Ethics Module Ay 21 22

GEC 7: General Ethics
1. Title of the Module
Chapter 1: Basic Concepts in Ethics
2. Introduction
This chapter provides key ethical terms and concepts that recur throughout
the other chapters of the course. It is recommended that you study this chapter
before attempting to move further on the other chapters as it provides useful
knowledge and understanding of those significant terms and concepts.
3. Learning Outcomes
At the end of this chapter, the student is expected to:
a. differentiate ethics from morality;
b. distinguish between moral and non-moral standards;
c. detect a moral dilemma;
d. identify the three levels of moral dilemmas; and
e. explain freedom as a foundation of morality.
4. Learning Content
Topics for Chapter 1
Topic 1: Ethics and Morality
Topic 2: Moral vs Non-moral Standards
Topic 3: What are Moral Dilemmas?
Topic 4: Freedom as a Foundation of Morality
5. Teaching and Learning Activities

a. Activity Sheets: These are questions or activities in the module. Students
place their answers or perform the specific activity or activities to be
submitted for checking and recording.
b. Textual Reading: It is just what it says it is – read a given article from a
journal or part of a book but this involves analysis or scrutiny of the
text, looking at what you read in detail rather than superficially. All
kinds of information can be gleaned from a text – from its literal
meaning to the subtext, symbolism, assumptions, and values it reveals.
c. Discussion: It is the action or process of talking about something in order to
reach a decision or to exchange ideas on a face-to-face or online
platform. It may also refer to a detailed treatment of a particular topic in
speech or writing.
d. Video Clip/Power Point Presentation: No explanation needed! Just
download the links provided in the module and do your homework.
6. Recommended learning materials and resources for supplementary reading
De Guzman, Jens Micah, et al. (2018). Ethics: Principles of ethical behavior in

modern society. Philippines: MUTYA Publishing House, Inc.
Ezra, Ovadia. (2006). Moral Dilemmas in real life: Current issues in applied
ethics. The Netherlands: Springer.
Rachel, James and Stuart Rachels. (2018). Elements of moral philosophy, 9th
ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.
1
7. Flexible Teaching Learning Modality (FTLM) adopted
Modular Distance Learning (MDL) – Module
Online Distance Learning (ODL) – VideoCon/Google Classroom,
Email, Messenger, Zoom
8. Assessment Task
a. Reflection Paper: A reflection paper is a chance for students to add their

thoughts and analysis to what they have read and experienced. It is meant
to illustrate their understanding of the material and how it affects their ideas
and possible practice in the future. For proper guidance in writing a
reflection paper, they may download on this site:
https://www.iirp.edu/pdf/IIRP-Reflection-Tip_Sheet.pdf
b. Reaction Paper: Reaction or response papers are designed so that

students will consider carefully what they think or feel about something they
have read or seen. For proper guidance in writing a reaction paper, they
may download on this site:
http://web.mnstate.edu/robertsb/313/Reaction%20paper%201.pdf
c. Module Exercises: These are exercises or quizzes provided in the module

where students complete the task as a form of self-assessment. These
exercises may be in the form of true/false, identification, multiple choice,
modified true/false, fill in the blank, matching type and essay. It may also
include preparing a power point presentation or others as may be instructed
by their professor.
d. Home work: A homework assignment is a set of tasks assigned to students

by their professor to be completed outside the classroom.
e. Situation Analysis: This is basically the process of critically evaluating the

internal and external conditions that affect those who are involved in a
certain situation. Students will identify the current opportunities and
challenges of those involved. A good research is involved. This in turn
helps with devising a strategy to move forward from their current situation
to your desired outcome.
Situation analysis helps students define the nature and scope of a problem;
identify the current strategies and activities in place to overcome the
problem; understand the opinions and experiences of stakeholders; helps
give a comprehensive view of the current situation of those involved
whether directly or indirectly; helps detect the gaps between the current
state and desired state; provides information necessary to create a plan to
get to reach the goals; helps identify the best courses of action to take;
helps make sure that efforts and actions are not repeated and wasted
unnecessarily.
2
MODULE CONTENT
Topic 1: Ethics and Morality
Nominal Duration: 1.5 hours
Learning Outcomes:
Upon completion of this topic, the student must be able to:
1. distinguish Ethics from Morality;
2. explain the difference of good from right; and
3. explain the implications of following rules.
Introduction
Ethics (Greek ethika, from ethos, “character,” “custom”), principles or

standards of human conduct, sometimes called morals (Latin mores, “customs”),
and, by extension, the study of such principles, sometimes called moral philosophy.
From the etymology of ethics and morality, they both speak of character and a
customary way of doing good/bad and right/wrong. Custom refers to tradition or
community habit. Hence, it is something a community of persons always does in a
particular way; a way a person or community usually or routinely behaves in a
particular situation. According to Gaffney (1979), the difference is basically between
the realm of theory and the realm of practice. Ethics refers to a set of ideas,
principles or convictions determining what one considers right and wrong in moral
conduct, whereas morality refers to practical behavior as judged according to
someone’s ideas about right and wrong. Ethics points to how one thinks about right
and wrong and morality points to actual conduct with respect to its rightness or
wrongness. At the outset, ethics and morality have somehow almost a comparable
meaning, although ethics is sometimes limited to the concern for the individual
character and morality to the rules concerning good and bad. For the purpose of this
course, both ethics and morality will be used interchangeably while keeping in mind
the distinction to avoid a category error.
According to Meacham (2011), the primary task of ethics, or morality, is to

guide one’s actions. To guide one’s actions may seem obviously easy. Any person in
general, through the rule of thumb, would readily distinguish what is good from what
is bad, and what is right from what is wrong. A striking problem arises when an
individual could hardly make a fine line distinction between what is good from what is
right. This is because what is right does not necessarily mean that it is good, and
vice versa, what is good does not necessarily mean that it is right. In other words,
there are many ways of thinking about ethics whose focuses are on whether specific
actions are good or bad, or right or wrong. They help an individual decide what
should be done in a particular case or class of cases, or evaluate the actions that a
person has done.
Meacham (2011) describes two ways of thinking about ethics, which manifest
themselves as two clusters of concepts and language, or domains of discourse, used
to recommend or command specific actions or habits of character: they are called
3
the good and the right (The subsequent discussion was availed with a special
permission from the author).
The Good and the Right
The good has to do with achievement of goals; the right, with laws and rules.
The goodness paradigm recognizes that people have desires and aspirations, and
frames values in terms of what enables a being to achieve its ends. The rightness
paradigm recognizes that people live in groups that require organization and
regulations, and frames values in terms of duty and conformance to rules. Goodness
and rightness “are not complementary portions of the moral field but alternative ways
of organizing the whole field to carry out the tasks of morality.”
Another approach, virtue ethics, focuses on qualities of character and motives

for action. Within Virtue Ethics the distinction between the good and the right is also
applicable. Questions about what sort of character traits one should cultivate can be
answered on the basis either of what is good or of what is right. Compassion and
insight are typical goodness virtues, and a disposition of conscientious obedience is
a typical rightness virtue.
The good and the right each have their area of applicability; they often get
confused and students need to know the difference so that errors in ethical
judgements are avoided.
The Good
What is good has to do with benefits. Something that benefits something or

someone else is called good for that thing or person. We can think of this
instrumentally or biologically. Instrumentally, an android phone is good for sending
emails, sending and receiving text messages, watching movies, playing online and
offline games, shopping and many other activities; what is good for the phone is
what enables it to do so well. Biologically, air, water, and food are good for living
beings.
Instrumentally, what is good for a thing enables that thing to serve its purpose.
To make sense, an instrumental usage of the term “good” requires reference to
somebody’s purpose or intention. Thus, all products of technologies are good for
students, professionals, businessmen and everybody in this fast-paced environment
for so many reasons. We want the comfort and utility they afford us. The
instrumental usage is expressed in terms of usefulness, of utility for achieving a
purpose or intention. Some gadgets are better than others in that they have better
and updated software and applications and thus can be used more effectively and
efficiently.
The instrumental usage leads to the biological usage. Why is it good for
human beings to have comfort and utility? It is because comfort and utility nourish us
and keep us alive. Unlike the instrumental usage, the biological usage does not
require reference to conscious purpose or intention.
4
The biological usage is expressed in terms of health and well-being.
Biologically, what is good for an organism is what helps it survive and thrive, what
nourishes it. Some things are better for us than others in this respect. For instance, a
diet of whole grains and vegetables is better, in the sense of providing better health
for humans, than a diet of simple carbohydrates and fats. Another example: some
plants need full sunlight to thrive, and others need shade; thus full sunlight is good
for the former, and shade is good for the latter. The good, in this sense, is that which
enables a thing to function well.
The instrumental usage intersects the biological when we consider what is

good for something that is itself good for a purpose or intention. For instance,
keeping one’s clothes clean and taken cared of from dirt is good for the clothes; if
they get too dirty or tattered easily to provide a good impact on your personality, they
are not useful as clothes. So we can talk about what is good for the clothes in a way
that is analogous to what is good for a living being. The good, in this sense also, is
that which enables a thing to function well.
The approach to ethics that emphasizes goodness is called the teleological

approach, from a Greek word, telos, which means “end”, “purpose”, or “goal”.
Biologically, what is good for an organism helps that organism survive and thrive.
Instrumentally, what is good for a thing enables that thing to serve its purpose.
Just as good is defined in relation to an end, the value of the end is defined in
relation to another end. For instance, a hammer is good for driving nails. Driving
nails is good for, among other things, building houses. We build houses to have
shelter and warmth. And we desire shelter and warmth because they sustain our life.
This chain of goods and ends stretches in both directions from wherever we
arbitrarily start looking.
This approach is also sometimes called a consequentialist approach or an

effect-oriented approach because both usages give meaning to the term “good” by
reference to the consequences or effects of an action or event. That whole grains
are good for humans means that the effect of eating them is healthful. That a
cellphone is good for faster communication means that using it for that purpose is
likely to have the effect you want.
The Goodness approach to ethics uses the terms “good” and “bad” and their
variants and synonyms to evaluate actions, things, people, states of affairs, etc., as
well as maxims or guidelines for conduct. Some synonyms for “good” in this context
are “helpful,” “nourishing,” “beneficial,” “useful” and “effective.” Some synonyms for
“bad” are their opposites: “unhelpful,” “unhealthy,” “damaging,” “useless” and
“ineffective.”
There are degrees of goodness and its opposite, badness. That some plants
need full sunlight to thrive and others need shade means that full sunlight is good for
the former and not so good for the latter.
An ethics – a set of moral principles or values – based on goodness applied to

concerns about choices between courses of action will ask questions about the
anticipated or hoped-for benefits of one course of action as opposed to another. An
5
ethics based on goodness applied to concerns about character will ask questions
about the anticipated or hoped-for effects on one’s habitual way of approaching life
of one course of action as opposed to another.
The Right
What is right has to do with conformance to rules or regulations. This is easy

to see in non-ethical situations. For instance, the right answer to “9 divided by 3” is 3.
We apply a mathematical rule, the rule for how to do long division, and derive the
right, or correct, answer. In ethical situations, we apply a moral rule to determine
what the right course of action is. If one finds a wallet with some money in it and the
owner's identification as well, the right thing to do is to return the money to the owner
because it is wrong to keep something that does not belong to one, especially if one
knows who the owner is. The moral rule in this case is “it is wrong to keep something
that does not belong to you.”
The approach to ethics that emphasizes rightness is called the deontological

approach, from a Greek word, deon, that means “duty.” A person does her duty
when she acts according to the moral rules. We could also call this a rules-based
approach. (By “rules” we mean prescribed guides for conduct, not generalizations
that describe physical reality, such as the laws of nature).
According to the deontological approach, an action is justified on the basis of

a quality or characteristic of the act itself, regardless of its consequences. That
characteristic is its conformance to a rule. Morality is concerned with identifying and
obeying moral rules. It is right to obey the rules and wrong to disobey them. Any
particular act can be judged right or wrong according to whether and to what extent it
conforms to the moral rules. A central concern, then, is to identify the rules so one
can make sure one is acting in accordance with them. Once the rules are
established, all one needs to do in order to be moral is to do one's duty, which is to
act in accordance with the rules.
The language associated with this school uses the terms “right” and “wrong”
to evaluate actions. Some synonyms for “right” are “proper,” “legal” and “correct.”
Some synonyms for “wrong” are “improper,” “illegal” and “incorrect.”
The problem, of course, is how to determine the moral rules. Humans seem to
have an innate sense of morality, of right and wrong; but, notoriously, the actual set
of rules they espouse varies from culture to culture. Although many people
unreflectively adopt the rules taught them by their parents, teachers, religious
leaders and culture, the task of philosophy is to provide a rational grounding for
one’s choice of what rules to follow. Philosophers have proposed numerous ways of
determining what the rules are, such as divine command, the dictates of pure
reason, and using an intuitive moral sense to apprehend an unseen but existent
world of values. So far, there is no agreement on which of these is correct.
6
The primary meaning of “right” in an ethical context is conformance to moral
rules. There are a number of other uses of the term “right” in addition to conformance
to moral rules, such as the following:
1) Correct, truthful, as in “the right answer.” This implies that rightness is exclusive,
that there is one right answer or opinion and that others are wrong.
2) The best possible option or a very good option, as in “the right choice.” This also
implies exclusivity, but is problematic. Often one does not need to do what is
best. Sometimes one only needs to do something good enough to get a useful
response, a response that gives feedback so one can further hone one’s
strategy, one’s response to what is happening.
3) Fitting, appropriate, in harmony with the way things are. This sense is more akin
to the goodness paradigm. It asserts an aesthetic component of rightness, as
when one artistically puts an element of a composition in “the right place.”
4) What the speaker approves of or assumes people generally approve of. This is
an uncritical usage and is the least useful.
Confusion between the Good and the Right
All too often people confuse the notions of good and right. Both concepts
apply to what one should do, and often the debate is really about persuading
someone to act in a certain way. Clarity of language and conceptual rigor seem to be
less important than rhetoric. Here is an example on iPhones and android phones:
“Some phones are problematic to unsuspecting consumers. We certainly respect
companies’ desires to protect their products, but the whole thing has become a
mess. You want to install some very important applications, and guess what, they do
not work as they should, and you have to ask help from a lot of people to make them
work, and worst you are paralyzed of an activity if they do not totally function well.
That's just wrong.”
This argument quoted is partly in terms of the effects of some phones on

unsuspecting consumers – they have to jump through hoops, and doing so is
undesirable – and partly in terms of some unstated moral rule.
Here is another example: “With the glaring poverty being experienced by

almost all Filipinos including average families, both the senate and congress should
be figuring out more ways for poor families to have foods on their table and eat three
times a day. Unfortunately, it appears both the TRAIN Law and Rice Tariffication
Law have found their way to stab the poor and send them to their graves alive. That
is wrong ....” “With the Balik Probinsya Program of the government on this pandemic,
a lot of locally stranded individuals in the National Capital Region (NCR) are
transporting the Corona Virus to the provinces thereby deliberately spreading the
virus. That is a wrong …”
Again one does not need to understand TRAIN Law or Rice Tariffication Law
to understand what the remark is pointing but then says “That is wrong” as if the lack
of benefits of TRAIN Law or Rice Tariffication Law is what caused it to be wrong. It is
the same way with the remark on the Balik Probinsya Program of the government.
7
It is this way of using “right” and “wrong” – to express emphatically one’s
approval or disapproval – that leads some thinkers to assert that moral discourse is
actually meaningless and merely expresses the speaker’s preference or the
speaker’s attempt to influence someone else’s behavior.
Why It Matters
If someone says something is good, one can always ask “good for what?” If
someone says something is right, one can always ask “according to what rule?” The
two domains of discourse really are separate, and it is not useful to mix them. Mixing
them is a form of category error, that is, an error “by which a property is ascribed to a
thing that could not possibly have that property.” That something has good effects
does not make it right. That something is in accordance with a moral rule does not
make it good.
Implication to Following Rules
Rules are not just sufficient but rather necessary to social beings in the
promotion of the common good in every society. Making the distinction between
good and right is important because it promotes clarity of thought and allows an
individual to assess oneself and understand why rules have to be followed. It does
not mean, however, that clarity of language is a necessary condition for clarity of
thought, but it certainly helps. The clearer one’s thinking, the more likely one is to
follow rules. Accurate thinking based on accurate perception leads to accuracy of
action, action that leads to attainment of one’s goals.
Teaching and Learning Activities
Activity 1
Direction: The students are grouped (ten groups with five members each). Each
group is required to pay close attention to rules which are experienced in daily life
from different institutions (e.g. school, community, religious group, student
organization, etc.). Each group will list down rules in these different organizations
and evaluate these rules by responding to the following questions.
a. Which of the rules do you find constricting? Why?
b. Why are rules important to human beings?
Examples of topics: religious commandments, laws, public regulations of different
kinds, accounting systems, inter-organization rules, organization rules, etc.
Activity 2
Direction: Answer the essay question. Please see attach rubrics. (15 points item)
How does the shutting down of ABS-CBN and non-renewal of its franchise fall under
the category of either good or right? Or both good and right?
8
Assessment Task
Exercise 1
Name: _________________________ Course & Year: _________________
I. True or False: Write T if the statement is true and write F if the statement is
false. Erasures will void your answer (10 pts).
____1. Ethics refers to a set of ideas about what is right and wrong, whereas
morality refers to practical behavior as judged according to someone’s
ideas about right and wrong.
____2. Goodness and rightness are complementary portions of the moral field
and alternative ways of organizing the whole field to carry out the tasks of
morality.
____3. Something that benefits something or someone else is called right for
that thing or person.
____4. A consequentialist approach to ethics gives meaning to the term ‘good’
by reference to the effects of an action or event.
____5. When we say moral rules, we mean prescribed guides for conduct and
generalizations that describe physical reality, such as the laws of nature.
____6. The rightness paradigm recognizes that people live in groups that require
organization and regulations, and frames values in terms of duty and
conformance to rules.
____7. Ethics is from the Latin term ethika referring to principles or standards of
human conduct sometimes called morals from the Greek term mores.
____8. Some synonyms for “good” are ‘proper’, ‘legal’ and ‘correct’.
____9. According to deontological approach, an action is justified on the basis of
a quality or characteristic of the act itself, regardless of its consequences.
____10. The biological usage of ‘good’ as expressed in terms of health and well-
being leads to instrumental usage.
II. Essay: Contrast the two concepts and give an example: “whatever is right
does not mean it is good and whatever is good does not mean it is right”
(25 points).
9
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
10
Learning Resources
Meacham, William. (2011). The Good and The Right.
http://www.bmeacham.com/whatswhat/GoodAndRight.html
Meacham, Bill. (2013). How to be an Excellent Human. Austin, TX: Earth
Harmony, Inc.
http://www.bmeacham.com/ExcellentHumanDownload/HowToBeAnEc
ellentHuman_6x9x2.pdf
Topic 2: Moral versus Non-Moral Standards
Learning Outcomes:
1. differentiate Moral from Non-moral standards;
2. cite the metaphors for moral standards; and
3. explain the characteristics of moral standards.
Introduction
Moral Standards are principles, norms or models an individual or a group has

about what is right or wrong, what is good or bad. It is an indication of how human
beings ought to exercise their freedom. Norms are expressed as general rules about
our actions or behaviors. Some examples are: “Take responsibility for your actions”;
“Always tell the truth”; “Treat others as you want to be treated”; “It is wrong to kill
innocent people”. Values are underlying beliefs and ideals that are expressed as
enduring beliefs or statements about what is good and desirable or not. Some
examples are: “Honesty is good”; “Injustice is bad.” Moral Standards are a
combination of norms and values. They are the norms about the kinds of actions
believed to be morally right or wrong, as well as, the values placed on what we
believe to be morally good and morally bad. In other words, they point us towards
achievable ideals (De Guzman, 2018).
What moral standards do? First, they promote human welfare or well-being;
second, they promote the “good” (animals, environment, and future generations);
and third, they prescribe what humans ought to do in terms of a.) Rights
(responsibilities to society); and b.) Obligations (specific values/virtues).
Non-Moral or Conventional Standards are standards by which we judge what

is good or bad and right or wrong in a non-moral way. Some examples are: good or
bad manners, etiquettes, house rules, technical standards in building structures,
rules of behavior set by parents, teachers, other authorities, the law, standards of
grammar or language, standards of art, rules of sports, and judgments on the way to
do things. Hence, we should not confuse morality with etiquette, law, and aesthetics
or even with religion. As we can see, non-moral standards are matters of taste or
preference. Hence, a scrupulous observance of these types of standards does not
make an individual a moral person. Violation of said standards also does not pose
11
any threat to human well-being.
Some individuals may have heard the term “Amoral” (n.d). What makes this
word different from the descriptions above? It means not influenced by right and
wrong. If a person who is immoral acts against his conscience, a person who is
amoral does not have a conscience to act against in the first place. Infants could be
said to be amoral since they have not yet developed a mature mind to understand
right and wrong. Some extreme sociopaths are also amoral, since they lack a
conscience as a result of a cognitive disorder. In other words, an immoral person has
a sense of right and wrong but fails to live up to those moral standards. An amoral
person has no sense of right and wrong and does not recognize any moral standard.
Another word that needs clarification is the adjective “Unmoral” (n.d.). It refers
to something to which right and wrong are not applicable, such as animals, forces of
nature, and machines. For example, Typhoons cause damages to properties and
loss of lives but they are unmoral, since they are formed by unconscious natural
processes that exist outside the bounds of morality. When talking about non-moral
agents, such as animals or weather patterns, we use unmoral.
“Moral norms” (n.d.) have different forms. They can be expressed as

principles, dispositions, character traits, and even through the life of a person. These
are different ways of specifying criteria for moral judgments.
Metaphors for Moral Standards
1. Carpenter’s Square
Moral norms are like a carpenter’s square used to measure human freedom
and construct morally good character and right actions. Moral norms are standards
or criteria for judging and acting. Its purpose is first, to provide moral standards,
criteria, or measures for judging; and second is to guide one’s conscience in making
moral judgments.
2. Moral Road Signs

Moral road signs are guides to being and doing; they are indications or
directions to types of actions that are right or wrong, obligatory or permitted. Its
purpose is to preserve and protect moral goods and values by guiding us; and to
focus our attention on what is morally important.
3. A Model for an Art Class

Moral norms are ideals indicating who we ‘ought’ to become and what we
ought to do. They are models and patterns for how to do so. Hence, the purposes of
moral norms are to provide models to help us concretize our values and realize our
ideals, and to prioritize our values and help us to fit them with our circumstances.
4. An Architect’s Blueprint for a Building

Moral norms are a set of instructions and expectations for the moral life. Their
purposes are: to teach moral wisdom of a community and serve as moral reminders
of communal wisdom; and, to set moral expectation that shape how we see and act.
Five Characteristics of Moral Standards
12
1. Involved with serious injuries or benefits
They deal with situations, conditions and behaviors we think can seriously
injure or significantly benefit the well-being and the good of human beings, animals
and the environment. Some examples are fraud, theft, murder, assault, rape,
slander, etc…
2. Not established by law or legislature

Moral standards are not formed or changed by the decision of particular
authoritative bodies such as the senate or congress or even the college of bishops of
the Church. The validity of these moral standards lies on the adequacy of the
reasons that are taken to support and justify them. We do not need a law to back up
our moral conviction that killing innocent people is absolutely wrong.
3. Overriding
They should be preferred to other values including self-interest. If a person
has a moral obligation to do something, then the person ought to do that even if this
conflicts with other non-moral values or self-interest. At work, for instance, moral
values of honesty and respect for lives come first rather than compromising them for
keeping a well-paid job.
4. Based on impartial considerations

Moral standards do not evaluate on the basis of the interest of one particular
individual or group but one that goes beyond personal interests to a universal
standpoint in which everyone’s interest are objectively counted as equal.
5. Associated with special emotions and vocabulary

Emotions such as guilt and shame, and vocabulary such as right, wrong, good
and bad revolve around moral standards. The feeling of guilt, shame and remorse
arise as an individual acts contrary to certain moral standards. If your heart and mind
tell you an action you have done had an unsettling and seemingly disconcerting
ending, then the action was probably morally wrong and not the best way to react.
For example: A young man helps an old lady to cross the street in order to impress
the ladies on the other side of the road but then he feels guilty about it when he
reflects on what he just did.
Activity 1
Direction: At home, the student together with some members of his/her family will
make a video clip skit, showing moral standards, non-moral standards, amoral acts
and unmoral acts.
13
Assessment Task
Exercise 2
Name: _____________________ Course & Year: _______________
I. Determine the following statements on what category do they belong.
a. Moral
b. Non-moral
c. Amoral
d. Unmoral
e. None of the Above
____1. Talking while your mouth is full.
____2. Stealing your neighbor’s properties.
____3. Texting while driving.
____4. A giant wave flips your boat upside down.
____5. A mentally challenged kid throws a metal pipe to the head of his brother
____6. NPAs burning trucks, factories and heavy equipment
____7. A moving car on the road
____8. Passing your ethics subject
____9. Photocopying a published book
____10. Paying for the expertise of an English critic
II. Multiple Choice: Choose the letter that best describes your answer.
____1. It is a metaphor for moral norms that indicates or directs types of actions
that are right or wrong, obligatory or permitted.
a. Model for an art class
b. Carpenter’s square
c. Road sign
14
d. Architect’s blueprint
____2. Everyone’s interest is objectively counted as equal means:
a. Based on impartial considerations
b. Not established by law or legislature
c. Overriding
d. Linked with special emotions & vocabulary
____3. The feeling of guilt, shame and remorse arise as an individual acts
contrary to certain moral standards.
a. Based on impartial considerations
c. Involved with injuries or benefits
d. Linked with emotions & vocabulary
____4. This metaphor for moral norms helps concretize values and realize ideals
to fit them with the individual’s circumstances.
c. Road sign
____5. This is a characteristic of moral standards that affect the well-being of
humans, animals and the surroundings.
a. Linked with special emotions and vocabulary
b. Involved with serious injuries and benefits
c. Overriding
d. Not established by law or legislature
____6. The validity of these moral standards lies on the adequacy of the reasons
that are taken to support and justify them.
a. Overriding
b. Based on impartial considerations
c. Not established by law or legislature
d. Involved with serious injuries and benefits
____7. It is a metaphor for moral norms to guide one’s conscience in making
moral judgments.
15
c. Road sign
____8. Matters of tastes or preferences are considered in the category of:

a. Moral
b. Unmoral
c. Non-moral
d. Amoral
____9. Moral standards should be preferred to other values including self-
interest.
a. Overriding
c. Linked with special emotions and vocabulary
d. Based on impartial considerations
____10. It is a metaphor for moral norms whose purpose is to teach moral
wisdom of a community and serve as moral reminders of communal
wisdom.
c. Road sign
III. Essay. (15 points in each item)
1. When do we say that a standard is moral?
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
16
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
2. What makes an experience a moral experience?
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
17
Learning Resources
“Amoral” and “Unmoral” (n.d.) https://writingexplained.org/amoral-vs-immoral-
vs-unmoral-difference
“Moral norms,” (n.d.). http://academic.regis.edu/tleining/pdfs/moral%20
norms.pdf
Topic 3: Moral Dilemmas
Learning Outcomes:
1. recognize and recall a moral experience;
2. detect a moral dilemma; and
3. give examples of the three levels of moral dilemmas.
Introduction
A dilemma is a situation in which a difficult choice has to be made between

two or more alternatives, especially equally undesirable ones. It is a conflict in which
you have to choose between two or more actions and have moral reasons for
choosing each action.
1) An individual is presented with two or more actions, all of which the individual has
the ability to perform.
2) There are moral reasons for the individual to choose each of the actions.
3) The individual cannot perform all of the actions and have to choose which action,
or actions to perform when there are three or more choices.
Since there are moral reasons to choose each action, and the individual
cannot choose them all, it follows that no matter what choice the individual makes,
he or she will be failing to follow his or her morals. In other words, someone or
something will suffer no matter what choice he or she makes.
Three Levels of Moral Dilemmas
1. Individual Moral Dilemma

This is a moral dilemma that involves the individual on a personal level.
Factors such as personal health issues, family issues, personal financial issues, peer
pressures and socio-economic issues among many others may lead to ethical
tensions within the person himself. Example: A child in the family is in a dilemma
18
whether to donate his kidney for the sake of his sister or not considering that there
may be some health complications that may arise in the future.
2. Organizational Moral Dilemma

This is a moral conflict that occurs in the organization or institution where
individuals within the organization will face the dilemma of personal choices against
the working ethics of the organization or institution. Example: a network administrator
who found out about the infidelity of his best friend’s wife through her emails is in a
dilemma whether to inform his best friend about it or not considering the policy of the
company on personal emails. Other examples may be found in businesses,
scholarship policies, medical field, and employment discriminations among others.
3. Systemic Moral Dilemma

This is a moral dilemma that occurs at a macro level. Factors such as political
pressures, economic conditions, societal attitudes, government regulations and
policies may bring about a moral dilemma. These factors affect operations and
relationships which drives an impact to the people, the market, the workplace and
others on a local, national and international level. Examples are death penalty,
Contractualization, War on Drugs Program of the Government, RH Law….
Activity 1
Direction: Determining the Crux of a Moral Dilemma (30 mins). The class will be
divided into ten groups with five members each.
a. In a ¼ sheet of paper, each student will give an example of a personal moral

dilemma. In the group, each student will share his/her example so that the other
group members will determine the crux of the moral dilemma.
b. With the same grouping, the students will come up with one good example of an
organizational moral dilemma. They will deliberate and determine the crux of the
moral dilemma.
c. With the same grouping, the students will come up with one good example of a
systemic or structural moral dilemma.
Note: b and c activity will be shared in class
19
Assessment Task
Exercise 3
Name: _________________________ Course & Year: _______________
I. Essay. (15 points in each item)
1. Why do we have moral dilemmas?
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
2. Why only humans can be ethical?
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
20
Learning Resources

Ezra, Ovadia. (2006). Moral Dilemmas in real life: Current issues in applied
ethics. The Netherlands: Springer.
Topic 4: Freedom as a Foundation of Ethics
Learning Outcomes:
1. explain freedom as an essential characteristic of ethics;
2. explain the moral dimension; and
3. identify other basic foundations of morality.
Introduction
Why do matters of right/wrong and good/bad need a foundation? What

difference would a foundation make? Let’s consider these comments from someone:
“I am going to obey my conscience regardless of whether it is or it is not grounded in
any foundation. I am going to obey it even if some reliable foundation tells me not to.
Even if a god suddenly appears and tells me to do something that my conscience
won’t let me do, I am not doing it. So, where did this conscience come from? How
about if a person’s conscience contradicts the conscience of another individual?
The comment above leads us to the question of choice, freedom or liberty and
decision. It also leads to the question of end.
Freedom or liberty may be described as the power or right to act, speak or

think as one wants without hindrance or restraint. But this power is not absolute. It
has limitations. “Great power comes with great responsibility.” Imagine the world if
there is no limit to freedom and no appeal for responsibility. When one changes the
question from “what do I want to do?” to “what do I ought to do?”, all moral acts
become clearer and point to freedom of choice. There is the invocation for people to
use their freedom in way that they won’t harm anyone including animals, plants and
the whole of nature, to not abuse their freedom and to give limitation to it. The
exercise of freedom to act morally liberates us from our selfish passions and desires.
If we are not free in making decisions, then the ethical value of our decisions are
questionable.
21
Kant points to freedom as the autonomy or self-determination of rational
beings. This type of freedom plays a crucial role in the ethical journey of each
individual, of societies and humanity as a whole. Our everyday choices allow us to
pursue our goals that in a way enable us to live well and pursue the kind of human
beings we ought to be. We want to be virtuous by choice, for example, because
reason and experience teaches us that there is no fulfillment in life if we are coerced
to live a life that we do not like. There is no true happiness from slavery within.
Human potential and creativity flourishes when there is liberty.
Freedom has a Moral Dimension
1. The moral dimension belongs to the realm of human freedom.

The act or conduct that is not the result of free choice is without moral quality.
Morality relates to what we are accountable for. Freedom is not just about what we
can do but also about what we must do. It does not follow that just because we can
do something so we must do it.
2. The moral dimension refers to the concern for the good and happy life.
Moral philosophy claims an essential connection between goodness and
happiness. The moral dimension is concerned with defining ultimate goal of man or
what constitutes his happiness. The path to being happy is the way of goodness.
3. The moral dimension speaks to our sense of moral responsibility.

The moral dimension pertains to what freedom entails – the freedom to
commit – and the limits that the freedom of others imposes on our own. The moral
dimension is about developing the skills for sound decision making based on ethical
principles.
Basic Foundations of Morality (n.d.)
1) Harm/Care
This is related to our long evolution as mammals with attachment systems
and an ability to feel (and dislike) the pain of others. This foundation underlies virtues
of kindness, gentleness, and nurturance. This foundation makes us sensitive to signs
of suffering and need. In order to maximize care and minimize harm, we enact laws
that protect the vulnerable. We punish people who are cruel and we care for those in
suffering.
2) Fairness/Reciprocity
This is related to the evolutionary process of reciprocal altruism. This
foundation generates ideas of justice, rights, and autonomy. This foundation leads us
to seek out people who will be good collaborators in whatever project we are
pursuing. It also leads us to punish people who cheat the system. People on both the
right and the left believe in fairness, but they apply this foundation in different ways.
Haidt explains: “On the left, fairness often implies equality, but on the right it means
proportionality – people should be rewarded in proportion to what they contribute,
even if that guarantees unequal outcomes.”
3) In-group/Loyalty
22
This is related to our long history as tribal creatures that are able to form
shifting coalitions. This foundation underlies virtues of patriotism and self-sacrifice for
the group. It is active anytime people feel that it’s “one for all, and all for one.” We
love the people on our team, and loyalty makes our team more powerful and less
susceptible to our failure. Likewise, we have a corresponding hatred for traitors.
Those who betray our “team” for the other side are worse than those who were
already on the other side.
4) Authority/Respect
This is shaped by our long primate history of hierarchical social interactions.
This foundation underlies virtues of leadership and followership, including deference
to legitimate authority and respect for traditions. Authority plays a role in our moral
considerations because it protects order and fends off chaos. “Everyone has a stake
in supporting the existing order and in holding people accountable for fulfilling the
obligations of their station.”
5) Purity/Sanctity
This is shaped by the psychology of disgust and contamination. This
foundation underlies religious notions of striving to live in an elevated, less carnal,
nobler way. It underlies the widespread idea that the body is a temple which can be
desecrated by immoral activities and contaminants (an idea not unique to religious
traditions). No matter the era, humans have always considered certain things
“untouchable” for being dirty and polluted. The flipside is that we want to protect
whatever is hallowed and sacred, whether objects, ideals, or institutions.
6) The Liberty/Oppression Foundation

This foundation builds on Authority/Subversion because we all recognize
there is such a thing as legitimate authority, but we don’t want authoritarians
crossing the line into tyranny. Oppression is hated and liberty desired. It is liberty for
the underdogs and liberty from intrusion.
Concluding reflection on freedom: Whether morality is subjective, objective or

a social construct, they all point to one thing: the individual is a choice-maker. A
believer makes a choice; and so with the non-believer; and members of society
make their own choices. The individual’s freedom is essential to any levels of
morality. Hence, human freedom is the primal foundation of morality.
Activity 1: Watch the video entitled “philosophy of liberty” (HD with voiceover) on
youtube.com. Write down two personal realizations and submit online (This depends
on the applications your teacher uses). Check this link:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GazZBvHhgQ
23
Assessment Task
Exercise 4
Name: _____________________ Course & Year: _______________
I. Essay: (45 points).
1. Write something about freedom of expression in relation to fake news in
Philippine mass media.
2. Make a critic on the Philippine government’s control versus freedom of speech
and thoughts.
3. Make an assessment on freedom and television effects among young Filipino
students today.
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
24
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
25
________________________________________________________________
Learning Resources
Why Does Morality Need a Foundation? (n.d.) https://www.youtube.com/

watch?v=Ft6Jn-haV_o
Moral Foundations Theory (n.d.). https://www-bcf.usc.edu/~jessegra/
papers/GHKMIWD.inpress.MFT.AESP.pdf
Six Moral Foundations of Politics (n.d.) https://www.thegospelcoalition.
org/blogs/trevin-wax/the-6-moral-foundations-of-politics/

Chapter 2: The Moral Agent
2. Introduction
This module focuses on the moral agent whose moral behavior is conditioned
by his cultural values and belief systems at the same time influenced by different
cultures from the environment. Multiculturalism, on a global scale, equally affects the
moral agent’s ethical claims such that moral relativism poses a significant impact to
the understanding of morality. Historically, social change has revolutionized the
qualities of the Filipino moral identity but the search for universal values is still crucial
and necessary for human survival. The relationship between moral character and
values is also tackled and this chapter ends with a discussion on the stages of moral
development.
a. Articulate the role of culture in moral behavior;
b. Explain the relationship between individual acts and character; and
c. Identify and articulate each stage of moral development
4. Learning Content
Topic 1: Role of Culture in Moral Behavior
Topic 2: Moral Character and Virtues
Topic 3: Stages of Moral Development

a. Activity Sheets
b. Textual Reading
c. Discussion
26

Donaldson, Thomas. (1986). Issues in moral philosophy. USA: McGraw-Hill
Book Company.
Martin, Mik W. (2007). Everyday morality: An introduction to applied ethics, 4 th
Ed. Canada: Thomson Wadsworth.
Pasco, Mark Oliver D., V. Fullente Suarez & Agustin Martin G. Rodriguez,
(2018). Ethics. Philippines: C & E Publishing, Inc.

8. Assessment Task
a. Reflection Paper
b. Module Exercises/Activity
c. Assignment
27
MODULE CONTENT
Topic 1: Role of Culture in Moral Behavior
Nominal Duration: 3 hours
Learning Outcomes:
1. articulate the role of culture in moral behavior;
2. evaluate the strengths/ weaknesses of cultural relativism;
3. analyze crucial qualities of the Filipino moral identity in their
own moral experiences; and,
4. explain why universal values are necessary for human survival.
Introduction
Culture is a manner of looking at reality by a certain group of people, in a

certain place, and in a certain time in history. It consists of the way people relate to
the world through basic assumptions and images which would more or less give
them a coherent view of reality they experience (Claver, 1978). It involves the
following: a) material living (dress, housing and architecture); b) way of behaving
(customary manners and conduct); c) way of speaking (language use); d) way of
thinking (thought processes); e) way of feeling (shared psychology); f) way of
meaning (arts and symbols); g) way of believing, valuing and meaning (views of life
and attitudes).
Matsumoto (2007) defines human culture as a unique meaning and

information system, shared by a group and transmitted across generations, that
allows the group to meet basic needs of survival, coordinate socially to achieve a
viable existence, transmit social behavior, pursue happiness and well-being, and
derive meaning from life.
28
Since every culture is a carrier of a community’s social practices and beliefs,
the moral behavior and values are also passed on from generation to the next.
Culture’s Role in Moral Behavior
So, how does culture shape moral behavior? Within culture are moral codes
that are practiced through social behavior. Moral codes are a set of rules or
guidelines that a person or group follows in order to live a just and good life. Moral
codes are heavily dependent upon culture. This is because each culture has its own
ideas of what is considered right or wrong, and what is regarded as good or bad.
Moral codes dictate many aspects of our lives, from how we act with different age
groups, to how we dress, and even how we treat other people.
Cultural Relativism
Culture may vary from one location to another, from one society to another,
and from a nation to another nation. And this becomes problematic when the ideas
and practices of right or wrong and good or bad of one ethnic group clashes or
overlaps with another even in a wider context of societies, nations and religions. This
brings us to the idea of cultural diversity and relativism. Cultural relativism claims that
ethical truths are relative-that the rightness of an action and the goodness of an
object depend on or consist in the attitude taken towards it by some individual or
group, and hence may vary from individual to individual or from group to group.
Ethical judgements have their origins in individual or cultural standards. It is the
principle of regarding the beliefs, values, and practices of a culture from the
viewpoint of that culture itself. An individual's beliefs and activities should be
understood by others from the perspective of that individual's own culture (Runes,
1983; Baldwin, 1986; Martin, 2007; De Guzman, 2018).
The idea of cultural relativism is that the terms right and wrong are completely
dictated by the culture that they are being used in. A person’s actions should be
looked at with all things taken into account, especially the religion and culture that
they grew up in. Supporters strongly believe that one’s moral codes and beliefs of
right and wrong are influenced completely by the culture in which an individual is
raised. A better way to look at this would be that what is considered morally correct
in one culture, may be deemed wrong in another. It doubts if there truly is a universal
idea of right and wrong. In other words, the cultural lenses carry with them their own
biases of ethical behavior.
Universal Values
Universal human values are those ideals that we believe should be privileged
and promoted in the lives of all human beings in spite of the differing cultures and
societies where we grew up. A value is one of our most important and enduring
beliefs, whether that be about a thing or a behavior. Even though some values may
be universal, they often arise from particular religious, socio-cultural and political
contexts (UNODC, 2018: 21).
Rachels (2018: 23) points out that there are some moral rules that all
societies must embrace because these rules are necessary for society to exist. The
29
rules against lying and murder are two examples. Telling the truth and valuing life
are being enforced across cultures although they are expressed differently and
exceptions to the rule cannot be denied. Human rights are also universal in
character. The rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights crafted
by the United Nations (UN) originated from debates among multicultural group of
individual philosophers, diplomats and politicians. Universal values arise from lived
experiences and their justifications from others form part of the discourses if humans
are to live in global harmony. They can be uncovered by different means including
scientific investigation, historical research, public debate and deliberation (UNODC,
2018: 22).
Class Discussion
Activity 1: Form a group of 5 members. Discuss how you think your community
influences your behavior (How does your community influence your behavior?).
Discuss why can’t all cultural practices be always right? Give three examples to
prove your point.
Activity 2: In order to better understand the idea of cultural relativism, let’s look at
both the benefits and drawbacks that this theory brings to society. Form groups of 5
members and do a research on the advantages and disadvantages of cultural
relativism to be presented in class through online interaction.
Activity 3: Form groups of five members and do a research on the possibility of

universal values despite the proliferation of cultural relativism. The output will be
presented in class through online interaction.
The Filipino Way
The Filipino culture is so rich and diverse that it has greatly transformed in
time. Although it is composed of diverse ethnolinguistic groups spread across the
islands, these cultural communities have somehow retained their indigenous moral
values and belief systems while consciously or unconsciously embracing Western
lifestyles brought about by colonial subjugation for five centuries and the adverse
effects of globalization that followed. Our culture and history molded us to what we
are now.
Unfortunately also, Filipinos are in deep cultural identity crisis. Many of us

show little appreciation for our culture. Our colonizers have been instrumental in
making us believe that our culture is inferior to theirs to the point that the more
individuals look closer to foreign or Caucasian features using chemicals and
treatments, the more they feel that their status is elevated thereby looking down on
their fellow Filipinos. With this colonial mentality that we imbibed aside from the
proliferation of diverse lifestyles brought about by rapid global changes, our ethical
values continue to disintegrate. This situation may seem negative but there is hope
in every adversity. As generally observed, Filipinos are resilient; they rise from the
challenges like bamboos that bend but do not break from the ravages of storms year
round. We can be proud of our identity if we can convince ourselves that the values
of our culture are the sources of our strength and willpower as a nation worthy of
respect and admiration like those of other cultures (Wostyn, et al., 2004: 110).
30
Strengths and Weaknesses of Filipinos
Strengths Weaknesses
1. Pakikipagkapwa-tao: Opening 1. Kanya-kanya Syndrome: Self-serving
yourself to others; feel one with others attitude that generates feeling of envy
with dignity and respect; deal with and competitiveness towards others
them as fellow human beings. (status vs prestige).
- sense of fairness and justice - personal ambition but insensitive to
- concern for others common good
- ability to empathize with others - crab mentality
- helpfulness and generosity - lack of appreciation resulting unhealthy
- practice of hospitality competition
- sensitive to other feelings and trust
2. Family Orientation: a Genuine and 2. Extreme Personalism

deep love for family. - always trying to give personal
- commitment and responsibility interpretation to actions
- honor and respect - thank you with "but" (compliment-
- generosity and sacrifice criticism-compliment)
- sense of trust and security
3. Joy and Humor: Cheerful and fun- 3. Passivity and Lack of Initiative: strong
loving approach to life and its up and reliance to other’s fate
down, pleasant disposition, a sense of - “yeah proud Pinoy”. It's all because of
humor and propensity for happiness the race (nationality/blood) not by
that contribute not only to the Filipino persons attitude, hard-work, dream
charm but also to the Filipino Spirit. and perseverance etc.
We laugh at those we love and hate. - very complacent (relax) but their rarely
We tend to make joke about our good is a sense of urgency (It's OK we have
and even bad fortune, to smile even in 1 day left to finished, just relax)
the most trying of times. - too patient without any plan or action
- emotional balance and optimism (matiisin) "Bahala na System" - No
- healthy disrespect for power and matter what, At least we tried.
office. - doubt and debate first than study,
discuss until planning and action
4. Hard Work and Industry: capacity for 4. Lack of Discipline: relaxed attitude but
hard work given to raise one's poor time management
standard living of a decent life for - impatient and unable to delay
one's family. gratification or reward
- love to take short-cuts or 'palusot'
system
- carelessness
5. Faith and Religiosity: Faith in God - 5. Colonial Mentality: Patriotism vs
31
accepting reality to comprehend as a Active awareness
human created by God. "Pampalakas- - luck of love and appreciation on what
loob" they have
- open outside but side-open or close
inside
6. Flexibility, Adaptability and Creativity 6. Lack of Self Analysis and Reflection
- Sometimes superficial and flighty
7. Ability to Survive 7. Extreme Family Centeredness
- strong family protection good or bad
condition
See also this site for more details: https://www.slideshare.net/BelindoAguilar/strengths-
and-weaknesses-of-the-filipino-character
Activity 4:
Direction: Visit this site and write one page reaction paper:
https://arete.ateneo.edu/assets/site/Barbaza-Tapat.pdf and
https://arete.ateneo.edu/connect/usapang-tapat-tungo-sa-isang-katutubong-etika
Activity 5: Toxic Filipino culture we should fix. Write your reactions on the pictures
depicted below and the negative attitudes they imply.
1.
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
2.
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
32
3.
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
4.
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
5.
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
6.
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
33
7.
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
8.
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
9.
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
10.
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
Assessment Task:
34
Name: _________________________ Course & Year: ______________
I. Discuss and relate at least five strengths and five weaknesses of the Filipino
moral character that are being experienced during this pandemic brought about
by the Covid 19? (20 pts)
Strengths:
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
Weaknesses
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
35
Learning Resources
Barbasa, R. (2020). Usapang tapat: Tungo sa isang katutubong etika.
Retrieved from https://arete.ateneo.edu/assets/site/Barbaza-Tapat.pdf and
https://arete.ateneo.edu/connect/usapang-tapat-tungo-sa-isang-katutubong-
etika
Claver, F. F. (1978). The stones will cry out: Grassroots pastorals. Philippines:
Orbis Books.
modern society. Philippines: MUTYA Publishing.
Donaldson, Thomas. (1986). Issues in moral philosophy. USA: McGraw-Hill,
Inc.
Filipino Moral Character (n.d.) Retrieved from
https://sites.google.com/site/philippinescomph/about
Filipino Moral Character (n.d.) Retrieved from
https://www.slideshare.net/BelindoAguilar/strengths-and-weaknesses-of-the-
filipino-character
Martin, Mike W. (2007). Everyday morality: An introduction to applied ethics.
Canada: Thomson Wadsworth.
Matsumoto, D. (2007). Culture, context, and behavior. Journal of personality,
75(6), 1285-1320. Retrieved from
https://davidmatsumoto.com/content/2007%20Matsumoto%20JOP.pdf
United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC). (2018).
Wostyn, Lode, et al., (2004). Workbook for theology 4. Philippines: Claretian
Publications.
Topic 2: Moral Character and Virtues
Nominal Duration: 45 mins.
Learning Outcomes:
1. explain the relationship between moral character and virtues;
2. justify why values are both caught and taught; and
3. distinguish character from reputation.
Introduction
Striving for moral virtue rests upon an individual’s moral character. His
character is important in moral choices because he cannot simply separate his
character from his choice of actions. Every action carries with it an imprint or a stamp
of his character. For this reason, character affects seriously his maturity in such a
way that it determines the kind of moral choices he makes and the kind of person he
ought to be. Precisely, it is in character formation that one will not regret in the end
the virtuous life he has chosen.
Good character must be cultivated and brought to maturity so that somehow

when he will be confronted with moral decisions, he can determine seriously the right
36
choices. Character then, is not something bestowed by a higher being, neither a
privilege to be enjoyed, but it is a task to be fulfilled by constant struggle to do good.
It demands a habitual inner renewal of the person because it is from this that
character is built.
Moral characters are dispositions of both the heart and mind to do virtuous
acts. Max Scheler (2012) would suggest that one lives in his acts, permeating every
act with his peculiar character. This means that an individual needs to evaluate each
act he does if it helps him become a better person or not. This is a challenge
because the greatest problem a person encounters is the fact that he becomes an
alien to himself: pretending to be someone whom he is really is not. It is always a
choice to prefer and affirm higher values through being careful with his actions and
always pattern them for the realization and actualization of his own character as a
person. What an individual needs to strive for is to prove that principles should not
be easily swayed by street people’s opinions, fake news, media tricks, propaganda
and selfish interests. Character is tested by a lot of moral struggles. One cannot
simply change decisions of personal sacrifice and toil for anything that will weaken
his character.
This is where the role of family and community comes into play. An African
adage would put it this way: “it takes a village to raise a child.” Parents are directly
responsible for the moral upbringing of their children surrounded by different
institutions that take care of the welfare of everyone. This wider community of
persons is where virtue is introduced and formed. It is a task and a challenge for an
individual to grow, develop and mature in character.
The Interplay of Moral Character and Virtue
The Greek word “virtue” means excellence. Socrates once noted that man
should aim to learn to live virtuously, and modern man is no exception: “The
unexamined life is not worth living”. All are encouraged to engage in a never ending
task of doing what is good. His pupil Plato highlights four virtues in particular, which
were later called cardinal virtues: wisdom, courage, temperance and justice. Other
important virtues are fortitude, generosity, self-respect, good temper, and sincerity.
In addition to advocating good habits of character, we should also avoid acquiring
bad character traits, or vices, such as cowardice, insensibility, injustice and vanity.
Both Aristotle and Aquinas also believed that people have a desirable end
goal or purpose and that developing excellences of character (virtues) leads to
human happiness and good moral reasoning. Good is that which is done with good
intention and with the knowledge that the results would be good.
Going back to Aristotle, he used the term ‘virtue’ to express our moral
obligations. Virtue may be defined as any disposition of character or personality that
an individual desires in him or others. Virtues are means between deficiency and
excess, or vices. He warns that we should avoid these vices and focus on the mean,
or virtue. which “is such as right reason declares it to be”. In others, virtues are those
depositions of character which an individual considers to be good. Character
37
development guides actions. In order to be of good character, then, once one knows
the good, one must also desire it. The will must desire and incline itself to the good.
Our conscience guides us to judging right or wrong action but that needs training and
informing also. Conscience needs to know the good and to be listened to in order for
us to act according to it. To listen and to act both require dispositions, desires, and
tendencies ordered to the good (Mitchell, 2015). (Virtue Ethics will be further
discussed in Chapter 4).
Activity 6: Write a letter to your (imaginary) child in the future, telling him/her about
how you are presently struggling to be the best kind of person you strive to be.
Activity 7: Research online the lives of Nelson Mandela and Adolf Hitler. Do a
comparative character analysis/study on both individuals.
Assignment for the next topic: Download this article and outline the important
points. Critiques of Kohlberg’s Model of Moral Development: A Summary by Paul C.
Vitz https://revistadepedagogia.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/1-Critiques-of-Kohlberg
%C2%B4s-Model-of-Moral-Development.pdf
Assessment Task:
Name: _________________________ Course & Year: ______________
I. President Duterte has signed a law institutionalizing good manners and right
conduct (GMRC) and values education as core subjects in the K to 12
curriculum both in public and private schools. Is this necessary? Justify your
answer. (15 points each item)
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
38
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
2. In terms of character versus reputation, can public life be separated from
private life?
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
39
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
Learning Resources
CMO No. 20 s. 2013

