Module 1

Specific Objectives:
1. Define and discuss the origin and types of ethics and the
Philosophers who gave contribution to it.
2. Differentiate the formal object of ethics from material object of ethics.
3. Explain the importance of Ethics; how it drives the human’s critical
and rational mind.

Fundamentals of Ethics
Knowing the nature of ethics is the first basic step workers can take
to strengthen the foundation upon which to anchor themselves in their
quest to live ethically in and out of the workplace.
Workers make ethical judgements all the time when performing their
work. These judgements are frequently based on ethic.
Ethics is a personal and a lifelong commitment. To be ethical does not only
require knowledge of ethics but also the willingness to live ethically.

The Origin and Nature of Ethics

How should I live my life?
When man began to wonder about the right thing to do or about how
he should live his existence, another field of Philosophy came to life.
Philosophers called it ethics, or moral philosophy.
Ethics comes from the Greek word ethos which means character.
In ancients Greece, it was concerned with the development of a
virtuous moral character. The Greeks believed that developing character
would lead not only to knowing the right thing to do, but to actually doing
the right thing or living the right way of life.
Socrates was a great Greek moralist. He was the first to recognized
the value of questions that affect how a person should live.

GE – 107 Ethics 1|Page

 Socratic Method consist of asking people questions about ideas they
presumably know about.
1. Usually, it begins by asking for an essential or analytic definition of
concept (e.g., good, justice, etc.).
2. Once a definition is offered, It is subjected to critical analysis and
examination until some defects are found.
3. To avoid the defect, the definition is reformulated, but another defect
would soon appear once the new definition is subjected once more to
the same critical analysis and examination.
4. The process continues until others realize what they believed to be
right is wrong.

The Need to Study Ethics

Why do we need to study ethics?
There are four general reasons why we need to study Ethics.
1. Ethics makes clear to us why act is better than another.
-we live in world where we must not only make decisions, but where
there are right ways and wrong ways of doing things
2. Ethics contributes an orderly social life by providing humanity
some basis for agreement, understanding some principles and
rules of procedure.
-it provides a basis for cooperation based on mutual respect and
mutual understanding. It helps us make decisions, especially on
difficult cases where clear answers are hard to find.
3. Moral conduct and ethical systems, both of the past and of the
present, must be intelligently appraised and criticized.
-in the world of work, the study of ethics and ethical standards are
made more important when we realize that the agents interacting in
the workplace are human beings, who have feelings that can be hurt,

GE – 107 Ethics 2|Page

 nerves that can be shattered, pride that can be injured, hopes that
can be frustrated, and dignity that can be unethical practices.
4. Ethics seeks to point out to men the true values of life.
-it can promise the rewards of self-respect and self-worth, of deeper
understanding and appreciation of love, respect, service, life and the
world. This is what we need the most, especially in an age of too
much specialization, where most have already lost their sense of
unity and meaning.

Assumptions of Ethics

Like any other discipline, ethics proceeds from some basic

assumptions.
Assumptions are fundamental beliefs or statements that are
accepted to be true without the burden of proving or of proof. Ethics
has two most important and common assumptions;

1. the man is a rational being – man acts with purpose, unlike

brutes who merely act out of instinct and reflex. The
assumption implies the moral awareness or the capability of
man to know and distinguish right from wrong and good from
bad.

2. the man is free – man exercise choice in his actions. He is free

to act according to his will and he has the power to act, speak,
or think if he chooses to without restraints. In general, the
assumption has the capability to choose what to do and what is
good.

