GEC - 220: Ethics

Credit Unit 3 units

Time Allotment 3 hours/week

Grading System
40% Term Exams
30% Quizzes
20% Recitation
10% Project/Attendance
 HOUSE RULES
• University Student Handbook
• Dos and Don’t’s
 GEC- 220 : Ethics
Course Description
Ethics deals with principles of ethical behavior in modern
society at the level of the person, society and the interaction with
the environment and other shared resources.
Morality pertains to the standards of right and wrong that
an individual originally picks up from the community. The course
discusses the context and principles of ethical behavior in modern
society. The course also teaches students to make moral decisions
by using dominant moral frameworks and by applying a seven-step
moral reasoning model to analyze and solve moral dilemmas.
The course is organized according to the three (3) main
elements of the moral experience: a) agent, including context-
cultural, communal, and environmental; b) the act and c) reasons
or framework (for the act)
 Learning Outcomes
• At the end of the course, the students must be able to:
– Differentiate between moral and non moral problems.
– Describe what a moral experience is as it happens in different levels of
human existence.
– Explain the influence of Filipino culture on the way students look at
moral experiences and solve moral dilemmas.
– Describe the elements of moral development and moral experience.
– Use ethical frameworks or principles to analyze moral experience.
– Make sound ethical judgements based on principles, facts and the
stakeholders affected.
– Develop sensitivity to common good.
– Understand and internalize the principles of ethical behavior in
modern society at the level of the person, society and interaction with
the environment and other shared resources.
Philosophy : Its definition and meaning
• Philosophy is the branch of knowledge or academic
study devoted to the systematic examination of
basic concepts such as truth, existence, reality,
causality and freedom.
• A particular system of thought or doctrine
• A set of basic principles of concepts underlying a
particular sphere of knowledge.
• A precept (a rule that says how people should
behave), or set of precepts, beliefs, principles or
aim, underlying somebody’s practice or conduct.
 Ethics : Its definition and meaning
• Ethics derived from the Greek word “ethos” which means a
characteristic way of acting.
• Its Latin equivalent is mos, mores, meaning “tradition or customs”
• Ethos includes cultural mannerism, religion, political laws, and
social aspiration of a group of people.
• The ethos of man as man is revealed in the following:
– He is able to distinguish between good and evil, right and wrong, moral
and immoral.
– He feels within himself an obligation to do what is good and to avoid what
is evil.
– He feels himself accountable for his actions, expecting reward or
punishment for them.
 Ethics : Its definition and meaning
• Ethics or moral philosophy, is centered on
fundamental questions about the human
experience and our place in the world,
individuals and as members of a broader society.
• It is the study of the methods and principles
used to distinguish good from bad, and right
from wrong actions.
• The standard of character set by a particular
society of men.
 Objectives of the Course:

• Develop insights on the nature of ethics and its major

theories and principles.
• Make the student become acquainted with some central
issues and positions in the history of moral philosophy
• Help them reflect upon their own values and their stand
on important ethical issues.
• Help student learn how to form a well-reflected opinion
about the topics treated.
• Enable them to develop skills in critical thinking and
argument
 Why is Ethics important?

• Ethics is a requirement for human life. It is our means of

deciding a course of action. Without it, our actions would
be random and aimless.
• There would be no way to work towards a goal because
there would be no way to pick between a limitless number
of goals. Even with an ethical standard, we may be unable
to pursue our goals with the possibility of success. To the
degree which a rational ethical standard is taken, we are
able to correctly organize our goals and actions to
accomplish our most important values.
• Any flaw in our ethics will reduce our ability to be
successful in our endeavors.
 What are the key elements of a proper
Ethics?
• A proper foundation of ethics requires a standard of value to
which all goals and actions can be compared to. This standard is
our own lives, and the happiness which makes them livable.
• This is our ultimate standard of value, the goal in which an
ethical man must always aim. It is arrived at by an examination of
man's nature, and recognizing his peculiar needs.
• A system of ethics must further consist of not only emergency
situations, but the day to day choices we make constantly. It
must include our relations to others, and recognize their
importance not only to our physical survival, but to our well-
being and happiness. It must recognize that our lives are an end
in themselves, and that sacrifice is not only not necessary, but
destructive.
 The Objects of Ethics
• The principal cause of actions is usually
attributed to the doer. Hence a person in control
of his faculties is judged as moral if he performs
an act that observe a particular standard of
morality, and immoral if he commits an act that
violates any given moral standard.
– E.g. Mario committed a crime, Mario and not any
malicious demon is responsible for his act. Because
Mario did the act, it is expected that Mario suffers
the moral or legal consequences of his act.
 The Objects of Ethics (cont.)
• The physical object of ethics.
– The doer of an act and the act done by the doer
are two different object of ethics. The doer of an
act is the physical object of ethics. It does not only
refer to a person, but to an institution and to
other form of social organizations that performs
moral action and other rational activities such as
decision making, moral calculation, etc.
 Objects of Ethics
• The nonphysical object of ethics.
– The act done by a moral agent, such as telling the truth,
helping others in distress, fulfilling a promise, forgiving
others trespasses, humility, including malicious deeds, such
as murder, lying and others are called the non physical
object of ethics.
– Though considering the nature of the moral agent is
important in ethical analysis , it is the act, and not the doer
of the act which is considered to be the formal object of
ethics. The act could be judged as moral or immoral
regardless of the accidental characteristics of the moral
agent who performs the act.
 Class Activity
• A class of freshmen decides to buy a file cabinet for
their school organization. They agree to contribute
P50.00 for the purpose. Jose, a member of the class
inform his parents of the project, which they readily
support. Jose then proceed to ask his parents for
financial contribution to the project. When asked
how much the individual contribution amounts to,
Jose in all seriousness, says, “P500.00”.
• Can you identify the physical object and the
nonphysical object of ethics in this case or example?
 Ethical System
• There are two general categories under which
ethical theories maybe classified: the Atheistic and
Theistic approaches.
– Atheistic approach assumes that only matter exist and
that man is responsible only to himself since there is no
God. Morality is an invention that suits requirements
and to preserve his society.
• Man is the only reality.
• Man is matter and does not have spiritual dimensions.
• Man is free and must exercise his freedom to promote the
welfare of society.
• There is no life after death.
•
 Ethical System (cont.)
• Theistic approach begins with the assumption that
God is the Lawgiver. Everything must conform to
God’s eternal plan of creation. Man must exercise his
freedom in accordance with God’s will.
• God is the Supreme Creator and Lawgiver.
• Man is free and must use his freedom to promote his
personal and social interest along with his fellowmen.
• Man has an immortal soul which cannot die.
• Man is accountable for his action, both good and evil
Relationship of Ethics and Religion
• Ethics is a science and depends upon rational
investigation of its truth. Religion is a system of belief
and practices based on faith or revelation.
• Ethics teaches the value of religion, presenting it as a
duty to the Almighty.
• Religion on the other hand, as an organized church,
contribute to the teaching of ethics and continues to
enrich with it its moral insight.