Mitchell L. A. (2015). Integrity and virtue: The forming of good character. The
Linacre quarterly, 82(2), 149–169.
https://doi.org/10.1179/2050854915Y.0000000001
Scheler, M. (2012). Person and self-value: Three essays. Springer Science &
Business Media.
40
Topic 3: Stages of Moral Development
Nominal Duration: 45 mins.
Learning Outcomes:
1. identify and explain briefly each stage of moral development; and
2. evaluate Kohlberg’s theory based on the critiques against his theory.
Introduction
Experience tells us that learning what is appropriate or inappropriate, good or

bad and right or wrong takes a progressive start from early childhood to adulthood.
The importance of parents and institutions of learning and socializing are formative
of moral development. Moral development refers to the process whereby an
individual form a progressive sense of what is right and wrong, proper and improper.
Human moral sense is commonly seen to involve a movement from simple and finite
definitions of right and wrong to more complex ways of distinguishing right from
wrong (Dorough, 2011). Piaget and Kohlberg are two leading psychologists who
theorized that our moral sense develops progressively.
41
Piaget’s Stages of Moral Development
Jean Piaget observed four stages in the child’s development of moral

understanding of rules, based largely on his observation of children’s games:
The first stage characterizes the sensorimotor period of development (under

four years) in which the child is still mastering motor and social skills and
unconcerned with morality. In the second stage (4-7) game playing is egocentric;
children don’t understand rules very well, or they make them up as they go along.
There is neither a strong sense of cooperation nor of competition. They exhibit
unconditional respect for rules and submission to authority.
The third stage (7-11) is characterized by incipient cooperation. The child

recognizes that rules are arbitrary and can be changed with group consensus. Social
interactions become more formalized as regards rules of the game. The child learns
and understands both cooperative and competitive behavior. But one child’s
understanding of rules may still differ from the next, thus mutual understanding still
tends to be incomplete. In the fourth stage (11-12) cooperation is more earnest and
the child comes to understand rules in a more legalistic fashion. It is the stage of
genuine cooperation in which the older child shows a kind of legalistic fascination
with the rules. He enjoys settling differences of opinion concerning the rules,
inventing new rules, and elaborating on them.
Kohlberg’s Stages of Moral Development
Lawrence Kohlberg admired Piaget’s approach to studying children’s

conceptions of morality but he went beyond those and proposed his own elaborate
theory.
Level Stage Social Orientation

Principled Conscience: Individual
Abstract notions of 6 principles of conscience. Takes
Post- justice; Rights of account of likely views of everyone
Conventional others can affected by a moral decision.
override
Social Contract: Difference between
obedience to rules
5 moral and legal right. Recognition
or laws.
that rules should sometimes be
broken.
Views of others Law and Order: Obedience to
matter; Avoidance 4 authority. Importance of “doing of
Conventional of blame; seeking one’s duty”.
42
approval Good Boy/Good Girl: Good
3 intentions. Behaving in ways that
conform to “good behavior”.
Right and Wrong Individualism, Instrumentalism and
Pre- is determined by 2 Exchange: Rewards. The right way
Conventional reward or to behave is the way that is
punishment rewarded.
Obedience and Punishment:
1 Whatever leads to punishment is
wrong.
The first level of moral thinking is that generally found at the elementary
school level. In the first stage of this level, people behave according to socially
acceptable norms because they are told to do so by some authority figure (e.g.,
parent or teacher). This obedience is compelled by the threat or application of
punishment. The second stage of this level is characterized by a view that right
behavior means acting in one's own best interests.
The second level of moral thinking is that generally found in society, hence
the name "conventional." The first stage of this level (stage 3) is characterized by an
attitude which seeks to do what will gain the approval of others. The second stage is
one oriented to abiding by the law and responding to the obligations of duty.
The third level of moral thinking is one that Kohlberg felt is not reached by the
majority of adults. Its first stage (stage 5) is an understanding of social mutuality and
a genuine interest in the welfare of others. The last stage (stage 6) is based on
respect for universal principle and the demands of individual conscience. While
Kohlberg always believed in the existence of Stage 6 and had some nominees for it,
he could never get enough subjects to define it, much less observe their longitudinal
movement to it.
Kohlberg believed that individuals could only progress through these stages
one stage at a time. That is, they could not "jump" stages. They could not, for
example, move from an orientation of selfishness to the law and order stage without
passing through the good boy/girl stage. They could only come to a comprehension
of a moral rationale one stage above their own. Thus, according to Kohlberg, it was
important to present them with moral dilemmas for discussion which would help them
to see the reasonableness of a "higher stage" morality and encourage their
development in that direction. The last comment refers to Kohlberg's moral
discussion approach. He saw this as one of the ways in which moral development
can be promoted through formal education. Note that Kohlberg believed, as did
Piaget, that most moral development occurs through social interaction. The
discussion approach is based on the insight that individuals develop as a result of
cognitive conflicts at their current stage.
Critiques of Kohlberg’s Theory
43
There were a good number of psychologists who somehow did not agree with
Kohlberg's model and their arguments are valid. Vitz (1994) pointed out that this
model became popular for many years especially in education. In spite of that, the
model suffers from a remarkable number of grave weaknesses, many of which
constitute grounds for rejecting it. Despite Kohlberg's rebuttal of his critics, the
system has not recovered from the multiplicity and gravity of the critiques and at
present there is no convincing reason to accept Kohlberg's system. The weaknesses
in his model have become increasingly clear and, in spite of salvage attempts, it
appears to be receding as a focus of research and theoretical interest. To
summarize those critiques, they are the following:
1. The critique of a ‘completely good self’

2. The feminist critique
3. The moral relativity critique
4. The ‘no moral responsibility’ critique
5. The critique of Kohlberg’s atheism
6. The empathy and emotion critique: the rejection of Stage 1
7. The empirical critique: the inability to find various stages
8. Over-dependency on language: Critique of all stages
9. The methodological critique of the Kohlberg scale
10. Structure vs. content: the empirical critique
11. Structure vs. content: the theoretical critique
12. The ideological critique
13. The sexual morality critique
14. The narrative critique
15. The virtues critique
16. Recent philosophical critiques
Student Activity 8: Draw a chart of their life’s journey using Manila paper or
PowerPoint to show incipient moments in their lives and where they are now in their
moral development.
Student Activity 9: Group presentation: Three cases/stories featuring moral agents

at different stages using Manila paper. The groups identify the stages of the agents
in each of the three cases and justify their answer.
Assessment Task:
1. There are 16 criticisms on Kohlberg’s theory. Choose one of these criticisms
which you think is the most plausible argument and justify your answer. (20
points)
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
44
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
Learning Resources
Kohlberg, L. (2005). 7. Piaget, Kohlberg, Gilligan, and Others on Moral
Development.http://www.rudygarns.com/class/neuroethics/lib/exe/fetch.php/
a/fleming.2006.piaget_kohlberg_gilligan_and_others_on_moral_development.
pdf
Kohlberg, Lawrence. (1981). Essays on moral development. San Francisco,
CA: Harper & Row.
McLeod, S. A. (2015). Piaget's theory of moral development. Simply
Psychology. https://www.simplypsychology.org/piaget-moral.html
Patanella D. (2011) Piaget’s Theory of Moral Development. In: Goldstein S.,
Naglieri J.A. (eds) Encyclopedia of Child Behavior and Development.
Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-79061-9_2167
Vitz, P. C. (1994). Critiques of Kohlberg's model of moral development: a
summary. Revista española de pedagogía, 5-35.
https://revistadepedagogia.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/1-Critiques-of-
Kohlberg%C2%B4s-Model-of-Moral-Development.pdf
45
Chapter 3: The Act
2. Introduction
This module explores the role of feelings in moral decisions and the
disadvantages of over-reliance on feelings. A lot of people may not be aware when
their behavior diverts from ethical standards because their emotions and moods get
the better part them. This module also provides models in which students can make
reasoned and impartial ethical decisions and understand why reason is not enough
in carrying out their ethical decisions as well. It proposes that the will is as important
as reason and developing moral courage helps towards moral excellence.
a. explain feelings as obstacles/useful to making right decisions;
b. explain reason and impartiality as minimum requirements of morality;
c. evaluate a moral dilemma using the 7 step moral reasoning model; and
d. explain the significance of moral courage in ethical decision-making.
46
4. Learning Content
Topic 1: Feelings and Moral Decision-Making
Topic 2: Reason and Impartiality as Minimum
Requirements for Morality
Topic 3: Moral Courage

a. Activity Sheets
b. Textual Reading
c. Discussion

books

Ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Rae, Scott B. 2009. Moral Choices: An Introduction to Ethics. Zondervan
ebook.
Rae, Scott B., and Kenman L. Wong. (1996). “A Model for Moral Decision
Making.” Chap. 16 in Beyond Integrity: A Judeo-Christian Approach to
Business Ethics. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

8. Assessment Task
a. Module Exercises/Quiz
b. Situation Analysis
c. Case Analysis
d. Reflection Paper
47
MODULE CONTENT
Topic 1: Feelings and Ethical Decision-Making
Learning Outcomes:
1. explain the relationship between feelings and ethical judgments; and
2. evaluate feelings as both obstacles and useful to making right decisions.
Introduction
Can feelings of happiness, surprise, interest and joy affect our actions to do
what is good? While anger, disgust, contempt, fear, shame, sadness, or self-hostility
greatly influence our actions to do what is bad? Should these positive subjective
feelings matter when we decide to do the right thing? Should we suppress negative
ones instead as they might lead us to wrong decisions?
48
Feelings and intuitions or what we call as “moral emotions” (n.d.) play a major
role in most of the ethical decisions people make. Most people do not realize how
much their emotions direct their moral choices. Experts think it is impossible to make
any important moral judgments without emotions. They are regarded as instinctive
and trained response to moral dilemmas.
There are two related models in ethics that are exclusively based on feelings.
The first one is ethical subjectivism which holds that truth or falsity of ethical
propositions is dependent on the feelings, attitudes, or standards of a person or
group of persons. Since it is based only on feelings, it is biased and contradicts the
common understanding that morality is about objective facts. For example, a gay
from the parlor passes in front of a group of freshmen nearby and one of them
smirked: “homosexuality is wrong!” If the student could not even justify his moral
judgment and made that remark out of feelings, then he is both ignorant and biased.
The second is emotivism which is a naïve version of ethical subjectivism. This
version says that a moral belief is true if it is held with sincerity and conviction. To
say that an act is right, or a person is good, is merely to emote, just to express
emotions. This makes nonsense of beliefs. Is it not that a belief is something that is
either true or false, but not both? No one’s feelings are more justified than another’s,
assuming they are compatible with any relevant factual information (Martin, 2007: 5-
6).
Feelings cannot be solely relied upon but reason and feelings may
complement each other. Feelings can fuel the accomplishment of goals. They
motivate us to act morally. Traditionally, ethical decision-making process has been
understood as an exclusively mental process; that our feelings have nothing to do
with matters of right or wrong and good or bad, precisely because our emotions are
very unstable. Although most existing researches emphasize the mental elements of
decision-making, there are evidences to support the idea that emotion is also a
necessary component leading to ethical decisions and ethical behavior. The arousal
of emotion influences moral reflection and ultimately moral behavior. Of course,
there are other factors also aside from feelings. Peer influence among college
students, for example, is a stronger determinant of ethical behavior than individual
affective reactions. There is a peer-pressure that an individual seems to be more
likely to engage in ethical behavior when his/her peers also behave ethically
(Bratton, 2004; De Guzman, et al., 2018).
Inner-directed negative emotions like guilt, embarrassment, and shame often

motivate people to act ethically. Outer-directed negative emotions, on the other
hand, aim to discipline or punish. For example, people often direct anger, disgust, or
contempt at those who have acted unethically. This discourages others from
behaving the same way. Positive emotions like gratitude and admiration, which
people may feel when they see someone acting with compassion or kindness, can
prompt people to help others too. Emotions evoked by suffering, such as sympathy
and empathy, often lead people to act ethically toward others. Indeed, empathy is
the central moral emotion that most commonly motivates prosocial activity such as
altruism, cooperation, and generosity. So, while we may believe that our moral
decisions are influenced most by our philosophy or religious values, in truth our
49
emotions play a significant role in our ethical decision-making (Lerner, et al., 2014;
“Moral Emotions” (n.d.)).
Activity 1: Form a group of 5 members. Discuss how you think feelings can be
obstacles in making the right decisions and give 5 examples to prove your point.
Discuss how you think feelings can help in making the right decisions and give 5
examples to prove your point to be put in a yellow paper.
Assessment Task: (25 points in each item)
Name: _________________________ Course & Year: ______________

I. Situation Analysis: Search for a situation that you think involves ethical
subjectivism and emotivism. Evaluate the situation by pointing out how both
ethical models are fitted.
2. Essay: Are ethical subjectivism and emotivism plausible for standards of
morality? Justify your answer.
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
50
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
Learning Resources
Bratton, V. K. (2004). Affective morality: The role of emotions in the ethical
decision-making process.
http://fsu.digital.flvc.org/islandora/object/fsu:181290/datastream/PDF/downloa
d/citation.pdf
Izard, C. E. (October 2010). The meanings/aspects of emotion: Definitions,
functions, activation and regulation. Emotion Review, Vol. 2, No. 4.
363-370. SAGE Publications and The International Society for
Research on Emotion. https://doi.org/10.1177/1754073910374661
Lerner, J.S., et al. (2014). Emotions and Decision Making. Annual Review
Psychology.
Martin, M. K. (2007). Everyday morality. Canada: Thomson Wadsworth.
“Moral Emotions”. (n.d.) https://www.ethicsunwrapped.utexas.edu
Topic 2: Reason and Impartiality as Minimum Requirements for Morality
Learning Outcomes:
1. explain reason and impartiality as minimum requirements for morality; and
2. evaluate a moral dilemma using the 7 step moral reasoning model.
Introduction
The Greek philosopher Aristotle regarded that human beings have a rational
soul that makes us different with that of animals and plants. Rationality (n.d.) is the
capability for logical thought with the ability to reason towards sound conclusions
51
based on facts and evidence, draw inferences from situations and circumstances,
and make sound well-reasoned judgments based on factual information. Plants and
animals are incapable of complex reasoning and introspection, much more so in
distinguishing good from bad and right from wrong. A person is called “rational or
reasonable” (Korsgaard, n.d.) when his beliefs and actions conform to the dictates of
those principles, or when he is subjectively guided by them. Reason is also identified
with the capacity that enables us to identify “reasons,” the particular considerations
that count in favor of belief or action. Since human beings are rational, they have
“freewill to strive for perfection” (n.d.). By achieving this fulfillment and well-rounded
development, they would somehow attain happiness. It follows that in order to be
ethical, an individual should decide on actions that properly express his rationality.
Moral judgments must be backed by the best arguments or reasons out there,
not only good reasons or better judgments. Our decisions must be guided as much
as possible by reason. The morally right thing to do is always the thing best
supported by the arguments. Morality requires impartiality with regard to those moral
agents affected by a violation of a moral rule. Morality requires the impartial
consideration of each individual's interests. For example, being partial toward friends
is not morally allowed. Impartiality (fair-mindedness) is a principle of justice holding
that decisions should be based on objective criteria, rather than on the basis of bias,
self-interest, prejudice, or preferring the benefit to one person over another for
improper reasons. Other elements of impartiality are accuracy, fairness, balance,
context, and no conflicts or prejudgments. The respect for truth at all costs is
necessary (Khatami, 2009; Rachels, 2018).
The minimum conception of morality is: Morality is the effort to guide one’s
conduct by reason – that is, to do what there are the best reasons for doing – while
giving equal weight to the interest of each individual affected by one’s decision
(Rachels, 2018).
Models in Ethical Decision Making
There are several models of ethical decision making and action. Powers and
Vogel (1980) have identified six aspects that affect and are included into moral
reasoning and decision making: (1) moral imagination; (2) moral identification; (3)
moral evaluation; (4) tolerating moral disagreement and ambiguity; (5) integration of
moral competence with other competencies; (6) a sense of moral obligation and
moral motivation. Rest (1994) proposes that moral decision-making involves four
psychological processes: moral sensitivity, moral judgment, moral
motivation/intention, and moral character/action.
Before anything else, one must recognize that there is an ethical issue. Could
a decision or situation be damaging to someone or to some group? Is this issue
more about that what is legal or what is most efficient? If so, how? The decision
making process could be usefully demonstrated in a Seven Step-wise Model of Scott
Rae (2009) presented below.
Situation – "Please Don't Tell!"
52
A twenty-year-old Hispanic male was brought to a hospital emergency room,
having suffered abdominal injuries due to gunshot wounds obtained in gang
violence. He had no medical insurance, and his stay in the hospital was somewhat
shorter than expected due to his good recovery. Physicians attending to him felt that
he could complete his recovery at home just as easily as in the hospital and he was
released after only a few days in the hospital.
During his stay in the hospital, the patient admitted to his primary physician
that he was HIV positive, having contracted the virus that causes AIDS. This was
confirmed by a blood test administered while he was hospitalized. When he was
discharged from the hospital, the physician recommended that a professional nurse
visit him regularly at home in order to change the bandages on his still substantial
wounds and to insure that an infection did not develop.
Since he had no health insurance he was dependent on Medicaid, a

government program that pays for necessary medical care for those who cannot
afford it. However, Medicaid refused to pay for home nursing care since there was
someone already in the home who was capable of providing the necessary care.
That person was the patient's twenty-two-year-old sister, who was willing to take
care of her brother until he was fully recovered. Their mother had died years ago and
the sister was accustomed to providing care for her younger siblings.
The patient had no objection to his sister providing this care, but he insisted
that she not be told that he had tested HIV positive. Though he had always had a
good relationship with his sister, she did not know that he was an active homosexual.
His even greater fear was that his father would hear of his homosexual orientation
and lifestyle. Homosexuality is generally looked upon with extreme disfavor among
Hispanics.
The patient's physician is bound by his code of ethics that places a very high
priority on keeping confidentiality. That is, information about someone's medical
condition that he or she does not want known cannot be divulged by the physician.
Some would argue that the responsibility of confidentiality is even greater with
HIV/AIDS since disclosure of someone's homosexuality normally carries devastating
personal consequences for the individual who is forced "out of the closet."
On the other hand, the patient's sister is putting herself at risk by providing
nursing care for him. Doesn't she have a right to know the risks to which she is
subjecting herself, especially since she willingly volunteered to take care of her
brother?
If you were the physician, what would you do in this case? Would you breach
the norm of confidentiality to protect the patient's sister, or would you keep
confidentiality in order to protect the patient from harm that would come to him from
his other family members, especially his father?
Perhaps as good a question as "what would you do" in this situation is the
question, "how would you decide what to do" in this situation? The process of
making a moral decision can be as important as the decision itself, and many ethical
decisions that people encounter are so complex that it is easy to exhaust oneself
53
talking around the problem without actually making any progress toward resolving it.
The response to many moral dilemmas is "where do I start?' and the person who is
faced with these decisions often needs direction that will enable him or her to move
constructively toward resolution and "see the forest for the trees."
In order to adequately address the ethical dilemmas that people encounter

regularly, the following is a model that can be used to insure that all the necessary
bases are covered. This is not a formula that will automatically generate the "right"
answer to an ethical problem. Rather it is a guideline that is designed to make sure
that all the right questions are being asked in the process of ethical deliberation.
Given the ethnic and religious diversity of our society, it is important that the
model used for making ethical decisions have "room" in it to accommodate a whole
host of different moral and ethical perspectives. This model is not tied to any one
particular perspective, but can be used comfortably with a variety of cultural, ethnic
and religious backgrounds. This is not a distinctively Christian model, though it is
consistent with the Scripture and any Christian can use Biblical principles in utilizing
this model. Take note though that what makes many moral dilemmas so difficult is
that the Scripture does not speak to the issue as clearly as one would prefer
because Scripture has not directly addressed the issue. More general principles can
be brought to bear on the issue at hand. However, in these instances, there is often
disagreement about which Biblical principles are applicable to the specific issue
under discussion. For example, in Case 1 (Please Don't Tell) the physician could
invoke the Biblical principle of compassion toward his patient in refusing to disclose
information that would harm him. But at the same time, he could invoke the same
principle of compassion toward the sister in protecting her from the risk of medical
harm. It is not clear that appeal to principles alone will conclusively resolve this case.
Thus, to insist that all ethical dilemmas are resolved simply by appeal to Biblical
principles seems to oversimplify the case. Certainly many moral questions are
resolved conclusively by appeal to Scripture. But there are other cases in which that
does not happen. That is not to say that Scripture is not sufficient for the believer’s
spiritual life, but that the special revelation of Scripture is often supplemented by the
general revelation of God outside Scripture. This model makes room for both general
and special revelation, and gives each a place in helping to resolve the difficult moral
dilemmas facing people today.
1. Gather the Facts

Frequently ethical dilemmas can be resolved simply by clarifying the facts of
the case in question. In those cases that prove to be more difficult, gathering the
facts is the essential first step prior to any ethical analysis and reflection on the case.
In analyzing a case, we want to know the available facts at hand as well as any facts
currently not known but that need to be ascertained. Thus one is asking not only
"what do we know?" but also "what do we need to know?" in order to make an
intelligent ethical decision.
2. Determine the Ethical Issues

The ethical issue(s) are stated in terms of competing interests. It's these
conflicting interests that actually make for an ethical dilemma. The issues should be
presented in a __________ vs. __________ format in order to reflect the interests
that are colliding in a particular ethical dilemma. For example, many ethical
54
decisions, especially at the end of a patient's life can be stated in terms of patient
autonomy (or the right of the individual to make his or her own decisions about
medical care) vs. the sanctity of life (or the duty to preserve life). In Case #1 above,
the interests of the patient in having the physician keep confidentiality conflict with
the interests of his sister in being protected from the risk of contracting the HIV virus.
3. What Principles have a bearing on the Case?

In any ethical dilemma, there are certain moral values or principles that are
central to the competing positions being taken. It is critical to identify these
principles, and in some cases, to determine whether some principles are to be
weighted more heavily than others. Clearly Biblical principles will be weighted the
most heavily. There may be other principles that speak to the case that may come
from other sources. There may be Constitutional principles or principles drawn from
natural law that supplement the Biblical principles that come into play here.
4. List the Alternatives

Part of the creative thinking involved in resolving an ethical dilemma involves
coming up with various alternative courses of action. Though there will be some
alternatives which you will rule out without much thought, in general, the more
alternatives that are listed, the better the chance that your list will include some high
quality ones. In addition, you may come up with some very creative alternatives that
you had not considered before.
5. Compare the Alternatives with the Principles

At this point, the task is one of eliminating alternatives according to the moral
principles that have a bearing on the case. In many instances, the case will be
resolved at this point, since the principles will eliminate all alternatives except one. In
fact, the purpose of this comparison is to see if there is a clear decision that can be
made without further deliberation. If a clear decision is not forthcoming, then the next
part in the model must be considered. At the least, some of the alternatives may be
eliminated by this step of comparison.
6. Weigh the Consequences

If the principles do not yield a clear decision, then a consideration of the
consequences of the remaining available alternatives is in order. Both positive and
negative consequences are to be considered. They should be informally weighted,
since some positive consequences are more beneficial than others and some
negative consequences are more detrimental than others.
7. Make a Decision
Deliberation cannot go on forever. At some point, a decision must be made.
Realize that one common element to ethical dilemmas is that there are no easy and
painless solutions to them. Frequently, the decision that is made is one that involves
the least number of problems or negative consequences, not one that is devoid of
them.
Back to the situation – Please Don't Tell!
55
Using the model, let's return to the case at hand. This will illustrate how the
model is used and clarify exactly what is meant by each of the elements in the
model.
1. Gather the Facts: The relevant facts in this case are as follows:
– The patient is a young man, infected with HIV and an active homosexual.
– He suffered fairly severe abdominal wounds but is recovering well.
– Homosexuality is looked down upon in Hispanic communities.
– The patient has insisted that his physician maintain confidentiality about his HIV
status.
– The patient is afraid of rejection by his father if his homosexuality is discovered, an
understandable fear given the way homosexuality is viewed in the Hispanic
community.
– He was wounded by gunfire in gang violence. It is not clear but is a reasonable
assumption that he is a gang member. As a result, he likely fears rejection and
perhaps retribution from his fellow gang members, especially if they discover that
he is HIV positive.
– He is uninsured and cannot afford home nursing care by a professional.
– Medicaid refuses to pay for professional home nursing care.
– The patient's sister is willing and able to provide the necessary nursing care for her
brother. She is accustomed to providing maternal-like care for her brothers and
sisters.
– The patient has specifically requested that his sister not be told of his HIV status.
She does not know that he is an active homosexual.
– The patient's sister would be changing fairly sizable wound dressings for her
brother and the chances are high that she would come into contact with his HIV
infected blood. The probability of her becoming infected with the virus from this
contact is difficult to predict.
2. Determine the Ethical issue(s)
The competing interests in this case are those of the sister who will provide
the care and the patient who will receive it. Both have interests in being protected
from harm. The patient fears being harmed in a psycho-social way if his
homosexuality and HIV status were discovered. Thus he has put the physician in a
difficult situation by demanding that his right to confidentiality be kept. Though she
does not know it, his sister fears medical harm due to the risk of contracting the HIV
virus from contact with her brother's blood. This could be stated as a conflict
between confidentiality for the patient vs. the right to know the patient's condition for
his sister due to the risk she would be taking in giving him nursing care. The conflict
could be summarized by the need for patient confidentiality vs. the duty to warn the
sister of risk of harm.
3. What Principles have a bearing on the Case?
Two moral principles that speak to this case come out of the way in which the
ethical issue is stated. This case revolves around a conflict of rights, a conflict of
duties that the physician has toward his patient and toward the sister. He is called to
exercise compassion toward both, but what compassion (or the duty to "do no
56
harm") demands depends on which individual in the case is in view. Thus two
principles are paramount. First is the widely recognized principle that patients have a
right to have their medical information kept confidential, particularly the information
that could be used to harm them if it were disclosed. But a second principle that
comes into play is the duty of the physician to warn interested parties other than the
patient if they are at risk of imminent and substantial harm. One of the difficult
aspects of any ethical decision is knowing what weight to give the principles that are
relevant to the case. Here, the principle of confidentiality is considered virtually
sacred in the medical profession and most physicians will argue that it is necessary
to keep confidentiality if patients are to trust their physicians and continue coming for
treatment. But confidentiality is often considered subordinate to the duty to warn
someone who will likely be harmed if that information is not disclosed. For example,
if a psychologist believes that his patient will kill his wife, or beat her severely, he has
a moral obligation to inform the wife that she is in danger from her husband. The
duty to warn someone from imminent and severe harm is usually considered a more
heavily weighted principle than confidentiality in cases like these.
The key question here in weighting the principles of confidentiality and the
duty to warn (both fulfilling the Biblical notion of compassion toward those in need of
it) is the degree of risk that the patient's sister is taking by providing nursing care for
her brother. If the risk is not substantial, then that weights confidentiality a bit more
heavily. But if the risk is significant, then the duty to warn is the more heavily
weighted principle. This is particularly so given the fact that the sister has
volunteered to perform a very self-sacrificing service for her brother. Some would
argue that her altruism is an additional factor that weights the duty to warn principle
more heavily. Others would suggest that his contracting HIV is an example of
"reaping what one sows," and that minimizes consideration of the patient's desire for
confidentiality. An additional factor that should be figured into the deliberation is that
the risk to the patient, though it may have a higher probability of happening, is not as
severe as the risk to the sister. After all, if the worst case scenario happened to the
patient, his father would disown him and the gang would throw him out (though their
action could be more severe than that). He would recover from all of that. But if his
sister contracted HIV, she would not recover from that. Though the probability of the
worst case scenario is higher for the patient, the results of the worst case are clearly
higher for the sister.
4. List the Alternatives
In this case, there are a number of viable alternatives that involve compromise
on either the patient's part or his sister's. However, there are two alternatives that do
not involve compromise and they each reflect a weighting of the principles.
One alternative would be to tell the sister that her brother is HIV positive. This
alternative comes out of taking the duty to warn principle as higher priority. On the
other hand, a second alternative is to refuse to tell her that information, upholding the
patient's request for confidentiality and taking the confidentiality principle as the one
that carries the most weight. However, there are other alternatives. For example, the
physician could warn the patient's sister in general terms about taking appropriate
precautions for caring for these types of wounds. She is to wear gloves and even a
mask at all times when handling the bandages. Should she get any blood on her
clothes or body, she is to wash immediately with a disinfectant soap. In other words,
57
she is to take universal precautions that any medical professional routinely takes in
caring for patients. A further alternative is to request that the patient inform his sister
of his condition. He could then request that she not tell any other family member or
any or his friends. If he refused, then the next step might be to say to him in effect, "If
you don't tell her, I will."
5. Compare Alternatives with Principles
In many cases, the principles resolve the case. Depending on how one
assesses the relative weight of the principles, which may be the case here. In fact, it
may be that the alternative of encouraging universal precautions for the sister but not
telling her why, comes very close to satisfying all the relevant principles. But certainly
there are questions about the adequacy of those precautions. Will she follow them,
or treat them casually? However, assume for the moment that appeal to principles
does not resolve the dilemma.
6. Assess the Consequences
Here the task is to take the viable alternatives that attempt to predict what the
likely consequences (both positive and negative) of each would be. In addition, one
should try to estimate roughly how beneficial are the positive consequences and how
severe the negative ones are, since some consequences are clearly more
substantial than others.
In many cases, when two opposing alternatives are presented, the

consequences of one are the mirror image of the other. This is the case here with
the alternatives of telling that sister, or refusing to tell her of her brother's HIV status.
In the first alternative, that of telling the sister (or insisting that the patient tells
his sister), the likely consequences include the following:
The sister would be properly warned about the risks of taking care of her
brother, minimizing the risk of her contracting HIV, and saving her from the risk of
developing a fatal illness. The brother's HIV status would be out in the open, leaving
family and gang friends to draw their own conclusions about his homosexuality.
Should they draw the right conclusion, which is likely, he suffers significant psycho-
social harm from his gang members, and possibly (though not certainly) from his
family.
Trust with the physician and the patient suffers and he may refuse to see that
physician, or any other one again until a dire medical emergency. This would be
unfortunate since due to his HIV status, he will need on going medical care. But if the
physician refuses to disclose the information, the following may be expected as the
likely consequences:
The sister would not know about the risks she is taking, making her vulnerable
to contracting an infection for which there is no cure. The degree of risk that she is
taking is open to debate, but some would argue that if the degree of risk is any more
than minimal, that justifies warning her since the virus produces a fatal disease.
58
The patient's HIV status is a well-kept secret, as his homosexuality. But it is
not likely that either his HIV status or his homosexuality can be kept a secret forever,
since as HIV develops into full-blown AIDS, both are likely to come out at some point
in the future.
Trust between the physician and patient is maintained. If the alternative of

telling the sister to take general precautions is taken, the following are the likely
consequences: She may exercise appropriate caution in taking care of her brother,
but she may not. She may treat the precautions casually and unknowingly put herself
at risk. If the physician tells her about the precautions in very strong terms to insure
her compliance with them, that may start her asking questions about why the doctor
was so insistent on her following his precautions. In fact, one of the motives of the
physician might be to nudge her toward asking some of those questions, of her
brother, to further minimize the risk of contracting HIV.
In general, the patient's HIV status and homosexual orientation are kept
secret, and confidentiality is honored, but the question of how long it will remain a
secret is unknown and it is likely that it will become known eventually. Trust with the
physician and patient is maintained. However, if the sister is nudged to ask her
brother some pressing questions about why these precautions are so important, he
may conclude that the physician has prompted his sister to ask these questions,
leaving him feeling betrayed.
7. Make a Decision
What would you decide in this case? Which principles are the weightiest? Are
there others that you would include? Which alternatives are the most viable? Are
there others that you would suggest? Which consequences seem to you the most
severe? Are there others that you think will occur? It is important to realize that at
some point you must stop deliberating and make a decision, as uncomfortable as
that may be.
Student Activity 2: Form a group with 5 members in each group. Analyze the
situation of Rebecca using the 7 step ethical decision model. Place your output in a
word document and submit online.
You are a resident assistant in a co-ed residence hall. One evening, a first
year female resident named Rebecca comes to your apartment. She tells you that
she had been grabbed on campus by an unidentified male who released her when
she screamed. Rebecca explains that she tells you only because her best friend
convinced her to approach you. She did not want to report the incident to the
campus police, and, in fact, states she wants the information to stop at your level.
After speaking with Rebecca for about an hour, you convince her to inform the
police. She reluctantly details the same story to the police. Over the next several
days, you see Rebecca a number of times. The police investigation has intensified
and the information has been released to the student newspaper as a public safety
announcement. Rebecca becomes more distraught and withdrawn. You convince
her to visit a counsellor. She agrees, only if you accompany her.
59
One day during an emotional and vague conversation, you and Rebecca are
discussing the assault. You feel there is more to the story then you are being told.
You assure Rebecca that anything she reveals to you will remain confidential. She
offers nothing more. Over the next few days, Rebecca begins to respond to your
continued prodding and becomes more comfortable with you.
A week later, Rebecca comes to you with the "whole story." She had been
drugged, detained and raped by another student (also a resident of your building) at
a campus party. Rebecca is clearly traumatized by sharing her story with you. She
repeatedly emphasizes her desire for confidentiality. You convince Rebecca to tell
campus police the whole story, but she refuses to reveal to them the assailant. The
police finally had the details of the assault, but they had no clues to aid in their
investigation. Rebecca is the only person who knows the identity of the rapist, and
only you know that the individual resides in your building. What do you do?
Assessment Task: (15 points each item)

Exercise 1
Name: _________________________ Course & Year: ______________
Direction: Answer the following questions in a paragraph or two
1. “Alam natin na tayo ay tao pero kadalasan ay hindi natin alam paano
magpakatao.” Make a reaction on this statement reflecting the idea on reason
and impartiality as minimum requirements for morality.
_______________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
2. Is gender equality justifiable under the concepts of reason and impartiality?
Justify your answer.
________________________________________________________________
60
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
Learning Resources
Khatami, M. (2009). Morality, rationality and impartiality. Falsafeh Vol. 37, No.
1, Spring 2009, pp. 91-110. http://about.abc.net.au/wp-
content/uploads/2012/06/ElementsOfImpartialitySep2007.pdf
Kohlberg, Lawrence. (1981). Essays on moral development. San Francisco,
CA: Harper & Row.
Korsgaard, C. M. (n.d.) “Rationality” https://www.people.fas.harvard.edu
Powers, C. W., & Vogel, D. (1980). Ethics in the education of business
managers. Hasting-on-Hudson, NY: Institute of Society, Ethics and the
Life Sciences.
Rae, Scott B., and Kenman L. Wong. (1996). “A Model for Moral Decision
Making.” Chap. 16 in Beyond Integrity: A Judeo-Christian Approach to
Business Ethics. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.
Rest, J. (1994). Background: Theory and research. In: J. Rest & D. Narvaez
(Eds.), Moral development in the professions: Psychology and applied
ethics (pp. 1–26). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Rationality & Rational (Nov. 22, 2003) https://www.enotes.com
Topic 3: Moral Courage
Learning Outcomes:
1. explain the significance of moral courage in ethical decision-making.
61
Reason, Will and Moral Courage in Ethics
Reason in ethics is the application of critical analysis to specific events to

determine what is right or wrong and what people ought to do in a particular situation
while will is the faculty of the mind that chooses a desire among the different desires
present. Will is guided by reason, where, as determined by reason, action is
performed according to rational requirements. The best ethical decision which is
argued in the most rational way is still incomplete without its execution. That is why
moral courage is important and the will enables the person to act deliberately and
courageously (Gambrell, 2015; Rowan, 2015).
Osswald, S. et al. (2010) describes moral courage as a prosocial behavior

with high social costs and no (or rare) direct rewards for the person. There are
situations that demand a morally courageous intervention: instances of injustice
happen, human rights are violated, persons are treated unfairly and in a degrading
manner, or nature and cultural assets are in danger. These situations are about
discrimination against foreigners or other minorities, violence and aggression against
weaker individuals, sexual harassment or abuse, mobbing, or illegal business
practices.
Lopez, O’Byrne, and Petersen (2003) defined moral courage as “the

expression of personal views and values in the face of dissension and rejection” (p.
187) and “when an individual stands up to someone with power over him or her (e.g.,
boss) for the greater good” (p. 187). Thus, often an imbalance of power exists with a
disadvantage on the side of the person who acts morally courageously. Moral
courage situations (compared with other situations that demand prosocial behavior)
are also characterized by a specific social constellation: There are not only one or
more victims but also one or more perpetrators who discriminate against the
victim(s) or act unfairly or threateningly, and the potential helper has to deal with the
perpetrators to act prosocially. Most of the social costs moral courage entails
emanate from the confrontation with the perpetrators.
Greitemeyer, Fischer, Kastenmueller, and Frey (2006) defined moral courage

as brave behavior accompanied by anger and indignation, which intends to enforce
societal and ethical norms without considering one’s own social costs. Social costs
(i.e., negative social consequences) distinguish moral courage from other prosocial
behaviors.
Activity 3: Form a group of 5 members. Read the situation below and discuss how
you think you can help Jonas act with moral courage.
Jonas has just renewed his contract as a janitor with a job order status at a
well-known college in his province. He is just a senior high school graduate and has
a five month old baby to take care of. His peers respected him and described him as
an honest and hardworking person with strong work values. After almost four
semesters, he has noted a behavior in the work setting that concerned him and
conflicted with his ethical principles. He has been observing his supervisor falsifying
daily time records of fellow administrative aides and very lax inspections all around
the campus. Although all janitors have their own territories to clean and they work
62
independently, there are instances that they all work together in improving the
landscapes of the campus. When Jonas brought this behavior to the attention of
some senior janitors, they explained that they experienced retaliation if they even
mentioned this misconduct. Anyway, all of them are benefiting from it. After much
pondering, Jonas felt that he has an ethical responsibility to take action and bring
this matter to the attention of the administration. As soon as someone quietly brought
this to the supervisor, the supervisor immediately changed the work schedule of
Jonas unfairly and added more loads of work for him. As a result, he has to work on
some Saturdays just to finish his job. The supervisor also set unreasonable
deadlines, and discouraged him opportunities for social gatherings among them after
office hours. What will he do?
Student Activity 4: Form a group with 5 members in each group. Choose one of the
topics below, make a script or a case, and make a good rational moral decision.
Please see attach rubric. (50 points)
1. Injustice
2. Violation Human Rights
3. Unfair Treatment (and in degrading manner)
4. Illegal business practice
5. Nature and cultural assets are in danger.
Assessment Task:
Exercise
Name: _________________________ Course & Year: ______________
I. Write a reflection paper about this quote: “Standing for what is right is a
lonesome journey”.
63
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
2. Write a reflection paper about this quote: “It is better to be kind than to be
right.”
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
Learning Resources
Gambrell, A. Will, Reason, and Action (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from

https://skemman.is/bitstream/1946/22695/1/WRA3.pdf
64
Greitemeyer, T., Fischer, P., Kastenmüller, A., & Frey, D. (2006). Civil
courage and helping behavior: Differences and similarities. European
Psychologist, 11(2), 90-98.
Lerner, J.S., et al. (2014). Emotions and Decision Making. Annual Review
Psychology.
Lopez, S., O’Byrne, K. K., & Petersen, S. (2003). Profiling courage. In S.
Lopez, & C. R.
Snyder (Eds.). Positive psychology assessment: A handbook of models
and measures (pp. 185-197). Washington: APA.
Osswald, S., Greitemeyer, T., Fischer, P., & Frey, D. (2010). What is moral
courage? Definition, explication, and classification of a complex
construct. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.
net/profile/Silvia_Osswald/publication/232528056_What_is_moral_courage_D
efinition_explication_and_classification_of_a_complex_construct/links/0deec5
25ba6f9c4bbe000000/What-is-moral-courage-Definition-explication-and-
classification-of-a-complex-construct.pdf
Wilson, T.D. & D.T. Gilbert. (2005). Affective forecasting: Knowing what to
want. Current Directions in Psychological Science 14: 131-34.
Rowan, A. M. (2015). The relationship between will and reason in the moral
philosophies of Kant and Aquinas. Logos i ethos, (1 (38)). Retrieved
from http://cejsh.icm.edu.pl/cejsh/element/bwmeta1.element.desklight-
9d247bbd-71fb-46cf-8da0-c3cdfc6c28ab/c/1047-1914-1-PB.pdf.
GEC 7: Ethics
65
Chapter IV: Western Ethical Frameworks and Principles
2. Introduction
The goal of Western Ethics is generally for individuals to achieve self-direction

and self-understanding which have direct impact on ethical decision making. Our
intangible decision making as to determine what is right or wrong permeates
everyday life. Ethical problems are often complex and novel; they present
themselves in unique contexts in which conflicting principles are at stake. Ethics
should concern all levels of life: acting properly as individuals, creating responsible
organizations and governments, and making our society as a whole more ethical.
The first part presents an overview of the fundamental ethical frameworks and
principles. It introduces frameworks for ethical thinking and decision-making. These
ethical frameworks and principles represent the viewpoints from which students may
seek guidance as they make moral decisions.
The second part discusses virtue ethics which focuses on the development of
the character of the individual who must confront ethical dilemmas. Virtue ethics
recognizes that resolution of difficult problems depends, above all, on the character
(that is, on the virtues) of the people making decisions. It is important to note that,
strictly speaking, virtue ethics is very particular on character rather than on specific
actions.
The third part discourses on Kantian ethics where the rightness or wrongness
of actions neither depends on their consequences nor on the character of individuals
but rather on whether these actions fulfill our duty. There are certain types of actions
that are absolutely prohibited, even in cases where the action would bring about
more happiness than the alternative. This theory asserts that there is a supreme
principle of morality, an unconditional command or universal duty for all human
beings.
The fourth part focuses on Utilitarian Ethics where moral judgments are based
on the outcomes of a decision or an action. If the outcomes of an action are
considered to be useful, workable and positive, or to give rise to benefits, then that
action is held to be morally right. Conversely, if the outcome causes harm, then the
action is held to be morally wrong. The judgement of right or wrong depends on the
consequences of the decision or action.
The last part discusses Rawls’ justice as fairness which he proposed as an

alternative to utilitarianism. Rawls asserts that each individual has certain rights that
cannot be sacrificed simply for others to obtain more benefits. His theory revolves
around the adaptation of two fundamental principles of justice which would, in turn,
guarantee a just and morally acceptable society. The first principle guarantees the
right of each person to have the most extensive basic liberty compatible with the
liberty of others. The second principle states that social and economic positions are
to be (a) to everyone's advantage and (b) open to all.
1. explain the three broad areas of ethical study;
66
2. evaluate the different ethical frameworks;
3. compare and contrast ethical frameworks and principles;
4. explain virtue ethics;
5. explain Kantian ethics;
6. explain utilitarian ethics; and
7. explain Rawl’s principle of justice and fairness.
4. Learning Content
Topics for Chapter IV

Topic 1: Basic Areas of Ethical Study
Topic 2: Virtue Ethics
Topic 3: Kant and Right Theory
Topic 4: Utilitarianism
Topic 5: Justice and Fairness
a. Activity Sheets
b. Textual Reading
c. Discussion
“A Historical Survey of Western Ethics” (n.d.) Retrieved from

https://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/183836/9/08%20chapter
%203.pdf
Baggini, Julian (2016). Philosophy: key texts. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Follesdal, A. (2015). John Rawls’ theory of justice as fairness. In Philosophy
of Justice (pp. 311-328). Springer, Dordrecht. Retrieved from
http://www.follesdal.net/ms/Follesdal-2014-Rawls-JasF.pdf
Grayling, A. C. (2019). The history of philosophy. United Kingdom: Penguin
Books UK
Kantian Ethics (n.d.) Retrieved from
https://www.csus.edu/indiv/g/gaskilld/ethics/kantian
%20ethics.htm#:~:text=Kant's%20theory%20is%20an%20example,it%20as
%20The%20Categorical%20Imperative.
Rawls, J. (n.d.) A theory of justice. Retrieved from
https://www.csus.edu/indiv/c/chalmersk/econ184sp09/johnrawls.pdf
67
Online Distance Learning (ODL) – VideoCon/Edmodo, Email,
Messenger, Zoom
8. Assessment Task
a. Reflection Paper
b. Reaction Paper
c. Module Exercises/Activity
d. Critique Paper
e. Situation Analysis
MODULE CONTENT
Topic 1: Basic Areas of Ethical Study
68
Learning Outcomes:
1. identify the three basic areas of ethical study; and
2. explain the three basic areas of ethical study.
Introduction
A framework is defined as a set of assumptions, concepts, values and

practices that constitutes a way of viewing reality (Framework, n.d.) We may
understand basic theories as frameworks in ethics as a system of rules, ideas,
notions, theories, or principles that assists man in his moral decisions and
judgments.
In Ethics there are three major areas of study: meta-ethics, normative ethics,
and applied ethics. Under these major subject areas are various ethical theories as
frameworks.
1. Normative Ethics
Normative ethics was regarded as that branch of ethical inquiry that

considered general ethical questions whose answers had some relatively direct
bearing on practice (Normative Ethical theories, 2020). In a sense, it is a search for
an ideal litmus test of proper behavior (Fieser, n.d.). Normative Ethics is concerned
with the standard and criteria by which we can judge man’s actions to be morally
right or morally wrong. This was the prevalent form of ethics in philosophy until the
end of the 19th Century. It includes a consideration of the importance of human
freedom, and a discussion of the limits of a human’s responsibility for moral
decisions and for the consequences of actions) (Ethics, 9).
The crucial thesis of normative ethical ethics is that there is only one ultimate

principle or standard of moral conduct, whether it is a solitary law or a set of rules. It
stresses three elements: the person who performs the act (the agent), the act, and
the consequences of the act. Generally, there are three categories of normative
ethical theories: deontology, teleological ethics and virtue ethics.
Deontology
Deontological normative ethical theories place the locus of right and wrong in
autonomous adherence to moral laws or duties (Deontological Theories 2002). It
emphasizes the correlation between duty and morality of human acts.
In deontological ethics an action is considered morally good

because of some characteristic of the action itself, not because
the product of the action is good. Deontological ethics holds
that at least some acts are morally obligatory regardless of their
consequences for human welfare. Descriptive of such ethics
69
are such expressions as “Duty for duty’s sake,” “Virtue is its
own reward,” and “Let justice be done though the heavens fall.”
(Deontological ethics, n.d.)
Also called duty-based ethics, deontology is interested with what man does,
not with the consequences of his actions. It advises people to do the right thing
because it is the right thing to do and keep away from wrong things because they are
wrong. People are counseled to do the right thing, even if that produces more harm
than doing the wrong thing. People have a moral obligation to do the right thing,
even if it produces a bad result.
Teleological Ethics
This theory of morality derives duty or moral obligation from what is good or

desirable as an end to be achieved (Teleological ethics, n.d.). It believes that the
rightness or wrongness of a human act is contingent on its outcome. Hence,
a human act is considered morally right if it produces a good outcome. Since the
moral goodness of a human act is dependent only on its results, the more good
results a human act produces, the better or more right that human act is. The results
of a human act generally eclipse all other considerations.
Every teleological moral theory locates morality in the outcomes of human

actions. Teleological ethical theorists contend that every human act is teleological in
the sense that man reasons about the means of realizing certain goals. Thus, all
moral conduct is goal-directed.
Virtue ethics
This is a broad term for theories that emphasize the role of character and
virtue in moral philosophy rather than either doing one’s duty or acting in order to
bring about good consequences (Athanassoulis, N. n.d.). Therefore, the fundamental
component of moral behavior is the person’s character rather than ethical duties and
rules about the acts themselves or consequences of particular actions. This moral
theory is character or person-based rather than action based because it places
special emphasis on the moral character of the person executing the act.
Virtue ethics is primarily concerned with traits of character that

are essential to human flourishing, not with the enumeration of
duties. It falls somewhat outside the traditional dichotomy
between deontological ethics and consequentialism: It agrees
with consequentialism that the criterion of an action’s being
morally right or wrong lies in its relation to an end that
has intrinsic value, but more closely resembles deontological
ethics in its view that morally right actions are constitutive of the
end itself and not mere instrumental means to the end (Virtue
ethics, n.d.).
Virtue ethics is not only concern with the morality of individual acts, but it is
also a source of counsel as to the type of attributes and behaviors human beings
should realize. It does not just focus its attention on particular moral acts, rather
70
more concerned with the whole of a person's life. It believes that a moral being is
someone who lives virtuously, someone who possesses and actually applies the
virtues he has learned.
Watch your thoughts; they become words.

