics such considerable and inconclusive debate ( as capital punishment and ‘euthanasia referred to as moral “issues’). When one is placedina situation and confronted by the choice of what act to perform, she is called to make a moral decision. For instance, | make a choice to refuse to accept a bribe from someone. When a person is an observer making an assessment on the actions or behavior of someone, she is making a moral judgment. For instance, a friend of mine chooses to shoplift from a convenience store, and | make an assessment that this is wrong. Finally, let us go beyond'the relatively simple matter of choosing between right over wrong, or good over bad, or of judging externally someone else's choices in that regard, and let us move to the more complicated situation wherein one is torn between choosing one ‘of two goods or choosing between the lesser of two evils: this is referred to as a moral dilemma. We have a moral dilemma when an individual can choose only one from a number of possible actions, and there are compelling ethical reasons for the various choices, and not just for one obvious answer. For instance, a mother.may feel conflicted between stealing food from a Store and wanting to get that food to be able to feed her hungry child. Reasoning Why do we suppose that a wrong? The study of ethics is interested in questions like these: to consider this way of acting as acceptable while that way of acti unacceptable? To put it another way, what reasons do we give to that a certain way of acting is either right or wrong? Aperson's fear of punishment or desire for reward could provide.him a reason for acting in a certain way. It is common to hear someone say: “| did not cheat on the exam because | was afraid that | might get caught,” or “I looked after my father in the hospital because | wanted to get a higher allowance.” In a certain sense, fear of punishment and desire for reward can be spoken of as giving someone @ eh for acting ina certain way. But the question then would be: Is this reason good enough? That is to say, this way of thinking seems to be a shallow way of certain way of acting is right and its opposite Why do we decide ing, its opposite, is decide or to judge 12. ACourse Module for Ethicsrewards and avoiding punishments? Or isi nding a certain way of acting either acceptable or unacceptable? Consider these examples: | am in yade for myself by cheating. | make thi know that my friend was in a position to a situation wherein | could obtain a higher decision not to do so, and | am glad. Or I get a better grade for herself by cheating, and level of thinking. Perhaps going beyond whatever motivation or incentive or threat is present in this instance inwhich one could cheating or not. In other words, our thinking may take on a level of abstraction, that is, detaching itself from the Particular situation and arriving ‘at astatement like, “Cheating is wrong,” and this happens when one recognizes that there are proper reasons for not acting in this way. Beyond rewards and punishments, itis possible for our moral valuation—our decisions and judgments—to be based ona principle. Thus, one may conclude that cheating is wrong, based on a sense of faiess or a respect for the importance and validity of testing. From this, we can define principles as rationally established grounds by which one justifies and maintains her moral decisions and judgments. But why do we maintain one particular principle rather than another? Why should | maintain that | should care for fairness and that cheating is, therefore, wrong? Returning-to the case of fraternity hazing with which we started this unit, why is it wrong to cause another person physical injury or to take another person’s life? We can maintain principles, but we can also ask what good reasons are there for doing so. Such reasons may differ. So, for example, what makes the death of Cris such a tragedy? One person may say that life is God-given and therefore sacred, Another person may declare that whether or not you believe in God, human lite has a priceless dignity. Still another one may put forward the idea that taking another's life does not contribute to human happiness but to human misery instead, and should therefore be avoided. How exactly do we arrive at any of these claims? This is where we turn to theory. A moral theory is a systematic attempt to establish ‘he validity of maintaining certain moral principles. Insofar as a theory is a system Of thought or of ideas, it can also be referred to as a framework. We can use this term, “framework,” as a theory of interconnected ideas, and at the same time, a Structure through which we can evaluate our reasons for valuing a certain decision Or judgment, UNIT! THE ETHICAL DIMENSION OF HUMAN EXISTENCE 4gThere are different frameworks that can make us reflect on the pj we maintain and thus, the decisions and judgments we make, By eres th we can reconsider, clarify, modify, and ultimately strengthen our vine ee informing better both our moral judgments and moral decisions, Ples, thereby The next units of this book will explore different ethical frameworks th, at h come down from the history of philosophy. This is not an exhaustive list, ang worthwhile theories and