Reviewer

Reviewerinin
Ethics BSBM1–5

Ethics
 LESSON 8: BASIC THEORIES AS
FRAMEWORKS IN ETHICS
 FRAMEWORK – basic structure values. A set of assumptions, concept & practices.
 3 MAIN BRANCHES OF THE PHILOSOPHICAL STUDY OF ETHICS
1. META-ETHICS – studies the nature of morality. Explain what goodness and wickedness mean.

2. NORMATIVE ETHICS – how man ought to act, morally speaking. Examines ethical norms that
is those guidelines about what is right, virtuous or just.
 Deontology – ethical system that bases morality on independent moral.
 Teleology – moral system determines the moral value of actions by their outcomes or
results.
 Virtue ethics – moral system, places emphasis on developing good habits.
3. APPLIED ETHICS – Philosophically examines specific, controversial moral issues. Attempt to
answer difficult moral questions.
 Bioethics – Concerns ethical issues pertaining to life, biomedical, researches, medicines,
health care and medical profession.
 Environmental ethics – deals with moral issues concerning nature, ecosystem and
human contents
 Business ethics – examines moral principles concerning business environment.
 Sexual ethics – study moral issues about human sexual behavior.
 Social ethics – deals with what is right for society to do & how it should act as a whole.

 LESSON 9: VIRTUE ETHICS BY SOCRATES

AND ARISTOTLE
 VIRTUE ETHICS – Socrates (470 – 399 BC), Plato (427 – 348 BC) & Aristotle (384 – 322
BC). The ancient Greek philosopher who deeply affected western philosophy.
1. Virtue ethics defined
- is a moral philosophy that teaches that an action is right if it is an action that a
virtuous person would perform in the same situation.
- Virtue ethics emphasis developing good habits of character and avoiding bad
character traits or vices.
2. Socrates and Plato Moral Philosophy
- In the dialogue written by Plato, Socrates indicates that pleasure and pain fail
to provide an objective standard from determining moral from immoral since
they do not exist apart from one another, while good and evil do.
- The highest of all forms is the form of THE GOOD VIRTUE.
3. Aristotle’s Ethics – at least 2 of Aristotle’s work specifically concern morality, the EUDEMIAN
ETHICS and NICOMACHEAN ETHICS.
 3 GENERAL DESCRIPTIONS WHICH ARE INTERRELATED BY ARISTOTLE

3.1 Telos is an end or purpose – He believed that the essential nature of beings, lay not at
their cause or (beginning) but at their end (telos).
 Aristotle’s Nicomachean ethics can be thus summarized in this manner: “All humans
seek happiness (wellbeing) but in different ways. True happiness is tied to the purpose
or end (telos) of human life”
3.2 Happiness and Virtues
 Aristotle believes that the ultimate human goal is self-realization. Aristotle identifies
three natures of man: Vegetable or Physical, Animal or Emotional and Rational or
Mental.
3.3 Virtues as habit
 Aristotle’s idea of happiness should be also understood in the sense of human
flourishing. This flourishing is attained by habitual practice of moral and intellectual
excellences or virtue.
3.4 Virtues and the golden mean
 Aristotle distinguishes two kinds of virtue. Virtues of intellect and moral virtues.
- The first corresponds to the fully rational part of the soul, the intellect.
- The second pertains to the part of the rational soul which can obey reason. Moral
virtue is an expression of character form by habits reflecting repeated choices,
hence is also called virtue of character.
3.5 Phronesis and practice
 In using golden mean to become virtuous, we must recognize not only the mean is
neither too much nor too little but also it is relative to us as moral agent.
 Aristotle teaches us about an intellectual virtue that plays a significant role in ethics.
 The Phronesis, the intellectual virtue of practical wisdom, is that kind of moral
knowledge which guides us to what is appropriate in conjunction with moral virtue.
 To be virtuous, one must perform the action that habitually bring virtue.
4. An Evaluation of the Greek Philosopher’s Ethical Theories
 Socrates and Plato advocate a positive view of man. Their philosophy implies that human
beings who behave immorally do so out of ignorance of the good, all vice therefore is the
result of lack of knowledge and no person is willingly bad.

