At the end of the chapter, you are expected to:

❖ Lesson 1: Moral Standards

• Distinguish moral and normative statements
• Articulate the difference between moral and non-moral standards
• Explain how ethics differs from law, religion, and culture
❖ Lesson 2: Moral Dilemma
• Define moral dilemma
• Recall moral dilemmas in your personal experiences
• Identify the types and three levels of moral dilemmas
• Appraise experiences as moral dilemma or non-dilemma
• Assess whether the moral dilemma is on the micro, meso, or macro level
• Explain how ethics differs from law, religion, and culture

Moral statements are categorized as normative statements rather than factual

statements. A normative statement expresses a value judgment, a kind of judgment
that claims that something “ought” to be the case as distinct from a factual judgment that
claims that something “is” the case. As such, when one makes a normative statement,
he/she presents an evaluative account of how things should be rather than what things
are. Thus, we assess the correctness of normative statements by looking at certain
criteria, standards or norms instead of focusing on empirical data. However, as can be
seen in the examples below, aside from moral statements, there are various kinds of
normative statements that have their corresponding basis of assessment:

NORMATIVE STATEMENT BASIS OF ASSESSMENT

You ought to return the excess change to Moral Standard
the cashier
There should be unity, balance, and Aesthetic Standard
contrast in your painting.
You ought to use the preposition “in” rather Grammatical Standard
than “on”
It is illegal to make a U-turn there. Legal Standard
Cover your mouth when you laugh Standard of Etiquette

DSSP 2020-2021| NOT FOR SALE/UNAUTHORIZED REPRODUCTION

 As mentioned above, since a factual statement expresses a claim that something is
the case, its claim can be empirically assessed as true or false based on either research,
observation, or experiment. For example:

FACTUAL STATEMENT BASIS OF ASSESSMENT

Jose P. Rizal was executed on December Historical Research
30, 1896 in Bagumbayan.
Some tribes in India practice cannibalism Observation
The Coronavirus Infectious disease is Scientific Research
airborne.
A blue litmus paper will turn red when Experiment
dipped in an acid solution.
Cover your mouth when you laugh Standard of Etiquette

Take note that since a moral statement is a normative statement rather than a
factual one, it cannot be justified by merely appealing to facts, empirical evidences, or
data. Although providing facts may be significant in justifying a moral claim, this remains
insufficient. Consider the following argument:

According to a study of ten countries that enforce the death penalty, the
rate of criminality in these countries went down after it has been enforced.
Therefore, it is morally right to enforce the death penalty.

The premise “According to a study of ten countries that enforce the death penalty,
the rate of criminality in these countries went down after it has been enforced” is a factual
statement. This statement is established by gathering statistical data to arrive at a factual
claim. However, it is not sufficient to make the moral conclusion “Therefore, it is morally
right to enforce the death penalty”. There is a need to supply certain moral standards or
principles such as “An act is right if it promotes the greater good of the people” to connect
the factual statement and the moral conclusion. The moral argument should be:

According to a study of ten countries that enforce the death penalty, the
rate of criminality in these countries went down after it has been enforced.
(Factual Statement)
An act is right if it promotes the greater good of the people. (Moral
Statement)
Therefore, it is morally right to enforce the death penalty. (Moral
Conclusion)

VS

Nevertheless, though some people may also accept or agree with the fact that death
penalty can reduce the rate of criminality in our society, they still hold that it is morally
wrong to impose the death penalty as they believe that the right to life of a human being
DSSP 2020-2021| NOT FOR SALE/UNAUTHORIZED REPRODUCTION
is sacred and inviolable. Thus, despite the greater good to society that the imposition of
death penalty may bring about, others would still regard it as morally unacceptable.

Going further, ho do we determine the acceptability of factual and moral

statements? For factual statements, we appeal to empirical data through research and
observation. For moral statements, like other normative statements, we appeal to norms
and standards.

Create a simple moral argument on “Abortion” containing

factual and moral statements.