thinkers have had to be set aside. But the choice hed eater length just a few of the more cine : ant made to discuss more deeply and at gr t inkers and ideas that have contributed to ethical discernment, and influential thi In The Apology of Socrates written by Plato, Socrates makes the claim that i ig the greatest good for a person to spend time thinking about and discussing with others these questions on goodness and virtue, that this is indeed at the heart of what it means to 2 Hopefully, as We pursue these topics, you will come to agree with Socrates that this effort is indeed a good thing. We will be returning to Plato later in this chapter, aS he guides us through some further difficulties. ies, we will spend the next two lessons Before turning to the ethical theori of this unit exploring certain notions of ethics that are ‘commonly maintained, but ese are quite problematic. These further thought on these notions will reveal that th involve either an appeal to a particular form of authority or to a particular way of understanding the self. EXPERIENCE You certainly have already experienced making moral decisions for yourself and making moral judgments on. others, deciding that this action is right, while the Id be wrong. Can you recall a number of those instances? Now. id this is right or thatis opposite woul can you also re wrong? call the reasoning behind your having sai ASSESS Identify the following: 4. Distinguish among the following: moral issue, decision, moral dilemma. between a descriptive versus a normative study of ethics. thinking? moral judgment, moral 2. Distinguish 3. Explain: what is the importance of abstraction in ethical 1 CHALLENGE Does your school have a “ i ‘code of ethics” or somethin an opectel fale? Baad closely and assess whether o! te Biol ‘ed there, and then consider your reasons ‘for ag! g similar that students r not you agree reeing OF 14 A Course Module for EthicsHARNESS Look for a newspaper article that tack ical i i following questions: les an ethical issue. Consider the a. What makes this a matter of ethics? b. What is your own ethical judgmenton this case? c. _ What are your reasons for this judgment? UNIT) THE ETHICAL DIMENSION OF HUMAN EXISTENCE «| 15LESSON 4 poesia : Sources of Authority end of this lesson, you are expected to: Atthe 4. recognize the importance but also limit in the law as a determinant of ethics: 2 understand the difficulty in making simplistic use of religion as a determinan of ethics; and 3, assess the possible ways using culture as 2 basis can help, but maybe also forts in thinking about ethics. hinder, one’s et Thinking about ethics, as you can probably imagine, is not easy. Trying to figure out the best reasons for maintaining that this is good while that is bad, or this is right while that is wrong takes effort,.and sometimes, even with the mightiest effort, one is still left unsure, undecided. It seems a relief, then, if one could just look to some Kind of authority figure, someone ‘or something who, would spare us the difficulty by simply telling us ‘what moral valuations we should make. In this lesson, we will explore several instances wherein it is supposed there is.a higher authority that compels our compliance on moral matters: the authority of the law, the authority of one’s religion, and the authority of ‘one’s own culture. THINK Various institutions have such we act, including how we make moral acting in certain ways; for instance, | cannot di limit on certain roads. Our religious tradition often both while encouraging us towards others; for instance, in prohibited from, drinking intoxicating beverages, and are enjoined to give charity to those who are less fortunate. Finally, we often look to culture. as a basis for actions; we proudly proclaim that a strong sense of hospitality, cheerfulness, and respect for elders are prime Filipino values. So we can understand how it might be tempting to suppose that since we see ourselves already guided by these institutions, perhaps they are themselves the very authorities we should turn to in order to direct our ethics. We. will discuss each of these three in turn. a strong influence in the way that we think and I valuations. We are constrained by the law from rive a vehicle beyond a certain speed prevents us from some: actions tthe Islamic faith, Muslims are Law Its sometimes supposed that the law is one’s the Philippines, Filipinos are constrained to obey the in the country’s criminal and civil codes. Making this ever province or city, let us say for instance Rizal province, or more particularly, guide to ethical behavior. In laws of the land as stated n more particular, in a given ‘Antipolo 16. ACourse Module for Eihlesay, residents are Constrained to f ty 4 follow ef ps i Pe One can easily imagine this be, ny Provincial laws or city ordinances present is bec vilage level, where local or municipal ee eeamors localized to the barangay or S Of obligation are there for residents to ;. The term positive law ref if follow. fers to all the different rul i D a les tions that are posited or put forward by an authority figure which require omens 1 unethical (e.g., murde theft) which we ae rie cri ey by the law. Fu rther, the law is enforced by ay ¥ asystem af eo