ETHICS
You can
THE DETERMINANTS OF MORALITY
The determinants of morality are so called
because they are the basis for judging whether an
act is good or evil, moral or immoral.
1. The End of the Act. Is the natural termination or
completion of an act. The end of the act of eating is
appeasing hunger, the end of playing basketball is
scoring a point, and the end of medication is curing
illness.
 Intrinsically good an act which is consistent
with the natural tendencies of human nature.
Intrinsically evil are those acts that are
contrary to the law.
 Actions which are neutral or indifferent to
the norm of morality are extrinsically good
or evil.
2. The End of the Doer. Is the purpose or motive
which the doer wishes to accomplish y his
action. Without a motive, an act is accidental
and involuntary. A good motive is truthful,
prudent, temperate, and just. It is the most
equitable for the most number of people, or in
the words of the existentialist “the most loving
of all in a given situation”.
 “The End does not justify the Means” One
should not do wrong (means) in order to
attain a good purpose (end). The rule is,
don’t do wrong even if this will result in
something good.
 Motive and Action.
1. An evil act which is done one account of an
evil motive is grievously wrong. (a bad
action and a wrong motive, are a dangerous
combination.)
2. A good action done on account of an evil
motive becomes evil itself. (Something nice
and sweet may turn ugly and sour because of
bad motive.)
3. a good action done on account of a good
purpose acquires an additional merit. (you
go ahead and do the right thing.
never go wrong on this one.)
4. An indifferent act may either become good
or bad depending on the motive. (you be
careful of what you eat or what you say.)
3. Circumstances of the Act. Are the historical
elements surrounding the commission of an act,
such as the status of the doer, the place, the time, or
the intensity of ant act. The circumstances are
hinted by the interrogative pronouns:
 who, what, where, with whom, why, how,
where and when.
Circumstantial factor:
1. Circumstances may either increase or
decrease the wrongfulness of an evil act.
2. Circumstances also may either increase or
decrease the merit of a good act.
3. Circumstances may exempt temporarily
someone from doing a required act.
4. Circumstances do not prove the guilt of a
person.
The Morally Good Act
 A morally good act is that which sound in
all aspects -- in its nature, motive, and
circumstances. In the Scriptures, the morally
upright is a just man, one who weighs his
actions in relation to what the law demands,
to what the circumstances would allow, and
to what fits his stature as a rational being.
 “Makatarungan”, “Maka-tao”, or “Maka-
Diyos”
The Relevance of Laws
 Law mandate some actions as prohibited and
others as permitted and required.
 Some people do not do what is good unless
they are forces to. St. Thomas point out that
laws are made for those who are weak in
character.
 Society adopts laws to protect its members
from themselves or for those who want to
 hurt them. By prescribing punishments for
transgressions, laws encourage and compel
to act for the good of all.
 Everyone should obey the law or risk being
punished. As authorities would put it --
“duralex, sedlex”, the law is harsh, but it is
the law – and everyone must obey.
The Definition of Law
 “An ordinance of reason, promulgated for
the common good by one who has charge of
society” - St. Thomas Aquinas
 Ordinance of reason. They are results of
serious study, deliberation, or public debate
 Promulgated. They are made known to the
people who are bound to observe them
 For the common good. The purpose of the
law is the general welfare of the people
 Enacted by who has charge of society. Only
those who have legitimate authority to
govern may pass law.
Kinds of Law
1. Divine Positive Laws are those made known
to men by God, like the Decalogue (Tem
Commandments) given to Moses. Also
called moral laws
2. Human Positive Laws are those made by
legitimate human authority, such as the laws
enacted by the State or the Church.
Violation of these laws constitutes an illegal
act.
3. Affirmative and Negative Laws. Both divine
and human positive laws are either
affirmative or negative. Affirmative laws are
those that require the performance of an act.
Negative laws are those that prohibit the
performance of an act.
Binding in Conscience
 Moral laws are those derived from natural
law. They are the inherent and essential
tendencies of human nature so that they are
thought as being “written” in the hearts of
men. They regulate thoughts and feelings.