We have seen earlier that aside from moral statements, there are other statements
that are normative, that is, those justified and accepted based on standards rather than
facts. However, these normative statements are justified by moral standards. So what are
these other normative standards? And how do they differ from moral standards? The
following are examples of non-moral standards:

Standards of Etiquette – standards by which we judge manners as good or bad

Standards of Law – standards by which we judge an action to be legally right or
wrong
Standards of Language – standards by which we judge what is grammatically
right and wrong
Standards of Aesthetics – standards by which we judge good and bad art
Standards of Athletics – standards by which we judge how well a basketball or a
football game is being played

Ethicists have identified a number of characteristics that speak of the nature of

moral standards. Although each of these characteristics may not be unique to moral
standards, if taken together, they can distinguish moral standards from non-moral
standards.
1) Moral standards deal with matters that we think can seriously harm or benefit
human beings. Whether human dignity is respected or degraded, work conditions are
safe or dangerous, and products are beneficial or detrimental to our health are matters
that affect human well-being.
2) Moral standards have universal validity. They apply to all who are in the relevantly
similar situation. If it is morally wrong for a person A to do act X, then it is wrong to do
X for anyone relevantly similar to P. This characteristic is exemplified in the moral rule:
“Do not do unto others what you would not have them do unto you”.
3) Moral standards are generally thought to have a particularly overriding
importance, that is, people feel they should prevail over other values. For an
instance, a violation of the moral rule against killing or stealing is more important than
an error in grammar or a travelling violation in basketball.
4) Moral standards are not established by the decisions of authoritarian bodies,
nor are they solely determined by appealing to consensus or tradition. The
validity of moral standards lies on the adequacy of reasons that support or justify them.
So long as these reasons are adequate, the standards remain valid.

DSSP 2020-2021| NOT FOR SALE/UNAUTHORIZED REPRODUCTION

 Several common ways of thinking about ethics are based on the idea that the
standards of valuation or moral standards are imposed by a higher authority that
commands our obedience. Nevertheless, we shall see how ethics differs from etiquette,
law, and religion.

ETHICS AND ETIQUETTE

Etiquette refers to the set of rules or customs

that determine the accepted behaviors in a
particular social group. Following these rules makes
us show respect and courtesy to others. In eating
out, for an instance, one should wait until all the
people on the table have been served before he/she
starts eating. Aside from dining, we have etiquette
at certain occasions such as baptism and funeral, we
have etiquette on riding a public transportation,
doing business, and communicating. These so-called rules of etiquette vary from one
culture to another.
Etiquette is concerned with proper behavior. It is
arbitrary and more culture-based. To get other’s approval of
our action, to be thought of well by people, and to show
respect to them, we try to observe common rules of
etiquette. Violating the rules can lead society to consider
you ill-mannered, impolite, or even uncivilized – but not
necessarily unethical or immoral.

Take note that following what etiquette demands

does not necessarily mean acting morally. Scrupulous
observance of rules of etiquette can camouflage moral
issues. Before the laws against racial discrimination were
enacted in the America, it was thought that it is bad believed
that such rule of etiquette is rooted in racial discrimination and human degradation,
promoting or simply conforming to such rule does not amount to doing the moral thing.
Such was the point of shown by a 42 – year old black woman named Rose Parks when
she was asked, she stood her ground knowing that she has not done anything immoral.
On the contrary, she believed she was doing the morally right thing to do as she fought
for equality and fairness.

Though morality and etiquette are not synonymous

with each other, there is a relationship between the two since
both concern human action. Disregarding or scorning
etiquette can be considered immoral in certain
circumstances. Once the custom is adopted, the practice
takes on the importance of a moral rule.

For an instance, in Islamic societies, standards of

modesty call for a woman to cover her body, particularly her
chest. Thus, some Muslim women wear hijab or a scarf that
covers the head and neck and falls below the level of the
shoulders to cover the upper chest area. Following this
practice makes these women believe that it protects women’s
dignity and promote modesty.
DSSP 2020-2021| NOT FOR SALE/UNAUTHORIZED REPRODUCTION
ETHICS AND LAW

Law is an ordinance of reason, promulgated by

legitimate authority, to be adhered by all, for the purpose
common good. Like etiquette, law also regulates human
conduct, which is why it is often confused with morality. The
moral imperative not to kill a person coincides with the legal
imperative not to commit murder or homicide.

Positive Law. This refers to the different rules and

regulations that are posited or put forward by an authority
figure that require compliance. Examples: constitution,
republic acts, ordinances. The law is enforced by way of a
system of sanctions administered through persons and
institutions, which all help in compelling us to obey.

As a basis of ethics, the law has the benefit of providing

us with an objective standard that is obligatory and applicable to all. But, should we equate
ethics or morality with law?