Seale Sciministered through various Persons and institutions, which . bee power within, Taking the law to be the basis of ethies has the ben Objective standard that is obii i ised i igatory and applicable to all. So, we would not be surprised if we were to he: “Ethi ’ simple. Just follow whatever the law says.” ‘ar someone say, “Ethics? That's , 4 oars ae {Tight be some problems with this, Of course, we do maintain that, generally speaking, one should obey the law. However, the idea that we are roversial one: the more radical claim that such a statement as the one stated above i law itself and nothing further in order to determine what is right or wrong. But the question is: can one simply identify ethics with the law? One point that has to be raised here is the prohibitive nature of law. The law does not tell us what we should do: it basically works by constraining, us from performing acts that we are not supposed to do: To put it slightly differently, the law cannot tell us what to pursue, only what to avoid, ‘The question then is would we be satisfied thinking about ethics solely from the negative perspective of that which we may not do, disregarding the important aspect of a good which we could and maybe even should do, even if it were not required of us by the law? ' To clarify this idea, we might ask ourselves if there are certain ways of acting which might not be forbidden by the law, but which we might consider ‘ethically questionable. For instance, a company that pads its profits by refusing to give its employees benefits may do so within the parameters of the law. The company can do this by simply refusing to hire workers on a permanent basis, only continuously offering them six-month contracts. Constrained to work under this contractual system, the employees are thus deprived not only of benefits, but also of job security, Here, no law is violated, yet one can wonder whether there is something ethically Questionable to this business practice. The fact that one can make such a negative Value judgment of the practice where there is no violation of the law is already a hint that one can look to something beyond the law when making our ethical valuations.” To make this point concrete, recall the story of a toddler who had been run °ver by a couple of vehicles.* While there were many passers-by who witnessed what had happened, for quite a long while, no one did anything to help. The child later died in the hospital. The law does not oblige People to help others in need, so None of these passers-by were guilty of breaking any law. However, many people UNIT! THE ETHICAL DIMENSION OF HUMAN EXISTENCE 47reacting to this sad news report share some intuition that thos did nothing were in some way ethically culpable in their negligen, Passer. even though we say itis a good thing to obey the law, perhaps ss In Vig 2 thinking of ethics in a way that does not simply identify it with sea Shout Pa Later, we shall see how the concept of law is creatively utilized in hee tothe 4 of Immanuel Kant in a more ethically significant way. e Deonta, . Religion “Love the Lord, Your God, therefore, and always heed his charge: his decrees, and commandments.” (New American Bible) : Slates This verse is the first line of Chapter 11 of the book of Deuterono, expresses a claim that many people of a religious sensibility find appeatin immediately valid: the idea‘ that one is obliged to obey her God in all ii ‘As a foundation for ethical values, this is referred to as the divine com, ms theory. The divinity called God, Allah, Jehovah (or some other name to sit Supreme Being) commands us, and each one of us is obliged to obey our Creaty, There are persons and texts that one believes are linked to the Divine; by listening to these figures and reading these writings, an individual discovers how the Diving wants her to act. Further, someone maintaining a more radical form of this theory might go beyond these instruments of divine revelation and claim that God ‘spoke’ to her directly to instruct her what to do. At first glance, this theory seems to make sense. Many of us had been brought up with one form of religious upbringing or another, so it is very possible that there is a strong inclination in us to refer to.our religious background to back up our moral valuations. We are presented with a more-or-less clear code of prohibitions andmany of these prohibitions given by religion—for instance, “Thou shall not kill,” “Thou shall not steal,” and “Thou shall not commit adultery’—seem to coincide very with our intuitions of what ethics should rightly demand. In addition, there is an advance here over the law because religion is not simply prohibitive, but it also provides ideals‘to pursue. For instance, one may be called to forgive those who sinned against him or to be more charitable to those who have less. Further, taking religion to be the basis of ethics has the advantage of providing us with not only a set of commands but also a Supreme Authority that can inspire and compel our obedience in a way that nothing else can. The Divine can command absolute obedience of a person, 88 the implications of her actions, good and bad, involve her ultimate destiny. Thus, We would not be surprised if we were to hear someone say, “Ethics? That's simple. Just follow whatever your religion says.” a ations Eee could be some Problems with this. First, on the practical level, van ies een cabs cil o a multiplicity of religions. Each faith demands differently Fortine Ba o would apparently result in conflicting ethical standards. acta canals gions have prohibitions concerning what food may be , Not share the same constraints. Are we then compelled 18 ACourse Module for Ethics; but we coul Asecond problem, on what we may wherein the believer is required to clar petween ethics and the Divine. This p of thought by Plato in his dialo, Call a more conceptual level, is the difficulty rify her understanding of the connection roblem was first elucidated in the history gue titled Euthyphro.