 Moral laws said to bind in conscience,
because they impose upon the person a
moral obligation to accept the law and
comply with it. Enforces by personal
conviction rather than by the threat of
corporal punishment
 Human laws regulate only the external acts
when these are manifested and observed.
They do no regulate thoughts and feelings.
Do not bind conscience and are purely
penal, enforce by police powers and is
served when the culprit suffers the
punishment.
Properties of a Just Law
A human law, in order to be accepted as just, must
have the following properties:
1. A human law must conform with divine
laws.
2. A human law must promote the common
good.
3. A human law must not discriminate against
certain individuals or groups.
4. A human law must be practicable.
5. A human law must be flexible.
6. A human law must be amendable.
The Reality of Evil
 Their realities do not come from the mind in
spite of some people saying “evil is all in the
mind”
 Some people do not see evil, accept it as
something “normal” or identify it as
something else.
 Only he who is intellectual dishonest would
claim “evil is only in mind”, implying that
evil is something imaginary, an illusion.
 “angmasama ay nasaisiplang” should not
mean that evil is a fiction. It should mean
that an evil begins in the mind as an evil
thought and is translated into an immoral
 act. Indeed, the mind is “the devil’s
workshop”.
Norms of Morality
The Meaning of Norms
 A norm is a standard of measurement. We
measure the size, the weight, the length, the
duration, the quantity and the depth of
something. We measure objects, events,
emotions, and persons.
 We make a value judgment when we
measure the quality of a thing.
 The moral qualities of human acts are
measured with the use of a norm or standard
to support a judgment.
The Norms and Morality
 The norms of morality “are the criteria of
judgment about the sorts of persons we
ought to be and the sorts of actions we ought
to perform.”
 Moral norms are the criteria for judging. The
quality of character, (what sort of person we
ought to become) and the quality of an act
(what sort of action ought to be done)
 The word “ought” implies duty or
obligation. The phrase “criteria for judgment
implies the use of reason in determining the
quality being measured.
Basis of Moral Judgment
Moral judgment is based on of norms of
morality. The Eternal Law, Natural Law, and
Conscience. Since both Natural law and Conscience
are derived from Eternal Law, there is only one and
ultimate basis of morality – God who created all
creatures.
1. The Eternal Law- is the ultimate norm
 Eternal law is the plan of God in creating all
creatures, both animate and inanimate,
giving to each of them its respective nature.
 St. Agustine defines it as “the divine reason
or will of God commanding that the natural
order of things be preserved and forbidding
that it be disturbed.”
 We use the term natural order to refer to the
harmony present in the material universe. In
the natural order, every creature acts and
reacts according to the demands of its
nature.
2. The Natural Law- is the remote norm
 Natural law refers to the operational
tendencies of the human nature—the
chemical, biological, physiological, and
rational properties of man as an organism.
 Natural law is the tendency of human nature
towards growth and self-fulfillment.
Accordingly, anything contributing to the
actualization of man’s potential is morally
good; and anything that contradicts the self-
realization of a person as person is morally
evil.
Characteristics of Natural Law
1. It is universal
2. It is obligatory
3. It is recognizable
4. It is immutable and unchangeable
3. Conscience
 Conscience is the choice of a particular good
in a given situation. People refer to
conscience as “the voice of God” -- a
whisper of admonition.
 The practical judgment of reason telling us
what should be done because it is god, or
what should be avoided because it is evil.
 “Judgment of reason”
Types of Conscience
 1. Correct conscience. Sees the good as good,
the evil as evil.
2. Erroneous conscience. Sees evil as
something good.
3. Doubtful conscience. A vacillating
conscience, unsure of itself.
4. Scrupulous conscience. Overly cautious,
meticulous, and fearful of committing
mistake.
5. Lax conscience. Indifferent, unmindful of
right or wrong.
Compulsory Conscience
When conscience operates in the realm of
truth and sound reason, it is compulsory to listen to
it. It is only when a conscience urges us to act
according to our rational insights that it is aptly the
“voice of God”. But when conscience deviates from
the norm and urges us to do what is unreasonable, it
is “our own evil work”
Conformity and Non-Conformity
 The conformity or non-conformity of a
human act with the norms constitutes
morality. We recall the definition of
Aristotle of the good as that which fits the
function.