Watch your words, they become actions.
Watch your actions; they become habits.
Watch your habits; they become character.
Watch your character; it becomes your destiny.
- Frank Outlaw
2. Meta-ethics
Meta-ethics is a branch of analytic philosophy that explores the status,

foundations, and scope of moral values, properties, and words. (Meta-ethics, n.d.) It
is an inquiry about the nature of ethical assertions, attitudes, and evaluations. Meta-
ethics belongs to the three branches of ethics considered as framework, the others
being normative ethics and applied ethics.
Garner and Rosen (1967), claimed that there are three kinds of meta-ethical
problems, or three general questions:
1. What is the meaning of moral terms or judgments? (moral semantics)

2. What is the nature of moral judgments? (moral ontology)
3. How may moral judgments be supported or defended? (moral epistemology)
The first meta-ethical problem or general question investigates the meaning of

the terms: good, bad, right and wrong. Question of the second kind inquires on the
universality or relativity of moral judgments. The third problem raises the question on
our ability to know if a human act is right or wrong, if at all. Garner and Rosen
(1967), argued that answers to the three basic questions are not unrelated, and
sometimes an answer to one will strongly suggest, or perhaps even entail, an
answer to another.

Meta-ethical theories are commonly categorized semantically as either
cognitivism or non-cognitivism; substantially as either universalism or relativism; and
epistemologically as empiricism, rationalism, or intuitionism.
Moral Cognitivism versus Moral Non-Cognitivism
a. Moral Cognitivism holds that moral statements do express beliefs and that they
are apt for truth and falsity (Moral Cognitivism vs. Non-Cognitivism, 2018). It
claims that ethical sentences convey propositions that are capable being true or
false. It also declares that right and wrong are matters of fact. Moral realism and
ethical subjectivism are the two most common forms of cognitivism.
a.1 Moral Realism (or Moral Objectivism) is the position that ethical
sentences express propositions that refer to objective features of the world, that
is, features independent of subjective opinion (Shafer-Landau,2015). It
assumes that moral values are objectively true and their truth does not depend
71
or are independent of our opinions, perception, beliefs, feelings or attitudes of
them.
a.2 Ethical Subjectivism is the meta-ethical view which claims that the truth or

falsity of such propositions is ineliminably dependent on the (actual or
hypothetical) attitudes of people (Brandt ,1959). Contrary to moral realism,
ethical subjectivism argues that there are no objective moral truths. The truth or
falsity of ethical propositions is dependent on our opinions, perception, beliefs,
feelings or attitudes towards them. Ethical sentences are arbitrary because they
do not convey unchanging truths.
b. Moral Non-cognitivism holds the view that ethical statements lack truth-

value which means they are neither true nor false. According to Garner and
Rosen (1967), noncognitivist denies the cognitivist claim that moral judgments
are capable of being objectively true, because they describe some feature of the
world. If moral statements cannot be true, and if one cannot know something that
is not true, noncognitivism implies that moral knowledge is impossible (Garner
and Rosen,1967). Moral truths are not the type of truths that can be known.
b.1 Emotivism is a meta-ethical view that claims that ethical sentences do not

express propositions but emotional attitudes (Garner and Rosen,1967). It
assumes that the purpose of ethical propositions is to convey emotions of
approval or disapproval. To a certain degree they are also imperatives meant to
sway the frame of mind of other people.
Moral Universalism versus Moral Relativism
a. Moral Universalism which is also called moral objectivism proposes

that ethical implications of an action is universally applicable to everybody,
regardless of circumstance. It believes that there is a universal moral
system which applies to anyone which transcends culture, nationality, race,
religion, sexuality or other distinguishing feature.
b. Moral Relativism is a philosophical position which believes that moral

judgments are true or false only relative to some particular standpoint (for
instance, that of a culture or a historical period) and that no standpoint is
uniquely privileged over all others (Westacott, n.d.). Moral judgments differ
from person to person and are all equally valid and no one’s belief of right
and wrong is really better than any other. There is no objective and ultimate
standard of morality, so each moral judgment about right and wrong is
relative to a person’s cultural, social, historical or personal circumstances and
preferences.
Moral Empiricism versus Moral Rationalism versus Moral Intuitionism
a. Moral Empiricism is an ethical perspective which assumes that moral

knowledge is based on one’s experiences and observations. It claims that
moral learning and knowledge is not possible without experience. This ethical
view is an extension of empiricism in epistemology that states that knowledge
comes only or primarily from sensory experience (Psillos and Curd,
72
2010). Empiricism emphasizes the role of empirical evidence in the
formation of ideas, rather than innate ideas or traditions (Forrest and
Kaufmann, 2008). Other forms of moral empiricism suggest that moral truths
are reducible to matters about man’s judgments and beliefs or cultural
practices and therefore are recognizable by observation and experience of
their practices.
b. Moral Rationalism is a view in meta-ethics (specifically the epistemology of

ethics) according to which moral principles are knowable a priori, by reason
alone (Capps and Pattinson, 2017). It considers reason as the main source
and test of moral knowledge. Because of reason, certain moral truths exist
and that the intellect can directly grasp these truths.
c. Moral Intuitionism argued that moral truths are self-evident, that is, evident
in and of themselves and so can be known without the need of any proof or
reasoning. What is morally right or morally wrong is self-evident in nature and
cannot be known through human experience.
Intuitionism teaches three main things: (1) There are real objective moral
truths that are independent of human beings. (2) These are fundamental
truths that can't be broken down into parts or defined by reference to anything
except other moral truths. (3) Human beings can discover these truths by
using their minds in a particular, intuitive way (Intuitionism, n.d.).
The concepts of right and wrong and objective moral truths do exist and
culture does not change those. A fundamental moral truth is like any
fundamental truth and no one can't attempt to break it down any further
because things that are moral good are simply morally good. Man has the
ability to intuitively know if something is right or wrong.
Intuitionism does not mean that all moral decisions are reached
by relying on intuition. Intuition enables the discovery of
the basic moral truths, and everyday moral decision-making
then involves thinking about the choices available and making
moral judgements in an ordinary sort of way. (Intuitionism, n.d.)
3. Applied ethics
Applied ethics, in a broad sense, refers to any use of philosophical methods

critically to examine practical moral decisions and to treat moral problems, practices,
and policies in the professions, technology, government, and the like (Applied ethics,
2020). As a problem-solving branch of ethics, it strives to find out the application of
moral knowledge into practice. In other words, it bridges ethical theory and practical
and feasible solutions. It has produced principle-based attitude toward ethical issues
which in many instances result in solutions to particular problems that are not
globally acceptable.
This discipline studies difficult moral questions and controversial moral issues
that human beings actually face in their lives like: abortion, euthanasia, death
penalty, suicide, cloning humans, vaccination, harassment, discrimination, gay or
73
lesbian relations, war tactics, animal rights, capital punishments or nuclear war and
environmental issues.
Some of the key areas of applied ethics are: bioethics, environmental ethics,
business ethics, sexual ethics, and social ethics.
Bioethics
This is branch of applied ethics that studies the philosophical, social, and legal

issues arising in medicine and the life sciences (Chadwick, n.d.). Bioethics devotes
its time and attention in studying the moral controversies brought about by advances
in biology and medicine. It is concerned with scientific advances that can alter the
way we understand health and illness and, ultimately, the way we live and die. It is
multidisciplinary because it draws contributions from many different academic
disciplines or professional specializations such as philosophy, theology, history,
anthropology, law, medicine, nursing, health policy, social work and the medical
humanities.
Issues that are considered in bioethics include: cloning, surrogate

motherhood, human genetic engineering, genomics, stem cell research, organ
donation and transplantation, transplant trade, medical and genetic data privacy,
cyber-attacks against medical devices and systems, biohacking, biological
differences based on inequalities in wealth, bioterrorism, technological sexuality,
assisted reproductive technologies, ethical issues on brain imaging and testing,
nanotechnologies (using small particles to deliver medicine or other medical
treatments), and genetically modified food.
Environmental Ethics
This is the discipline in philosophy that studies the moral relationship of

human beings to, and also the value and moral status of, the environment and its
non-human contents (Environmental ethics, 2015). It deals with man’s moral
obligation to the preservation and care of the non-human world.
Environmental ethics rests on the principle that all life forms on earth have
the right to live. Human beings and nature are closely linked with each other
because they depend on one another for their existence. Owing to their inseparable
relationship, the guiding principles of man’s life and his ethical values should include
it. By destroying the environment and its non-human contents, man unjustly and
immorally denies its right to live.
The topics for debate in environmental ethics include: global climate change,
the depletion of natural resources, loss of biodiversity, destruction of ecosystems,
water and air pollution, waterways, the use of fertilizers, animal experimentation, and
endangered species preservation.
Business Ethics
74
This can be understood as the study of the ethical dimensions of productive
organizations and commercial activities (Business ethics, 2016). It is interested in the
analyses of the ethical problems and principles in the manufacture, supply,
advertising, and selling of products and services.
Business ethics is beyond just a moral code of right and wrong in the
workplace. Over and above their obligation to the law, business organizations must
be conscious of the moral impact of their activities on customers, employees,
shareholders, communities and the environment in all aspects of their operations.
More than knowledge and experience in managing a business the interests of

the community are of paramount importance. There should be a balance between
the purpose of business, which is to make money and its unwritten social
responsibilities to its employees and society.
Corporate governance, employee rights, unions, insider trading, bribery,

misleading advertising, discrimination, corporate social responsibility, fiduciary
responsibilities, and even slavery are some of the controversial subjects addressed
in business ethics.
Sexual Ethics
This is commonly understood as the study of human sexuality and sexual

behavior. It seeks to investigate thoroughly moral behavior regarding with whom
people have sex and how they do so. It is an attempt to bring about a
comprehensive understanding of the moral conduct of interpersonal relationships
and sexual practices from social, cultural, religious, medical, legal and philosophical
perspectives.
Sexual ethics explores topics such as procreation, abortion, contraception,

adultery, extramarital sex, sexual harassment, sexual abuse, polyamory, seduction,
flirting, prostitution, homosexuality, pornography, masturbation, incest, rape,
sadomasochism, bestiality, pedophilia, sexually transmitted infections, genital
modification and mutilation, teenage pregnancy, celibacy, and marriage.
Social Ethics
This is an analysis of the set of rules, guidelines, values, behaviors and

responsibilities people have toward themselves, each other, and the world as a
whole. The collection of social principles regulate relationships within a society,
specifically with regard to determining what is considered morally right, just and
noble. The rules which society judges acceptable are expected to be followed
because they are meant to guide people in their ethical choices and values.
Social ethics teaches what each person will and will not tolerate from each
other within society. To maintain social equilibrium, the welfare of society as a whole
must be placed ahead of the interests of any individual. People in a society cannot
do as they please. There are social norms and laws that prescribe boundaries and
encourage social responsibility.
75
Social ethics validates if people’s decisions and actions cause harm to society
or the environment. Each person is responsible to act in manner that benefits his
society and not solely himself.
Social ethics closely and thoroughly examines problems such as:

environmental pollution, global warming, antisocial behavior, poverty,
malnourishment, lack of access to food and clean water, access to clean and
affordable living, unemployment, homelessness, discrimination and violence, drug
abuse, alcohol abuse, political corruption, prostitution, sexual abuse, rape, early
pregnancy, same-sex marriage, birth control, HIV/AIDS, prostitution, gay marriages,
gender issues, child labor, lack of proper access to education, the shortage of
schools, the lack of infrastructure, alcoholism, food and drug safety, suicide, drug
abuse, capital punishment, animal abuse, human rights, women's rights, children’s
rights, world population, organ & body donation, euthanasia & assisted suicide,
death penalty, consumer debt and bankruptcy, judicial reform, censorship, gun
control, terrorism, nuclear weapon production, immigration, tobacco, nuclear
proliferation, cancer, health care reform, religious conflict & war, political polarization,
government accountability, lack of access to credit, eating disorders, obesity and the
lack of physical fitness programs.
Activity 1
Direction: Students will be grouped into ten. Each group will read the Shipwreck
situation and then illustrate how different theoretical approaches (e.g. deontology
and virtue ethics) will lead to different solutions that are both valid in terms of the
particular approach.
Imagine that you are involved in a shipwreck situation - a ship has started to
sink in the middle of the ocean. Eleven people have jumped into a life-boat that has
been designed for a maximum of ten people only, and the life-boat is also starting to
sink. What should the passengers do? Throw one person overboard and save ten
lives? Or stick to the principle of "do not kill", which means that everybody will
drown?
76
Assessment Task
Exercise 1
Name: _____________________ Course & Year: _______________
Direction: Identify the following statements and write your answers in the space
provided.
___________________ 1. It is a branch of analytic philosophy that explores
_ the status, foundations, and scope of moral values,
properties, and words.
___________________ 2. It holds that moral statements do express beliefs
_ and that they are apt for truth and falsity.
___________________ 3. It holds the view that ethical statements lack truth-
_ value which means they are neither true nor false.
___________________ 4. It is regarded as a branch of ethical inquiry that
_ considered general ethical questions whose answers
had some relatively direct bearing on practice.
___________________ 5. It is an ethical theory that places the locus of right
_ and wrong in autonomous adherence to moral laws
or duties.
___________________ 6. It is a theory of morality that derives duty
_ or moral obligation from what is good or desirable as
an end to be achieved.
___________________ 7. It refers to any use of philosophical methods
_ critically to examine practical moral decisions and to
treat moral problems, practices, and policies in the
professions, technology, government, and the like.
___________________ 8. It is a branch of applied ethics that studies the
_ philosophical, social, and legal issues arising
in medicine and the life sciences.
___________________ 9. It is the discipline in philosophy that studies the
_ moral relationship of human beings to, and also the
value and moral status of, the environment and its
non-human contents.
___________________ 10. It is an analysis of the set of rules, guidelines,
_ values, behaviors and responsibilities people have
toward themselves, each other, and the world as a
whole.
77
Exercise 2
Name: _________________________ Course & Year:
______________
Essay: Choose one of the three basic areas of ethical study and explain how it
helps an individual understand his or her moral experiences? (15 points)
_______________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
78
Learning Resources
Books:
Baggini, Julian (2016). Philosophy: key texts. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Bradshaw, J. (2009). Reclaiming Virtue: How We Can Develop the Moral
Intelligence to Do the Right Thing at the Right Time for the Right
Reason. New York: Bantam.
Brickhouse, T.C..; Smith, N.D. (1990). Socrates on trial. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Capps, P. and Pattinson, S. (2017) (eds.). Ethical rationalism and the law.
Oxford: Hart publishing.
Carr, D. and Steutel, J. (eds.). (1999). Virtue ethics and moral education.
United Kingdom: Routledge.
Carr, W. (2005). What is the philosophy of education?. The Routledge Falmer
Reader in the Philosophy of Education, Oxon: Routledge.
Duignan, B. (2009). The 100 most influential philosophers of all time. New
York: The Rosen Publishing Group.
Garner, R. and Rosen, B. (1967). Moral philosophy: a systematic introduction
to normative ethics and meta-ethics. New York: Macmillan.
Grayling, A. C. (2019). The history of philosophy. United Kingdom: Penguin
Books UK.
Hursthouse, R. 1999, On virtue ethics, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Porter, J. (1994). The recovery of virtue. London: Society for Promoting
Christian Knowledge.
Psillos, S. and Curd, M. (2010). The Routledge companion to philosophy of
science. London: Routledge.
Ramos, C.R. (2010). Introduction to philosophy. 2nd ed. Manila: Rex
Bookstore Inc.
Reyes, R. (1989). Ground and norm of morality; ethics for college students.
Manila: Ateneo de Manila University Press.
Shafer-Landau, R. (ed.) (2015). Oxford studies in metaethics, Vol. 10, Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Soccio, D. J. (2007) Archetypes of wisdom: an introduction to philosophy. 7th
edition. Australia: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
Stumpf, S. E. (1999). Socrates to Sartre: a history of philosophy. Singapore:
The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
Online Sources:
Amadio, A. and Kenny, A. (n.d.). Aristotle greek philosopher. Retrieved from
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Aristotle
Applied ethics, (2020). Retrieved from
https://www.encyclopedia.com/humanities/encyclopedias-almanacs-
transcripts-and-maps/applied-ethics
Aristotle. (n.d.). Nichomachean ethics: Book II. trans. W. D. Ross (Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1925; Internet Classics Archive) Retrieved from
http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/nicomachaen.2.ii.html
Athanassoulis, N. (n.d.). Virtue ethics. Retrieved from
https://www.Iep.utm.edu/virtue/
Business ethics, (2016). Retrieved from
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethicsbusiness/
79
Catechism of the Catholic Church: Article 7: The Virtues (n.d.).
https://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a7.htm
Chadwick, R. (n.d.) Bioethics. Retrieved from
https://www.britannica.com/topic/bioethics/Approaches
Chenu, M.D. (2019). St. Thomas Aquinas. Retrieved from
https://www.britannica.com/Saint-Thomas-Aquinas/Years-at-the-papalCuria-
and-return-to-Paris
Deontological ethics (n.d.). Retrieved from
https://www.britannica.com/topic/deontological-ethics
Deontological Theories (2002). Retrieved from
http://caae.phil.cmu.edu/Cavalier/80130/part2/sect8.html
Environmental ethics, (2015). Retrieved from
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-environmental/
Fieser, J. (n.d.). Ethics. Retrieved from https://www.iep.utm.edu/ethics/#H2
Framework. (n.d.) https://www.thefreedictionary.com/framework
Intuitionism. (n.d.) Retrieved from
http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/introduction/intuitionism_1.shtml
Kraut,R. (2020). Socrates greek philosopher. Retrieved from
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Socrates
Meinwald, C.C. (2020). Plato greek philosopher. Retrieved from
https://wwwbritannica.com/biography/Plato
Metaethics. (n.d.) Retrieved from https://www.iep.utm.edu/metaethi/
Moral Cognitivism vs. Non-Cognitivism. (2018) Retrieved from
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-cognitivism/
Nicomachean Ethics. (n.d.) Retrieved from
https://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/ethics/context/
Nicomachean Ethics. (n.d.) Retrieved February 18, 2020 from
https://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/ethics/section6/page/2/
Normative Ethical theories (2020) Retrieved from
https:///www.encyclopedia.com/science/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-
and-maps/ethics-iii-normative-ethical-theories
Pedemonte, A. (2014). Aristotle´s ethical theory: on the concepts of virtue and
golden mean. Retrieved from
https://aquileana.wordpress.com/2014/01/25/aristotles-ethical-theory-on-the-
concepts-of-virtue-and-golden-mean/
Plato, (n.d) https://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/plato/themes/
Kraut,R. (2020). Socrates greek philosopher . Retrieved from
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Socrates
Teleological ethics (n.d.). https://www.britannica.com/topic/moraltheology
The Pursuit of Happiness (2018). Aristotle. Retrieved from
https://www.pursuitofhappiness.org/history-of-happiness/aristotle
The Summa Theologica, (n.d) Retrieved from
http://www.documentacatholicaomnia.eu/03d/12251274,ThomasAquinas,Sum
maTheologiae%5B1%5D,EN.pdf
Virtue ethics, (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.britannica.com/topic/virtue-
ethics
Virtue, (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15472a.htm
Westacott, E. (n.d) Moral Relativism. https://www.iep.utm.edu/moral-re/
80
MODULE CONTENT
Topic 2: Virtue Ethics
Learning Outcomes:
1. identify the different concepts in virtue ethics;
2. analyze the various perspectives of virtue ethics;
3. ascribe the appropriate virtues that befit a certain individual; and
4. explain how virtues become values.
Introduction
Virtue Ethics began in ancient Greek philosophy. Socrates was thought to

have facilitated its beginning and was subsequently developed considerably
by Plato, Aristotle, and the Stoics. Normative ethical philosophies constitute virtue
ethics which stresses being rather than doing. Morality, in virtue ethics, originates
from the character of the human person, instead of just a reflection of the actions (or
consequences thereof) of the human person.
A virtue is generally agreed to be a character trait, such as a habitual action or

settled sentiment (Carr and Steutel,1999). Virtue (arete in Greek) is a positive trait
that renders a human person good. A virtue is different from feelings, as claimed
by Hursthouse (1999):
A virtue such as honesty or generosity is not just a tendency to do

what is honest or generous, nor is it to be helpfully specified as a
“desirable” or “morally valuable” character trait. It is, indeed a
character trait—that is, a disposition which is well entrenched in its
possessor, something that, as we say “goes all the way down”,
unlike a habit such as being a tea-drinker—but the disposition in
question, far from being a single track disposition to do honest
actions, or even honest actions for certain reasons, is multi-track. It
is concerned with many other actions as well, with emotions and
emotional reactions, choices, values, desires, perceptions, attitudes,
interests, expectations and sensibilities. To possess a virtue is to be
a certain sort of person with a certain complex mindset. (Hence the
extreme recklessness of attributing a virtue on the basis of a single
action.)
Virtue ethics addresses the question, “What sort of person must I be to be an

excellent person?” rather than “What is my duty?” Virtues are habitual, excellent
traits that are intentionally developed throughout one’s life.
81
1. Socrates’ Ethics
Socrates, (born c. 470 BCE, Athens [Greece]—died 399 BCE, Athens), Greek

philosopher whose way of life, character, and thought exerted a profound influence
on ancient and modern philosophy.
Socrates was a widely recognized and controversial figure in his native Athens,
so much so that he was frequently mocked in the plays of comic dramatists.
(The Clouds of Aristophanes, produced in 423, is the best-known example.)
Although Socrates himself wrote nothing, he is depicted in conversation
in compositions by a small circle of his admirers—Plato and Xenophon first among
them. He is portrayed in these works as a man of great insight, integrity, self-
mastery, and argumentative skill. The impact of his life was all the greater because
of the way in which it ended: at age 70, he was brought to trial on a charge of impiety
and sentenced to death by poisoning (the poison probably being hemlock) by a jury
of his fellow citizens.
Plato’s Apology of Socrates purports to be the speech Socrates gave at his trial

in response to the accusations made against him (Greek apologia means “defense”).
Its powerful advocacy of the examined life and its condemnation of
Athenian democracy have made it one of the central documents of Western thought
and culture. (adapted from Kraut,R., 2020)
Though there are no primary texts of the teachings of Socrates, (but with the
recordings of Plato), it is known that Socrates was an avid promoter of moral
reasoning and critical thinking among the citizens of Athens.
Socrates’ Moral Philosophy
Socrates believed the best way for people to live was to focus on the pursuit
of virtue rather than the pursuit, for instance, of material wealth (Brickhouse and
Smith, 1990). He always invited others to try to concentrate more on friendships and
a sense of true community, for Socrates felt this was the best way for people to grow
together as a populace (Nichols, 1987). As manifested in his actions, Socrates lived
up to his beliefs. Known for his strength of mind, which was beyond reproach, he
accepted his death sentence when many opined he would clearly run away from
Athens, as he believed he could not escape or oppose the desire of his community.
Socrates concentrated on human behavior and tried to discover what makes a

virtuous life. He thought that a virtuous life is the key to man’s happiness. Virtue and
happiness are inextricably linked, such that it would be impossible to have one
without the other. The soul is the seat of knowledge and virtue.
Virtue is not something to be taught or acquired through education,

but rather it is merely an awakening of the seeds of good deeds that
lay dormant in the mind and heart of a person. Knowing what is in
82
the mind and heart of a human being is achieved through self-
knowledge (Ramos, 2010).
This knowledge which leads to virtue must be discovered by man if he wants

a virtuous and happy life. Moreover, man must not only know the rules of right living,
he must also live them. Socrates concluded that true knowledge means wisdom
which, in turn, means virtue. For him, knowledge is virtue. Knowledge and virtue are
the same thing. To know what is good means to do what is good. This is the
connotation of the Socratic dictum: “Know yourself”.
When he equated virtue and knowledge, Socrates had in mind a

particular conception of virtue. For him, virtue meant fulfilling one’s
function. As a rational being, a person’s function is to behave
rationally. At the same time, every human being has the inescapable
desire for happiness or the well-being of his or her soul (Stumpf,
1999).
In Socrates’s ethical teachings, what is unlikely to escape observation is that

there are specific virtues which fashion a common thread. Socrates believed that the
most important characteristic a person must possess are virtues, foremost of which
are the philosophical or intellectual virtues. Socrates stressed that “the unexamined
life is not worth living [and] ethical virtue is the only thing that matters” (Duignan,
2009).
2. Plato’s Ethics
Plato, (born 428/427 BCE, Athens, Greece - died 348/347, Athens),

ancient Greek philosopher, student of Socrates (c. 470–399 BCE), teacher
of Aristotle (384–322 BCE), and founder of the Academy, best known as the author
of philosophical works of unparalleled influence. He is believed by some people to
have been the most outstanding philosopher to have ever lived.
Building on the demonstration by Socrates that those regarded as experts

in ethical matters did not have the understanding necessary for a good human life,
Plato introduced the idea that their mistakes were due to their not engaging properly
with a class of entities he called forms, chief examples of which were Justice,
Beauty, and Equality. Whereas other thinkers—and Plato himself in certain
passages—used the term without any precise technical force, Plato in the course of
his career came to devote specialized attention to these entities. As he conceived
them, they were accessible not to the senses but to the mind alone, and they were
the most important constituents of reality, underlying the existence of the sensible
world and giving it what intelligibility it has. In metaphysics Plato envisioned a
systematic, rational treatment of the forms and their interrelations, starting with the
most fundamental among them (the Good, or the One); in ethics and moral
psychology he developed the view that the good life requires not just a certain kind
of knowledge (as Socrates had suggested) but also habituation to healthy emotional
responses and therefore harmony between the three parts of the soul (according to
Plato, reason, spirit, and appetite). His works also contain discussions
in aesthetics, political philosophy, theology, cosmology, epistemology, and
the philosophy of language. His school fostered research not just in philosophy
83
narrowly conceived but in a wide range of endeavors that today would be called
mathematical or scientific. (adapted from Meinwald, C.C., 2020)
Plato’s reasoning was based on his belief that there are two realms of reality:
first is the realm of Forms and the second realm is the world of Appearances.
Plato’s Moral Philosophy
Plato believed that the realm of Forms contains the essence of concepts and
objects, and even the essence of object’s properties. He considered the world of
Forms to be the real world, though humans do not live in that world.
Central to Plato’s philosophy is his Theory of Forms which states that there
are two distinct levels of reality which exist: the visible world (or the world of the
senses) and the intelligible world of Forms (or the abstract world of thought) that
stands above the visible world and gives it being. For example, we are able to
identify a courageous person because we have a general conception of Courage
itself, and we are able to identify the courage in a person only because we have this
conception of Courage in the abstract. In other words, the courageous people we
observe are courageous only because they participate in the more general Form of
Courage. This Form of Courage is itself invisible, eternal, and unchanging, unlike
courageous people in the visible world who grow old and lose their courage when
they die.
The Theory of Forms envisions an entire world of such Forms, a

world that exists outside of time and space, where Beauty, Justice,
Courage, Temperance, and the like exist untarnished by the changes and
imperfections of the visible world (Plato, n.d.)
Plato also believed that there is a form for morality. He considered it as the
highest of all forms which he termed as the Form of Good. This Form of Good is a
single Form by virtue of which all good things are good. For him, those who grasp
the nature of the Good will always perform good actions while bad actions are results
of not understanding the true meaning of the Good. For man to be good it is his
responsibility to take care of himself by bringing back the rulership of reason. To
become good or virtuous, he must always follow the lead of reason, with passions
and appetites on a tight leash.
The peculiar function of the rational part of man is to seek the true goal of
human life, and it does this by evaluating things according to their true
nature. Although the passions or appetites might lead us into a world of
fantasy and deceive us into believing that certain kinds of pleasures will
bring us happiness, it is the unique role of reason to penetrate the world of
fantasy, to discover the true world and thereby direct the passions to
objects of love that are capable of producing true pleasure and true
happiness (Stumpf, 1999).
Plato maintained that the intellect should be sovereign, the will second, and
the emotions subject to intellect and will. The just person, whose life is ordered in
this way, is therefore the good person.
84
3. Aristotle’s Ethics
Aristotle was known to be Plato’s pupil. He regarded happiness as the goal of

human existence. Aristotle, born 384 BCE, Stagira, Chalcidice, Greece – died
322, Chalcis, Euboea), ancient Greek philosopher and scientist, one of the
greatest intellectual figures of Western history. He was the author of a philosophical
and scientific system that became the framework and vehicle for both
Christian Scholasticism and medieval Islamic philosophy. Even after the intellectual
revolutions of the Renaissance, the Reformation, and the Enlightenment, Aristotelian
concepts remained embedded in Western thinking. (Adapted from Amadio, A. and
Kenny, A., n.d.)
Aristotle’s Moral Philosophy
For Aristotle, moral virtues are habits of action that conform to the golden
mean, the principle of moderation, and they must be flexible because of differences
among people and conditioning factors.
Aristotle’s great contribution to ethics can be sourced from three different

versions of his moral philosophy: the less well known Eudemian Ethics (Ethica
Eudemia), Nicomachean Ethics (Ethika Nikomacheia) his best-known work
on ethics, and Great Ethics (Magna Moralia ). The first two works were said to be his
notes for lecturing, and the third was presumably the notes of his lectures made by
one of his students. The Nicomachean ethics was generally regarded by scholars as
the Ethics of Aristotle. The Eudemian ethics and Great Ethics have never been
studied by more than a handful of scholars.
a. Telos
Aristotle believed that everything has a telos (Greek term for end, purpose, or
goal) In his teleological view, he raised the question to what end, purpose or goal do
different things aim constantly. The philosopher went as far as saying that telos can
encompass all forms of human activity (Baggini, 2016). Aristotle explained that
the telos of the blacksmith is the production of a sword, while that of the
swordsman's, which uses the weapon as a tool, is to kill or incapacitate an enemy
(Grayling, 2019). On the other hand, the telos of these occupations are merely part
of the purpose of a ruler, who must oversee the direction and well-being of a state
(Grayling, 2019). This maybe further illustrated in the way one can say that
the telos of education is man’s development; the telos of work is the nourishment
and fulfillment of humankind; and the telos of acts of human sexuality in marriage is
twofold: procreation and the expression of mutual love and enrichment of the
couple. Within this teleological view, there are telos that are subordinate to
other telos since all activities have their own particular ends. For Aristotle, these
subordinate telos can become the means to achieve more fundamental telos
(Baggini, 2016).
In arranging things in classes, Aristotle categorized men as “rational animals,”

which signifies that their end, purpose or goal is rational. To put it simply, our
responsibility is to bring into reality our full potential as rational animals. If we are not
fully rational, we are distancing ourselves from our authentic essence.
85
This teleological view gives Aristotle’s Ethics a clear sense of
direction. Our goal in life is to achieve our true nature, and this true
nature consists essentially of rationality. The purpose of a moral
education, then, is to teach us how we may become perfectly
rational and immune to the temptations of our lower animalistic parts.
(Nicomachean Ethics, n.d.)
b. Eudaimonia and arete
When Aristotle raised his question, “what is the ultimate purpose of human
existence? He believed that an important goal should be to pursue “that which is
always desirable in itself and never for the sake of something else” (Pursuit of
Happiness, 2018). Aristotle thought that everything has a purpose and, according to
that purpose, man must decide whether things are good or bad. He thought that the
ultimate end and purpose of mankind is Eudaimonia. Eudaimonia is often translated
as happiness, however it was also understood as welfare, flourishing, or well-being.
Eudaimonia is believed to be attained through the exercise of virtue, practical
wisdom, and rationality. Aristotle claimed that it is innate in man to seek happiness.
The nature and purpose of human action tend towards happiness, which Aristotle
termed as eudaimonia (Soccio, 2007).
Aristotle argued that what distinguishes man from animal is his rationality. He
asserted that pleasure alone cannot result in happiness because animals are driven
by the pursuit of pleasure and according to Aristotle man has greater capacities than
animals (Pursuit of Happiness, 2018). Aristotle’s theorized: the function of man is to
live a certain kind of life, and this activity implies a rational principle, and the function
of a good man is the good and noble performance of these, and if any action is well
performed it is performed in accord with the appropriate excellence: if this is the
case, then happiness turns out to be an activity of the soul in accordance with virtue
(Aristotle, 2004). For him, happiness is not pleasure, nor is it virtue, rather it is the
exercise of virtue (Pursuit of Happiness, 2018).
The idea of virtue (arête) is of paramount importance to Aristotle’s philosophy

of happiness. Arete fundamentally means "excellence" of any kind but is also
understood as "moral virtue”. It is tied to the idea of man living up to his full potential.
It expresses a conscious striving towards being the best one can be. Man is
excellent when he demonstrates his unique telos or purpose. Since rationality is
man’s unique, defining quality, he manifests arete (excellence) if he correctly uses
his reason, principally in relation with moral choice. Man’s happiness is the
perfection of his essence. His happiness is contingent on the exercise of his reason.
The exercise of man’s rationality is the supreme good.
Aristotle maintained that in aiming for happiness, the most essential element
is to have a complete virtue or good moral character (Pursuit of Happiness, 2008).
Happiness involves, through the course of an entire life, choosing the ‘greater good’
not necessarily that which brings immediate, short term pleasure (Pursuit of
Happiness, 2008). Every human act must always aim at its proper end. Pleasure,
though it has value cannot be considered as the ultimate end or good for which
every man must aim. Happiness is not void of pleasures, however, pleasures are an
intrinsic effect, not the appropriate aim. Since pleasure is linked to the irrational part
86
of the soul, happiness should not be associated with pleasure. Pleasure, wealth,
honor, fame and success are not the goals of life because these would not lead man
to eudaimonia (the highest or fullest happiness). The highest and fullest happiness,
according to Aristotle, comes from a life of reason and contemplation-not a life of
inactivity or imbalance but a rationally ordered life in which intellectual, physical, and
social needs are all met under the governance of reason and moderation (Soccio,
2007). Happiness cannot be achieved until the end of one's life, hence it is a goal
and not a temporary state. (Pursuit of Happiness, 2008).
Man develops virtue or good moral character through habit and practice rather
than through instruction and reasoning. By practicing generosity, justice, friendship,
honesty, courage, justice, patience, temperance, modesty and other virtues man
acquires an honorable and moral character. If man continuously and consistently
hones virtuous habits, he will be able to make the right choice when faced with moral
challenges.
To achieve a virtuous life in the best manner, man must live with the polis
(city) or society which Aristotle called a political association. Every man needs a
social life. No man would choose to live without others because by nature man is
social animal destined to live with others. The goodness or badness of all human
acts depends on its effect on others.
c. The Golden Mean
Aristotle differentiated intellectual virtues from moral virtues. The former are
exercised in the process of thinking while the latter are exercised through action. He
thought that a moral virtue as a character trait should be practiced habitually. A
person who is gentle should be constantly gentle, not just gentle occasionally. For a
moral virtue to be deeply-rooted in one’s personality one must keep on exercising it
so it becomes habitual. It must be performed without fail or without any doubt or
hesitation. Hence, to become genuinely gentle one must keep doing gentleness until
gentleness comes naturally and effortlessly and becomes one’s second nature.
Aristotle believed that every moral virtue is a mean which rests between two
extremes states. The golden mean or golden middle way is the desirable middle
between two extremes, one of excess and the other of deficiency (Aristotle,
2004). Moral goodness means a balance between these two extreme vices.
However, moral virtue does not lie exactly at the center of two vices. According to
Aristotle, any action that is done or indulged excessively or insufficiently would go
out of bounds and would become unreasonable and improper to the nature of the
human being (Reyes, 1989). The golden mean is some sort of sliding scale or
yardstick for deciding what is virtuous. It is concerned with development of good
character. Virtue is achieved and preserved by avoiding these two extremes. A
person should choose what lies between the two much and the not enough. Every
human act that comes from the golden middle way should be ruled by reason, which
commands the desires and passion into a balanced whole.
Each moral virtue is a kind of moderation as it is directed toward a moderate

amount or the mean between two corresponding vices, one of excess and one of
deficiency. In his Nicomachean Ethics, he presented some moral virtues:
87
Excess (vice) Mean (virtue) Deficiency (vice)
Rashness Courage Cowardice
Licentiousness Temperance Insensibility
Prodigality Liberality Illiberality
Vulgarity Magnificence Pettiness
Vanity Magnanimity Pusillanimity
Ambition Proper ambition Unambitiousness
Irascibility Patience Lack of spirit
Boastfulness Truthfulness Understatement
Buffoonery Wittiness Boorishness
flattery Friendliness Cantankerousness
Shyness Modesty Shamelessness
Envy Righteous indignation Malicious enjoyment
The table of virtues above shows only an approximation and applies

differently to different people. It is not designed as a set of exact rules. Aristotle
believed that a genuinely virtuous person will have no need of rules because he will
consistently act properly.
For Aristotle, virtue is an all-or-nothing affair. We cannot pick and

choose our virtues: we cannot decide that we will be courageous and
temperate but choose not to be magnificent. Nor can we call people
properly virtuous if they fail to exhibit all of the virtues. Though
Aristotle lists a number of virtues, he sees them all as coming from
the same source. A virtuous person is someone who is naturally
disposed to exhibit all the virtues, and a naturally virtuous disposition
exhibits all the virtues equally (Pedemonte, 2014).
Aristotle’s golden mean was not intended as a one-size-fits-all method. The

middle way that he advised people to follow is relative. Since it is subjective, what he
considered was the mean that is good for a particular person. There is no universal
mean or middle way that is applicable to every situation and to every single person.
The golden mean or golden middle way is meant to assist a person in living a
virtuous life. It requires a long moral training. Moreover, it must be noted that not
every action has a middle way. Adultery, spite, envy and such are bad, whether they
are done a little or much, just as temperance and courage are forever good
(Aristotle, 2004).
It is indeed challenging to attain the mean but Aristotle admonished those who
are trying hard to achieve it: What is necessary first in aiming at the mean is to avoid
that extreme which is the more opposed to the mean. Since of the two extremes one
is a more serious error than the other, and since hitting the mean accurately is hard,
the second-best thing… is to take the lesser of the evils (Aristotle, 2004).
d. Phronesis
Aristotle believed that to be virtuous one must find the mean of a virtue, i.e.,
the desirable middle between two extremes, one of excess and the other of
deficiency. Achieving this balance is arduous. To assist a person in his search for
88
the mean he must determine the proper path in a certain situation, and according to
Aristotle this requires phronesis. The Greek term phronesis is commonly translated
as prudence or practical wisdom.
Phronesis is an intellectual virtue rather than a moral virtue because

we learn it through instruction and not practice, but it is very closely
connected to the moral virtues. Without phronesis, it would be
impossible to practice the moral virtues properly. A person who has
all the right moral virtues knows what ends to pursue, but
without phronesis, that person will not know how to set about
pursuing the right ends. Contrary to modern assumptions, Aristotle is
telling us that having one’s heart in the right place is not good
enough: being a good person requires a kind of practical intelligence
as well as a good disposition. (Nicomachean Ethics, n.d.)
Phronesis guides man in his deliberate moral choice in order to act rightly. It is
of central importance in the formation of virtuous character and in living a good life.
Phronesis is not achieved through formal education or training. It is not intellectual
value gained by finishing a degree in a school rather it is a moral and intellectual
virtue rooted innately in man. Phronesis or the natural ability to form sound
judgments and decisions throughout life can be acquired by anybody even without
educational background. It is obtained and developed through social interaction and
real life experiences. The ability to determine what is worth doing requires constant
practice. For Aristotle, “the end of a practice is some ethically worthwhile good that is
internal to, and inseparable from, the practice and only exists in the practice itself”
(Carr, 2005). Practical wisdom can be acquired through experience. Practical
wisdom can be likened to a skill like cooking. One can’t just read a cookbook expect
to become a master cook or a chef. One actually has to get into a kitchen and start
working with different ingredients to make a particular dish. So it is with practical
wisdom. One becomes more and more practically wise the more decisions one
makes. Knowledge of the wise things to do is not adequate, one must actually do it
to become adept at it through experience.
According to Aristotle, practical reasoning is not a methodological, rule-

governed skill that can first be taught in theory and then applied in practice (Carr,
2005). It evolves through self-understanding honed by correct reasoning and
experience. Phronesis as practical wisdom guides a person to learn and determine
the good to be desired and evil to be avoided in order to behave rightly in society.
Bradshaw (2009) thought that practical wisdom is the ability to do the right thing, at
the right time, for the right reason. Phronesis requires the power to rationally and
carefully think of actions which results into desired effects.
A person acquires phronesis as he advances to maturity and moves away

from rules and subsequently permits him to adjust to a more autonomous, person-
centered and virtue-centered morality. Phronesis is the path to true happiness and
excellence.
4. St. Thomas Aquinas’ Ethics
89
St. Thomas Aquinas, Italian San Tommaso d’Aquino, also called Aquinas,
byname Doctor Angelicus (Latin: “Angelic Doctor”), (born 1224/25, Roccasecca, near
Aquino, Terra di Lavoro, Kingdom of Sicily [Italy]—died March 7, 1274, Fossanova,
near Terracina, Latium, Papal States; canonized July 18, 1323; feast day January
28, formerly March 7), Italian Dominican theologian, the
foremost medieval Scholastic. He developed his own conclusions
from Aristotelian premises, notably in the metaphysics of personality, creation,
and Providence. As a theologian, he was responsible in his two masterpieces,
the Summa theologiae and the Summa contra gentiles, for the classical
systematization of Latin theology, and, as a poet, he wrote some of the most gravely
beautiful eucharistic hymns in the church’s liturgy. His doctrinal system and the
explanations and developments made by his followers are known as Thomism.
Although many modern Roman Catholic theologians do not find St. Thomas
altogether congenial, he is nevertheless recognized by the Roman Catholic
Church as its foremost Western philosopher and theologian. (adapted from
Chenu.M.D. (2019)
Aquinas’ Moral Philosophy
a. Law
St. Thomas Aquinas’ typology of laws is of paramount importance to his moral

philosophy. He defined law as an ordinance of reason for the common good,
promulgated by the one who is in charge of the community” (ST, I-II, q. 90, a. 4). Law
is considered an ordinance of reason because it is in accordance with reason or
logic and not entirely in the will of the lawgiver. It is for the common good for the
reason that the purpose of law is the benefit of the community it binds, and not only
the welfare of the legislator or members of a legislative body. It is promulgated in
order that the law can be clearly recognized by or familiar to all people. It is enacted
by the one who is in charge of the community and not on the basis of random choice
or personal whim by just anybody.
Aquinas proposed four kinds of law: eternal, natural, human, and divine.
Eternal law is described as nothing else than the type of Divine Wisdom, as
directing all actions and movements (ST, I-II, q. 93, a. 1). It is God's plan for
everyone and everything in the world. It is God’s will, not entirely understood by men.
Eternal law is God’s governance of the universe as its supreme ruler. All created
creatures are subject to this eternal law which directs them to their appointed end.
Natural law is the rational creature’s participation in the eternal law (ST I-II, q.
91, a. 2.). It is the sharing in the Eternal Law by intelligent creatures. The first
principle of the natural law is good is to be done and pursued, and evil avoided (ST I-
II, q. 94, a. 2.). Guided by reason, all men are bound to live their rational nature.
Through choice and reason man participates in the eternal law for his direction and
preservation. The natural law is universal since it includes all men of every period of
time.
Human law is commonly interpreted as positive laws which are enacted and
enforced in human societies. Aquinas argued that human laws are only valid if they
conform to natural law. If a law is unjust, then it is not actually a law, but a perversion
90
of law (ST, I-II, q. 95, a.2). For a human law to be a true law it must always be
directed to the common good. Human law is an application of natural law and cannot
depart from the essence of the natural law. Since natural law is too wide to present
clearly defined rules, the human law’s accurate rules of behavior are generally
assumed to spell out what the natural law instructs.
Divine law is God’s law as divulged in the scripture. It is shared to men

through revelation which is derived from eternal law. This biblical law which
contains divine commands is organized into two parts: Mosaic Law (Old Testament)
and New Law (New Testament). They exhort moral conduct and promise heavenly
reward.
In the hierarchy of law, Aquinas believed that human laws originated from
natural law which is a rational participation of man in the eternal law. For this reason,
eternal law is the highest, followed by natural law, and then human law.
Of the four kinds of law, natural law is of prime importance in Ethics. Natural
law is God’s imprint on human beings. Through the light of reason embedded by
God in every man, he is directed to acts and goals appropriate to him. Among
created beings, human beings alone possess the natural tendency to use reason to
lead their lives. The natural law strongly urges men to pursue and do what is good
and to avoid evil. Reason discloses particular natural laws that are good for men
such as self-preservation, procreation, education of children, the desire to know God,
and the pursuit of peaceful life in society. Reason also illuminates the minds of men
to comprehend things that are evil such as murder, adultery, theft, suicide, racism,
bullying, and lying.
b. Elements of Moral Act
Aquinas analyzed human acts on the basis not only of their agreement to the
natural law but also of their elements. He proposed three elements which combine to
constitute the morality of any human act: the object, the end and the circumstances.
If any one of these elements is immoral, the entire human act is rendered immoral.
For a human act to be considered moral, all three elements must be either morally
good or at least morally neutral. If even one of the three elements is morally bad,
then the whole human act is deemed immoral.
Simply put, the object of a human act, is “what the exterior action is about,”
according to Aquinas (ST, I-II, q. 18, a. 6). The object of the human act is what one
would see if he were to witness the act itself. It is the action done or the act itself.
One cannot perform an act if one is not doing anything. The action done is the object
of the act; say, of studying, exercising, drinking, etc. The object of a human act may
be regarded as containing a further specification -e. g., studying in the library for the
final examination, exercising in the gym to stay in shape, drinking clean water. A
human act thus specified may, when considered in itself, be good, bad, or indifferent;
thus, to study in the library for the final examination is good in itself, to kill oneself is
bad in itself, and to eat fruit is in itself an indifferent act.
For a human act to be treated as good, its object, whether viewed in itself or
as further specified, must be free from all defect or at least indifferent. In some
91
human acts, the object alone is sufficient to conclude whether the human act is
morally evil or not but insufficient in other human acts, hence, the end or intention
must also be evaluated.
The end of a human act is what a person had in mind when he performed an
act. It indicates the intention or purpose of the person executing an act. This
intention or purpose can cause a morally good act either good or evil, and can cause
a morally neutral act either good or evil. A good end can never make a human act
good if its object is evil. If the object is evil, even if done with the best of intentions,
one cannot transform the human act into good.
Stealing from wealthy individuals (object is evil) in order to improve the life of
the poor (good end) a la Robin Hood is still stealing. Turning to abortion (object is
evil) in order to reduce the number of births, to steer clear of unwanted children, and
to properly bring up children (intentions are good) is still abortion. A good end or
purpose cannot make a morally bad act good. No one is permitted to do evil for a
good intention.
The circumstances of a human act refer to the different particular

characteristics that encompassed the act. Described in basic terms, the
circumstances are the context in which the human act is performed. The
circumstances are such things as who, what, where, how, when, and with whose
help, are needed in determining the morality of an individual act.
Circumstances increase or decrease the moral goodness or badness of

human acts. A person’s responsibility is increased or decreased by the
circumstances. They can make an evil act less severe by making it more acceptable
or less evil, or they can make an act worse. For example, the consequences of
cheating are aggravated or mitigated depending on who copied, what was copied,
where did it happen, how was it copied, when was it copied, and with whose help
was it done. However, they do not lessen the moral quality of human acts.
Circumstances do not make an evil human act good or right. Murder is morally
wrong regardless of the circumstances.
Contrariwise, circumstances can make a good human act, evil.

