Synthesis: Making Informed Decisions (2nd Half)

Group 8-(02939)- GE9-11 AM- BE 333; Tero; Barriga; Pulgo; Aguilar

Ethics can be considered as one of the arduous matters to give a spot-on answer on questions
that are essentially meaningful on everyone’s existence. It answers yet it questions the
answer as well, and for some reasons it enlightens on one side and ironically made one
question the other way around. “Applying rational deliberation to determine a person’s
ethical responsibility to self, society and environment is the overall goal of a college course in
Ethics,” (Bulaong, et al. 2018). Before this become possible, making an informed moral
decision takes different factors for them to be shaped and steps that are to follow.
It is an integral step to know the people that may or will be affected on a certain ethical
problem (Bulaong, et al. 2018). Also, it was relative to the common good notion originated
from the works of Plato, Aristotle and Cicero, which was also pointed out by a contemporary
ethicist John Rawls defining common good as “certain general conditions that are equally to
everyone’s advantage,” (Velasquez, et al. 2015). This step encourages one to make an
evenhanded assessment that would think of others well-being and not just mere selfish ends.
Henceforth, we are also urge to determine how and to what extent a conclusion or a choice
of an agent would bring others to, since not everyone involve has the same level of
affectability.

Making the ethical conclusion or decision is the final step on deliberating. This is the
aftereffect of exercising the preceding steps. Hence, it is the most difficult part but one can
improve it sense of decision making through continuous habituation. It was on the translation
of (Thomsom 2005) on Aristotle’s Ethics that moral virtues are engendered in us neither by
nor contrary to nature. This means that virtues may be constituted by nature to receive them
but it is on one’s habituation that shapes them.
This continuous habituation can be helped out by the different ethical theories or
frameworks which will set as the foundation on constructing a decision or action. Stated by
(Chonko 2012), ethical theories provide part of the decision-making foundation for decision
making when ethics are in play because these theories represent the viewpoints from which
individuals seek guidance as they make decisions. Good examples for this are the broad types
of ethical theories which are the Consequentialist theories, which are primarily concerned
with the ethical consequences of particular actions. According to (Armstrong 2019)
consequentialism, as its name suggests, is simply the view that normative properties depend
only on consequences. This subdivided into two- Utilitarianism, judge’s consequences by a
“greatest good for the greatest number” standard and Hedonism, on the other hand, says
something is “good” if the consequence produces pleasure or avoids pain. And also, Non-
consequentialist theories which tend to be broadly concerned with the intentions of the
person making ethical decisions about particular actions.
On the other hand, Agent-centered theories which unlike consequentialist and non-
consequentialist theories are more concerned with the overall ethical status of individuals, or
agents, and are less concerned to identify the morality of particular actions. According to
(Alexander and Moore 2016), agent-centered theories famously divide between those that
emphasize the role of intention or other mental states in constituting the morally important
kind of agency, and those that emphasize the actions of agents as playing such a role. Natural
Law Theory, on the other hand puts weight on reasoning by the theorized existence of a
“human nature.” According to (J Finnis 2007), In the present entry, “natural law theory” is to
be taken as shorthand for natural law theories just insofar as they bear on law and are
theories of or about it.
(Bulaong, et al. 2018) mainly used the four ethical theories or frameworks as the basis
for making informed decisions. The said theories are utilitarianism (Jeremy Bentham), natural
law theory (Thomas Aquinas), deontology (Immanuel Kant), and virtue ethics (Aristotle).
Utilitarianism and Natural Law were discussed previously. Deontology on the other hand,
recognizes that the human itself, as the end or the cornerstone of ethical decision-making;
and lastly virtue ethics teaches that one must always find and act on the mesotes in treating
oneself or others. Though these theories are quite useful for making decisions, the question
is “Which one should we care? Others or ourselves?”, however, in making moral decision one
must also consider his society and environment alongside with its self.
In care for the self by (Foucault 2003) , he stated that one must not give up his freedom
to live fully and authentically while giving care to others. Even though an individual is concern
for others, one must not forget in our quest for individual freedom. Foucault’s theory
eliminated the care of self-versus care of others dichotomy. Foucault also said that the self I
become, and that who I am affects another’s self-construction. Even a person gives care to
himself, he should not neglect also his responsibilities to care in his society he lives in.
Moral responsibilities of human do not end on each other’s concern. Human-to- Non-
human relation also appears- Environmental ethics. Nonhuman constituents of the
environment (nature, animals, and cultural artifacts) that deals with the significance of the
nonhuman environment for persons (Searles 1960). Utilitarianism continues to be widely
accepted by professional and dominated the public policy arena, no one can deny the
important role utilitarianism has played as a justification for protecting wilderness,
ecosystems, and species. Modern environmental ethicists have, however, criticized
utilitarianism on various grounds and affirming holistic ethics than the former (Wolff 2008).
Kantian deontology, a contemporary example that were used environmental contexts such
us in animal rights and Garret Hardin's 'The tragedy of the commons' (Elliot 2019). According
to (Bulaong, et al. 2018), focuses on the innate dignity of the human beings as possessing
reason, it can be argued that one cannot possibly universalize maxims. It was also pointed out
by (Hardin 1960) on his 'The tragedy of the commons' that we are locked into a system of
"fouling our own nest" because of this mindset. Another, on Thomas Aquinas where certain
action should be avoided because they do not produce a harmonious, peaceful society. Which
then argue that any Thomistic environmental ethics must be consistently anthropocentric,
where this means that nonhuman creatures are finally instruments to the human good. Any
duties towards (or restrictions on our activities towards) such create must find their moral
grounding in the human good (Benzoni 2005).
We do not have a computer program here that can automatically calculate what is
right thing to do in a given situation. There is only the human individual along with her
community of fellow human beings who need to accept that they must continue to explore
the meaning of what is good and right while hoping to arrive at the best judgments they can
make at this point in time. Hoping that one’s best attempt at doing what is right does mean
something in the end (Bulaong, et al. 2018).