 LESSON 10: THOMAS AQUINAS ETHICS

5. Thomas Aquinas Ethics
 Called the angelic doctor and the prince of Scholastics, his idea depends heavily on
Aristotle. Aquinas believes that all actions are directed towards ends (telos by Aristotle)
and that happiness is the final ends.

(5.1) The Natural Law – Aquinas use the ordinance of reason for the common good, promulgated by
someone who has care of the community. He also be understood in terms of “rules and measures” for
people conduct and as “rational pattern or forms”

Aquinas: There are four primary types of law (eternal law, natural law, human law
and divine law)
 Eternal Law – refers to the rational plan of God by which all creation is ordered. To this
eternal law, everything in the universe is subject.
 Natural Law – is the aspect of the eternal law which is accessible to human reason. This is
the moral law, the law or order to which people are subject by their nature ordering them
to do good and avoid evil.
 Human Law – refers to positive law. Human law includes the civil and criminal law
though only those formulated in the light of practical reason and moral laws. Human laws
that are against natural law are not real laws, and people are not oblige to obey those unjust
laws.
 Devine Law – serves to compliments other types law, more focused on how man can
inwardly holy and eventually attain salvation.

(5.2) Features of Human actions – Aquinas evaluates human action on the basis not only of their
conformity to the natural law but also to their specific features.

He mentions at least 3 aspects through the morality of an acts can determined in terms of its “Species,
Accident and End (telos by Aristotle)

 Species – of an action refers to its kind. It is also called the object of the action. Human deeds may
be divided into kinds “good, bad, indifferent or neutral” Aquinas holds that for an action to be
moral, it must be good or at least not bad in species .
 Accidents – refers to the circumstances surrounding the action in ethically evaluating an action
the context in which the action takes place is also considered because an act might be flawed or
damage through its circumstances.
 End – an act might be unjust through its intention. To intend to9 direct oneself against a good is
clearly immoral.
6. An analysis of Thomistic Ethics
 He holds that the goodness or badness of an action lies in the interior act of will, in the
external bodily act, in the very nature of the act and even in its consequences. Thomistic
ethics does not fall into just one neat contemporary category of moral theory. By advocating
the roles by virtues in morality, Aquinas and Aristotle is a virtue ethicist.
 LESSON 11: KANTIAN RIGHT THEORY
1. KANTIAN RIGHTS THEORY-Kantian ethics refers to a deontological ethical
theory developed by German philosopher Immanuel Kant that is based on the notion that:
"It is impossible to think of anything at all in the world, or indeed even beyond it,
that could be considered good without limitation except a good will." The theory was
developed as a result of Enlightenment rationalism, stating that an action can only be good
if it’s maxim or could be a universal standard—the principle behind it—is duty to the
moral law, and arises from a sense of duty in the actor.
Central to Kant's construction of the moral law is the categorical imperative, which acts on
all people, regardless of their interests or desires.

Immanuel Khant Categorical imperative- a rule of conduct that is unconditional or absolute for
all agents, the validity or claim of which does not depend on any desire or end.

Immanuel Khant Hypothetical Imperative- a rule of conduct that is understood to apply to an

individual only if he or she desires a certain end and has chosen (willed) to act on that desire.

Good will and duty

In his combined works, Kant constructed the basis for an ethical law by the concept
of duty. Kant began his ethical theory by arguing that the only virtue that can be
unqualifiedly (no limitation/ qualification) good is a good will. No other virtue has this
status because every other virtue can be used to achieve immoral ends (for example, the
virtue of loyalty is not good if one is loyal to an evil person). The good will is unique in that
it is always good and maintains its moral value even when it fails to achieve its moral
intentions. Kant regarded the good will as a single moral principle that freely chooses to
use the other virtues for moral ends.
Kant believes that one of the functions and capacities of our reason is to produce a will
which is good not as a means to some further end, but good in itself. For him, it is the good
will which is the highest good and the condition of all other goods. Kant is somehow
contradicts to the summon bonum of Aristotle were happiness is the highest form of
end (telos). Note: Kant teaches that the only good will is intrinsically good. That is, it is
the only thing which is good without qualification.

