ETHICS

GE 108
WHAT IS
ETHICS?
Ethics (Greek ethika, from ethos, “character,” “custom”), principles or
standards of human conduct, sometimes called morals (Latin mores,
“customs”), and, by extension, the study of such principles, sometimes
called moral philosophy. From the etymology of ethics and morality,
they both speak of character and a customary way of doing
good/bad and right/wrong. Custom refers to tradition or community
habit. Hence, it is something a community of persons always does in a
particular way; a way a person or community usually or routinely
behaves in a particular situation.

According to Gaffney (1979), the difference is basically between the realm

of theory and the realm of practice. Ethics refers to a set of ideas,
principles or convictions determining what one considers right and
wrong in moral conduct, whereas morality refers to practical behavior
as judged according to someone‘s ideas about right and wrong. Ethics
points to how one thinks about right and wrong and morality points to
actual conduct with respect to its rightness or wrongness. At the
outset, ethics and morality have somehow almost a comparable meaning,
According to Meacham (2011), the primary task of ethics, or
morality, is to guide one‘s actions. To guide one‘s actions may seem
obviously easy. Any person in general, through the rule of thumb, would
readily distinguish what is good from what is bad, and what is right
from what is wrong. A striking problem arises when an individual
could hardly make a fine line distinction between what is good from what
is right. This is because what is right does not necessarily mean that
it is good, and vice versa, what is good does not necessarily mean that
it is right. In other words, there are many ways of thinking about ethics
whose focuses are on whether specific actions are good or bad, or
right or wrong. They help an individual decide what should be done in
a particular case or class of cases, or evaluate the actions that a person
has done.

Meacham (2011) describes two ways of thinking about ethics, which

manifest themselves as two clusters of concepts and language, or
domains of discourse, used to recommend or command specific actions
or habits of character: they are called
 THE
GOOD
AND THE
RIGHT
The good has to do with achievement of goals; the right, with laws and
rules. The goodness paradigm recognizes that people have desires
and aspirations, and frames values in terms of what enables a being to
achieve its ends. The rightness paradigm recognizes that people live in
groups that require organization and regulations, and frames values in
terms of duty and conformance to rules. Goodness and rightness ―are not
complementary portions of the moral field but alternative ways of
organizing the whole field to carry out the tasks of morality.

Another approach, virtue ethics, focuses on qualities of character and

motives for action. Within Virtue Ethics the distinction between the good
and the right is also applicable. Questions about what sort of character
traits one should cultivate can be answered on the basis either of what
is good or of what is right. Compassion and insight are typical goodness
virtues, and a disposition of conscientious obedience is a typical rightness
virtue.

The good and the right each have their area of applicability; they
Good

What is good has to do with benefits. Something that benefits something or

someone else is called good for that thing or person. We can think of this
instrumentally or biologically. Instrumentally, an android phone is good for
sending emails, sending and receiving text messages, watching movies, playing
online and offline games, shopping and many other activities; what is good
for the phone is what enables it to do so well. Biologically, air, water, and
food are good for living beings. Instrumentally, what is good for a thing enables
that thing to serve its purpose.

To make sense, an instrumental usage of the term “good” requires reference

to somebody‘s purpose or intention. Thus, all products of technologies are
good for students, professionals, businessmen and everybody in this fast-paced
environment for so many reasons. We want the comfort and utility they afford
us. The instrumental usage is expressed in terms of usefulness, of utility for
achieving a purpose or intention. Some gadgets are better than others in that they
have better and updated software and applications and thus can be used more
effectively and efficiently. The instrumental usage leads to the biological
usage. Why is it good for human beings to have comfort and utility? It is because
The biological usage is expressed in terms of health and well-being.
Biologically, what is good for an organism is what helps it survive and thrive, what
nourishes it. Some things are better for us than others in this respect. For instance, a
diet of whole grains and vegetables is better, in the sense of providing better health
for humans, than a diet of simple carbohydrates and fats.

Another example: some plants need full sunlight to thrive, and others need shade;
thus full sunlight is good for the former, and shade is good for the latter. The good,
in this sense, is that which enables a thing to function well. The instrumental
usage intersects the biological when we consider what is good for something
that is itself good for a purpose or intention. For instance, keeping one‘s
clothes clean and taken cared of from dirt is good for the clothes; if they get too
dirty or tattered easily to provide a good impact on your personality, they are not
useful as clothes. So we can talk about what is good for the clothes in a way that is
analogous to what is good for a living being. The good, in this sense also, is that
which enables a thing to function well.