• Religions give different emphasis to different moral
values both their efforts aimed to improve both man
and human society.
 Ethics and Law
• Ethics studies human motivation. It goes deeper than the
study of external actions. It explore thoughts and feelings. It
requires that man desires that which is good and act in
accordance with that desire.
• On the contrary, laws requires that we perform the required
action regardless of our feelings towards such action.
• Morality has a wider implications than law, because law can
either be moral or immoral. Thus, what is legal is not
necessarily moral; but what is moral is necessarily worth
legalizing.
• Ethics is a personal commitment to uphold what is true and
good. Ethics aims to develop “right disposition and inner
spirit for accepting what is lawful.
 Professional Ethics
• The practice of profession cannot be regulated
entirely by legislation. Each profession therefore
subscribe to a set of moral code.
– The Civil Service Law
• A Code of Ethics implies that, before anything else,
a professional is a person who has the obligation to
listen to the dictates of reason.
– Code of Ethics for Teachers
• The need for it is obviously to the advantage of the
profession.
 The Human Acts
Distinction is made between human acts and acts of man.
The human acts are those actions which man performs
knowingly, freely and voluntarily. These actions are the
results of conscious knowledge and are subject to the
control of the will. We refer to these actions as; deliberate,
intentional or voluntary.

The acts of man are those actions which happens in man.

They are instinctive and are not within the control of the
will. Such actions are the biological and psychological
movements in man such as, metabolism, respiration, fear,
anger, love and jealousy.
 Essential attributes of human acts
For an act to be considered a human Act, it must posses the
following characteristics;
• It must be performed by a conscious agent who is aware of what
he is doing and its consequences. Children below the age of
reason, the insane, the senile are considered incapable of acting
knowingly.
• It must be performed by an agent who is acting freely, that is, by
his own volition and powers. An action done under duress and
against one’s will is not entirely a free action.
• It must be performed by an agent who decides willfully to perform
the act. This willfulness is the resolve to perform an act here and
now, or in some future time.
• Human acts must therefore , be knowing, free and willful. The lack
of this attributes renders an act defective and less voluntary.
 Kinds of Human Acts
• Human acts are either elicited acts or commanded acts. Elicited acts
are those performed by the will and are not bodily externalized.
– Wish- the tendency of will towards something, whether this be realized or not.
– Intention- the tendency of the will towards something attainable but without
necessarily committing oneself to attain it.
– Consent- the acceptance of the will of those needed to carry out the intention.
– Election- the selection of the will of those means effective enough to carry out
the intention.
– Use- to make use of those means elected to carry out the intention- the
command of the will
– Fruition- is the enjoyment of the will derived from the attainment of the things
he had desired earlier
 Kind of Human Acts
• Commanded acts are those done either by man’s mental
or bodily powers under the command of the will.
Commanded acts are either internal or external actions.
• Internal actions
– Conscious reasoning, encouraging oneself, controlling aroused
emotions and others.
• External actions
– Walking, eating, dancing, laughing, reading, listening.
• Some actions are combination of both.
– Listening, studying, reading, driving a car, writing a letter,
playing chess.
 Moral Distinctions
• Human acts may either be in conformity or not
with the dictates of reasons. Dictates of
reasons refers to the shared consciousness of
prudent people about the propriety of a
certain action or manner of behavior. It stands
for the norm of morality which is the standard
by which actions are judged as to their merits
or demerits.
 Classification of actions
• Moral actions- those actions which are in conformity with the
norm of morality. They are good actions and are permissible.
– Telling the truth, studying, loving a friend. Paying a debt.
• Immoral actions- those actions which are not in conformity with
the norm of morality. They are bad or evil and are not
permissible.
– Refusing to help the needy, committing murder, adultery,
• Amoral actions- those actions which stands neutral in relation the
norm of morality. They are neither good or bad in themselves. But
certain amoral actions may become good or bad because of the
circumstances attendant to them.
– Playing basketball is an amoral act.
• Playing basket when one is supposed to attend a class is wrong.
• Playing basketball out of sense of duty to the team is good.
 Review Quiz on GEC 220 (02/13/20)
Identification(BSEnE-2C,BSEnE-2A, BFPT-2A, BSEnE-2B,BFPT-2B, BFPT-2C
1.What does the Greek word ethos actually mean? “characteristic way of acting”
2. It refers to the shared consciousness of prudent people about the propriety of a certain action or manner of behavior. Dictates of
reason
3. It is considered as a set of guidelines which has been established in all countries and communities and has been accepted by all. Rule
4. Kinds of human acts which refers to those done either by man’s mental or bodily powers under the command of the will. Commanded
act
5. The standards to which our understanding of morality is anchored. Good, right, moral
6. It refers to those actions which stands neutral to the norm of morality. Amoral acts
7. It refers to those actions which man performs knowingly, freely and voluntarily. Human acts
8. It is described as actions which happens in man and considered as instinctive and are not within the control of the will. Acts of man
9. Common feelings or perceptions of a person about rules. A kind of Restriction
10. Reason why ethics is important to our life. It is our means of deciding a course of action.
11. An ethical theory which begins with the assumption that God is the lawgiver. Theistic.
12. Who are at a disadvantage if rules and regulations broke? The weaker class
13. Basically, what is the purpose of a rule? It clarifies, demarcates, or interprets a law or policy
14. It referred to as a system of belief and practices based on faith or revelation. Religion
15. It refers to those actions which are in conformity with the norm of morality thus considered good and permissible. Moral action
Enumeration:
• 3 important conditions which shows that a man is conscious about morality? ( Able to determine right from wrong, good from bad,
He feels the obligation to do what is good and to avoid what is bad, He feels accountable to the implication of his action.
• 2 important objects of ethics (physical-doer of the act, non physical-act done by the doer)
• 3 Essential attributes of human acts(be knowing, free, willful)
• 3 Classification of action (MIA)
• 4 Reasons why rules are considered very important? (protect the weaker class, keep the people safe, for sports and recreation, Job
security)
Imputability(Accountability) of Human Acts

• A human act is done by a person who is in control

of his faculties, intellect and will. They assume
full responsibility and accountability for his
decision same as a captain do to his ship. It
means that the person performing the act is
liable for such act. A notion of guilt or innocence
is involved, hence considered either praiseworthy
or blameworthy. Action therefore are attributed
to the doer as their principal cause.
 Sanctions and Penalty
• Imputability implies that the doer is either
deserving of reward or punishment. It is
usually considered as a basic requirement of
justice.
– Punishment based on the penal laws.
• Fines, imprisonment
– Spiritually perceived punishment.
• Bible speaks of death as punishment to sins.
• Human sufferings as direct result of immoral situations
– Being ostracized as penalty, being honored as a reward
 The Will or Voluntariness
• The will or otherwise known as voluntariness is essential to an act.
The absence of the will render the act as simply an act of man.
Voluntariness are classified as follows;
– Perfect voluntariness- when person fully knows and fully intends an act.
E.g- shoot an enemy to even up things.