Circumstances can increase one’s guilt (e.g. when a teacher cheats his students) or
decrease one’s guilt (e.g. when a student tells a white lie to save his classmate from
being expelled).
c. Happiness and virtues
Aquinas argued that every human act is directed towards ends. He claimed
that man’s final end is happiness. Every man seeks happiness and is naturally
bound to it. Hence, he is not free to choose or reject it. However, not every man
concur as to whether or where it is achieved. Aquinas thought that man's true
happiness does not consist of wealth, bodily pleasures, fame, honor or in any
created worldly good. Man will be unable to find the greatest happiness in this life,
because final happiness consists in a supernatural union with God (ST, I-II, q. 2, a.
8). The final object of man's will can only be realized in God, who is the origin of all
92
good. No other good on earth can completely satisfy man with the ultimate good he
seeks.
If, therefore, we speak of man's last end as of the thing which is the
end, thus all other things concur in man's last end, since God is the
last end of man and of all other things. If, however, we speak of
man's last end, as of the acquisition of the end, then irrational
creatures do not concur with man in this end. For man and other
rational creatures attain to their last end by knowing and loving God:
this is not possible to other creatures, which acquire their last end, in
so far as they share in the Divine likeness, inasmuch as they are, or
live, or even know (ST, I-II, q. 1, a. 8).
In the present life an imperfect happiness can be attained by man by living a

life according to reason. Aquinas held that perfect happiness could only be achieved
through a vision of God. This is possible because God has infused in man the
longing to know Him. Man has to purify his soul in order to get a perfect knowledge
of God. When man reaches this, every sadness or worry will be replaced by a pure
and everlasting happiness.
Aquinas declared that happiness is called man's supreme good, because it is

the attainment or enjoyment of the supreme good. (ST, I-II, q. 3, a. 1). He believed
that happiness is attained by cultivating virtues which enable man to comprehend the
essence of happiness and inspire man to seek it. Aquinas defined virtue as a good
habit, which is a good quality of a person demonstrated by his actions and reactions
over a substantial period of time (Porter, 1994). Habit is a quality that inclines man to
act in a particular manner. It can be good or evil. Its moral quality can be decided by
whether the mode is suitable to the things nature (ST, I-II, q. 49, a. 2). It is good habit
if it conforms with man’s nature otherwise, it is bad habit. It is in conformity with
man’s nature if it does not go against the development of man.
Aquinas distinguished acquired habits from infused habits. The acquired

habits are cultivated by man through his own powers repeatedly, deliberately and
consistently in spite of obstacles. Infused habits are directly acquired from God. Man
needs acquired habits to direct him to his natural end and lead him to the good as
defined by human reason. However, he is unable to reach his supernatural end
through his natural abilities alone. Man must receive the infused virtues from God to
attain his supernatural and ultimate end which is his supernatural union with God.
Aquinas introduced at least two types of infused virtues: moral and

theological. Aquinas employed Aristotle’s definition of moral virtue as a habit of
choosing the mean appointed by reason as a prudent man would appoint it (ST, I-II,
q. 59, a. 1). Defined by reason, moral virtue is able to direct man’s appetite so that it
seeks and chooses only what is good. There are four moral (also called cardinal)
virtues: prudence, justice, temperance, and fortitude. Below is a short description of
the four Aquinian moral virtues.

· Prudence is the virtue that disposes practical reason to discern our
true good in every circumstance and to choose the right means of
achieving it.
93
· Justice is the moral virtue that consists in the constant and firm will
to give their due to God and neighbor
· Temperance is the moral virtue that moderates the attraction of
pleasures and provides balance in the use of created goods.
· Fortitude is the moral virtue that ensures firmness in difficulties and
constancy in the pursuit of the good.
(Catechism of the Catholic Church: Article 7: The Virtues, n.d.)
According to Aquinas virtues are called theological because they

have God for their object, both in so far as by them we are properly directed to Him,
and because they are infused into our souls by God alone, as also, finally, because
we come to know of them only by Divine revelation in the Sacred Scriptures (Delany,
1910). Through God’s sanctifying grace, man receives the theological virtues directly
from Him. These virtues are faith, hope, and charity which ordain every man to God
who is his ultimate and supernatural end. They originate from God, otherwise these
virtues would fall short of the supernatural end.
The theological virtues permit man to take part in God’s divine life. They
establish the foundation for man’s moral life because they lead, direct, and provide
life to all other virtues. They are offered to man by God and it is up to him to
determine whether or not he wants to receive and apply them in his life. What follows
are brief definitions of the three theological virtues:
· Faith is the infused virtue, by which the intellect, by a movement of

the will, assents to the supernatural truths of Revelation, not on the
motive of intrinsic evidence, but on the sole ground of the infallible
authority of God revealing (Waldron,1912).
· Hope is defined as a Divinely infused virtue, acts upon the will, by

which one trusts, with confidence grounded on the Divine
assistance, to attain life everlasting (Waldron,1912).
· Charity is a divinely infused virtue, inclining the human will to cherish

God for his own sake above all things, and man for the sake of God
(Waldron,1912).
94
Activity
Direction: What do you think is the most important virtue the following individuals
must develop and exercise? (20 points)
Individual Virtue Reason
1. Student
2. Police Officer
3. Farmer
4. Politician
5. Teacher
6. Counselor
7. Entrepreneur
8. Janitor
9. Doctor
10. Parent
11. Electrician
12. Driver
13. Designer
14. Actor/Actress
15. Son/Daughter
95
Assessment Task
Exercise 1
Name: _____________________ Course & Year: _______________

A. Matching Type Test: Match column A with the correct answer on column B,
write only the letter of answer on the space provided.
Column A Column B
1. __________ virtuous life a. world of the senses
2. __________ phronesis b. abstract world of thought
3. __________ visible world c. Form of Good
4. __________ soul d. end, purpose, or goal
5. __________ arete e. Socratic dictum
6. __________ form for morality f. key to man’s happiness
7. __________ telos g. flourishing or well-being
8. __________ “Know yourself”. h. prudence
9. __________ intelligible world of Forms i. excellence
10. __________ Eudaimonia j. seat of knowledge & virtue
Exercise 2
Name: _____________________ Course & Year:

_______________
B. Modified True or False: Analyze the truth and falsity of the following
statements. Write true if the statement is correct. If false, encircle the word that
96
renders it wrong and supply the correct answer in the space provided.
________________ 1. Aquinas’ defined law as an ordinance of reason for

_ the common good, promulgated by the one who is
in charge of the community
________________ 2. Human law is the rational creature’s participation in
_ the eternal law
________________ 3. Eternal law is God’s law as divulged in the
_ scriptures
________________ 4. The object of a human act, is “what the exterior

_ action is about,” according to Aquinas
________________ 5. The end of a human act indicates the intention or
_ purpose of the person executing an act.
________________ 6. The circumstances of a human act refer to the
_ different particular characteristics that
encompassed the act
________________ 7. Man needs infused habits to direct him to his
_ natural end and lead him to the good as defined by
human reason.
________________ 8. Man must receive the acquired virtues from God to
_ attain his supernatural and ultimate end which is his
supernatural union with God.
________________ 9. Moral virtue is a habit of choosing the mean
_ appointed by will as a prudent man would appoint it
________________ 10. Theological virtues have God for their object, both
_ in so far as by them we are properly directed to
Him, and because they are infused into our souls by
God alone
Exercise 3
Name: _____________________ Course & Year: _______________
C. Essay: (15 points each item)
1. Does it follow that when one knows what is right he also does what is right?
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
97
2. Is Aristotle’s golden mean a one-size-fits-all method?
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
Learning Resources
De Guzman, Jens Micah, et al. (2018). Ethics: principles of ethical behavior in
Gensler, Harry J. (1998). Ethics: A Contemporary Introduction. New York:
Routledge.
Ramos, Christine (2010). Introduction to philosophy. 2nd ed. Manila: Rex
Bookstore Inc.
Babor, Eddie (2000). Ethics: the philosophical discipline of action. Manila: Rex
Book Store.
Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://www.iep.utm.edu/
The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/
98
MODULE CONTENT
Topic 3: Immanuel Kant and Right Theory
Learning Outcomes:
1. define deontological ethics;
2. differentiate Hypothetical and Categorical imperative; and
3. apply Deontological Ethics to a situation.
Introduction
Was there ever a time when you really desired to do something good but you
were frustrated because the results didn’t turn out to be well? Do not be in despair!
For in this module, your efforts are surely appreciated and are therefore recognized.
The deontological ethics theory argues that the rightness and wrongness of
an action is determined basing from the intention of the moral agent (the actor).
However, this doesn’t end here. The next question would be, is it an acceptable
action? Immanuel Kant is very particular in addressing this question by contending
that one should always accord with the imperative that one should not do an action
unless it can become a universal act. He simply argues that one should make sure
that every time we act, it should be an acceptable action for everyone including
ourselves in case others will do it to us too. In one way or another, it is likened to the
golden rule which states that we should not do to others what we do not want others
do unto us.
The most crucial question is; how often should we do what is right? Immanuel
Kant argued that it is our outmost duty to ALWAYS do what is right and therefore
what is good no matter what the circumstances are because it is just this way that
99
we can act out of reason and mostly out of goodwill which is the only thing that is
good in itself.
Immanuel Kant’s Deontological Ethics
The term Deontology comes from the Greek word, deon, which means, duty.
Deontologists believe that morality is a matter of duty. Man has the moral duties to
do things which is the right to do and moral duties not to do things which is wrong to
do. Whether something is right or wrong doesn’t depend on its consequences.
Rather, an action is right or wrong in itself.
Most deontological theories recognize two classes of duties. First, there are
general duties we have towards anyone. These are mostly prohibitions, e.g. do not
lie, do not murder. But some may be positive, e.g. help people in need. Second,
there are duties we have because of our particular personal or social relationships. If
you have made a promise, you have a duty to keep it. If you are a parent, you have a
duty to provide for your children. And so on.
We each have duties regarding our own actions. I have a duty to keep my
promises, but I don’t have a duty to make sure promises are kept. Deontology claims
that we should each be most concerned with complying with our duties, not
attempting to bring about the most good. In fact, all deontologists agree that there
are times when we should not maximize the good, because doing so would be to
violate a duty. Most deontologists also argue that we do not have a duty to maximize
the good, only a duty to do something for people in need. As this illustrates, many
deontologists think our duties are quite limited. While there are a number of things
we may not do, we are otherwise free to act as we please.
Actions and Intentions
Deontology says that certain types of action are right or wrong. How do we
distinguish types of action? For example, a person may kill someone else. A
conventional description of the action is ‘killing’. But not all ‘killings’ are the same
type of action, morally speaking. If the person intended to kill someone, i.e. that is
what they wanted to bring about, that is very different than if the killing was
accidental or if the person was only intending to defend themselves against an
attack.
Actions are the result of choices, and so should be understood in terms of

choices. Choices are made for reasons, and with a purpose in mind. These
considerations determine what the action performed actually is. So deontology
argues that we do not know what type of action an action is unless we know the
intention. We should judge whether an action is right or wrong by the agent’s
intention.
Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals
To understand Kant’s moral philosophy, we need to explain a couple of terms

and assumptions. First, Kant believed that, whenever we make decisions, we act on
a maxim. Maxims are Kant’s version of intentions. They are our personal principles
100
that guide our decisions, e.g. ‘to have as much fun as possible’, ‘to marry only
someone I truly love’. All our decisions have some maxim or other behind them.
Second, morality is a set of principles that are the same for everyone and that apply
to everyone. Third, Kant talks of our ability to make choices and decisions as ‘the
will’. He assumes that our wills are rational, that is we can make choices on the basis
of reasons. We do not act only on instinct. We can act on choice, and we can
consider what to choose using reasoning.
Kant argues that the fundamental principle of morality is this: ‘Act only on that
maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal
law’. Why does he come to this conclusion?
a. The Good Will
Kant begins his argument by reflecting on whether anything is morally good

‘without qualification’. He argues that only the ‘good will’ is. Anything else can either
be bad or contribute to what is bad. For instance, intelligence and self-control are
good – but they can enable someone to do clever or difficult bad things, if that is
what they choose. Power can be good, but it depends on what use we put it to. Nor
is happiness good without qualification. If someone is made happy by hurting others,
their happiness is morally bad. So we evaluate happiness by morality. Having a
morally good will is a precondition to deserving happiness.
Kant then makes a second claim. What is good about the good will is not what
it achieves. It doesn’t derive its goodness from successfully producing some good
result. Rather, it is good ‘in itself’. If someone tries their hardest to do what is morally
right but they don’t succeed, then we should still praise their efforts as morally good.
b. Duty
What is our conception of the morally good will? Kant argues that to have a
good will is to be motivated by duty. This is best understood by examples. Suppose
a shop- keeper sells his goods at a fixed price, giving the correct change, and acting
honestly in this way. Of course, this is the morally right thing to do. But this doesn’t
show that he has a good will, since acting like this is just in his self-interest. So we
can act in accordance with duty, but without being motivated by duty. Kant
controversially claims that this applies just as much to doing good things for other
people when that is what we want to do and enjoy doing. Doing good things for
others is right and should be praised and encouraged, but these actions don’t
necessarily have moral worth. If someone was to do something good for others even
when they didn’t want to, but just because they believe that it is the morally right
thing to do, that would show that they have a good will. So to have a good will is to
do one’s duty (what is morally right) because it is one’s duty (because it is morally
right).
But what is morally right? What does a goodwill will? Here, things get tricky. A
good will isn’t good because it aims at certain ends, because there are no ends that
are good without qualification. We can’t, for instance, say that the good will aims at
the general happiness, because happiness isn’t always morally good. So the good
will must, in some way, be good ‘in itself’, just on the basis of what it is like as a will.
101
What makes a will good is something about the maxims it adopts. However, it can’t
be what the maxims say, i.e. what they aim at. A puzzle …
Another puzzle arises if we consider this in terms of motives. What is it to

want to do one’s duty because it is one’s duty, if we can’t say what one’s duty is? It
can only be the thought of doing one’s duty ‘as such’. But what is that?
To solve these puzzles, we need to recall Kant’s assumptions. Maxims are

principles of choice. They are subjective – you have yours, I have mine. What makes
them different is what they are about, what they aim at and why. But what they have
in common is that they are all principles. Now, morality is a set of principles for
everyone. So the concept of duty is the concept of a principle for everyone. So,
somehow, the good will is a will that chooses what it does, motivated by the idea of a
principle for everyone. This is ‘not an expected result’, Kant says.
How can this idea serve as a motive or criterion for the good will? Kant
rephrases it: to have a good will, I should act only on maxims that I can also will
everyone to act on. He later calls this principle the ‘Categorical Imperative’. I can
adopt this as a maxim, a principle of choice. I choose only to make choices on the
basis of maxims that everyone could act on. But this maxim doesn’t specify any
particular end or goal (such as happiness). It only mentions the idea of a principle for
everyone, a universal law.
We need to understand the Categorical Imperative in more detail. But first, an

example: suppose I am tempted to make a promise with no intention of keeping it,
e.g. I might borrow money (because I want the money) on the promise to pay it back,
but I don’t intend to pay it back. We can show that this is wrong. Suppose everyone
acted on this maxim. Then everyone would know that everyone acts on this maxim.
In that situation, making a false promise like this would be impossible. No one would
trust my promise, and I can’t make a promise unless someone believes it. So I can’t
will it to be a universal law.
Hypothetical and Categorical Imperatives
An ‘imperative’ is just a command. ‘Hypothetical Imperatives’ are statements

about what you ought to do, on the assumption of some desire or goal. They specify
a means to an end. So ‘if you want to see the show, you ought to get to the theatre
at least 15 minutes early’ is a hypothetical imperative. In this example, the assumed
desire or goal is explicit: the imperative is presented as a conditional, with the desire
described in the antecedent (‘you want to see the show’), and the command in the
consequent (‘get to the theatre at least 15 minutes early’). But hypothetical
imperatives can leave the assumed desire or goal implicit, e.g. ‘Eat at least five
portions of fruit and vegetables a day’ (if you want to stay healthy).
Why can’t I just say ‘I want to see the show but refuse to get there early’ or ‘I
want to be healthy but refuse to eat fruit and vegetables’? Why ought I to do these
things, given what I want? Because these are the means to my end. Kant argues
that willing the end entails willing the means. It is an analytic truth that someone who
wills the end wills the means. To will an end is to will an effect. But the concept of an
effect contains the concept of a cause. Hence, to will an effect, you must will the
102
cause. The cause is the means. (It is important here that you don’t merely want the
end, but actually will it.)
Hypothetical Imperatives can be avoided by simply giving up the assumed

desire or goal. Suppose I don’t want to see the show – then I don’t need to get to the
theatre early. Suppose I don’t want to be healthy – then the imperative to get my
‘five-a-day’ doesn’t apply to me. (Of course, it is odd not to want to be healthy, and
we may wonder if I really do not want to be healthy – perhaps I do, but I can’t be
bothered… In this case, I want to be healthy, but I don’t will it.) In other words, it is
possible to ‘opt out’ of a hypothetical imperative.
This is not true of morality, we usually think. Moral duties are not hypothetical.
They are what we ought to do, full stop. They are your duty regardless of what you
want. They are ‘categorical’. Kant has also argued that moral duties aren’t a means
to some further end, because what makes an action good is that it is willed by the
good will. All categorical imperatives – our moral duties – are derived from one, the
Categorical Imperative: ‘Act only on that maxim through which you can at the same
time will that it should become a universal law’.
How are categorical imperatives possible? Why is there something that we

ought to do, regardless of what we want? Kant argues that moral duties depend just
on our being rational. We need to understand further just what this means.
The Two Tests
There are two different ways in which we could fail to be able to will our
maxim to become a universal law.
1. Contradiction in Conception – refers to the situation in which everyone acted on

that maxim is somehow self-contradictory. We saw an example of this in the case of
making a false promise, above. Another example: suppose you want a gift to take to
a party, but you can’t afford it, so you steal it from the shop. Your maxim is
something like: ‘To steal something I want if I can’t afford it’. This can only be the
right thing to do if everyone could do it. However, if we could all just help ourselves
to whatever we wanted, the idea of ‘owning’ things would disappear. Now, by
definition, you can’t steal something unless it belongs to someone else. Stealing
presupposes that people own things. But people can only own things if they don’t all
go around helping themselves whenever they want. So it is logically impossible for
everyone to steal things. And so stealing is wrong! (at least stealing just because
one wants something).
2. Contradiction in Will - this is more difficult to understand. The maxim is not self-
contradictory, but we cannot rationally will it. Consider a refusal to help other people,
ever. It is logically possible to universalize the maxim ‘not to help others in need’.
The world would not be a pleasant place, but this is beside the point. Kant does not
claim that an action is wrong because we wouldn’t like the consequences if everyone
did it (many philosophers and students have misinterpreted Kant on this point). His
test is whether we can rationally will that our maxim be a universal law. Kant argues
that we cannot will that no one ever help anyone else. How so?
103
a. A will, by definition, wills its ends (goals).
b. As we said above, to truly will the ends, one must will the necessary means.
c. Therefore, we cannot will a situation in which it would be impossible for us to
achieve our ends.
d. It is possible that the only available means to our ends, in some situations,
involves the help of others.
e. We cannot therefore will that this possibility is denied to us.
f. Therefore, we cannot will a situation in which no one ever helps anyone else. To
do so is to cease to will the necessary means to one’s ends, which is effectively
to cease to will any ends at all. This contradicts the very act of willing.
Morality and Reason
Kant argued that it is not just morally wrong to disobey the Categorical
Imperative, it is also irrational. As the tests show, disobeying the Categorical
Imperative involves a self-contradiction. Through the Categorical Imperative, reason
both determines what our duties are and gives us the means to discover them.
Furthermore, we intuitively think that morality applies to all and only rational beings,
not just human beings. In Douglas Adams’ The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy,
Arthur Dent protests to the Vogons, aliens who are going to destroy the Earth, that
what they are doing is immoral. But morality doesn’t apply to beings that cannot
make rational choices, such as dogs and cats (pets misbehave, they don’t act
morally wrongly).
With this link, we can explain the nature of morality in terms of the nature of
reason. Morality is universal, the same for everyone; so is reason, says Kant.
Morality and rationality are categorical; the demands to be rational and moral don’t
stop applying to you even if you don’t care about them. Neither morality nor
rationality depend on what we want.
The Second Formulation of the Categorical Imperative
Kant gives a second formulation of the Categorical Imperative, known as the

Formula of Humanity: ‘Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in
your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means, but always
at the same time as an end’. Why does he say this, and what does it mean?
Let us return to the idea of the good will. Only the good will is good without
qualification. Another way of saying this is that it is the only thing of unconditional
value. Everything else that is valuable depends, in some way, on the good will. For
instance, intelligence is valuable for all sorts of purposes. In other words, it is
valuable as a means to an end. Its value, then, depends on the value of its end.
What gives its end value? We do, says Kant. Something is only an end if it is
adopted by a will. It is our adopting something as an end that gives it value. Because
I have desires and purposes, various things in the world are valuable to me.
So far, value is subjective. However, this does not apply to other people (or
rational beings generally). Your value is not simply your value to me as a means in
relation to some purpose or desire I have. It is not even your value to you (you might
104
have very low self-esteem, and wrongly underestimate your value). We have
‘intrinsic worth’, which Kant identifies as ‘dignity’.
What gives us this dignity is our rational will. The will has unconditional value
as the thing which gives value to everything else. So in the second formulation
above, by ‘humanity’, Kant means our ability to rationally determine which ends to
adopt and pursue.
Kant says that because people are ends in themselves, we must always treat
them as such, and never ‘simply’ as a means. Note that he does not say we cannot
use people as a means, but that we can’t use them only as a means. We rely on
other people in many ways as means to achieve our own ends, e.g. people serving
me in a shop are a means to getting what I want to buy. What is important, says
Kant, is that I also respect them as an end.
To treat someone simply as a means, and not also as an end, is to treat the
person in a way that undermines their power of making a rational choice themselves.
It means, first, that we should appeal to other people’s reason in discussing with
them what to do, rather than manipulate them in ways that they are unaware of.
Coercing someone, lying to them, stealing from them, all involve not allowing them to
make an informed choice. If they are involved in our action in any way, they need to
be able to agree (or refuse) to adopt our end as their own.
Second, treating someone as an end also means leaving them free to pursue
the ends that they adopt. The value of what people choose to do lies in their ability to
choose it, not just in what they have chosen. So, we should refrain from harming or
hindering them. This is to respect their rationality. Third, someone’s being an end in
themselves means that they are an end for others. We should adopt their ends as
our own. What this means is that we should help them pursue their ends, just as we
pursue our own ends. In other words, the second formulation requires that we help
other people. This should be one of our ends in life.
Teaching and Learning Activity
Activity 1 Situation Analysis
You are the network administrator for a rather large company. You have a
young family and need your job to support them. As part of your responsibility as a
network administrator is to monitor the emails for the organization. Usually this just
means occasionally allow through emails for staff members that have been
accidentally blocked by the spam filters.
One day you get a helpdesk request from a staff member asking for an email
to get released. Normally it is standard procedure except this time the request has
come from the wife of a very good friend of yours. You recognize the name on the
helpdesk request so quickly attend to the problem. As part of the procedure you
need to manually open up the email to ensure that it isn’t spam, so you do and you
discover that it certainly isn’t spam. You find that it’s actually an email to your friend’s
105
wife from her lover. You scan the rest of the contents of the email and there is no
doubt that she has been having an affair for some time now.
You release the email, but you can’t decide what to do. Your initial reaction is
to call your friend up and tell him about the email, however you quickly realize that
company policy is very strict about revealing the contents of confidential emails of
staff members regardless of the contents and unless someone’s life is in immediate
danger, under no circumstances are you permitted to reveal the information.
In any case you know that revealing this information presents great risk,
because even if you don’t do it directly, there is a good chance that the dots will be
joined somewhere along the line and you will be found out. However, you feel that by
not telling your friend that you are aiding his wife get away with adultery and this
troubles you greatly. What do you do?
Assessment Task:
Critique Paper
Name: _________________________ Course & Year:
______________
I. Can the ethics of Immanuel Kant be the basis of morality? Why yes or why
not? Justify your claim. (20 pts.)
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
106
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
Learning Resources
Buenaflor, Lionel E. et al. (2018). Unraveling the Absolute Moral Principle.
Mandaluyong City: Books Atbp. Publishing Corp.
Modern Society. Philippines: MUTYA Publishing.
MODULE CONTENT
Topic 4: Utilitarianism
Nominal Duration: 1.5 Hours
Learning Outcomes:
1. differentiate Act Utilitarianism from Rule Utilitarianism;
2. cite a personal experience when the theory of utilitarianism is applied; and
3. critique the theory of utilitarianism.
Each time we act, we have a goal in mind. When we say goal, it usually
pertains to the end of that certain action. End usually answers the question; what do
we want to achieve in doing such action? Sometimes, we tend to measure the
rightness and wrongness of our actions basing from its end. If the end is good, then
the action is right but if it is not, then the action is wrong. When we do this, we
usually adhere to the principle of ‘teleological ethics’. Teleology came from the
Greek word ‘telos’ meaning end or purpose thus, teleology is an ethical theory that
determines the rightness or wrongness of an action basing from our particular goal.
Thus, an act is right if and only if it, or the rule under which it falls, produces, will
probably produce, or is intended to produce, a greater good.
Consequentialism falls under teleological ethics. What makes it more

specific than the broader sense of teleology is that it focuses on the consequences
or the outcome of an act itself. It does not ponder on the intention of the agent, the
nature of the act nor the traditional moral norms. It determines the rightness and
107
wrongness of the act basing from the result of the act per se. If the result is good,
then the act is right if the results are bad, then the act is wrong.
It is noteworthy to consider that not all teleological theories are consequential

but all consequentialist theories are teleological. Note that not all teleological
theories are consequential because one may have the good intention of doing an
action does making it teleologically right but when one eventually does the action
and the results are bad then it is consequentially wrong. Moreover, all
consequentialist theories are teleological because the consequence/result of an
act is a part but does not cover the entire end/goal of an act.
One of the most plausible consequentialist theories is Utilitarianism. It came

from the Latin word ‘utilis’ meaning ‘useful’. De Guzman et.al. (2018) It states that
what is useful is good, and that the moral values of actions are determined by the
utility of its consequences. Arguing that the consequences of an act is what make it
either moral or immoral, it explains that those actions that bring about favourable
effects are moral while those that produce damaging results are immoral.
Act Utilitarianism and Rule Utilitarianism
Utilitarianism in general can be applied to either particular actions hence it is

called ‘Act Utilitarianism’ or it can also be applied to general rules thus being
addressed to as ‘Rule Utilitarianism’.
Act Utilitarianism - is an ethical philosophy which holds the principle that the
rightness of an act is determined by its effect in the general happiness (Moore and
Bruder 2005, 285). The Act Utilitarianism believes that the utilitarian principle should
be applied to particular acts in particular situation or circumstances on a case by
case basis. The issue here would be the possible results of each particular act and
those results will be the means in order to determine the morality of an action. If the
consequences led to the attainment of the happiness of the greatest number of
people, then the action is considered to be morally acceptable.
In act utilitarianism, therefore, 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
brings about the best results, or the least amount of bad results.
Rule Utilitarianism – maintains that the principle at issue should be used to test
moral rules, and then the rules can be utilized in order to decide on which moral
judgment is right or wrong under the circumstances. Therefore, Rule Utilitarianism
considers the possible results in the light of a rule (Timbreza, 1993, 31.). Hence, in
rule utilitarianism, the principle of utility can be used to decide the validity of rules of
conduct (moral standards or principles).
Difference between Act Utilitarianism and Rule Utilitarianism
108
In order to clearly illustrate the difference between Act Utilitarianism and Rule
Utilitarianism, we can take this case: Supposing that by murdering a thief, the killer
would increase the general happiness. In his regard, act utilitarianism would say
that it is morally acceptable to murder the thief. However, a rule utilitarian, would say
that if the society considered murder as unlawful, then the general happiness would
be diminished in view of the rule of conduct. In this case, rule utilitarianism seems to
be much more Kantian than the act utilitarianism.
Teaching and Learning Activity
Activity 1
1. Cite at least three (3) personal experiences when you were able to apply the
principle of utilitarianism and explain why you said so.
Assessment Task:
Reaction Paper
Name: _________________________ Course & Year:
______________
1. Differentiate Act Utilitarianism from Rule Utilitarianism and give examples (15
pts.)
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
2. Does the end always justify the means? Explain your answer. (15 pts.)
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
109
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
Learning Resources

MODULE CONTENT
Topic 5: Justice and Fairness
Nominal Duration: 4.5 Hours
Learning Outcomes:
1. explain John Rawls’ Theory of Justice as Fairness;
2. enumerate and apply the different distributive norms into real life scenarios; and
3. analyze a present day issue (Train Law) using the abovementioned theories.
This topic deals with the ethical framework of Justice and Fairness. We are
always confronted with the question whether justice can be really attained or is it just
a concept that is always discussed (especially in ethics) but remains to be a theory.
Moreover, we are always confused whether if one thing is fair, does it necessarily
mean that it is equal?? If so, is it just? And finally, we oftentimes question ourselves
what shall be our role in building a just and humane society and if we play these
roles responsibly, what is in it for us?
In order to answer the abovementioned questions, we shall be delving with

John Rawls’ Theory of Justice as Fairness, The theory of Distributive Justice and the
Citizen’s Responsibility to the State [and the state’s responsibility in return] with the
hope of rekindling the fire in our hearts burning with passion and desire to become a
productive and responsible citizens of the society where we belong into.
110
John Rawls Theory of Justice as Fairness
Rawls is considered as a major social and political philosopher of the 20 th

century. In his work entitled Theory of Justice, he upheld the idea that justice is
fairness. The idea became the basis for social institutions to not confer morally
arbitrary lifelong advantages on some persons at the expense of others. This idea of
John Rawls became one of the bases for the contemporary moral philosophy and an
alternative to the utilitarian system.
According to Rawls, the basis of morality is justice. Justice, he said, is the

first virtue of social institutions as truth is of system of thought (Rawls, 1999). As a
reaction to the ethical principle of utilitarianism and intuitionism which according to
Rawls, had dominated the philosophical tradition, he believed that no matter how
elegant and practical the ethical system could be but it is untrue then it must still be
rejected and no matter how efficient and well-arranged the laws and institutions are
but they are unjust, then it must be reformed or abolished.
The moral principle of John Rawls is a brilliant synthesis of the strength of
utilitarianism and of the deontological views of Immanuel Kant and Willian William
David Ross. It was also an avoidance of the apparent lack of justice in utilitarianism
as he built on the fundamental notion of the ultimate dignity of human beings in the
ethics of Immanuel Kant and William David Ross. From these deontological views,
Rawls formulated his own concept of social morality, which served as the basis of
social justice.
Rawls two (2) Principles of Social Justice
1. The Liberty principle is concerned with political institutions
“Each person has the same and indefeasible [permanent] claim to a fully adequate
scheme of equal basic liberties, which scheme is compatible with the same scheme
of liberties for all.”
This means that everybody has the same basic liberties which can never be
taken away. This first principle is very Kantian in that it provides for basic and
universal respect for individuals as a minimum standard for all just institutions.
In the same way as Rawls gave as examples most of the liberties in the US
bill of rights, it is in this analogy that we can consider our basic rights as stated in the
1987 Philippine Constitution as our basic liberties:
“No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law,
nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.” (Art. III, Sec. 1,
1987 Phil. Const.)
It is also noteworthy to consider that Rawls added some liberties from the
broader area of human rights, like freedom of travel. Rawls recognized the right of
private individuals, corporations, or workers to own private property. But he omitted
the right to own the "means of production" (e.g., mines, factories, farms). He also left
out the right to inherit wealth. These things were not basic liberties in his view.
111
Moreover, Rawls agreed that basic liberties could be limited, but "only for the
sake of liberty." Thus, curbing the liberties of an intolerant group that intended to
harm the liberties of others may be justified. (John Rawls and his Theory of Justice,
n.d.)
2. The Principle concerning Social and Economic Institutions
However, while everybody’s basic liberties are equal (political institutions), it is

an undeniable fact that inequalities (social and economic institutions) do ‘really exist’
in our present time. Rawls’ second principle allows such inequalities but under
certain conditions. (John Rawls and his Theory of Justice, n.d.)
“Social and economic inequalities are to satisfy two conditions:

1.2.1 first, they are to be attached to offices and positions open to all under
conditions of (fair equality of opportunity); and
1.2.2. second, they are to be to the greatest benefit of the least-advantaged
members of society (the Difference Principle)”
Rawls’ second principle of Social Justice recognized that a society could not
avoid inequalities among its people. In real world, inequalities result from things
such as person’s inherited characteristics, social class, personal motivation, and
even ‘luck’. Even so, Rawls maintained that a just society ought to find ways to
lessen inequalities in areas where it can function.
Thus, dividing his second principle into 2 parts:
2.1. Fair Equality of Opportunity
The first part, fair equality of opportunity, requires that citizens with the same
talents and willingness to use them have the same educational and economic
opportunities regardless of whether they were born rich or poor, black or white, male
or female and so on and so forth.
By "offices and positions" in his Second Principle, Rawls meant especially the
best jobs in private business and public employment. He said that these jobs should
be "open" to everyone by the society providing "fair equality of opportunity." One way
for a society to do this would be to eliminate discrimination. Another way would be to
provide everyone easy access to education. (De Guzman et.al. 2018)
2.2. The Difference Principle
The most controversial element of his theory of social justice was his
Difference Principle. He first defined it in a 1968 essay. "All differences in wealth and
income, all social and economic inequalities," he wrote, "should work for the good of
the least favored."
Later, when he wrote A Theory of Justice, he used the phrase, "least-

advantaged members of society" to refer to those at the bottom of economic ladder.
These might be unskilled individuals, earning the lowest wages in the society. Rawls
112
favored maximizing the improvement of the "least-advantaged" group in society. He
would do this not only by providing "fair equality of opportunity," but also by such
possible ways as a guaranteed minimum income or minimum wage. (John Rawls
and his Theory of Justice, n.d.)
To wrap up, it is important to remember that Rawls considered a priority over

his principles of social justice; The First Principle (‘basic liberties’) holds priority over
the Second Principle. The first part of the Second Principle (‘fair equality of
opportunity’) holds priority over the second part (‘Difference Principle’). However, he
maintains his stand that both the First and Second Principles together are both
necessary for a just society.
The Original Position (The ‘Thought Experiment’)
John Rawls’ “Original Position” (now known as the thought experiment) is

likened to that of John Locke’s and Jean Jacques Rousseau’s Social Contract
theory. Locke and Rousseau both theorized that our predecessors have entered into
a ‘social contract’ between themselves and their leader. The contract included that
people would submit themselves under their ruler (typically a king) while being
assured that their natural rights would be secured. Being a plausible theory aimed for
social justice, Thomas Jefferson subscribed to the Social Contract Theory in writing
the Declaration of Independence.
However plausible, political scientists of the 20 th century had dismissed the

social contract as an old-fashioned myth. On the contrary, John Rawls as a political
philosopher who focuses on society’s basic institutions aimed to revive the concept
thus devising a hypothetical version. He proposed that unless institutions such as the
constitution, economy and education system functioned in a way just for all, social
justice would not truly exist at all.
The Conditions
The difference between the social contract theory and Rawls’ Original Position
is that Rawls’ theory is not an assembly of real people dealing over a contract.
Instead, it is a hypothetical meeting where participants are only governed by reason
and logic while deliberating and assessing principles of social justice and eventually
deciding which will be the best principle that will be compulsory on their society
forever.
In order to assure that the choice of social justice principle would be truly
unbiased and impartial, Rawls included the condition that these fictional participants
should be under the ‘veil of ignorance’ while picking their Social Justice principles.
In ‘being under the Veil of Ignorance’, Rawls would argue that the participants
would not know their sex, age, religion, race, social class, abilities, preferences, life
goals or anything about themselves (thus being governed only under logic and
reason). They would not also know in which society do they belong though they have
a general knowledge on how social institutions function. It is under this state that he
113
is certain that these fictional participants would be able to choose a fair and impartial
contract.
The Choices
Rawls set up his "thought experiment" with several given systems of social
justice principles. The task of the imaginary group members under the "veil of
ignorance" was to choose one system of principles for their own society.
Rawls was mainly interested to see what choice the group would make
between his own Justice as Fairness concept and another called "Average Utility."
This concept of justice called for maximizing the average wealth of the people. (John
Rawls and his Theory of Justice, n.d.)
Making the Choice
Considering that these fictional participants are rational and logical

individuals, they would have to determine first what most persons in most societies
want. He argued that these individuals would determine four basic things which he
later on referred to as ‘the primary goods’: (1) wealth and income, (2) rights and
liberties, (3) opportunities for advancement, and (4) self-respect.
Now, after determining these ‘primary goods’, the next question would be how
would these goods be distributed to each of the members in a fair and just manner?
Logically speaking, all of these participants would argue that everybody should have
an equal and thus fair share of their rights and liberties, opportunities for
advancement and self-respect. (The Liberty Principle and the Fair Equality of
Opportunity part of the Second Principle).
However, everyone having equal wealth and income is something that is

impractical for a rational individual. Rawls was certain that these fictional participants
would reasonably conclude that some (but not extreme) inequality of wealth and
income is necessary in a just society. Why so, because people who work harder in
order to improve the status of the society as a whole should be reasonably
rewarded.
If equal distribution of wealth and income is impractical, then how should it be

distributed in a just society? Rawls argued that these fictional participants would
adopt the ‘maximin rule’ (maximum – minimum rule) which explains that the safest
and therefore the best choice is the highest minimum. Let us take this for example
(John Rawls and his Theory of Justice, n.d.)
Average Wage Per Hour Legal Minimum Wage

SOCIETY A $20.00 $7.00
SOCIETY B $30.00 $1.00
In the example above, the best choice under the "maximin" rule would be
SOCIETY A, which has the highest minimum wage. Those earning the average
114
wage and above are doing pretty well as well. SOCIETY B with its
higher average wage benefits those in the middle and at the top income levels, but
largely ignores those at the bottom. This is the flaw of the Average Utility social
justice system, according to Rawls.
Rawls contended that these participants would also choose the principles of
social justice that would have the highest benefit for the least privileged because it
would be the best choice if they will be placed in the bottom part of the society later
on [remember that they are ‘under the veil of ignorance’ and therefore do not know
which part of the society do they belong into] therefore, to be on the safe side, they
would sensibly pick the principle of justice that most benefited those at the bottom.
[The difference principle part of the second principle]
Imagine that I am to buy apples of different sizes for everybody (1 each) I

would tend to look at the sizes of each apple first and would definitely not buy the
ones that are small because if everybody would have to pick from what I have
bought, they would definitely get the larger ones and eventually would leave the
smallest one for me. Though the smallest will be the one left for me, at least I know
that it is not smallest from the ones that I have seen in the market.
It is in this way that Rawls believed that he had demonstrated that his Justice
as Fairness principles, tilted toward the ‘least advantaged’, were the best for forming
or restructuring institutions for a just society. (De Guzman et. Al. 2018)
John Rawls’ Concept of Distributive Justice
The former module (John Rawls’ Theory of Justice as Fairness) basically

concerns the just allocation of goods in a society. This Social Justice theory is an
example of the concept called Distributive Justice.
How can one determine whether or not distributive justice exists in a certain
society? It is when, as John Rawls would argue that Inequalities, though present, are
not very evidently and frequently occurring in a certain society. In order to avoid such
inequalities, the society should consider the available quantities of goods, the
process by which goods are distributed, and later, how these goods are allocated to
its members.
It is important to consider that not all societies conform to a single distributive

norm. A norm is a standard of behaviour that is acceptable and is therefore
designated as normal within a specific society. In order to determine whether
distributive justice has occurred, one usually turn to the distributive norms into which
their group adheres into and if rewards and burdens are allocated according to such
norm, then Distributive Justice is attained. The following are the common types of
distributive norms (“Distributive Justice,” n.d.):
a) Equity: Members’ outcomes should be based upon their inputs. Therefore, an

individual who has invested a large amount of input (e.g. time, money,
115
energy) should receive more from the group than someone who has
contributed very little. Members of large groups prefer to base allocations of
rewards and costs on equity.
b) Equality: Regardless of their inputs, all group members should be given an
equal share of the rewards/costs. Equality supports that someone who
contributes 20 % of the group’s resources should receive as much as
someone who contributes 60%
c) Power: Those with more authority, status, or control over the group should
receive more than those in lower level positions.
d) Need: Those in greatest needs should be provided with resources needed to
meet those needs. These individuals should be given more resources than
those who already possess them, regardless of their input.
e) Responsibility: Group members who have the most should share their
resources with those who have less.
In social psychology, Distributive Justice is perceived as fairness of how

rewards and costs are distributed across group members. Such as for example,
when everybody contributed an equal amount of money to buy snacks and
somebody who went to the comfort room to attend to some personal necessities
comes back and suddenly finds out that there is no more food left for him/her would
certainly feel that distributive justice is not served.
The same is true why students would complain about their group mate who
did not cooperate in making their project yet they all have the same grades at the
end of the term that’s why they did not put his/her name in the list. It is just fair in the
context of distributive justice most especially in organizations where such principle is
seen as fairness related with outputs, decision and allotment of resources.
There are several socio-economic-political theories that are in one way or
another related to Distributive Justice:
1. Justice as Equality: Egalitarianism
Egalitarianism is a theory which states that should be given equal treatment.

It upheld the principle that people should be treated as equals; should treat one
another as equals, or enjoy an equality of social status of some sort (Amerson,
2013).
Egalitarianism believed that there should be no relevant differences among

people that can justify unequal treatment. Everyone should be given exactly equal
share of a society’s or a group’s benefits and burdens.
2. Justice – Based on Contribution: The capitalist Justice
Capitalist justice is based on the premise that benefits should be distributed

according to the degree of contribution that each person provides for the benefit of
the society as a whole. In a capitalist society, the privileges that everyone receives
are commensurate with the type of contribution one gives to the community.
How can the value of the contribution of everyone be measured? The

capitalist theorists would claim that one’s contribution can be measured by the
116
amount of work that one rendered. The greater and harder one works, the greater
are the share of benefits. Based on the premise that hard work should lead to
success, the capitalist theorists claim that if one would be working hard, then
success would be imminent. At the same time, the harder the people work and the
greater the quantity of their contribution, the more persons should receive benefits.
For instance, the salesperson who sold more products should be given greater
incentives than those who sold less.
3. Justice-Based on Needs and Abilities: Socialism
As a response to the problem of capitalist justice regarding their insensitivity

to the needs of the people, socialism upheld the idea that “from each according to
his ability, to each according to his needs” (Marx and Engels, 2005). According to
the principles of socialism, work burdens must be distributed according to the ability
of the people. At the same time benefits must also be distributed according to their
needs.
People have different abilities. Those who are gifted with greater abilities
must also be given more responsibilities because greater responsibilities cannot just
be given to people who have lesser capabilities. However, those who have greater
abilities would have the tendency to be envied by people. Hence, benefits must be
given based on the needs of every individual.
Taxation and Inclusive Growth: State and Citizen’s Responsibility
Taxation is the system by which a government takes money from people

and spends it on things such as education, health, infrastructure and defense
(“Taxation,” n.d.).
Why is taxation needed? The power of taxation is an inherent and plenary

prerogative of the state; its exercise being only limited by the bill of rights enshrined
in the 1987 Philippine Constitution. It is the Legislative Department which primarily
exercises this function. However, Local Government Units (LGUs) are allowed to
create their own sources of revenue (Article X, Section 5). It is stated in article II,
Section 25 the “the State shall ensure the autonomy of local governments.” This has
been implemented with the enactment of the Local Government Code (LGC) of 1991
(RA No. 7160).
Taxes help the government fund their projects for economic development. It's
also the lifeblood of government services which include but are not limited to
infrastructures, education, healthcare, social services, government employees’
salaries and everything related to social welfare and development.
The state’s responsibility to its citizens: Citizen-State Relations: Improving

governance through tax reform (n.d.)
Effective taxation system can help raise the resources needed to deliver
essential services and it is the state’s responsibility to ensure its constituents that
their taxes are spent for the benefit of the majority.
117
Aside from making sure that taxes levied are spent wisely for the benefits of
its citizens, the state should imbibe the spirit of transparency in order to improve
governance in tax collection for the constituents are aware where their taxes are
spent [and is not corrupted].
Lastly, the state is liable in ensuring its constituents that a principle of justice
(e.g. ability to pay theory) is employed in order to impose a just and humane taxation
system while making sure that everybody is paying their taxes correctly through
proper monitoring and as well as proper imposition of penalties and the like to tax
evaders.
The citizens’ responsibility to the state:
The very basic answer to the question what is our responsibility as citizens as
regards to taxation is simply to pay our taxes. Perhaps as students, you would ask
that we are not paying taxes directly to the government so why bother? Indeed you
do not pay direct taxes but you are indeed contributing to the state unconsciously
every time that you purchase goods from the market, order in food chains and
restaurants, ride the public utility vehicles or refuel your private rides in a gasoline
station. Even a baby’s milk or a diaper is taxable. Hence; it is formally true to say that
everybody takes a role to play in nation building through tax paying.
On the other hand, aside from the fact that we are all obliged to pay taxes,
this is not our sole responsibility when it comes to the notion of taxation. It is
noteworthy to consider that getting more involved in nation building through tax
paying also entails the responsibility of being vigilant not only of government
expenditures but also of other peoples’ (co-citizens’) willingness to pay their correct
taxes. Being a whistle blower of big time tax evaders is not the only way to say that
we played our role. The simple gesture of asking for a receipt every time we
purchase anything ensures that right taxes are remitted to the government.
Moreover, we must not forget that availing government services and using
government properties are more of a privilege than just simply a right. Such services
and properties are made available through our taxes. As much as we don’t want to
waste our personal money, remember to take care of government properties and
avail necessary government services with a sense of gratitude because once they
are broken or unnecessarily used/availed, we have wasted not the government’s
assets but our taxes (basically our own money too).
The role of taxation in inclusive growth
Inclusive growth is a concept that advances equitable opportunities for

economic participants during economic growth with benefits incurred by every
section of society.
Sustainable economic growth requires inclusive growth. Maintaining this is

sometimes difficult because economic growth may give rise to negative externalities,
such as a rise in corruption, which is a major problem in developing countries like the
Philippines.
118
Nonetheless, an emphasis on inclusiveness—especially on equality of
opportunity in terms of access to markets, resources, and an unbiased regulatory
environment—is an essential ingredient of successful growth. The inclusive growth
approach takes a longer-term perspective, as the focus is on productive employment
as a means of increasing the incomes of poor and excluded groups and raising their
standards of living.
Taxation plays a major role in attaining inclusive growth and development.