The approach to ethics that emphasizes goodness is called the teleological

approach, from a Greek word, telos, which means “end”, “purpose”, or
“goal”. Biologically, what is good for an organism helps that organism survive
Just as good is defined in relation to an end, the value of the end is defined in
relation to another end. For instance, a hammer is good for driving nails.
Driving nails is good for, among other things, building houses. We build
houses to have shelter and warmth. And we desire shelter and warmth because
they sustain our life. This chain of goods and ends stretches in both directions
from wherever we arbitrarily start looking.

This approach is also sometimes called a consequentialist approach or an

effect-oriented approach because both usages give meaning to the term “good” by
reference to the consequences or effects of an action or event. That whole
grains are good for humans means that the effect of eating them is
healthful. That a cellphone is good for faster communication means that using
it for that purpose is likely to have the effect you want.

The Goodness approach to ethics uses the terms “good” and “bad” and their
variants and synonyms to evaluate actions, things, people, states of affairs, etc., as
well as maxims or guidelines for conduct. Some synonyms for “good” in this context
are “helpful,” “nourishing,” “beneficial,” “useful” and “effective.” Some synonyms
for “bad” are their opposites: unhelpful, unhealthy, damaging, useless and
ineffective.
There are degrees of goodness and its opposite, badness. That some plants need full
sunlight to thrive and others need shade means that full sunlight is good for the
former and not so good for the latter. An ethics – a set of moral principles or values
– based on goodness applied to concerns about choices between courses of
action will ask questions about the anticipated or hoped-for benefits of one
course of action as opposed to another. An
ethics based on goodness applied to concerns about character will ask
questions about the anticipated or hoped-for effects on one‘s habitual way of
approaching life of one course of action as opposed to another.
Right

What is right has to do with conformance to rules or regulations. This is easy to see
in non-ethical situations. For instance, the right answer to “9 divided by 3” is 3. We
apply a mathematical rule, the rule for how to do long division, and derive the
right, or correct, answer. In ethical situations, we apply a moral rule to
determine what the right course of action is. If one finds a wallet with some money
in it and the owner's identification as well, the right thing to do is to return the
money to the owner because it is wrong to keep something that does not belong to
one, especially if one knows who the owner is. The moral rule in this case is “it is
wrong to keep something that does not belong to you.” The approach to ethics
that emphasizes rightness is called the deontological approach, from a Greek
word, deon, that means “duty.” A person does her duty when she acts
according to the moral rules. We could also call this a rules-based approach.
(By “rules” we mean prescribed guides for conduct, not generalizations that
describe physical reality, such as the laws of nature). According to the
deontological approach, an action is justified on the basis of a quality or
characteristic of the act itself, regardless of its consequences. That
characteristic is its conformance to a rule. Morality is concerned with identifying and
obeying moral rules. It is right to obey the rules and wrong to disobey
The language associated with this school uses the terms “right” and “wrong” to
evaluate actions. Some synonyms for “right” are proper, legal and correct.
Some synonyms for “wrong” are improper, illegal and incorrect.

The problem, of course, is how to determine the moral rules. Humans seem to have
an innate sense of morality, of right and wrong; but, notoriously, the actual set of
rules they espouse varies from culture to culture. Although many people
unreflectively adopt the rules taught them by their parents, teachers, religious
leaders and culture, the task of philosophy is to provide a rational grounding
for one‘s choice of what rules to follow. Philosophers have proposed numerous ways
of determining what the rules are, such as divine command, the dictates of
pure reason, and using an intuitive moral sense to apprehend an unseen but
existent world of values. So far, there is no agreement on which of these is correct.
The primary meaning of “right” in an ethical context is conformance to moral rules.
There are a number of other uses of the term “right” in addition to conformance to
moral rules, such as the following:

1) Correct, truthful, as in the right answer. This implies that rightness is exclusive,
that there is one right answer or opinion and that others are wrong.

2) The best possible option or a very good option, as in ―the right choice. This also
implies exclusivity, but is problematic. Often one does not need to do what
is best. Sometimes one only needs to do something good enough to get a useful
response, a response that gives feedback so one can further hone one‘s
strategy, one‘s response to what is happening.

3) Fitting, appropriate, in harmony with the way things are. This sense is more akin
to the goodness paradigm. It asserts an aesthetic component of rightness, as
when one artistically puts an element of a composition in the right place.

