Our Lady of Salvation College

Tiwi, Albay
School Year 2021-2022

Instructor: Laurence V. Azcune, LPT

Subject: GE 8 (Ethics)

I. General Introduction of the Subject Matter

This module will not tell you what is right and wrong; it will help you in determining it for
yourself. More specifically, it will present you with the conceptual and analytic tools that will
hopefully guide you in your ethical thinking.

LESSON 1: THE ETHICAL DIMENSION OF HUMAN EXISTENCE

Lesson Objectives:
 Identify the ethical aspects of human life and the scope of ethical thinking;
 Define and explain the terms that are relevant to ethical thinking; and
 Evaluate the difficulties that are involved in maintaining certain commonly-held notions on
ethics.

Introduction
In August 2007, newspaper reported what seemed to be yet another sad incident of fraternity
violence. Cris Anthony Mendez, a twenty-year-old student of the University of the Philippines (UP),
was rushed to the hospital in the early morning hours, unconscious, with large bruises on his chest,
back, and legs. He passed away that morning hours, and the subsequent autopsy report strongly
suggests that his physical injuries were most probably the result of “hazing” (the term colloquially
used to refer to initiation rites in which neophytes may be subjected to various forms of physical
abuse). What exactly happened remains an open question, as none of those who were with him that
night came forward to shed light on what had transpired. Needless to say, none of them came
forward to assume responsibility to the death of Cris.
Even as the leaders of Sigma Rho fraternity publicly denounced the death of Cris, those
members of theirs who had been with him that night vanished, avoiding and refusing to cooperate
with legal authorities. Meanwhile, UP students and the general public clamored for justice. In a
move that surprised the student body, the UP chancellor called on all fraternities to justify their
continued existence. Meanwhile, the case of the tragic death of Cris Anthony Mendez was left
unresolved. It remains that way up to this day.
No one knows what just happened exactly. No charges have been filed, no definitive testimonies
have been forthcoming. But there is more to this for us than just a criminal mystery. Pondering on
the death of Cris, we may find ourselves asking questions such as “What is the value of one’s life?”
“What exactly were the wrongs done to Cris by his so-called fraternity brothers?” or perhaps even
“Is there any good to fraternities?” These questions that concern good or bad, or right and wrong ---
and these are questions concerning value --- are the kind of questions that we deal with in ethics.
 Value
Ethics, generally speaking, is about matters such as the good thing that we should pursue and
the bad thing that we should avoid; the right ways in which we could or should act and the wrong ways
of acting, it is about what is acceptable and unacceptable in human behavior. It may involve obligations
that we are expected to fulfill, prohibitions that we are required to respect, or ideals that we are
encouraged to meet. Ethics as a subject for us to study is about determining the grounds for the values
with particular and special significance to human life.

Clarifications and Terminology

Recognizing the notions of good and bad, and right and wrong, are the primary concerns of ethics.

Kinds of Valuation

Our first point of clarification is to recognize that there are instances when we make value
judgments that are not considered to be part of ethics. For instance, I could say that this new movie I
just had seen was a “good” one because I enjoyed it, or a song I had just heard on the radio was a “bad”
one because it had an unpleasant tone, but these are not part of a discussion of ethics. I may have an
opinion as to what is the “right” dip (sawsawan) for my chicken barbeque or I may maintain that it is
“wrong” to wear a leather vest over a Barong Tagalog, and these are not concerns of ethics. These are
valuations that fall under the domain of aesthetics. The word “aesthetic” is derived from the Greek
word aesthesis (“sense” or “feeling”) and refers tp the judgments of personal approval or disapproval
that we make about what we see, hear, smell, or taste. In fact, we often use the word “taste” to refer to
the personal aesthetic preferences that we have on these matters, such as “his taste in music” or “her
taste in clothes.”
Similarly, we have a sense of approval or disapproval concerning certain actions which we can
be considered relatively more trivial in nature. This, for instance, I may think that it is it is “right” to
knock politely on someone’s door, while it is “wrong” to barge into one’s office. Perhaps I may approve
of a child who knows how to ask for something properly by saying, “please” and otherwise, disapprove
of a woman that I see picking her nose in public. These and other similar examples belong to the
category of etiquette, which is concerned with right and wrong actions, but those which might be
considered not quite grave enough to belong to a discussion on ethics. To clarify this point, we can
differentiate how I may be displeased seeing a healthy young man refuse to offer his seat on the bus to
an elderly lady, but my indignation and shock would be much greater if I were to see a man deliberately
push another one out of a moving bus.
We can also consider how a notion of right and wrong actions can easily appear in a context that
is not a matter of ethics. This could also be when learning how to bake, for instance. I am told that the
right thing to do would be to mix the dry ingredients first, such as flour or sugar before bringing in any
liquids, like milk or cream; this is the right thing to do in baking, but not one belongs to a discussion of
ethics. We derive from the Greek word techne the English words “technique” and “technical” which are
often used to refer to a proper way (or right way) of doing things, but a technical valuation (or right and
wrong technique of doing things) may not be necessarily be an ethical one.
Matters that concern life and death such as war, capital punishment, or abortion and matters
that concern human well-being such as poverty, inequality, or sexual identity are often included in
discussions of ethics.
 Ethics and Morals