1.1 Kant categorical imperative- what we discussed so far is Kant emphasis on the
ethical relevance of good will and acting from a sense of duty. Can a person know what his
duty is in a given situation?”. Is there a test to find out what one’s duty is in a particular set
of circumstances? Kant believe that there is, first, it is one’s duty, as rational being, to act
on principle or maxim, as contrasted to simply acting on impulse.

To distinguish “action on maxim” from “action on impulse,” let’s provide some

illustration.

Acting on impulse- Suppose a man wants to financially help a certain lady who is
in need, merely because he likes her personally, and he might not want to give the same
assistance to another woman in an exactly similar situation because he does not happen to
like her. This is acting on impulse and not done for a reason or on any principle or
maxim.
Acting on maxim- now, contrast this with another man who gives relief to total
strangers who are victim of calamity. Because he accepts it as his duty to provide
support to those in need, he treats in precisely the same manner any other person
whose situation has the same characteristics.
Evidently not all maxims are moral ones. In ethics Kant concerned with maxims that are
moral, that is, those dictated by reason and thus has imperative force or vital force.
.
Now, Kant further divides the maxims of conduct into two classes, the hypothetical
imperatives and categorical imperatives.
“Imperative” should be understood as a command of reason.
The term “hypothetical”, on the other hand, entails being true only under some
conditions, and therefore not universally true or valid. A hypothetical imperative is how
reason orders to achieve one’s specific ends . Example: if you want to pass the
examination, then study hard. If you are hungry then eat. So it’s like a decree stating that if
you wish to accomplish such-and-such an end, you must act in such-and-such a way.
Categorical Imperative- on the other hand, pronounce, no matter what end you desire to
attain, act in particular ways regardless of what goals one looks for or what one’s end
may be.
Categorical imperative demands action without qualification, without any If’s, and
without regards to consequence such an act may produce. Unlike hypothetical imperative,
categorical imperative is accepted on its own merits.
For Kant, the categorical imperative ordains a rule that, if followed, will guarantee that
the person behaving in accordance with it is acting morally. The categorical imperative
serves as a barometer of reason determining whether or not an action qualifies as ethical.
Therefore, it is Kant moral philosophy that an act is morally good maxim; and a maxim is
morally good if it conforms to the categorical imperative.
Kant provides various formulations of categorical imperative. The most famous is the
“universabizability” formulation which states, “Act only on that maxim through which
you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.”

2. AN ANALYSIS OF KANTIAN ETHICS- many who have read and understood Kant’s
ethical system find it sensible and plausible or believable. In fact, when we try to prove
that one’s particular action is unethical and ask him, “what if everybody behave as you do?,
we are actually advocating Kant’s universabizability formulation of the categorical
imperative. Kant stated the highly accepted golden rule, “do unto others as you would
have them do unto you” and its proscriptive counterpart. The most famous formulations of
Kant’s categorical imperative, especially the end-in-itself version, instruct us to respect
other because that is how we treat ourselves. He submits that some action like lying,
are wrong regardless of the circumstances and the outcomes they generate.
Critics argue that if lying is the only way to safeguard from sure danger another person,
then lying is what one must do. For instance, if a murderer, armed with a shotgun, comes
looking for a family member or friend to kill her, should we reveal her whereabouts merely
because we ought to tell the truth? We may suggest that human obligations, say keeping
promises, telling the truth, and repaying debts, should be really kept, but provided that no
other overriding factors exist, some propose, are better construed as generalizations
rather than as categorical commands without any exception.
Another shortcoming of Kant’s ethics is its lack of solution to instances when there is a
conflict of duties. Suppose a person promises to keep a secret and then another person
asks him about it. He cannot tell the truth without breaking his promise. But Kantian
ethics inflexibly demands that he ought to do both always and in all circumstances, which,
in this case, is logically impossible.