Since it ponders on equality of opportunity and inclusiveness, proper expenditure of
taxes for government services such as education, health care system, infrastructure
and social services can assure that no Filipino is left behind as we carefully thread
the path to development.
Moreover, proper taxation system and collection for government revenue

ensures a stable and predictable fiscal environment to promote economic growth
and investment; promote good governance and accountability by strengthening the
relationship between government and citizens; and ensure that the costs and
benefits of development are fairly shared.
Assessment Task:
Reaction Paper
Name: _________________________ Course & Year: _____________
1. React whether you agree or disagree on the notion that “Equality does not
necessarily mean Fairness”. Give examples to support your claim. (15 points)
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
119
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
Essay
Name: _________________________ Course & Year: _____________
1. Give at least one situation that is applicable for every distributive norm
mentioned above (15 points).
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
120
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
Stand Point Paper

Name: _________________________ Course & Year: _______________
1. Basing from what you have learned on Rawls’ theory of Justice, Distributive
justice and taxation, make a stand point paper explaining whether or not the
present Philippine Taxation System (TRAIN) is fair. If yes, state social justice
principles to support your claim. If not, explain why. (30 points)
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
121
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
Learning Resources
Citizen-State Relations: Improving governance through tax reform (n.d).

https://www.oecd.org/dac/conflictfragilityresilience/governance/docs/4600859
6.pdf
Distributive Justice (n.d.). Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/justice-
distributive/
John Rawls (2017). Retrieved from
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rawls/#WorRawCitEnt
John Rawls and His theory of Justice. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.crf-
usa.org/bill-of-rights-in-action/bria-23-3-c-justice-as-fairness-john-rawls-and-
his-theory-of-justice
Justice as Fairness. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://sites.wofford.edu/kaycd/rawls/
The 1987 Philippine Constitution (Art. III, Sec. 1 – Bill of Rights)
Taxation (Meaning) https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/ taxation
Taxation 101 (2016). https://www.senate.gov.ph/publications/STSRO/taxation
%20101.pdf
122
Chapter 5: Eastern Ethical Principles
2. Introduction
In Eastern traditions, philosophy, religion, and daily life dimensions are

interlaced. Any philosophical claims are always directed towards a spiritual goal, the
attainment of well-being and guidelines for human conduct in daily life experiences.
Nooteboom (n.d.) observed some deep commonality of Confucianism, Buddhism
and Taoism: there seems to be a sense of underlying unity, of the spiritual and the
material, of substance and change, of thought and action, of knowledge and
morality, of self and other. Dy (n.d.) identifies common themes in eastern tradition,
namely: religious thought is imbedded with ethical underpinnings; manifestation of
love and compassion; knitted personal cultivation and social responsibility; pursuit for
enlightenment; and, harmony with oneself, with others, with nature and with a
Transcendent.
123
The ethical element is one of the most important parts because of the way
they teach what is right and wrong. The ethical attitudes such as love, compassion
and brotherhood are exemplary because they continually influence all Asians at the
backdrop of a highly consumeristic and materialistic western lifestyle. Students are
encouraged to compare with a critical mind one tradition over other traditions for a
deeper appreciation of their ethical claims.
a. explain the ethical principles of Hinduism;
b. point out the ethical principles of Buddhism;
c. evaluate the ethical principles of Confucianism;
d. identify the ethical principles of Taoism;
e. compare one ethical tradition from another; and
f. synthesize all eastern ethical principles;
4. Learning Content
Topic 1: Hindu Ethics
Topic 2: Buddhist Ethics
Topic 3: Confucian Ethics
Topic 4: Taoist Ethics

a. Activity Sheets
b. Textual Reading
c. Discussion
Budriūnaitė, A. (2013). Fundamentals of oriental philosophy.

http://www.esparama.lt/es_parama_pletra/failai/ESFproduktai/2013_metodine
_priemone_Oriental_Philosophy.pdf
Dy, M. B. (n.d.) “A short note on integrating Confucian ethics in business
ethics,” (unpublished manuscript)
Hwang, K. K. (2015). Morality ‘East’ and ‘West’: cultural concerns.
International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, 806-
810. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Kwang_Kuo_Hwang/publication/
290917458_Morality_East_and_West_Cultural_Concerns/links/5a547bee458
515e7b7326674/Morality-East-and-West-Cultural-Concerns.pdf
Nooteboom, B. (n.d.). “Eastern and western philosophy”. Retrieved from
https://www.bartnooteboom.nl/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Eastern-and-
Western-philosophy.pdf
Pasco, M. O. D; Suarez, V. F & Rodriguez, A. M. (2018). Ethics. Philippines:
C & E Publishing, Inc.
Smart, N. & Hecht, R. D. (Ed.). (1982). Sacred texts of the world: A universal
anthology. New York: The Crossroad Publishing Company.
124
8. Assessment Task
a. Reflection Paper
b. Reaction Paper
MODULE CONTENT
Topic 1: Ethical Principles of Hinduism
Learning Outcomes:
1. identify important religious texts of Hinduism;
2. define key concepts in Hinduism;
3. explain the ethical principles of Hinduism; and
4. analyze different Hindu practices that were imbibed by western lifestyle.
Introduction
125
Hinduism, comes from the Persian word hindu (Sanskrit sindhu), literally
means “river.” It means “of the Indus Valley” or simply “Indian.” Hindus call their
religion sanatama dharma, “eternal religion” or “eternal truth.”
Hinduism dates back over 5,000 years. The Indians themselves call their faith
eternal teaching or law – dharma. Hinduism unites many different religious beliefs
and different philosophical schools. Buddhism is considered one of unorthodox
schools of Hinduism. India has a very distinctive phenomenon of inclusivism, i.e.
when other traditions, world outlooks are integrated into an already existing one. For
example, Buddhism in India was overcome by incorporating and integrating this
doctrine into the tree of Vedanta philosophy. It was declared that Gautama Buddha
is the ninth avatar of Hindu god Vishnu who came down to the world with heretic
teaching in order to bring together all heretics and, thus, protect them from a karmic
burden growing heavy.
Even though Hinduism has no founder, several periods of the formation of this
tradition can be notable: 1) pre-Vedic (3000–2000 BC); a part of rites and cults, yoga
techniques were formed in the Indus Valley Civilization; 2) Vedic (2000–600 BC); the
sacred Vedic language and Sanskrit, the complex pantheon of gods and the system
of rites were formed, the society divided into estates at the time, which later became
castes (brāhmana, kśatriya, vaiśya, śūdra); 3) Brahmanic-Shramanic (600 BC); two
different religious traditions were formed at the time: Brahmanic following the Vedic
authority and Shramanic, unorthodox, uniting various sects, including Jainism and
Buddhism; 4) Hinduism Consolidations (200 BC–400 AD); it is the period of
formation of Shastras, Puranas, establishment and definition of norms of religious,
ethical, social, political and economic, sensual (family and artistic) life; 5) Classical
Hinduism (300–1200), religious, social, ritual systems were fully formed, monasteries
flourished, philosophical schools were formed; 6) Islamic Influence (1200–1757); the
mystical movement of Sikhs emerged in India; on the one hand, the resistance to the
Islamic world outlook was rising, on the other hand, new reformatory and synthetic
religious and philosophical movements emerged; 7) Modern Hinduism (from 1757 to
the present), British colonialism was influencing trends for adaptation to the Western
culture as well as the emergence of resistance and national liberation movements;
political and religious activities intensified outside India.
Most Important Texts
Vedas (the root “vid” – “to know”) is a collection of religious texts written in
Sanskrit which is believed to have been created by gods. The earliest texts were
written around 1200 BC. The final form of Vedic hymns was established around 500
BC. The Vedas consist of 4 collections: Rg Veda (“Veda of Hymns”), Yajur Veda
(“Veda of Instructions”), Sāma Veda (“Veda of Holy Songs”) and Atharva Veda (after
the name of mythical sage Atharvan; prayers, incantations, spells, blessings; the
latest collection, strong influence of the pre-Vedic cult; later became the basis of the
Tantric tradition; this Veda is not recognized by all Brahmanic schools).
Upanishads (also called Vedānta – “end of the Vedas”; Upanisad –“to sit next
to the teacher”, upāsanā – “cohesion”, “sitting near”). Upanishads differ from other
religious texts. There are over 100 of them written in the form of dialogues, disputes.
These are treatises of many centuries and various authors; there is no a consistent
126
and coherent teaching system, though they are united by the common subject matter
and purpose. Upanishads are important for all Indian religions, especially significant
are samsāra, karma and moksa doctrines formulated there. Discussion of rites
prevails in older texts and in Upanishads – it is the importance of inner harmony,
self-awareness, and inner sacrifice.
Shastras (śastra) or collections of treatises. Three independent, though

related parts of them were formed: 1) Dharma shastras, mainly for ritual, ethical and
social philosophy; 2) Artha shastras (artha – “benefit”) on political and economic
areas; 3) Kama shastras (kama means sensual pleasures as well as art) – on family
and sensual life. Sutras and karikas are a part of shastras (sūtra – summary of
teaching; kārikā – rhymed summary). They include brief interpretations of the
philosophical doctrine and reject opposite teachings. Brahma Sūtra is the most
important of them, though best known in the West is Kama Sūtra written by sage
Vatsyayana.
Puranas (Purānas – “ancient stories”) – literature of historical legends. They

are written in the form of a parabola for priests or monks and ordinary people. They
include not only numerous religious stories, but also examples of a social, political,
and ethical life; they speak about arts, rhetoric, grammar, horse and elephant care,
as well as places of pilgrimage. The main poetic epic texts are Rāmāyan a
(“Rama’s journey”), Bhagavata Purāna (“story of the Lord”) and Mahābhārata (“great
epic of the Bhārata dynasty”). One of the main books of this period is Bhagavad-gītā
(“song of the Lord,”) that tells the essence of teaching about spiritual and life duties
and identifies three paths (yoga) to liberation. Hence, Bhagavad-gītā is often
compared with the Vedas and even called the fifth Veda.
Key Concepts in Hinduism
God
Most Hindus believe in one or another god, the eternal origin, Being/Reality
(ekam sat) or the Oneness (tad ekam). The god can be a personal or an impersonal
being. Ways and rites of worshiping the same god can be different. Most Vedic
hymns are dedicated to one God/Being called by different names. Belief in many
gods and goddesses does not contradict Indian monotheism (henotheism), as all of
them are mere manifestations of the infinite inexpressible God. The worship of those
gods can also be the path to one perfect God.
Brahman
It is the one, unchanging, and eternal reality. Our visual reality arises from
Brahman, though it is so only in respect to the world. Therefore, it is called Māyā –
the cosmic Illusion, as from the standpoint of Brahman, there is no reality separate
from it – it is the Oneness.
Dharma
Hindu representatives call their faith dharma – “eternal law”; thus, the first
meaning of this concept is the eternal divine law, the eternal principle of Being, the
whole of Hindu faith, eternal consistency, and harmony of the universe.
Samsāra
127
It means (“changeability”, “continuous flow”) – the cosmic cycle of life and
death, i.e. the continuous change of lives. All life in the universe of Illusion (Māyā) is
constantly renewed; the soul of a dead person travels to another body
(reincarnates). Every life is temporary, everyone is full of impermanence, fragility and
associated suffering (duhkha); everyone is predetermined by previous lives.
Karma
It means “action”, “deed”, though it can also mean “duties”, “rites”, “fate”,
“consequences”. It is usually understood as human’s deeds, thoughts, desires,
preferences, and beliefs determining his/her presence in the rebirth cycle. An
ordinary person does not know which deed or thought is more or less important,
therefore, he/she must always behave himself/herself, perform his/ her duty as it is
the only way to get rid of karma. In order to escape from the cycle of samsāra, it is
necessary to liberate yourself from both good and bad karma. Both good and bad
desires attach, “stick” us to the samsāra cycle, as every desire is closely related to
expected consequences. Good karma is a desirable thing, though the ultimate goal
is moksa. Liberation is sought by not only doing bad, but also not attaching to good.
Moksa
It means “liberation”, synonym of nirvāna. Liberation primarily means right
knowledge, cognition. It is ignorance and desires that keep a person in the cycle of
samsāra. When a person recognizes what is illusive and temporary, he/she liberates
himself/ herself and is no longer reborn.
Jñāna, vidyā
It means (“recognition”, “knowledge”). The path to the eternal truth is intuition,
insight of enlightenment (jñāna), and not the mind. Much attention is paid to
cognition – of reality, comprehensive Oneness, immortality – though not to rational,
but rather intuitive cognition. Therefore, sages are also worshiped not because of
their knowledge, but because of their insight.
Ajñāna, avidyā
It means “ignorance”, “delusion”. Ajñāna is a delusion related to attachment to
the temporary world, and especially to one’s own mind, knowledge and desires, not
seeing that this is a part of the great illusion (Māyā).
Duhkha
It means (“dissatisfaction”, “suffering”) – the essential feature of life in the
samsāra state. Suffering is caused by karmic dependency, constant rebirth, fragility,
and transience of existence. However, it is not suffering in terms of a punishment
deserved individually or collectively by a person. It is not suffering which one can be
liberated from by someone’s grace or good fortune. Duhkha lies in being of all living
beings, though not everyone understands that. One can liberate himself/herself from
suffering only through liberation from ignorance (ajñāna, avidyā). Therefore, suffering
is defeated not by joy or happiness, but by the elevation of consciousness over joy
and suffering sought through various practices.
Yoga
It means (“yoke”, “connection”); it is described as disciplined efforts to tame
feelings and the mind, to control physical and mental human parts, to reveal the
nature of deity lying in everyone. Bhagavad-gītā indicates three paths (yoga): 1)
128
karma yoga – the path of action. It is the daily life with the fair performance of duties
and work, though without getting attached to the results of work; 2) jñāna yoga – the
path of cognition in which meditation, self-development, and self-awareness are
important; 3) bhakti yoga – the path of love or self-sacrifice passing through self-
denial, dedication to the deity.
Patanjali described 8 steps of yoga: the first two are meant for ethics: 1)
yama – five abstentions from: violence, injustice, theft, sex and greed; 2) niyama –
five precepts to be observed: cleanliness, satisfaction (with life, current situation),
austerity/simplicity, learning and obedience to God. The other three steps are related
to the discipline of the body and senses required for meditation: 3) āsana – body
positions, postures; 4) prānayama – control of breath; 5) pratyāhāra – withdrawal of
senses from external objects. The remaining three steps are related to soothing of
the mind and thoughts: 6) dhāranā – concentration of thoughts on one object; 7)
dhyāna – meditation of that object; 8) samādhi – complete oneness with the object
of meditation in contemplation.
Ethical Dimension of Hinduism
The ethical dimensions of Hinduism can be illustrated in three ways: a) the

merits of building a temple: Agni-Purana; b) the three Da’s: Brhadaranyaka
Upanishad; and, c) Ahimsa.
First, the Puranic text describes the merits of building a temple for a god or
gods becomes the paradigmatic ethical act. Among other things, one is freed from all
sins, is equivalent to offering sacrifices and makes one truly pious. It also suggests
very concretely that certain ethical acts go beyond this life and affect the past and
the future.
Agni said: I will now describe the fruits of making temples for the
residence of Vasudeva and other deities. He who attempts to erect
temples for gods is freed from the sins of a thousand births…He who
builds a temple for Krsna, the son of Vasudeva, is born as a man of
good deeds and his family is purified….By building temples for other
gods, a man reaps religious merits…Yama said to his emissaries: ‘Do
not bring to hell persons who have built temples and adorned
images’….By building a temple, one takes his family, a hundred
generations past and a hundred to come, to the region of Achyuta…
(Smart & Hecht, 1982: 226-228).
Second is the three Da’s which refers to the three cardinal virtues: damyata
which means restraint or self-control; datta which means giving; and, dayadhvam
which means compassion. These were spoken and enacted at the very beginning of
time. They are the foundation of all Hindu ethical thought and reflection.
The threefold offspring of Prajapati – gods, men and demons

(asuras) – dwelt with their father Prajapati as students of sacred
knowledge (brachmacarya).
Having lived the life of a student of sacred knowledge, the gods
said: ‘Speak to us, sir.’ To them then he spoke this syllable, ‘Da.’ ‘Did
129
you understand?’ “We did understand’, they said. You said to us,
“Restrain yourselves (damyata).” ‘Yes (Om)!’ he said. ‘You did
understand.’
So then the men said to him: ‘Speak to us, sir.’ To them then he
spoke this syllable, ‘Da.’ ‘Did you understand?’ “We did understand’,
they said. You said to us, “Give (datta).” ‘Yes (Om)!’ he said. ‘You did
understand.’
So then the demons said to him: ‘Speak to us, sir.’ To them then
he spoke this syllable, ‘Da.’ ‘Did you understand?’ “We did
understand’, they said. You said to us, “Be compassionate
(dayadhvam).” ‘Yes (Om)!’ he said. ‘You did understand.’
Hence, these are the divine voice that one should practice: self-
restraint, giving, and compassion (Smart & Hecht, 1982: 228).
Third is Ahimsa which means non-injury or non-violence. Gandhi (1869-1948)

used much of this Hindu tradition in the formulation of Indian nationalism. He
understood the Bhagavad-Gita’s karma-yoga as the active involvement in the
political world characterized by selflessness and dispassion. As early as the Laws of
Manu, ahimsa carried with it the sense of doing what is beneficial for a fellow-being
in a non-violent manner. Ahimsa is the single path to truth and god.
My experience has convinced me that there is no other God

than Truth….a perfect vision of Truth can only follow a complete
realization of ahimsa…without self-purification (in all walks of life), the
observance of the law of ahimsa remains an empty dream…to attain
perfect purity, one has to become absolutely passion-free in thought,
speech and action; to rise above the opposing currents of love and
hatred, attachment and repulsion…so long as a man does not of his
own free will put himself last among his fellow creatures, there is no
salvation for him. Ahimsa is the farthest limit of humility…I ask (you) to
join with me in prayer to the God of Truth that he may grant me the
boon of ahimsa in mind, word and deed (Smart & Hecht, 1982: 229).
Three Paths Three Debts

 karmamarga - path of works and action  debt to God
 jnanamarga - path of knowledge  debt to sages and saints
 bhaktimarga - path of devotion to God  debt to ancestors
Four Stages of Life Four Purposes of Life

 brahmacharga - school years - grow and  dharma - fulfill moral, social and
learn religious duties
 grhastha - marriage, family and career  artha - attain financial and worldy
 vanaprastha - turn attention to spiritual success
things  kama - satisfy desires and drives in
 sanrgasu - abandon world to seek spiritual moderation
things  moksha - attain freedom from
reincarnation
130
Ten Commandments
1. Ahimsa - do no harm 6. Saucha - be clean

2. Satya - do not lie 7. Santosha - be content
3. Asteya - do not steal 8. Tapas - be self-disciplined
4. Brahmacharya - do not overindulge 9. Svadhyaya - study
5. Aparigraha - do not be greedy 10. Ishvara Pranidhana - surrender to
God
Summary Note
Hinduism embraces a great diversity of beliefs, a fact that can be initially

confusing to westerners accustomed to creeds, confessions, and carefully-worded
belief statements. One can believe a wide variety of things about God, the universe
and the path to liberation and still be considered a Hindu.
This attitude towards religious belief has made Hinduism one of the more
open-minded religions when it comes to evaluating other faiths. Probably the most
well-known Hindu saying about religion is: “Truth is one; sages call it by different
names.”
However, there are some beliefs common to nearly all forms of Hinduism that
can be identified, and these basic beliefs are generally regarded as boundaries
outside of which lies either heresy or non-Hindu religion. These fundamental Hindu
beliefs include: the authority of the Vedas (the oldest Indian sacred texts) and the
Brahmans (priests); the existence of an enduring soul that transmigrates from one
body to another at death (reincarnation); and the law of karma that determines one’s
destiny both in this life and the next.
Note that a specific belief about God or gods is not considered one of the
essentials, which is a major difference between Hinduism and strictly monotheistic
religions like Christianity, Judaism, Islam and Sikhism. Most Hindus are devoted
followers of one of the principal gods Shiva, Vishnu or Shakti, and often others
besides, yet all these are regarded as manifestations of a single Reality.
The ultimate goal of all Hindus is release (moksha) from the cycle of rebirth
(samsara). For those of a devotional bent, this means being in God’s presence, while
those of a philosophical persuasion look forward to uniting with God as a drop of rain
merges with the sea.
Class Discussion
1. What are the Vedas, Upanishads, and Puranas distinguished by?
2. What is the relationship between the Absolute and an individual in Hinduism?
3. Describe the concept of liberation and its relation to knowledge/cognition.
4. Compare Confucian and Hindu concepts of duty/dutifulness.
Activity 1
131
Form a group of 5 members and make a collage depicting how Hinduism contributes
to world peace?
Assessment Task
Essay
Name: _________________________ Course & Year: _______________
1. Explain how is karma, samsāra, and duhkha related? (15 points

________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
Essay:
Name: _________________________ Course & Year: _______________
2. Give at least three (3) Hindu principles or practices that were imbibed and coated with
Western lifestyle. Explain. (15 points)
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
132
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
Learning Resources
Ancient eastern philosophy: On the ancient wisdom of buddhism, hinduism,

taoism & Confucianism, (n.d.) https://www.spaceandmotion.
com/buddhism-hinduism-taoism-confucianism.htm
Fieser, J. (Revised June 1, 2020). Classical eastern philosophy: A short
survey. https://www.utm.edu/staff/jfieser/class/110/4-eastern.htm
McKenzie, J. M. A. (n.d.). Hindu ethics: A historical and critical essay. Sri
Rama Ramanuja Achari (Ed.). http://www.srimatham.com/
uploads/5/5/4/9/5549439/hindu_ethics.pdf
Summary of Hinduism Beliefs (n.d.). http://crossnet.com/cms/uploads/
ethnic/resources/Hinduism/Summary%20of%20Hinduism%20Beliefs.pdf
Topic 2: Ethical Principles of Buddhism
Nominal Duration: 1 hour
Learning Outcomes:
1. trace the historical development of Buddhism;
2. identify key concepts in Buddhism; and
3. explain the ethical principles of Buddhism.
Introduction
133
The Buddhist tradition has been formed in the Hindu environment and has
adopted many concepts (karma, samsāra), though it has rejected (ātman) or
changed the meaning of some of them. It did not recognize the worship of castes,
one or many gods, the Sanskrit language and sacredness of the Vedas, as well as
importance of sacrificial rites. The main goal remained the same as in the Hindu
tradition – to liberate oneself from the cycle of rebirth through cognition. On this path,
the significance of the teacher decreased and personal “efforts” became more
important.
Buddhism is considered to be founded by Siddhartha Gautama born around

560 BC in a noble family. The child was foretold to become either a ruler, or a
wanderer, therefore, he was raised in a closed palace. Grown-up Siddhartha got
married and had a son. Once he saw three forms of suffering (a feeble old man, a
disabled person suffering from pain and the funeral procession), he left his house
and travelled away. Together with teachers and followers he exercised austerity,
yoga. However, he quickly realized that external austerity is not enough if a person
still continues to cling to life. Having left his friends and followers, Siddhartha started
meditating. It is said that after 35 years of mediation under a tree Siddhartha
Gautama achieved enlightenment and became Buddha (“the awakened one”, “the
enlightened one”), i.e. he achieved nirvāna. Buddhists believe that there were many
Buddhas before and after Gautama. Siddhartha could achieve complete nirvāna,
though he refused it and began to teach people the Four Noble Truths which he
realized during enlightenment. This is how the Samgha community was created.
Numerous legends and stories were created about life and death of Buddha. Of
course, having turned 80, he got sick and died.
Development of Buddhism
Barely 100 years after Buddha’s death, over 20 different schools of Buddhism
were formed. Representatives of all of them saw themselves as real transferors of
Buddha’s ideas. In Ancient India, Buddhism (unlike Hinduism) was a religion
concentrated in monasteries and distant from people. An alternative direction of
Buddhism was gradually formed with the essentially new substantiation of the same
Buddhist teaching and the new approach to traditional Buddhist issues. Thus,
Buddhism split into the new system – Mahāyāna (“great vehicle”) and Hīnayāna
(“inferior vehicle”) which all schools existing before the split merged into. Only
Theravāda school of Hīnayāna direction remained to this day, therefore, these
names are often used as synonyms. Even though the official date of the split is
considered to be the 2nd century BC, the main ideas of Mahāyāna existed before it.
The Mahāyāna direction covers a wide range of very different schools with some of
them explaining the truths contrary to each other. However, all of them focus on
karuna (“love”, “compassion”) and prajña (“wisdom”, “insight”). The spiritual ideal
bodhisattva, according to Mahāyāna Buddhists, better corresponds to Buddha’s life
and teaching than the Hīnayāna ideal arhat, seeking only personal enlightenment. A
new type of texts – Tantras – appeared in India in the 7th century. These texts
covered rites and meditation techniques. A new direction was formed – Tantric
Buddhism or Vajrayāna (“diamond vehicle”) which later was widespread in Tibet.
From India, where Buddhism flourished, especially, from the 5 th century BC

until the 15th century AD, it spread to China in the 6 th century BC. In China,
134
Buddhism was modified and is now quite different from Indian Buddhism. Main
factors for the differences were not only contact with Confucianism and Daoism, but
also the translation and use of texts.
While known by people before, Buddhism started to spread officially in Japan

by the middle of the 6th century. The spread of Buddhism coincided with the spread
of Chinese culture, including writing, political ideas, and urban planning. Most people
understood Buddhism as a modification of the local religion (Shintō). Later, they
started making commentaries on ancient texts, adapting rites. Originally the religion
of aristocrats, Buddhism spread throughout the country in the 7th–12th centuries.
Local deities were considered to be incarnations of Buddha and bodhisattvas. Most
schools were founded as counterparts of Chinese schools (e. g. Zen – Chán). Due to
the geographical and economic situation in Tibet, Buddhism reached it relatively late
(around the 7th century), though Tibet borders with both India and China. The
Tibetan religion (Bön) profoundly affected the Buddhist tradition that came from
India, which could be the reason for Vajrayāna’s Buddhism taking root there. The
largest and still most influential school of Tibetan Buddhism – Geluk – was founded
in the 14th century and became especially strong in the 17th century. Dalai Lamas
travelling around the world after the Tibetan occupation also belong to this school.
Dalai Lama’s title of honour was introduced in the 16th century, and has been known
as the authority since the 17th century.
Key Concepts in Buddhism
Karma (“activity”, “destiny”, “consequence”, “duties”)
Buddhism adopted from Hinduism the concept of karma as the principle of

universe formation, as the universal cause-and-effect principle. Any being is formed
due to various reasons and conditions, and at the same time affects the future as the
active force. Of course, laws of karma apply only to the matter, though to absolutely
all forms of it. Dharma-kāya – the Absolute, the principle of Oneness in which all
differences and causalities disappear, it is above the law of karma, though,
manifested in the phenomenal world, it cannot avoid it.
Two levels are also revealed in human consciousness: ignorance (avidyā),

which is often referred to as a synonym for karma or at least as a phenomenon
directly related to it, and enlightened consciousness (bodhi). We cannot change our
current situation, as it is predetermined by our previous lives. For the same reason,
we can change our future, as it is a mere continuation of the present. Thus, there is
no fatalism, as it may appear at the first glance. Every action is “eternal” in our life,
as its consequences remain. On the other hand, every action is temporary,
impermanent (anitya – “impermanence” – is the first one of three essential features
of all phenomena; the other two are anātman – “not-Self” – and duhkha –
“suffering”). Depending on the law of cause and effect, all things appear, disappear,
and change, i. e. they are impermanent. It also applies to the human soul, well-
being, and happiness in life.
In the West, the law of karma is often seen as a mere individual law of cause
and effect. However, such a concept would contradict doctrines of anātman and
dharma-kāya and the concept of bodhisattva in Mahāyāna Buddhism. Buddhism
135
compares the law of karma with ripples in the water caused by a pebble, with the
influence of a hand or leg movement on the entire body, with the infinite echo in
mountains. Every deed or thought of every person can both help and hinder all living
beings on their path to enlightenment. Therefore, Buddhism believes in dual karma,
which expresses the dual fundamental attitude to life. Karma to be sought is actions
bringing joy and well-being to oneself and others, helping to achieve enlightenment;
karma to be avoided is actions bringing suffering to oneself and others, holding away
from enlightenment.
Duhkha (“suffering”)
Duhkha is usually translated as “suffering”, though it is a very superficial

translation bringing up specific associations, especially in the context of the Christian
culture. When translated as “suffering”, it emphasizes pain, a negative aspect of life.
Buddha did not deny happiness and joy, though he saw their transience. Duhkha
stands for impermanence, inability to satisfy all desires, existential insufficiency, and
imperfection. Duhkha lies everywhere; it is especially clearly manifested in the
human illusory Self. For example, fire heats but burns; water refreshes but drowns;
beloved ones make happy but hurt; the person himself/herself creates but destroys,
develops but behaves inappropriately. Some researchers of Buddhism use the
psychological term frustration, which fits to almost all positive and negative situations
in life.
Ātman (“Self”)
Buddha’s teaching states that there is no permanent self, immutable immortal

Self (ātman). Unlike in Hinduism, the Buddhist doctrine has no individual soul
seeking to connect with the world’s soul. On the other hand, it is not stated that Self
(ātman) does not exist at all, that there is no certain unity of consciousness – denied
are only ātman absoluteness, independence and eternity. According to Buddhist
philosophy and faith, there is no such soul which would be the centre of the whole
psyche and spirit. In Buddhism, what is called “Self” is defined as the sum of
psychophysical qualities. Ātman is made (i.e. its illusion is formed) of 5 skandhas
(aggregates). These are: 1) form/materiality, 2) sensations, 3) understanding–
imagination (psychological aspect of understanding when features of things are
recognized, e.g. different colours); 4) actions, deeds, 5) consciousness (vijñāna).
Like other empirical things, “Self” is made up of parts forming the aggregate due to a
variety of reasons and conditions. However, like other empirical things, “Self” is
temporary and dependent. What is called “Self” (ātman) is considered to be an
abstract concept without the real basis.
Anātman (“not-Self”)
It can be stated that the doctrine of anātman in Buddhism is universal, though

it has many interpretations; various schools have different beliefs in the authenticity
of conditional and unconditional “Self”. Some state that ātman is made up of
skandhas, others – that ātman is only a name. According to the 14 th Dalai Lama,
contradictions can be noticed even in Buddha’s teaching about “Self” and “not-Self”
which appear due to the different context, different audience, and different
circumstances. When it comes to the denial of existence of personality, person, and
136
soul, it is the conditional “Self” (ātman). And when it comes to achieving nirvāna, it is
the absolute “Self” (anātman). On the other hand, it is not the opposition of different
aspects of “Self” (as an independent individual derivative). In order to emphasize
illusionism of “Self” (ātman) and to encourage the real insight, “Self” is often belittled,
though only in comparison with “not-Self”. Anātman is the expression of dharma-
kāya in the human spirit which, however, as long as a person is alive is manifested
through will, images, imagination, desires, aspirations, etc., thus, through ātman.
Enlightenment is understanding of interaction between conditional and

absolute “Self” (ātman–anātman), similar to understanding of an individual and the
Absolute Oneness (ātman–Brahman) in Hinduism. Some schools (e. g. one of the
earliest and later condemned schools – Vātsīputrīya) recognize that there is a certain
self which is usually identified with Buddha’s nature. However, Mahāyāna Buddhism
states that human self is not eternal. Furthermore, all things are believed to be
hollow – they do not have any grain of eternity inside.
Avidyā – “ignorance”, “delusion”
It is the subjective aspect of karma, not knowing of the true meaning of our life
causing new rebirths. Ignorance leads to attachment to worldly things and life, when
phenomena are perceived as independent and separate from each other. According
to Chögyam Trungpa, a representative of contemporary Tibetan Buddhism, “when
we speak of “ignorance”, we do not mean stupidity at all. In a sense, ignorance is
very intelligent, but it is a completely two-way intelligence. That is to say, one purely
reacts to
one’s projections rather than just seeing what it is”. Such ignorance means the belief
in existence of appositions (e. g. “Self”–the world, “Self”–you, good–bad). Attempts
are made to assert own “Self” due to ignorance by devoting one’s life to career,
image creation, wealth accumulation or simply to self-nurturance.
Jñāna, vidyā (“recognition”, “cognition”, “knowledge”)
General terms referring to knowledge, right cognition, understanding on the

level of perception of daily life or doctrines; sometimes also called the manifestation
of enlightened consciousness (bodhi). Mahāyāna Buddhism distinguishes two or
three types of cognition. According to the Yogācāra school, there are three forms of
knowledge: illusion, conditional knowledge, and absolute knowledge. 1) Illusion
(parikalpita) is knowledge based purely on subjective experiences and is inconsistent
with common sense or objective reality (a mirage, reflection in the water, belief in the
reality of “Self”). 2) Conditional cognition/knowledge (paratantra) comes from
everyday experience abstracted by the mind. According to Buddhists, it is active not-
seeing of what is obvious to our mind, i. e. of the highest level of being, spiritual life.
3) Absolute cognition/knowledge (parinishpana) – the synonym of nirvāna. Such
absolute cognition/knowledge is present in all parts of the world and in all beings as
the principle of creation, the principle of ethics and morality. Such knowledge is
achieved by realizing all illusions, having refused own intellectual selfishness and
having seen the connectivity between everything.
Trikāya (“threefold/triple body”)
137
It means systemic fullness and harmony of the threefold manifestation of
Buddha: nirmāna-kāya, sambhoga-kāya, and dharma-kāya. Nirmāna-kāya is the
physical embodiment felt and seen by ordinary people. Sambhoga-kāya is the body
of enjoyment or bliss. This concept means that Buddha participates in life of higher
beings through their meditations and visions, and spreads his teaching for
bodhisattvas spirits and divine beings. Dharma-kāya is the Truth Body of Buddha
which is the basis of other two bodies. Buddha himself said, “Whoever sees Buddha,
sees Dharma (his teaching), and whoever sees Dharma, sees Buddha.” Sambhoga-
kāya and nirmāna-kāya are conditional and temporary bodies; dharma-kāya is the
eternal body.
Dharma-kāya (“body of Dharma”)
Dharma stands for both smallest elements of matter and things, phenomena,
ideas, images, religious doctrines, teaching, the path to enlightenment. Bodhi is the
expression of dharma-kāya in the human mind; karunā is the reflection of dharma-
kāya in human feelings and actions. Dharma-kāya is the Oneness, the Absolute
connecting consciousness, will, feeling, and action.
Śūnyatā (“emptiness”, “nothingness”)
It is typically used to indicate the inexpressibility, indefinability of the reality.

Our consciousness is also a part of the reality, though it mostly tends to things/forms.
Emptiness is in both things and our consciousness.
Bodhisattva (bodhi-“knowledge”, “enlightenment”;

sat-tva-“existence”, “what is”)
It means “enlightened being”, “being seeking enlightenment”, “being whose

essence is enlightenment”. This ideal is very important in addition to Buddha’s ideal
and peculiar only to Mahāyāna Buddhism. Bodhisattvas are on the path to Buddha’s
existence through wisdom and love. These are not some privileged people
occupying a better social position or representatives of the people.
Prājña (“insight”, “wisdom”)
Insight (prajñā) helps to understand that all people suffer; therefore, everyone
is worth compassion and love (karunā). Indeed, having realized the Four Noble
Truths, compassion naturally arises for all living beings. It is intuitive knowledge
possessed by all people, though most have this knowledge “blurred”, therefore, one
must always seek the perfection of wisdom. However, prajñā is also insight of
Emptiness and Oneness, therefore, like other perfections, it cannot be “achieved”
through some practice.
Karunā (“compassion”, “love”)
Karunā is universal love, as it spreads to all beings through people from

dharma-kāya. It is completely free of any human desires or passions; it spreads by
itself, without any conscious and purposeful efforts. It is comprehensive love;
therefore, it cannot be equated only with religious love, kindness, love of neighbour
138
or compassion. It is also inseparable from śūnyata, as self-denial, i.e. becoming
anātman, is the basis and condition of this love – comprehensive and compassionate
to all living beings. In this sense, karunā as well as nirvāna has two aspects –
negative (Buddhist “indifference”) and positive (active love). It is most close to the
Christian idea of caritas/agape.
Ethical Dimensions of Buddhism
The ethics of the eightfold path
1) right knowledge/view; 2) right attitude/intention; 3) right speech; 4) right

action; 5) right livelihood; 6) right goal/effort; 7) right thinking/mindfulness (sammā
sati) and 8) right meditation (sammā samādhi).
On the way to Nirvāna
It is liberation from the laws of karma, samsara (the round of rebirth) which is
the goal of the noble eightfold path. Theoretically, nirvāna is the dissipation of
ignorance; ethically – the destruction of selfishness and awakening of love;
religiously – complete subjugation of own “Self” to dharma-kāya (the Absolute
connecting consciousness, will, feeling, and action).
Conquering suffering
Suffering prevails in the Four Noble Truths, whose understanding lead

Buddha to enlightenment: 1) life is suffering; 2) suffering has a cause; it is
attachment, ignorance and desire; 3) suffering has an end – it is nirvāna; 4) there is
an eightfold path to overcome suffering.
Suffering or torment has three aspects: 1) daily suffering– all forms of

suffering (illness, death, separation, disappointment, etc.); 2) suffering of changes,
which comes from the transience, impermanence of all objects and things; 3)
suffering of conditional states, which indicates that what we consider to be an
individual is a combination of constantly changing psychophysical forces – five
skandhas. Skandhas themselves are also often identified with suffering, as torment
comes from the belief that“Self” is self-reliant, independent. Thus, liberation from
suffering is also understanding that there is neither a liberator, nor liberation, as a
specific result of actions.
Class Discussion
1. What forms of knowledge/cognition are distinguished and how are they related to
the concept of anātman?
2. What is the relationship between the dharma-kāya doctrine and the bodhisattva
ideal?
3. What is the relationship between śūnyata and karunā?
4. What is the relationship between the law of samsāra and various forms of
nirvāna?
139
Activity 1
Direction: Make a timeline indicating the major developments of Buddhism.
Assessment Task
Name: _________________________ Course & Year: _______________

I. Matching Type
A B
____1. Anātman A. body of Dharma
____2. Atman B. compassion
____3. Avidyā C. Delusion
____4. Bodhisattva D. enlightenment
____5. Dharma-kāya E. Great Vehicle
____6. Dukha F. indefinability of the reality
____7. Hīnayāna G. Inferior Vehicle
____8. Karma H. Knowledge
____9. Karunā I. liberation from the laws of karma
____10. Mahāyāna J. Not Self
____11. Nirvana K. Self
____12. Prājña L. Suffering
____13. Samsara M. the round of rebirth
____14. Śūnyatā N. universal cause-and-effect principle
____15. Vidyā O. wisdom
II. Essay:
2. What does Buddhism recommend for an individual to liberate himself from suffering.
(15 points)
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
140
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
Learning Resources
Ancient eastern philosophy: On the ancient wisdom of buddhism, hinduism,

taoism & confucianism, (n.d.) https://www.spaceandmotion.com/
buddhism-hinduism-taoism-confucianism.htm
Fieser, J. (Revised June 1, 2020). Classical eastern philosophy: A short
survey. https://www.utm.edu/staff/jfieser/class/110/4-eastern.htm
Topic 3: Ethical Principles of Confucianism
Learning Outcomes:
1. contextualize Confucian principles into the contemporary time;
2. identify and explain the ethical principles of Confucianism; and
3. apply Confucian principles into societal aspects.
141
Introduction
Confucian ethics focuses on reciprocity (the golden rule) and the innateness
of the four great virtues: humaneness, righteousness (or justice), propriety and
wisdom. The structure of human relationships particularly the family provides an
idealized model for all other relationships. Confucius (n.d.) fought against the
concept of a feudal society, seeking a way to structure the society so that the
positions of responsibility were occupied by the “superior moral man”: A
revolutionary idea, both in his and our times.
In Confucianism, both the man and the society in which he lives are a small
part of the universe. The universe is immersed in an order, in a harmony. Any
attempt to break this harmony creates troubles.
Biographical Details
K‘ung Fu-Tsze, “the philosopher K‘ung,” (n.d.), whose name has been
Latinized into Confucius, was born in the year 550 (or 551) BC. His father, Shuh-
liang Heih was an officer in charge of the district of Tsow in the State of Lu and had
been famous for his strength and daring; he was of the K‘ung family and lineally
descended from Hwang-Ti, an almost legendary character of ancient China.
Confucius was married, in accordance with Chinese custom, at nineteen and

accepted public employment as a keeper of stores and later as superintendent of
parks and herds. At twenty-two, however, he commenced his life-work as a teacher,
and gradually a group of students, eager to be instructed in the classics and in
conduct and government, gathered about him.
He was a contemporary of Lao-tsze, the founder of Taoism, who, however,

was of the next previous generation. Confucius is said to have had several
interviews with him about 517 BC. Up to the age of fifty-two, he was not much in
public life. He was then made chief magistrate of the city of Chung-tu, which so
thrived and improved under his care, that the Duke of Lu appointed him minister of
crime which resulted in a great reduction of wrongdoing. The Duke accepting a
present of female musicians and giving himself over to dissipation, Confucius
withdrew and wandered among the various states, giving instruction as opportunity
offered. He was fifty-six when he set forth on his wanderings; it was thirteen years
before he returned to Lu. In 479 BC, Confucius died at the age of seventy-two. He
was buried in the K‘ung cemetery outside the gates of K‘iuh-fow, where most of his
descendants, said to number more than forty thousand, still live. His tomb is yet
preserved and is annually visited by vast numbers of his followers.
The Five Basic Relationships (n.d.)
A final ancient (Shang Dynasty) influence that shaped Confucian thought is

ancestor worship. Under Confucian influence, primitive rituals of ancestor worship,
however, evolve into the central Confucian virtue of Filial Piety: respect for
ancestors, parents, and elders generally. More specifically, within the context of the
broad principles of Li and the prime virtue of Ren, the ideal Confucian person (Jun-
142
zi) is further defined in terms of idealized social relationships that include a “natural”
hierarchy that is part of (all) social relations.
Five Relationships: Distinctive Virtues:

 Father and son (Parent and child) – affection, filial piety/respect
 Husband and wife – separate gendered roles
 Elder brother (sibling) and younger – order, propriety
 Ruler and minister/subject – righteousness, justice, loyalty
 Friend and friend – faithfulness, fidelity
These five basic relationships are the natural social relationships that
essentially constitute human social life. The traditional Five Core Relationships are
strongly gendered leaving out daughters and sisters, and including only wives. The
first relationship can be expanded to Parent-Child and third can be recast as
Siblings, but the husband-wife relationship is clearly conceived as defined in
gendered terms. Altering it to Spouse-Spouse is thus a substantial change, and thus
it will receive a more substantial discussion below. Internal to each relationship are
specific roles, responsibilities and virtues that are based directly on the nature of the
particular relationship:
Parent and Child: A parent owes a child affection and care, an education that
promotes intellectual and moral development; a child owes a parent obedience,
respect, and care in old age and after death. The parent-child relationship naturally
and spontaneously includes an emotional bond of love. The authority of the parent is
rooted in wisdom and aimed at the good of the child. A child’s respect for parents,
and family elders, is essential to social order and virtue. Filial Piety is thus the core
virtue that defines and shapes most of one’s life. (Filial piety includes respect for
one’s ancestors and in classical Confucian thought is clearly related to the more
ancient tradition of ancestor worship.)
Husband and Wife: The husband is to lead, provide for, and protect the
family; and the wife is to maintain the household and defer to her husband. The
family is led by the father. Gender relations involved ritualized and clearly defined
female subordination, and this leads to a cultural preference for sons over daughters.
The ideal Confucian woman is deferential, silent, and, of course, fertile. Her virtues
are inner strength, forbearance, and a calm restraint.
Siblings: The older brother/sibling is to look after the younger and to help the
younger to obey and internalize his social roles and to fit well into the overall life of
the community. The younger supports, shows deference, and respects the older.
Ruler and Subject: The ruler is like a benevolent parent and the subjects
owe obedience and loyalty. Unlike the parent-child relation, the natural bond is not
affection and love; instead, it is a sense of justice and righteousness. Since the Rule
of Law cannot be arbitrary or lawless, the subject should be able to respectful
express dissent when appropriate. Ideally the Ruler should command obedience by
example rather than by coercion and force. The resort to force always signifies
failure. If the state is well ordered and the ruler is upright, obedience is natural. “Lead
the people with administrative injunctions and put them in their place with penal law,
and they will avoid punishments but will be without a sense of shame. Lead them
with excellence and put them in their place through roles and ritual practices, and in
143
addition to developing a sense of shame, they will order themselves harmoniously.”
Rulers should always pick the most able, virtuous and qualified to succeed them,
and not their own eldest sons or family members. In this case, State piety is higher
than any filial obligation.
Friendship: Mutual loyalty aimed at mutual virtue is the essential virtue of

friendship. Friendship is based in virtue and contributes to self-development. Friends
are akin to brothers: “When at home, you have your brothers; when abroad, you
have your friends”. “For men with no brothers, there are none who have established
themselves who have not had friends to help them.” “True friendship is a plant of
slow growth, and must undergo and withstand the shocks of adversity”.
The Five Fundamental Principles
1. Education, Ritual (Li): “Study as if you never learned enough as if you were afraid
to forget what you have learned.” Analects.
2. Humanity (Ren): “Self-control and insistence on rites are what will result in
Benevolence (Ren). Benevolence comes from yourself, not from others.” “Ren is
to love others.”
3. Superior Man (Jun zi): “The superior man is centred on justice, the vulgar in the
benefit.”
4. Power (Te): “Te is the power by which men are governed.”The right thing is not
implanted in society or by force or by law, but by the influence of people admired
and respected. If the leader is inept, society does not work.
5. The Arts of Peace (Wen): “Let the will be set on the path of duty. Let every
attainment in what is good be firmly grasped. Let perfect virtue be accorded with.
Let relaxation and enjoyment be found in the polite arts”
Ethical Principles of Confucianism
Reciprocity in the Analects
In these passages, Confucius expresses versions of the Golden Rule.
Chung-Kung asked about humaneness (jen), and the Master

said: ‘When going about, behave to each person as if you were
meeting an esteemed guest; employ people as if you were assisting at
a great ceremony. Do not do to others what you would want them to do
to you. Then there will be no resentment against you in the country or
in your family.’ Chung-Kung replied ‘Though I am no genius, I’ll try and
put your teaching into practice.’ Tzu-kung asked ‘Is there one word
which can express the essence of right conduct in life?’ K’ung replied:
‘It is the word shu – reciprocity: Do not do to others what you do not
want them to do to you.’
The Innateness of the Four Great Virtues: Mencius
144
The four virtues here referred to are: humaneness, righteousness (or justice),
propriety and wisdom – sum up the Confucian ethics. Mencius argues here that their
roots are in human nature. Thus, virtue is human nature properly expressed.
Meng said: ‘All men are such that they cannot bear seeing each
other suffer. The kings of old had this kind of compassion and it
governed their policy. One could easily rule the whole world with
attitudes like that: it would be like turning it round in the palm of the
hand. I say that men are like that because anyone seeing a child fall
into a well would have a feeling of horror and distress. They don’t feel
this out of sympathy for the parents, or to gain a reputation among
friends and neighbors, or for fear of being considered unfeeling. Not to
feel the distress would be against human nature. Similarly, not to feel
shame and disgrace and not to feel respect for others and not to have
a sense of right and wrong are contrary to human nature. The feeling
of distress is the beginning of humaneness; the feeling of shame is the
beginning of righteousness; the feeling of respect is the beginning of
propriety; and the feeling of right and wrong is the beginning of
wisdom.
Class Discussion
1. How do Confucians see the relationship between self and others?
2. How do you summarize the teachings of Confucius?
3. How is virtuous behaviour described in Confucianism?
4. What are the main differences between a noble man and a poor man?
5. How should each of the main virtues manifest itself in Confucius’ concept of ideal
ruling?
Activity 1
Direction: The students are grouped (ten groups with five members each). Each
group is required to choose one (1) Confucian saying to be written in a calligraphy
form to be place in an A4 bond paper and translate those words into current ideas.
Activity 2
Direction: Students choose three quotes from Confucius. Create and decorate a
poster with two (2) columns:
 Write the three quotes in a column that is labeled “Confucius says…”
 Paraphrase (put into your own words) the three quotes in a column that is
labelled “(Your Name) says…”
 Add a picture(s) to each column.
Assessment Task
Reaction Paper
145
Name: _________________________ Course & Year: _______________
I. How do you relate Confucian principles to politics for the improvement of governance
in the Philippines? Justify your claim. (15 points)
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
Assessment Task:
Reflection Paper
Name: _________________________ Course & Year: _______________
I. Could Confucianism provide a philosophical basis for developing business ethics for
today’s corporations? Explain why you said so. (15 points)
________________________________________________________________
146
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
Learning Resources
Confucius, (n.d.). http://en.reingex.com/Confucianism-Ethics.shtml