4) What the speaker approves of or assumes people generally approve of. This is an
uncritical usage and is the least useful.
Confusion between the Good and the Right

All too often people confuse the notions of good and right. Both concepts apply to what
one should do, and often the debate is really about persuading someone to act in a
certain way. Clarity of language and conceptual rigor seem to be less important than rhetoric.
Here is an example on iPhones and android phones: Some phones are problematic to
unsuspecting consumers. We certainly respect companies‘ desires to protect their
products, but the whole thing has become a mess. You want to install some very important
applications, and guess what, they do not work as they should, and you have to ask help from a
lot of people to make them work, and worst you are paralyzed of an activity if they do not
totally function well. That's just wrong.

This argument quoted is partly in terms of the effects of some phones on unsuspecting
consumers – they have to jump through hoops, and doing so is undesirable – and partly
in terms of some unstated moral rule. Here is another example: With the glaring poverty
being experienced by almost all Filipinos including average families, both the senate and
congress should be figuring out more ways for poor families to have foods on their table and eat
three times a day. Unfortunately, it appears both the TRAIN Law and Rice Tariffication
Law have found their way to stab the poor and send them to their graves alive. That is
wrong .... With the Balik Probinsya Program of the government on this pandemic, a lot of
locally stranded individuals in the National Capital Region (NCR) are transporting the
Corona Virus to the provinces thereby deliberately spreading the virus. That is a wrong …
Again one does not need to understand TRAIN Law or Rice Tariffication Law to understand what
It is this way of using “right” and “wrong” – to express emphatically one‘s approval or
disapproval – that leads some thinkers to assert that moral discourse is actually meaningless
and merely expresses the speaker‘s preference or the speaker‘s attempt to influence
someone else‘s behavior.

Why It Matters

If someone says something is good, one can always ask ―good for what? ”If someone says
something is right, one can always ask ―according to what rule?” The two domains of discourse
really are separate, and it is not useful to mix them. Mixing them is a form of category error,
that is, an error “by which a property is ascribed to a thing that could not possibly have that
property.” That something has good effects does not make it right. That something is in
accordance with a moral rule does not make it good.

Implication to Following Rules

Rules are not just sufficient but rather necessary to social beings in the promotion of
the common good in every society. Making the distinction between good and right is
important because it promotes clarity of thought and allows an individual to assess
oneself and understand why rules have to be followed. It does not mean, however, that
clarity of language is a necessary condition for clarity of thought, but it certainly helps.
The clearer one‘s thinking, the more likely one is to follow rules. Accurate thinking based on
accurate perception leads to accuracy of action, action that leads to attainment of one‘s
 GAWI AND
GAWA
HABITUATION
In Filipino, the words gawi and gawa can give a sense of what philosophers mean
by ethical action. Filipinos distinguish between thoughtless, instinctive mannerisms
and reflexes from gawa (action) and gawi (inclination). In reflecting on how Filipinos use
these words, one can understand that human actions are different from mere bodily
movements. Freedom figures closely into action and inclination. Freedom, as defined,
is the willful act and decision that give form and shape to the actions and
inclinations of people. This freedom is oriented toward the wherefore, the what for,
and the whom for of the doings of people. These are the common aspects of human of human
action that Filipinos understand as action and inclination: that free human acts are governed by
reflection and are freely decided such that they are not determined by internal or
external forces.

However, gawi and gawa are not identical: For instance is the matrix/table below:

Finally, a worker who produces for the society is judged skilled or unskilled. But
The term ethics comes from the Greek word ethos, which means custom, a
characteristic, or habitual way of doing things, or action that is properly derived from one’s
character. The Latin word mos or moris (and its plural mores) from which the adjective
moral is derived, is equivalent to ethos. In the same manner, that gawi for the Filipino is
different from gawa, Aristotle differentiates between human actions that are “praxis”
and to “poiein.” What is important for the human agent who engages in “to poiein,” gawa for
Aristotle is to successfully complete a particular work be it artisticor technical: that the tabletop
is smooth, the carvings are precise, and the chair’s legs are balanced. The human person
himself/herself is significant only in considering the result in matters of “to poiein” or gawa.
Ethics, on the other hand, not only has such “normative” considerations as to the
end product of the actions. Ethics, as concerned with “praxis” for Aristotle, properly focuses on
the human agent that is revealed through his/her actions. Ethics is normative with regard to its
being a practical science. It does not only limit itself to the description of human actions but
also aims to guide them.