Law and morality are different. Breaking the law is not always an immoral act, just
as following the law is not necessarily doing what is morally right. Suppose one of your
family members suffered a heart attack and he/she needed to be brought to the hospital
immediately. You took him/her in your car and rushed to the hospital driving at a speed
of 120 kph. Although you are prohibited by law to drive at more than 60 kph on that road,
it does not seem morally right for you to follow the law and drive at that speed limit
knowing that doing so will jeopardize the life of your loved one.

Take note as well that an action that is legal can be morally disturbing. We might
find that there are certain ways of acting which are not forbidden by law but are ethically
questionable to us. For an instance, abortion may be legal in a particular country, but the
question whether it is morally right to commit it remains an issue especially for pro-life
advocates. Another, while it is legal to exempt a convict from getting jailed due to
humanitarian considerations, it is morally disturbing to see how this legal measure favors
the elite and deprives the poor. Still other, if you remember Janet Napoles of the PDAF
Scam, she repeatedly invoked the right to self-incrimination, thus evading the questions
and being mum on what she knew about the politicians who were involved in corruption.
It may be legal to remain silent rather than to tell the truth, but such act jeopardizes truth
and justice, and thus is morally questionable.

Case Scenario!

A toddler had been run over by a couple of vehicles. It was witnessed

by Juan, Pedro, and Maria. No one among them helped the child.
Later on, the child died.

Can Juan, Pedro, and Maria be criminally charged for the death of the
toddler? Can they be legally sanctioned? Are they morally liable?

Laws may be enacted, amended, or repealed by legislators to protect their vested

interests, and may not really be beneficial to the general welfare. One may wonder why
the Anti-Political Dynasty bill which aims to remove the concentration of political power
within a particular clan has been proposed in the Philippine Congress several times
DSSP 2020-2021| NOT FOR SALE/UNAUTHORIZED REPRODUCTION
already, but has not gotten the nod of the legislators. It can be surmised that enacting
such law will be detrimental to the interests of those political personalities in the Congress.

ETHICS AND RELIGION

Ethics is often identified with religion. In various societies around the world, religion
has so much influenced the moral life of the people so as to be seen as indistinguishable
from morality. People actually think tend to think that what is right can be derived from
religious beliefs and teaching. Because this line of thinking is anchored on the idea that
God is the source of goodness, living a moral life, then, is achieved by adhering to God’s
will, while acting immorally is disobeying God. Religion teaches us one thing: “One is
obliged to obey his/her God in all things” As foundation for ethical values, this is referred
to as the divine command theory.

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 our moral valuations. Taking religion as basis
of ethics has the advantage of providing us with
not only a set of commands but also of Supreme
Authority that can inspire and compel our
obedience in a way that nothing else can.
Should morality be based on religion? Let’s
take a look at Euthyphro’s Dilemma.

Euthypro: But I would certainly say that the

holy is what all the gods love, and that the
opposite, what all the gods hate, is unholy….
Socrates: Perhaps we should learn better my
friend. For consider: Is the holy loved by the
gods because it is holy? Or is it holy because it
is loved by God?

Although religion gives moral basis and direction to people, thinking that morality
depends on religion raise some problems:

1) Can we really be certain about what God wants us to do? On the practical
level, we realize the presence of a multiplicity of religions. Each faith demands
differently from its adherents, which would result in conflicting ethical standards.
There should be a basis of morality that transcends religious boundaries, lest we
fail to carry out an objective rational moral discussion with people from other
religions.

2) The moral directives given by world’s great religions are general and
imprecise. People encounter moral dilemmas in particular situations or contexts
that demand specific moral precept. For example, a certain religion would restrict
“blood” for it is impure. This restriction includes the prohibition of getting blood
transfusion. In certain health concerns, this restriction would raise the issue of
whether or not it is God’s will that a person must refuse blood transfusion even

DSSP 2020-2021| NOT FOR SALE/UNAUTHORIZED REPRODUCTION

 if that person’s life is at stake. What do religions say regarding more complex
yet specific moral issues of today’s world such as artificial reproduction, genetic
engineering or the use of animals in research?

3) As rational beings, we are doing ourselves a disservice if we simply base

our judgment of right and wrong on what our religion dictates. We merely
have to know what our religion says about a certain moral issue and conform to
it. But are we leading a rational life if this is how we view morality? What is our
rational ability for?