3. RIGHT THEORY- in law, Immanuel Kant proposed the principle of rights. He saw a
distinctive correlation, yet difference, between the intent of the law and the enforcement
of the law. For Kant, governments were entrusted with the capacity to create laws by
citizens they govern in exchange for protection. (the dato and raha do the same
measurement prior to Spanish occupation). Thus, governments have no right to disrupt
that trust by making laws with cruel intent against the freedom that citizens had been
promised.
The principle of rights theory is the notion that in order for a society to be
efficacious, “government must approach the making and enforcement of the laws with the
right intentions in respect to the end goals of the society that it governs. Members of
society agree to give up some freedom to protection enjoyed by organized society, but
government cannot infringe upon the rights that citizens have been promised.
When applied to war, rights theory states that in order for a war to be deemed morally
justifiable, the intention of entering into war ought to be right in relation to human rights.
The principle of rights theory teaches that it is not merely the outcome of actions
that is significant but also the reasoning behind them, because if the intent is evil,
then the outcome, in all likelihood, is bad as well.

Rights Based Ethics is a broad moral theory in which Kant principle of rights theory
is included. There are some rights both positive and negative rights, that all humans have
based only on the fact that they are human. These rights can be natural or conventional.
Example of rights-based ethics…
1. The right to life
2. The right to liberty
3. The right to pursue happiness
4. The right to a jury trial
5. The right to a lawyer
6. The right to freely practice a religion of choice
7. The right to express ideas or opinions with freedom as an individual
8. The right of individual or organizations to express opinions or share information freely in
written medium
9. The right to come together and meet in order to achieve goals
10. The right to be informed of what law has been broken if arrested
11. The right to call witnesses to speak on one’s behalf if accused of crime
12. The right of a person to be treated with respect and dignity even after being found
guilty of a crime
13. The right to freely live and travel within the country
14. The right to work
15. The right to marry
16. The right to bear children
17. The right to free education
18. The right to join any peaceful parties or groups of choice
19. The right to be free from slavery
20. The right to not be tortured
21. The right to be treated as equal to others
22. The right to be considered to be innocent until proven guilty
23. The right to personal privacy
24. The right to own property

4. Legal vs Moral Rights

What is legal is not always moral. And sometimes, what is moral is not necessarily legal is
particular country. These principles prove, among other things, that being moral and being
legal may be practically related but not one and the same.

4.1 Legal Rights. Denotes or indicate all the rights found within existing legal codes, as
such, they enjoy the recognition and protection of the law. Questions as to their existence
can be resolved by just locating the pertinent legal instrument of piece of legislation.
Technically, a legal right does not exist prior to its passing into law and limits of its validity
are set by the jurisdiction of the body which passed its legislation.
(note: the exercise of the right is limited to particular place and has no legal right receive
into different location.)

4.2 Moral Rights. Is plain contrast, are rights that exist prior to and independently from
their legal counterparts. The existence and validity of a moral right is not deemed to be
dependent upon the actions of jurists and legislators. For instance, many people argued
that the black majority in apartheid south Africa have a moral right to full political
participation in that country’s political system, although there existed no such legal right.

Note: "aparthood") was a system of institutionalized racial segregation that existed in

South Africa and South West Africa (now Namibia) from 1948 until the early
1990s. ... Apartheid was adopted as a formal policy by the South African government after
the ascension of the National Party (NP) during the 1948 general elections. The liberation
(under great Britain) achieve through the works of Nelson Mandela.

What many found so ethically objectionable about apartheid south Africa (Nambia) was its
denial to majority of the country’s inhabitants of many fundamental moral rights, such as
the right not to discriminated against on ground of color and rights to political
participation.
This specific line of opposition and protest could only be pursued because of a belief in the
existence and validity of moral rights, with or without recognition of a legal system.
It must be clear, therefore, that human rights cannot be reduced to, or exclusively
identified with legal rights. In fact, some human rights are best identified as moral rights.
Human rights are meant to apply to all human beings universally, regardless of whether or
not they have attained legal recognition by all countries everywhere. Human rights are
best thought as being both moral and legal rights.
 UTILITARIANISM
UTILITARIANISM

 Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) and John Stuart Mill (1808-1873)

– Are British philosopher who had immense impact on British thought. Bentham was
the head of the group of reformers called “the philosophical radicals,” whose member
included James Mill and his son, John Stuart Mill. Bentham and the younger Mill are
considered the main proponent/taga taguyod of the moral theory called Utilitarianism.