Ethics also considers that which is worthy of a human being. This means that
living rightly is not only about searching for happiness but living as one ought to live as a
human being. For instance, in living rightly, one receives contentment and approval both
from others and himself/herself, and in living wrongly, he/she deserves blame (from
others and from himself/herself).
 PLATO’S INSIGHT
OF GOOD
An academic introduction to
the discipline of ethics is
In summary, Plato directs
incomplete without reference to
humanity to the nobility that is
Plato (427-347 BCE). Even the
reachable through the
word “academic” itself harks back
knowledge of the good. His
to academia, the institution of
confidence is knowing the good
learning established by Plato for
as acting upon it reaches out to
the training of his followers who
every age that grapples with the
later will be called philosophers,
question of what is proper
lovers of wisdom. Ethics, being a
human action.
discipline to study in universities
that fall under the umbrella of
philosophy, can also traits it roots
back to Plato as the systematic
thinker who grappled with the
question of what is good.
ST. THOMAS AQUINAS:
NATURAL LAW THEORY
Morality, as Aquinas viewed it, is not an arbitrary set of rules for behavior. Rather, the basis of
moral obligation is found, first of all, in human nature itself. Built into our nature are various
inclinations, such as the preservation of life, the propagation of species, and, because
people are rational, the inclination toward the search for truth. The basic moral truth is
simply to “do good and avoid evil.”

As rational beings, then, we are under a basic natural obligation to protect our lives and health,
in which case suicide and carelessness are wrong.

Second, the natural inclination to propagate the species forms the basis of the union of wife and
husband, ad any other basis for this relation would be wrong.

And third, because we seek for truth, we can do this best by living in peace in society with all
others who are also engaged in this quest.

To ensure an ordered society, human laws are fashioned for the direction of the community’s
behavior. These activities of preserving life, propagating the species, forming an
ordered society under human laws, and pursuing the quest for truth—all these, again, pertain to
us a tour natural level. The moral law is founded upon human nature, upon the natural
inclination toward specific types of behavior, and upon the reason’s ability to discern the right
course of conduct. Because human nature has certain fixed features, the rules for behavior that
correspond to these features are called natural law.
Aristotle already developed much of this theory of natural law. In his Ethics
Aristotle distinguished between natural justice and conventional justice. Some forms of
behavior, he said, are wrong only after a law, has been made to regulate such behavior. It is
wrong, for example, to drive a vehicle at certain speeds only because a speed limit has been
set, but there is nothing in nature that requires that vehicles travel at that speed. Such a law, is
therefore, not natural but conventional, because the law was passed, there was nothing wrong
with travelling at speeds exceeding the new limit. On the other hand, there are some laws that
are derived from nature, so that the behavior they are regulate has always been wrong, as in
the case of murder. But Aquinas did not limit his treatment of natural law to the simple notion
that in some way human reason is able to discover the natural basis for human conduct.
Instead, he reasoned that if human existence and nature can be fully understood only when
seen in relation to God, then natural law must be described in metaphysical and theological
terms.

Law, Aquinas says, has to do primarily with reason. Human reason is the standard of our actions
because it belongs to reason to direct our whole activity toward our end. Law consists of these
rules and measures of human acts and there is based on reason. But Aquinas argues that since
God created all things, human nature and the natural law are best understood as the
product of God’s wisdom or reason.
From this standpoint Aquinas distinguishes between four kinds of law:

1. Eternal Law. This law refers to the fact that “the whole community of the universe is
governed by Divine Reason. Because of this, the very notion of the government of things in God
the Ruler of the universe, has the nature of a law. And since the Divine Reason’s conception of
things is not subject to time but is eternal . . . therefore it is that this kind of law must be called
natural.”

2. Natural Law. For Aquinas natural law consists of that portion of the eternal law
that pertains particularly to people. His reasoning is that “all things share somewhat of the
eternal law . . . from its being imprinted on them” and from this all things “derive their
respective inclinations to their proper acts and ends.” This is particularly true of people,
because our rational capacity “has a share of the Eternal Reason, whereby it has a natural
inclination to its proper act and end.” And, Aquinas says, “this participation of the eternal law in
the rational creature is called the natural law,” and again, “the natural law is nothing else than
the rational creature’s participation in the eternal law.” We have already noted the basic
precepts of the natural law as being the preservation of life, propagation and education of
offspring, and pursuit of truth and a peaceful society. Thus, the natural law consists of broad
general principles that reflect God’s intentions for people in creation.