– Imperfect voluntariness- when person acts without fully realizing what
he mean to do. E.g. a drunken man act irrationally without realizing what
he was doing.
– Conditional voluntariness- a person is forced by circumstances beyond
his control to perform which he would not do in normal condition. E.g. a
child forced to study his lesson because he was intimidated by his mother.
– Simple voluntariness- a person is doing an act willfully regardless
whether he likes to do it or not.
• Positive when an act requires the performance of an activity-e.g. polishing the
floor.
• Negative when an act requires the omission of an activity. E.g. not taking
prohibited drugs, remaining quiet.
 Types of voluntariness
• Direct voluntariness.
– The act is primarily intended by the doer, either as end in itself or
as a means to achieve something else. E.g. going to school,
eating lunch.
• Indirect voluntariness.
– It accompanies an act or situation which is a mere result of a
directly willed act. E.g. getting a failing mark.
– A person is accountable for his action and their consequences.
– A person is liable for the result which are foreseeable by an
ordinary act of prudence even the result is not directly intended.
– Doer is morally responsible for any evil effect though evil effect is
directly willed or intended.
– An act with two possible result is morally permissible but the
good effect should outweigh the evil effect.
 The Modifiers of Human Acts
• The ideal is for man to act deliberately with perfect
voluntariness though it is not always possible. A certain
degree doubt or reluctance accompanies an act. There
are always a factor called modifiers that influence
man’s inner disposition towards a certain action. It has
effect to mental or emotional state of a person hence
voluntariness involved in the act is either increased or
decreased including its accountability.
• It is said that the greater the knowledge and the
freedom, the greater the voluntariness and the moral
responsibility.
 The Modifiers of Human Acts
• Man as a living organism respond and reacts to
stimulus. His personal background contribute
largely to his development and behavioral
preferences.
• Common modifiers of human acts;
– Ignorance- the absence of knowledge which a person
ought to possess.
• Vincible ignorance can easily be reminded through ordinary
diligence and reasonable effort. It does not destroy, but
lessens the voluntariness and the accountability over the act.
• Invincible ignorance is the type which a person possess
without being aware of it and lacks the means to rectify it. It
renders an act involuntary.
 Common Modifiers of Human Acts
• Passion – are tendencies towards a desirable object also
known as positive emotion or tendencies away from
undesirable or harmful thing or negative emotion.
– Positive emotions include love, desire, delight, hope and bravery.
Negative emotion includes hatred, horror, sadness, despair, fear and
anger.
– It is considered as psychic response which neither moral or immoral
but man is bound to regulate his emotions and submit them to the
control of reasons.
– Passion are either antecedent or consequent
– The former do not always destroy voluntariness but diminish
accountability for resultant act.
– The latter does not lessen voluntariness but may even increase
accountability.
 Common Modifiers of Human Acts
• Fear- the disturbance of the mind of a person who is confronted
by an impending danger or harm to himself or loved ones.
Distinction is made however between an act done with fear and
an act done out or because of fear. It is a normal response to
danger.
– Acts done with fear are voluntary if the doer is in full control of his
faculties and acts in spite of his fear.
• E.g arresting a notorious killer
– Acts done out of fear, however great, is simply voluntary although it is
also conditionally involuntary. Voluntary as he is in control of his
faculties, involuntary because if not for the fear he would have acted
the other way.
– An act because of intense fear or panic is involuntary as it may cause a
person to lose complete control of himself.
• E.g a person from the 12th floor of a burning building.
Common Modifiers of Human Acts
• Violence- refers to any physical force exerted on a
person by another free agent for the purpose of
compelling the said person to act against his will.
– External actions or commanded actions, performed by a
person subjected to a violence, to which reasonable
resistance has been offered, are voluntary and are not
accountable.
• There is intrinsic resistance by withholding consent design to
preserve moral integrity.
– Elicited acts, or those done by the will alone, are not
subject to violence and are therefore voluntary.
Common Modifiers of Human Acts
• Habits- is a lasting readiness and facility, born
of frequently repeated act, for acting in a
certain manner. It is an acquired inclinations
towards something to be done. It is not easily
overcome or alter and it is either good or bad.
– Actions done by force of habit are voluntary in
cause, unless a reasonable effort is made to
counteract the habitual inclination.
 Review Questions
• Describe fear and explain how this factor could modify
a human act. When are these act out of fear can be
considered voluntary or involuntary?
• When should a person be responsible and accountable
for his action?
• Ethical theories are categorized into atheistic and
theistic approach. Relate how this 2 approaches differ
from each other.
• Explain why ethics is considered as an important
requirement for human life?
• Are human acts and acts of man considered the same?
 Review Questions
• What triggers a man in performing an action?
• Are actions made by man always desired for
good?
• How are ends of a doer being classified?
• Are action and motivation related to each other?
• Are there any principles conceived to justifies
human actions?
• What kind of good is perceived to be the greatest?
 The Ends of Human Acts
• Man does not act aimlessly. When he acts, it is because
he enjoys the action, or because he wants to achieve
something by that action.
• The End of an Act.
• What we call end is the purpose or goal of an act. It is that which
completes or finishes the act.
• Distinction is made between end of the act and end of
the doer or agent.
– The end of the act is the natural termination of activity. E.g.
reading is comprehension
– The end of the doer is the personal purpose or motive
intended by the person performing the act. E.g. the reader to
relax himself.
 Kinds of Ends
The end of a doer is classified as either;
• Proximate or Remote end.
– The proximate end is the purpose which a doer wishes to accomplish immediately
by his action.
• Eg. Proximate end of eating is the satisfaction of hunger.
– The remote end is the purpose which a doer wishes to accomplish in a series of
action.
• The remote end of eating is promotion of good health.
• Intermediate or Ultimate end.
– The ultimate end is the purpose which is desired for its own sake and not because
of something else. Attainment of an ultimate end completes an act and stops all
further acts.
• E.g You study just to earn a degree
– The intermediate end is the purpose which is desired as a means for obtaining
another thing. The attainment of an intermediate end leads either to another
intermediate end or to an ultimate end.
• You study to earn a degree for you to find job, so that you can earn a living for your family.
 Action and Motivation: Its perceived
relationship.
Principles concerning human action.
• Every agent that performs an action acts for the sake of
an end or purpose to be attained.
– Man is a motivated animal. For him to act, he must first find the
motive to act. Sometimes the motive comes instantaneously, as
when one stands up to answer the doorbell. Sometimes , the
motives comes out from tedious and well calculated efforts,
same as with business. Sometimes, the motives is provoked by
selfishness and malice. At other times, it is inspired by love and
concern for others. Whichever way, motives give life to action.
Without it, man finds no reason why he must act at all.
 Principles concerning human actions.
• Every agent acts towards an ultimate end.
– The ultimate end is that on account of which man
decides to act. It is what is desired enough through the
actions. It is what confers meaning to an activity. The
concept of motive implies that there is something
important to be achieved. No person will waste his
time sitting in a bus simply because he does not want
to go anywhere. When someone takes a bus, we may
rightly assume that he wants to go some place: his
ultimate destination. Similarly, in all of his actions man
seeks an ultimate purpose.