* In the exchange between Socrates and Euthyphro, thé question is raised as to how one is supposed to define ‘noliness.” Euthyphro puts forward the idea that what is holy is what is loved by the gods. Socrates calls this into question by asking for the following clarification: Is it holy only because it is loved by the gods, or is it holy in itself and that is why it is loved by the gods? The relevarice of these questions to our discussion becomes clear if rephrased in this way: Is it the case that something is right only because God commanded it, or is it the case that ‘something is right in itself and that is the reason why God commanded it? If we presume that taking another's life is wrong, we can ask the question: Is. itthe case that this is so only because God commanded it, or that killing is in itself wrong, and therefore that is the reason why God commanded it? If we take the first option, and accept that it is wrong to take another's life because God commanded it, we are left with the problematic conclusion that there is nothing inherently wrong with killing. It is only because God said so—“Thou shall not kill"—that we consider Such an act wrong. It would seem then that there is something arbitrary about it all, inthe sense that God could will whatever He wants, and on that basis and nothing further, we have the distinction between right from wrong. We would then simply have to accept the rightness or wrongness of things as having been a matter of God's call, whether or not it makes sense to us. As a further-disturbing thought, we Can imagine finding an occasion wherein we could believe that God is suddenly Commanding us to do otherwise—that killing might now become acceptable. History reveals many sad instances of people believing that because God so wills it they are now allowed to kill their fellow human beings in His name. The Crusades Of the Middle Ages are a tragic case in point. Can we be satisfied with this idea that ‘he divine will could be arbitrary? If, on the other hand, we take the second option UNIT! THE ETHICAL DIMENSION OF HUMAN EXISTENCE — 19gis in itself wrong, then we acknowledge that id wrong that we can refer to independently pal there ally do not obey a command because cae Butif Bk objective standards of right and wrong, tp oman even have to think in terms of obeyin, 9 cant Gog ide by such ethical standards. OF yen and accept that kil standards of right an jg the case, then we actu it, but are looking for those simply concurs; One would not ° believing in Him—in order to abi Having said this, we maintain that, generally speaking, it is a good tp, for a person of faith to abide by the teachings of her particular religion, g ms divine command theory demands more than'this, as it requires us to i dsc the entire sense of right and wrong with what religion dictates. The conceptual ae we have seen and the practical difficulties of simplistically and thoughtlessly hee ethics on the divine command are reasons enough for us to.at least call this appr. a into question. Now, let us clarify this point further: our calling into question of the divine command theory ig not intended to make anyone call into question his or her faith in God andthe particular religious tradition he or she belongs to; itis notintendeg to be a challenge to one’s faith. Instead, it is an invitation to consider whether there five and less problematic ways of seeing the connection between may be more creati faith and ethics, rather than simply equating what is ethical with whatever one takes to have been commanded by God. sii can have a more subtle and yet powerful Later, we shall see one way that we ibute to ethical thought when we look at presentation of how one’s faith may contri the Natural Law theory of Thomas Aquinas. Culture : Our exposure to different societies and there are ways of thinking and valuing that are in fact a wide diversity in how different people bel aesthetic differences (Japanese art vs. Indian art), vs. Christianity), differences on etiquette (conflicting bel practices). From such instances, it may become easy to conc! case in ethics as well. There are also various examples easily identified that seem to bear these jan in another. Another out: for instance, nudity can be more taboo in one culture the ‘example would be how relations between men and women can show & wide variety across different cultures, ranging from greater liberality and equality on one hand, to grec nenually and a relation