3. Human Law. This refers to the specific statutes of governments. These statutes or human
laws are derived from the general precepts of natural law. Just as “we draw
conclusions of the various sciences” from “naturally known indemonstrable principles,”
Aquinas argued that what gives a rule the character of law is its moral dimension, its
conformity with the precepts of natural law, and its agreement with the moral law. Taking
Augustine’s formula, namely, that “that which is just seems to be no law at all,” Aquinas said
that “every human law has just so much of the nature of law, as it is derived from the law of
nature.” But, he adds, “if in any point it deflects from the law of nature, it is no longer a law but
a perversion of law.” Such laws no longer bind in conscience but are sometimes obeyed to
prevent an even greater evil. Aquinas went further than simply denying the character of human
law that violated the natural moral law; such a command, he said, should not be obeyed. Some
laws, he said, “may be unjust through being opposed to the Divine God: such are the laws of
tyrants inducing to idolatry, or to anything else contrary to the Divine Law.” He concluded that
“laws of this kind must nowise be observed, because . . . we ought to obey God rather than
human beings.”

4. Divine Law. The function of law, Aquinas said, is to direct people to their proper end. Since we
are ordained to an end of eternal happiness, in addition to our temporal happiness, there must
be a kind of law that can direct us to that supernatural end. Here in particular, Aquinas parted
company with Aristotle, for Aristotle knew only about our natural purpose and end, and
for this purpose the natural law known by human reason was considered a sufficient guide.
But the eternal happiness to which people are ordained, said Aquinas, is “in proportion to a
person’s natural faculty.” Therefore,“ it was necessary that besides the natural and the human
law, people should be directed to their end by a law given by God.” The divine law, then, is
available to us through revelation and is found in the Scriptures. It is not the product of human
reason but is given to us through God’s grace to ensure that we all know what we must do to
This, in turn, leads us to fulfill our natural end by achieving the cardinal virtues
of justice, temperance, courage, and prudence. Through this we are directed to our
supernatural ends and obtain the theological virtues of faith, hope, and love (these
virtues will later be thoroughly discussed in the chapter on Virtue Ethics). These virtues are
infused into human nature by God’s grace and are not the result of our natural abilities.
In this way Aquinas both completed and surpassed the naturalistic ethics of Aristotle. He
showed how the natural human desire to know God can be assured and how revelation
becomes the guide for reason. He also described the manner in which our highest nature is
perfected through God’s grace.
Natural Law on Applied Ethics

1. On Sexual Ethics (Marriage). A clear example applying the natural law on the view of
marriage was given by John Finnis. He considers marriage as a basic human good that we can
participate and must valorize. He delimits the focal meaning or point of marriage. Marriage’s
point is twofold: procreation (or parental care) and friendship between spouses. These
characteristics are united in a special manner, in away that marriage can be considered a
human good so basic and constitutive of human fulfillment that can be said to be of intrinsic
value. Procreation is viewed by Finnis as a function that operates through the union between
the reproductive organs of a man and a woman, uniting them biologically. This biological
reality is not a simple “instrument” – it is part of everyone’s personal reality. Therefore, the
fundamental question is not related to offspring generation but to reproductive sort of acts –
which Finnis calls the biological union:

Reproduction between humans is the inseminator union of male genital organ with female
genital organ; in most circumstances it does not result in generation, but it is
the behavior that unites biologically because it is the behavior which, as behaviour, is suitable
for generation.

Therefore, biological union can only take place through the union between a man and a woman.
Sterile or not, their genital organs are nonetheless reproductive organs. Spouses can
“actualize” and “experience” the good of marriage only by this kind of sexual relation, which
remains for sterile couples but not for the homosexual ones. Sex could give mutual
2. On Bioethics (Abortion). Natural law ethics defines murder as the gravely
immoral evil of directly taking innocent human life. Decent men recognize this as a basic
moral precept. God gives us life and obliges us to live it well so as to attain the Supreme Good,
God himself. That obligation gives us the corresponding right to live. Because others must
respect our right to live, it is immoral to violate that right by taking an innocent human life.
Abortion is such an immoral act -- evil by its very nature (intrinsically evil), since it directly
attacks the most fundamental human right. Nor can such an act be justified by any utilitarian
purpose, however good, since natural law forbids using an intrinsically evil means to attain a
good end.
IMMANUEL KANT:
DEONTOLOGICAL
THEORY
 Immanuel Kant (1724-1804)

● Greatly influenced by David Hume

● Known for his “categorical imperative” and inspiration for German Idealism
● Birth: April 22, 1724, Kaliningrad, Russia
● Death: February 12, 1804, Kaliningrad, Russia
● Studied theology at the University of Konigsberg
● His parents were Anna Regina Reuter and Johann George Cant, a harness maker. He is a
German Lutheran theologian and philosopher famous as the most influential in the Age of
Enlightenment and Western philosophy. He has three know bools: Critique of Pure Reason,
Critique of Practical Reason, Critique of the Power of Judgment. He is a renowned student,
writer, and professor in mathematics, physics, and metaphysics at the University of Konigsberg.
Kant live during the European cultural revolutions of enlightenment or renaissance in the 18th
century. He followed his predecessors, Voltaire and David Hume in trying to replace religious
traditions, superstitions, and monarchy with rationalism through his three Critiques of reason.
Rationalism aims at providing answers to metaphysical and other questions through the powers
of reason alone. These influenced German idealism and analytic philosophy.
Kantianism or Kantian Ethics is a deontological theory that emphasizes morality based on duty,
reason, moral principle, moral obligation, and motive or intention. It rejects consequences as
the basis of morality. A Kantian ethical framework is considered as a Moral Universalism or
Moral Absolutism and Moral Formalism.