The Objects of Ethics

The Principal cause of actions is usually attributed to the doer.
If, for instance,

GE – 107 Ethics 3|Page

 Pedro committed a crime. Pedro (not any malicious demon or
spirit) is responsible for his act on the crime he committed. Because
Pedro did the act, it is expected that Pedro suffer the moral or logical
consequences of his act.
Hence, a person in control of his facilities (i.e. intelligence and
will), is judged as moral if he performs an act that observes a
particular standard of morality, and immoral if he commits an act that
violates any given moral standard.
The Physical Object of Ethics
The doer of an act and the act done by the doer are two different
objects of Ethics.
The doer of an act is the physical object of ethics (i.e., moral agent).
The physical object of ethics does not only refer to a person, but to an
institution (e.g., the business firm, the government, etc.) and other forms of
social organization (e.g., non-governmental organizations, clubs, fraternity
associations, etc.) that perform moral actions and other rational activities
such as decision-making, moral calculation, and others.
The Nonphysical Object of Ethics
The action done by a moral agent, such as the act of telling the truth,
helping others in distress, fulfilling a promise, forgiving others’ trespasses,
humility, including malicious deeds such as murder, stealing, lying and
others are called the nonphysical object of ethics.

Two General Form of Acts

Not all acts are to be taken as formal objects of ethics. Certain acts
are of some value to ethics, while others are expendable to ethical
analysis.
Acts of Man

GE – 107 Ethics 4|Page

Involuntary Natural Acts – this include the involuntary, intuitive or reflex
acts exhibited by man, such as the 1. blinking of the eye, 2. beating of the
heart, 3. sneezing, 4. yawning, 5. breathing, 6. scratching and others.
When eating, are you always aware of the way you chew or swallow your
food? Probably not, unless you just had dental surgery, or are suffering
from tonsillitis.
Voluntary Acts – a nonmoral act that include voluntary and natural, but not
necessarily reflexive acts, such as 1. sleeping, 2. eating, 3. drinking, etc.
These types are actions we usually perform as part of our daily, socially
learned activities, such as 1. brushing our teeth, 2. combine our hair, 3.
cutting our nails, 4. taking a bath etc.
The second type of nonmoral acts is different from the first type
because it involves a certain degree of freedom or voluntariness, so to
speak. You can decide to sleep or not (VA) but you cannot stop your heart
from beating (IA).
Human Acts
A general form of act that include actions that are conscious,
deliberate, intentional, voluntary and are within the preview of human value
judgement.
Human acts are either moral or immoral. These actions are products
of a man’s rationality and freedom of choice – like telling the truth, helping
others in distress, caring for the sick. These acts are then said to be formal
object of ethics.

Classification of Human Acts

Acts are judged as to their moral worth based on conformity to standards or

norms of morality. Human acts are classified into the following:

GE – 107 Ethics 5|Page

 1. Moral or ethical acts – these are human acts that observe or conform
to a standard or norm of morality. Some examples of moral or ethical
actions include 1. helping others in need, 2. taking examinations
honestly, 3. returning excess for change received, 4. giving party to
your friends and others.

2. Immoral or unethical acts – These are human acts that violate or

deviate from a standard of morality. Immoral actions may include, 1.
refusing to help others in distress, 2. cheating in an examination, 3.
speaking ill of others and others.

Amoral or Neutral Acts

Amoral or neutral actions do not apply to human acts because human
acts can either be moral or immoral but not morally neutral. Instead the
classification applies to nonmoral acts (acts of human).
The action depends on the circumstances surrounding a neutral act,
it may become a moral or immoral act. If, for instance; The teacher is
sleeping in her class. Sleeping, becomes immoral act if it is done during
office work.
Components of Moral Act
The elements upon which to focus assessment of wether moral or human
acts conform to our violate a particular norm:
1. Intention – motive of the fact – for instance, 1. studying the lesson is
intended to pass an exam, or 2. training for a basketball match is
intended to win the championship title.

2. Means – this is the act or object employed to carry out the intent of
the act. The act of studying hard means to pass the exam or training
one’s self is a means to win aa=the championship match.

GE – 107 Ethics 6|Page

 3. End – the intent of act is assumed to be always directed toward a
desired end or a perceived good, such as passing the exam or
winning the basketball championship tournament, where in means
employed will help achieved the end.

Moral Act and Human Will

Moral acts or human acts stem from the human will that controls or influences the
internal and external actions of man.

The will stirs a person to act or hampers him from acting. It colors the motives for
his engaging or disengaging in a certain action. Living against all odds. hoping during
hopelessness, selfless sacrifice for others- these are just a few cases that demonstrate
the power of the will to motivate the human soul for goodness, hope and determination.
It is the part of the soul that affects the freedom and reasoning of the individual. The will
is the agency of choice.