 Principles concerning human actions.
• Every agent has the power to move himself
towards an end which he finds suitable for him.
– The end is the motivation of an act. But only what is
good can motivate man to act. Therefore, the end of
an act is something which the doer perceives to be
“suitable” to him. Only what is good can be suitable
to man, because it does not belong to man’s nature
to desire evil for its own sake. An end then is
synonymous with the concept of good.
Justifying Ends as Something Good
• Nothing excites the human appetite or rational
desire than that which is good. Because something
is good, it becomes the subject of desire and,
therefore, desirable. Actions are tendencies
towards something good. Thus, what is good and
desirable is also the end of the act. The concept of
end coincides with that of good. According to
Aristotle, “good” means either of these: good as a
means in itself and good as a means to another
end.(intermediate)
 Justifying Ends as Something Good
• Apparent Good.
– Man has a natural aversion to evil. Evil is never desirable for its own
sake. It is naturally repugnant to man. When someone desires evil as
an end, it is because he views it, subjectively, as something good. It
is evil disguised as good. It is deceptively tempting and many fall to
it.
• E.g. A suitor who kills his rival regards his immoral action as a “good” to rid
himself of a rival for the love of a woman.
– Every human activity is intended for the attainment of something
good. This good must be objectively genuine, not merely an
apparent good. “Unfortunately, as a free agent, man is able to set his
choice on mere apparent goods and false values.”
• E.g. A politician wants to win because of his desire to serve, so during
campaign he need to show he is approachable and willing to extend help so
that people will support and vote for him.
 The Meaning of Good
• The word “good” has varied shades of meaning. It was defined as that which
fits a function according to Aristotle. The good of man is that which fits his
function as a rational being. He further stressed that because it is the soul
that which constitutes man’s rational nature, “the good of man proves to be
an activity of the soul in conformity with excellence; if there is more than
one excellence, it will be the best and the most complete of these.
• A thinker once wrote that human being have their needs, while individual
humans have their wants. Needs are those goods which are essential to
man as man. Without them man is incomplete and underdeveloped. Wants
are those goods that an individual requires because of his particular
circumstances in life. Obviously, the needs must first be fulfilled before he
wants.
• The good that fits man as a man are the needs of his rational nature. All
other needs, such as the biological and social, while they are similarly
required, are subordinate to the rational needs.
 Kinds of Good
• Essential and accidental
– Those that fit the natural needs of man as man are essential
good. E.g. food, shelter, health, virtue etc..
– Those that fits the wants of an individual because of his
circumstances are accidental good. E.g money, car, academic
degree, power.
• Real and apparent
– Real good is something which has an intrinsic value. Renders
fitting and desirable.
• E.g. good acts, habits
– Apparent good is actually evil thing but is viewed as good
under certain aspect.
 Kinds of Good
• Perfective and non-perfective
– Perfective- is that which contributes to the integral perfection of a
person.
• E.g. Education, virtue, food, exercise medicine.
– Non-perfective- is that which merely contributes to the external
appearance or convenience of a person.
• E.g. Clothes, wealth, political power, social status.
• Perfect and Imperfect good
– Perfect or unlimited or absolute good has the fullness of qualities
enabling it to fully satisfy human desire.
• E.g. Only God in absolute sense is perfect good.
– Imperfect- good possesses only certain qualities so that it does
not fully satisfy human desire except in a relative or limited sense.
• E.g. Earthly goods
 The Greatest Good
• In every activity, man seek that which is
good. The greatest good has that concern
for the best of everything. It is that good
which inspires happiness . The ultimate
purpose of life is the attainment of
happiness and it is considered as the
greatest good.
 Happiness
• As a psychological state, happiness is the feeling of
contentment arising from the possession of a good. A state
of being, it is the perfection arising from the possession of
the good. Happiness coming from the possession of the
greatest good constitutes man’s perfection.
• The greatest good is the possession of which will fully and
absolutely satisfy human desire so that nothing more
remains to be desired. If the greatest good does not exist
or if it does but is totally beyond man’s grasp, then human
life would be pointless. Ethics has already provided an
answer to this fundamental question of life.
 Happiness
• Natural happiness
– Is that which is attainable by man through the use of his natural
power.
– Consist in the perfection that can be attained by man through the
employment of his body and soul and the powers inherent in
them; intellect, will, the sense of appetite, locomotion, nutrition
and growth.
– It belongs to the intellect: the contemplation of truth. But this
fullness of knowledge is attained through virtue.
• Supernatural happiness.
– Is that which is attainable by man through the use of his natural
power as these are informed and aided by God’s infusion of grace.
Super natural happiness is a study belonging properly to Moral
Theology.
 The Ultimate Purpose
• Teach that man, in every deliberate action acts towards
an end, and ultimately, to an absolutely ultimate end:
happiness. As man’s desire and tendency towards
happiness is unlimited, nothing short of the absolutely
perfect good can satisfy it perfectly. Therefore God, the
infinite good, is the greatest good to be attained as the
ultimate end. (St. Augustine and Aquinas)
• Man cannot have a perfect happiness in his life, because
God can never be known perfectly by man’s natural
power. Man can approximate perfect happiness in this life
by knowledge and love of God and by exercise of virtue.
 Review Questions
• What triggers a man in performing an action?
• Are actions made by man always desired for
good?
• How are ends of a doer being classified?
• Are action and motivation related to each other?
• Are there any principles conceived to justifies
human actions?
• What kind of good is perceived to be the greatest?
 HUMAN VALUES
• Values are that which we seek to achieve or maintain according to
our life as the standard of evaluation. Values are the motive power behind
purposeful action. They are the ends to which we act. Without them, life would
be impossible. Life requires self-generated action to sustain itself. Without
values, one could not act, and death would follow.
• Value specifies a relationship between a person and a goal. A value requires a
valuer--a particular person who aims to achieve or maintain something. An
object cannot have value in itself. Value is relational, and so requires a person
and a goal. The goal to which one aims is called the "value", but the relationship
is always required. This means an object cannot be a value in itself. It only gains
the title of value when a person acts to achieve or maintain it.
• Values are essential to ethics. Ethics is concerned with human actions, and the
choice of those actions. Ethics evaluates those actions, and the values that
underlies them. It determines which values should be pursued, and which
shouldn't. Ethics is a code of values.
 HUMAN VALUES
• Contribute to the promotion of human life. Values are not equal in
their worth, thus the conduct of a person depends largely on his
wise use of values.
• Value
– Man is not only an animal; he is a person. Man is a person because he has the gift of
insight. We often refer to a person as self or ego. There is no basic difference
between this two terms as it both imply the sufficiency of a person. Both imply
worth or value.( Robert Edward Brenman: Thomistic Psychology)
– Value is intimately related to the search for meaning in human life. We say that life is
meaningful when a man has found something capable of arousing his commitment
to it; something deserving of his best efforts, something worth living for and , if need
be, worth dying for. It has been said that value are the goal of man’s striving, having
as their purpose to render human existence meaningful and to achieve the complete
fulfilment of man’s personality as individual and as a community. Value enable man
to change, to establish self control and self direction. (Thomas Andres:
Understanding Values)
 KINDS OF VALUES
• Values are classified according to the level of human life to which they correspond.