Religion can guide us in making moral judgment and leading a moral life, but
morality should transcend religion. Ultimately, it is a matter of reason rather than mere
adherence to religion.

Moral conflict is a fact of moral life. It is something that we can never do away with.
It is embedded in the crucial decisions that we make, particularly in moments that we are
faced with what is and what should be. As moral as we want to be, our convictions are
oftentimes challenged, and if not strong enough, are dejectedly compromised. These
challenges are products of the evolving values and moral systems of our society.

A dilemma is a situation where a person is

forced to choose between two or more conflicting
options, neither of which is acceptable. As we can
see, the key here is that the person has choices to
make that will all have results he/she does not
want. For example, a town mayor faces a dilemma
about how to protect and preserve a virgin forest
and at the same time allow miners and loggers for
economic development in the town.

It must be noted, however, that if a person is in a difficult situation but is not forced
to choose between two or more options, then that person is not in a dilemma. The least
that we can say is that that person is just experiencing a problematic or distressful
situation. Thus, the most logical thing to do for that person is to look for alternatives or
solutions to address the problem.

When dilemmas involve human actions which have moral implications, they are
called ethical or moral dilemmas.

Moral dilemmas arise due to inconsistency in our principles. In understanding the

morality of an individual, we need to emphasize that majority of the moral persons are
those who sturdily disposed to stand fast by their reflectively chosen principles and ideals
when tempted by consideration chosen that are morally irrelevant.

We experience a moral dilemma if we are faced with two actions, each of which, it
would be correct to say in the appropriate sense of “ought”, that it ought to be done, and
both of which we cannot do.

DSSP 2020-2021| NOT FOR SALE/UNAUTHORIZED REPRODUCTION

 There are several types of moral dilemmas, but the most common of them are
categorized into the following: 1) epistemic and ontological dilemmas, 2) self-imposed
and world-imposed dilemmas, 3) obligation dilemmas and prohibition dilemmas, and 4)
single agent and multi-person dilemmas.

1) A) Epistemic moral dilemmas - involve situations wherein two or more moral

requirements conflict with each other and that the moral agent hardly knows which
of the conflicting moral requirements takes precedence over the other. In other
words, the moral agent here does not know which option is morally right or wrong.

Example: I ought to honor my promise to my son to be home early, but on

my way home I saw a sick old man who needs to be brought to the hospital.
Where does my actual duty lie? We cannot deny that there are conflicting
duties (moral requirements) here, but we need to note that we want a fuller
knowledge of the situation: Is an important purpose being served by my
getting home early? How serious is the condition of the sick old man? Indeed,
I could hardly decide which option is morally right in this situation. However,
one option must be better than the other; only, it needs fuller knowledge of
the situation―thus the term “epistemic” moral dilemmas.

B) Ontological moral dilemmas - involve situations wherein two or more moral

requirements conflict with each other, yet neither of these conflicting moral
requirements overrides each other. This is not to say that the moral agent does not
know which moral requirement is stronger than the other. The point is that neither
of the moral requirements is stronger than the other; hence, the moral agent can
hardly choose between the conflicting moral requirements.

Example: A military doctor is attending to the needs of the wounded soldiers

in the middle of the war. Unfortunately, two soldiers urgently need a blood
transfusion. However, only one bag of blood is available at the moment. To
whom shall the doctor administer the blood transfusion? For sure, we could
not tell whether administering a blood transfusion to Soldier A is more moral
than administering a blood transfusion to Soldier B, and vice versa.

2) A) A Self-imposed Moral Dilemma is caused by the moral agent’s wrongdoings.

Example: For example, David is running for the position of the town mayor.
During the campaign period, he promised the indigenous peoples in his
community to protect their virgin forest just to gain their votes, but at the
same time, he seeks financial support from a mining corporation.
Fortunately, David won the elections, yet he is faced with the dilemma of
fulfilling his promised to the indigenous peoples and at the same time allows
the mining corporation to destroy their forest. Indeed, through his own
actions, David created a situation in which it is impossible for him to be
discharged from both obligations.

DSSP 2020-2021| NOT FOR SALE/UNAUTHORIZED REPRODUCTION

 B) A World-imposed Moral Dilemma means that certain events in the world
place the agent in a situation of moral conflict.