1- Utilitarianism Explained

1. Perhaps the most proponent moral philosophy in the last two centuries, utilitarianism in
known as a consequentialist theory, a subclass of teleological (The doctrine of the final
causes of things) moral theory. A teleological ethical system judges the rightness of an
act in terms of an external goal or purpose. Its basis in the determination of what one
ought or ought not to do rest exclusively on the consequences of the act, not the nature of
the act nor the traditional moral rules.

Consequentialist ethics proposes that actions, rules or policies should be ethically

measured and evaluated by their consequences, not by the intention or motives of the
agent. As oppose to absolutists who holds that some actions are intrinsically/essentially
wrong and must never be done no matter what the results are, consequentialists suppose
that there is no kind of act which may not be justified by its effects. Absolutists believe in
a natural law or in natural rights or conflict with the law-as immoral, no matter what their
outcomes are. Consequentialist, on the other hand, believed that there is no class of
actions which must be ruled out in advance independent of their consequences.
Utilitarianism is the most influential consequentialists’ theory. Derive from the term
utilis which means useful, utilitarianism basically states that what is useful is good, and
that the moral value of actions are determined by the utility.

Notes: Teleology is an account of a given thing's purpose. For example,

a teleological explanation of why forks have prongs that design helps humans eat certain
foods; stabbing food to help humans eat is what forks are for.

Utilitarian Ethics argues that the right course of action is one that maximizes overall
happiness. This ethical system is basically hedonistic as it identifies happiness with
pleasure. In general, it puts forward that an action is right if it amplifies pleasures and
minimizes pain.
The principle of utility can be applied to either particular actions or general rules. The
former is usually called “act-utilitarianism and the latter, “rule-utilitarianism”.
Act Utilitarianism. In Act Utilitarianism, the principle of utility is applied directly to every
alternative act in a situation of choice. The right act is then defined as the one which bring
about the best results, or the least amount of bad results. One of the criticisms against this
outlook is the difficulty of getting a full knowledge and certainly of the consequences of
people’s action. Moreover it is argued that it is possible to justify immoral act using Act
Utilitarianism: “suppose you could end a regional war by torturing children whose fathers
are enemy soldiers, thus revealing the hide out of the fathers” (Utilitarian Theories)
Rule Utilitarianism. On the other hand, the principle of utility is use to decide the validity
of rules of conduct (moral standard or principle). A moral rule such as promise-keeping is
established by evaluating the consequences of a world which people broke promises at
will and a world in which promises were binding. Moral and immoral are then defined as
following or breaking those rules. Note: for you not to break the rules, reveal the hideout of
your father to. That’s the contract under utilitarianism.
One of the criticisms against this view is that it is possible to produce unjust rules according
to the principle utility. For example, “slavery in Greece might be right if it led to an overall
achievement of cultivated happiness at the expense of some mistreated individuals.