of dominance versus submission on the other. From 2 aay ct cee it is possible for someone to jump to the further claim that eee ee ee in the different ways of valuation means there is nO single ee bio a Valuations, and that this holds true as well in the realm of ne Wea is ethically acceptable or unacceptable is relative to, or ‘that is h ‘on one's culture. This position is referred to as cultural relativism. their cultures makes us aware that different from our own, that there is ieve it is proper to act. There are religious differences (Buddhism haviors regarding dining Jude that this is the 20. ACourse Module for Ethicsacceptable or unacceptable. In turn, our own cul to nor inferior to any other, but they culture, the moral standards that are not be surprised if we were to hear Ss whatever your Culture says.” ture’s moral code is neither superior would Provide us, the People belonging to this appropriate and applicable to us. So, we would ‘omeone say, “Ethics? That's simple. Just follow Tempting as this idea might sound, there are ofthis topic by James Rachels, he presents someot these difficulties.’ The first three points in the following paragraphs are a brief restatement of some of his criticisms of cultural relativism; these are followed by an additional fourth point of criticism based on more recent and more contextualized observations. problems. In a classic exposition First, the argument of cultural elativism is premised on the reality of difference. Because different cultures have different moral codes, we cannot say that any one moral code is the right one. Butis it the case that the very presence of disagreement in itself means there are no tight or wrong answers? Isn't it a common experience to be confronted by a disagreement between Persons and then to have the conflict clarified tater as to who is right or wrong? In other words, disagreement may mean that the question of who is right or wrong is not immediately evident, but it does not necessarily mean that there's no one correct resolution. Second, under cultural relativism, we realize that we are in no position to render any kind of judgment on the practices of another culture. This seems to be agenerous and an open-minded way of respecting others. But what if the Practice seems to call for comment? What if, for instance, a particular African tribe thought itis advantageous and therefore right for them to wipe out a neighboring people through a terrible practice of genocide? Or what if some Middle Eastern country was highly repressive toward women to the point of violence? And what about the traditional practice still maintained by certain societies in the Cordilleras of ritual headhunting? Are we in no position to judge any of this as wrong? Would we be Satisfied with concluding that we are in no position to judge another culture? But this 'S one of the implications of cultural relativism. Third, under cultural relativism, we realize that we are in no position to render Idgment on the practices of even our own culture. If our culture was the basis for determining right and wrong, we would be unable to say that something within our cultural practice was problematic, precisely because we take our culture to be the Standard for making such judgments. If we came from a particular society Wherein d ‘here is a tradition of arranged marriage, we | would simply have to accept that this is OW We do things. But what if we are not satisfied by this conclusion? What if | resist UNIT! THE ETHICAL DIMENSION OF HUMAN EXISTENCE . 94i that make me immoral? We may be | practice? Does ! y be proy this oun certain traits and values and practices of our culture, a 7 about i wish to conform to all of them. It is possible that as We may jught of not being able to call our own culture into aus Stion, not necessarily jaud or be satisfied with the tho! and perhaps ident contemporary difficulty wi etal scan maintain it only by following the presumption of saga rel ubstance or aS something fixed and already Mister mples of a certain culture having a eee from other cultures’ practices, but an a single, clearly defined sub Now, it may be possible to find many exal icult to determine what exactly defines the most evit f life and to distinguish it practice or Way of tod i ror same time itis also becoming increasingly diffi ‘one’s culture. fentify more with a smaller subset within this “Filipino”? What if | id if, for example, | am Igorot? Is thi ture more specifically as being Kankani 2 The point here precisely is the questi ig then my culture? Why not go further and a-ey rather than Ibaloi? Is this ion: What am | supposed to Is my culture group, define my cul then my culture’ take as “my culture”? We can think of many other exé say that my father is from Pampangi brought up in Metro Manila: What is hat reflect this same problem. Let us a and my mother is from Leyte, and | was my culture? Or, let us say that my father is American and my mother is Filipina, and | was brought up in San Diego, California, but | am currently studying ina university in the Philippines: What am | supposed to take as “my culture”? In an increasingly globalized world, the notion of a static and well-defined and distinct culture gives way to greater flexibility and integration. One result of this would be to call into question an idea like cultural relativism, which only. makes sense if one takes as a starting point the problematic presumption ‘that we can clearly distinguish a person’s or group’s culture. We can conclude this criticism. of cultural relativism by pointing out how, in Id tend to become a problem in our addition to the difficulties stated above, it woul us of our use of critical thought. that is, urging study of ethics: because it would most likely deprive On the positive side, cultural relativism promotes a sense of humility, ‘e is superior to another. Such humility, however, nt that is truly ivism is us not to imagine that our own culture ity for a rational, critical discernme! 