 The same way be said of evil actions. Some
actions do not fit the dignity and nobility of
man as man.
Formal and Material Norms
 Formal norms relate to the formation of
character, what kind of person we ought to
be. These consist of such directives towards
character development.
 Material norms relate to actions, what
actions we ought to do. Material norms
determine are whether an act on account of
its nature conforms or does not conform
with the formal norms.
 The directives of formal norms are
permanent and unchangeable because they
are the requirements of natural law. While in
material norms it is temporary and
changeable because they are the result of
rational evaluation.
Moral Relativism
 Moral relativism is possible because the
human, being finite and limited, does not
always grasp the moral significance of
certain acts or events.Moral relativism is
also descriptive of cultural differences
 The differences in the moral practices of
people do not prove that there are no
absolute truths and principles of morals.
Physicalism and Personalism
 Physicalism suggests that the physical and
biological nature of man determines
morality. It maintains that the criteria for
moral judgment are written in man’s nature.
 Personalism suggests that the reason is the
standard for moral judgment. Right reason,
or “recta ratio, the dynamic tendency in the
human person to know the truth, to grasp the
whole reality as it is.
The Order of Reason
 Every living thing acts in accordance with
its nature. Man acts in a way proper to him
through the use of reason. “In a morality
based on the order of reason.”The human
person is not subject to the God-given order
of nature in the same way the animals are.
 The given physical and biological order does
not provide moral norms; rather, it provides
the data and the possibilities for the human
person to use to achieve human goals.
Moral Pretension
 Action flows from character like water flows
from the spring. If a man has an evil
character, his actions are likewise evil.
  It is, however possible for a person to do
good without having a good character. An
evil person can pretend to be good.
 Ethical standard requires that we have a
clean mind and a pure heart. This is how
moral laws bind the whole of being—our
senses, our emotions, our thoughts, our
desires and our actions. And so we say that
the authenticity of a good act comes from
the soul. If our soul is untainted, we may
pretend to do evil but still remain good
VIRTUE ETHICS
Virtue Ethics- emphasizes the role of character and
virtue in moral philosophy rather than either doing
one’s duty or acting to bring good consequences. It
is person-based rather than action-based.
1. Aristotle- virtue manifest itself in action
- A virtuous person sees truly and
judges rightly.
a. Telos- the essential nature of things lay
not only at their cause (beginning) but at
their end (telos).
- Organisms continually move
from being imperfect to perfect. The
perfect being innate within the
imperfect.
b. Virtue as Habit-Virtues are habits and
that a good life is one of mindless
routine.
- Moral virtue is
learned primarily through habit and
practice rather than through reasoning
and instruction.
c. Happiness as Virtue- also known as
Eudaimonia
- Happiness is
the activity of living well, while virtue
represents the potential to live well.
Happiness waits only for those who go
out and seize it.
2. St. Thomas Aquinas: Natural Law
a. The Natural and its Tenets- natural law
is based on the idea that God wants us to
want and seek good things.
- Innate to
human beings and doesn’t need the guidance
of the bible or the church to understand
natural law
b. Happiness as constitutive of moral and
cardinal values
“We can never achieve complete
happiness in this life. Final happiness
consists in beatitude and supernatural union
with God.” -Aquinas
Cardinal values
1. Prudence
2. Temperance
3. Justice
4. Fortitude
REASONS AND IMPARTIALITY AS A
MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR
MORALITY
Reasons and impartiality defined
 Reasons defined as a way of dealing with
issues, a faculty and moral judgement are
not a matter of a personal preference or
taste.
 "... the morally right thing to do, in any
circumstances, is determined by what
there are the best reasons for doing"
Rachel's"What is Morality".
 Impartiality defined as every stakeholder's
interest is equally important.
 There are no special interest or people,
thus in making every moral decision,
each stakeholder interests should be
considered.
 One must be arbitrary.