DUTY PRINCIPLE

“Humans are motivated by the duty to act morally or rationally instead of emotionally or
without reason.”

Kant argues that duty or moral obligation is the very nature of pure human reason. This means
that as rational agents, people can grasp moral principles and act out of their principles without
the aid of experience and consideration of consequences.

GOODWILL PRINCIPLE

''Nothing can be conceived in the world, or even out of it, which can be called good without
qualification, except a good will‘’

Good Will

Kant holds that fundamentally, there is only one thing that is good in and of itself – the Good
Will. It is the overarching principle of all morality. Goodwill is the very nature of the person’s
Goodwill is “good” by being an end in itself or as a means to only one end, which is “good”. It is
then bad if the will is a means to another end or ends other than itself. Human reason produces
a will that is universally good in itself and good.

● As a universalist, reason has only one end or “good”, which could be found in the will, rea,
son, and person. The “good” is found in all activities or instances and not only in some
instances. Thus, there should be no disparity between intention and act. Intention and action
should be one or good and they justify the end.

● As an absolutist, the reason allows no exceptions or qualifications other than the “good The
reason is objectively good in itself regardless if there is no one that approves of it. An act should
absolutely and truly proceed, reflect, and represent the intention. There are two tests:
“categorical imperative” and “persons as ends in themselves.”

CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE PRINCIPLE

''Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should
become a universal law‘’

Categorical Imperative: First Test

Kant’s “goodwill,” which is universally and good can be considered also as the same
“categorical imperative.” It is the consistency of intention and the act.
This principle is the first test of morality that comes from pure intention an objective judgment
supported by rationality alone. What is right or good is right or good and what is wrong or bad is
wrong or bad. This is a maxim or formal command to be categorically or unconditionally
followed to be moral. In making the right action, it could become a universal law to be
acceptable and followed by all.

●The categorical imperative is also called a principle of objectivity because as a moral test it
assesses the universalizability of moral actions. To be able to discern whether an action is right
or good one must be able to imagine that it can be adapted or accepted as a rule by everyone
around the world. But if it seems not acceptable or adaptable by all anywhere in the world, then
it is wrong or bad.

●Categorical imperative simply believes in his reason as he may as some form of questions
such as: If you do that, do you think everybody will like it?; Could that action be possibly made
by everybody’s standard?; Is your act universalizable?

●But the categorical imperative is neither feeling nor inclination. Feelings are what push
persons to choose a particular option or decision. They tend to favor. However, a categorical
imperative or duty is doing what a person ought to do despite opposing feelings. For Kant,
telling a lie can never be good. It can never be rational and universalizable, despite very strong
reasons or good intentions. It may also bring good consequences but it remains bad. It does not
change the fact that lying is not an impartial standard. Lying is destructive. If all people lie then
nobody believes that some are telling the truth. Nobody can be trusted; no society will possibly
PERSON AS END PRINCIPLE

''Act so that you treat people

never as mere means to an end, but always as an end in themselves‘’

Person as Ends in Themselves: Second Test

● This “person as ends in themselves” principle is a second test that could be considered the
same as the golden rule: “Treat others as you would like them to treat you” or “Do to others
what you want others to do unto you.”

● But to consider persons only as means to achieving other goals or one’s interest rather than
being good is wrong. Rationality is fundamentality objective or does not promote personal
interest and has only one ultimate goal – to be moral.

● To be moral is the function of practical reason to allow humans “to apply general principles to
particular instances of action.” This means that humans should engage in moral reasoning as a
way of determining one’s moral duty. They should discover through reason alone “what is the
“right” action to do.” They should apply a moral principle such as the “categorical imperative,”
“goodwill” and “persons as an end in themselves” as the very source of actions.
END LAWMAKER PRINCIPLE

''Act as if you were, through your maxims, a lawmaker of the kingdom of ends‘’

Kant thinks that persons as ends are autonomous. Autonomous persons can exercise free and
goodwill by legislating the moral law for everyone. Every rational being can regard himself as a
maker of universal law not because of an external moral authority but under the authority of his
reason alone. Being autonomous demands respect for “ends” or persons who have basic moral
rights.
 Applying the 7-Step Model Kant’s Ethical Decision

1. Gather the Facts

Your friend is inside the house.
● A sinister-looking (the looks make you feel that something evil might happen) man carrying
an ax knocks on your door.
● He asks where your best friend is.