Our second clarification is on the use of the words “ethics” and “morals.” This discussion of
ethics and morals would include cognates such as ethical, unethical, immoral, amoral, morality, and so
on.
The term “morals” may be used to refer to specific beliefs or attitudes that people have or to
describe acts that people perform. Thus, it is sometimes said that an individual’s personal conduct is
referred to as his morals, and if he falls short of behaving properly, this can be described as immoral.
However, we also have terms such as “moral judgment” or “moral reasoning,” which suggest a more
rational aspect. The term “ethics” can be spoken of as the discipline of studying and understanding ideal
human behaviour and ideal ways of thinking. Thus, ethics is acknowledged as an intellectual discipline
belonging to philosophy. In addition, with regard to the acceptable and unacceptable ways of behaving
in a given field, we have the term “professional ethics” (e.g., the legal ethics for the proper
comportment of lawyers and other people in the legal profession; medical ethics for doctors and nurses;
and media ethics for writers and reporters). But in this module, we will be using the terms “ethical” and
“moral’ interchangeably.

Descriptive and Normative

Our third point of clarification is to distinguish between a descriptive and a normative study of
ethics. A descriptive study of ethics reports how people, particularly groups, make their moral
valuations without making any judgment either for or against these valuations. This kind of study is
often the work of the social scientist: either a historian (studying different moral standards over time) or
a sociologist or an anthropologist (studying different moral standards across cultures). A normative
study of ethics, as is often done in philosophy or moral theology, engages the question: What could or
should be considered as the right way of acting? In other words, a normative discussion prescribes what
we ought to maintain as our standards or bases for moral valuation. When engaging in a discussion of
ethics, it is always advisable to recognize whether one is concerned with a descriptive view (e.g., noting
how filial piety and obedience are pervasive characteristics of Chinese culture) or with a normative
perspective (e.g., studying how Confucian ethics enjoins us to obey our parents and to show filial piety).

Issue, Decision, Judgment, and Dilemma

As the final point of clarification, it may be helpful to distinguish a situation that call for moral
valuation. It can be called a moral issue. For instance, imagine a situation wherein a person cannot
afford a certain item, but then the possibility presents itself for her to steal it. This is a matter of ethics
(and not just law) insofar as it involves the question of respect for one’s property. We should add that
“issue” is also often used to refer to those particular situations that are often the source of considerable
and inconclusive debate (thus, we would often hear topics such as capital punishment and euthanasia as
moral “issues”).
When one is placed in a situation and confronted by the choice of what act to perform, she is
called to make a moral decision. For instance, I choose not to take something I did not pay for. When a
person is an observer who makes an assessment on the actions or behaviour of someone, she is making
moral judgment. For instance, a friend of mine chooses to steal from a store, and I make an assessment
that it is wrong.
Finally, going beyond the matter choosing right over wrong, or good over bad, and considering
instead the more complicated situation wherein one is torn between choosing one of the two goods or
choosing between the lesser of two evils; this is referred to as a moral dilemma. We have a moral
dilemma when an individual can choose only one from a number of possible actions, and there are
compelling ethical reasons for the various choices. A mother may be conflicted between wanting to feed
her hungry child, but then recognizing that it would be wrong for her to steal is an example of moral
dilemma.