Example: William Styron’s famous Sophie’s Choice: “Sophie Zawistowska

has been asked to choose which of her two children, Eva or Jan, will be sent
to the gas chamber in Auschwitz. An SS doctor, Fritz Jemand von Niemand,
will grant a dispensation to only one of Sophie’s children. If she does not
choose which one should live, Dr. von Niemand will send both to their death.
Sophie chooses her daughter Eva to go to the gas chamber. Her son, Jan, is
sent to the Children’s Camp.”

3) A) Obligation dilemmas are situations in which more than one feasible action is
obligatory.

Example: Sartre (1957) tells of a student whose brother had been killed in
the German offensive of 1940. The student wanted to avenge his brother and
to fight forces that he regarded as evil. But the student’s mother was living
with him, and he was her one consolation in life. The student believed that
he had conflicting obligations. Sartre describes him as being torn between
two kinds of morality: one of limited scope but certain efficacy, personal
devotion to his mother; the other of much wider scope but uncertain efficacy,
attempting to contribute to the defeat of an unjust aggressor.

B) Prohibition dilemmas involve cases in which all feasible actions are forbidden.

Example: See Styron’s Sophie’s Choice above.

4) A) Single Agent Dilemma - the agent “ought, all things considered, to do A,

ought, all things considered, to do B, and she cannot do both A and B”. In other
words, the moral agent is compelled to act on two or more equally the same moral
options but she cannot choose both.

Example: A medical doctor found out that her patient has HIV. For sure, the
medical doctor may experience tension between the legal requirement to
report the case and the desire to respect confidentiality, although the medical
code of ethics acknowledges our obligation to follow legal requirements and
to intervene to protect the vulnerable.

B) Multi-person Dilemma - occurs in situations that involve several persons like

a family, an organization, or a community who is expected to come up with
consensual decision on a moral issue at hand. The multi-person dilemma requires
more than choosing what is right, it also entails that the persons involved reached
a general consensus. In such a manner, the moral obligation to do what is right
becomes more complicated. On the one hand, the integrity of the decision ought to
be defended on moral grounds. On the other hand, the decision must also prevent
the organization from breaking apart.

DSSP 2020-2021| NOT FOR SALE/UNAUTHORIZED REPRODUCTION

 Examples: A family may be torn between choosing to terminate or prolong
the life of a family member. An organization may have to choose between
complying with the wage law by cutting its workforce or by retaining its
current workforce by paying them below the required minimum wage.

1) Individual/Micro-level. The dilemma here is when the employee’s ethical

standards are in opposition to that of his or her employer, which could lead to tensions in
the workplace.

Dilemma: You see one of your close colleagues speaking inappropriately to another
member of staff. This has been going on for a while, and you’re sure that what you are
seeing is sexual harassment. You know your colleague’s actions are wrong, but you don’t
want to ruin the friendship you’ve developed with them over the past few years. What
would you do?

2) Organizational/ Meso-level. Ethical

Standards are seen in company policies. Still, there
might be a gap between those who run the business
whose ethical standards deviate from that of the
organization.

Dilemma: A new manager has been appointed to

lead your department, and you find out that he is the
boss’s nephew. You also discover that he doesn’t have
the appropriate qualifications, and that he may not
have been interviewed before he was hired. Do you
question the decision or simply accept it?

3) Systemic/Macro-level. Ethics, here, is predisposed by the larger operating

environment of the company. Political pressures, economic conditions, societal attitudes
and others, can affect the operating standards and policies of the organization where it
might face moral dilemmas outside of the organization but within the macro-society where
it belongs.

DSSP 2020-2021| NOT FOR SALE/UNAUTHORIZED REPRODUCTION

outBT871760.00an 760.00.000 G[( )] T00 g0867(he.81 Tm0867(h.81 Tm21 182.48an 821 182)140 g0 G[0 g
A dilemma is a situation where a person is forced to choose between two or
more conflicting options, neither of which is acceptable.
Moral dilemmas arise due to inconsistency in our principles.
Moral Dilemmas vary in types such as epistemic and ontological; self-
imposed and world-imposed; obligation and prohibition; single agent and
multi-person
Moral dilemmas are experience in the individual, organizational and systemic
levels.

DSSP 2020-2021| NOT FOR SALE/UNAUTHORIZED REPRODUCTION