• Biological Values – These are necessary for the physical survival of man as an organism:
– Life and health
– Food and shelter
– Work
• Social Values – These are necessary to the sensual needs and fulfilment:
– Leisure and sex
– Marriage
– Family and home
– Parental authority
– Education
• Rational Values – These are necessary to the function and fulfilment of intellect and will.
– Understanding and control of nature
– Guide and control of oneself
– Solidarity with fellowmen
– religion
 MORAL VALUES
• The three level of man’s life are the foundation of moral, socio-political and
religious rights of man. All values therefore are interrelated.
• Moral Values- what we consider Moral Values are those that directly pertain
to the function of intellect and will: those choices, decisions and actions, by
which man’s rational faculties are involved and perfected. All other values-
biological, social or rational – when they fall within the exercise of man’s
freedom of choice assume the quality of moral. In this sense, all values are
moral in reference to their use or abuse by man as a free agent.
– E.g. The consumption of food is value in itself, but overeating is a dis-value or abuse
of food as value. Likewise, wilful privation of food is either justifiable or not. One
may refuse foods for capricious reasons, or one may refuse to eat for some lofty
reasons: as in a hunger strike in protest of a human rights violation.
• A qualitatively determined value-in-itself which has a normative obligatory
character and presupposes the liberty of possible decision, a decision to
effectuate real value in concrete acts of varying degree.(Von Rintelen: A
Realistic Analysis of Values)
 CHARACTERISTICS OF MORAL and Other
VALUES
• Moral values are goods having intrinsic qualities of desirability.
• Moral values are universal, that is, they appeal to man as man and to man
as a specific individual.
• Moral value are obligatory. They come as a natural duty, because
possessions of them is expected as an integral quality of man as rational
creature directed by natural powers towards truth, beauty and goodness.
• Religious values are those that pertains to man’s relationship with the
Deity, guiding and regulation his communion with him.
• Cultural values are those man shares with others in a given community of
persons, shaping their spiritual kinship and directing their attention to
definite ideals or behaviour.
• Social values are those that are necessary for the promotion of human
society as a whole, integrating the motivation and interest of members
towards the common objective or goal.
 HEIRARCHY OF VALUES
• The hierarchy of values refers to the order of values from the lowest to the highest in
importance. Speaking of their intrinsic worth, values do not have the same degree of
desirability. Neither is it possible to incorporate all values at the same time in our lives.
Accordingly, people will have to choose their values. The science of Ethics may help
people in their choices, but for all practical purposes it is the responsibility of each
person.
• The Arestotelian ranking of values appears justified. The goods pertaining to the soul, that
is to the intellect and will, occupies the highest level of importance. The biological values
occupy the lowest rank. That we should aim for the most essential values is common
sense enough. Our choice should direct us to genuine growth in character.
• Subjectivity plays an important influence in the choice of values. We soon find that in a
given situation, it becomes quite difficult to make decisions. The problem can be solved
by certain amount of flexibility. While knowledge, for example, is essential. Leisure
maybe chosen if studying becomes detrimental to one’s health.
• The circumstances of time and place may also dictate on our own choice. Certainly, food
is the greatest in importance for a man who is dying of hunger. Christ for instance,
interrupted himself in his teaching by multiplying the fishes and loaves of bread.
 CHOOSING OUR VALUES
• Every man has to choose his values. He is wise indeed who chooses values
according to their intrinsic worth. Our preference should be guided by the
following;
– Permanent and lasting values must be preferred over temporary or perishable
values, E.g. education over courtship.
– Values preferred by a greater number of people must be preferred over those that
appeal only to a few. E.g. discipline over personal freedom.
– Values that are essential must be preferred over those that are accidental, E.g. health
over beauty.
– Values that gives greater satisfaction must be preferred over those that provides
short pleasure, E.g. pursuing your artistic hobby over fanatical devotion to a movie
star.
• Our value preferences determines our life-styles and our character as a
person. In this sense, we speak negatively of certain people as mukhang
pera, tsismoso, lassengo or walang silbi. On the other hand, we refer
positively to people who are maka diyos, masipag, makatao.
 GOD THE HIGHEST VALUE
• God is goodness, the perfect good. He is the exemplar of
all goodness found in all creatures. He is the plenitude of
everything desirable. Thus, He is the “Summum Bonum”
the ultimate and absolute good that will fulfil all human
desires. St. Augustine says that our hearts are restless
until we find God. God is the ultimate end of human life.
• God is not only the Alpha and Omega of the created
universe, he is the preserver of the values. Without God,
nothing is worth valuing, for them even the person of a
human being losses his meaning and life itself becomes a
useless and aimless wandering in the avenues of time.
 Study Questions
• WHAT NORM OR STANDARD IS OUR BASIS IN
DETERMINING THAT AN ACT IS ACCEPTABLE OR
NOT?
• HOW DO WE DETERMINE THAT A MOTIVE IS GOOD?
• IS MOTIVE OF AN ACT AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE
ACT RELATED TO EACH OTHER?
• HOW DOES MORAL LAWS DIFFERS FROM A
POLITICAL LAWS? WHAT PROPERTIES HAVE
ESSENTIALY CLASSIFIED IT DIFFERENTLY FROM EACH
OTHER?
 The Determinants of Morality
• Morality consist in the conformity and non- conformity of
an act with norm. But how does an act relate to the norm?
How do we know that a given act is morally objectionable
or not?
• Human acts relate to the norm under the following aspects:
– The act in itself, that is as a deed- or the object.
– In its motive- or the end.
– In its circumstances- or the circumstances.
– These three aspects are called the determinants of morality
because they determine how an act is rendered good or bad on
the basis of its relation with the norm.
 The Determinants of Morality
• Ancient thinkers relates that things is good if it has the fullness of its
part and it is bad when it is deficient in any of its integral parts.
• For human body, if it must be good, must have all its parts and
functions. It is defective, and therefore bad , when it lacks say, the
power of sight or locomotion.
• In moral parlance, a human act is good when it is good in itself, in its
motive or purpose and in its circumstances. A defect coming from any
of these aspects renders an act morally objectionable. In other
words , like the human anatomy, an act must have the perfection of its
part.
– E.g. Helping the needy is a good action taken in each self. It may became bad if the
motive of person doing the act is not honorable, such that of merely impressing
friends that one is kindhearted.
– This illustrates how a morally good action may become morally objectionable on
account of the motive of the doer.
 The Act in Itself
• To consider an act in itself is to regards its nature. An act, of
course, is not simply a mental or bodily activity requiring an
expenditure of energy. An act is a physical tendency towards a
definite result. (The end of the act)
• In physical sense, some actions are bad because they produce such
evils as pain, hunger, illness or death.
• In moral sense, actions are bad because they disturb the harmony
within the acting person.