2- Origin and Nature of the Theory- Jeremy Bentham founded the doctrine of utilitarianism
but John Stuart Mill later systematized and modified some of Bentham utilitarian
principles.
Jeremy Bentham proposed the primary form of utilitarianism in his introduction to the
Principle of Morals Legislation (1789). He confessed nonetheless that he took over the
principles of utility from David Hume, upon the reading Hume’s Account of utility. (tsk tsk
tsk…nag plagiarized si kumpareng Jeremy).
1 Bentham Utilitarianism. Bentham explains that “utility” means that property in any
object, whereby it tends to produce benefit, advantage, pleasure, good, or happiness to
prevent happening of mischief, pain, evil, or unhappiness. The Principle of Utility thus
states that an action is right insofar or the extent as it tends to produce the greatest
happiness to the greatest number. This dogma thus considers the advancement of the
greatest happiness for the greatest number as the supreme objective of human action.
Note: For Bentham, it is the principle of utility-not the so-called natural law, natural rights,
or social contracts- whose serves as the objective barometer in ethically evaluating human
action, state laws, and legal system. For Bentham, nothing else but pleasure is intrinsically
good or essentially good.
Dubbed as quantitative hedonist or qualitative utilitarian, Bentham even went so far as to
create a detailed method. The hedonic calculus, “to calculate the quantitative worth of
pleasures. The method has seven criteria or ingredients that allow one to qualify the amount
of pleasure or pain an action brings about- (1) intensity, (2) duration, (3) certainty, (4)
propinquity (or remoteness), (5) fecundity (or fruitfulness), (6) purity, and (7) extent to
which pleasure and pain are shared among the greatest number of people. In general,
utilitarianism determines the moral value of an act by calculating the sum of pleasure it
caused, and the amount of pain generated.
2 Mill’s Utilitarianism. The ethical theory of John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) is most extensively
articulated in his classical text Utilitarianism (1861). Its goal is to justify
the utilitarian principle as the foundation of morals. This principle says actions are right in
proportion as they tend to promote overall human happiness.
The creed which accepts as the foundation of morals, Utility, or the Greatest Happiness
Principle, holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness,
wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. By happiness is intended pleasure,
and the absence of pain; by unhappiness, pain, and the privation of pleasure. To give a clear
view of the moral standard set up by the theory, much more requires to be said (…). But these
supplementary explanations do not affect the theory of life on which this theory of morality
is grounded….” (CW, 210, emphasis mine) The Second Formula relates the principle of utility
to rules and precepts and not to actions. It seems to say that an act is correct when it
corresponds to rules whose preservation increases the mass of happiness in the world. And
this appears to be a rule-utilitarian conception. In the light of these passages, it is not
surprising that the question whether Mill is an act- or a rule-utilitarian has been intensely
debated. In order to understand his position it is important to differentiate between two
ways of defining act and rule utilitarianism.
(i) One can conceive of them as competing theories about objective rightness. An action is
objectively right if it is the thing which the agent has most reason to do. Act utilitarianism
would say that an action is objectively right, if it actually promotes happiness. For rule
utilitarianism, in contrast, an action would be objectively right, if it actually corresponds to
rules that promote happiness.
(ii) One can also conceive of act- and rule utilitarianism as theories about moral obligation.
Act utilitarianism requires us to aim for the maximization of happiness; rule utilitarianism,
in contrast, requires us to observe rules that facilitate happiness. Understood as a theory
about moral obligation, act utilitarianism postulates: Act in a way that promotes happiness
the most. Rule utilitarianism claims, on the other hand: Follow a rule whose general
observance promotes happiness the most. Mill is in regard to (i) an act utilitarian and in
regard to
(ii) a rule utilitarian. This way the seeming contradiction between the First and the Second
Formula can be resolved. The First Formula states what is right and what an agent has most
reason to do. It points to the “foundation of morals”. In contrast, the Second Formula tells us
what our moral obligations are. We are morally obliged to follow those social rules and
precepts the observance of which promotes happiness in the greatest extent possible.

3-An Analysis of Utilitarianism-utilitarianism appears to be a direct negative reaction

against Kantian
Ethics. While Kant proposes that an act is justified by the person’s motive to perform his
duty, Bentham and Mill counteract this by submitting that actions are evaluated though
their consequences.
Note: As a moral theory, utilitarianism appears to be attractive. Basically anchored on the
pleasure and pain concepts, utilitarianism has transcultural appeal as all sentient or
emotional beings understand pain and pleasure.
Utilitarianism also allows for exceptions to the rule if justified by the consequences. Take
the case of lying to protect another from sure danger. For some rule bound theories like
that of Kant, such an act is transgressing such an exceptionless rule. Utilitarianism, on the
other hand, would say that such an act is warranted if the course of action will generate
the greatest happiness for the greatest number.

4- Business Fascination with Utilitarianism- utilitarianism is perhaps the most broadly

understood and normally applied ethical theory to business. In as organizational context,
utilitarianism basically teaches that a decision regarding business conduct is proper if that
decision generates the greatest good for the greatest number of person.
In the theory, ‘good’ is typically defined as the net benefits that accrue or increase to those
parties affected by choice. Moral choices must thus be evaluated by calculating the net
benefits of each available alternative action. In business this implies that all the
stakeholders affected by the decision must be given their just consideration.
Act utilitarianism, one major school of thought in the theory, centers on the action that has
been taken, evaluating it along the lines of whether the chosen action produces more good
than bad consequences.