Confucius, (n.d.). Confucius: The ethics of Confucius. https://oll.libertyfund.
org/titles/confucius-the-ethics-of-confucius
Confucius (March 31, 2020) https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/confucius/
Five Basic Relationships, (n.d.). Confucian Ethics and the limits of rights
theory. https://www.bates.edu/philosophy/files/2010/07/GME-Ch.-III-
Confucian-Medical-Ethics.pdf
The main concepts of Confucianism (n.d.) https://philosophy.lander.
edu/oriental/main.html
Topic 4: Ethical Principles of Taoism (Daoism)
Learning Outcomes:
1. explain key concepts of Daoism;
2. identify and explain the ethical principles of Daoism; and
147
3. apply Daoist principles in environmental ethics.
Introduction
Daoism is the most important tradition forming Chinese cultural, religious and
philosophical life along with Confucianism and Buddhism. One of the main features
of Daoism is polymorphism, i.e. being made of many elements or fundamentals.
Daoism is also attributed folk superstitions, ancient religious practices, various
mysterious practices, psychophysical training practices, and the idea of the
comprehensive and connecting Oneness. As a result, Daoism is often incorrectly
interpreted when trying to discern its philosophical and religious parts, or – even
worse – when trying to oppose those parts.
These traditions have existed since the very first Confucian and Daoist sages
as the opposition, though not as struggling but as complementary forces.
Confucianism put more emphasis on the social life, and Daoism accentuated the
orientation of an individual to himself/herself; Confucianism valued ethics, Daoism –
search for the deepest wisdom; it was important to have the ritualized and personal
relationship with the highest being for Confucianism and Daoism, respectively;
Confucianism makes the clear differentiation between good and bad, Daoism
emphasizes the relation between positive and negative poles; Confucianism calls for
changing yourself and the world, Daoism promotes inaction. However, Daoism, like
Confucianism, was characterized by attention to a person, the spiritual self-
development seeking the spiritual ideal, the orientation to a particular life, rather than
to abstract reflections, and the overall perception of being.
Development of Daoism
Traditionally, Laozi (Lăozi, Lao Tzu) and Zhuang Zi (Zhuāng Zĭ, Chuang Tzu,
Zhuang Zhou) are considered to be the founders of Daoism. Treatises attributed to
them are considered to be the main sources of religious and philosophical ideas of
Daoism. Even though there is no precise data, it is believed that Laozi lived in 585–
500 BC. The origin of his name is subject to debates, it is usually translated as “Lao,
the founder of the school” correspondingly to Mengzi, Zhuangzi, Kongzi (i. e.
Confucius). Laozi is known to have been a chronicler of the Zhou dynasty’s library –
“the guardian of the treasure house of books”. Zhuang Zi probably lived later than
Laozi – in 370–300 BC. Some researchers of Daoism believe that Laozi was a
legendary person and only Zhuang Zi can be considered the historic founder of
Daoism. However, even though Laozi or Zhuang Zi can be considered founders of
the Daoist tradition, they did not establish the philosophical school in the true sense
of the word, as Confucius did. The word “school” here, as in case with many other
ancient philosophical and religious traditions, should be understood as the
succession in the conception of the world or the continuation of the main ideas,
rather than the organized structure or the transfer of explicated theories. After all,
both Dàodéjīng and Zhuāngzĭ call not for learning, but for listening, not for defining
and explaining, but for feeling the unity and fullness of being.
Daoism did not have and does not have a religious system, doctrine or
ecclesiastical institution. For a long time, the truths of Daoism have been passed on
148
directly from the teacher to the disciple and have remained inaccessible to outsiders.
Numerous sects (around 86) have been formed since the 2nd century, each
following their own teacher. Daoism has perfectly integrated earlier folk superstitions
and cults, and the pantheon of deities and immortals has never been clearly defined
and has been constantly replenished with new objects of worship. Since the 2nd–3rd
centuries, Laozi was seen as one of the main deities – the incarnation of Dào on
earth. A belief of his constant incarnation into other teachers was formed later.
However, there can be many such simultaneous incarnations in Daoism, unlike in
Tibetan Buddhism with only one Dalai Lama at the same time.
The development of Daoism can be divided into two stages: 1) appearance,

formation – until the 2nd century. Organized structured Daoist communities started
to form only in the 2nd century. Therefore, Zhang Daoling (Zhāng Líng), the founder
of the first such school Tiān Shī Dào or the “Way of the Celestial Masters,” is
officially considered to be the founder of Daoist religion; 2) development – from the
2nd century until now. Many smaller periods can be identified in the second stage, of
which the most important one in the context of this book is the 4th–6th centuries,
when Buddhism came from India to China (according to the legend, Bodhidharma
came to China in 526 and became the first patriarch of Chinese Buddhism).
Daoist teaching included not only philosophy and religious practice, but also
martial arts, alchemy, various esoteric practices, and art, especially, landscape
painting. Although very closed, Daoism has remained to this day as one of the most
important Chinese ideologies, alongside with Confucianism and Buddhism.
Currently, the largest school of Daoism is Quán zhēn dào (the “School of the Perfect
Truth”), established as early as in the 12th–13th centuries. It is one of the schools
which, under the influence of Buddhism, also started to promote the monastic way of
life. Even though officially there is only around 1 per cent of Daoists in China as
professors of this religion, Daoism had and still has a great influence on the
formation of the “daily life” ideology, literature, and art, and sculptures of Laozi stand
in temples next to Confucius and Buddha.
Key Concepts in Daoism
Daoist philosophy is distinguished by the nature other than that of the main
ideologies of that time, including Confucianism. According to B. Watson, it is, as a
matter of fact, mystical philosophy whose essence is not defined in any way. Other
ideologies suggested to follow certain norms, to create a certain model of self or the
world, and the main idea of Daoism was to get liberated from the world, first – from
ideas which became clichés, what is good and what is bad, what is life and what is
death.
Dào (the first meaning is “way”)
Only in Daoism that this concept acquired a comprehensive nature and began
to stand for eternal being, the basis of any being, and the eternal order of being. Dào
was used in three ways. Two last meanings were used in Chinese philosophy for a
long time. Only the first meaning was new and important and became the centre of
the whole Daoist philosophy. Three forms of Daoism are distinguished in accordance
with three meanings of Dào. However, these are not three separate schools, but the
149
manifestation of Daoism in different environments. 1) Transcendent Dào as the
source of everything that exists in the Universe. This is the concept of Dào by Laozi
and Zhuang Zi – the so-called “philosophical Daoism”. 2) Immanent Dào as the law
of nature and the world order. The so-called “life-supporting Daoism” aimed at
releasing and increasing life energy qì (chi) by means of movement (exercises of
martial arts, acupuncture and acupressure), matter (herbs, breathing) and
consciousness (meditation on emptiness). 3) Dào as the human way of life in
harmony with universe Dào; social norms, laws; sometimes this concept is translated
according to its first meaning as “the way”, but it also stands for the way of life and
social order. In this field, Daoism is called “religious” as it is manifested in a more
organized form through priests who have to help ordinary people to harmonize
themselves and the environment and to understand principles of Dào.
Book Dàodéjīng covering the main ideas of Laozi begins with the description
of Dào with the assurance that Dào is indescribable, imperceptible and unthinkable,
and related to non-being in the same way as with being. Dào is described as the
opposition to ordinary things which can be named or defined; any description of Dào
is inexpressive.
Dào is the basis and source of everything, but not the spirit or deity. Dào
precedes any deity. All are “great”, though Dào is the first from which everything else
appeared. On the other hand, Dào is not other-worldly, transcendent, related to the
world only by the original creation. It is creative original energy – endless and
inexhaustible. Therefore, Dào is usually described through negation by saying what it
is not or by using various metaphors.
Thus, Dào is understood as truly comprehensive; the equality of all things and
phenomena is emphasized when looking from Dào perspective. On the other hand,
Dào is not a polytheistically understandable deity, perceptible and fully manifested in
every individual treatise. Dào is not the whole made of separate particles. It is solid
harmonious, indivisible, self-sufficient original being. However, both opposites and
multitude appear out of it (“a nugget decomposes into the uncountable multitude”.
Dào is the basis for everything, including man, but this is why it cannot be
cognized rationally or empirically. It cannot be understood as being separate from
the world, but it cannot be found in manifestations of that being as well. An attempt
to understand Dào is similar to shadow catching, as it is merely dust that hands can
catch.
Dé (Te) – virtue, moral power
It is not a moral virtue, but rather similar to the healing power of herbs or
certain practices concealed in their essence rather than in the outer form. It can be
also interpreted as the power of goodness, though not as a separate human quality,
but as the overall state of a person living in harmony with Dào. The term is the same
as in Confucianism, however, as mentioned above, the Daoist Dé is understood from
a more ontological perspective. Dào is manifested through Dé, i.e. through the power
150
or virtue. Since Dào is the basis for the existence of all things and phenomena,
everything or phenomenon is also a form of its power.
Thus, virtue in Daoism stands not for volitional cherishing of certain qualities
but rather for the recognition of eternal Dào laws in the environment and not
disturbing them to spread. Laozi often compares a person filled with virtue with an
infant – not detached from nature, ordinary and natural. Therefore, virtues of
Confucianism – directed to the earthly life, good relationships, and proper ruling –
are not valued in Daoism. On the contrary, such a concept of virtue is opposed to
Dào and nature, as with Dào living among people and in people, there is no need to
even talk about virtues – everyone already lives according to their principles.
Wú wéi – inaction, inactivity, calmness
It is another important term of Daoism showing the path which, if followed by a

person, can lead to the goal of life – merging with Dào. The essence of Dào is
inaction (wú wéi), self-existence, and creative calmness: The Dào in its regular
course does nothing (for the sake of doing it), and so there is nothing which it does
not do. Consequently, it must be sought by a person as well. There are only two
possibilities: either a person lives in harmony with Dào according to its dé power
naturally manifested in all forms of being without compulsion or a person is
constantly restless, aspiring, seeking and constantly encountering his nature, and
self-destructive from the inside. The human inaction does not mean passivity and
doing nothing, it stands for non-interference with nature, not taking own advantage,
observation of nature and learning from its eternal laws.
Shèngrén (sheng-jen) – a “wise man”, also “noble man”
He is essentially different from the Confucian sage (shèngrén) or, especially,

from a noble man (jūnzĭ) whose concepts put more emphasis on morality, activity,
control of one’s own nature and suppression of desires, observance of rites and
performance of duties. In order to become a sage in Daoism, a person must become
natural again and recognize (if cannot be rejected completely) treachery and greed.
Therefore, another concept – zhēnrén (chenjen) – “the true man” is often used
when referring to the sage. Confucianism quite clearly defines what is good and bad,
and in Daoism good and evil, positive and negative always go together and are
inseparable. The Confucian sage seeks to change and control himself and the world,
and the Daoist sage does not interfere with nature and returns to the calm state.
Confucius believed that the reality can be understood, named, and controlled. The
greatest objective for Daoists is to give up the habit to distinguish one from the other,
to name, to define; they seek to return to yourself, close all chaos “holes” and
experience harmony. The path of Dào is the path of impartial observation and
sensing the Oneness.
The Daoist sage lives according to nature, despises dogmas and boundaries,
and seeks calmness and emptiness. He does not feel neither love, nor hatred for
others (this idea was also developed by Zen Buddhism), therefore, it is said that
“there is nothing that could damage such a person”. The sage lives observing. He
knows life well, knows its laws, and shrewdly sees people. However, he does not
151
use it for his own purposes, he seeks natural simplicity. He is not trying to look better
or wiser than he is, therefore, many people believe his is an “ignoramus”. It is what
makes him completely different from careerists, know-nothings and people sunk in
their daily routine who are far from Dào. A wise man knows the world and himself,
though recognizes that there also are incognizable things. He sees things as they
really are, does not deceive himself, accepts everything his life brings, and does not
try to keep anything his life takes.
The concept of a “noble man” is partially affined with Confucian xiānrén (“a
talented man”), though in Daoism this term is criticized by Laozi. The concept of a
talented man determines the idea of the ruler as a personal example, while Laozi
believes that ordinary people must feel absolutely no ruling and not worry about what
their ruler is. Political philosophy constitutes one more clear difference between
Confucianism and Daoism. According to Daoists, such focus of Confucianism on the
ruler means exceptionality, and exceptionality is unnatural. A wise man is naturally
virtuous, which is directly and without any efforts passed on to the environment –
family, society, and the world. Thus, ruling also starts with the spread of person’s
inside and grows into the self-formation of orderly society, and is not controlled by a
wise ruler and his orders.
Harmony (Hé)
It implies a dialectical relationship between opposites, without which there

would be no life. Every phenomenon exists as long as there is its opposite.
Moreover, everything that turns into its opposite (happiness-misfortune, wealth-
poverty). It is impossible to absolutely correctly decide what is what. Dào is the
connection between opposites: All things under heaven sprang from It as existing
(and named); that existence sprang from It as non-existent (and not named). All
things will eventually return to the calm state, the Oneness. Here, the Oneness does
not stand for limits between the extinction or ignoring of things, but for an insight of
harmony and equality of one origin – Dào and all things and phenomena. Therefore,
there is no good and bad for the sage – everything has its own place in the world
and everything rises from Dào.
Yīn and Yáng
The dialectical nature of all things is usually expressed by the relationship

between yīn and yáng, harmony of the sky and the earth, a male and a female,
darkness and light, right and left. Yīn and yang aspects exist in everything and every
person. If a person emphasizes and develops only some qualities, there is no more
harmony and it destroys the person (these days, it is more often said by
psychologists than philosophers).
A basic belief of Taoist teachings uses the universal energy of chi, the life-
giving force drawn from the dynamic interchange of polar forces yin and yang. The
flow if chi as considered as an essential element of life’s flow or continuity, it is
believed to support and give prosperity, good fortune, and health, while it
simultaneously blocks sickness, conflicts, and difficulties. Most of the Taoists believe
that it is the constant flow of chi that guarantees the welfare of individuals and the
world around them by using the combination of Taoist doctrine with an active
expression of Chinese spirituality. The effects of Tao (the way) creates the origin by
152
generating duality that is yin and yang, light and shadow, as every action creates a
counter-action by itself, it is natural and unavoidable movement.
Dào is one and formless, though, being decomposed into the visual world of
multitude, it also acquires all qualities, though none of them is essential for it: The
Dào, when brightest seen, seems light to lack…. Only having harmonized
masculinity and femininity in himself/herself, a person can attain the fullness.
Therefore, Daoism has many paradoxes and contradictory statements which can be
understood only by looking at them as a part of the whole.
Class Discussion
1. What are the main features of Dào in Daoism?
2. What is the difference between the Daoist concept of Dào and the concept
emphasized by Confucianism?
3. What is the relationship between Dào and dé in Daoism?
4. What are the attitude to life and the way of life proposed by Daoism?
5. What is the difference between the ideal sage in Confucianism and Daoism?
Assessment Task
Name: _________________________ Course & Year: _______________
1. How can the Daoist thought help in the environmental crisis that we are globally
experiencing now? Support your claim. (15 points)
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
153
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
2. Make a critique on man’s pursuit of science and technology to transform the world
using atleast three principles of Daoism. (15 points)
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
154
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
Learning References
Epple, K. (2009). The role of Daoism in environmental ethics in China.
https://dra.american.edu/islandora/object/0910capstones
%3A187/datastream/PDF/view
Hwang, K. K. (2015). Morality ‘East’ and ‘West’: cultural concerns.
International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, 806-
810.https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Kwang_Kuo_Hwang/publication/290
917458_Morality_East_and_West_Cultural_Concerns/links/5a547bee458515
e7b7326674/Morality-East-and-West-Cultural-Concerns.pdf
Nooteboom, B. (n.d.). “Eastern and western philosophy”.
https://www.bartnooteboom.nl/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Eastern-and-
Western-philosophy.pdf
Pasco, M. O. D; Suarez, V. F & Rodriguez, A. M. (2018). Ethics. Philippines:
C & E Publishing, Inc.
GEC 7: Ethics
Chapter VI: Ethics Through Thick and Thin & Ethics and Globalization
2. Introduction
155
Ethics through thick and thin is the concluding part of this course, yet
interestingly, it also challenges the philosophical minds of the students with this
question: how may the discourses of ethics from the previous chapters help us
students engage ethical dilemmas on a global landscape with all its ramifications
from consumerist capitalism, neoliberalism, individualism, religious fundamentalism
and fanaticism, and terrorism?
The first topic discusses the challenges of globalization in ethics. This is an

important concept for students to understand and appreciate since daily experiences
at school, home, and community are an integral part of the globalization process.
With globalization, however, are the issues of pluralism, liberalism, loss of cultural
values and identity, and the disenchantments that go with it. Studying globalization
could help us understand the differences and similarities of different cultures and to
understand how we are connected and at the same time separated from the world.
The second topic dwells on the challenges of millennials. With the fast-paced
lifestyles of people across the globe brought about by globalization and the
overwhelming inventions in the field of science and technology, generation gap has
become an issue especially so that ethical dilemmas are dealt with differently among
age groups whether at home, in school, at the workplace, and in recreation facilities
or anywhere else. Ethical attitudes differ from Traditionalists, to Boomers, to Gen
Xers, to Millennials, and to Gen Z or iGen. Hence, this topic deals directly on
individualism, humanism and secularism – ideologies that influenced the millennials’
moral compass.
The third topic discourses on the role of religion in ethics. At the heart of
religion are moral codes and through the values they embody, they often build the
basis for ethical living. Students are challenged to evaluate ethical claims of religions
in a comparative way and rediscover the Divine as a guide to living fully human and
fully alive.
The ethical decisions and courses of action that we take points back to the
moral compass that we have embraced in this course.
a. explain globalization and pluralism as challenges to ethics;
b. evaluate the challenges that Millennials encounter in relation to ethical
behavior; and
c. explain the roles of religion in ethics.
4. Learning Content
Topics for Chapter VI

Topic 1: Globalization and Pluralism: New Challenges to Ethics
Topic 2: Challenges of Millenials
Topic 3: The Role of Religions in Ethics
156
a. Activity Sheets
b. Textual Reading
c. Discussion

books
Nelson, M. F., James, M. S., Miles, A., Morrell, D. L., & Sledge, S. (2017).
Academic integrity of millennials: The impact of religion and spirituality.
Ethics & Behavior, 27(5), 385-400.
Sheffield, Jim; Korotayev, Andrey; and Grinin, Leonid (eds.) (2013).
Globalization: yesterday, today, and tomorrow. ISCE Publishing.
Smart, N. & Hecht, R. D. (1982). Sacred texts of the world: A universal
anthology. NY, USA: The Crossroad Publishing Company.
Steger, Manfred. (2013) Globalization: a very short introduction.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ritzer, George (2011). Globalization: a basic text. New Jersey: Wiley-
Blackwell.
Archard, David (1996). Philosophy and Pluralism. Cambridge
University Press.
Weber, J., & Urick, M. J. (2017). Examining the millennials' ethical profile:
Assessing demographic variations in their personal value orientations.
Business and Society Review, 122(4), 469-506.

Online Distance Learning (ODL) – VideoCon/Edmodo, Email,
Messenger, Zoom
8. Assessment Task
a. Reflection Paper
b. Module Exercises
c. Home work
d. Situation Analysis
MODULE CONTENT
Topic 1: Globalization and Pluralism: New Challenges to Ethics
Learning Outcomes:
157
1. define globalization and explain its different dimensions;
2. enumerate the advantages and disadvantages of globalization;
3. evaluate the role of ethics in globalization; and
4. analyze the challenges of pluralism to ethics.
Introduction
Virtually, all aspects of modern life is affected and transformed by the forces
of globalization. News is shaped daily by issues concerning activities that go beyond
the confines of our domestic borders. Our homes are filled with products sourced
from the world over. We consume food coming from different countries. Even what
we read, watch and view originated from somewhere in the world. This means we
are not isolated and we are active participants in all these global activities.
We find ourselves in a period of time marked by an unprecedented

transformation. The fast and incessant social, cultural, economic, and technological
changes we experience makes our world more and more interconnected.
Globalization’s dynamic power will continue to alter the way we think about or
understand people and things, as it reshapes our lives, the system of our
communication and the manner we relate. The many changes which globalization
provoked in every society and culture have resulted in the cross-border stream of
individuals, consumer goods, and information by reducing an indefinite number of
obstacles among nations.
Globalization: A Search for Definition
Globalization is not a single concept that can be defined with certainty.

Different interpretations of the term reflect different perspectives rooted in different
positions, attitudes and benefits derived from it. There is a long line of definition from
academics, scholars and theorists since globalization as a term first appeared in
Webster’s dictionary in 1961. Here is a brief survey of the definitions proposed by
leading intellectuals and organizations over the years:
Kenichi Ohmae (1992) defined it as “the onset of a borderless world”.

Roland Robertson (1992) referred to it as “the compression of the world and the
intensification of consciousness of the world as a whole”. Arjun Appadurai (1996)
posited globalization as “a ‘world of things’ that have different speeds, axes, points of
origin and termination, and varied relationships to institutional structures in different
regions, nations, or societies”. Robert Cox (1999) outlined the “characteristics of the
globalization trend to include the internationalizing of production, the new
international division of labor, new migratory movements from South to North, the
new competitive environment that accelerates these processes, and the
internationalizing of the state…making states into agencies of the globalizing world”.
Fredric Jameson (1996) defined it as “a cultural process, globalization names the
explosion of a plurality of mutually intersecting, individually syncretic, local
differences; the emergence of new, hitherto suppressed identities; and the
expansion of a world-wide media and technology culture with the promise of popular
democratization. As an economic process, there is assimilation or integration of
158
markets, of labor, of nations”. Thomas Friedman (1999) brought up the “inexorable
integration of markets, nation-states and technologies to a degree never witnessed
before - in a way that is enabling individuals, corporations and nation-states to reach
around the world farther, faster, deeper and cheaper than ever before, and in a way
that is also producing a powerful backlash from those brutalized or left behind by this
new system. Globalization means the spread of free-market capitalism to virtually
every country in the world”. In contrast, Martin Khor (1999) related globalization as
“what people in the Third World have for several centuries called colonization”. World
Bank (2001) defined it as “the growing integration of economies and societies around
the world”. Robert Keohane (2002) described it as “a trend of increasing
transnational flows and increasingly thick networks of interdependence”.
International Monetary Fund (2002) interpreted it as “a historical process, the result
of human innovation and technological progress. It refers to the increasing
integration of economies around the world, particularly through trade and financial
flows”. Pascal Lamy (2006) referred to it as “a historical stage of accelerated
expansion of market capitalism, like the one experienced in the 19th century with the
Industrial Revolution. It is a fundamental transformation in societies because of the
recent technological revolution which has led to a recombining of the economic and
social forces on a new territorial dimension.” Nayef R.F. Al-Rodhan and Gérard
Stoudmann (2006) defined it as “a process that encompasses the causes, courses,
and consequences of transnational and transcultural integration of human and non-
human activities.” Manfred Steger (2014) in a more general and simplified terms put
it as “the expansion and intensification of social relations and consciousness across
world-time and across world-space”.
The abundance of definition is clearly an indicator of varying opinions,

discourses and debates and no single definition can put an actual claim to it. This
only shows that globalization is indeed multifaceted, multidisciplinary and complex. It
is also an evolutionary and fluid process. Certainly, new definitions will be put
forward and old definitions will be revised to reflect the changing nature and context
of social realities in the world today.
Globalization and its Dimensions
Manfred Steger (2005) contended globalization as matured ideology for “it

not only represents a set of political ideas and beliefs coherent enough to warrant
the status of a new ideology, but also constitutes the dominant ideology of our time
against which all of its challengers must define themselves”. For more than a
decade, there has been an emerging consensus and growing acceptance among
academics and thought leaders that indeed it is a valid and sound ideology to
perceive and explain the world. And to discuss it, it is imperative to divide the
ideological landscape into three broad regions or dimensions: Economic, Political,
Cultural and Sociological Globalization.
Economic Globalization
Economic globalization refers to the mobility of people, capital, technology,

goods and services internationally. It is also about how integrated countries are in
the global economy and how different countries and regions become more
economically interdependent with one another. Economic globalization is also about
159
globalization of production and trade of goods, financial and capital markets,
technology and communication, organizational regimes and institutions, enterprises
and corporations, and labor. In its economic sense, Joshi (2009) understood
globalization as the free movement of goods, capital, services, technology and
information. It is the increasing economic integration and interdependence of
national, regional, and local economies across the world through an intensification
of cross-border movement of goods, services, technologies and capital.

Over the past three decades, under the framework of General Agreement on
Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and World Trade Organization (WTO), economic
globalization has been expanding at a much faster pace. Since the 1980s, economic
globalization has spread rapidly through the expansion of capitalism and neo-
liberalism. Countries have rapidly been cutting down trade barriers and opening up
their current accounts and capital accounts. This rapid increase in pace has occurred
mainly with advanced economies integrating with emerging ones. They have done
this by means of foreign direct investment and some cross-border immigration. They
have also reduced trade barriers. Free trade is the main driver of economic
globalization. Economic globalization has grown at an increased rate due to
improvements in the efficiency of long distance transportation, advances in
telecommunication and information systems, and by developments in science and
technology.
In some regions of the world, countries group together to form preferential

trade agreements and economic blocs. Main goal of these regional economic
organizations is to promote and adhere to the free movement of capital, labor, goods
and services. The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) opened up the
free movement of goods and services, but not labor. This has the same arrangement
for Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). European Union is a common
market, and therefore the most advanced in terms of economic integration allowing
free movement of all factors of production within its internal borders.
Political Globalization
Central to any meaningful discussion of political globalization is the declining

importance of nation-states and the rise of other non-state actors in international
politics. In fact, some actors such as multinational and transnational corporations
and large international non-governmental organizations can challenge role of
national governments and may even pose threats to sovereignty of states. Consider
this: gross revenues of some global companies may exceed combined gross
domestic product (GDP) of several small Sub-Saharan or Latin American states, in
most likelihood, countries where they operate and have branches.
Political globalization is primarily concerned with growth and expansion of

global political system and its institutions. The creation and continued existence of
the United Nations is a classic example of this. Valentine Moghadam (2005) outlined
key trends towards this expansion: multilateralism, emergence of transnational state
apparatus and the emergence of international non-governmental organizations that
would provide oversight functions to national governments. Political globalization
has also been discussed in the context of emancipatory possibilities, toward greater
160
global democratization and the creation of a kind of a global civic society by
transnational advocacy networks.
Political globalization has also spurred debates about the primacy of nation-
states in international relations and about the notions of global governance. Hyper
globalists argue that globalization is eroding state boundaries and nation-states
loose significance. However, this is contested by nationalists and skeptics who
argue that it is not pragmatic as supranational organizations such as the UN do not
have police powers and therefore limited to enforce resolutions. They maintain that
state actors remain supreme in international relations.
Cultural Globalization
James (2006) defined cultural globalization as the “transmission of ideas,

meanings, and values around the world in such a way as to extend and intensify
social relations and expansion of social relations is not merely observed on the
material level for it also involves the formation of shared norms and knowledge with
which people associate their individual and collective cultural identities”. Furthermore
Steger and James (2010) pointed out cultural globalization as harbinger of
“increased interconnectedness among different populations and cultures”. Watson
(2016) argued that “as a result of the diffusion of commodities and ideas, everyday
life reflects a standardization of cultural expressions around the world”. Such cultural
globalization may lead to monoculturalism or the adoption of the culture of the
dominant group. This process is also understood as cultural imperialism wherein
dominance by a homogenized and westernized, consumerist culture tends to destroy
and alienate cultural identities of minority groups. The global influence of American
products, businesses and culture in other countries around the world has been
referred to as Americanization. Americanization has become more prevalent since
the collapse of Soviet Union in 1991. Greater Americanization became more
widespread through high speed internet and smart phone technology since 2008,
with a large fraction of the new apps and hardware being designed in Silicon Valley.
American-based TV programs are re-broadcasted the world over and Netflix shows
are transmitted through the internet. Americanization is best represented by iconic
companies such McDonalds and Coca-Cola. Terms such as Coca-colonization and
McDonaldization have been coined to refer to the dominance of American products
in foreign countries, which some critics of globalization view as a threat to the
cultural identity of these nations.
Cultural globalization is clearly driven by advances in information technology,

wireless communications, electronic commerce, popular culture, and international
travel and migration. Though seen as a trend toward cultural homogeneity and
standardization of human experience, to some scholars, this appears to be an
overstatement of the phenomenon. According to Watson (2016), although
homogenizing influences do exist, they are far from creating anything akin to a single
world culture. Another alternative perspective argues that in reaction to the process
of cultural globalization, a “Clash of Civilizations” might appear. Samuel Huntington
(1993) emphasized the fact that while the world is becoming smaller and
interconnected, the interactions between peoples of different cultures enhance the
civilization consciousness that in turn invigorate differences. Indeed, rather than
reaching a global cultural community, the differences in culture sharpened by this
161
very process of cultural globalization will be a source of conflict. There is a whole
gamut of conflicting claims and opinions to a Clash of Civilization, however, there is
general concurrence that cultural globalization is an ambivalent process bringing an
intense sense of local difference on one hand and cultural imperialism, greater
cultural homogeneity and uniformity of experience on the other.
Sociological Globalization
Albrow and King (1990) defined globalization from the sociological

perspective as, all those processes by which the people of the world are
incorporated into a single world society. In his work, In The Consequences of
Modernity, Giddens (1991) writes, globalization can thus be defined as the
intensification of worldwide social relations which link distant localities in such a way
that local happenings are shaped by events occurring many miles away and vice
versa. Robertson (1992), describes globalization as the compression of the world
and the intensification of the consciousness of the world as a whole. Held, et al.
(1999) in their work, In Global Transformations, state probably the most widely-cited
definition on globalization:
Although in its simplistic sense globalization refers to the widening,

deepening and speeding up of global interconnection, such a
definition begs further elaboration. ... Globalization can be on a
continuum with the local, national and regional. At one end of the
continuum lie social and economic relations and networks which are
organized on a local and/or national basis; at the other end lie social
and economic relations and networks which crystallize on the wider
scale of regional and global interactions. Globalization can refer to
those spatial-temporal processes of change which underpin a
transformation in the organization of human affairs by linking
together and expanding human activity across regions and
continents. Without reference to such expansive spatial connections,
there can be no clear or coherent formulation of this term. ... A
satisfactory definition of globalization must capture each of these
elements: extensity (stretching), intensity, velocity and impact.
Larsson (2001), in his book, The Race to the Top: The Real Story of
Globalization, stated that globalization is the process of world shrinkage, of distances
getting shorter, things moving closer. It pertains to the increasing ease with which
somebody on one side of the world can interact, to mutual benefit, with somebody on
the other side of the world.
As the phenomenon of globalization continuously increases its speed of the

exchange or transfer of goods, services and capital across borders, it invites
everybody to come together, to connect and unite in a common interest or focus
without regard to geography, distance or language. As knowledge, world views,
values, social practices, products, and other components of culture convergence,
people not only communicate but also collaborate. Due to faster, further and deeper
global integration, complex issues are bound to arise which cannot be ignored.
These pose new challenges and problems which are global in nature. Global
162
challenges and problems demand global solutions. This requires new thinking, new
ideas and new solutions.
Globalization and Its Discontents
Many are critical and skeptical about the claimed benefits of globalization.
One among them is the Nobel Prize winner for Economics Joseph Stiglitz as
articulated in his controversial book “Globalization and Its Discontents (2002). He
argued that globalization must be reinforced further to reap potential full rewards and
advocated providing “safety nets” for people left out by the process. Some critics are
more aggressive, rejecting it outright and calling for countries to totally abandon the
globalization project. Nevertheless, these are just some of the big arguments
against globalization and some of the moral dilemmas facing us in our time:
Globalization and Income Inequality
Though globalization, particularly economic globalization, has its rewards,

countries derive unequal benefits from it, and as a result tends to widen the divide
between the poor countries of the “South” and the richer countries of the “North”.
Countries deeply engaged in globalization have reported widening income gaps as
measured by their Gini coefficient ratios. According to Asian Development Bank
(ADB), before China implemented reform and open-door policies in 1978, its income
distribution pattern was characterized as egalitarianism in all aspects. At this time,
the Gini coefficient for rural – urban inequality was only 0.16. As of 2012, the official
Gini coefficient in China was 0.474, although that number has been disputed by
scholars who “suggest China’s inequality is actually far greater.” A study published
2014 estimated that China’s Gini coefficient increased from 0.30 to 0.55 between
1980 and 2002. Income balance is worsening between rural areas of the inner
counties and the coastal regions. And according to Bank of England Governor Mark
Carney, globalization has been one of the main causes of the increase in inequality
in many countries in the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development
(OECD). These countries, including the United States, Canada, and Argentina, have
faced an increase in inequality by between one-half to one-third between the 1970s
and the late 1990s. Globalization has been described as an "uneven process" in
Africa. Some groups are integrated into international economy while most are
marginalized and therefore excluded from the rewards.
Globalization, Labor Conditions and the Environment
By being first and foremost concerned with free trade and dismantling of
barriers to trade, proponents of globalization according to critics, tend to overlook the
process of how goods and products are made. World Trade Organization (WTO) as
the premier body for trade dispute arbitration, rules with the idea that a country
cannott embargo a good because they object to the process by which it is made.
Only the quality or content is relevant. This has become known as the “product”
versus “process” principle. If a product is made by child labor, in unsafe conditions,
or is damaging to the environment, it cannot be rejected. Underdeveloped countries
do not want to be pressured to impose labor and environmental standards as it will
make their products more costly. They want and need the business. They also say
that many people in the west may regard low-paying jobs at Nike factories as
163
exploitation but for many people in the underdeveloped world factory work is far
better than growing rice and risking hunger. They also add that child labor is the only
way a family may have as protection from starvation. This, according to Ehrenfeld
(1012), makes it difficult for a country to impose environmental labor or health
standard. Economic development fueled by manufacturing and export in rapidly
advancing economies such as China and India led to increased world coal
consumption, and therefore world carbon dioxide emissions. Industrial pollution has
devastating effects on climate change and the environment.
Globalization and Democracy
It is a well-established view by many that globalization encourages democratic

institutions which promote democracy. As the global market relies on capitalist
democratic values, it is inevitable that organizations that reinforce these values are
rewarded- they can expand into countries with other forms of government and
promote these ideals. Hence, the increased involvement of international non-
governmental organizations and other businesses that further the transparency and
liability of institutions that reduce state intervention, all which facilitate democracy.
However, many scholars such as Jens Bartelson (2004) have a contrary idea:
globalization poses a threat to the democratic state instead of aiding its expansion as
it undermines the essential requirements of state autonomy, patriotism and national
identity. For this reason, one could say that political globalization could be a
contradiction in terms. Globalization is causing the decline of the nation state, as
governments no longer have control over their economy, their trade and their
borders. Nation states may have in the past been in complete control of their
markets, exchange rates and capital. Now, transnational companies are becoming
increasingly imperative to the economy, and the state is becoming obsolete. This
supports the argument that globalization is reducing the power of democracy and the
state, resulting in “hollow” democracy.
Sceptics like Quan & Reuveny (2003) believe that while globalization
promotes opportunity for growth and increase in wealth, it has also increased the
socio-economic disparity between people, making nations less democratic and
progressively more ruled by the wealthy multinationals. This means that
governments now try and compete for foreign capital and design their policies to
please global investors and firms, who may not act in the best interest of, nor be held
accountable to, the voters. It follows that the level of democracy declines. Also,
scholars such as Peter Drucker (1994) argue that globalization cripples even more
those who are less fortunate, as previously stated. Companies who are unable to
compete with multi nationals on an international scale lose from more economic
openness. The results of this loss cause a weakening in the country’s democracy.
Another argument made by O’Donnell (1993) is that in order for a stable and
functioning democracy to work, the concept of citizenship and participation must be
active and embedded in the population. According to him, globalization has
transformed the common citizen into an individual who is more willing to pursue its
own economic interest than to be concerned with the content of public policy.
Samir (1996) pointed out even in the international community; globalization
has increased the cleavage between the developed countries from the North and the
developing countries from the South. In international organizations such as the
United Nations it is commonly witnessed that the elite wealthy countries always have
164
the final say in conflicts or important issues that are discussed, which ends up
swaying the domestic politics of less developed countries to their favor.
Globalization and Cultural Values and Identity
The most controversial debate raised on the issue of cultural globalization is

the resulting “identity crisis” and the role of mass media as a facilitating tool for its
expansion or limitation. Cultural globalization is perceived by some like McLuhan
(1968, 1964) as an instrument for the establishment of universal unity and
democracy based on a global culture signified as the “global village” through the
expansion of new communication systems. However, others like Rajaei (2001)
disagree and contend that globalization has not resulted in a unified political and
economic identity. In contrast, cultural globalization has destroyed national identities.
Critics argue that cultural globalization will result in cultural dominance and
supremacy. The deterioration of endemic cultures will be replaced with a universal
culture promoting excessive consumption and dominance of the economic and
information technology powers of the world. These scholars believe that the western
world is unfit to provide a suitable response to cultural globalization.
Skelton & Allen (1999) contend that the cultural globalization that we are
witnessing today is not the net result of human endeavors and experiences and even
it has not equitably benefited from cultural diversities, rather it is the manifestation of
dominance of a certain overpowering culture. They emphasize that the efforts made
to conform to the aggressive culture or interpret western culture in various parts of
the world have had disastrous results and have revealed insurmountable cultural
gaps. Thus, it is impossible to create a global culture with this procedure, and it only
widens the existing gap between cultures. Globalization has affected certain values
rooted in major religions and cultures of the world. Concepts of good and evil, right
and wrong, individual interaction with the society and the very meaning of life are all
warped and corrupted by global capitalism, international markets, mass media and
the promotion excessive consumption. Even some local languages and valuable
traditions are on the verge of disappearance as the result of globalization.
Muffazar (2002) points out that global consumerism is now forming a

homogeneous global culture where indigenous cultures of the South are being
replaced by Western cultures. Sociologist James Coleman (1990) notes the
alienation of societies with their history and their fascination with foreign values.
According to him, these new values and beliefs have no root or connection to their
national identity. Therefore, globalization weakens the traditions and values of local
cultures for the sake of universal uniformity and dominance of a commanding culture
through the formidable power of international media.
Manuel Castells (2005) another sociologist, concludes that our world and our
lives are being shaped through two opposite trends namely, globalization and
integrity of identities. The information revolution and reconstruction of capitalism
have established a new society that could be called the “network society”. The most
important characteristic of this society is its prevalent culture established by a
diverse and comprehensive media system. This novel society threatens traditional
social institutions and alters both culture and collective identity. Power magnates and
moguls prepare the news, information, science and political decisions at the national
and international levels and then inject them to the societies through the media.
165
Therefore, mass media is an instrument in the hand of the ruling class that not only
justifies its authority; it gains the support of its audiences. With this in mind, many
communications scholars and advocates of alternative media call for preservation of
territorial integrity and protection of national identity by establishing special media for
specific groups and audiences. To them, the advent and strengthening of media
alternatives represent the capability of various societies in introducing their own
needs and point of views through utilization of advanced and up- to-date technology.
Role of Ethics in Globalization
As the effects of globalization increases, ethics must itself become globalized.

Ethical principles have crossed many boundaries and have indeed became
globalized. Cultural differences and the advancement of technology have changed
ethical beliefs and traditions. There should be globalization of ethical principles
despite diverse ethical beliefs and cultural differences.
Ethics cannot be separated from globalization. The great changes which

globalization has brought about to different cultural systems necessitates changes in
the philosophical field of Ethics. Ethics’ traditional manner of explaining good and evil
and how to lead a good and happy life in order to guide us in the right direction,
needs to be reconstructed. Without this adaptation, Ethics will be regarded as
obsolete and futile and unable to adjust to new conditions introduced by
globalization.
In his work, The Imperative of Responsibility: In search of an Ethics for the

Technological Age, Hans Jonas (1984), indicated that traditional ethics has been
based on “simultaneousness,” “directness,” and “reciprocality.” In traditional ethics,
“the range of human action and therefore responsibility was narrowly circumscribed.”
Moreover, he asserted that:
All enjoinders and maxims of traditional ethics, materially different as

they may be, show this confinement to the immediate setting of the
action. “Love thy neighbor as thyself”; “Do unto others as you would
wish them to do unto you”; “Instruct your child in the way of truth”;
“Strive for excellence by developing and actualizing the best
potentialities of your being qua man”; “Subordinate your individual
good to the common good”; “Never treat your fellow man as a means
only but always also as an end in himself” and so on. Note that in all
these maxims the agent and the “other” of his action are sharers of a
common present. It is those who are alive now and in some
relationship with me who have a claim on my conduct as it affects
them by deed or omission. The ethical universe is composed of
contemporaries, and its horizon to the future is confined by the
foreseeable span of their lives. Similarly confined is its horizon of
place, within which the agent and the other meet as neighbor, friend,
or foe, as superior and subordinate, weaker and stronger, and in all
the other roles in which humans interact with one another. To this
proximate range of action all morality was geared (Jonas, 1984).
166
This implies that traditional ethics had concentrated only on presence in the
spatio-temporal sense of the word. Traditional ethics has confined itself on beings
who live in the present or in the here and now. However, globalization, with its
advanced technologies, has decreased to a great degree the separation among
people in terms of distance and time. In the process, it also torn down the structure
of the ethics of presence. In a globalized world where different people connect
through highly developed system of communication, distant and absent individuals
can possibly be located near another. Hence, a person’s decisions and actions can
possibly affect anybody residing on the other side of the globe.
What could be the reason for the limitation of the premises of traditional
ethics? According to Jonas (1984), when the conventional concept of ethics was
developed, the power of human action was not so great that it could destroy the
world. When the force of scientific technology exceeds the scale imagined by
previous ethics, we have no choice but to widen the scope of responsibility as new
conditions might require. The measure of responsibility must correspond with that of
power. Furthermore, he explained:
It will be the burden of the present argument to show that these

premises no longer hold, and to reflect on the meaning of this fact for
our moral condition. More specifically, it will be my contention that
with certain developments of our powers the nature of human action
has changed, and, since ethics is concerned with action, it should
follow that the changed nature of human action calls for a change in
ethics as well: this not merely in the sense that new objects of action
have added to the case material on which received rules of conduct
are to be applied, but in the more radical sense that the qualitatively
novel nature of certain of our actions has opened up a whole new
dimension of ethical relevance for which there is no precedent in the
standards and canons of traditional ethics. The novel powers I have
in mind are, of course, those of modern technology (Jonas, 1984).
To effect its transformation into a new ethics, a global ethics, traditional ethics
must respond to the challenges and issues that globalization brings. It must rethink
its principles vis-à-vis the sophistication of the new world. It must consider, in its
revisit, the future world and future generations or those who are not yet existing. It
must also consider not only men but all living organisms together with their
environment. Jonas (1984) argued:
And what if the new kind of human action would mean that more
than the interest of man alone is to be considered that our duty
extends farther, and the anthropocentric confinement of former
ethics no longer holds? It is at least not senseless anymore to ask
whether the condition of extrahuman nature, the biosphere as a
whole and in its parts, now subject to our power, has become a
human trust and has something of a moral claim on us not only for
our ulterior sake but for its own and in its own right. If this were the
case it would require quite some rethinking in basic principles of
ethics. It would mean to seek not only the human good but also the
good of things extrahuman, that is, to extend the recognition of “ends
167
in themselves” beyond the sphere of man and make the human good
include the care for them.
Jonas regards man as having a special place among all beings. He thinks that
due to man’s immense technological ability, he must have the full responsibility for all
beings. Since man holds great power he is bound to assume great responsibility.
We are all part of a global community. Since our decisions and actions can
impact anybody anywhere in the world, we need to consider them accordingly. A
new ethics is necessary to the global community’s future. At this point, ethics does
not possess a universal language. While there may be some ethical principles that
are similar, every culture’s beliefs and practices vary which makes the exercise of
ethics unique. Consequently, it behooves us to seek a global ethics, a new one that
is approved and received willingly by every culture so that the global civil society can
continue to be. A new ethics founded on globally shared values and manifested in
interlocking rights and responsibilities.
Pluralism in relation to Globalization and Ethics
The more the merrier! Pluralism is an idea used in many different ways. In its
general sense, it refers to the theory that there is more than one basic principle.
Pluralism, also known as the “doctrine of multiplicity” suggests differences in
concepts, world views, discourses, viewpoints etc. and that they differ widely from
subject area to subject area.
Pluralism is an interpretation of social diversity. It can be rendered as a

political, cultural, social, or philosophical stance. Any kind of pluralism makes at the
very least an empirical thesis about irreducible diversity. Yet each of these kinds of
pluralism pivots around different types of conflict – including ethical values, social or
cultural practices, epistemological worldviews, ideologies, and/or political interests –
and each accounts for these clashes from a different angle and with different
implications.
Socio-political Pluralism
As a political concept, it is the acknowledgment and the affirmation of diversity

among the polity, which permits toleration and the peaceful co-existence of
differences. Pratt (2015) pointed out political pluralism exists where multiple distinct
groups share power to promote compromise and coalitions preventing any form of
political absolutism. Social pluralism could be said to exist in a situation where
distinctions are made between private values for life and public values for social
order. Yaacob (2013) defined religious pluralism as religious diversity or
heterogeneity. In this context, pluralism is the recognition of multiple religious
groups to co-exist harmoniously.
Whereas political, cultural and religious pluralisms articulate the social

difference that stems from habits, beliefs, ideologies or interests, philosophical
pluralism goes further and adds an interpretation of the origin, character, and
experience of value heterogeneity. Ethical pluralism is the idea that there can be
conflicting moral views and stance that are each worthy of respect, therefore, the
168
claim that there are not just one single good for human beings, but many. The
varieties of good may lead to conflicts in values, but it does not mean that the values
are subjective. Some values are important only for people of a certain group, which
are recognized but not held by other people. The list of values may include:
Freedom, justice, equality, harmony, solidarity, love, friendship, fidelity, naturalness,
utility, affluence, etc.
One glittering example that has been the subject of much discussion and
debate lately not only in our country (with Duterte’s War on Drugs) but across Asia,
particularly in China, is the principle of universal human rights. Human rights is
construed as the idea of ‘individual freedom’ in Western societies, but in the orient, it
is deemed more from the vantage point of ‘common good’ and preservation of the
community. Individual freedom and common interests can conflict with each other
even if both are in accordance with the same moral principle.
Moral Value Pluralism
Ethical pluralism connotes the idea that there are diverse theories about what
is morally "right" and "wrong", and that which may be incompatible and/or
incommensurable with our own personal and cultural moral norms (Sher, 2011). In
Ethics, moral pluralism assumes that there are many independent and different
sources of moral values.
Moral pluralism (also known as ethical pluralism or value pluralism) believes that
there are many moral values which may be equally correct but disagree with each
other. It postulates that there is no single truth, even in moral matters. In moral
pluralism conflicting moral views lack a basis for comparison in respect to
importance.