• They are “unfit” to the natural and spiritual tendencies of the
human soul. Moral evils also produce physical harm and damage of
oneself and others. But they are moral evils because what they
destroy is the innate goodness, the image of God in our human
nature. Thus it said that all moral evils are those that go against
the natural law.
 Intrinsic and Extrinsic Evil: Classified
• Intrinsic – implies a quality inherent in a thing. Thus, an intrinsic
evil act is an act which is evil by its nature. An intrinsic evil act is
one which is by its nature, that is, by its functional purpose, is
wrongful.
– E.g. murder, adultery, lies, rape, robbery-it contradicts the demands of
reasons for justice.
• Extrinsic – implies a quality which is superficially added to a thing
in a manner that a coat of paint covers the surface of a wall without
modifying the essentiality of the wood constituting the wall.
Extrinsic evil therefore is an act which is in itself is not evil but is
made evil nonetheless on account of something. An extrinsic evil
act is that which, although good or indifferent in itself, is however
prohibited by human law.
– E.g. The act of eating meat by Catholics on the Friday of Lent.
 The Motive of the Act
• The motive of an act is the purpose which the doer wishes to achieve by
such action. It is what gives direction and motivation to an act. It comes first
in the mind as intention and occur last in the action as its culmination or
fulfillment. Without a motive, an act is meaningless, an accident.
• The assumption is for the motive to be good. But what is good motive?
– A good motive is one which is consistent with the dignity of human person. It is in
accordance with truth, justice, prudence, and temperance.
– A bad motives is the one that grows from selfishness because such motive provokes
actions detrimental to others.
• While actions springs from the self seeking goal, such desire must be
moderated by prudence and fairness. Excessive indulgence of the self is a
form of personal injustice to oneself, nursing the greed that destroys the
others. Thus, in the Old Testament, a good man is called a just man. He acts
rightly out of respect for himself and out of his concern for others.
• “The End does not Justify the Means”.
– To the doer, an act is a means for achieving an aim or purpose. It is ,however wrong to
attempt at a good purpose by dubious or evil means. The worthiness of purpose does
not make an evil act good.
 Circumstances of the Act
• An act is an event. It happens in a definite time and place. It is
accompanied by certain elements which contribute to the
nature and accountability of such act. In law, we speak of
mitigating or aggravating factors affecting a criminal act.
Morality also takes into account the circumstances
surrounding an act. These circumstances are who, what,
where, with whom, why, how, and where.
– Who- refers primarily to the doer of the act or the receiver of the
act. May include age, status, relation, health, socio economic
condition. E.g Insane is incapable of voluntary act and are therefore
exempted from moral accountability.
– What- refers to the act itself and to the quality and quantity of the
results of such act. E.g. The graveness of robbery is measured by
what is stolen and by how much is stolen.
 Circumstances of the Act
• Where- refers to the circumstances of place where the act is
committed. E.g. Murder done before a crowd is more heinous that
that which is done in an isolated place.
• With whom- refers to the companion or accomplices in an act
performed. This includes the number and status of the persons
involved. The more people are involved in the commission of an act,
the greater and more serious is the crime.
• Why- refers to the motive of the doer
• How- refers to the manner how the act is made possible. Was the
killing accomplished with deceit? Was it done by the use of torture?
How an act is performed contributes to the malice of an act.
• When- refers to the time of the act. E.g. A murder committed when
the victim is sleeping is more offensive than the one done when the
victim is wide awake
 Observations
• Circumstances may either increase or decrease the wrongfulness of an evil
act.
– The killing of innocent people in the case of terrorist exploding a bomb inside a
commercial plane constitute a serious crime.
– In contrast killing someone who has long oppressed the assailant is less wrongful.
– Nonetheless, the acts remain evil, because no one may take the law in his own
hands even for purpose of avenging oneself.
• Circumstances also may either increase or decrease the merits of a good
act.
– Helping another at the risk of one own life is greatly meritorious.
– Helping another for purpose of publicity lessen the merits of charity.
• Some circumstances may alter the nature of the act. Such is the case in
many crimes.
– The act of committing a holdup is different from the simple act of stealing.
– The holdup presupposes the use of threat or violence. Whereas stealing implies
stealth or deception
 Conclusion
• There are good actions and there are evil
actions. Their realities do not come from our
mind. What is black does not turn itself white
because we think of it as white. This is the
error of those who think that evil is all in the
mind.
• To be an authentic person is to be a
responsible person. He knows how to use his
freedom only as an instrument to do good.
 Law: Its meaning and relevance
• Law- is an ordinance of reason promulgated for the common
good by one who has charge of society.
– Ordinance of reason- because they are rational deliberation
intended to guide men towards what is good for them and for
society.
– Promulgated- they are made known to the people who are bound
to observe them.
– Passed by one who has charge of society- because they can only be
valid if they the legitimate exercise of authority.
– Necessary to man- they regulate human activity. Without it there
will be anarchy and chaos.
– Comparable to the signs in the street which guide the traveler
towards his destination. Without laws, man will not find his
ultimate purpose in life
 Kind of Law
• Devine Positive law
– Promulgated and made known to us, by special
command of God. They are the explicit demands of
our essential as rational being. They direct man
towards his proper end. E.g. The Decalogue of Moses
• Human Positive law
– Promulgated by legitimate human authority. It is
intended to preserve peace and harmony within a
society and to direct each member of that society to
work towards the common good.
 Socialization
• Go to the library and using references or books on
sociology, Identify the different agent of socialization
• Relate how each of these agent of socialization
become a factor in shaping personality of every
individual? Cite or give one example for each of this
agent of socialization.
• Relate also how socialization for sex roles is
practiced and how it contribute in shaping a kid's
personality?
• Output will be done and submitted by group of 4.
 Rights and Duties
• There are certain rights afforded by society. This may range from
constitutional to statutory rights like right to vote and consumer protection
rights. These rights are however conditional and their recognition and
protection can be withdrawn by society anytime it wanted being the giver of
the said rights. Society can amend the constitution thereby changing our
constitutional rights and a single legislation of Congress can also result in
some changes in our statutory rights.
• There are however some certain rights that are not, and cannot be granted
by society. These are self evident rights which every humans are born
with.These rights flow from man’s nature as a moral being , hence they are
called moral rights. These is also synonymous to human rights being we the
possessor of this rights ae human beings. Thus our right to life and liberty are
rights that stem both from our human and moral nature.
• Because human beings naturally possesses moral or human rights, societies
and governments are morally bound to recognize them.
 Rights: Its meaning and essence.
• Right objectively taken, is anything which is owed or due.
Taken subjectively is a moral power, bound to be respected
by others, of doing, possessing or requiring something.
• A right is an entitlement to something. A person has a right
when he is entitled to act in a certain way or is entitled to
have others to act in a certain way towards him. As an
entitlement, a person can properly invoke it as a due, or may
opt to disregard it. The term “right” therefore indicates the
existence of requirements on others which enable an
individual to pursue his or her interest. Rights are correlated
with duties. To have a right necessarily implies that other have
certain duties the bearer of that right.