REASONING
Why do we suppose that a certain way of acting us right and its opposite wrong? The study of
ethics is interested in questions like these: Why do we decide to consider this way of acting as
acceptable while that way of acting is unacceptable? To put it in another way, what reasons do we give
to decide or to judge that a certain way of acting is either right or wrong?
A person’s fear of punishment or desire to reward can provide him a reason for acting in a
certain way. The promise of rewards and the fear of punishment can certainly motivate us to act, but
are not in themselves a determinant of the rightness or wrongness of a certain way of acting or the good
or the bad in a particular pursuit.
Beyond rewards and punishments, it is possible for our moral valuation --- our decisions and
judgments --- to be based on a principle. For instance, one may conclude that cheating is wrong based
on a sense of fair play or a respect for the importance of validity of testing. From this, we can define
principles as rationally established grounds by which one justifies and maintains her moral decisions and
judgments.
But why do we maintain one particular principle rather than another? Why should I maintain
that I should care for fair play and that cheating is, therefore wrong? Returning the case of fraternity
hazing where we started this chapter, why is it wrong to cause another person physical injury or take
another’s life? We can maintain principles, but we can also ask what good reasons for doing so. Such
reasons may differ, so, for example, what makes the death of Cris such a tragedy? One person may say
that life is sacred and God-given. Another person may declare that human life has a priceless dignity.
Still another may put forward the idea that taking another’s life does not contribute to human happiness
but to human misery instead. How exactly do we arrive at these claims. This is where we turn to theory.
A moral theory is a systematic attempt to establish the validity of maintaining certain moral principles.
Insofar as a theory is a system of thought or of ideas, it can also be referred to as a framework. We can
use this term “framework,” as a theory of interconnected ideas, and at the same time, a structure
though which we can evaluate our reasons for valuing a certain decision or judgment.
In The Apology of Socrates written by Plato, Socrates makes the claim that it is the greatest good
for a person to spend time thinking about and discussing with others these questions on goodness and
virtue.

Sources of Authority
LAW
It is supposed that law is one’s guide to ethical behaviour. In the Philippines, Filipinos are
constrained to obey the laws of the land as stated in the country’s criminal and civic codes. The term
positive law refers to the different rules and regulations that are posited or put forward by an authority
figure that require compliance.
At first glance, this seems to make a lot of sense. We recognize that there are many acts we
immediately consider unethical (e.g., murder or theft), which we also know are forbidden by law.
Furthermore, the law is enforced by way of a system of sanctions administered through persons and
institutions, which all help in compelling us to obey. Taking the law to be the basis of ethics has the
benefit of providing us with an objective standard that is obligatory and applicable to all.
However, there are some problems with this. Of course, we do maintain that, generally
speaking, one should obey the law. However, the idea that we are examining here is a more
controversial one: the more radical claim that one can look to the law itself in order to determine what
is right or wrong. But the question is: can one simply identify ethics with the law?
One point to be raised is the prohibitive nature of law. The law does not tell us what we should
do; it works by constraining us from performing acts that we should not do. To put it slightly differently,
the law cannot tell us what to pursue, only what to avoid. Would we be satisfied thinking about ethics
solely from the negative perspective of that which we may not do, disregarding the important aspect of
a good which we could and maybe even should do, even if it were not required of us by law?
In line with this, we might find that there are certain ways of acting which are not forbidden by
the law, but are ethically questionable to us. For instance, a company that pads its profits by refusing to
give its employees benefits may do so within the parameters of the law. The company can do so by
refusing to hire people on a permanent basis, but offering them six-month contracts. Here, no law is
violated, yet one can wonder whether there is something ethically questionable to this particular
business practice. The fact that one can make such a negative value judgment of the practice where
there is no violation of the law is already a hint that one can look to something beyond the law when
making our ethical valuations.

RELIGION
“Love the Lord, Your God, therefore, and always heed his charge: his statues, decrees, and
commandments.” (New American Bible)
This verse is the first line of Chapter 11 of the book of Deuteronomy. It expresses a claim that
many people of a religious sensibility find appealing and immediately valid: the idea that one is obliged
to obey her God in all things. As a foundation of ethical values, this is referred to us the divine command
theory. The divinity called Allah, God, or Supreme Being commands and one is obliged to obey her
Creator.
At first glance, this seems to make a lot of sense. Many of us had been brought up with one
form of religious upbringing or another, so it is very possible that there is a strong inclination in us to
refer to our religious background to back up or moral valuations. We are presented with a more-or-less
clear code of prohibitions and many of these prohibitions given by the religion --- “Thou shall not kill,”
“Thou shall not steal,” and “Thou shall not commit adultery”--- seem to intuitively coincide with our
sense of what ethics should rightly demand. In addition, there is an advance here over the law because
religion is not simply prohibitive, but it also provides ideas to pursue. Further, taking religion as basis of
ethics has the advantage of providing us with not only a set of commands but also a Supreme Authority
that can inspire and compel our obedience in a way that nothing else can. The Divine can command
absolute obedience on one’s part as the implications of her actions involve her ultimate destiny.
However, there are some problems with this. First, on practical level, we realize the presence of
a multiplicity of religions. Each faith demands differently from its adherents, which would apparently
result in conflicting ethical standards.
Second, on what we be called a more conceptual level, we can see a further problem where one
requires the believer to clarify her understanding of the connection between ethics and the Divine.
If we presume that taking another’s life is wrong, we can ask the question: Is it the case that this
is so only because God commanded it, or that killing is in itself wrong, and that is the reason why God
commanded it? If we were to accept that it is wrong to take another’s life because God commanded it,
we are left with the difficult conclusion that there is nothing inherently wrong with killing. It is only
because God said so --- “Thou shall not kill”--- that we consider such an act wrong.
If, on the other hand, we were to accept that killing is in itself wrong, then we acknowledge that
perhaps there are standards of right and wrong that we can refer to independently of God.
 Having said this, we maintain that, generally speaking, it is a good thing for a person of faith to
abide by the teachings of her particular religion. But the divine command theory demands more than
this as it requires us to identify the entire sense of right and wrong with what religion dictates.

CULTURE
Our exposure to different societies and their cultures makes us aware that there are ways of
thinking and valuing that are different from our own, that there is in fact a wide diversity of how people
believe it is proper to act. There are aesthetic differences (Japanese art vs. Indian art), religious
differences (Buddhism vs. Christianity), and etiquette differences (conflicting behaviors regarding dining
practices). In these bases, it may become easy to conclude that this is the case of ethics as well. There
are also various examples that seem to bear these out: nudity can be more taboo in one culture that in
another. From the reality of diversity, it is possible for someone to jump to the further claim that the
sheer variety at work in the different ways of valuation means there is no single universal standard for
such valuations, and that this holds true as well in the realm of ethics. Therefore, what is ethically
acceptable and unacceptable is relative to, or that is to say, dependent on one’s culture. This position is
referred to as cultural relativism.
There is something appealing to this way of thinking because cultural relativism seems to
conform to what we experience, which is the reality of the differences in how cultures make their ethical
valuations. Second, by taking one’s culture as the standard, we are provided a basis for our valuations.
Third, this teaches us to be tolerant of others from different cultures, as we realize that we are in no
position to judge whether the ethical thought or practice of another culture is acceptable or
unacceptable. In turn, our own culture’s moral code is neither superior to nor inferior to any other, but
they would provide us the standards that are appropriate and applicable to us.
Tempting at this idea, there are problems. In a classic exposition of this topic by James Rachels,
he presents some of these difficulties.
First, the argument of cultural relativism is premised on the reality of difference. Because
different cultures have different moral codes, we cannot say that any one moral code is the right one.
Second, under cultural relativism, we realize that we are in no position to render any kind of
judgment on the practices of another culture. This seems to be a generous and an open-minded way of
respecting others. But what if the practice seems to call for comment?
Third, we realize that we are in no position to render judgment on the practices of even our own
culture.
Fourth, perhaps the most evident contemporary difficulty with cultural relativism is that we can
maintain it only by following the presumption of culture as a single, clearly defined substance or
something fixed and already determined. Now, it is always possible to find examples of a certain culture
having a unique practice or way of life and to distinguish it from other culture’s practices, but it is also
becoming increasingly difficult to determine what exactly define one’s culture.
In an increasingly globalized world, the notion of static and well-defined culture gives way to a
greater flexibility and integration. One result of this is to call into question an idea like cultural
relativism, which only makes sense if one could imagine a clear-cut notion of what can be defined as my
culture.
We can conclude this criticism of cultural relativism by pointing out how it is a problem in our
study of ethics because it tends to deprive us of our use of critical thought. On the positive side, cultural
relativism promotes a sense of humility, that is, urging us not to imagine that our own culture is superior
to another. Such humility, however, should go hand in hand with a capacity for a rational, critical
discernment that is truly appreciative of human values. Unfortunately, what happens in cultural
relativism is that it basically renders us incapable of discerning about the values we may wish to
maintain as we are forced to simply accept whatever our culture gives us. It keeps us from exploring
whether there are values that are shared between cultures; it keeps us from comparing and judging ---
either positively or negatively --- the valuations that are made by different cultures.

SENSES OF THE SELF

It is sometimes thought that one should not rely on any external authority to tell oneself what
the standards of moral valuation are, but should instead turn inwards. In this section, we will look into
three theories about ethics that center on the self: subjectivism, psychological egoism, and ethical
egoism.

SUBJECTIVISM
The starting point of subjectivism is the recognition that the individual thinking person (the
subject) is at the heart of all moral valuations. She is the one who is confronted with the situation and is
burdened with the need to make a decision or judgment. From this point, subjectivism leaps to the
more radical claim that the individual is the sole determinant of what is morally good or bad, right or
wrong. A number of clichés familiar to us would echo this idea:
“No one can tell me what is right or wrong.”
“No one knows my situation better than myself.”
“I am entitled to my own opinion.”
“It is good if I say that it is good.”
There is something appealing about these statements because they seem to express a cherished
sense of personal independence. But a close look at these statements may reveal problems and in
seeing these, we see problems of subjectivism.

PSYCHOLOGICAL EGOISM
Let us consider another cliché. It would go like this: “Human beings are naturally self-centered,
so all our actions are always motivated by self-interest.”
This is the stance taken by psychological egoism, which is the theory that describes the
underlying dynamic behind all human actions. As a descriptive theory, it does not direct one to act in
any particular way. Instead, it points out that there is already an underlying basic for how one acts. The
ego or self has its desires and interests, and all our actions are geared toward satisfying these interests.
This may not seem particularly problematic when we consider many of the actions that we do
on a day-to-day basis. I watch a movie or read a book because I want to, or go for a walk and do some
window shopping in the mall because I enjoy that. I take a certain course in college because I think it will
benefit me, or I join an organization because I will get some good out of it. We do things in pursuit of
our own self-interest all the time.
But what about the other types of behaviour that we would commonly say are directed toward
the other? Consider, for example, an act of generosity, in which someone helps a friend with her thesis
rather than play videogames, or someone makes use of her free Saturday helping build houses for
Gawad Kalinga? The psychological egoist would maintain that underlying such apparently other-directed
behaviour is a self-serving desire, even if one does not acknowledge it or is even conscious of it. Perhaps
he only helped his friend because he is trying to impress her. Perhaps she helps out with Gawad Kalinga
because this is how she relieves her sense of guilt at being well-out compared to others. The idea is that
whether or not the person admits it, one’s actions are ultimately motivated by self-serving desire.
Psychological egoism is an irrefutable theory because there is no way to try to answer it without
being confronted by the challenge that, whatever one might say, there is the self-serving motive at the
root of everything. The psychological egoist can and will insist on his stand no matter how one might try
to object. This opens up two questions: first, “Because we cannot refute it, shall we accept is as true?”
and “Do we have to accept the consequences of this theory?”
So, psychological egoism, when we look at its consequences, leads is to a cynical view of
humanity, to a gloomy description of human nature, and finally to a useless theory for someone who is
concerned with asking herself what is the right thing to do. This is because it ends up nullying the
possibility of any normative ethics in its views= of the already-determined human being.

ETHICAL EGOISM
Ethical egoism differs from psychological egoism in that it does not suppose all our actions are
already inevitably self-serving. Instead, ethical egoism prescribes that we should make our own ends,
our own interests, as the single overriding concern. We may act in a way that is beneficial to others, but
we should do that only if it ultimately benefits us. This theory acknowledges that it is a dog-eat-dog
world out these and given that, everyone ought to put herself at the center. One should consider herself
as the priority and not allow any other concerns, such as the welfare of other people, to detract from
this pursuit.
It is clear that we have our own interests and desires, and would want them satisfied. Thus, this
question can be asked: Why should I have any concern about the interests of others? In a sense, this
question challenges in a fundamental way the idea of not just a study of ethics, but also the effort of
being ethical: Why not just look after one’s own self?

Furthermore, ethical egoism translates into--- not just some pleasant pursuit of one’s own
desires, but the imposition of a will to power that is potentially destructive of both the self and the
others. One can take on this view if one wishes but it is also possible to wonder whether there is a way
of recognizing our being in the world with others, of thinking of our own well-being concomitantly with
the well-being of others. Perhaps it is what the study of ethics is all about.

ASSESSMENT:
FOCUS QUESTIONS:
1. In your own words, what is the difference between ethics and morals?

2. Is it possible to find a better reason for finding a certain way of acting either acceptable or
unacceptable?

3. Is looking after the benefit of your own family over all aspects considered as another form of
egoism? Discuss.
 4. Comment on this statement: “What I believe must be true if I feel very strongly about it.”

LESSON 2: UTILITARIANISM

Lesson Objectives:
 Discuss the basic principles of utilitarian ethics;
 Distinguish between two utilitarian models: the quantitative model of Jeremy Bentham and the
qualitative model of John Stuart Mill; and
 Apply utilitarianism in understanding and evaluating local and international scenarios.

Introduction
On January 25, 2015, the 84th Special Action Force (SAF) conducted a police operation at
Tukanalipao, Mamasappano in Maguindanao. Also knowm as Oplan Exodus, it was intended to serve an
arrest warrant for Zulkifli bin Hir or Marwan, a Malaysian terrorist and bomb-maker who had a $5
million bounty on his head. This mission eventually led to a clash between the Philippine National
Police’s (PNP) SAF, on the one hand, and the Bangsamoro Islamic Freedom Fighters (BIFF) and the Moro
Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) on the other. Although the police operation was “successful” because of
the death of Marwan, the firefight that ensued claimed sixty-seven lives including forty-four SAF
troopers, eighteen MILF fighters, and five civilians. However, the relatively high number of SAF members
killed in the operation caught the attention of many including the Philippine media and the legislature.
In one of the Congress Investigations that followed the tragic mission, then Senate President
Franklin Drilon and Senator Francis Escudero debated the public hearing of an audio recording of an
alleged conversion that attempted to cover up the massacre of the PNP-SAF commandos. Drilon
questioned the admissibility of these recordings as evidence under the Anti-Wire Tapping Law whereas
Escudero cited the legal brief of the Free Legal Assistance Group (FLAG) arguing that the Anti-Wire
Tapping Law protects only the recording and interception of private communications. Drilon cited
Section 4 of the Anti-Wire Tapping Act 9RA 4200) and explained that “any communication or spoken
word, or the existence, contents, substance, purport, or meaning of the same or any part thereof, or any
information therein contained obtained or secured by any person in violation of the preceding sections
of this Act shall not be admissible in evidence in any judicial, quasi-judicial, legislative or administrative
hearing or investigation.” Senator Grace Poe, previous chairperson of the Senate committee on public
order and dangerous drugs, argued otherwise. “Sinabi nan i Senator Drilon na ito day ay illegal, na hindi
na pwede, na ako daw ay pweng maging liable kung ito daw ay ipapakinig ko sa Senado, ako naman, ano
ba itong mga batas na ito? … Ang mga batas na ito ay para malaman natin ang katotohanan at
magkaroon tayo ng hustisya. Itong mga anti-wiretapping o mga recording na ganito, kung hundi
pwedeng ilabas sa publiko, pwede naming gawing basehan sa executive session.”
 Senator Poe’s response lead us to ask: Can the government infringe individual rights? If it is
morally permissible for the government to infringe individual rights, when can the government do so?
Does it become legitimate to sacrifice individual rights when considering the greatest benefit for the
greatest number of people?
This exposes the aftermath of the Mamasapano incident and the Senate investigations. The
Senate inquiry proceedings raised questions in the possibility of wire-tapping and the intrusion to one’s
right to privacy. While the 1987 Philippine Constitution does protect one’s right to private
communication, it did provide some exemptions to its inviolability. These exemptions include a lawful
order of the court and/or issues involving public safety and order. In fact, RA 4200 (or the Anti-Wire
Tapping Law) and RA 9372 (or the Human Security Act of 2007) both provided exemptions to the
inviolability of the right to privacy in instances of treason, espionage, rebellion, and sedition. While this
is certainly legal issue, can it also constitute a moral concern? By raising the distinction to between
moral and legal issues and concerns, do you think that these two are different? To simplify things, let us
put aside the question of law and let us assume that you were asked to decide whether wiretapping is
morally permissible or not. On what instances is wiretapping morally permissible and on what instances
is it not morally permissible?
When considering the moral permissibility of wiretapping, we calculate the costs and benefits of
wiretapping. If we calculate the costs and benefits of our actions, then we are considering an ethical
theory that gives premium to the consequences of actions as the basis of morality and as such is
utilitarianism.
Utilitarianism is an ethical theory that argues for the goodness of pleasure and the
determination of right behaviour based on the usefulness of the action’s consequences. This means that
pleasure is good and that the goodness of an action is determined by its usefulness. Putting these ideas
together, utilitarianism claims that one’s actions and behaviour are good inasmuch as they are directed
toward the experience of the greatest pleasure over pain for the greatest number of people.
Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) and John Stuart Mill (1806-1973) are the two foremost utilitarian
thinkers. Their system of ethics emphasizes the consequences of actions. This means that the goodness
or the badness of an action is based on whether it is useful in contributing to a specific purpose for the
greatest number of people. For Bentham and Mill, utility refers to a way of understanding the results of
people’s actions. Also, they understand happiness as the experience of pleasure for the greatest number
of persons, even at the expense of some individual‘s rights.

THE PRINCIPLE OF UTILITY

In the book An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation (1789), Jeremy Bentham
begins by arguing that our actions are governed by two “sovereign masters” --- which he calls pleasure
and pain. These “masters” are given to us by nature to help us determine what is good or bad and what
ought to be done and not; they fasten our choices to their throne.
The Principle of Utility is about our subjection to these sovereign masters: pleasure and pain.
On one hand, the principle refers to the motivation of our actions as guided by our avoidance of pain
and our desire for pleasure. On the other hand, the principle also refers to pleasure as good if, and only
if, they produce more happiness than unhappiness. This means that it is not enough to experience
pleasure, but to also inquire whether the things we do make us happier. Bentham equates happiness
with pleasure.
Mill supports Bentham’s principle of utility. He reiterates moral good as happiness and,
consequently, happiness as pleasure. Mill argues that we act and do things because we find them
pleasurable and we avoid doing things because they are painful.
What Bentham identified to as the natural preferability of pleasure, Mill refers to as a theory of
life. For Bentham and Mill, the pursuit for pleasure and the avoidance of pain are not only important
principles --- they are in fact the only principle assessing an action’s morality. While utilitarian
supporters do not condone excessive pleasures while others are suffering, it cannot be justified on
utilitarian grounds why some persons indulge in extravagant pleasures at the expense of others. In
determining the moral preferability of actions, Bentham provides a framework for evaluating pleasure
and pain commonly called felicific calculus. Felicific calculus is a common currency framework that
calculates the pleasure that some actions can produce. In this framework, an action can be evaluated on
the basis of intensity or strength of pleasure; duration or length of the experience of pleasure; certainty,
uncertainty, or the likelihood that pleasure will occur; and propinquity, remoteness, or how soon there
will be pleasure. However, when we are to evaluate our tendency to choose these actions, we need to
consider two more dimensions: fecundity or the chance it has of being followed by sensations of the
same kind, and purity or the chance it has of not being followed by sensations of the opposite kind.
Lastly, when considering the number of persons who are affected by pleasure or pain, another
dimension is to be considered --- extent. Actions are evaluated on this single scale regardless of
preferences and values. In this sense, pleasure and pain can only be quantitatively differ but not
qualitatively differ from other experiences of pleasure and pain accordingly.
Mill dissents from Bentham’s single scale of pleasure. He thinks that the principle of utility must
distinguish pleasures qualitatively and not quantitatively. For Mill, utilitarianism cannot promote the
kind of pleasures appropriate to pigs or to any other animals. He thinks that there are higher intellectual
and lower base pleasures. We, as moral agents, are capable of searching and desiring higher intellectual
pleasures more pigs are capable of. For Mill, crude bestial pleasures, which are appropriate for animals,
are degrading to us because we are by nature not easily satisfied by pleasures only for pigs. Human
pleasures are qualitatively different from animal pleasures.
Contrary to Bentham, Mill argues that quality is more preferable than quantity. An excessive
quantity of what is otherwise pleasurable might result in pain. If the quality of pleasure is sometimes
more important than quantity, then it is important to consider the standards whereby differences of
pleasure can be judged.
Mill offers an imaginative thought experiment. He asks whether a human person would prefer
to accept the highly pleasurable life of an animal while at the same time being denied of everything that
makes him a person. He thinks that few, if any, would give up human qualities of higher reason for the
pleasure of a pig. In the most famous quote in Mill’s Utilitarianism, we read:
“It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates
dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. And if the fool, or the pig, is of a different opinion, it is because they
only know their own side of the question. The other party to the comparison knows both sides.”