  Every person should be treated in the
same unless there is good reason not to
do so.
7 Step Moral Reasoning Model
1. Determine the Facts
 What do we need to know?
 Who is involved in the situation?
 What does the ethical situation take
place?
 What does it occur?
2. Define the precise ethical issue.
 This is a violation of rights - based
theory of ethics, which states that rights
belong to all people purely by virtue of
their being human.
3. Identify the major principles, rules and
values.
4. Specify the alternative.
5. Compare values and alternatives.
6. Assess the consequences.
7. Make a decision.
A. MORAL VS. NON-MORAL
STANDARDS
Moral Standards are norms that individuals
or groups have about the kinds of actions
believed to be morally right or wrong, as
well as the values placed on what we
believed to be morally good or morally bad.
Moral standards normally promote “the
good”, that is, the welfare and well-being of
humans as well as animals and the
environment. Moral standards, therefore,
B. Dilemmas
prescribe what humans ought to do in terms
of rights and obligations.
Characteristics of moral standards
a. Moral standards involve serious
wrongs or significant benefits.
b. Moral standards ought to be
preferred to other values.
c. Moral standards are not established
by authority figures.
d. Moral standards have the trait of
universalizability.
e. Moral standards are based on
impartial considerations.
f. Moral standards are associated with
special emotions and vocabulary.
Non-moral standards refer to standards by
which we judge what is good or bad and
right or wrong in a non-moral way.
Examples of non-moral standards are
standards of etiquette by which we judge
manners as good or bad, standards we call
the law by which we judge something as
legal or illegal, and standards of aesthetics
by which we judge art as good or rubbish.
Hence, we should not confuse morality with
etiquette, law, aesthetics or even with
religion. As we can see, non-moral standards
are matters of taste or preference. Hence, a
scrupulous observance of these types of
standards does not make one a moral person.
Violation of said standards also does not
pose any threat to human well-being.
 Signaled by being “bothered-nababagabag” have a positive or negative effect for
 Dilemmas are experiences where an agent is those involved. A personal dilemma
confused about the right decision to make is an extremely difficult situation for
because there are several competing values someone to handle. A classic
that are seemingly equally important and example is deciding which parent to
urgent. live with.
 Dilemma is a rhetorical Another classic example of a
device in which a conflicting personal dilemma is someone
situation arises for a person deciding whether to let their family
to choose between right and starve or steal bread from someone
wrong, where both seem of else.
equal worth. Often times,  Organizational Dilemma
dilemma involves an o Ethical dilemma is also known as
ethically wrong decision that moral dilemma that is a very
may produce desirable complex situation. The manager
outcomes, but which could should or the employee should keep
have moral consequences. all the people in its mind before
 Dilemmas are not about competing making any decision on resolving the
solutions. We normally handle the ethical dilemma. Business dilemma
“pagkabagabag” by immediately offering is a situation where a person has to
solutions instead of articulating the make a complex choice between the
competing values or issues e.g. should I two situations. Organizational
cheat or not cheat. dilemma is a challenge for every
C. Three levels of moral dilemmas organization nowadays; it is all about
(individual, organizational, systemic) how to match discrepancy between
 Individual Dilemma individual needs and aspirations on
o As individual’s we encounter the one hand and the organizational
personal dilemmas, whether it is goals on the other. Ethical dilemma
professional or educational and with can arise between two workers or
these dilemmas there is always some can arise within a single person as
type of choice that must be made and well.
with this choice there is either a  Systemic Dilemma
solution or resolution or in some o I see that this world is full of
cases the choice that is made is either frustration (maybe more than before)
about how our
 social/economic/political systems are
not meeting the issues of the day. We
have income inequality, racial
tensions, unemployment, health care
costs, education breakdown, higher
education costs, gender issues, rape
issues, and the list goes on and on.
Our governing system seems to be
broken. Thinking that it is broken is
just the opposite way to think about
this. Our systems are perfect, they
just don’t deliver what most of us
want.
o This is the dilemma of complex
systems. Over time, as systems grow
and become more and more
complex, due to sheer numbers,
laws, vested interests, built in
rewards, special applications,
unintended consequences, and more,
which creates a system that no one
wants, but many benefits from. Ah,
what a dilemma that is.