Moral pluralism is the idea that there can be conflicting moral views
that are each worthy of respect. Moral pluralists tend to be open-
minded when faced with competing viewpoints. They analyze issues
from several moral points of view before deciding and taking action.
Moral pluralists believe that many moral issues are extremely
complicated. Thus, no single philosophical approach will always
provide all the answers.
For example, assume a building is on fire. A woman has the

opportunity to rush inside and save the children trapped in the
burning building. But in doing this she may die, and leave her own
child an orphan. A moral pluralist would conclude that there is no
definitive way to decide which is the better course of moral action.
Indeed, moral pluralism declares that it is sometimes difficult to

choose between competing values. So, moral pluralism occupies a
sensible middle ground between “there is only one right answer” as
moral absolutism says, and “there is no wrong answer” as moral
relativism claims. (Moral Pluralism n.d.)
169
Universal or absolute set of ethical principles has no place in moral relativism.
Evaluation of moral standards in moral relativism are culturally defined since there
are many differences across cultures. Preference of moral values of one culture over
another has no objective grounds. Every culture makes its own moral judgments
based on its unique beliefs, customs, and practices. People assume that the right
moral values are the values that can be found in their own culture.
Since moral pluralism seeks balance in competing principles, it encourages

different cultures to carefully understand and accommodate their differences by
avoiding extremism (sticking blindly to just one moral value, or at the very least
unwilling to acknowledge the legitimacy of other moral values). Since human values,
by their very nature, come into conflict with other, sometimes compromises between
these values should be found.
Criticisms on Pluralism
1. Pluralism as Relativism
Pluralism seems to suggest relativism. According to this line of reasoning, in

order to be a pluralist it’s necessary to believe that all ethical laws are relative to
culture and circumstance, so there can be no one moral law that applies to
everyone. So by extension, some people believe that pluralism cannot exist
alongside universal morality. For this reason, several metaethicists including Shafer-
Landau (2004) have argued that realism alone can support the commitment to
toleration as a universal value—such that intolerance can be morally condemned—
because only realism allows for the existence of universal, objective moral values.
J. Baird Callicot (1999) claims that moral pluralism leads to relativism,

skepticism and the undermining and weakening of moral obligations. He asserts that
moral pluralism provides no basis for determining which are of multiple incomparable
principles to follow in any given circumstance, thus without a unitary system of
morals, we tend to lose moral and intellectual coherence. This assertion by Callicot
is best illustrated in the quest for an environmental ethic and the search for the right
moral grounding for issues on global climate change, pollution overload, resource
depletion and other environmental challenges and concerns.
Indeed, the main objection to pluralism is its capacity to solve real moral
problems. Whether the issue on hand is organ harvesting and sale, cloning, divorce,
euthanasia or same sex marriage, in solving moral conflicts, pluralists have to rely
merely on judgement as there is no principle by which they can draw the conclusion
that it is on the whole right or on the whole wrong. But then, they can never be sure
that they are right. They just have “more or less probable opinions” with regard to the
right solution of conflicts. Hence, there is no possibility of moral action. One therefore
could only think that there is something problematic with such a concept of conflict-
resolution.
According to Connolly (1996), pluralism is usually conflated with relativism,

that is, with an account of the rightness and wrongness of moral judgments that
attaches normative warrant to different cultural and historical contexts. Indeed, some
170
thinkers have claimed that pluralism and relativism are cognates. However, pluralism
departs from this view in two consequential aspects: its account of culture and its
role; and its conception of incommensurability. Pluralism, unlike relativism, does not
attach ultimate normative authority to cultures. Culture does not stand as the final
source of normative assessment nor that determine the central ground upon which
value decisions are arrived at. In other words, culture does not determine the scope
or justification for pluralism. Second is the idea of incommensurability. While in
relativism moral judgments make reference to the cultures in which they emerge and
in turn are untranslatable into each other (it is not possible to assess the relative
worth of conflicting judgments – moral judgments and their corresponding cultures
are therefore incommensurable), for the pluralist, the notion of incommensurability is
not attached to or hemmed in by cultures. Incommensurability is an attribute that
applies to the character of values themselves, regardless of cultural boundaries. For
pluralism, incommensurability cuts across cultural borders and applies to the
universe of values that are significant to human experience. Pluralists make room for
meaningful normative assessment among incommensurable views. Ethical pluralism
makes a distinction between thin (minimalist) morality and thick (maximalist)
morality. Ethical pluralism allows that there are a few basic moral principles that all
cultures should follow but beyond these principles, each culture can have its own
value system, provided that it does not violate the higher moral principles. Therefore,
thin morality is the same everywhere (ex. idea of goodness, respect for life) whereas
thick morality is valid only for people in the same community (example: notions of
bravery or courage).
2. Pluralism as Tolerance to Liberalism
From the philosophical perspective, pluralism entails an irreducible, open-

ended exercise in practical reason. In any of its versions, pluralism yields necessarily
tentative and inconclusive ethical decisions. From this perspective, pluralism opens
the possibility of a permanent rewriting of normative dispositions. In short, pluralism
holds that social diversity and the disagreement that grows from it are unending.
Tolerating practices and values with which one might disagree has been a
hallmark of liberal democratic societies. Should this permissive attitude, however, be
extended indiscriminately to all values and practices with which one disagrees? Are
some moral differences simply intolerable, such that it would undermine one’s own
moral convictions to even attempt to tolerate them? More than that, is it conceptually
possible or desirable to tolerate the intolerance of others? This is the paradox
sometimes referred to as the Liberal’s Dilemma. Karl Popper (1945) famously
argued against the toleration of intolerance, which he saw as an overly-indulgent
extension of the concept and one which would undermine the “open society” he
believed to be a prerequisite for toleration in the first place.
Critic on Value Pluralism
Isaiah Berlin (commonly credited for fathering value-pluralism) posited that

incompatible values may be incommensurable, i.e. they do not share a common
standard of measurement or cannot be compared to each other in a certain way.
Brown (1986) suggested that Berlin ignores the fact that values are indeed
commensurable as they can be compared by their varying contributions towards the
171
human good. Regarding the ends of freedom, equality, efficiency, creativity, etc.,
Brown thought that none of these are ends in themselves but are valued for their
consequences. Berlin, according Brown (1986) has failed to show that the problem
of conflicting values is insoluble in principle.
Pluralism questions moral truths which becomes problematic since moral

absoluteness of a human act is affirmed by religions. Another problem of pluralism,
as a product of multiculturalism, is the idea that it downplays a continual dialogue
between subcultures and larger cultures and the ways that this dialogue inescapably
defines us (Fowers, and Richardson, 1996). If pluralism does not defend the
uniqueness of subcultures, it could promote the dominant culture, which can lead to
tyranny.
As the global community grows, most individual cultures are being diluted and
nation states need to step up so as to prevent the weakening of their cultures by
foreign media contents and to counter influences in their domestic moral values and
beliefs (Thierstein, and Kamalipour, 2000).
In his work, “Understanding and Responding to Moral Pluralism”, Dr. Alister E.

McGrath demonstrated the untenability of moral pluralism.
To claim that it does not matter which religion we adhere to is in

effect to say that it does not matter what behavior we adopt. The two
are integrally connected. And that is very evident today when decline
in religion in Western countries is accompanied by massive moral
collapse. Relativism in belief and relativism in morals go together.
The result is disastrous. Think of the unwanted girl children left
exposed to die on the hillsides of Ancient Greece. Think of the
human sacrifices to the fish deity in ancient Polynesian religion.
Think of the murder and gang rape carried out by practitioners of
Satanism. Are we to believe that these all spring from differing
insights into the same ultimate reality, as the pluralists claim? Not
only is pluralism ethically irresponsible, it is also morally impotent. It
gives you no ethical standard, and offers you no moral power
(McGrath, n.d.).
In Philippine society, it is common for Filipinos to be resilient and courageous

and optimistic, despite the fact that they are stricken mostly by natural calamities,
economic turbulence, and global pandemics. Hence, there is a call for ethical
responsibility that needs to be promoted globally.
Activity 1
Direction: Students will be grouped into ten. Each group will answer the question:
What are the advantages and disadvantages of globalization?
172
Globalization
Advantages Disadvantages
Activity 2
Direction: Research one finished product whose materials came from at least two
countries of origin from being a raw material to its processing in a factory or several
factories until its display in a store or mall in a certain country.
a. Explain briefly the history of the product.
b. Discuss any ethical issue if any in the making of the product.
Example:
Product: Ichaguera Super Electric Fan
Description: The Ichaguera Super Electric Fan is a Philippine product whose
different parts come from Japan (for the small turbo machine that makes the fan
work when plugged to an electric outlet), from China (for the plastic ware and metal
ware of the electric fan), from Borneo (the factory that assembles the product) and
shipped to the Philippines. FTMJ Corporation declares the containers as cheap floor
mats instead of the expensive Ichaguera Super Electric Fan to the Bureau of
Customs thereby paying only Ph 50, 000.00. fee of the 50 containers. FTMJ
173
Corporation transports and sells these fans to its different branches all over the
country. FTMJ is the owner of the factory in Borneo.
Ethical Issue: Discuss child labor and cheap labor in both China and Borneo as an
ethical issue. Discuss the unethical practices in the Bureau of Customs.
Assessment Task:
Exercise 1
Name: _________________________ Course & Year: _______________
Direction: Analyze the truth and falsity of the following statements. Write true if the
statement is correct. If false, encircle the word that renders it wrong and supply the
correct answer in the space provided.
_________________ 1. In its historical sense, globalization is understood as the

free movement of goods, capital, services, technology and
information.
_________________ 2. Globalization from the philosophical perspective refers to
all those processes by which the people of the world are
incorporated into a single world society.
_________________ 3. Globalization is the compression of the world and the
intensification of the consciousness of the world as a
whole.
_________________ 4. Due to faster, further and deeper global integration,
complex issues are bound to arise which cannot be
ignored.
_________________ 5. Ethics’ traditional manner of explaining good and evil and
how to lead a good and happy life in order to guide us in
the right direction, needs to be reconstructed.
_________________ 6. While there maybe some ethical principles that are similar,
every culture’s beliefs and practices vary which makes the
exercise of ethics common.
_________________ 7. In Ethics, moral pluralism assumes that there are many
independent and different sources of moral values.
_________________ 8. Moral pluralists tend to be close-minded when faced with
competing viewpoints.
_________________ 9. Pluralism questions moral truths which becomes
problematic since moral absoluteness of a human act is
affirmed by religions.
_________________ 10. Not only is pluralism ethically irresponsible, it is also
morally effective.
174
Exercise 2
Name: _________________________ Course & Year: _______________
Essay: (10 points each item)

1. 1. How does globalization reshape the different dimensions in our lives?
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
2. 2. What is the role of ethics in a globalized world?
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
3. Does moral pluralism seek balance in competing principles? Explain your answer.
175
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
3. 4. Does pluralism downplay a dialogue between subcultures and larger cultures?
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
Learning Resources
Albrow, M. and King E. (eds.) (1990). Globalization, knowledge and society.

London: Sage.
Al-Rodham N. and Stoudmann, G. (2006). Definitions of globalization: A
comprehensive overview and a proposed definition. Program on the
Geopolitical Implications of Globalization and Transactional Security.
https://s3.amazonaws.com/Definitions_of_Globalization.pdf
Appadurai, A. (1996). Modernity at large: Cultural dimensions of globalization.
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Bartelson, J. (2004). The critique of the state. London: Sage Publications Ltd.
176
Callicot, J. B. (1999). Beyond the land ethic: More essays in environmental
philosophy. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Castells, M. (2005). Global governance and global politics. In PS: Political
Science and Politics, American Political Science Association Vol. 38
No. 1 Jan. 2005.
Coleman, W. (1990). Globalization and autonomy: An overview.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/240522613_Globalization_An
d_Autonomy_An_Overview
Connolly, W. (1996). The ethos of pluralization. Minneapolis: University of
Minnesota Press.
Cox, Rt. (1996). Approaches to world order: Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Drucker, P. (1994). The theory of the business. In Harvard Business Review,
Sept-Oct 1994 Issue.
Ehrenfeld, J. (2012). Beyond the brave new world: Business for sustainability.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/290311476_Beyond_The_Br
ave_New_World_Business_For_Sustainability
Friedman, T. (2000). The lexus and the olive tree. New York: Harper Collins.
Held, D.; Goldblatt, D.; McGrew, A.; Perraton, J. (1999). Global
transformations. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Huntington, S. (1993). The clash of civilizations? In Foreign Affairs, Summer
1993. https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/United_ States/1993-06-
01/Clash-Civilizations
Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. (n.d.) https://www.iep.utm.edu/
International Monetary Fund. (2002). Globalization: A framework for IMF
involvement. Washington: International Monetary Fund.
James, P. (2006). Globalism, Nationalism, Tibalism: Bringing Theory Back In.
London: Sage Publications Ltd.
James, P. and Steger, M. (2010). Globalization and culture: Vol. 4. ideologies
of globalization. London: Sage Publications Ltd.
Jameson, F. (1991). Postmodernism or, the cultural logic of late capitalism.
Durham: Duke University Press.
Jonas, H. (1984) The imperative of responsibility: in search of an ethics for the
technological age, Translated by Hans Jonas in collaboration
with David Herr, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Juzhong Z. and Li S. (2016). Understanding recent trends in income inequality
in the People’s Republic of China. ADB Economics Working Paper
Series No. 480. Manila: Asian Development Bank.
Keohane, R. (2002). Power and governance in a partially globalized world.
New York: Routledge.
Khor, M. (1999). Globalization and the south: Some critical issues. Penang:
Third World Network.
Kosmin, B. (2001). The rising tide of secularity. Published speech delivered at
the 32nd Annual Convention of the Freedoms from Religion Foundation
at Red Lion Hotel, Seattle, Nov 7, 2009.
Lamy, P. (2006). History of globalization. Paris: Vuilbert.
McLuhan, M. (1968). War and peace in the global village. New York: Gingko
Press.
Moghadan, V. (2005). Globalizing women: Transitional feminist networks.
Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.
177
Muffazar, C. (2002). Islam and the west. In Frontline, published interview
available online at https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/
muslims/themes/west.html.
Ohmae, K. (1992). The borderless world: Power and strategy in the interlinked
economy. New York: Harper Business.
O’Donell, G. (1993). On the state, democratization and some conceptual
problems: A Latin American View with Glances at Some Post-
Communist Countries. In World Development, Vol 21 Issue 8 August
1993.
Pratt, S. (2015). American philosophy from wounded knee to the present.
London: Bloomsbury.
Quan, L. & Reuveny, R. (2003). Economic openness, democracy and income
inequality: An Empirical Analysis. London: Sage Publications Ltd.
Rajaei, F. (2001). The phenomenon of globalization. Tehran: Agah
Publication.
Robertson, R. (1992). Globalization: Social theory and global culture. London:
Sage Publications Ltd.
Samir, A. (1996). The challenge of globalization. In Review of International
Political Economy, Vol 3. No. 2 Summer 1996.
Shafer-Landau, Russ. (2003). Moral realism: A defense. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Skelton, T. & Allen, T. (1999). Culture and global change. London:
Routledge.
Steger, M. (2005). Globalism: Marjet ideology meets terrorism. New York:
Rowman & Littlefield.
Steger, M. (2014). Globalization: A very short introduction. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Stiglitz, J. (2002). Globalization and its discontents. New York: W.W. Norton
& Company.
The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. (n.d.). https://plato.stanford.edu/
Yaacob, M. F. (2013). The challenge of religions: Pluralism in Malaysia.
http://www.iop.or.jp/documents/1121/Journal21_Yaacob.pdf
Watson, J. (2016). Golden arches east: McDonalds in East Asia. Stanford:
Stanford University Press.
World Bank. (2001). Globalization and development. Washington: The World
Bank.
178
MODULE CONTENT
Topic 2: The Ethical Challenges of Millennials
Nominal Duration: 3 Hours
Learning Outcomes:
At the end of the lesson, the students are expected to:
1. describe the distinct characteristics of Millennials apart from other generation
labels;
2. identify and evaluate the ideologies that influence Millennials in relation to ethical
behavior.
It is a general observation that behaviors vary from older generations to

younger generations: from fashion to lifestyle to attitude but why the issue in ethics?
Before we delve into this question, let’s first inform ourselves from Jenkins’ (2017)
brief historical account on the labeling of generations. You may also go to this site to
view a video clip as report by millennials like you:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqH8u6LdfWU.
The idea of "social generations" was introduced in the 19th century. Social
generations are groups of people who were born in the same date range, share
similar cultural experiences, and have been shaped by significant events or societal
trends while coming of age. Prior to this concept, “generation” had generally referred
to family relationships. Howe & Strauss (as cited by Jenkins, 2017) define a social
generation as the aggregate of all people born over a span of roughly twenty years
or about the length of one phase of life: childhood, young adulthood, midlife, and old
age. They state that generations are identified by age cohorts sharing three criteria:
Age Location in History Age Location in History
Beliefs and Behaviors Members of a generation are shaped in lasting

ways by the eras they encounter as children
and young adults and they share common
beliefs and behaviors.
Perceived Membership Members of a generation are aware of the

experiences and traits that they share with their
peers, and they share a common perceived
membership in that generation.
How are the generation names created? Jenkins explains that in 1945
following World War II, economists, businesses, and policy makers began labeling
generations as a new way to measure and study demographics. The Baby Boomers
(those born between 1946-1964) were the first generation to adopt a widely
179
accepted label. The generations before the Baby Boomers were named retroactively.
Baby Boomers achieved their generational label due to the spike in birth rates
following the war and a clear end date with the introduction of birth control.
The Census Bureau in the US first referred to the years between 1946 and
1964 as the “Post War Baby Boom.” As the people born in this boom started to age,
agencies began using the term “Baby Boomers” to help them target the
demographic. This was the first and last time a generation’s “official” name had its
origin in a government agency.
Coupland (1991) and his contemporaries identified Generation X as an

anonymity in the shadow of Baby Boomers. The letter “X” was meant to signify this
generation’s desire not to be defined.
Millennials simply refers to the generation who came of age during the 2000
millennium. In 1993, Advertising Age was credited with creating the term “Generation
Y”. Howe & Strauss used the term “Millennials" because the members of the
generation did not want to be associated with their predecessors, Gen X. Soon after,
Advertising Age conceded that Millennials was a better name and insisted that
"Generation Y” was only a placeholder until more was discovered about them.
Similarly, Gen Z or iGen will likely change as more is discovered about the
youngest generation. Generally, from governments to advertising industries, and
individuals have all had a hand in naming the generations. The naming of
generations is random and typically takes time to evolve before becoming “official."
Who sets the dates of generations? There are no “official” start and end dates
for the generations, except for the Baby Boomer generation. The US Census Bureau
claims to only define the Baby Boomer generation (1946-1964) as they were first to
draw attention to the birthrates that increased from around three million a year to
over four million a year following World War II. Because there is only a general
consensus on when the various generations begin and end, the date ranges differ
depending on the group or study. Some define the date range of generations by
where there is a shift in the social mood of an age cohort. Historians will define the
date range of generations based on historical events. Demographers will define the
date range of generations based on the shifts in birth rates. Others believe that to
some extent the media shapes the boundaries of generations. The dates that define
the generations are useful tools for analysis, but they should be thought of as
guidelines, rather than official distinctions.
Do generations differ across the world? Jenkins affirms that generations differ
across the world according to social moods throughout society that impact the
generation but he noted that Millennials are the first generation to break the
international divide across generations. Because Millennials have been in
communication (visually, audibly, and/or in-person) with their global peers as they
have come of age, their communications and characteristics are very similar across
the world. While they are aware that the “use of labels are not universal and context
dependent, they just openly identify themselves with the label as a way of making
sense of their place in a rapidly changing world” (Lyons, 2020).
Characteristics of Millenials/iGens
180
Millenials are born from 1977-1994 or 1981-2000. There other names are
Generation Y, Gen Y, iGen, Generation Next, Echo Boomers, 24/7’s, etc. They live
in merged families and they are coddled kids. Their education is incredibly expensive
and they value individuality. They are ambitious, have the tenacity and
entrepreneurial mindset and always look forward to what’s next. The tables below
give an overview of their peculiarities.
Attributes
 Ambitious but not entirely focused.  Invited as children to play a lead role in
 Look to the workplace for direction and to family’s purchasing and travel decisions
help them achieve their goals.  Loyal to peers
 At ease in teams  Sociable - Makes workplace friends
 Attached to their gadgets & parents  “Me First” attitude
 Best educated - Confident  Most doted upon of any generation@work
 Diversity Focused - Multiculturalism  Net-centric team players
 Have not lived without computers  Open to new ideas & Optimistic
 Eager to spend money  Parent Advocacy (Parents are advocates)
 Fiercely Independent  Political Savvy (like the Boomers)
 Focus is children/family  Respect given for competency not title
 Focus on change using technology  Respectful of character development
 Friendly Scheduled, structured lives  Self –absorbed
 Globalism (Global way of thinking)  Strong sense of entitlement
 Greatly indulged by fun loving parents  Techno Savvy - Digital generation
 Heroism -Consider parents their heroes  Think mature generation is “cool”
 High speed stimulus junkies  Want to please others
 Incorporate individual resp. into their jobs.  Hope to make life contributions to world
 Innovative-think our of box  Seek responsibility early on in their roles
 Individualistic yet group oriented
Influencers Core Values

 Digital Media, child focused world, school  Achievement
 Shootings, terrorist attacks, AIDS, 9/11  Avid consumers
terrorist attacks.  Civic Duty
 Typically grew up as children of divorce  Confidence
 They hope to be the next great generation  Diversity
& to turn around all the “wrong” they see  Extreme fun
in the world today.  Highly tolerant
 They grew up more sheltered than any  Hotly competitive
other generation as parents strived to  Like personal attention
protect them from the evils of the world.  Self-confident
 Came of age in a period of economic  Social ability
expansion.  Members of global community
 Kept busy as kids  Most educated generation
 First generation of children with  Extremely techno savvy; Now!
schedules.
 Optimism; Realism; & Street smarts
Work Ethic and Values
 Believe that because of technology, they  Looking for careers and stability
can work flexibly any time, any place and  Mentoring is important to them
that they should be evaluated on work  Obsessed w/ career developments
product-not how, when or where they got  Prefer diversity, technology, informality &
181
it done. fun
 Expect to influence the terms and  Recognize that people make the company
conditions of the job successful
 Have a work ethic that no longer  Tolerant
mandates 10 hr days.  Thrive in a collaborative work environment
 High expectations of bosses and  Training is important to them
managers to assist and mentor them in  Understand importance of great mentors
attainment of professional goals.  Want to enhance their work skills by
 Want long-term relationships with continuing their education
employers, but on their own terms  Looking for meaningful work and
 “Real Revolution” - decrease in career innovation
ambition in favor of more family time, less  May be the first generation that readily
travel, less personal pressure. accepts older leadership
 Goal oriented
Ideologies and Their Influence to Millennials
While millennials were able to break the barrier of international divide across
generations brought about by the impact of globalization, there are underpinning
ethical principles that may have a disputable implication to the seemingly
progressive moral values of millennials. Millennials are ignorant of history and thus
are caught off guard by the influence of secularism, humanism and individualism
which can be traced back to the Renaissance and Enlightenment Periods whose
influence spread across Western Europe and the rest of western civilization.
1. Secularism
The upbringing of millennials has been marked by an unprecedented increase

in liberal approach to all facets of life: from fashion to sports, to politics, economics
and morality brought about by globalization. One of the effects is the downtrend
participation of younger generations to faith identity and related activities which
started in the west and spread around the globe like a plague. This gave way for
secularism to clasp the mindset and lifestyle of millennials.
Secularism comes from the word secular, meaning “of this world”. People are
encouraged to take an interest in this world and not in any place with religious sense
such as heaven or hell. It is broadly defined as freedom from religion as well as
freedom of religion. Secularism seeks to interpret life on principles taken solely from
the material world, without recourse to religion. It shifts the focus from religion to
other ‘temporal’ and ‘this-worldly’ things with emphasis on nature, reason, science,
technology and development (“Secularism”, n.d.).
Secularism is the principle of the separation of government institutions and

persons mandated to represent the state from religious institutions and religious
elites. It means that governments should remain neutral on the matter of religion
and should not enforce nor prohibit the free exercise of religion, leaving religious
choice to the liberty of the people. Religious ideas influencing law are incompatible
with this. Modern liberal democracies are generally recognized as secular. This is
due to the near-complete freedom of religion enshrined in most constitutions (beliefs
182
on religion generally are not subject to legal or social sanctions), and the lack of
authority of religious leaders over political decisions.
Barry Kosmin (2009) has broken down modern secularism into two types.
First is positive or soft secularism which separates the roles of church and state. The
church does not “exercise direct political authority.” Second is negative or hard
secularism which attempts to marginalize religion and keep it out of society as much
as possible. In July 2010, the French National Parliament passed a law banning the
wearing of face-covering headgear including masks, helmets, balaclavas, burqas
and other veils covering the face in public places. This opened deep public debates
over secularism and identity in France. In 2012, the Reproductive Health Law in the
Philippines stirred a controversy on the separation of church and state during the
process of its passage. All religious groups in the country were defeated simply
because they cannot impose their beliefs for legislation by the state.
2. Humanism
Humanism advocates the value, freedom, and independence of human

beings. Its slogan is that all human beings are born with moral value, and have a
responsibility to help one another live better lives. It emphasizes reason and science
over scripture (religious texts) and tradition, and also believes that human beings are
flawed but capable of improvement. It also tries to discover the truths about the
universe and humanity’s place within it. It is usually very individualistic, seeing each
person as important in his or her own right, regardless of the needs of the
community. Some humanists, however, have a more collectivist outlook that focuses
on balancing individual rights against the needs of the community.
Types of Humanism
Secular Humanism
Humanism is often associated with atheism (the belief that God does not

exist). If the emphasis is on the value and freedom of human beings, then it follows
that the value of God and the divine law is placed in the backseat. In addition,
humanism believes that we should exercise individual powers of reason rather than
accepting the truth of scriptures or dogma, and this goes against the teachings of
some religions. In today’s world, many humanists are secular humanists (i.e.
atheists).
Religious Humanism
Not all humanists are atheists. In fact, there is also a Christian Humanist
movement that is as old as humanism itself. (There is also Jewish humanism,
Islamic humanism, and various other traditions.) In religious humanism, the idea is
basically that God exists, but he wants us to act like humanists — to search for truth
on our own, to exercise free will, and to strive to make the world a better place. For
religious humanism, God is very real, but tends to stay in the background of things
rather than interfering or demanding constant praise.
Humanism and the Millennials
183
Millennials are highly exposed in a multicultural and digital environment and at
the same time fashioning this environment to work to their advantage. They do not
just swallow what their older generations considered as wisdom but they are also
ever critical and choosy of the knowledge and information that works for them. The
idea of humanism is very enticing to their imagination because it places self-well-
being, interests, and happiness as worth striving to their tastes. Hence, they create
their own set of ethics. While it is true that they are tolerant of religious undertakings,
their switch on/off attitude coupled with experimentation of jumping from one western
church to another while being exposed also to eastern spirituality, agnostic ideas,
quantum physics and science fiction, it is their way of finding their unique way of
being human. They are constantly barraged by nauseating perspectives on politics,
race, economics, gender, spirituality and even morality.
The millennials’ exposure to the internet allowed them to breathe diversity in

all its form and hence their unlimited imagination and creativity led them also to
create and recreate their own values. This does not mean, however, that they are
naïve in just seeking their own happiness and interests as the crux of their moral
decision making because they openly let others do the same also.
The Importance of Humanism
Humanism has a deep influence on modern culture. For example, we often

object to something by saying it’s “a violation of human rights.” The idea of human
rights is a humanistic because it emphasizes the worth that is within each individual
person. The non-humanist approach would be to say that the behavior was wrong
because it was “against God’s law” or “contrary to tradition.” These types of
arguments still exist in the modern world, but they’re much less common than they
used to be because humanism is so popular.
Some religious people criticize secular humanism because they see it as

taking the place of God. From this point of view, only God has natural value, and
morality can only come from loving God and obeying the scriptures. Of course,
religious humanists would object to this. They would say that loving God and obeying
the scriptures is the same as respecting human rights and valuing individual lives.
3. Individualism
One typical characteristic of millennials is that they value individuality. They

follow their own ideas and feelings about many things, rather than conform to the
standards of society. This reflects in their moral preferences as something “personal,
subjective, based on feelings, and non-transferrable to others” (De Guzman et al.,
2018). This depicts an individual who is self-absorbed and only thinks for his own
interest. It points to egoism which holds that choosing one’s own good is in
accordance with morality: it is always moral to promote one’s own good. It is right to
help others because it is usually in your self-interest to help them. For example,
many religious people do good because they believe there is a god, a heaven, a hell,
or a moral force like karma that makes it in their long term self-interest to do good
(ethical egoism, n.d.). Overall, millennials are said to be more individualistic and
materialistically motivated. There seems to be a decline in moral values that is based
on a culture of rampant narcissism. Others point to a veritable epidemic of misplaced
184
overconfidence that has turned millennials into the ‘self-esteem generation’ (De
Guzman et al., 2018).
There is an antidote to this self-absorbed epidemic individualism of millennials

and it can be learned from the experience of an ordinary man just before the age of
labeling came into existence. Aquino (2020) gives us a compelling story of how the
self-absorbed “I” is confronted by the presence of the “Other”.
Me, rather than him…that is the mantra of our selfish age. I am

“entitled” to everything good, and I come ahead of all else…But it was
the same thing St. Maximillian said when he volunteered to take the
place of a young father who had been set apart – together with others
– for execution. Me, rather than him…and so St. Maximillian went to his
death, while the young man could still look forward to the day he would
be united with his family…. Selfishness in its most basic sense is the
life of the “I”, the most fundamental characteristic of being “I”. St.
Maximillian was commanded by the misery and the destitution of the
young father doomed to die, but he was even under a more primitive
command inscribed into our hearts by words that could have never
arisen from our own selfishness: “Greater love than this no man can
have than to lay down his life for his friend.” It is being ethical, being
human, being responsible for the other – as St. Maximillian showed in
a supremely dramatic manner – that is the antidote to the pervading
selfishness that threatens to destroy us all.
Activity 3
In terms of Pre-marital sex and teenage pregnancy, millennials are willing and
eager to take risks; they don’t mind making mistakes-they consider this a learning
opportunity. How would you react to this statement about yourselves as millennials?
.
Activity 4
Millennials are often at odds with their parents on so many things. List down
five (5) issues that you always find being debated upon or quarreled upon with your
parents and ponder the reasons why.
Activity 5
Go to this site and listen intently on a short lecture on “The Problem with
Millennials: Why People Call You Entitled” by Jonathan Sprinkles:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-oVYN7YhB4. Make a brief summary about the
talk and make a reaction.
Assessment Task:
Exercise 1
Name: _________________________ Course & Year: _______________
Essay: (15 points each item)

1. Does generation difference have something to do with the issues in ethics? Do our
sense of right or wrong and our sense of good or bad change with age group? Justify
185
your answer.
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
1. 2. Choose one of the ideologies that influence millennials and evaluate its strength and
weakness as basis of moral behavior.
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
Learning Resources
Aquino, R. C. (2020, August 15). https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_

fbid=3625865954109668&id=100000588976678
Alexander Agati, Holly, (2012) “The Millennial generation: Howe and Strauss
disputed”. Dissertations, Theses, and Masters Projects. Paper
1539618810. https://dx.doi.org/doi:10.25774/w4-gjnp-xz92
Coupland, D. (1991). Generation X: Tales for an accelerated culture. New
York: St. Martin's Press.
Ethical egoism (n.d.). https://lucidphilosophy.com/847-2/
186
Generational Differences Chart (n.d.)
http://www.wmfc.org/uploads/Generational DifferencesChart.pdf
Howe, N. & Strauss, W. (1991). Generations: The history of America's future,
1584 to 2069. New York: William Morrow & Company. ISBN 978-0-
688-11912-6.
____________________ (1993). 13th Gen: Abort, retry, ignore, fail?. Vintage
Books. ISBN 9780679743651.
____________________ (1997). The fourth turning: What the cycles of
history tell us about America's next rendezvous with destiny. New York:
Broadway Books. ISBN 978-0-7679-0046-1.
____________________ (2000). Millennials rising: The next great generation.
Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group. ISBN 9780375707193.
____________________ (2007). Millennials & K-12 schools: Educational
strategies for a new generation. Great Falls: LifeCourse Associates.
ISBN 978-0-9712606-5-8.
____________________ (2007), "The next twenty years: How customer and
workforce attitudes will evolve", Harvard Business Review: 41–52,
archived from the original on 2009-12-28.
____________________ (2008). Millennials go to college: Strategies for a
new generation on campus (2nd ed.). Great Falls: LifeCourse
Associates. ISBN 9780971260610.
Humanism. (n.d.). In YourDictionary.
https://www.yourdictionary.com/Humanism
Jenkins, R. (2017, January 12) .How generations are created, named, and
differ across the world. https://blog.ryan-jenkins.com/2017/01/12/how-
generations-are-created-named-and-differ-across-the-world
Lyons, S. (2020, August 11). Baby boomers, Gen X, Millennials and Gen Z
labels: Necessary or nonsense? https://theconversation.com/baby-
boomer-gen-x-millenials-and-gen-z-labels-necessary-or-nonsense-
132161
New patterns of renaissance thought: Secularism, humanism & individualism
(n.d.)
https://www.tamdistrict.org/cms/lib8/CA01000875/Centricity/Domain
/649/Renaissance%20Chart.docx
MODULE CONTENT
Topic 3: The Role of Religions in Ethics
187
Learning Outcomes:
1. appraise the compatibility or incompatibility of religion and ethics;
2. identify the role of religions in ethics; and
3. correlate religious fundamentalism and terrorism
Introduction
No peace among the nations without peace among the religions.

No peace among the religions without dialogue between religions
No dialogue between the religions without investigation of the
foundations of the religions. - (Hans Kung, 1996)
In quenching this thirst for knowledge, we have witnessed in human history

that the human person has always sought something more than the daily living, with
its pain, pleasure and sorrow; he has always wanted to find something more
permanent. And in his search for this unnamable thing (force, energy, god and
gods), he has built temples, churches, and mosques of all sorts. Extraordinary things
have been done in the name of religion. There have been wars for which religions
are responsible; people have been tortured, burned, destroyed for belief was more
important than truth, and dogma more vital than science. When belief becomes all-
important, then you are willing to sacrifice everything for that; whether that belief is
real or has no validity does not matter as long as it gives refreshment and comfort,
security, and a sense of permanency (Krishnamurti, 2002).
More than that, the tension between the religious old ways of life and the
modern fashion styles and behavior brought the idea of religious fundamentalism
into action in all facets of society, may it be economic, social or political. It placed
peoples’ lives in danger and the millennials became all the more confused as to what
it can offer to them. This is just one situation we all find ourselves hanging into: the
impact of religion in our ethical lives.
Another issue that is closely related to religion and religious fundamentalism

is terrorism in a regional and global scale. Raush (2015) observes that citizens
worldwide are becoming all too familiar with the accelerated frequency of terrorist
attacks in the 21st century, particularly with those involving a religious underpinning.
She asks these questions just like everyone else: Why, though, have religiously-
affiliated acts of terrorism become such a common occurrence? How has religious
fundamentalism accelerated and intensified terrorism within the modern world? And
why? How do we understand the innate interconnectedness of fundamentalism and
terrorism as a whole?
Religion and Ethics
Ethics studies human behavior and ideal ways of being. As a philosophical

discipline, it is a systematic approach to understanding, analyzing, and distinguishing
matters of right and wrong, good and bad, and admirable and deplorable as they
relate to the well-being of and the relationships among human beings.
188
Religion is defined as “people’s beliefs and opinions concerning the existence,
nature, and worship of a deity or deities, and divine involvement in the universe and
human life. (religion, n.d.). Referring to the sacred engagement with that which is
believed to be a spiritual reality, religion denotes the belief in, or the worship of, a
god (or gods) and the worship or service to God or the supernatural. The term
‘supernatural’ means “whatever transcends the powers of nature or human agency”
(religion, n.d.). The term ‘religion’ is sometimes used interchangeably with ‘faith,’
‘creed,’ ‘belief system,’ or ‘conviction.’
A religion is also viewed as an organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems

and worldviews that relate humanity to an order of existence. Many religions possess
sacred scriptures, narratives, or sacred accounts that aim to explain the origin, and
meaning of life and the universe. From the religions’ beliefs about the cosmos, and
human nature, adherents usually draw religious laws, an ideal way of living, and
detailed rules or ethical or moral conduct (De Guzman, 2018). Religion can typically
be seen as involving various dimensions – myth (or sacred narrative), doctrine, ritual,
social and institutional expression, experience and ethics. For many people, ethics
may be the most important part of religion because of the way it teaches wisdom as
to what is right and wrong. Even secular beliefs have ethical dimension (Smart and
Hecht, 1982).
Some submit that the difference between religion and ethics is about the
disparity between revelation and reason. In some measure, religion is based on the
idea that God (or some deity) reveals insights about life and its meaning. These
divine insights are compiled in texts (the Bible, the Torah, the Koran, etc.) and
introduced as ‘revelation.’ The role of philosophers is to accurately try to define and
promote ethical concepts based upon logic and reason. A religious person on the
other hand, follows his or her code of conduct because he believes that it is proper
behavior and reaction to the varying challenges and circumstances which arise
during the course of life.
From a strictly humanistic perspective, ethics, on the other hand, is based on

the tenets of reason. That is, anything that is not rationally provable cannot be
deemed justifiable. This definition of ethics, however, does not necessarily exclude
religion or a belief in God, for it is also subject to ethical discernment. Indeed, many
ethicists emphasize the relationship, not the difference between ethics and religion.
(De Guzman, 2018).
Religion and Fundamentalism
Fundamentalism is a tendency among certain groups, mainly religious groups,

that is characterized by strict literal adherence and interpretation of certain
scriptures, dogmas and ideologies. Fundamentalism is also marked by promotion of
dichotomies and divisions among those who adhere and those who do not,
maintaining a sense and an environment of in-group and out-group distinctions
(Hunsberger 1992) and which advocates impose a return to a previous ideal for
those members who strayed. Fundamentalists put much emphasis on purity and
homogeneous belief, thus, diversity of opinion or interpretation is often discouraged,
rejected outright or severely sanctioned. This intolerance to contrary and opposing
189
views make fundamentalism a perjorative term that often made synonymous with
extremism, fanaticism and radicalism.
The term religious fundamentalism is used to denote an action of a group

which is highly prejudiced by religious orthodoxy. Fundamentalist movement
predominantly emerges from an urban society and disseminates a set of rules in
regard to formation of societal structure, human behavior and behavior towards
other. Almond, Sivan and Appleby (2003) defines religious fundamentalism as a
discernible pattern of religious militancy by which self-styled 'true believers' attempt
to arrest the erosion of religious identity, fortify the borders of the religious
community, and create viable alternatives to secular institutions and behaviors.
Religious fundamentalists believe that their existence is in a state of serious
confusion due to identity crisis. This crisis then leads to contradiction and a series of
contradictions leads to conflicts. This is further intensified by the growing
differentiation in the society.
Analyzing the literatures, it can be deduced that fundamentalism is a mixture

of ideological and organizational variables which is again very dynamic in nature and
the definition changes radically as certain cultural, economic, political and
sociological premise change. Therefore, religious fundamentalism is an outcome of
series of interconnected socio-economic issues. The emergence and aggravation of
religious fundamentalism might not be only dependent on the propensity of
conformist attitude of a certain group but might also be dependent on the long history
of ignorance, identity crisis and impoverishment. It is always easy to manipulate the
religious ideology of a section of the society which is socially and economically
vulnerable and uncertain about their legal rights (Chen, 2020).
There is always a debate among social and political theorists on measuring

fundamentalism. Scholars are in serious disagreement while ascertaining the
intensity of fundamentalism. The obvious question was what should be the
parameters to determine if a movement or action can be termed as fundamentalism.
Researchers are predominantly dependent on standardized characteristics (Almond,
Sivan and Appleby, 1991). Religious movements need to be analyzed from the
historical perspective in regard to categorize them as fundamentalist (Emerson and
Hartman, 2006).
According to Keddie (1998), "Religiopolitics" has been intensified across the

globe due to unconstrained development in capitalism, disparity in income
distribution, employment insecurities, forced migration, government favoritism
towards a section of the society, and emergence of ideological and cultural clashes
between migrants and original inhabitants. Hood and Morris (1985) asserted,
fundamentalists are capable of impacting political preferences. But a society in a
terrible political chaos is also capable to give birth to a fundamentalist movement.
People who are minority in a society are always marginalized from all aspects and
for obvious reasons, they become extremely vulnerable towards fundamentalism.
So, political preferences made by majority may lead to fundamentalist movements as
well. Inflexible and biased attitude of the state towards marginalized section might
lead them to be engaged in more pro-fundamentalist activities as the legal, political,
administrative and economic spaces are being reduced.
190
To eliminate or mitigate its impact, Wibisono, Louis and Jetten (2019)
recommended that governments should start revamping the policies and procedures
in regard to the vulnerable section of the society. Legislators and policymakers must
concentrate on (a) setting the economic priority for the vulnerable section of the
society (b) strengthening the voice and accountability mechanism (c) enhancing the
effectiveness of the government and reducing the biasness (d) empowering
marginalized section to have legal recourse. In brief, they concluded that to eliminate
religious fundamentalism, states should concentrate more on the root cause analysis
rather than debating on the consequences.
Roots of Fundamentalism
Basher (2001) outlines some of the important events tracing the growth of
fundamentalism across some of the world’s major religions.
Christianity and Fundamentalism
Christian fundamentalism grew within the Protestant community of the United

States in the beginnings of the 20th century. The movement started among
conservative Presbyterian theologians and soon spread among Baptists and other
denominations in the early 1900s. The movement’s aim is to defend their religion
against the challenges of liberal theology by strict belief and adherence to the five
specific classical theological beliefs of Christianity: a.) biblical inspiration and the
infallibility of scripture as a result of this; b) virgin birth of Jesus; c) belief that Christ's
death was the atonement for sin; d) bodily resurrection of Jesus; and e) historical
reality of the miracles of Jesus.
The term "fundamentalism" has roots in the Niagara Bible Conference (1878–
1897), which defined those tenets it considered fundamental to Christian belief. The
term was prefigured by The Fundamentals, a collection of twelve books on five
subjects published in 1910 and funded by the brothers Milton and Lyman Stewart,
but coined by Curtis Lee Lawes, editor of The Watchman-Examiner, who proposed
in the wake of the 1920 pre-convention meeting of the Northern Baptist Convention
(now the American Baptist Churches USA) that those fighting for the fundamentals of
the faith be called "fundamentalists." By the late 1910s, theological conservatives
rallying around the five fundamentals came to be known as "fundamentalists". They
reject the existence of commonalities with theologically related religious traditions,
such as the grouping of Christianity, Islam, and Judaism into one Abrahamic family
of religions. In contrast, Evangelical groups (such as the Billy Graham Evangelistic
Association), while they typically agree on the theology "fundamentals" as expressed
in The Fundamentals, are often willing to participate in events with religious groups
who do not hold to the essential doctrines.
Islam and Fundamentalism
Islamic Fundamentalism has been defined as a movement of Muslims

seeking to return to the fundamentals of the Islamic religion and live similarly to how
191
the Islamic prophet Muhammad lived. Islamic fundamentalists favor a strict literal
interpretation of the primary sources of Islam-the Quran and Sunnah, eliminate what
they perceive to be "corrupting" non-Islamic influences from every part of their lives
and see "Islamic fundamentalism" as a pejorative term used by outsiders for Islamic
revivalism and activism.
It goes back to the 7 th century to the time of the Kharijites. From their
essentially political position, they developed extreme doctrines that set them apart
from both mainstream Sunni and Shia Muslims. The Kharijites were particularly
noted for adopting a radical approach to Takfir, whereby they declared other Muslims
to be unbelievers and therefore deemed them worthy of death. The Shia and Sunni
religious conflicts since the 7th century created an opening for radical ideologues,
such as Ali Shariati (1933-77), to merge social revolution with Islamic
fundamentalism, as exemplified by the Iranian Revolution in 1979. Islamic
fundamentalism has appeared in many countries; the Wahhabi version is promoted
worldwide and financed by Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Pakistan.
The Iran hostage crisis of 1979–80 marked a major turning point in the use of
the term "fundamentalism". The media, in an attempt to explain the ideology of
Ayatollah Khomeini and the Iranian Revolution to a Western audience described it as
a "fundamentalist version of Islam" by way of analogy to the Christian fundamentalist
movement in the U.S. Thus was born the term Islamic fundamentalist, which became
a common use of the term in following years until today.
Buddhism and Fundamentalism
Historic and contemporary examples of Buddhist fundamentalism occur in

each of the three main branches of Buddhism: Theravada, Mahayana and
Vajrayana. In Japan, a prominent example has been the practice among some
members of the Mahayana Nichiren sect of Shakubuku - a method of proselytizing
involving condemnation of other sects as deficient or evil.
Buddhist fundamentalism has targeted other religious and ethnic groups, as in

Myanmar. A Buddhist-dominated country, Myanmar has seen tensions between
Muslim minorities and the Buddhist majority, especially during the 2013 Burma anti-
Muslim riots alleged to have been instigated by hardline groups such as the 969
Movement and in actions associated with the Rohingya genocide (2016 onwards).
Buddhist fundamentalism also features in Sri Lanka. Buddhist-dominated Sri

Lanka has seen recent tensions between Muslim minorities and the Buddhist
majority, especially during the 2014 anti-Muslim riots in Sri Lanka and in the course
of the 2018 anti-Muslim riots in Sri Lanka, allegedly instigated by hardline groups
such as the Bodu Bala Sena.
Hinduism and Fundamentalism
Scholars identify several politically active Hindu movements as part of the

“Hindu fundamentalist family.” One movement is Hindutva founded by Chandranath
192
Basu and later the term was popularized by Vinayak Damodar Savankar in 1923. It
is championed by the Hindu nationalist volunteer organization Rashtriva
Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP), Bharativa Janata Party
(BJP) and other organisations, collectively called the Sangh Parivar.
The Hindutva movement has been described by some as a variant of “right-

wing extremism” adhering to a disputed concept of homogenised majority and
cultural hegemony. Some suggest Hindutva is an extreme form of conservatism or
ethnic absolutism.
Judaism and Fundamentalism
Jewish fundamentalism may refer to militant religious Zionism or Haredi