Rights: Its nature an how it is perceived.
• The rights can either directs other to refrain from doing
something, or to do something towards the person bearing
such rights. As such, rights are either negative or positive
rights.
• Negative rights- are defined in terms of the duties of others
not to interfere in a certain activities of the person who
holds such rights. It is important to note that this right
covers anything that is considered private and personal. E.g.
reading the letter with out the permission of the owner. It is
simply means that anybody has the right to do what he
pleases to do for as long as it doesn’t interfere with the
rights of other people.
Rights: Its nature an how it is perceived.
• Positive rights- are defined in terms of the duties of others to
provide the person who holds such rights the freedom to do
what he wants.
• E.g. The right to education. Because the people has the right to
education, the state has a duty to give formal educations to its
citizens by putting up public schools. (Art. 14, Philippine
constitution, Art 26, UN Declaration)
• While a poor student can invoke his right to cheaper but
quality education in a state university, he cannot do so in a
private university. Hence, it is equivalent to the state
abandoning its duty to give public education. It also abandons
its duty to respect the people’s rights to education.
 Classification of rights
• Legal rights- are those which are limited to a particular
jurisdiction of a legal system from which such rights are
derived. Constitutional and statutory rights fall to this
classification Legal rights are those that are formally
recognized and enforced by society. Under this form are
the various political, civil and economic rights.
• Moral-natural rights- are rights possessed by all rational
and moral beings as creatures with a sense of morality
and dignity. In this context, moral rights are also known
as “human rights”. Moral rights are inalienable and are
considered as sacred properties of man.
 Nature of Moral (Human) rights
• Moral rights are universal. These rights are enjoyed regardless of
nationality, creed, gender, age and color. “All human beings are
born free and equal in dignity and rights”. (Article 1, UN
Declaration)
• Comparable rights of others limit moral rights. Though moral
rights is inalienable, the exercise of moral rights is limited by the
moral rights of others. E.g. free speech versus protection from
slanderous accusations.
• Moral rights necessarily imply moral duties. A reciprocal duties
corresponding its exercise, fairness entails fairness.
• Moral rights imposes limitations to the overwhelming power of
the state. Moral rights safeguard man from abuse and misuse of
political power.
 Determining Moral Rights
• Kant principle of Universalizability: Those rights, which we are
willing for everyone to have under similar condition, are moral
rights. In other words, something is my moral right If I don’t mind
everybody having it. E.g “right to privacy”.
• Principle of Reversalizability: Those rights which we are not willing
for everyone to have under similar conditions, are not our moral
rights. In other words, If I don’t like you to invoke something as
your right, then it is hardly my moral right. E.g. ” the right to steal”.
• Principle of Respect for person: The right which do not use people
merely as a means to satisfy one’s personal interest , but which
instead respect their dignity, are moral right
• Moral right is important in the protection of human dignity.
 Reciprocity of Rights and Duties
• The right to be treated in a particular way by others implies a
duty to treat others the same way.
• Rights come hand in hand with duties.
• Rights prescribe rules of behavior.
• The enjoyment of these rights is conditional, that is, for man to
enjoy these rights he must be willing to perform the duties and
obligation attached to them.
• The Principle of Reciprocity also applies to the rights and duties
of the citizens vis-à-vis the rights and duties of the state.
• Right to life is the most fundamental moral right. It is not
simply a right to live in a way, but a right to live in a particular
way. To live in a more dignified life.
 The Idea of Justice
• When we hear the word “justice” and “fairness” we
usually assume that anything that is just or fair is moral
and everything that is unjust or unfair is immoral.
• Justice as defined means: “giving one his due” which
implies the concept of fair distribution of burdens and
benefits.
• How is fairness of distribution determined?
• If to be just or to be fair means giving a person his due
how may one rightfully claim his due?
• A: Obviously, it depends on the norms of standard that
particular society adopts.
 Meaning and Nature of Justice.
• Its hard to give a precise definition for justice for the
following reasons;
– Meaning of justice changes over the passage of time.
– Different people in different times and different places had
different interpretation of justice.
– According to Brecht “Not only do different individuals holds
various ideas about the ideal state of affairs they would
consider really just; every individual is capable of several such
ideas. Our ideas and feeling of justice may vary, in accordance
with different system of values to which we respond positively
at different times...Justice in the light of personal ideas is at
least a barrel with several bottoms.
 Meaning and Nature of Justice.
• Justice as the Principle of Right Order. Plato’s
philosophical interpretation of justice means
that “ everyone ought to perform the one
function in the community for which his nature
best suits him and to the best for the
community”. Plato’s idea of justice concerns
only the city state and not the individual.
Justice therefore refers exclusively to a
condition of a right ordered state.
 Three conditions for justice to exist
according to Plato
• Every person must stay in his class where nature best suits him. Guardian
or ruler, if he’s strong in body, and demonstrate the virtues of wisdom,
courage and temperance. Auxiliary or military if he’s strong in body, and
demonstrate the virtue of courage and temperance. Craftsmen or laborer if
displays only the virtue of temperance.
• Every person must observe the virtues of the class he belongs. Wisdom for
the king, courage for the auxiliaries, and temperance for the workers.
• Everyone must contribute his best to the community. According to Plato,
injustice results when there is interference or interchange of social position
and tools or when all these forms are combined in one person.
• Q: What did Plato emphasized in his idea of justice?
• A: Respect to each other, non interference to the affairs of others, serving
beyond personal interest, which obviously refers to the interest of the
majority.
 The Varied Aspect of Justice
• Justice as Natural justice- Justice is natural justice according to Stoics, just
like human life is a life that is in agreement with nature. What is in accord
with nature is just, what violates the law of nature is unjust. It became one
of the famous contribution of the Romans to the world legal system. (Jus
civile, Jus gentium)
• “ Justice is a fixed and binding disposition to give to every man his right. The
study of law is a knowledge of things, human and divine, the science of just
and the unjust. The precept of the law are as follows: to live honorably, to
injure no one, to give to everyone his own”.(Quoted from the Roman Digest)
• The idea of natural justice embraced by the Stoics and the Romans has
become associated with divine sanctions with the advent of Christianity. It
states that: Justice is the will of God manifested through nature and
discovered by enlightened reason. God reveal his will in the natural order of
things. Injustice therefore is anything that is contrary to nature.
 Varied aspect of Justice (cont.)
• Justice as Legal justice- Justice relates to the settlement of disputes
through judicial bodies. According to this interpretation, “justice is
what the laws tells it is”. The learned Judge define what is just and
unjust according to the letters and spirit of the law. The court give
verdict to tried cases and such decision represents what the court
has perceived as just. (The essence of due process of law)
• Justice and its administration must always be according to the law
of the state as proclaimed by the state according to Dean Roscoe
Pound. “There is no justice outside of the law, for the danger in the
event, would be justice according to the uncontrolled passion,
prejudice and instinct of the person administering justice and
therefore, running the risk of being whimsical and unpredictable.
(the essence of inhibition)
 Varied aspect of Justice (cont.)
• Justice as class justice- In Karl Marx doctrine of class war, he believed
that the state was an instrument of exploitation and oppression by one
class over the other, hence its laws and its courts never pronounced
genuine justice, but justice as defined by the oppressors which controlled
the state. E.g. laws forbids the laborer to overthrow the capitalist control
over capitalist production. The solution for the inhuman condition of the
working class according to Marx, is to overthrow capitalist control,
abolish private property and abolish the state.
• The meaning of justice therefore depends heavily on the nature of the
class which perceived it;
– Capitalist justice is anything that serves the interest of capitalism. Oppression
and exploitation of laborers are just because they serve the interest of the ruling
class.
– Socialist justice is anything that contribute to the destruction of capitalism and
capitalist oppression.
 Varied aspect of Justice (cont.)
• Justice as Social justice- with democracy penetrating the
social and economic spheres the meaning of justice has
expanded itself to cover all walks of life. Justice
therefore, is now commonly understood as social justice.
• Social justice relates to; “balance between an individual’s
rights and social control ensuring the fulfillment of the
legitimate expectations of the individual under the
existing laws and to assure him benefits thereunder and
protection in case of any violation or encroachment on
his rights, consistent with the unity of the nation and the
needs of the society, according to Brandt.
 Varied aspect of Justice (cont.)
• Justice as Social justice-
– The term “unity of the nation” and “needs of the society” undoubtedly imply the
idea of self sacrifice for the sake of the greater good. Thus, justice become a very
broad term that covers everything that pertains to general interest, which ranges
from the protection of minorities and eradication of all social ills. Social justice allow
for a middle ground, or the possibility of social classes to meet halfway which is
opposite to Marx idea. Social justice has widens its dimension covering almost all
domain of every people’s life.
– Social justice is considered to be the most ideal and agreeable meaning of justice.
Although social justice is not wholly acceptable to the doctrine of liberalism, what
we need however is not a complete individual freedom as we also need help. In
fact, to be help is the reason why we exist in the society in the first place. Social
justice allow the poor to expect help from the government.
– Wise man’s advice somehow suggest: we should not in the spirit of social justice,
ask too much from the government because, “once it s extended beyond the
facilities which for other reasons have to be provided by the government, it become
a wholly illusory ideal.”(Hayek, 1976) In short, social justice, if taken to the extreme
can lead to disillusionment, which in turn may result in a nightmarish consequence:
anarchy.
 Norms of Justice
• In his famous work, Politics, Aristotle claimed that, “injustice arises
when equals are treated unequally, and also when unequal are
treated equally.” this idea of justice came to lay down the foundation
of the two norms of justice: distributive and corrective justice.
Aristotle explains injustice as either of the two, the first part requires
equal distribution among equals, while the second part, requires
remedy for a performed wrong.
• Through the years, distributive and corrective justice has evolved to
become two distinct norms of justice. Distributive justice is concerned
with the fair distribution of benefits and burdens among members of
a society, while corrective justice concerns the just imposition of
punishment upon those who do wrong.(e.g. fines, imprisonment) It is
also concern with the just determination of compensation for what is
lost. (e.g. moral damages)
 Theories of Distributive Justice
• The Egalitarian theory of justice: It states that every person should
be given equal share in society’s benefits and burdens. Equality
under this theory, refers to both economic and political equality.
• Political equality, egalitarians desires that all people, regardless of
their status, should be given equal access and opportunity to
exercise political authority. However, it does not mean that everyone
ought to be treated equally regardless of their accidental but
important attributes. ( age, skills, talents, health, etc. like toddler and
adults compared) It means that all qualified citizens, regardless of
their gender, literacy and economic or social status, should have
equal access to political office and equal opportunity to seek and
enjoy positions of political power. (Right of suffrage in a democratic
society though disparity still exist between the rich and the poor)
 Theories of Distributive Justice
• The Egalitarian theory of justice:
• Economic equality-refers to the equality in the distribution of wealth and
privileges. All should work and should be equally paid for equal work. In reality
this doesn’t exist as an example disparity in salary exist between private and
publicly employed individuals. The distribution of wealth between the rich and
the poor is another contradictions to the theory.
• For some egalitarians somehow had recognized and accepted the fact that there
is to be social, political and economic inequalities. In his book Theory of Justice,
William Rawls believes that justice means equal liberty and opportunity, but
political and economic inequality is acceptable if it is for the benefit of majority
in general, and of the poor in particular. For him, justice means equal political
liberty and opportunity decided by the people themselves under the ideal
condition of fairness embraced under veil of ignorance. Meaning, they agree
irrespective of their particular characteristics.(ages, religion, social position)
Further, persons under the veil of ignorance would all agree- being rational and
mutually disinterested- to principles of equal liberty and equal opportunity.
 Theories of Distributive Justice
• Economic equality
• Principles of equal liberty-states that each person is to
have equal rights to the most extensive basic liberty
compatible with similar liberty for others. Meaning,
everyone has equal freedom to do anything as long as it
does not violate the comparable freedom for others.
• Difference of Principles- states that social and economic
inequalities are to be arranged so that, first, they are
both reasonably expected to be everyone’s advantage,
and second, attached to positions and offices open to
all.
 Theories of Distributive Justice
• The Capitalist theory of justice- states that any benefits should
be distributed according to the contribution each individual
makes. This means that the more a person contributes to his
society’s pool of economic goods, the more that person is
entitled to take from that pool; the less an individual
contributes, the less that individual should get. And if the
individual fails to contribute anything, he deserves nothing.
(share of stocks) distribution of benefits follows the law of
Supply and demand. The distributions of burden, on the other
hand, depends on the skills and interest of individuals, and his
desire for a better quality of life. Under the capitalist theory, no
persons is forced to work, but he can’t blame another if he fails
to get the benefits from his society for failing to work.
• The Socialist theory of justice- states that the benefits should be distributed
according to people’s needs, while work burdens should be distributed to
people’s abilities. This means, that the basic needs of man are given free by
the state, but man, in return, is obliged to render free services to his society,
that is he ought to work according to his skills and ability with out
remuneration. E.g. When I am sick for instance, the government assumes the
cost of my medication and hospitalization, but because, I am a good at
teaching, I have to work as teacher for free.
• According to the socialist theory, labor is the true and only source of wealth
and constitutes the only title to property, meaning, wealth should be the fruit
of the one who labours. The theory desires the abolition of private control
over the means of production. For Marxist, the goods of the earth belongs to
everybody in general but nobody in particular… There can never be peace in
society unless there is economic justice or the democratization of wealth and
power.
 Review Questions
• Among the various interpretation of justice, which do you
think best defines the idea of justice that we people really
need? Why?
• The two norm of justice has contrasting emphasis, what
differentiate distributive from corrective justice?
• How is justice be considered based on the interpretation of
justice as legal justice?
• How does Capitalist justice differs from Socialist justice?
• Egalitarian theory of justice give emphasis on economic
equality, but if economic inequality is inevitable how
should this be justified for it to be acceptable to society?