PRINCIPLE OF GREATEST NUMBER

Equating happiness with pleasure does not aim to describe the utilitarian moral agent alone and
independently from others. This is not only about our individual pleasures, regardless of high,
intellectual, or in other ways noble it is, but it also about the pleasure of the greatest number affected
by the consequences of our actions.
Utilitarianism cannot lead to selfish acts. It is neither about our pleasure nor happiness alone; it
cannot be all about us. If we are the only ones satisfied by our actions, it does not constitute to a moral
good. If we are the only ones who are made happy by our own actions, then we cannot be morally good.
In this sense, utilitarianism is not dismissive of sacrifices that procure more happiness for others.
Therefore, it is necessary for us to consider everyone’s happiness, including our own, as the
standard by which we evaluate what is moral. Utilitarianism is interested with everyone’s happiness, in
fact, the greatest happiness of the greatest number. Mill identifies the eradication of disease, using
technology, and other practical ways as examples of utilitarianism.
 Moral value cannot be discernible in the intention or motivation of the person doing the act; it is
based solely and exclusively on the difference it makes on the world’s total amount of pleasure and
pain.

JUSTICE AND MORAL RIGHTS

Mill understands justice as a respect for the rights directed toward society’s pursuit for the
greatest happiness of the greatest number. For him, rights are a valid claim on society and are justified
by utility.
The right to due process, the right to free speech or religion, and others are justified because
they contribute to the general good. This means that society is made happier if its citizens are able to
live their lives knowing that their interests are protected and the society (as a whole) defends it.
Extending this concept to animals, they have rights because of the effect of such principles on the sum
total of happiness that follows as a consequence of instituting and protecting their interests. It is not
accidental, therefore, that utilitarians are also the staunchest defenders of animal rights.
Utilitarians argue that issues of justice carry a very strong emotional import because the
category of rights is directly associated with the individual’s most vital interests. Participation in
government and social interactions can be explained by the principle of utility and be clarified by Mill’s
consequentialism. Mill further associates utilitarianism with the possession of legal and moral rights.
We are treated justly when our legal and moral rights are respected. Mill creates a distinction
between legal rights and their justification. He points out that when legal rights are not normally
justified in accordance to the greatest happiness principle, then these rights need neither be observed,
nor be respected. This is like saying that there are instances when the law us not morally justified and, in
this case, even objectionable.
Mills seems to be suggesting that it is morally permissible to not follow, even violate, an unjust
law. The implication is that those who protest over political policies of a morally objectionable
government act in a morally obligatory way. While this is not always preferred, Mill thinks that it is
commendable to endure legal punishments for acts of civil disobedience for the sake of promoting a
higher moral good. At an instance of conflict between moral and legal rights, Mill points out that moral
rights take precedence over legal rights.
In this sense, the principle of utility can theoretically obligate us to steal, kill, and the like. We
say “theoretically” because this merely constitutes a thought experiment and need not be actualized.
Since what matters in the assessment of what we do is the resultant happiness, then anything may be
justified for the sake of producing the greatest happiness of the greatest number of people.
While there is no such thing as laudable and praiseworthy injustice, Mill appeals to the
utilitarian understanding of justice as an act justified by the greatest happiness principle. There is no
right to violate where utility is not served by the social protection of individual interests. While he
recognizes how utilitarian principles can sometimes obligate us to perform acts that would regularly be
understood as disregarding individual rights, he argues that this is only possible if it is judged to produce
more happiness than unhappiness.
In short, Mill’s moral rights and consideration of justice are not absolute, but are only justified
by their consequences to promote the greatest good of the greatest number.

ASSESSMENT:
FOCUS QUESTIONS
1. What kind of pleasure is morally preferable and valuable?
2. If actions are based only on the greatest happiness of the greatest number, is it justifiable to let
go of some rights for the sake of the benefit of the majority?

3. Is it justifiable to build a basketball court because there are basketball fans, than to build a
hospital because there are fewer sick people?

4. When is it justifiable to torture suspected criminals?