Stumbling upon problems that can morally affect one’s own life,the others’ and the
non-human is quite a usual situation. There are a lot of theories and frameworks you can
anchor your punto de vistas, it is up to the moral agent from which they can rely on, for
theories are not completely proven true and absolute. Being cognizant and sensible on this
matter would lead to a more comprehensive assessment on the ethical issue that eventually
would give more convincing reasons as to why one made a certain ethical choice and
conclusion.

References
Alexander, Larry, and Michael Moore. 2016. Standford Encylopedia of Philosophy. October 17.
Accessed September 14, 2019. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-deontological/.

Armstrong, Walter-Sinnot. 2019. Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. June 3. Accessed September

14, 2019. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consequentialism/#Bib.

Bulaong, Oscar G Jr, Mark Joseph T Calano, Albert M Lagliva, Michael Ner E Mariano, and Jesus
Deogracias Z Principe. 2018. Ethics Foundation of Moral Valuation. Quezon: Rex Printing
Company, Inc.

Chonko, Larry. 2012. Ethical Theories. July.

Thomsom, J.A.K. 2005. Aristotle Ethics. Penguin Books Ltd.

Velasquez, Manuel, Claire Andre, Thomas Shanks, S.J., and Meyer' Michael J. 2015. Thinking
Ethically. Santa Clara, August 1.

Non-Human Environment

-Moral responsibilities of human do not end on each other’s concern. Human-to- Non-
human relation also appears- Environmental ethics.
- Nonhuman constituents of the environment (nature, animals, and cultural artifacts) that
deals with the significance of the nonhuman environment for persons (Searles 1960).
- Utilitarianism continues to be widely accepted by professional and dominated the public
policy arena, no one can deny the important role utilitarianism has played as a justification
for protecting wilderness, ecosystems, and species (Wolff, 2008).
- Kantian deontology, a contemporary example that were used environmental contexts such
us in animal rights and Garret Hardin's 'The tragedy of the commons' (Elliot 2019).
-According to (Bulaong, et al. 2018), focuses on the innate dignity of the human beings as
possessing reason, it can be argued that one cannot possibly universalize maxims.
-Was also pointed out by Garret Hardin's 'The tragedy of the commons' .

https://www.briangwilliams.us/environmental-responsibility/deontological-environmental-
ethics.html

http://www.garretthardinsociety.org/articles/art_tragedy_of_the_commons.html