The will may prompt reason to overpower passion or the other extreme, arouse
passion and allow it to overrun reason. As such, the will is a potential force for both
good and evil.

The strength or weakness of the will determines the strength or weakness of a

person's character. If action follows being, agere sequitor esse, and if the will affects
action, the will must be brought closer to reason and to the proper sense of morality and
goodness.

The human will is what ethics, and religious and values education aim to tame
through the instruction of the moral sense which is borne out of human experience. It is
morality which directs the will to its proper choice.

FORMS OF ETHICAL ANALYSIS

We can study ethics in two general ways. We may describe the kinds of values
people have and the sort of principles they apply in making moral judgments, or we may
discover norms or principles by which we may prescribe how we ought to live or by
which we can discern what we ought to do in a particular situation. Thus, the study of
ethics or moral values, falls under two general categories: Descriptive and Normative
Ethics

GE – 107 Ethics 7|Page

Descriptive Ethics

Descriptive Ethics is more suited to empirical sciences like sociology, psychology

or political science as it aims to discover what moral beliefs are held by a given society,
social group or social organization. It does not prescribe, nor does it attempt to assess,
the moral soundness of any ethical system. Rather, it objectively presents or describes
what kind of values people come to have. In political science literature, for instance, we
can read about cross-cultural analysis of human values analysis of American and Asian
moral values. and others.
Here, experts in the social sciences try to describe and compare. by way ot
analysis. the similar differences of moral values among different groups of people, or
the des and of cultural norms through a given period.

Normative Ethics

Many philosophers believe that ethics is, for the most part, a normative study.
The normative study is not merely a description of what people find morally good and
morally bad but seeks to discover norms that ought to guide our actions. Though the
search may sound theoretical, ethics nevertheless has a practical purpose: that is, it
tries to produce practical knowledge about how we should conduct our lives

Major Normative Ethics theories are usually classified into the following:

Consequentialist (Teleological) Ethics

This school of thought maintains that the morality of an action is determined

solely by its consequences. An example of a consequentialist theory is Utilitarianism,
the theory that the greatest happiness or good of the greatest number of persons is the
test of right and wrong. If most people are happy, the moral act in question is good or
moral: if not, then. it is bad or immoral.

Nonconsequentialist (Deontological) Ethics

Deontological theories assert that the morality of an action depends on its

intrinsic nature, its motives, or its accordance with some rules or principles and not on
its consequences. A major example of deontological theory is Immanuel Kant’s
Categorical Imperative Moral Worth, according to Nonconsequencialist Ethics, depends
on motives or intentions and not on the consequences of what are actually done.

GE – 107 Ethics 8|Page

Theological Ethics

This holds that the will of God is what determines the rightness and wrongness of
an act. The will of God is expressed through the Holy Scriptures and which dictates of
reason inspired by faith. Holy Scriptures may refer to sacred texts such as Christianity's
Bible and Islam's Koran.
The authority, which has the divine privilege to formulate the articles of faith for
believers, is the body of person who call themselves priests, pastors, clerics. and
others. The community of believes what they call the Church. The truth embedded in
the holy texts are assumed by religious believers or followers to be infallible, that is,
they are accepted to be absolute truths, and the authority of the people who interpret
these texts are indubitable and unquestionable. Going against their teachings may
result in expulsion from the Church.

Legalism or Legalistic Morality

This, on the other hand, determines right from wrong, based on a body of clearly
stated and well-documented body of laws. Laws provide a standard of behavior which
every member of a state must try to observe. These laws are imposed by the
government to its citizens, and their observance are ensured through overwhelming
police and military forces. We can clearly observe that the theological and legalistic
theories of morality use authority and force in imposing standards of right and wrong.
This explains why they are both categorize under Authoritarian Ethics

Ethical Egoism

Ethical Egoism maintains that an action is right only if it is in the interest of the
agent or the doer of the act. This theory is consequentialist, but unlike most of the
consequentialist theories that emphasize the idea of the greatest good for most people,
egoism views the good exclusive to the interest of the doer. If an act brings good to the
doer, then it is good: if it brings harm. then it is bad. If it brings little or no perceivable
good to the doer, but does to others, then the act is not worth doing at all.