1g about the values we may wish to amples t! should go hand in hand with a capaci appreciative of human values. Unfortunately, what happens in cultural relati that it basically renders us incapable of discernins ee 25 He are forced to simply accept whatever our culture gives us. It keeps us a ne loring whether there are values that are shared between cultures; it keeps vo Sa ation and judging—either positively or negatively—the valuations that ear sf ; ih Se See As previously mentioned, this presumes that we can Seeaeiatar weil rst place, which becomes increasingly questionable in a 22 ACourse Module for Ethicssentra asitit piligeme pn law and religion, this is not to set aside ant how one’s understanding ot hy Instead, We are urged to think more carefully . T belongir i fut and meaningful for her ethical discon oo, © 2 Certain culture could be more IScernment. We wi i i jast unit © will explore this further in the EXPERIENCE pated 7 he eae ach OF the three—taw, religion, culture—do you think as beet luential, in ter its directi . , r tae than others? MS Of its directing you to act in certain ways ASSESS Consider the following questions: 1. Give one of the problems with taking the law as one’s sole basis for ethics. 2. Give one of the problems with taking one’s religion as one's sole basis for ethics. 3. _ Give one of the probléms with taking one’s culture as one’s sole basis for ethics. CHALLENGE Brainstorm and come up with a list of what may be called common Filipino values. Consider the strengths and weaknesses of maintaining these. HARNESS Our discussion of these three institutions—taw, religion, and culture—in order to assess their status as determinants of Our ethical thinking discloses an ever thomier problem. Generally, everything is fine as long as these three are telling us the same thing, but what happens when they disagree? What do we do when the clerics of a religious tradition object to a law being proposed? What do we do - when a law disadvantages certain cultures? What do we do when emerging cultures Claiming legitimacy stands at odds with certain teligious communities? Try to do ‘Some research on one such actual conflict. UNIT! THE ETHICAL DIMENSION OF HUMAN EXISTENCE 93LESSON 5 Senses At the end of this lesson, you afe expected to: 4. recognize the problem with taking a subjectivist stance towards ethj ethics; 2. recognize the irrefutability but also the uselessness of the desc theory called psychological egoism; and 3. _ assess the challenge to ethics raised by ethical egoism. Noting once again the difficulty in thinking about ethics, in trying to figu ourselves why we maintain that this is good while thatis bad, or thisis right ite wrong, while also not allowing ourselves to simply be blindly obedient to some a pa figure dictating to use what to think, it is possible for some to take a different ‘appro: It ig sometimes supposed that all the difficulty and complexity will be simplified ie just had a better understanding of the dynamic that exists between ethics me person trying to think it. In other words, all we would need to do is to recognize a bet understanding of the self in relation to ethics. Under this general statement, we can identity three theories: subjectivism, psychological egoism, and ethical egoism. btveethieg THINK It is sometimes thought that one should not rely on any external authority to tel oneself what the standards of moral valuation are, but that one should instead tun inward. In this lesson, we will look into three theories about ethics that center on the self: subjectivism, psychological egoism, and ethical egoism. While the focus of al these theories is a sense of the self, they offer radically different ways of thinking about that self, and that selt’s relation to ethics. We will discuss each of these three in tum. Subjectivism “The starting point of subjectivism is the recognition that the individual thinking person (the subject) is at the heart of all moral valuations. She is the one who confronted with the situation and is burdened with the need to make a decision of judgment. From this point, subjectivism leaps to the more radical claim that the individual is the sole determinant of what is morally good or bad, right or wrong: A number of clichés familiar to us would echo this idea: “No one can tell me what is right and wrong.” “No one knows my situation better than myself.” “Lam entitled to my own opinion.” “itis good if | say that itis good.” 24 A Course Module for Ethics