D. Foundation of morality: Freedom-
responsibility for one’s act and to others
 If humans have genuine moral responsibility
for an act, then this requires that they freely
perform that act (i.e. that they instantiate
agent causation).
MORAL COURAGE
 Humans have genuine moral responsibility
for at least some of their actions.
 Humans freely perform some actions.
 Kant notes that an important assumption
necessary for moral responsibility is the idea
that we human beings give the moral law to
our own wills. We say to ourselves, “This is
the right thing to do, and so I will do it.” We
don’t know how it is possible for us to freely
determine our own wills, but it must be
possible for us if we are to consider
ourselves as morally responsible beings.
E. Minimum requirement for morality:
Reason and impartiality
 Morality pertains to standards of right and
wrong, usually inherited from a community.
 Reason defines as a way of dealing with
issues, a faculty and moral judgements are
not a matter of a personal preferences or
tastes.
o “...the morally right thing to do, in
any circumstance, is determined by
what there are the best reasons for
doing.” Rachel’s “What is Morality”
 Impartiality defined as every stakeholder’s
interest is equally important.
o There are no special interests or
people, thus in making every moral
decision, each stakeholder interest
should be considered
o One must be arbitrary
o Every person should be treated the
same way unless there is good reason
not to do so.
 How did I decide and what did I actually
do?
 Did I actually execute what I plan to do?
DILEMMA- a situation in which a difficult choice
has to be made between two or more alternatives,
especially equally undesirable ones.
CHOICE- an act of selecting or making a decision
when faced with two or more possibilities.
MORAL IMAGINATION
Mark Johnson- “an ability to imaginatively discern
various possibilities for acting within a given
situation and to envision the potential help and harm
that are like likely to result from a given action.”
Charles Latmore- “our ability to elaborate and
appraise different courses of action which are only
partially determined by the given content of moral
rules, in order to learn what in a particular situation
is the morally best thing to do… Moral imagination
belongs to… the exercise of moral judgment.”
MORAL MINIMUS
 the mutual agreement on what is unjust
 negative standard, the “bottom lines”
 still subject to change according to different
historical periods, yet appeal to impartial
standard, still within limits of human
understanding and imagination.
MORAL COURAGE
 Socrates And Plato: virtue is knowledge and
teachable, then, “no one does evil knowingly
and willingly.”
 when a man chooses that which de facto evil
is, he chooses it sub specie boni, what he
imagines to good.
De facto- existing in fact, or having actual effect,
force or possession whether or not it is formal,
legitimate, moral, or rightful.
Sub specie boni- under the appearance of good.
 Aristotle: knowledge is not enough for may
I know something good and yet not to do it,
or may I know something bad and still do it.
Inner struggle between reason and will.
THREE KINDS OF ACT:
1. Voluntary- knowledge and approval
2. Involuntary- knowledge and lack of
approval
3. Non-Voluntary- no knowledge and no
approval
Only voluntary act can be held accountable
 So, what is MORAL COURAGE? It is the
will to know what one knows is the good or
the will to avoid what one knows to be bad.
COURAGE AS VIRTUE
 Aristotle held that courage is a virtue.
 Latin word “virtus” In latin “Vir” means a
man, and “Virtus” means manliness
synonyms with courage because in ancient
barbaric times, it is the man who protects the
village from the enemy. Later when the
killings was no longer an everyday act,
courage came to mean internal fortitude of
both man and woman.
 Inner fortitude needed “when we should
create a situation that will be unpleasant for
us. It takes courage to apologize.
 Courage, a mean between two extreme:
cowardice (lack) and foolhardiness (excess)
 Courage for the 19 hijackers who murdered
almost 3000 people on September 11, 2001?
 Courage in an unworthy cost is not a virtue.
So we should add “Moral” to courage.
 We need courage, because no one (not even
the scholar) is free from danger.
 But we need courage (inner) even more to
be moral!