For some moral philosophers, Ethical Egoism is not a simple theory of morality,
but a challenge to the entire idea of human morality. For an ethical egoist, ethics cannot
make one materially wealthy. (Have you heard the story of a man who by sheer honesty
became wealthy?) Or, ethics can make man physically beautiful (Socrates, the first
western moralist. is believed to have a physique no lover of beauty will find appealing),
and it cannot, promise eternal salvation because salvation, they say, requires a dose of
faith. Hence, there is no reason why we should bother about our morality.

GE – 107 Ethics 9|Page

Do you agree? Why or why not?

Situational Ethics

Situational Ethics asserts that the morality of an action depends on the situation and not
on the application of moral laws to the case. For each case, there is a duty to perform
and the nature of the condition in which one finds itself, not thecategorical principles of
morality, determines what one ought to do. The act of telling the truth for example, is
perfectly ethical in one case. but not in a different case.

William D. Ross is one of the proponents of this theory.

FORMS OF ETHICS

Every day, we encounter uncertainties or conflicts of opinion about what ought to

be done. We sometimes suffer the painful consequences of an action that earlier
seemed acceptable. We sometimes commit the blunder of not recognizing the fact that
different people and places have different norms and practices. These experiences
gave rise to the three general forms of ethics: Practical Ethics, Theoretical Ethics and
Moral Skepticism.

PRACTICAL ETHICS

Practical Ethics is primarily concerned with answering matter-of-fact questions,

such as the questions posed by the Situations presented above.

Practical Ethics is essentially normative, that Is, it prescribes courses of action for
moral issues where clear answers are lacking. Generally, Practical Ethics aims to
develop a workable system of behavior that can be used in the daily conduct of human
existence. Under this school of Ethics are the Consequentialist ethical theories
(Consequentialism), and Nonconsequentialist ethical theories (Deontological).

THEORETICAL ETHICS

Theoretical Ethics primarily aims to study the meaning of ethical concepts such
as good, right, fairness, etc.

Theoretical Ethics attempts to study the nature or moral acts, inquiries into what
makes a right action right, and determines the relation between facts and values. It is

GE – 107 Ethics 10 | P a g e
perceived to be on a higher ground than ethics itself, because it's business is to analyze
moral judgments and assess moral theories. in short, thinking about ethics.

Theoretical Ethics aims to answer questions such as: Is this ethical standard fair
or it is arbitrary? What does it mean when one says something is right or good? Why
should I be moral?

MORAL SKEPTICISM

Skepticism comes from the Greek word, skeptesthai, meaning "to examine" or
"to consider". It is a general name for the philosophic attitude that rejects any claim to
certainty, thus opposed to any form of moral dogmatism, or to any attitude of
authoritative certainty.

What we only do have, this school of thought contends, are just an encyclopedia
of different moral theories, conflicting ethical standards and different opinions about the
morality of our acts. Thus. when one judges something as unethical, it is uncertain that
it is really the case as some other theories may contend that it is not.

PERSONAL AND SOCIAL ETHICS

Some philosophers make distinctions between Personal and Social Ethics.

Personal Ethics tries to study how a person should act in relation to himself, while
Social Ethics concerns how a person should act in relation to others. Such a distinction
on differentiating between duties to one's self and duties to others.

However, to think that these two forms of ethics are entirely different and hence,
to argue which between them is more important, will only lead to an irresolvable and
fruitless debate. Though they are seemingly different, personal ethics, or any morality
for this matter, is essentially social, as comprehending problems that arise in a social
setting. A person's duty to himself. for example. is comprehensible only if it is put into its
proper social context: that is, in relation to his duty to his fellowmen.

Nevertheless, the distinction between personal and social ethics is important

because it highlights the things we ought to do for self-improvement in relation to things
we ought to do for the improvement of our fellowmen

GE – 107 Ethics 11 | P a g e
GE – 107 Ethics 12 | P a g e