2. Determine the Ethical Issues

● Telling a lie (saving a life and preserving friendship) versus telling the truth (categorical
imperative)
● In such a situation, if you tell the ax man that your friend is in the house the ax man may kill
your friend. But even if you tell a lie to save your friend there is a possibility that the ax man
finds your friend inside or outside the house and kills him.

3. What principles have a bearing on the case?

●Categorical Imperative. This holds that an action is good or right if it can be universalized.
Telling the truth is a universal duty. This recognizes and promotes that persons should be
respected because they are persons and it is a duty to treat others as “ends.” Besides, it is
what comes from a goodwill will or pure reason.
●Sanctity of life. This is a moral principle or highest value that must be protected and
preserved.
●Friendship. This moral principle is centered on affection, love, compassion, and trust. One
 4. List the Alternatives

Alternative 1: Attempt to convince the ax man that your friend is not in the house.
Alternative 2: Call for help from the neighbors to get rid of the ax man.
Alternative 3: Call for the police officers to report that a sinister-looking ax man is looking for
your friend.
Alternative 4: Inform your friend about the ax man and let him decide if he allows you to reveal
his location.
Alternative 5: Tell the truth that your friend is inside the house.
Alternative 6: Tell a lie that your friend is not in the house.

5. Compare the Alternatives with Principles

a. Attempt to convince the ax man that your friend is not in the house.
● But if the above is unsuccessful you can call for help from either the neighbors or the police
officers.
b. Call for help from the neighbors or the police officers.
● But if the above is unsuccessful, inform your friend about the ax man and let him decide if he
allows you to reveal his location.
c. Tell a lie that your friend is inside the house.
● But even if the above option is possible, the ax man can still intrude and as your friend
sneaks out at the back door he can still be caught and be killed. It would be better, to tell the
truth for whatever possible consequence you will not be responsible for.
d. Tell the truth your friend is inside the house.
 Two Different Kinds of Rights

1. Moral Rights

● Rights that arise from being part of a social community that recognizes the inherent worth of
human beings to one another. It is brought out from the basic respect and value one gives to
another person.
Example: A person has the moral right to expect others to give her credit for her works.

Characteristics of Moral Rights

a. Moral rights are universal and eternal. These are to be respected in all humans irrespective of
their race, age, status, religion, and generation. An example is a right to life and freedom which
should be respected anywhere around the world and at any time.

b. Moral rights are inalienable rights; they are called “human rights.” They are accorded to
human persons not for any other reason but by just simply being humans.

c. Human rights entail the freedom to choose how one lives and expresses oneself, what end
one should aspire for, and many other things. Human rights often assure one to freely choose
him means to satisfy his basic needs and dreams.

d. Moral rights are also traditionally considered as rights ordained by God to humans for them
e. Moral rights are natural laws that give undeniable or inherent freedom and life. Freedom and
life are natural and unchangeable rights. These moral rights are moral principles or norms,
which guide human behaviors. Any other considerations far from being “moral” “human,”
“natural” and “reasonable” are all considered arbitrary, prejudicial, morally irrelevant, and
unequal.

f. Moral rights are moral status which is having a kind of protective moral shield so that
whosoever goes beyond or takes advantage of them is a violation. Others are not free to take,
interfere, limit an abusee them as they want. Any behavior that compromises moral rights is
called trespassing of moral status.

Trespassing to moral status only means that one may have to exceed their rights to the extent
that they may violate others’ rights. Though any response to trespassing must be within one’s
rights. For example, if a criminal attack a person and the person see it as a great threat to his
life, he has to use any means to preserve his life even if it may harm or kill the criminal. Any
exception to violate rights such as the case of self-defense could never be the moral standard to
violate others’ rights. It should always be the last resort.

● Section 1 under the Bill of Rights, Article III of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, states: “No
person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any
person be denied the equal protection of the laws.”
 The Universal Declaration of Human Rights has thirty articles:

1. Right to Equality
2. Freedom from Discrimination
3. Right to Life, Liberty, Personal Security
4. Freedom from Slavery
5. Freedom from Torture and Degrading Treatment
6. Right to Recognition as a Person before the Law
7. Right to Equality before the Law
8. Right to Remedy by Competent Tribunal
9. Freedom from Arbitrary Arrest and Exile
10. Right to Fair Public Hearing
11. Right to be Considered Innocent until Proven Guilty
12. Freedom from Interference with Privacy, Family, Home, and Correspondence
13. Right to Free Movement in and out of the Country
14. Right to Asylum in other Countries from Persecution
15. Right to a Nationality and the Freedom to Change it
16. Right to Marriage and Family
17. Right to own Property
18. Freedom of Belief and Religion
19. Freedom of Opinion and Information
20. Right to Peaceful Assembly and Association
 21. Right to Participate in Government and Free Elections
22. Right to Social Security
23. Right to Desirable Work and to Join Trade Unions
24. Right to Rest and Leisure
25. Right to Adequate Living Standard
26. Right to Education
27. Right to Participate in the Cultural Life of Community
28. Right to a Social Order that Articulates this Document
29. Community Duties Essential to Free and Full Development
30. Freedom from State or Personal Interference in the above Rights

These moral rights concern human equality. No human being can ever be denied these moral
rights through any legal means or other “good” reasons. Nevertheless, they may be formalized
through some contacts or legalization.
 2. Legal Rights

● A right created under the law. It can be based on the constitution or a statute. It is usually the
crystallization of the tradition, values, and what is generally regarded as ethical and moral
within a specific political area and recognized by a duly authorized authority (which in most
cases would be the state and its citizens). They might be loosely termed also as codified moral
rights.
Example: A qualified voter has the right to vote provided he/she does not have any of the
disqualifications.

● These are claims that protect the interests of humans both as individuals and as a group.
They are “special” rights or privileges granted by the government or a legal authority through a
certain contract or agreement.
● Legal rights are also called conventional or political rights, which are created by humans,
authorities, and conventions.

Legal: Not Always Moral

● Moral and legal rights cannot be separated. Some moral rights are legalized even though not
all legal rights are moral. There is an overlap between moral and legal rights whereby legal laws
are essentially based on moral rights. Right to life is both legal and moral so laws on this such
as its violation like murder are both illegal and immoral. One may have a legal right to do bad
not a moral right to do it. Some legal laws can be unjust, and thus immoral.
Example: The use of artificial contraceptives is supported by the R.A No. 10354 or The Responsible
Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act of 2012. Families can choose artificial methods in family
planning. But many Filipinos especially religious groups consider the law immoral because it not only
violates the natural law but also promotes premarital sex, self-indulgence, teenage pregnancy, and the
proliferation of pills, condoms, and pornography.

● Correspondingly, some laws are immoral but not illegal. Some examples are backbiting, gambling,
smoking and drinking alcohol, disobeying your parents, harsh treatment of children, and sex with
animals. Having no law that prohibits them is basically “legal” or permissible (though unwritten as a
law) to ordinary people.
● Tan (2014) has discussed some unfair legal rights or laws Revised Penal Code of the Philippines,
especially for women:

1. Articles 333 and 334 (Marital Infidelity Laws) hold that a wife maybe found guilty of adultery if she
has sexual relations with a man, not her husband. In contrast, a husband would only be guilty of
concubinage by meeting certain specific conditions. The punishment for adultery is heavier than
concubinage.

2. Article 202 holds that prostitution is the act of women who engage in sexual relations and lascivious
acts for profit, and outlines the appropriate punishment for such acts. According to Philippine
Commission on Women, the law implies that prostitutes are “criminals who engage in the sex industry
for monetary gain.” It does not consider that most prostitutes are forced into the sex trade by socio-
economic factors such as poverty, making them victims rather than perpetrators. The law only penalizes
prostitutes – not the customers or pimps.
ASSESSMENT
 Divide your class into three (3) groups. Create a
short film related to the following ethical
theories/principles in not more than ten (10)
minutes. Any format will do. You can be as creative
as you want, no limitations. This is worth 100
points. There shall be no duplications.

Class president, it is up to you how you are going

to decide on the groupings. Make sure to send me
the final list of groupings on Friday.

Note: The group with the highest score will get an

additional 10 points for prelims.

Group 1: Gawi and Gawa Habituation

Group 2: Natural Law Theory
Group 3: Deontological Theory
 CRITERIA FOR SCORING

CONTENT (script/storyline, relevance):

25%
VISUAL ELEMENTS (setting,
camerawork): 25%
SOUND ELEMENTS (clarity of voice,
effects): 25%
CREATIVITY (props utilized, manner of
editing): 25%

TOTAL: 100%