Judaism. Religious Zionism is an ideology that combines Zionism and Orthodox
Judaism. Adherents are also referred to as Dati Leeumi or National Religious. The
community is also sometimes called Kippah Seruga, literally knitted skullcap, the
typical head-covering worn by the men.
Before the establishment of the State of Israel, Religious Zionists were mainly
observant Jews who supported Zionist efforts to build a Jewish state in the Land of
Israel. After the Six-Day War and the capture of the West Bank, a territory referred to
in Jewish terms as Judea and Samaria, right-wing components of the Religious
Zionist movement integrated nationalist re-vindication and evolved into Neo-Zionism.
Their ideology revolves around three pillars: the Land of Israel, the People of Israel,
and the Torah of Israel.
Religions’ Role in Ethics
Can we be ethical without being religious? According to Steven Mintz (2012),

a longstanding debate has been whether ethics plays a role in religion. Most
religions have an ethical component. Ethics encompasses right conduct and good
life. It is significantly broader than the common conception of analyzing right and
wrong. It also deals with ideas such as right, good and duty and these concepts have
always been discussed since ancient times until today (Smart, N. & Hecht, R. D.,
1982).
A central aspect of ethics is "the good life", the life worth living or life that is
simply satisfying, which is held by many philosophers to be more important than
traditional moral codes. The ancient Greeks called it eudaimonia or happiness. The
ancient Greeks believed happiness was brought about by living one’s life in
accordance with virtue – positive traits of character. Virtue in the highest sense, in an
adult who has been brought up well, will not just involve good personal habits such
as courage and temperance, but also friendship and justice and intellectual virtue.
The essence of virtue is in the wholeness of the person brought about by integrity.
The influential philosopher, Immanuel Kant defended the idea of God as a

basic requirement of ethics. We ought to be virtuous and do our duty, he said. Kant
believed virtue should be rewarded by happiness, and it would be intolerable if it
were not so. Since it's clear that virtue often does go unrewarded in the present life,
Kant argued that the soul must be immortal. Virtue must receive its due recompense
193
in a future life, and there must be a God guaranteeing that it is so rewarded. The
existence of God and the immortality of the soul were what Kant called the
postulates of practical reason - the assumptions without which, so he claimed, ethics
and a moral life would not be possible.
Revealed religions like Zoroastrianism, Judaism, Christianity and Islam do

prescribe some clear and unambiguous rules to follow. If their scriptures were
authored or dictated by God, then the commands in them are God's own commands.
They cannot be changed if human circumstances change or ethical ideas progress.
If religion has a role in moral decision-making, then what should be that role?
In America, for many individuals, their religion is a centrally defining characteristic of
who they are, such that they would be nearly incapable of making ethical decisions
independently of their religious beliefs.
Further, some of our most basic moral sentiments are directly connected to
religious ideology. For example, most people agree that things like murder and
adultery are always wrong, regardless of circumstances. Most major world religions
echo these sentiments, and it can be argued that the ancient codes of conduct these
traditions embody are actually the original source of our social intuitions. At a
minimum, we do seem to regard religion as a good source of basic moral guidance,
making it unwise to argue that there ought to be no connection between religion and
ethics.
The link between religion and ethics seems obvious (Tittle and Wlech, 1983;
Weaver and Agle, 2002). Religions, through the values they embody, often build the
basis for what is considered right and wrong (Turner, 1997). Religion produces both
formal and informal norms and provides people with a freedom/constraint duality by
prescribing behaviors within some acceptable boundaries (Fararo and Skvoretz,
1986). Such norms, values, and beliefs are often codified into a religious code such
as the Bible or the Koran. In Christian religions, for instance, the Ten
Commandments provide a broad basis of codified ethical rules that believing
Christians must follow in order to actualize what they believe in (e.g., salvation). In
turn, through daily exposure to norms, customs, laws, scripts, and practices,
religions impart societal members with values and produce expectational bonds or
‘‘reciprocal expectations of predictability’’ (Field, 1979) that eventually become taken
for granted. Such values often provide guides for what are considered ethical
behaviors for most of the world’s religions (Fisher, 2001). Furthermore, in societies
where one or few religions are dominant, the overarching core values of these
religions are likely to be mirrored in secular values of society (codified law or non-
codified social norms), which regulate everyday activity and ethical behavior.
(Parboteeah, 2007)
The link between religion and morality is best illustrated by the Golden Rule.
Virtually all of the world’s great religions contain in their religious texts some version
of the Golden Rule: “Do unto others as you would wish them do unto you”. In other
words, we should treat others the way we would want to be treated. This is the basic
ethic that guides all religions. If we do so, happiness will ensue.
Religion Expression of the Golden Rule (Citation)
Christianity All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you. Do ye
194
so to them; for this is the law and the prophets. (Matthew 7:1)
Confucianism Do not do to others what you would not like yourself. Then there
will be no resentment against you, either in the family or in the
state. (Analects 12:2)
Buddhism Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful. (dana-
Varga 5,1)
Hinduism This is the sum of duty, do naught onto others what you would not
have not have them do unto you. (Mahabharata 5, 1517)
Islam No one of you is a believer until he desires for his brother that
which he desires for himself. (Sunnah)
Judaism What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellowman. This is the
entire Law; all the rest is commentary. (Talmud, Shabbat 3id)
Taoism Regard your neighbor’s gain as your gain, and your neighbor’s
loss as your own loss. (Tai Shang Kan Yin P’ien)
Zoroastrianism Nature alone is good which refrains from doing another
whatsoever is not good for itself. (Dadisten-I-dinik, 94, 5)
Some people, especially religious people, say that there can be no morality
without religion. They say that without God, ethics is impossible. Ethics or morality is
the attempt to arrive at a view of the nature of human values, of how we ought to live
and of what constitutes right conduct. In order to arrive at a view, it sets goals and
assesses actions by the extent to which they further these goals, e.g. if happiness is
a goal then the action which produces most happiness to all affected is the right one.
Revelation too, through the written and oral law, directs people to an understanding
of the nature of human values, of how they ought to live and of what constitutes right
conduct; such teachings and examples are scattered amongst various verses and
sources. Examples of such moral teachings are: you shall do right and good
(beyond the call of duty); love your neighbor; correct behavior between man and
man; discipline or training of character under the law; piety beyond the law; the need
to be respectful, earn a living; engage in learning and culture and so forth.
Nevertheless, ethics becomes global that is why Hans Kung (1996) would offer a
“Global Ethic”, where everyone is given the chance to integrate a common
understanding of world religions.
Activity 6
Direction: Class debate on the issue: Can a person still be ethical and moral even
without any religious affiliation?
Activity 7
Points for discussion: The constitution says that there must be a “separation of
church and state.” Public schools are run by the government. Doesn't this mean that
any religious activity must be outlawed in public schools?
Activity 8
Go to this link and watch the debate:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UisxYorDNr4
195
The question being debated upon is this: “Do we need religion to create a moral
society?” Pay close attention to their different contentions and establish your own
arguments on their positions also.
Assessment Task:
Exercise 1
Name: _________________________ Course & Year: _______________
Reaction Paper:
1. President Duterte wants to revive death penalty despite the situation that the country
is a melting pot of different Christian and religious institutions. Discuss the possibility of
its revival and answer this question: Is death penalty immoral? Discuss also your
answer.
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
196
Exercise 2
Name: _________________________ Course & Year: _______________
1. Make a critic of this claim: “Fundamentalism is a traditionalist movement, that it is an

effort by sincere people to retain a place for old fashioned (or at least what they took to
be old fashioned) values in a rapidly modernizing world. There is a genuine
apprehension or even outright fear that fundamentalists experience as they face the
future: they see a growing threat of their most precious possessions, their children,
liable to be taken from them by alien teachings of the world. Just like many other social
and religious groups, fundamentalists are looking backward to find resources for dealing
with the troubling changes in the present.” (Wacker, n.d.)
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
197
Ethics, Fundamentalism and Global Terrorism
Like globalization, there are various different definitions of terrorism, with no

universal agreement about it. Terrorism is therefore a loaded term and concept. It is
often used to imply something that is "morally wrong". Different countries have used
the term to justify crackdown on opposing views hence branding of groups and
individuals, often through legislation and government enactments, are often abused
but one thing is very clear: When terrorism is perpetrated by the nation state or
dominant political actors within the state, it is not considered terrorism by the state or
government conducting it, making legality largely a problematic issue (Teichman,
1989).
The United Nations has condemned terrorist acts since 1994 and came up
with a political description of terrorism: “Criminal acts intended or calculated to
provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular
persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the
considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any
other nature that may be invoked to justify them.”
In addition, most scholars, organizations and states agree that terroristic acts
are characterized by:
a) The use of violence or of the threat of violence in the pursuit of political,
religious, ideological or social objectives,
b) Acts committed by non-state actors (or by undercover personnel serving on
the behalf of their respective governments),
c) Acts reaching more than the immediate target victims and also directed at
targets consisting of a larger spectrum of society,
d) Both mala prohibita (crime that is made illegal by legislation) and mala in se
(crime that is inherently immoral or wrong).
Clash of Civilizations
After the end of the Cold War, conflicts between civilizations struggling for
influence on a new world order pose the greatest danger for international stability
and peace. This, at least, is the central tenet of Samuel Huntington’s famous and
best-selling book The Clash of Civilizations (Huntington 1996) and his earlier Foreign
Affairs article (Huntington 1993). Huntington’s clash of civilizations hypothesis has
many facets. If there is, however, one central hypothesis in his work it is this: The
dominant source of conflict will shift from the clash of ideologies during the Cold War
period (liberal democracy vs. communism) to the clash between nations and groups
of different civilizations after the end of the Cold War: “…conflicts between groups in
different civilizations will be more frequent, more sustained and more violent than
conflicts between groups in the same civilization”. He defines civilizations as the
highest cultural grouping of people and the broadest level of cultural identity people
have, being differentiated from each other by history, language, culture, tradition,
and, most important, religion. He distinguishes seven, or possibly eight civilizations –
Western, Sinic, Japanese, Islamic, Hindu, Slavic-Orthodox, Latin American and,
possibly, African. He posits that civilizational differences are the product of centuries
and far more fundamental than differences among political ideologies and political
198
regimes and are therefore less mutable and hence less easily compromised and
resolved than political and economic ones. Moreover, such differences are not
merely an abstract construction: civilizations are meaningful entities accords with the
way in which people see and experience reality. He then goes on to argue that the
Cold War had artificially plastered over and dampened inter-civilizational conflicts.
The end of the Cold War allowed these conflicts to emerge and gain strength. They
also draw strength from economic modernization, which tends to weaken the nation-
state as a source of identity. This, in turn, leads to a revival of religion as an
alternative source of identity. As he puts it: “In the modern world, religion is a central,
perhaps the central, force that motivates and mobilizes people”. Finally, the
declining power of the Western civilization and the rising power of other civilizations
allow the latter to challenge Western hegemony
The Rest against the West
Huntington mentions the use of terrorism as one form of conflict. In the clash
between the Rest against the West, he identifies terrorism (together with nuclear
arms) as one of the two weapons of the conflict. He refers much more explicitly to
terrorism in his analysis of the Islamic civilization. For the clash between Islam and
other civilizations, he states that while groups from all religions have engaged in
various forms of violence and terrorism, the figures make it clear that in the past
decade Muslims have been involved in far more of these activities than people of
other religions. He particularly stresses the use of terrorism in relation to the
asymmetric clash between Islam and the West. He argues that following the 1979
Iranian Revolution, an inter-civilizational quasi war developed between Islam and the
West. It is a quasi-war because, apart from the Gulf War of 1990-91, it has been
fought with limited means: terrorism on one side and air power, covert action, and
economic sanctions on the other. Accordingly, in his analysis of Islam, one should
expect a particularly strong clash between Islam and the West given a fourteen
centuries old legacy of conflict. This conflict ultimately stems from similarities in the
aspirations of the two civilizations, e.g. as universalistic and missionary, with
simultaneous fundamental differences in culture and religion. “The underlying
problem for the West is not Islamic fundamentalism. It is Islam, a different civilization
whose people is convinced of the superiority of their culture and is obsessed with the
inferiority of their power.” The Cold War period plastered over this conflict to some
extent, but “the collapse of communism removed a common enemy of the West and
Islam and left each the perceived major threat to the other.” Though Huntington’s
thesis is not immune to criticisms, events such as the terrorist attacks of 9/11, the
bombings in Bali, Madrid and London, Boko Haram, the rise of ISIS and the activities
of Jamaah Islamiyah terrorist cells in Southeast Asia with links to Al Qaeda network
were interpreted by many as striking evidence for Huntington’s paradigm.
Trends in Global Terrorism
Clarke (2020) predicted that geopolitical realignments, emerging technologies,

and demographic shifts will all contribute to different manifestations of ideologically
and politically motivated violence. Much of this will continue to have a transnational
dimension, with once seemingly parochial challenges made even more complex as a
result of the globalization of violence. The threat posed by transnational terrorism in
the coming years thus presents a complex mosaic.
199
Since 9/11, defensive counterterrorism tactics have prevented another large-
scale, foreign-born terrorist attack on U.S. soil. However, since 9/11, offensive
counterterrorism tactics have been largely counterproductive, often creating more
challenges than they solve. Today, there are nearly four times as many jihadist
militants as there were on 9/11, signaling that the Global War on Terror has
unintentionally produced more terrorists than it has removed (Thrall, 2017).
One of the most concerning trends in global terrorism is the proliferation

of violent white supremacy extremist organizations and other groups motivated by
various forms of right-wing extremism. Ukraine has served as a growing hub for
transnational white supremacy, mostly by neo-Nazis. These groups appear to be
growing stronger and more popular in North America, Europe, Australia, and
elsewhere, attempting to mainstream right-wing ideologies and exploiting social
media to spread propaganda, recruit new members, and finance their organizations
and operations. Shifting demographics in the West, increased migration flows, and
the toxic combination of populism and Islamophobia could all factor into more
terrorism by right-wing extremists in 2020s (Clarke 2020). This is reflected in the
growing high profile attacks in the United States such as those in Pittsburgh, El Paso
and Poway and the 2019 Christchurch massacre in New Zealand.
Sweargin (2019), tracing empirical data, made several conclusions about the
history, status, and future of terrorism. Historically, terrorism has ebbed and flowed,
occurred in hotspots, moved geographically, and been a global problem. However,
today’s terrorist activity is more frequent and lethal than ever before. Terrorism has
become highly concentrated in the Middle East, North Africa, and South and
Southeast Asia, but is simultaneously growing in both global reach and intensity.
Moreover, the global trends and trajectories of terrorism demonstrate that in the
2020s, terrorist activity will continue to evolve, becoming increasingly dangerous,
dynamic, and difficult to defeat.
Today, terrorist organizations are transforming into global networks as they

build international alliances that enable their organizations to share resources and
withstand counterterrorism pressure. Foreign fighters are dispersing across the
globe and have the potential to form new terrorist groups, strengthen existing ones,
or carry out lethal attacks of their own. Terrorists around the world are also pursuing
offensive cyber weapons capable of crippling critical infrastructure. Furthermore, the
Global War on Terror will soon enter its third decade, yet the international community
is no closer to defeating twenty-first-century terrorist organizations. Despite
tremendous financial and human resources, the U.S. and its allies’ military victories
have been short-lived. When one terrorist is captured or killed, another simply takes
his or her place. This has largely been the product of misguided counter-terrorism
strategy that fights today’s enemies while unintentionally creating tomorrow’s
terrorists (Thrall 2017). Therefore, in the coming years, according to UN in its review
of global counter-terrorism strategy in 2018, this must absolutely change -
International counterterrorism would benefit by addressing the conditions conducive
to the spread of terror, refining the role of law enforcement, delegitimizing the ideology
that fuels modern terrorism, marginalizing terrorists online and crafting measures to
ensure respect for human rights for all and the rule of law as the fundamental basis for
200
the fight against terrorism. Thus, only by eroding the mechanisms that sustain terrorist
operations, will terrorist groups be defeated.
Activity 9
Direction: Download these articles for you to read and understand; use the given
links and answer the questions provided below:
a. Hersh, M.A. (2016). Terrorism, human rights and ethics: A modelling approach.
Journal of Socialomics 5:2. https://www.longdom.org/open-access/terrorism-
human-rights-and-ethics-a-modelling-approach-2167-0358-1000148.pdf
b. Rausch, C.C. (2015). Fundamentalism and Terrorism. Journal of Terrorism
Research, 6(2). DOI: http://doi.org/10.15664/jtr.1153
c. Wright, J. D. (2016). Why is contemporary religious terrorism predominantly linked
to Islam? Four possible psychosocial factors. Perspectives on Terrorism, Vol.
10, No. 1. https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/26297516.pdf
1. With the event that happened in Marawi City and in some other places around the
world that had the same fate, how does religious fundamentalism increase the
likelihood terrorism?
2. Counter terrorism has its own ethical loopholes. Identify and briefly
describe/explain those loopholes?
201
Assessment Task:
Exercise 3
Name: _________________________ Course & Year: _______________

Reaction Paper
1. The Anti-Terror Law is a counter terrorism mechanism by the Philippine government
under the leadership of President Duterte presently being questioned by progressive
groups, NGOs, people’s organizations, church groups and many more in the Supreme
Court. Why? Are those reasons opposing the Anti-terror Law logically
reasonable/justifiable? Explain.
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
202
Learning Resources
Almond, G., Sivan, E. & Appleby, R.S. (2003). Strong religion: The rise of
fundamentalisms around the world. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Almond, G., Sivan, E. & Appleby, R.S. (1991). Fundamentalisms observed.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Basher, Brenda E. (2001). The Encyclopedia of fundamentalism. New York:
Routledge.
Chen, Daniel L. (2020). Economic distress stimulates fundamentalism.
https://users.nber.org/~dlchen/papers/Economic_Distress_Stimulates_
Religious_Fundamentalism.pdf
Clarke, Colin. (2020). Trends in terrorism: What’s on the horizon in 2020?
Policy analysis for US Foreign Policy Research Institute.
https://www.fpri.or/article/2020/01/trends-in-terrorism-whats-on-the-
horizon-in-2020
Emerson. M.O. & Hartman P. (2006). The Rise of religious fundamentalism.
Annual Review of Sociology Vol. 32.
https//doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.32.061604.123141
Fararo, T. J. and J. Skvoretz (1986). Action and institutions, network and
function: The cybernetic concept of social structure, Sociological Forum
1, 219–250.
Field, A. J. (1979). On the explanation of rules using rational choice models,
Journal of Economic Issues 13, 49–72.
Fisher, M. P. (2001). Living Religions. NJ: Prentice Hall.
Hersh, M.A. (2016). Terrorism, human rights and ethics: A modelling
approach. Journal of Socialomics 5:2. https://www.longdom.org/open-
access/terrorism-human-rights-and-ethics-a-modelling-approach-2167-
0358-1000148.pdf
Hood, Ralph & Morris, Ronald. (1985). Religiosity, sin and self-esteem.
Journal of Psychology and Theology. Vol 13 No.2.
Hunsberger, Bruce & Aletemeyer, Bob. (1992). Authoritarianism, religious
fundamentalism, quest and prejudice. International Journal of
Psychology of Religion. Vol.2 Issue 2.
Huntington, Samuel. (1993). The clash of civilizations? In Foreign Affairs Vol
72 No.3 Summer.
Huntington, Samuel. (1996). The clash of civilizations and the remaking of
world order. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Huntington, Samuel. (2002). Religion, culture and international conflict after
Sept. 11. Center Conversations 14, Ethics and Public Policy Center,
Washington D.C.
Keddie, Nikki R. (1998). The New religious politics: Where, when and why do
fundamentalisms appear? Comparative Studies of Societies and
Culture.Vol. 4 Issue 4.
Kent, Michael (n.d.). The difference between ethics and religion.
https://pagecentertraining.psu.edu/public-relations-ethics/ethical-
203
decision-making/yet-another-test-page/the-difference-between-ethics-
and-religion/
Kung, H. (n.d.). Hans Kung Quotes.
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/157789-no-peace-among-the-nations-
without-peace-among-the-religions
Parboteeah, P. K., Hoegl, M., et al. (2007). Ethics and religion: An empirical
test of a multidimensional model, Journal of Business Ethics, 387-388.
Rausch, C.C. (2015). Fundamentalism and Terrorism. Journal of Terrorism
Sweargin, L. (2019). Terrorism in the 2020s: Examining the global landscape.
MA thesis, Missouri State University, USA.
Religion (n.d.) In Religion.org. http://en.religion.org//Religion.
Smart, N. & Hecht, R. D. (1982). Sacred texts of the world: A universal
anthology. NY, USA: The Crossroad Publishing Company.
Teichman, J. (1989). How to define terrorism?. In Philosophy Vol 64 Issue
250. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0031819100044260
Thrall, Trevor. (2017). Step back: Lessons for US foreign policy from the failed
war on terror. Policy analysis for CATO Institute, Washington D.C.
https://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/step-back-lessons-for-
us-foreign-policy-failed-war-on-terror
Tittle, C. R. and M. R. Welch (1983). Religiosity and deviance: Toward a
contingency theory of constraining effects, Social Forces 61(3), 653–
682.
Steven, M. (2012). The Role of Ethics in Religion. Retrieved from
https://www.ethicssage.com/2012/09/the-role-of-ethics-in-religion.html
Turner, J. H. (1997). The institutional order. New York: Addison- Wesley
Educational Publishers.
Wacker, G. (n.d.). The rise of fundamentalism.
http://nationalhumanitiescenter.org/tserve/twenty/tkeyinfo/fundam.htm
Wibisono, Susilo, Louis, Winnifred & Jetten, Jolanda. (2019). The role of
religious fundamentalism in the intersection of national and religious
identities. Journal of Pacific Rim Psychology. Vol.13.
Wright, J. D. (2016). Why is contemporary religious terrorism predominantly
linked to Islam? Four possible psychosocial factors. Perspectives on
Terrorism, Vol. 10, No. 1. https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/26297516.pdf
204
REFERENCES:
Albrow, Martin and Elizabeth King (eds.) (1990). Globalization, knowledge and
society. London: Sage
Albrow, M. and King E. (eds.) (1990). Globalization, knowledge and society. London:
Sage.
Almond, G., Sivan, E. & Appleby, R.S. (2003). Strong religion: The rise of
fundamentalisms around the world. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Almond, G., Sivan, E. & Appleby, R.S. (1991). Fundamentalisms observed. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Al-Rodham N. and Stoudmann, G. (2006). Definitions of globalization: A
comprehensive overview and a proposed definition. Program on the
Geopolitical Implications of Globalization and Transactional Security.
https://s3.amazonaws.com/Definitions_of_Globalization.pdf
“Amoral” and “Unmoral” (n.d.) Retrieved from https://writingexplained.org/amoral-vs-
immoral-vs-unmoral-difference
Ancient eastern philosophy: On the ancient wisdom of buddhism, hinduism, taoism &
Confucianism, (n.d.). https://www.spaceandmotion.com/buddhism-hinduism-
taoism-confucianism.htm
Angeles, Antonette and Azada, Rowena, (2011). “Medicine prices, price controls and
the Philippine pharmaceutical industry”. Monograph produced by the Jose B
Fernandez, Jr. Ethics Center and Ateneo graduate School of Business.
Appadurai, A. (1996). Modernity at large: Cultural dimensions of globalization.
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Aquinas, Thomas. (1966). On Law, Eternal Law and Natural Law, Summa
Theologiae, Vol. 28, Blackfriars in conjunction with McGraw-Hill Book
Company, New York.
Aristotle, Book I-II, Nicomachean Ethics trans. Martin Oswald, Indianapolis: Bobbs-
Merrill Educational Publishing, 1983
Babor, Eddie (2000). Ethics: the philosophical discipline of action. Manila: Rex Book
Store.
Bartelson, J. (2004). The critique of the state. London: Sage Publications Ltd.
Basher, Brenda E. (2001). The Encyclopedia of fundamentalism. New York:
Routledge.
Bratton, V. K. (2004). Affective morality: The role of emotions in the ethical decision-
making process. http://fsu.digital.flvc.org/islandora/object/fsu:181290/
datastream/PDF/download/citation.pdf
Budriūnaitė, A. (2013). Fundamentals of oriental philosophy. Retrieved from
Buenaflor, Lionel E. et al. (2018). Unraveling the Absolute Moral Principle.
Mandaluyong City: Books Atbp. Publishing Corp.
Callicot, J. B. (1999). Beyond the land ethic: More essays in environmental
philosophy. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Castells, M. (2005). Global governance and global politics. In PS: Political Science
and Politics, American Political Science Association Vol. 38 No. 1.
205
Chen, Daniel L. (2020). Economic distress stimulates fundamentalism.
https://users.nber.org/~dlchen/papers/Economic_Distress_Stimulates_Religio
us_Fundamentalism.pdf
Clarke, Colin. (2020). Trends in terrorism: What’s on the horizon in 2020? Policy
analysis for US Foreign Policy Research Institute.
https://www.fpri.or/article/2020/01/trends-in-terrorism-whats-on-the-horizon-in-
2020
Claver, F. F. (1978). The stones will cry out: Grassroots pastorals. Philippines: Orbis
Books.
Coleman, W. (1990). Globalization and autonomy: An overview.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/240522613_Globalization_And_Auto
nomy_An_Overview
Confucius, (n.d.). Retrieved from http://en.reingex.com/Confucianism-Ethics.shtml
Confucius, (n.d.). Confucius: The ethics of Confucius.
https://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/confucius-the-ethics-of-confucius
Confucius (March 31, 2020) https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/confucius/
Connolly, W. (1996). The ethos of pluralization. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota
Press.
Cox, Rt. (1996). Approaches to world order: Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Distributive Justice (n.d.). https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/justice-distributive/
Donaldson, Thomas. (1986). Issues in moral philosophy. USA: McGraw-Hill, Inc.
Drucker, P. (1994). The theory of the business. In Harvard Business Review, Sept-
Oct 1994 Issue.
Epple, K. (2009). The role of Daoism in environmental ethics in China.
https://dra.american.edu/islandora/object/0910capstones
%3A187/datastream/PDF/view
Ehrenfeld, J. (2012). Beyond the brave new world: Business for sustainability.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/290311476_Beyond_The_Brave_Ne
w_World_Business_For_Sustainability
Emerson. M.O. & Hartman P. (2006). The Rise of religious fundamentalism. Annual
Review of Sociology Vol. 32.
Ezra, Ovadia. (2006). Moral Dilemmas in real life: Current issues in applied ethics.
The Netherlands: Springer.
Fararo, T. J. and J. Skvoretz (1986). Action and institutions, network and function:
The cybernetic concept of social structure, Sociological Forum 1, 219–250.
Field, A. J. (1979). On the explanation of rules using rational choice models, Journal
of Economic Issues 13, 49–72.
Fieser, J. (Revised June 1, 2020). Classical eastern philosophy: A short survey.
https://www.utm.edu/staff/jfieser/class/110/4-eastern.htm
Filipino Moral Character (n.d.) https://sites.google.com/site/philippinescomph/about
Filipino Moral Character (n.d.) https://www.slideshare.net/BelindoAguilar/strengths-
and-weaknesses-of-the-filipino-character
Fisher, M. P. (2001). Living Religions. NJ: Prentice Hall.
Five Basic Relationships, (n.d.). Confucian Ethics and the limits of rights theory.
https://www.bates.edu/philosophy/files/2010/07/GME-Ch.-III-Confucian-
Medical-Ethics.pdf
206
Friedman, T. (2000). The lexus and the olive tree. New York: Harper Collins.
Gensler, Harry J. (1998). Ethics: A Contemporary Introduction. New York:
Routledge.
Gula, R.M. (1989). Reason Informed by Faith. New York: Paulist Press.
Held, D. et al. (1999). Global transformations. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Hersh, M.A. (2016). Terrorism, human rights and ethics: A modelling approach.
Journal of Socialomics 5:2. https://www.longdom.org/open-access/terrorism-
human-rights-and-ethics-a-modelling-approach-2167-0358-1000148.pdf
Hood, Ralph & Morris, Ronald. (1985). Religiosity, sin and self-esteem. Journal of
Psychology and Theology. Vol 13 No.2.
Hunsberger, Bruce & Aletemeyer, Bob. (1992). Authoritarianism, religious
fundamentalism, quest and prejudice. International Journal of Psychology of
Religion. Vol.2 Issue 2.
Huntington, S. (1993). The clash of civilizations? In Foreign Affairs 72:3, Summer.
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/United_States/1993-06-01/Clash-
Civilizations
Huntington, Samuel. (1996). The clash of civilizations and the remaking of world
order. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Huntington, Samuel. (2002). Religion, culture and international conflict after Sept. 11.
Center Conversations 14, Ethics and Public Policy Center, Washington D.C.
Hwang, K. K. (2015). Morality ‘East’ and ‘West’: cultural concerns. International
Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, 806-810.
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Kwang_Kuo_Hwang/publication/2909174
58_Morality_East_and_West_Cultural_Concerns/links/5a547bee458515e7b7
326674/Morality-East-and-West-Cultural-Concerns.pdf
International Monetary Fund. (2002). Globalization: A framework for IMF
involvement. Washington: International Monetary Fund.
Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved from https://www.iep.utm.edu/
Izard, C. E. (October 2010). The meanings/aspects of emotion: Definitions,
functions, activation and regulation. Emotion Review, Vol. 2, No. 4. 363-370.
SAGE.
James, P. (2006). Globalism, nationalism, tribalism: Bringing theory back in.
London: Sage Publications Ltd.
James, P. and Steger, M. (2010). Globalization and culture: Vol. 4. Ideologies of
globalization. London: Sage Publications Ltd.
Jameson, F. (1991). Postmodernism or, the cultural logic of late capitalism. Durham:
Duke University Press.
John Rawls (2017). https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rawls/#WorRawCitEnt
John Rawls and His theory of Justice. (n.d.). https://www.crf-usa.org/bill-of-rights-in-
action/bria-23-3-c-justice-as-fairness-john-rawls-and-his-theory-of-justice
Jonas, Hans. (1984) The imperative of responsibility: in search of an ethics for the
technological age, Translated by Hans Jonas in collaboration with David Herr.
Chicago: The University of Chicago Press,.
Justice as Fairness. (n.d.). http://sites.wofford.edu/kaycd/rawls/
Juzhong Z. and Li S. (2016). Understanding recent trends in income inequality in the
People’s Republic of China. ADB Economics Working Paper Series No. 480.
Manila: Asian Development Bank.
Kant, Immanuel, “Categorical Imperative,” in Groundwork of the Metaphysics of

Morals, Trans. H.J.Paton.
207
Keddie, Nikki R. (1998). The New religious politics: Where, when and why do
fundamentalisms appear? Comparative Studies of Societies and Culture.Vol.
4 Issue 4.
Kent, Michael (n.d.). The difference between ethics and religion.
https://pagecentertraining.psu.edu/public-relations-ethics/ethical-decision-
making/yet-another-test-page/the-difference-between-ethics-and-religion/
Keohane, R. (2002). Power and governance in a partially globalized world. New
York: Routledge.
Khatami, M. (2009). Morality, rationality and impartiality. Falsafeh Vol. 37, No. 1,
Spring 2009, pp. 91-110. http://about.abc.net.au/wp-
content/uploads/2012/06/ElementsOfImpartialitySep2007.pdf
Khor, M. (1999). Globalization and the south: Some critical issues. Penang: Third
World Network.
Kohlberg, Lawrence, Essays on Moral Development, Vol 1 The Philosophy of Moral
Development.
Kohlberg, Lawrence. (1981). Essays on moral development. San Francisco, CA:
Harper & Row.
Korsgaard, C. M. (n.d.) “Rationality” https://www.people.fas.harvard.edu
Kosmin, B. (2001). The rising tide of secularity. Published speech delivered at the
32nd Annual Convention of the Freedoms from Religion Foundation at Red
Lion Hotel, Seattle, Nov 7, 2009.
Kubrick, Stanley. (1971) Clockwork Orange (video clip). Burbank, CA: Warner Bros.
Kung, H. (n.d.). Hans Kung Quotes.
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/157789-no-peace-among-the-nations-without-
peace-among-the-religions
Lamy, P. (2006). History of globalization. Paris: Vuilbert.
Lerner, J. S., et al. (2014). Emotions and Decision Making. Annual Review
Psychology.
Lopez, S., O’Byrne, K. K., & Petersen, S. (2003). Profiling courage. In S. Lopez, & C.
R.
Licuanan, Patricia et al. (1994). “A Moral Recovery Program: Building a People-
Building Nation.” In Values in Philippine Culture and Education: Philippine
Philosophical Studies I, edited by Manuel B. Dy Jr., 31-48. Washington, DC:
The Council for Research in Values and Philosophy.
Martin, Mike W. (2007). Everyday morality: An introduction to applied ethics.
Canada: Thomson Wadsworth.
Matsumoto, D. (2007). Culture, context, and behavior. Journal of personality, 75(6),
1285-1320. https://davidmatsumoto.com/content/2007%20Matsumoto%20
JOP.pdf
McKenzie, J. M. A. (n.d.). Hindu ethics: A historical and critical essay. Sri Rama
Ramanuja Achari (Ed.). http://www.srimatham.com/uploads/5/5/4/9/5549439/
hindu_ethics.pdf
McLuhan, M. (1968). War and peace in the global village. New York: Gingko Press.
Meacham, William. (2011). The Good and The Right.
http://www.bmeacham.com/whatswhat/GoodAndRight.html
Meacham, Bill. (2013). How to be an Excellent Human. Austin, TX: Earth Harmony,
Inc. http://www.bmeacham.com/ExcellentHumanDownload/HowToBeAn
ExcellentHuman_6x9x2.pdf
Moghadan, V. (2005). Globalizing women: Transitional feminist networks. Baltimore:
John Hopkins University Press.
208
Moral Emotions. (n.d.) https://www.ethicsunwrapped.utexas.edu
Moral Foundations Theory (n.d.). https://www-bcf.usc.edu/~jessegra/papers/
GHKMIWD.inpress.MFT.AESP.pdf
Moral norms. (n.d.). http://academic.regis.edu/tleining/pdfs/moral%20norms.pdf
Muffazar, C. (2002). Islam and the west. https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/
pages/frontline/shows/muslims/themes/west.html.
Nooteboom, B. (n.d.). “Eastern and western philosophy”.
https://www.bartnooteboom.nl/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Eastern-
andWestern-philosophy.pdf
Ohmae, K. (1992). The borderless world: Power and strategy in the interlinked
economy. New York: Harper Business.
O’Donell, G. (1993). On the state, democratization and some conceptual problems:
A Latin American View with Glances at Some Post-Communist Countries. In
World Development, Vol 21 Issue 8 August 1993.
Osswald, S., Greitemeyer, T., Fischer, P., & Frey, D. (2010). What is moral courage?
Definition, explication, and classification of a complex construct.
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Silvia_Osswald/publication/232528056W
hat_is_moral_courage_Definition_explication_and_classification_of_a_compl
ex_construct/links/0deec525ba6f9c4bbe000000/What-is-moral-
courageDefinition-explication-and-classification-of-a-complex-construct.pdf
Palma-Angeles, Antonette. (2014). “Cultural Drivers of Corruption in Business and
Governance.” In Business Ethics in Asia: Issues and Cases, edited by Oscar
G. Bulaong Jr., Ike Danita Dewi, and J. Sedfrey Santiago, Quezon City, PH:
Ateneo de Manila University Press.
Parboteeah, P. K., Hoegl, M., et al. (2007). Ethics and religion: An empirical test of a
multidimensional model, Journal of Business Ethics, 387-388.
Pasco, M. O. D; Suarez, V. F & Rodriguez, A. M. (2018). Ethics. Philippines: C & E
Publishing, Inc.
Powers, C. W., & Vogel, D. (1980). Ethics in the education of business managers.
Hasting-on-Hudson, NY: Institute of Society, Ethics and the Life Sciences.
Pratt, S. (2015). American philosophy from wounded knee to the present. London:
Bloomsbury.
Publications and the International Society for Research on Emotion.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1754073910374661
Quan, L. & Reuveny, R. (2003). Economic openness, democracy and income
inequality: An Empirical Analysis. London: Sage Publications Ltd.
Que, Nemesio S., S.J. “Notes on Moral Deliberation.” Introduction to course notes for
PH104: Foundations of Moral Value. Ateneo de Manila University.
Rachels, J. (2004). The elements of moral philosophy. 4th ed. New York: McGraw-
Hill College.
Rachel, James and Stuart Rachels. (2018). Elements of moral philosophy, 9th ed.
New York: McGraw-Hill.
Rae, Scott, “A Model for Moral Decision Making” Chapter 16, Beyond Integrity.
Rae, Scott B., and Kenman L. Wong. (1996). “A Model for Moral Decision Making.”
Chap. 16 in Beyond Integrity: A Judeo-Christian Approach to Business Ethics.
Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.
Rajaei, F. (2001). The phenomenon of globalization. Tehran: Agah Publication.
Ramos, Christine (2010). Introduction to philosophy. 2nd ed. Manila: Rex Bookstore
Inc.
Rational (Nov. 22, 2003). www.quebecoislibre.org
209
Rationality (n.d.) https://www.enotes.com
Rausch, C.C. (2015). Fundamentalism and Terrorism. Journal of Terrorism
Religion (n.d.) In Religion.org. http://en.religion.org//Religion.
Rest, J. (1994). Background: Theory and research. In: J. Rest & D. Narvaez (Eds.),
Moral development in the professions: Psychology and applied ethics (pp. 1–
26). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Robertson, R. (1992). Globalization: Social theory and global culture. London: Sage
Publications Ltd.
Rowan, A. M. (2015). The relationship between will and reason in the moral
philosophies of Kant and Aquinas. Logos i ethos, (1 (38)).
http://cejsh.icm.edu.pl/cejsh/element/bwmeta1.element.desklight9d247bbd-
71fb-46cf-8da0-c3cdfc6c28ab/c/1047-1914-1-PB.pdf.
Samir, A. (1996). The challenge of globalization. In Review of International Political
Economy, Vol 3. No. 2 Summer.
Scheler, M. (2012). Person and self-value: Three essays. Springer Science &
Business Media.
Shafer-Landau, Russ. (2003). Moral realism: A defense. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Six moral foundations of politics (n.d.). https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/
blogs/trevin-wax/the-6-moral-foundations-of-politics/
Skelton, T. & Allen, T. (1999). Culture and global change. London: Routledge.
Snyder (Eds.). Positive psychology assessment: A handbook of models and
measures (pp. 185-197). Washington: APA.
Steger, M. (2005). Globalism: Marjet ideology meets terrorism. New York: Rowman
& Littlefield.
Steger, M. (2014). Globalization: A very short introduction. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Steven, M. (2012). The Role of Ethics in Religion. Retrieved from
https://www.ethicssage.com/2012/09/the-role-of-ethics-in-religion.html
Stiglitz, J. (2002). Globalization and its discontents. New York: W.W. Norton &
Company.
Summary of Hinduism Beliefs (n.d.). http://crossnet.com/cms/uploads/ethnic/
resources/Hinduism/Summary%20of%20Hinduism%20Beliefs.pdf
Teichman, J. (1989). How to define terrorism?. In Philosophy Vol 64 Issue 250.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0031819100044260
The main concepts of Confucianism (n.d.).
https://philosophy.lander.edu/oriental/main.html
The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/
The 1987 Philippine Constitution (Art. III, Sec. 1 – Bill of Rights)
Thrall, Trevor. (2017). Step back: Lessons for US foreign policy from the failed war
on terror. Policy analysis for CATO Institute, Washington D.C.
https://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/step-back-lessons-for-us-
foreign-policy-failed-war-on-terror
Tittle, C. R. and M. R. Welch (1983). Religiosity and deviance: Toward a contingency
theory of constraining effects, Social Forces 61(3), 653–682.
Turner, J. H. (1997). The institutional order. New York: Addison- Wesley Educational
Publishers.
210
United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC). (2018).
Vitz, P. C. (1994). Critiques of Kohlberg's model of moral development: a summary.
Revista española de pedagogía, 5-35. https://revistadepedagogia.org/wp-
content/uploads/2018/03/1-Critiques-of-Kohlberg%C2%B4s-Model-of-Moral-
Development.pdf
Wacker, G. (n.d.). The rise of fundamentalism.
http://nationalhumanitiescenter.org/tserve/twenty/tkeyinfo/fundam.htm
Watson, J. (2016). Golden arches east: McDonalds in East Asia. Stanford: Stanford
University Press.
Werhane, Patricia H. Moral Imagination and Management Decision Making. New
York: Oxford Univeersity Press, 1999.
Why Does Morality Need a Foundation? (n.d.).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ft6Jn-haV_o
Wibisono, Susilo, Louis, Winnifred & Jetten, Jolanda. (2019). The role of religious
fundamentalism in the intersection of national and religious identities. Journal
of Pacific Rim Psychology. Vol.13.
Wilson, T.D. & D.T. Gilbert. (2005). Affective forecasting: Knowing what to want.
Current Directions in Psychological Science 14: 131-34.
World Bank. (2001). Globalization and development. Washington: The World Bank.
Wostyn, Lode, et al., (2004). Workbook for theology 4. Philippines: Claretian
Publications.
Wright, J. D. (2016). Why is contemporary religious terrorism predominantly linked to
Islam? Four possible psychosocial factors. Perspectives on Terrorism, Vol.
10, No. 1. https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/26297516.pdf
Yaacob, M. F. (2013). The challenge of religions: Pluralism in Malaysia.
http://www.iop.or.jp/documents/1121/Journal21_Yaacob.pdf
211
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
GABRIEL L. LUNA is a Professor IV at Isabela State University, Cauayan Campus

and the current Dean of the School of Arts and Sciences. He finished his Ph.D.
Major in Development Education at Cagayan State University, Andrews Campus. He
teaches both Philosophy and Social Science subjects.
FRANCIS TAFALENG MATAY-EO, JR. is an AB Philosophy graduate at San Pablo

Major Seminary, Baguio City. He finished his MA Philosophy (Magna Cum Laude) at
Saint Louis University, Baguio City. He earned some units in theology at San Carlos
Seminary Graduate School of Theology, Makati City. He also finished his MA in
Education at the Mountain Province State Polytechnic College, Mountain Province
and completed his doctoral units in educational management in the school.
He used to teach at Saint Louis University and currently teaches philosophy and
general education subjects at Isabela State University, Echague Campus. He also
teaches Philosophical and Legal Foundations of Education at the Central Graduate
School of the same university. He attended the National Trainers’ Training for
Teachers in Ethics at UP Diliman.
JOSEPH V. DEL ROSARIO finished his Bachelor’s degree in Philosophy at Divine

Word Mission Seminary, Quezon City. He earned some units in education at the
University of the East, Manila. He also earned some units in philosophy at the
graduate school of Divine Word Mission Seminary. He graduated his degree Master
of Arts in Psychology at Isabela State University, Echague Campus. He is finishing
his Ph.D. in Psychology at Cagayan State University.
His first teaching assignment was at La Salette University, Santiago City where he
taught Logic, Ethics, Philosophy of Man, Social Philosophy, General Sociology,
Salvation History, Sacraments, and Church Liturgy. He presently teaches philosophy
and psychology subjects at Isabela State University, Echague Campus.
WILSON C. PAGULAYAN, JR. is a graduate of AB Philosophy and AB Legal

Studies at the University of Saint Louis, Tuguegarao City. He finished his Master of
Arts in Philosophy at the University of the Philippines, Diliman and currently taking
his Doctor of Philosophy in Philosophy at Saint Louis University, Baguio City.
CHRISTIAN PAUL RAMOS TORRES is a graduate of Bachelor of Arts major in

Philosophy at the University of La Salette in 2013. He is an instructor at Isabela
State University, Cauayan Campus and teaches subjects such as Art Appreciation,
Logic, Ethics, Understanding the Self, Human Anthropology, Sociology and
Character Formation with Nationalism and Patriotism. He attended the National
212
Training for Teachers on General Education - Ethics at Baliuag, Bulacan (May 2017).
He is freelance speaker and retreat/recollection facilitator for various events
(specialized in motivational/inspirational talks).
REZ JANROE SARANGAY-BAUTISTA is a graduate of Bachelor of Arts in
Philosophy with units in management at Our Lady of the Visitation Seminary,
Isabela. He also finished Bachelor of Science degree major in Psychology with units
in accounting and is currently finishing his master’s degree in the same field at Saint
Paul University. He is also pursuing Master of Arts in Education major in Guidance
and Counseling in the same university.
He is an instructor at Isabela State University, Cabagan Campus where he teaches

Philosophy, general education subjects and law related studies. He is a member
and/or attends conferences of the Philosophical Association of Christian
Philosophers, Psychological Association of the Philippines, ASEAN Regional Union
of Psychological Societies, Philippine Association for Counselor Education,
Research and Supervision, Catholic Educational Association of the Philippines,
Regional Career Guidance Advocacy Congress, Integrated Professional Counselors
Association of the Philippines, and United Nations Educational, Scientific, and
Cultural Organization.
MARIA PAZ CONSUELO C. DAMMAY obtained her Bachelor of Arts in Psychology

and Master of Arts in Psychology at Isabela State University, Echague Campus in
1999 and 2019 respectively. She is currently pursuing Master of Arts in Education
major in Guidance and Counseling at the University of La Salette, Inc. in Santiago
City, Isabela.
Her academic and professional affiliations in the past were multi-faceted. She started
her teaching career from 2017 up to the present at Isabela State University, San
Mateo Campus teaching Psychology and Social Sciences subjects and was
designated as Campus Guidance Counselor. She used to work as Human Resource
Officer at Talavera Group of Companies, Inc. at Cauayan City Isabela from 2008 to
2010 and as Guidance Advocate from 2010 to 2016 at Cagayan Valley Computer
and Information Technology College and Isabela State University, Jones Campus.
Aside from this, she is a Core Group Member of LeadCom Isabela Ayala
Foundation, Inc., a freelance speaker and facilitator for various events that specialize
in leadership and motivation. She is a member and/or attending conferences of the
Philippine Association of Practitioners of Student Affairs and Services and Regional
Association of Practitioners of Student Affairs and Services.
RUBY B. DIMAS is a graduate of Bachelor of Science in Business Administration

Major in Economics at the University of the East, Claro M. Recto, Manila in 1986.
She obtained her Master of Arts in Values Education (MAVE) as a scholar at the
University of Asia and the Pacific, Pasig City in 1996 and her Doctor in Philosophy
Major in Educational Management at St. Ferdinand College, City of Ilagan, in 2000.
213
She is an Associate Professor V at Isabela State University, San Mariano Campus.
She teaches social science subjects like Economics, Sociology and Ethics aside
from Accounting, Finance, Marketing and Management.
ROBERT DAVE BANGAYAN SY is a graduate of AB Psychology at Isabela State

University, Echague Campus. He finished his Master of Arts in Psychology at St.
Paul University Philippines, Tuguegarao City. He is currently working as an Instructor
at Isabela State University, Jones Campus and designated as Campus Director for
Resource Generation and Management.
ILYN MIGUEL BONHAON is a graduate of Bachelor of Science in Psychology in

2003 at Saint Paul University, Tuguegarao City. She finished her Master of Arts in
Guidance and Counseling at University of La Salette, Santiago City in 2007. She is a
Registered Guidance Counsellor and a Licensed Professional Teacher.
She is currently a faculty at the same time the Guidance Counselor at Isabela State
University, Angadanan Campus since 2017.
ERIC CADAVILLO BALTAZAR obtained his BS Economics degree from the

University of the Philippines, Diliman. He also studied film and visual communication
from UP Film Institute and earned MA units in International Studies in the same
university. He worked for more than a decade as a market analyst for San Miguel
Corporation before entering the teaching profession. He is currently an instructor at
the College of Arts and Sciences of Isabela State University, Echague Campus. He
loves teaching Arts Appreciation, Humanities and Contemporary World.
214

Ethics Module Ay 21 22

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ethics Module Ay 21 22

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ethics Module Ay 21 22

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

GEC 7: General Ethics

1. Title of the Module

Chapter 1: Basic Concepts in Ethics

5. Teaching and Learning Activities

6. Recommended learning materials and resources for supplementary reading

De Guzman, Jens Micah, et al. (2018). Ethics: Principles of ethical behavior in

a. Reflection Paper: A reflection paper is a chance for students to add their

b. Reaction Paper: Reaction or response papers are designed so that

c. Module Exercises: These are exercises or quizzes provided in the module

d. Home work: A homework assignment is a set of tasks assigned to students

e. Situation Analysis: This is basically the process of critically evaluating the

Topic 1: Ethics and Morality

Nominal Duration: 1.5 hours

Ethics (Greek ethika, from ethos, “character,” “custom”), principles or

According to Meacham (2011), the primary task of ethics, or morality, is to

The Good and the Right

Another approach, virtue ethics, focuses on qualities of character and motives

What is good has to do with benefits. Something that benefits something or

The instrumental usage intersects the biological when we consider what is

The approach to ethics that emphasizes goodness is called the teleological

This approach is also sometimes called a consequentialist approach or an

An ethics – a set of moral principles or values – based on goodness applied to

What is right has to do with conformance to rules or regulations. This is easy

The approach to ethics that emphasizes rightness is called the deontological

According to the deontological approach, an action is justified on the basis of

Confusion between the Good and the Right

This argument quoted is partly in terms of the effects of some phones on

Here is another example: “With the glaring poverty being experienced by

Implication to Following Rules

Teaching and Learning Activities

Topic 2: Moral versus Non-Moral Standards

Nominal Duration: 1.5 hours

Moral Standards are principles, norms or models an individual or a group has

Non-Moral or Conventional Standards are standards by which we judge what

“Moral norms” (n.d.) have different forms. They can be expressed as

Metaphors for Moral Standards

2. Moral Road Signs

3. A Model for an Art Class

4. An Architect’s Blueprint for a Building

Five Characteristics of Moral Standards

2. Not established by law or legislature

4. Based on impartial considerations

5. Associated with special emotions and vocabulary

Teaching and Learning Activities

____8. Matters of tastes or preferences are considered in the category of:

Topic 3: Moral Dilemmas

Nominal Duration: 1.5 hours

A dilemma is a situation in which a difficult choice has to be made between

Three Levels of Moral Dilemmas

1. Individual Moral Dilemma

2. Organizational Moral Dilemma

3. Systemic Moral Dilemma

Teaching and Learning Activities

a. In a ¼ sheet of paper, each student will give an example of a personal moral

Note: b and c activity will be shared in class

De Guzman, Jens Micah, et al. (2018). Ethics: Principles of ethical behavior in

Topic 4: Freedom as a Foundation of Ethics

Nominal Duration: 1.5 hours

Why do matters of right/wrong and good/bad need a foundation? What

Freedom or liberty may be described as the power or right to act, speak or

Name: ___________ Course & Year: