CHAPTER 2

FREEDOM AND MORALITY

Introduction
emember that morality deals with the choices that define who we
become and determine our eternal destiny. How we define and use
our freedom would clearly affect these defining choices. In fact, it defines how
we make these decisions. Whether we see our freedom as license to do whatever
we want or as a mission to discern and choose what will make us better people
and our lives more fulfilled inform the entire framework in which we make these
defining choices. If wè are off on how we understand human freedom, or moral
compass is inaccurate from the very start.
If we are to choose among possible goods, the goal would be to choose those
goods that meet the other goals of natural law - making us more human, choosing
and protecting authentic human goodness, being true to our physical and spiritual
nature, and enriching human society. For human freedom to fulfill its purpose, we
need to have not only the ability to choose, but the ability to choose what can do
the greatest good for us as human beings. Put simply, true human freedom is the
ability to choose the best possible good.
LESSON
1
Freedom and Moral Acts
Introduction
In Kant philosophy, freedom is defined as a concept which is involved in the
moral domain, at the question: what should I do?
In summary, Kant says that the moral law is only that I know myself as a
free person. Kantian freedom is closely linked to the notion of autonomy, which
means law itself: thus, freedom falls obedience to a law that I created myself. It is
therefore, respect its commitment to compliance with oneself.
Practical reason legislates (makes laws and requirements) of free beings,
or more precisely the causality of free beings. Thus, practical reason is based on
freedom, it is freedom.
Phenomena, in the Kantian thought, are subject to the law of natural causality:
each event is the effect of another, and so on to infinity. Unlike the phenomenon of
man, the moral rule is free, ie, it has the power to self-start condition. Kant ethics
is mainly based on the concept of free will and autonomy.
Kant's Morality and Freedom
To act freely is to act autonomously. To act autonomously is to act according
to a law I give myself. Whenever I act according to the laws of nature, demands of
social convention, when I pursue pleasure and comfort, I am not acting freely. To
act freely is not to simply choose a means to a given end. To act freely is to choose.
the end itself, for its own sake.
This is central to Kant's notion of freedom. For Kant, acting freely
（autonomously) and acting morally are one and the same thing.
The capacity to act autonomously in this manner gives humans that special
dignity that things and animals do not have. Respecting this dignity requires us to
treat others not as means to an end, but as ends in themselves.
To arrive at a proper understanding of Kant's notion of moral law and the
connection between morality, freedom and reason, let's examine these contrasts:
1. Duty vs. Inclination (morality)- Only the motive of duty, acting according
to the law I give myselfconfers moral worth to an action. Any other motive,
while possibly commendable, cannot give an action moral worth.
2. Autonomy vs.Heteronomy (freedom) - I am only free when my will is
determined autonomously, governed by the law I give myself.Being part of
nature, I am not exempt from its laws and I'm inclined or compelled to act
according to those laws (act heteronomously). My capacity for reason opens
another possibility, that of acting according to laws other than the laws of
nature:the laws I give myself.This reason,pure practical reasonlegislates a
priori - regardless of all empirical ends.
3. Categorical vs.Hypothetical Imperatives(reason) - Kant acknowledges two
ways in which reason can command the will, two imperatives. Hypothetical
Imperative uses instrumental reason: If I want X, I must do Y. (If I want to
stay out of jail, I must be a good citizen and not rob banks). Hypothetical
imperative is always conditional.
If the action would be good solelyas a means to something else, the imperative
is hypothetical. If the action is represented as good in itself, and therefore necessary
for a will which of itself accords with reason, the imperative is categorical.
Categorical Imperative is non-conditional. It is concerned not with the matter
of the action and its presumed results, but with its form, and with the principle
from which it follows. And what is essentially good in the action consists in the
mental disposition, let the consequences be what they may.
What is Categorical Imperative?
This question can be answered from the idea of a law that binds us as rational
beings regardless of any particular ends.
Here are two main formulations of the Categorical Imperative:
1. Áct only on that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should
become a universal law. Maxim is a rule, a principle that gives reason to
action.This is a universalizing test that checks whether my action puts my
interests and circumstances ahead of everyone else's. My action will fail the
test if it results in a contradiction.
Example: I want a loan, but I know I won't have money to repay it. I'm
considering making a promise I know I can't keep. Can I make this a universal
law, the law that says every time one needs a loan and has no money to repay
it, one should make a false promise? Imagine everyone then acting accórding
to this maxim. We quickly realize that this would result in negating the whole
institution of promise-keeping. We arrive at a contradiction.
2. 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.
For Kant, human existence has in itself an absolute value - it is an end in
itself and the only ground of a possible categorical imperative.
The Role of Freedom in Morality
The personal aspect of morality- which might more properly be called
ethics- is about the cultivation of virtue: the development of character traits so
that choosing the good becomes a matter of habit. Buta person, in order to be truly
virtuous, must be free to cultivate the virtues, or not.
There is no virtue in being temperate when you are being forced not to indulge.
There is no virtue in being charitable when someone is forcing you to give up what
is yours. Virtue can be guided by cultural traditions and social institutions, but it
cannot be coerced. A virtuous man must also be a free man.
The interpersonal aspect of morality is more about rule following.These rules
are important because, they prevent us from “colliding with each other. They
permit us. to live together in harmony, and they also make us recognize, apart
from the mere consequences to ourselves, the rights of others. Here too, liberty is
essential.
When some people are permitted to dominate others, they treat others as
merelya means to an end, rather than ends in themselves. Not only does this fail to
honor the basic dignity within each person, it also stifles the flourishing of human
potential and creativity. A society of domination will be a society that never reaches
its full potential in the human sciences, physical sciences, and creative arts. Liberty
affords us the greatest space possible to pursue our projects, in a way that enables
us to live well.with one another.
Having a final end does not obviate the need for liberty. Freedom remains
essential. Freedom is so precious that God will not override it, even when we
badly misuse that freedom. In other words, we can't get where we're going if
we're not free to walk the road. Thus, freedom is essential to a genuinely good
human life at all the levels of morality.
Freedom:The Foundation of Moral Act
Freedom is humans' greatest quality and it is a reflection of our creator.
Freedom is the power rooted in reason and will, to act or not to act, to do this
or that and so to perform deliberate actions on one's own responsibility. Having
freedom means having responsibility. Every action you choose further determines
our character.
Are animals free? Do they have freedom? What separates human from
animals? Reason (Intellect) and will (moral action). Freedom is a power rooted
in reason and will, to act or not to act. Good and evil are forged in freedom. To
the degree that a person reaches higher level of freedom, he becomes capable of
higher levels of morality. The sinful person becomes slave.
The existence of freedom is a central premise in Catholic morality. Our secular
culture greatly exalts freedom. Yet it also questions whether freedom really exists.
Freedom and Free Will.
While the existence of freedom is a central premise in Catholic morality, we
are notall equally free. Thereare manypossible limits to our freedom: both external
and internal. External freedom is a freedom from factors outside ourselves that
limit or destroy our free will. Internal freedom is a freedom from interior factors
that limit our free will.
Requirement of True Freedom
True freedom is dependent upon truth, You will know the truth, and the
truth will set you free (John 8:32). Example, lying to a teacher or to friends. True
freedom is oriented toward the good. We should not understand freedom as the
possibility of doing evil. Evil enslaves us and diminishes our ability to be free. True
freedom requires responsibility. There is no such thing as irresponsible freedom.
Human Acts vs Acts of Humans
Human acts make use of his knowledge and free will. Example: love your
enemy, pray to God, sacrifice for others. Acts of human do not make use of his
intellect or will knowledge. His action is natural. Examples ofacts ofhuman are
breathing, blinking,and sneezing.
True freedom liberates us to develop our God-given talents in a responsible
way so we can live our lives for others and for God. True freedom serves what is
good, just and true.
35
Man is created by God as a human person who can begin and controi his.
own actions. He is meant to seek God and gain perfection by clinging to him. By
freedom which is rooted in his intellect and will, man has the power to act or not
to act. He can shape his own life, mature in goodness, and gain a perfection which
is rooted in God. Until man attains God, he can choose to do good or evil, to grow
in perfection or to sin. Because human acts are free, they are worthy of praise or
blame. By constantly doing good, man grows in freedom. Doing evil leads man
into a slavery of sin (Rom 6:17).
A person is responsible for his voluntary acts. By progress in virtue, in
knowledge of good, and in self-discipline, he gains greater mastery. Man's
responsibility and imputability can be lessened or nullified by ignorance, fear,.
habits, or inordinate attachments or other factors.
God conifronted Eve,What is this that you have done? (Gen 3:13). He also
confronted Cain, What have you done? (Gen 4:10). A person is responsible for
anydirectly willed act. Also, an action can be indirectly voluntary (from negligence
or ignorance). A person is not responsible for an evil act if he did not will it and did
not intend it as a means to an end. For example, a person might incur death while
trying to help another. A person is responsible if they could have avoided the evil
as a drunk driver killing someone.
Every human person must recognize the right offreedom in others. Exercising
freedom, especially in moral or religious matters, is an inalienable right of the
human person. This must be protected by civil authorities within the limits of
public order.
Human freedom who refused God's love becomes a slave to sin. The first
· sin has led to so many others. Human history attests that the problems of man
come from man's abuse of freedom. Freedom does not give man the right to say
and do everything, because man's purpose is not his own earthly satisfaction.
Man's blindness and injustice destroy the cultural conditions needed for freedom.
Deviating from the moral law violates man's own freedom and imprisons him
within himself.
＂For freedom, Christ has set us free (Gal 5:1) and saved us from sin's power.
＂Where the Spirit of the Lord is,there is freedom(1 Cor 17).
Christ's grace is not a rival to man's freedom. The person grows in inner
freedom by being docile to God's Spirit. Take away from us all that is harmful so
we may freely accomplish your will.
Whenever man deliberately chooses, he is the father of his acts. These freely
chosen acts can be morally evaluated as good or evil.
The object directly chosen by the will determines the basic morality (good or
bad). The person's intellect sees this as according to moral standards (good) or not
according to moral standards (evil).
The person also has an intention which determines the act's morality. An
intention can guide many acts or even a whole lifetime (as loving God). One act
can have a multiplicity of intentions (Doing a favor to help someone and also to
receive a favor in return).
However, a good intention can never turn an evil act into a good one. A good
purpose cannot justify evil means. However, an evil intention can make a good act
into an evil one, such as giving alms to gain praise.
Only the act and the intention mke an act good or bad. The circumstances
can increase or diminish the goodness or evil. For example, stealing a large amount
of money increases the evil, while fear of harm can lessen a person's responsibility.
Circumstances can never make an evil act into a good one.
An act is good when the object, the intention, and the circumstances are all
good. A good act is vitiated by an evil intention like praying in order to be seen
as good. Some acts are evil in themselves as fornication and are always wrong to
choose. Therefore, the person's intention and the circumstances, such as pressure or
duress, cannot change a morally evil act, such as murder, blasphemy, or adultery,
into a morally good act. We cannot do evil so good will come from it.
LESSON 2
Culture and Morality
Introduction
In a review essay on morality and culture, Mary Douglas pointed out that
there exists little communication between anthropologists writing on morals and
the (Western) moral philosophers. Anthropological findings enter the ethical
discussions as 'exotic examples. She expects this situation to last for quite some
time.
Two conversations are running parallel: one the philosophers', about the
rational foundation of ethics, another the anthropologists', about the interaction
between moral ideas and social institutions. The conversations, as they are set at
the present time, seems will never converge.
Anthropologists are confident that they are speaking about the role of culture
in human life and societies. Moral philosophers are sure that they are discussing
moral issues. So far so good. But the problem begins when anthropologists turn to
the investigation of the morality of a culture and when philosophers try to account
for the role of culture in the formation of morality. The central difficulty has to do
with the way the relation between morality and culture is perceived.
In fact, the problem is more fundamental than Douglas assumes. According
to her, it is possible to reduce the gap between anthropologists and philosophers if
the latter were to give up some of their (culturally determined) views on morality.
True, but this is not the whole story. The anthropologists have difficulties too
while accounting for the morality that philosophers speak about.
What is Culture?
Culture is derived from the Latin word “cultura” or “cultus” which means
care or cultivation. Culture as cultivation implies that every human being is a
potential member of his own social group. He is endowed with certain innate
qualities to make use. However, he cannot develop these inborn talents without
the other people.He/she needs other people who can provide him/her with the
needed opportunities so he/she can translate these potentialities into realities
called achievements. These accomplishments not only help him achieve self-
actualization but also make him/her a contributing member of his society.
Anthropologist Edward B. Tylor, an Englishman, developed one of the classic
definitions of culture. He said, “Culture is that complex whole which includes
knowledge, belief, law, art, moral, custom, and other capabilities and habits
acquired as a member of society.. In other words, culture refers to the totality of
the humanly created world, from material culture and cultivated landscapes, via
social institutions (political, religious, economic'etc.), to knówledge and meaning,
something that human has created and learned in a society. His theory defines
culture in descriptive terms as the “complex whole that makes up social ideas
and institutions.
In Tylor's view, culture includes all aspects of human activity, from the
fine arts to popular entertainment, from everyday behavior to the development
of sophisticated technology. It contains the plan, rules, techniques, designs and
policies for living.
On the other hand, sociologists defined culture as the entire way of life
followed by people, and everything learned and shared by people in society.
（Hunt, et. al, 1994). According to Landis (1992), culture is a complex set of learned
and shared beliefs, customs, skills, habits, traditions, and knowledge common to
members of society.
The Influence of Culture in Moral Development
Culture has been with us since the dawn of human existence. Significant as it
is, a culture considerably shapes its members on how they live and relate within
themselves and with other cultures (Bretzke, 2004).
Culture is a social environment in which a person is born and wherein
he or she lives together with other persons. Hence, culture has a great impact
in the development of the human person in varied ways; may it be in physical,
knowledge, thought, relationship, religious or moral development.
Moreover, culture is a person's social heritage that has been passed from one
generation to the next basically through the relationship that binds the society
together. It necessarily says on what are the things a member of the society must
do, what to do and how to do things. It teaches and conditions members on how
to relate and live with the other members of the society and even to people outside
of their own culture.
At its fundamentals, culture has important characteristics. As I would
emphasize, culture is rooted from the collective human experience. Culture
is always transmitted, shared or acquired through learning. Culture satisfies
human needs as a social being. And culture tends towards the participation of the
members of the society.
Therefore,culture functions to mold and establish a social identity that brings
people as well to the knowledge of common objectives which members would try
to achieve. Culture, indeed, provides norms, customs, laws, and moral demands
that are to be followed. So to speak, in general, in a culture there is consistency and
systematic patterns of behavior (Palispis, 2007).
In general, culture plays a vital role the development of the human person.
In every aspect of the human person, the cultural background can be very visible.
In particular, culture has an essential influence on the moral development of the
human person since morality is just one of the cultural aspects.
Culture would tell, as I have mentioned above, the members on what to do,
how to do things and whatare the things that should be done as well as those things .
that should be avoided. So to speak, culture imprints the existing moral principles
into its members, thus, shapes the character of its members as well. Indeed, this
is a process from infancy to adulthood, effectively presented by Kohlberg in his
theory on the stages of moral development.
At. this point let us particularize how culture influences the moral
development of the people. The points below are the following:
1. Culture is always social and communal by which the relationship of the
people towards one another and their experience as a people are the culture's
meadow. It is in this relationship and communal experience that culture
influences the moral development of its members. It is important to note that
morality as principle is promoted because primarily of the relationship within
the community. Laws and rules and standards of attitudes and behaviors are
set and promulgated by the community to promote that relationship thatbinds
them together as a people. And culture as it is being handed down from one
generation to another forms as well the morality of that particular generation.
Yet, the kind of morality may not be absolutely the same with the previous
generation due to changes that would inevitable occur.
2. The culture defines the normative principles and behaviors of the society.
It defines which particular principle and behavior that should be kept that
would serve the best interest of the community. There would be a definition
on what are the principles and behaviors also that should not be promoted or
rejected. This kind of influence of culture in moral development is best seen in
terms of relational level. Again, it is basic that it is in the relationship within
the community and in their experience of that relationship that the community
would able to forin certain normative principles and behaviors. These defined
normative principles and behaviors inform and indoctrinate the members as
they live and relate with the community.These would shape also the kind
of moral judgment a person has, which is most of the time congruent to the
general moral judgment.
3. 'Moreover, a culture, as best exemplified in the experience of the people,
develops restrictions and sets boundaries and limitations as they live and
relate with one another. These restrictions and boundaries serve as protection
among themselves. These would create an atmosphere of promoting the
welfare of the community. Indeed,anyone who tries to step beyond these is
subject to punishment or consequences set by the communityembedded in the
culture. Culture here draws this consciousness into the moral development of
its members.
4. As culture helps in generating the character and identity of its people, it also
includes their moral character. Culture conditions the mind - the way people
think and the way they perceive the world and their relationship' with one
another. Heñceforth, a culture which characteristic is aggressive tends to be
aggressive in terms of its relationship with one another or with other cultures.
Yet, the character that is being shaped bya culture may not always be just and
rightful. A culture like many others may shape a character that is unjust and
mistaken in the general perspective of human morality.
5. The culture identifies the authorities or the governing individuals or groups.
They are the symbol of guidance and control. In many cultures, men are
always regarded as the leaders who oversee the order of the community
and give guidance, which is true in patriarchal societies. Through their
roles and responsibilities in the community within the given culture, may
it be patriarchy, matriarchy or whatever; people submit themselves to their
authorities. By their very authority as they represent the general populace,.
the members look at them as people who promote and keep the set of rules
and laws that govern the community. Their moral judgments are considered
essential in moral issues of the community. In particular, in domestic level the
parents of a child are the first authorities who set and teach the child essential
for the moral development of their child.
Evidently, culture is very significant in the development of the human person
and in moral development particularly. Furthermore, as one would look· at it,
culture has a tight grip on the moral development of the people. Culture is the
conditioning principle of the moral development of its members. Nevertheless,
culture as the principle that sürrounds the moral development of the people may
not always promote what is good and just for all. It is certain that sometimes there
are principles, attitudes and behaviors that actually hinder good relationships.
and violate the welfare of the others. These are indeed difficult to eliminate
immediately in a culture, yet, they should be subject to people's discernment that
proper changes and modifications have to be done for the sake of the welfare and
justice for everybody.
LESSON 3
Dynamics of Culture
Introduction
The cross-cultural relationship is the idea that people from different cultures
can have relationships that acknowledge, respect and begin to understand each
other's diverse lives. People with different backgrounds can help each other see
possibilities that they never thought were there because of limitations, or cultural
proscriptions, posed by their own traditions. Traditional practices in certain
cultures can restrict opportunity because they are “wrong according to one
specific culture. Becoming aware of these new possibilities will ultimately change
the people that are exposed to the new ideas. This cross-cultural relationship
provides hope that new opportunities will be discovered but at the same time it
is threatening. The threat is that once the relationship occurs, one can no longer
claim that any single culture is the absolute truth.
The concept of cultural relativism as we know and use it today was
established as an analytic tool by German-American anthropologist Franz Boas in
the early 20th century.
We 'recognize that the many cultures of the world have their own beliefs,
values, and practices that have developed in particular historical, political, social,
material, and ecological contexts and that it makes sense that they would differ
from our own and that none are necessarily right or wrong or good or bad, then
we are engaging the concept of cultural relativism.
Cultural Relativism
Cultural relativism is the ability to understand a culture on its own terms
and not to make judgments using the standards of one's own culture. The goal of
this is promote understanding of cultural practices that are not typically part of
one's own culture. Using the perspective of cultural relativism leads to the view
thát no one culture is superior than another culture when compared to systems
of morality, law, politics, etc. It is a concept that cultural norms and values derive
their meaning within a specific social context. This is also based on the idea
that there is no absolute standard of good or evil, therefore every decision and
judgment of what is right and wrong is individually decided in each society. The
concept of cultural relativism also means that any opinion on ethics is subject to
the perspective of each person within their particular culture. Overall, there is
no right or wrong ethical system. In a holistic understanding of the term cultural relativism, it tries to
promote the understanding of cultural practices that are
unfamiliar to other cultures such as eating insects, genocides or genital cutting
（Leano, 1995).
Cultural relativism is considered to be more constructive and positive
conception as compared to ethnocentrism. It permits to see an individual's habits,
values and morals in the context of his or her cultural relevance not by comparing
it to one's own cultural values and by deeming these the most superior and greater
of all.
Cultural relativism is a method or procedure for explaining and interpreting
other people's culture. It offers anthropologists a means of investigating other
societies without imposing ethnocentric assumptions (Scupin, 2000).
Cultural relativism is widely accepted in modern anthropology. Cultural
relativists believe that all cultures are worthy in their own right and are of equal
value. Diversity of cultures, even those with conflicting moral beliefs, is not to be
considered in terms of right and wrong or good and bad. Today's anthropologists
consider all cultures to be equally legitimate expressions of human existence, to be
studied from a purely neutral perspective.
Cultural relativism is closely related to ethical relativism, which views truth
as variable and not absolute. What constitutes right and wrong is determined
solely by the individual or by society. Since truth is not objective, there can be
no objective standard which applies to all cultures. No one can say if someone
else is right or wrong; it is a matter of personal opinion, and no society can pass
judgment on another society (Ladd, 1973).
Cultural relativism sees nothing inherently wrong (and nothing inherently
good) with any cultural expression. So, the ancient Mayan practices of self-
mutilation and human sacrifice are neither good nor bad; they are simply cultural
distinctive, akin to the American custom of shooting fireworks on the fourth
of July. Human sacrifice and fireworks- both are simply different products of
separate socialization.
Marriage practices of Muslims should not be judged based on the culture of
the Roman Catholics is one example. The celebration of fiesta in the Philippines
should not look into by other nation as too much religiosity.
Advantages and Disadvantages of Cultural Relativism
There are additional cultural relativism advantages and disadvantages to
consider when looking at this theory. Here are some of the key points to consider
（Vittana.org).
Hereunder are the advantages of cultural relativism:
1. It is a system which promotes cooperation. For the most part, humanity is
strong becáuse of the differences we all have. Every individual has a different
perspective that is based on their upbringing, experiences, and personal
thoughts. By embracing the many differences, we have, the cooperation
creates the potential for a stronger society. Each individual definition of
success allows us to pursue stronger bonds with one another and potentially
achieve more because there are no limitations from a group level and what
can or cannot be accomplished.
2. It creates a society where equality is possible. In any society, people rise by
climbing on top of other people. It is a socially acceptable way of creating
discrimination. We see this today in the wage gap that women face, the
educational opportunities that minority groups face, and the violence we
see because of political oppression. Cultural relativism allows the individual
to define their moral code without defining the moral code of others. Each
person is separate in such a society. That separation creates equality because
each person can set his/her own definition of success.
3. People can pursue a genuine interest. In the modern society, people are
funneled toward certain career options because of their circumstances. If you
can't afford to go to college, then you pursue a vocational career or some sort
of entrepreneurship instead of a career that requires a graduate degree. If you
can't afford to buy a house, you go rent an apartment. In cultural relativism,
you get to pursue your own interests without restriction. You set the definitions
of what you can have and what you cannot have. When implemented
successfully, each person would get to focus on his/her strengths instead of
his/her weaknesses.
。 4. Respect is encouraged in a system of cultural relativism. People come from
different cultures. They have different ideas. They pursue different definitions
of success. Because such a system promotes the individual's definition instead
of a group definition, a society can evolve because there is a natural level
of respect built into the process. Each person is naturally given the right to
pursue life through his/her own specific perspective and then learn from his/
her experiences in a way that works best for him/her.
5. It preserves human cultures. Humanity is a very diverse set of thoughts,
traditions, ideas, and practices. Many times, the traditions of humanity are
set aside so that a set of standards can be appeased. Native and First Nations
tribes in North America did this by signing treaties which would help them
to preserve some lands, but limit their rights by being subject to a new
governmental authority. They were forced to trade some of their culture.
Under the theory of cultural relativism, such a trade would not be necessary.
It wouldn't even be a consideration. 6. Cultural relativism creates a society without judgment. We are so
trained
to judge others in today's world that we don't even give it a second thought.
Looking at someone and saying, “Glad that isn't me, is a judgment. Under
the theory of cultural relativism, judgment goes away. The only person that
judges you is yourself. People who might disagree with you are able to set
their own codes and standards for their own individualistic bubble. Instead of
worrying about others, you only worry about yourself.
7. Moral relativisım can be excluded from cultural relativism. Each culture can
be treated as an individual under the theory of cultural relativism. This means
the moral codes of a culture can be defined and an expectation implemented
that people follow it. Although other cultures maynot set up such a restriction,
and others might say such a restriction isn't a true form of cultural relativism,
people in such a system can do what makes the most sense for them. You're
focusing on the customs of a culture, not the morality that is imposed upon
those customs.
8. We can create personal moral codes based on societal standards with ease.
To determine if a decision would be “right” or “wrong,” cultural relativism
allows individuals to consult with the standards of their society,or culture.
It is a simple test to determine the course that a person should take in such a
circumstance. By consulting with the moral code of the culture, one question
must be asked: does the action conform to the cultural moral code? If it does,
then the action is permitted. Although this process can allow for disturbing
results, most cultures are based on inclusion instead of exclusion. It is only
in structures where apartheid, segregation, or purging where disturbing
outcomes are typically present.
9. It stops cultural conditioning. People tend to adapt their attitudes, thoughts,
and beliefs to the people they are with on a regular basis. This is cultural
conditioningand itprevents people fromhavinganindividualisticperspective. '
Cultural relativism stops this.
The disadvantages are as follows:
1. It creates a system that is fueled by personal bias. Every society has ą certain
natural bias to it because of how humanity operates. People tend to prefer
to be with others who have similar thoughts and feelings, so' they segregate
themselves into neighborhoods, communities, and social groups that share
specific perspectives. When people are given the power to define their own
moral code, then they will do so based on their own personal bias. There is
no longer a group perspective. People follow their own code at the expense of
others.
2. It woulid create chaos. People who can follow their own moral code because
there is no “wrong or right would be allowed to pursue any life they
preferred under the theory of cultural relativism. If you're upset with your
neighbor, then you can kill that person without consequence if your moral
code allows for murder. Instead of purchasing something, you couild steal it
if you see stealing as “right to do. There is no real way to protect people in
such a society, so each person becomes responsible to protect themselves. It
creates a system that is Darwinian in practicality, where only the strongest can
survive.
3. It is an idea that is based on the perfection ofhumanity. Many people strive
to do good every day. Most want to see everyone have the chance to pursue
happiness in some way. That is why the idea of cultural relativism often.
seems to be inviting. The only problem is that people are not perfect. We can
be forgetful.We can lie. We can become aggressive when a driver cuts you
。off while driving and puts your family at risk. Without a group moral code in
place to govern decisions, anything could happen when we experienice these
moments of imperfection.
4. It could promote a lack of diversity. Cultural relativism promotes an
individualistic point of view, so although it seems to promote diversity, it
actually removes it from a society. Cultural relativism would allow slavery
to return to the US South. It would allow men to exclude women from voting
once again. It would stop employers from paying someone a fair wage - or
even paying them a wage at all. The only standards that are in place are those
which are set by the individual involved, which means everyone is pursuing
his/her own position of strength. We cannot create diversity when the
emphasis of a society is individualistic gain that can come at the expense of
others.
5. It draws people away from one another. Although cultural relativism can
promote people coming together to share their strengths, it can also encourage
people to draw apart from one another. C.S. Lewis, in his description of Hell
from The Screwtape Letters, envisions a place where people are constantly
going away fromeach other to avoid the demons that each persón has. Because
each person is uncertain of what codes and standards another is following,
the natural inclination for self-preservation causes people to draw away. You
might develop a close-knit community at first, but as Lewis describes, each
demon causes people to back away from one another instead of coming closer.
6. It could limit moral progress. When we look at the idea of moral progress, we
think of becoming more inclusionary instead of exclusionary. This inclusion
is reflected in the laws and customs of the culture. The current debate on the
transgender bathroom laws in North Carolina and Texas is a good example of
this. In cultural relativism, everyone would be able to use his/her bathroom
of choice or a culture could state that everyone must use a specific bathroom
without exception and there would be complete agreement in either choice.
Within the society, either choice would be seen as moral progress, but in
reality, it could hold people back.
7. It could limit humanity's progress. We often think of the concept of cultural
relativism as progression, but it isn't necessarily that way. When you remove
the ability to judge one standard from another, then the comparative process
of placing a current society or culture against a past one is removed as well.
No definition of success can be implemented because each is successful in
its own way. We might consider the ability for women to vote as the “right”
thing to do today, but in past societies, not allowing women to vote was also
“right from a cultural standpoint. Because both are “right, there's no way to
judge progress.
8. Cultural relativisın can turn perceptions into truth. Iťs a dark night and it
is warm outside. A teen is walking down an alley wearing a hoodie and the
hood is up. His hands are jammed into his pockets and there is a bulge in
one of them. In this scenario, some people may automatically assume that
the teen is up to “no good. The bulge might even be a weapon under that
assumption. In the world of cultural relativism, that bias becomes a truth that
can be acted upon. It doesn't matter if the bulge is a gun or a package of
Skittles. The decision to act becomes a righteous one because of the individual
truth that the culture allowed through the bias it perpetrates.
The cultural relativism's advantages and disadvantages which are discussed
are based on the theoretical implementation of such a system. Originally proposed
by Franz Boas in 1887, it is an idea that has never been implemented on a large
scale. Moral standards maké sense in a person's culture. By creating individualized
cultures, on singular or larger scales, it does become easier to keep and embrace
the traditions that humanity has developed over the millennia.
LESSON 4
The Filipino Way
Introduction
Our culture is a big reflection of our great and complex history. It is influenced
by most of the people we have interacted with.A blend of the Malayo-Polynesian
and Hispanic culture with the influence from Chinese, Indians Arabs,and other
Asian cultures really contribute to the customs and traditions of the Filipinos.
Filipino culture is unique compared to other Asian countries, and beliefs
applied every day in the life of the Filipinos reveal how rich and blessed the culture
the people have.
The Filipino Customs and Traditions
What is it about the Philippines that makes it different from the rest of ·the
world? Well, for one thing, it is all about their culture.
When children or young people greet or say goodbye to their elders they
typically do so by taking the right hand of the elder with their right hand and place
the back the elder's hand lightly on their forehead. It is a way of giving respect to
the elders and it is believed that is also a way of receiving blessing to the elders.
＂Mano po is the term used when kissing the hands of elders.
Mano is a Spanish word for “hand while po is used at the end of the sentence
when addressing elders or superiors.
The Filipinos are one of the most hospitable people you may find anywhere.
Foreign visitors in the country are treated with the utmost respect. This trait is
usually seen during fiestas and holidays where many Filipinos are giving their
best to entertain their visitors well.
It is amazing to see that even the simplest home along the road opens its door
to a stranger.For Filipinos, to be able to serve others gives them honor of showing
true friendship. Filipino hospitality is a trait you can't take away from them.
1. Having close family ties is also one of their unique traits. It is one of the
outstanding cultural values that Filipinos have. The family takes care of
each other and is taught to be loyal to.family and elders by simply obeying
their authorities.This is one of the unique characteristics of Filipinos.
Having fondness for family reunions during secular and religious holidays
such as Christmas, New Year's eve, All Saints' Day, Holy Week, Fiestas,
homecomings,birthdays,weddings,graduations, baptisms, funerals etc. is
evidence that Filipino people value not only our cultural tradition but the
spirit of our family. As Filipinos, we are blessed to have been brought up with
strong family ties.
2. The Bayanihan - It is the spirit of communal unity or effort to achieve a
particular objective. A famous example of this is the neighbors carrying a hut
or house to a new location. People nowadays use it to describe an outpouring
of community spirit - as people give their all to the common good, without
expecting recognition or personal gain.
Photo Courtesy of Blackswan Flickr.com
3. Courtship -.We Filipinos are very romantic when it comes to heart affairs.
Serenading or harana in Tagalog is one of the most popular forms of courtship
to show that a man is very serious with his intentions to a woman. A serenade
would require the young man to sing a love song in front of the young lady's
house. Normally, he is accompanied by his male friends who act as back-up
singers. The man himself or his friend played the instrument, usually a guitar,
which provides the background music to his song.
They would have to wait until the young lady opened a window to listen.
It would be up to her if she wanted to invite them in for some refreshment
and to chat after the song. Even if they had been asked to comè in, the suitor
would not expect that he could have the chance of a private moment with his
object of affection. It was highly likely that the parents would also be there to
entertain the man and his friends.
4. Religion -The Philippines is one of two predominantly Roman Catholic
nations in Asia-Pacific. Their habit of going to church and often praying
reflects that Filipinos have a deep faith and belief when it comes to religion.
They are very devoted to religions that sometimes many take the risk of their
lives just to touch the Black Nazarene (in Quiapo, Manila).For many,it is just
a choice between their faith and fears.
Filipinos believe that having a strong devotion may lead to a better life
and their guidance to face everyday life.
5. Superstition-In the Philippines,superstitious beliefs have grown throughout
the country.These beliefs have com from the different sayings and beliefs of
our ancestors that aim to prevent danger from happening or to make a person
refrain from doing something in particular.
These beliefs are part of our culture, for one derives his/her beliefs from
the influences of what his/her customs,traditions and culture have dictated
to explain certain phenomena or to scare people. Some are practiced primarily
because Filipinos believe that there is nothing to lose if they will comply with
these beliefs.
6. Marriage and Wedding Customs-In the country, marriage is a sacred union of
man and woman after a period of courtship and engagement. It is a sacrament
between two people who love each other. For many Filipinos, the eternal
quality of dedication to God pervades a truly sacred marriage.
A sacred marriage is a covenant between two who love each other in God
and with God, whose joining becomes an expression of the desire of each to
love and serve God together.
7. Death - Death in the Philippines is one of the most important occasions in
family life. For many Filipinos, a death of a relative is an opportunity to
strengthen ties in the family. To pay respect and honor the relationship to the
deceased, long lost relatives, friends, and even relatives working abroad are
reunited.
The Philippines is the home of some unique death rituals that are partly
religious and mostly superstitious. The mourning and the weeping are still
present, but a happy and welcoming atmosphere would usually envelop the
place to help the deceased on his/her journey to the afterlife:
After the death of a person, a nine-day period of having a novena of
prayers and masses offered up to the deceased is held,although the beginning
of the “siyam na araw varies, but usually ends the week after the death.
Another period follows after death, the 40-day mourning period. Family
members indicate their state of bereavement by wearing a small, black
rectangular plastic pin on their left breast or breast pocket area. A ceremonial
mass is held at the end of this 40-day period.Common belief states that the
soul goes to Heaven after these 40 days,following the belief that Jesus Christ
ascended to Heaven after the said period of days.
8. Society -The primary ancestors of Filipinos are Malays who came from the
southeastern Asian country. The Philippines is a combined society, both
singular and plural in form. It is singular as one nation, but plural in that it
is fragmented geographically and culturally. The nation is divided between
Christians, Muslims, and other religious-ethno-linguistic groups; between
urban and rural people; between upland and lowland people; and between
the rich and the poor. Although different in numerous ways, the Filipinos are
very hospitable and give appropriate respect to everybody regardless of race,
culture and belief.
9. Christmas in the Philippines is considered as one of the biggest holidays in
the archipelago.We earned the distinction of celebrating the world's longest
Christmas season with Christmas carols heard as early as September and
lasting until Epiphany, the feast of the Black Nazarene on January 9 or, the
Feast of the Santo Niño de Cebú on the third Sunday of January.
In one article, Archbishop Cruz told in his Christmas message that the
essence of Christmas is God made flesh, God who has come among us in an.
act of love that joins humankind to the Living God through our Lord Jesus
Christ. For many Filipinos, the true essence of Christmas is not gift giving but.
sharing this special holy day with family.
10. Fiestas - Every town and city in the Philippines has a fiesta of its own;
whatever time of the year it is, there's sure to be a fiesta going on somewhere.
Fiestas in the Philippines are held to celebrate a patron saint. It is part
and parcel of Filipino culture through good times and bad times, it must
go on. The biggest and most elaborate festival of all is Christmas, a season
celebrated with all the pomp and pageantry where the whole country breaks
out in celebrations that can begin long before December.
For individual Filipinos, fiestas can be a way of supplicating the heavens
or to make amends for past'wrongs. It is a way to celebrate their blessings,
commemorate their past and observe solemn religious rituals. Celebrations
may take the form of music, dancing, feasting, beauty contests, balls,
processions, sports challenges or a host of other events.
Spanish influence is evident in the elaborate masks, makeup, headdresses
and costumes worn by the revelers; outfits which often take months of
preparation..
11.-Living with Parents - Filipinos highly value the presence of family more
than anything. Adult children living with their parents are another Filipino
traditional that make them exceptional. Unlike in the United States where
children leave the home after finishing high school or college, many Filipinos
continue living with parents until they get married. (Abundo, 2015)

Characteristics of Filipino Culture

Here are some characteristics of the Filipinos that set them apart fron any
other culture and society: (Dumaraos,2018)
1.The Filipino people are very resilient-In times of calamities and catastrophes,
Filipinos always manage to rise above the challenge. Instead of wallowing,
they manage to pick themselves up and smile.
2. Filipinos take pride in their families -In the Philippines, it is family first.So
whether you are part of the immediate family or you belong tothe third or
fourth generation, you are treated as a family member.Sometimes, even the
closest of friends are considered family, too.
3. Filipinos are very religious - In all corners of a Filipino house, you can find
brazen images of crosses and other religious paraphernalia. They go to church
every Sunday, or sometimes even twice or three times a week.
4. Filipinos. are very respectful - From the moment they are born into this
world, they are already taught how to be respectful by using these simple
catchphrases-po and opo,words that end sentences when addressing elders.
They have a culture of pagmamano, which is where they raise the backs of the
hands of their elders to their foreheads as a sign of respect.
5. Filipinos help one another - More popularly known as bayanihan, Filipinos
help one another-without expecting anything in return-so that undertaking
their tasks and responsibilities become much easier. Sometimes this is called
＂community spirit.
6. Filipinos value traditions and culture - For Filipinos, traditions in their home
and in their family are important. They usually set aside a'specific day for a
certain celebration like festivals, birthday parties, reunions, etc. And of course,
every gathering is dedicated to keeping up with each other over sumptuous
food.
7. Filipinos have the longest Christmas celebrations - Even as early as August,
you can hear Christmas songs and jingles being played in the malls or in the
restaurants in the 'Philippines. The mood becomes festive, with many people
shopping and in good spirits. Christmas celebrations last until around the first
or second week of January.
8. Filipinos love art and architecture-Just look at the massive and tall buildings
éverywhere. Filipinos have a penchant for bringing art and architecture to a
whole new level.They love to design creatively, to think intuitively,and have
a passion for anything different and unique.
9. The Filipinos are hospitable people-Foreign visitors in the country are treated
with the utmost respect. This trait is usually seen during fiestas and holidays
where many Filipinos are giving their best to entertain their visitors well.
65
For example, this is why it's not uncommon for a father or a mother in
a Filipino family from the Philippines to seek employment abroad or a job
they don't want just to earn a decent wage for their family. They've placed
the utmost priority on meeting the family's basic needs and toward practicing
pagpapahalaga sa pamilya.
5. Hiya (Shame) - Hiya means shame. This controls the social behaviors and
interactions of a Filipino. It is the value that drives a Filipino to be obedient
and respectful to their parents, older siblings, and other authorities. This is
also a key ingredient in the loyalty of one's family.
6. Damayan System -extending sympathy for people who lost their loved ones.
In case of death of a certain member of the community, the whole community
sympathizes with the bereaved family. Neighbors, friends, and relatives of
the deceased usually give certain amount of money as their way of showing
sympathy.
7. Compassionate - a Filipino trait of being sympathetic to others even the
person is a stranger. An example of this is giving alms to the beggars. This
is observed when we hear Filipinos saying, “kawawa naman or nakakaawa
naman.
8. Fun-loving Trait - a trait found in most Filipinos, a trait that makes them
unique that even in times of calamities and other challenges in life, they
always have something to be happy about, a reason to celebrate.
Social Values of the Filipinos
The great majority of the Philippine population is bound together bycommon
values and a common religion. Philippine societyis characterized bymanypositive
traits. Among these are:
1. High regard for amorpropio (self-esteem) -Self-esteem réflects an individual's
overall subjective emotional evaluation of his or her own worth. It is the
decision made by an individual as an attitude towards the self. Self-esteem
encompasses beliefs about oneself, as well as emotional states, such as triumph,
despair, pride, and shame (Hewitt, 2009). Smith and Mackie (2007) defined it
by saying The self-concept is what we think about the self; self-esteem is the
positive or negative evaluations of the self, as in how we feel about it. .
Thischaracteristic is generallyconducive to thesmoothrunning ofsociety,
although, when taken tó extreme, it can develop into an authoritarianism
that discourages independent judgment and individual responsibility and
＇initiative. Filipinos are sensitive to attacks on their own self-esteem and
cultivate a sensitivity to the self-esteem of others as well. Anything that
might hurt another's self-esteem is to be avoided or else one risks terminating
the relationship: One who is insensitive to others is said to lack a sense of
shame and embarrassment, the principal sanction against improper behavior.
This great concern for self-esteem helps to maintain harmony in society and
within one's particular circle, but it also can give rise to clannishness and a
willingness to sacrifice personal integrity to remain in the good graces of the
group. Strong personal faith enables Filipinos to face great difficulties and
unpredictable risks in the assurance that God will take cáre of things. But,
if allowed to deteriorate into fatalism, even this admirable characteristic can
hinder initiative and stand in the way of progress.
2. Smooth interpersonal relationships - An interpersonal relationship is the
nature of interaction that occurs between two or more people. People in an
interpersonal relationship may interact overtly, covertly, face-to-face or even
anonymously. Interpersonal relationships may occur with friends, family, co-
workers, strangers, chat room participants, doctors or clients.
3. Personal alliance system - This scheme is anchored on kinship, beġinning
with the nuclear family. A Filipino loyalty goes first to the immediate family;
identity is deeply embedded in the web of kinship. It is normative that one
owes support, loyalty, and trust to one's close kin and, because kinship is
structured bilaterally with affinal as well as consanguineal relatives, one's kin
can include quite a large number of people. Still, beyond the nuclear family,
Filipinos do not assume the same degree of support, loyalty, and trust that
they assume for immediate family members for whom loyalty is nothing
less than a social imperative. With respect to kin beyond this nuclear family,
closeness in relationship depends very much on physical proximity.
4. The Compadre system - Bonds of ritual kinship, sealed on any of three
ceremonial occasions- baptism, confirmation, and marriage- intensify and
extend personal alliances. This mutual kinship system, known as compadrazgo
or compadre, meaning god parenthood or sponsorship, dates back at least to
the introduction of Christianity and perhaps earlier. It is a primary. method
of extending the group from which one can expect help in the way of favors,
such as jobs, loans, or just simple gifts on special occasions. But in asking a
friend to become godparent to a child, a Filipino is also asking that person
to become a closer friend. Thus it is common to ask acquaintances who are
of higher economic or social status than oneself to be sponsors. Such ritual
kinship cannot be depended on in moments of crisis to the same extent as real
kinship, but it still functions for small and regular acts of support such as gift
giving.
5. Utang-na-loob - A dyadic bond between two individuals may be formed
based on the concept of utang na loob. Although it is expected that the debtor
will attempt repayment, it is widely recognized that the debt (as in one's
obligation to a parent) can never be fully repaid and the obligation can last
for generationis. Saving another's life,providing employment, or making it
ossible for another to become efuc, Pd are gifts that incur utong na loob.
Moreover,such giftsinitiate a long tern reciprocal interdependency in which
the grantor of the favor can expect help from the debtor whenever the need
arises and the debtor an, in turn, ask other favors. Such reciprocal personal
alliances have had obvious implications for the society in general and the
political system in particular. In 1990, educated Filipinos were less likely to
feel obligated to extend help thereby notinitiating an utang na loob relationship
than were rural dwellers among whom traditional values remained strong.
Some observerš believed that as Philippine society became more modernized
and urban in orientation, utang na loob would become less important in the
political and social systems.
6. Suki relationship - In the commercial context, suki relationships (market-
exchange partnerships) may develop between two people who agree to
become regular customer and supplier. In the marketplace, Filipinos will
regularly buy from certain specific suppliers who will give them, in return,
reduced prices, good quality, and, often, credit. Suki relationships often apply
in other contexts as well. For example, regular patrons of restaurants and
small neighborhood retail shops and tailoring shops often receive special
treatment in return for their patronage. Suki does more than help develop
economic exchange relationships. Because trust is such a vital aspect, it creates
a platform for personal relationships that can blossom into genuine friendšhip.
between individuals (Dolan, 1991).
7. Friendship - Friendship often is placed on at par with kinship as the most
central of Filipino relationships. Certainly ties among those within one's
group of friends are an important factor in the development of personal
alliance systems. Here, as in other categories, a willingness to help one another
provides the prime rationale for the relationship.
Weaknesses of the Filipino Character
1. Passivity and lack ofinitiative-Acceptance of what happens,without active
response or resistance.
2. Colonial mentality-Colonial mentality more strictly refers to the attitude the
Filipinos feel that products coming from othér countries are more superior
than the local products. For example, Filipinos often romanticize Western
culture and prefer to indulge in American restaurants or consume Western
media rather than supporting local businesses that were created with Filipino
culture.McDonald's versus Jollibee is one example.Many customers might
simply just prefer MeDonald's due to its association with American culture
and life, and therefore,American superiority.
3. Kanya-kanya syndrome - Filipinos have a selfish, self-serving attitude that
generates a feeling of envy and competitiveness towards others, particularly
one's peers who seem to have gained some status or prestige. Towards them,
the Filipinodemonstrates the so-called crab mentalityreferring to the tendency
of crabs in a basket to pull each other down using the levelling instruments
of.tsismis, intriga, and unconstructive criticism to bring others down. There
seems to be a basic assumption that other's gain is one's loss.
The kanya-kanya syndrome is also evident in the personal ambition and
the drive for power and status that is completely insensitive to the common
good. Personal and in-group interests reign supreme. This characteristic is
also evident in the lack of a sense of service among people in the government
bureaucracy. The public is made feel that service from these offices and from
these civil servants is an extra perk that has to be paid for.
4. Extreme personalism - Filipinos view the world in terms of personal
relationships and the extent to which one is able to personally relate things
and people determines the recognition of their existence and the value given
to them. There is no separation between an objective task and emotional
involvement. This personalism is manifested in the tendency to give personal
interpretations to actions, i.e., “take things personally. Thus, a sincere
question may be viewed as a challenge to one's competence or positive
feedback may be interpreted as a sign of special affection. There is in fact some
basis for such interpretations as Filipinos are quite personal in criticism and
praise. Personalism is also manifested in the necessity for the establishment
of personal relationships before any business or work relationships can be
successful.
5. Extreme family centeredness - While concern for the family is one of the
Filipino's greatest strengths, in the extreme it becomes a serious flaw.
Excessive concern for the family creates an in-group to which the Filipino is
～ fiercely loyal to the detriment of concern for the larger community or for the
common good.
Excessive concern for family manifests itself in the use of one's office
and power as a means of promoting the interest of the family, in factionalism,
patronage, and political dynasties and in the protection of erring family
members. It results in lack of concern for the common good and it acts as a
block to national consciousness.
6. Lack of discipline - Procrastination is one reason of lack of self-discipline.
Lack of willpower, motivation and ambition are also causes for lack of self-
discipline. A weak state of health might alsolead to weakness of this important
ability.
7. Lack of self-analysis and reflection-There is a tendency in the Filipino to
be superficial and even somewhat fighty. In the face of serious problems,
both personal and social, there is lack of analysis or reflection.We joke about
the most serious matters and this prevents looking deeply into the problem.
There is no felt need to validate our hypotheses or explanation of things.
Thus,we are satisfied with superficial explanations and superficial solution to
problems.
Related to this is the Filipino emphasis on form (porma) rather than on
substance. There is a tendency to be satisfied with rhetoric and to substitute
this for reality.Empty rhetoric and endless words are very much part of public
life. as long as the right things are said, as long as the proper documents and
reports exist, as long are deluded into believing that what ought to be actually
exist.
8. Ningas cogon- A Filipino attitude of being enthusiastic only during the.start
of new undertaking but ends dismally in accomplishing nothing.
9. Gaya-Gaya Attitude - AFilipino attitude of imitating or copying other culture
＇specifically in mode of dressing, language, fashion, trend or even haircut.
CHAPTER 3
UNIVERSAL VALUES
Introduction
uman basics can be seen as a first universally designed and coherent
Ot
philosophy of most basic knowledge for any human, wherever on the
world and regardless of culture, religion, education or status.
It consists of generally recognized and established knowledge, ġenerally
verifiable observation, and some basic theories and conclusions, and combined
with a number of basic theses it makes up a universal philosophy of human basics.
This philosophy of most basic knowledge is in the first place about an
umderstanding and awareness of our human nature, and our most basic universal
human values. It contains a concise basic information about social, psychological,
cultural and moral human qualities and basic universal human values in relation
to political, economic, ecological, religious; judicial and educational issues in all
societies.
By its nature this basic knowledge tends to create a basic understanding and
more agreement between people and cultures. However, by its basic and realistic
nature, some of this information can also be experienced as confronting.
77
It is a notion which is not obvious to define, because a value is associated
With morality and ethics,which is difficult to transpose, or refer to the level of
the group. In other words, all people have certain values that come from their
interior and guide their actions.Because humans do not think all the same way,
values can vary from one person to the next. Universal values, however, have the
particularity to be socially shared (Didactic Encyclopedia, 2015).
În addition to cultural differences, we can say that the goodness, solidarity,
volunteerism and honesty are virtues you want in any country or region. So, these
are universal values.
Universal values are acquired'with family education and school, because
the process of socialization involves that new generations internalize timeless
concepts.
Schwartz Concept of Universal Values
S. H. Schwartz, along with a number of psychology colleagues, has carried
out empirical research investigating whether there are universal values, and what
those values are. Schwartz defined 'values' as conceptions of the desirable that
influence the way people select action and evaluate events (Sen, 1999).
Schwartz's results from a series of studies that included surveys of more than
25,000 реople in 44 countries with a wide range of different cultural types suggest
that there are fifty-six specific universal values and ten types of universal value.
Below are each of the value types, with the specific related values alongside:
1. Power: Social status and prestige, control or dominance over people and
resources.
2. Achievement: Personal success through demonstrating competence according
to social standards.
3. Hedonism: Pleasure or sensuous gratification for oneself.
4. Stimulation: Excitement, novelty, and challenge in life.
5. Self-Direction:Independent thoughtandaction-choosing,creating,exploring.
6. Universalisın: Understanding, appreciation, tolerance, and protection for the
welfare of all people and for nature.
7. Benevolence: Preservation and enhancement of the welfare of people with
whom one is in frequent personal contact.
8.Tradition: Respect, commitment, and acceptance of the customs and ideas
that traditional culture or religion provide.
9.Conformity: Restraint of actions,inclinations, and impulses likely to upset or
harm others and violate social expectations or norms.
10. Security: Safety, harmony,and stability of society, of relationships, and of self.
Schwartz also tested an eleventh possible universal value, 'spirituality' or'the
goal of finding meaning in life', but found that it does not seem to be recognized
in all cultures.
UN Charter on Universal Values
The values enshrined in the United Nations (UN) Charter, respect for
fundamental human rights, social justice and human dignity, and respect for the
equal rights of men and women, serves as overarching values to which suppliers
of goods and services to the UN are expected to adhere.
In a speech at Tubingen University in Germany,UN Secretary General Kofi
Annan emphasized that PROGRESS,EQUAL RIGHTS,HUMAN DIGNITY,are
acutely needed in this age of globalization.
Annan further stated that three years ago, in the Millennium Declaration, all
states reaffirmed certain fundamental values as being essential to international
relations in the twenty-first century: freedom, equality, solidarity, tolerance,
respect for nature, and shared responsibility. They adopted practical, achievable
targets -the Millennium Development Goals - for relieving the blight of extreme
poverty and making such rights as education, basic health care and clean water a
reality for all.
However, globalization has brought nations closer together in the sense that
they are all affected by each other's actions, but not in the sense that they all share
the benefits and the burdens. Instead, some nations have allowed it to drive other
nations further apart, increasing the disparities in wealth and power both between
societies and within them.
Basic Universal Human Values
， The function of most of these basic values is to make it possible for every
human to realize or maintain the very highest or most basic universal core values
of life, love and happiness. Hereunder are some of the basic universal human
values:
1.Happiness - In the ancient past the founders of the big religions in the world
have already taught about the reward for a religious life by an afterlife in
Paradise, Heaven, or Nirvana etc., to enjoy there an ultimate and eternal
happiness. And from this we can understand that in fact eternal happiness is
the ultimate value of all religious people... For nobody would like to go to
any dull or miserable Paradise or so.
2.Peace - Peace has to be seen as a basic condition for freedom and happiness,
for without peace there cannot be real freedom. Wherever there is fight,threat
or hostility, our freedom and happiness are inhibited or totally prevented.
3.Love-Love in a general sense can be best defined as feelings, or an experience
of deep connectedness or oneness with any other human being, any animal,
plant, tree, thing, or unnamable. Love can also be experienced as something
far beyond any comprehension, and totally indescribable.
Love may happen to us when we are able to be open to the beauty and
nature of other people, or to the beauty and mystery of nature in general, or
even beautiful things. Hence the importance of a human-friendly mentality,
which contains an attitude of openness to the basicallyloving nature of others,
and the state of openness out of human-friendliness imply an openness and
friendly attitude to the whole of existence.
4. Freedom - Freedom means the experience of unrestricted, and to be as much
as possible independent of the social pressure of others. A basic condition for
happiness is however the experience of an inner, or mental freedom; freedom.
from all kinds of stress, worry, anxiety, problems, obligations and fears, often
directly or indirectly caused by the respectless egocentric or power-oriented.
mentality of many others in our society.
For many people in the world it would be much easier to attain happiness
if others in their society would show a little more respect for the value of
freedom of all other people in that society. For basically an outer freedom
from dominance, repression, burden, obligations and duties creates also an
inner freedom from problems of worry, stress, and fears.
And this shows also a huge responsibility for politicians and all other
people in power, and it asks for their integrity, empathy, and respect, for
freedom is for any human a basic condition for happiness, one of our very
highest human values.
5. Safety-Safety means free of threat, fear and survival-stress.Without safety,
people tend to live out of their individual survival instinct, and long term
insecurity creates an egocentric survival-mentality. Without safety, people in
a society are burdened by emotional fear, helplessness, and anxiety.
6. Intelligence-Intelligence has been defined in many different ways to include
the capacity for logic, understanding, self-awareness,learning,emotional
knowledge, reasoning, planning, creativity, and problem solving. It can be
more generally described as the ability to perceive or infer information, and
to retain it as knowledge to be applied towards adaptive behaviors within an
environment or context.
81
A tremendous challenge to our human intelligence is our ability to
cooperate on a global scale, to avoid catastrophic global developments, like
climate change, population growth, the ecology problem, and the nuclear
（war)problem. These problems of humanity show the urgent need for a global
intelligenceand the very basic value of human intelligence on a global scale.
7.Human respect-The most basic principle of any social community is feelings
of connectedness which come out of our perception, empathy and awareness
that the other human is basically as we are ourselves.This creates trust and
a friendly attitude towards the other.Out of this empathy and the awareness
that the other is basically as we are ourselves and the resulting feelings of
connectedness we feel a natural and spontaneous respect for the other.
Natural and spontaneous human respect can only be earned byintegrity,
veracity and truly social belavior.Not by just some impressing or over acting
behavior.True respect is a spontaneous phenomenon, which comes basically
out of the understanding that deep down the other person is the same as we
are ourselves.
8. Equality - Equality originates from aequalis, aequus and aequalitas.These
areall old French or Latin words. These French/Latin words mean even,level
and equal. Thus the meaning of the word 'equality' used in political science
corresponds to the meaning from which it originates.
Every person has certain claims to equality. There are two very important
forms of legal or formal equality. One is equality before law and equal
protection of law. What is to be noted here is that the legal member of the legal
association can legitimately claim that all the citizens must be treated equally
by law and no discrimination is to be allowed.
Every individual has the right to claim equal liberties with others and
when the state authority can ensure this, it will be assumed that justice will no
longer be far away. The state must see that in regard to the allotment of rights
and liberties the principle of equality has been most scrupulously observed. If
equality is violated, justice will notbe achieved. Justice is always hand in glove
with equality. In a state, all the opportunities and position shall be opened to
all. There shall be no place of discrimination.
9. Justice - It is the proper administration of the law; the fair and equitable
treatment of all individuals under the law. In general justice is needed to
realize and maintain our highest human values of freedom, peace, life, love
and happiness; and injustice can prevent or inhibit these highest human
values.
82
10.Nnbore-Understanding ourphysical dependence of nature,and ourawarene
of being art of it ae eed ee eaie value of nature.Man is part of
nature,and our very human existence is dependent of nature and its ecology.
And hence our highest human values of life itself and freedom,safety,peace,
love and happiness can only be realized in harmony with nature.
11.Health-World Health Organization(WHO) defined health as being a state
of complete physical,mental,and social well-being and not merely the absence
of disease or infirmity. In 1986 WHO also said that health is “a resource
for everyday life, not the objective of living. Health is a positive concept
emphasizing social and personal resources, as well as physical capacities.
Also there is a term known as mental health and it describes either a level of
cognitive or emotional well-being or an absence of a mental disorder.
The Human Dignity
The English word dignity comes from the Latin word, dignitas, which means
＂worthiness. Dignity implies that each person is worthy of honor and respect
for who they are, not just for what they can do. In other words, human dignity
cannot be earned and cannot be taken away. It's an inalienable gift given to us
by God, and every other good thing in life depends on the safeguarding of our
fundamental dignity. As the Universal Declaration of Human Rights puts it,
＂recognition of the inherent dignity... of all members of the human family is the
foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world.
Dignity is the right of a person to be valued and respected for their own sake,
and to be treated ethically.
Human dignity originates from God and is of God because we are made in
God's own image and likeness. Human life is sacred because the human person
is the most central and clearest reflection of God among us. Human beings have
transcendent worth and value that comes from God; this dignity is not based on
anyhuman quality, legal mandate, or individual meritor accomplishment. Human
dignity is inalienable-that means it is an essential part of every human being and
is an intrinsic quality that can never be separated from other essential aspects of
the human person.
Human beings are qualitatively different from any other living being in the
world because they are capable of knowing and loving God, unlike any other
reature. Belief in the dignity of the human person is the foundation of morality.
LESSON 2
Development of Moral Character
Introduction
Aristotle tells us that there are good people in the world.These are those who
exhibitexcellences-excellences of thoughtand excellences of character.His phrase
for excellences of character - êthikai aretai - we usually translate as moral virtue
or moral excellence. When we speak of a moral virtue or an excellence of character,
the emphasis is on the combination of quálities that make an individual the sort
of ethically admirable person that he is. Aristotle defines virtuous character at the
beginning of Book II in Nicomachean Ethics:“Excellence of character, then, is a
state concerned with choice, lying in a'mean relative to us, this being determined
byreason and in the wayin which the man of practical wisdom would determineit.
Now it is a mean between two vices, that which depends on excess and that which
depends on defect. In Aristotle's view, good character is based on two naturally
occurring psychological responses that most people experience without difficulty:
our tendency to take pleasure from self-realizing activity and our tendency to form
friendly feelings toward others under specific circumstances. Based on his view,
virtually everyone is capable of becoming better and they are the ones responsible
for actions that express (or could express) their character (Stanford Encyclopedia).
What is Moral Character?
Moral character or character is an evaluation of an individual's stable moral
qualities. The concept of character can imply a variety of attributes including the
existence or lack of virtues such as empathy, courage, fortitude, honesty, and
loyalty, or of good behaviors or habits. Moral character primarily refers to the
assemblage of qualities that distinguish one individual from another-although
on a cultural level, the set of moral behaviors to which a social group adheres
can be said to unite and define it culturally as distinct from others. Psychologist
Lawrence Pervin defines moral character as a disposition to express behavior in
。consistent patterns of functions across a range of situations (Timpe, 2008).
A moral character is defined as an idea in which one is unique and can be
distinguished from others. Perhaps it can assemble qualities and traits that are
different from various individuals. It implies to how individuals act, or how they
express themselves. In another words, itis human excellence, or unique thoughts
of a character. When the concept of vírtue is spokén, this would emphasize the
distinctiveness or specialty, but it all involves the combination of qualities that
make an individual the way he or she is. Based on this definition, the insight of a
moral character can be viewed differently. Although'these philosophers diverge
with their arguments, they in some sense have similarities. These similarities will
show how the matter of a character is important and crucial to the human nature.
Importance of Having a Strong Moral Character
When you have strong.moral character, you'll be judged by who you are
rather than who you pretend to be. Below are some of the consequences of having
a strong moral character (Sonnenberg, 2016):
1. Achieve peace of mind. People with character sleep well at night. They take
great pride in knowing that their ińtentions and actions are honorable. People
with character also stay true to their beliefs, do right by others, and always
take the high ground.
2. Strengthen trust. People with character enjoy meaningful relationships based
on openness, honesty, and mutual respect. When you have good moral
character, people know that your behavior is reliable, your heart is in the right
place, and your word is good as gold.
3. Build a solid reputation. People with character command .a rock-solid
reputation. This helps them attract exciting opportunities like a magnet.
4. Reduce anxiety. People with character carry less baggage. They're comfortable
within their own skin, and they accept responsibility for their actions. They
never have to play games, waste precious time keeping their stories straight,
or invent excuses to cover their behind.
5. Increase leadership effectiveness. Leaders with character are highly effective.
They have no need to pull rank or resort to command and control to get
results. Instead, they're effective because they're knowledgeable, admired,
trusted, and respected. This helps them secure buy-in automatically, without
requiring egregious rules or strong oversight designed to force compliance.
6. Build confidence. People with character don't worry about embarrassment
if their actions are publicly disclosed. This alleviates the need for damage
control or the fear of potential disgrace as a result of indiscretions.
7. Become a positive role model. People with character set the standard for
excellence. They live their life as an open book, teaching others important life
lessons through their words and their deeds.
8. Live a purpose-driven life. People with character live a life they can be proud
of. They're driven to make a difference and to do right by others rather than
trying to impress others with extravagance.
9. Build a strong business. Doing the right thing is good business. Everything
else being equal, talented people would rather work for - and customers
would rather buy from -companies that do right by their people,customers,
and communities. While unprincipled business tactics may provide short-
term results, it's NOT a long-term strategy.
Although you may not be able to quantify the benefits of being a good person,
there's great truth in the saying, good people finish first. Strong moral character
is like a boomerang that causes good things to find their way back to you. So
promise yourself to be true to yourself and do what's right, even when nobody is
looking-Character matters.
Development of Moral Character
If you believe developing your character is an endeavor you want to pursue,
here are some steps to show you how:
1.Define your core values - Know what is most important to you by determining
your values for your professional and personal life. These are the principles
that are the foundation for your priorities, choices, actions, and behaviors.
2. Practice the habits-Pick one or two of the traits of good character to practice
for several weeks. Write down the actions you want to take or the behaviors
you define that reflect this trait, and implement them in your daily life and
interactions. Wear a rubber band on your wrist or create other reminders to
help you practice.
3. Find people with character - Surround yourself with people who reflect the
character traits you want to embrace. They will inspire and motivate you to
build these traits in yóurself. Try to avoid people who have a weak character
and make bad decisions.
4. Take some risks -Start taking small actions toward a goal or value thatinvolve
some level of risk. When you face the possibility of failure and challenge
yourself toward success, you become mentally and emotionally stronger and
more committed to your principles.
5. Stretch yourself- Create high standards and big goals for yourself. Expect
the best of yourself and constantly work toward that, even though you will
have setbacks and occasional failures. Every stretch builds your confidence
and knowledge that your character is getting stronger.
6.Commit to self-improvement - Realize that building your character is a life-
long endeavor. It is something that is practiced both in the minutiae and the
defining moments of your life. There will be times you step up to the character
91
traits you embrace and other times you falter. By remaining committed to
personal growth and learning about yourself,your character will naturally
improve, even though the failures.
Some Good Character Traits to Practice
1. Attract the trust and respect of other people.
2. Allows you to influence others.
3. Changes your perspective about failure.
4. Sustains you through difficult times or opposition.
5. Improves your self-esteem,self-respect,and confidence.
6. Creates a foundation for happy,healthy relationship.
7. Helps you stay committed to your values and goals.
8. Improves your chance of success in work and other endeavors.
Character Traits that Impact One's Happiness (liveboldandbloom.com)
Good character consists of defining your values and integrity based on
time-tested principles and self-reflection and having the courage to live your life
accordingly.
1. Integrity - Integrity is having strong moral principles and core values and
then conducting your life with those as your guide. When you have integrity,
you main your adherence to it whether or not other people are watching.
2.Honesty - Honesty is more than telling the truth. It's living the truth. It is being
straightforward and trustworthy in all of your interactions, relationships, and
thoughts. Being honest requires self-honesty and authenticity.
3. Loyalty-Loyaltyis faithfulness and devotion to your loved ones, your friends,
and anyone with whom you have a trusted relationship. Loyalty can also
extend to your employer, the organizations you belong to, your community,
and your country.
4. Respectfulness - You treat yourself and others with courtesy, kindness,
deference, dignity, and civility. You offer basic respect as a sign of your value
for the worth of all people and your ability to accept the inherent flaws we all
possess.
5. Responsibility - You accept personal, relational, career, community, and
societal obligations even when they are difficult or uncomfortable. You follow
through on commitments and proactively create or accept aċcountability for
your behavior and choices.'
6. Hunility - You have a confident yet modest opinion of your own self-
portance.You don'tsee yourselfastoo good for other people or situations
You have a learning and growthi mindset and the desire to express and
experience gratitude for what you have, rather than expecting you deserve
more.
7.Compassion - You feel deep sympathy and pity for the suffering and
misfortune of others, and you have a desire to do something to alleviate their
suffering.
8. Fairness-Using discernment, compassion, and integrity, you strive to make
decisions and take actions based on what you consider the ultimate best
course or outcome for all involved.
9. Forgiveness-You make conscious,intentional decisions to let go of resentment
and anger toward someone for an offense - whether or not forgiveness is
sought by the offender. Forgiveness may or may not include pardoning,
restoration,or reconciliation.It extends both to others and to one's self.
10.Authenticity-You are able to be your real and true self,without pretension,
posturing,or insincerity.You are capable of showing appropriate vulnerability
and self-awareness.
11. Courageousness-Inspite of fear of danger, discomfort, or pain, you have the
mental fortitude to carry on with a commitment, plan, or decision, knowing it
is the right or best course of action.
12. Generosity - You are willing to offer your time, energy, efforts, emotions,
words, or assets without the expectation of something in return. You offer
these freely and often joyously.
13. Perseverance-Perseverance is the steadfast persistence and detérmination to
continue on with a course of action, belief, or purpose, even if it's difficult or
uncomfortable in order to reach a higher goal or outcome.
14. Politeness - You are knowledgeable of basic good. manners, common
courtesies, and etiquette, and are willing to apply those to all people you
encounter.You desire to learn the skills of politeness in order to enhance your
relationships and self-esteem.
15.Kindness-Kindnessisanattitude ofbeing considerate,helpful,and benevolent
to otherš. It is motivated by a positive disposition and the desire for warm and
pleasant interactions.
16.Lovingness -The ability to be loving toward those you love means showing
them through your words, actions, and expressions how deeply you care
about them. It includes the willingness to be open and vulnerable.
17. Optimism - Optimism is a sense of hopefulness and confidence about the
future. It involves a positive mental attitude in which you interpret life events,
people, and situations in a promising light.
18. Reliability - You can be consistently depended upon to follow through on
your commitments, actions, and decisions. You do what you say.you will do.
19. Conscientiousness - You have the desire to do things well or to the best of
your ability. You are thorough, careful, efficient, organized, and vigilant in
your efforts, bašed on your own principles or sense of what is,right.
20. Self-discipline - You are able, through good habits or willpower, to overcome
your desires or feelings in order to follow the best course of action or to rise
to your ċommitments or principles. You have a strong sense of self-control in
order to reach a desired goal.
LESSON
3
Stages of Moral Development
Introduction
A major task beginning in childhood and continuing into adolescence is
discerning right from wrong. Psychologist Lawrence Kohlberg (1927-1987)
extended upon the foundation that Piaget built regarding cognitive development.
Kohlberg believed that moral development, like cognitive development, follows a
series of stages.To develop this theory,Kohlberg posed moral dilemmas to people
of all ages, and then he analyzed their answers to find evidence of their particular
stage of moral development.
Kohlberg's Stages of Moral Development
Lawrence Kohlberg's stages of moral development, a comprehensive stage
theory of moral development based on Jean Piaget's theory of moral judgment
for children (1932) and developed by Kohlberg in 1958. Cognitive in nature,
Kohlberg's theory focuses on the thinking process that occurs when one decides
whether a behavior is right or wrong. Thus, the theoretical emphasis is on how one
decides to respond to a moral dilemma, not what one decides or what one actually
does.
The framework of Kohlberg's theory consists of six stages arranged
sequentially in successive tiers of complexity. He organized his six stages into
three general levels of moral development (Encyclopedia Britannica).
Level 1:Pre-conventional level
At the pre-conventional level, morality is externally controlled. Rules
imposed by authority figures are conformed to in order to avoid punishment or
rėceive rewards. This perspective involves the idea that what is right is what one
can get away with or what is personally satisfying. Level 1 has two stages.
Stage 1:
Punishmentlobedience orientation - Behavior is determined by
consequences. The individual will obey in order to avoid punishment.
Stage 2:
Instrumental purpose orientation - Behavior is determined again by
consequences.The individual focuses on receiving rewards or satisfying
personal needs.
Level 2:Conventional level
At the conventional level, conformity to social rules remains important to the
individual. However, the emphasis shifts from self-interest to relationships with
other people-and social systems. The individual strives to support rules that are
set forth by others such as parents, peers, and the government in order to win their
approval or to maintain social order.
Stage 3: Good Boy/Nice Girl orientation - Behavior is determined by social
approval. The individual wants to maintain or win the affection and
approval of others by being a “good person.
Stage 4:
Law and order orientation - Social rules ánd laws determine behavior.
The individual now takes into consideration a larger perspective, that of
societal laws. Moral decision making becomes more than consideration
of close ties to others. The individual believes that rules and laws
maintain social order that is worth preserving.
Level 3:Post-conventional or principled level
At the postconventional level, the individual moves beyond the perspective
of his or her own society. Morality is defined in terms of abstract principles and
values that apply to all situations and societies. The individual attempts to take the
perspective of all individuals.
Stage 5:
Social contract orientation-Individual rights determine behavior. The
individual views laws and rules as flexible tools for improving human
purposes. That is, given the right situation, there are exceptions to rules.
When laws are not consistent with individual rights and the interests of
the majority, it does not bring about good for people and alternatives
should be considered.
Stage 6:
Universal ethical principle orientation - According to Kohlberg, this
is the highest stage of functioning. However, he claimed that some
individuals will never. reach this level. At this stage, the appropriate
action is determined byone's self-chosen ethical principles of conscience.
These principles are abstract and universal in application. This type óf
reasoning involves taking the perspective of every person or group that
could potentially be affected by the decision.
Arguments Against Kohlberg's Theory.
How does this theory apply to males and. females? Kohlberg (1969) felt
that more males than females move past stage four in their moral development.
He went on to note that women seem to be deficient in their moral reasoning
100
abilities. These ideas were not well received by Carol Gilligan, a research assistant
of Kohlberg, who consequently developed her own ideas of moral development.
In her groundbreaking book, in a “Different Voice: Psychological Theory and
Women's Development Gilligan (1982) criticized her former mentor's theory
because it was based only on upper class white men and boys. She argued that
women are not deficient in their moral reasoning- she proposed that males and
females reason differently.Girls and women focus more on staying connected and
the importance of interpersonal relationships.
Moral development plays an important rọle in our social interactions.
Understanding how and why individuals make.decisions regarding moral
dilemmas can be very useful in many settings. Kohlberg's theory of moral
development provides a framework in which to investigate and begin to
comprehend how moral reasoning develops within individuals.
Stage1
Stage 2
Level 1
Obedicnce
Indwidual interest:
and puunistment:
behavior driven by
Pre-conventional
bchavior driven
self interest and
morality
by avoicing
rewards
punishrent
Stage3
5tage 4
Inlerpersonal:
Authority;
Level 2
behavior drven by
behavior driven by
Canvcntional
soclal approval
abeying authonty
morality
and conform ng
to social order
Stage5
Stage 6
Social cortract:
Universal ethics:
Lcvel 3
bxhavior drven hy
hehavior driven by
Post-conventional
balance of social
internal moral
morality
order and
principles
individual rights
Kohlberg identified three levels of moral reasoning:pre-conventional,conventional,and
post-conventional:Each level is associated with increasingly complex stages of moral
development.
CHAPTER 4
THE ACT
Introduction
uring the last thirty years R. M. Hare has developed and defended
a metaethical view'about the meaning of moral language which he
calls universal prescriptivism (Potter, et.al, 1985). During this time Hare has
also professed allegiance to a normative theory which constitutes a version of
preference utilitarianism.What has never been made entirely clear, however, is his
conception of the relationship between those two theories. In his earlier writings
Hare maintained that:
Ethical theory provides only a clarification of the conceptual framework
within which moral reasoning takes place; it is, therefore, in the required sense,
neutral as between different moral opinions. On my. view, there is absolutely no
content for a móral prescription that is ruled out by logic or by the definition of
terms.
Fortunately, Hare's most recent writings shed considerable light on these
issues. In his important paper, Ethical Theory and Utilitarianism and in his
recent book,Moral Thinking,Hare appears to have modified his theory in at least
one very important respect. He now holds that universal prescriptivism is not only
not normatively neutral but in fact entails preference.
107
Objectives:
At the end of the chapter, the students will be able to:
1. Recall immediate responses to moral dilemmas;
2. Differentiate responses based on reason and those based in feelings;
3.Compare reasonable and emotional responses;
4.Check real life cases against moral reasoning model;
5.Differentiate reason from will; and
6. Explain the role of mental frames in moral experience.
LESSON
1
Ethical Requirements
Introduction
Based on Hare's view, to prescribe acting in accordance with a universal
moral principle from which, in conjunction with statements specifying one's beliefs
concerning the relevant facts, the judgment can be derived. To in turn determine
whether one can prescribe acting in accordance with a universal principle is to
determine whether one would actually choose to perform that action if one knew
that one would have to play, in a series of possible worlds otherwise identical
to the actual world, the role of each person (including oneself) who would be
affected.Moreover, it is not enough that one simply imagines oneself, with one's
own interests, in the place of those other persons - rather, one must imagine oneself
as being in their place while having, in turn, their interests and desires.
Reason and Impartiality
The ultimate basis for ethics is clear: Human behavior has consequences for
the welfare of others. We are capable of acting toward others in súch a way as
to increase or decrease the quality of their lives. We are capable of helping or
harming. What is more, we are theoretically capable of understanding when we
are doing the one and when the other. This is so because we have the capacity to
put ourselves imaginatively in the place of others and recognize how we would be
affected if someone were to act toward us as we are acting toward others.
It is said that reason gives rise to ethical discourse and healthy debate and
engagement and if this is true, the question must be asked: Have we lost all reason
that we can resort to insults, that we fail to engage one another in a constructive
and thoughtful way, even as we differ ideologically. and politically?
108
It is said that reason requires impartiality and this statement has serious
implications for truthfulness and reason.
Reason and impartiality are not absolute to any particular group of people,
while morality is absolute. Whatever is considered wrong morally within a certain
group of people cannot be debated through reason. Morality decides the outcome
first and then employs reason to justify it. For impartiality, fairness is given more.
importance where people are supposed to be treated equally before the law. While
morality may apply generally to a particular group of people, the same cannot
be said of reason and impartiality because the two take a more individualized
approach. These are however important because they help in understanding the
moral perception, for example impartiality introduces an aspect of treating people
the same, which is a moral issue
What is Reason?
Reason is the capacity for consciously making sense of things, establishingand
verifying facts, applying logic, and changing or justifying practices, institutions,
and beliefs based on new or existing information (Kompridis, 2000). It is closely
associated with such characteristically human activities as philosophy, science,
language, mathematics, and art and is normally considered to be a distinguishing
ability possessed by humans. Reason, or an aspect of it, is sometimes referred to
as rationality.
Reasoning is associated with thinking, cognition, and intellect. The
philosophical field of logic studies ways in which humans reason formally
through argument (Hintikka, 2013). Reason is a declaration made to explain or
justify action, decision, or conviction.
The proper role of ethical reasoning is to highlight acts of two kinds: those
which enhance the well-being of others- that warrant our praise- and those
that harm or diminish the well-being of others- and thus warrant our criticism.
Developing one's ethical reasoning abilities is crucial because there is in human
nature a strong tendency toward egotism, prejudice, self-justification, and self-
deception. These tendencies are exacerbated by powerful sociocentric cultural
influences that shape our lives- not least of which is the mass media. These
tendencies can be actively opposed only through the systematic cultivation of fair-
mindedness, honesty, integrity, self-knowledge, and deep concern for the welfare
of others. We can never eliminate our egocentric tendeņcies absolutely and finally.
But we can actively fight them as we learn to develop as ethical persons.
Reasons have everything to do with ethics: If you have no good reasons for
an act or a belief, then you can't have thought it through very well and maybe
you shouldn't be doing it or believing it at all. It's quite scary to think that there
are people out there who are voting, protesting, financing causes, or running
109
capaigns without any clear idea of why they are doing it. Each and every one of
us should be clear about our reasons for our values, beliefs, and behaviors, and we
should each be able to give a reasoned accóunt of them to others.
If someone asks you why you believe or act as you do, don't just say, Because
I believe (or act) that way. Give them a reason why. But before you give a reason
why,ask yourself why-and keep on asking yourself why. Only then will your life
become meaningful to you.
Giving reasons for our actions is important socially, too. It either connects us
to others or divides us from them. So much of our social life depends on a shared
understanding of what's true, right, and appropriate. When this understanding
breaks down, the only way to restore it is by asking the reason why we disagree
with one another.
Predicting Consequences
Moral reasoning involves predicting the consequences of an action before we
act. There are always consequences when we take the action we think is right, and
when we try to be good persons, and usually these include unintended as well as
intended outcomes.
When the likely beneficial outcomes of acting on an ethical presumption seem
to outweigh the likely adverse outcomes, then predicting consequences confirms
our presumption.
But when we predict that the adverse consequences will outweigh the
beneficial consequences, even when we are obeying an ethical rule or following an
inspiring story, then we should consider whether to make an exception to the rule
or to look to a different story for guidance.
We must remember, however, that before we act we can never know for
certain what the consequences will be. Therefore, we should take care in predicting
what will result from acting on an ethical presumption.
In doing ethics, we look at rules (about duty and rights) and at stories
（about character and relationships) to construct a presumption, and then test this
presumption by predicting what we do know (and don't know) about the likely
consequences of acting on it.
Impartiality
Impartiality also called evenhandedness or fair-mindedness is a principle of
justice holding that decisions should be based on objective criteria, rather than on
the basis of bias, prejudice, or preferring the benefit to one person over another for
improper reasons (Wikipedia).
Someone who is impartial is not directly involved in a particular situation,
and is, therefore, able to give a fair opinion or decision about it. We might be
impartial because this promotes our desire to be fair or because it promotes our
well-being and self-respect and earns us social approval. Or we might appeal to
the social good, or to the inherent badness of violating impartiality.
Impartiality makes no discrimination as to nationality, race, religious beliefs,
class or political opinions. It endeavors to relieve the suffering of individuals,
being guided solely by their needs, and to give priority to the most urgent cases
of distress.
Consequences of the Fundamental Principle of Impartiality
The consequences of the principle of Impartiality are as follows:
1. It establishes one of its key values: non-discrimination, which is one of the
most important elements of all aspects of the protection of the human being:
human rights law, humanitarian law, refugee law.
2. Although the need to enjoy the confidence of all is mentioned about the
principle of Neutrality, this also applies to the principle of Impartiality. Only
an impartial action can give the image of an organization that can be trusted
by people to be assisted or protected. Therefore, systems have to be put in
place to ensure that the people benefitting from the action of the Red Cross
and Red Crescent are those whose vulnerability is the highest.
3. Impartiality in its true sense requires that subjective distinctions be set aside.
To illustrate the difference between the two notions: a National Society
that refuses to provide its services to a specific group of people, because of
their ethnic origin, fails to observe the rule of non-discrimination; whereas a
National Society staff member who, in the exercise of his functions, favors a
friend by giving him better treatment than that given to others, contravenes
the principle of impartiality. Therefore, staff and volunteers should be trained
to ensure that correct behavior becomes almost a reflex.
Impartiality is one of the more commonly recognized aspects of the role of
the Mediator.
This does not mean that the Mediator should somehow become inhuman and
not have a feeling of bias towards one party or another, but that he/she practices
in a way that minimizes any manifestation of this bias.
This is an important distinction to make. No-one can genuinely claim to be
impartial, but he/she can continually review his/her own feelings and thoughts
about someone or a situation in order to acknowledge this and then monitor,
and adjust where necessary, his/her practice as a mediator in the light of this
awareness.
Similarly, anyone supporting people in dispute will be more effective if
he/she maintain his/her impartiality in the situation, even if one of the people
involved is someone he/she knows.
There can be a temptation to automatically 'take sides' when we know
someone who is in dispute but ultimately this often just entrenches that person
even more in his/her despair, anger, disillusionment etc. and can make him/her
less likely to be able to resolve it.
Hence, impartiality serves a purpose in supporting conflict resolution
whether we are a mediator or not.
In mediation and in other conflict resolution support, striving for impartiality
means that the process of resolution is untainted by the Mediator's biases and
prejudices, so that the disputants can focus on resolving their own concerns rather
than have to respond to 'input' from the mediator.
The mediator creates a channel for communication and not an obstácle to it
and remaining impartial allows for the channel to be as unimpeded as possible.
The challenges that mediators face in maintaining impartiality will be unique to
each mediator.
Reasons and Impartiality as Requirement of Ethics
In the Euthyphro, Socrates expresses astonishment that a young man would
prosecute his own father for murder. The conventional assumption he seems to
be making is that filial relationships impose special constraints that may override
other considerations, even in the gravest matter. For Euthyphro, by contrast, a
murder is a murder. The fact that it was committed by his father has no bearing.
upon what he is required to do about it. He must prosecute his father just as he
would a stranger.
In the dialogue, the issue is quickly dropped, unresolved. This brief passage
canserveas anemblem ofaperplexing range ofproblems thatbedevil ethical theory
－ problems now typically grouped together under the heading of impartiality. In
one way or another, all of these problems concern the way in which modern moral
philosophy seems to force detachment from self-interest, privileged personal
relationships, the demands of the moment, and a fully situated first-person point
of view, in favor of aggregate or common good, equal and universal relationships,
long-range considerations, and the point of view of a disinterested, omniscient
observer.
There are at least three distinct elements that run through these problems,
namely:
1. We grant the powerful and persistent force of self-interest in our lives, and
assume that morality must somehow give us reasons for constraining such
motives;
2. We grant that rules and principles of conduct will be useless or counter-
productive in purely local or short-range terms, and assume that morality
must give us reasons for acting in principle inspite of it;
3. We grant that our favorites and friends have special claims on our attention,
and assume that morality must give us reasons for occasionally denying such
claims.
In order to provide such reasons, moral theories standardly argue that our
selfish, local, and purely personal interests are morally indistinguishable from
many others and that reason requires us to treat similar cases similarly. ,.
Morality,thus,fequires that we should not play favorites, or manipulate
rules to our personal advantage, or make ad hoc exceptions for ourselves. In that
sense it requires us to be impartial (Becker, 1991).
Reasons and Feelings
Broadly stated ethics is “concerned with making sense of intuitions (Light,
et. al, 2003) about what is right and good. We do this by reasoning about our
feelings. Biologists verify that “Emotion is never truly divorced from decision
making, even when it is channeled aside by an effort of will (Blakeslee, et. al,
2007). Physicists now confirm that seeing the world with complete objectivity is
not possible, as our observations affect what we perceive (Werner, 2002).
Moral philosopher Mary Midgley (1983) writes Sensitivity requires
rationality to complete it, and vice versa. There is no siding onto which emotions
can be shunted so as not to impinge on thought. We rely on our reason to guard
against feelings that may reflect a bias, or a sense of inadequacy, or a desire simply
to win an argument, and also to refine and explain a felt conviction that passes
the test of critical reflection and discussion.We rely on feelings to move us to act
morally, and to ensure that our reasoning is not only logical but also humane.
Scientific evidence supports this approach to ethics. As children, we manifest
empathy before developing our rational abilitiés, and there is evidence for the
same order of development in the evolution of the human brain (Carey, 2007).
“Empathy is a unique form of intentionality in which we are directed toward the
other's experience This involves feeling, at least to some extent, what another
person is feeling. In empathy we experience another human being directly as
a person- that is, as an intentional being whose bodily gestures and actions are
expressive of his or her experiences or states of mind (Thompson, 2007).
Empathy enables us to identify with others, and may generate a perception
of the other as a being who deserves concern and respect. This does not guarantee
ethical conduct, but it makes morality possible. Aid to others in need would never
be internalized as a duty without the fellow-feeling that drives people to take an
interest in one another. Moral sentiments came first; moral principles second (de
Waal,2007).
Conscience, at its best, reflects our integration of moral sentiments and
principles. We should test our conscience, however, by explaining to others the
reasons for our moral presumptions, and we should listen carefully to concerns
they mayhave. This is especially important when dealing withethical issues among
family members or friends, but applies as well to concerns about the environment.
Moreover,both our feelings and our reason reflect our participation in a moral
community, or more likely several moral communities. As children, our moral
community is our family, which soon broadens to include our friends and then is
defined by the rules of our school. As adults, our moral community extends from
our family to our friends (at work, in our neighborhood or a support group, and
perhaps in our religious community), to our city, our country, the people of the
world whose moral and legal rights are defined by international law, and perhaps
also to a moral community that includes non-human organisms and ecosystems.
Ethics vs Feelings
Many times, there's a conflict between what we naturally feel and what is
considered to be ethical. Our subconscious reaction to a news event might be
hatred, jealousy or other negative feelings, but we might not be able to morally
argue why we feel that way.
My guess is that the human race developed those subconscious reactions as
an evolutionary mechanism to survive. Our ancestors wouldn't have been able to
find and obtain food if they hadn't fought for it. Arguing about ethics would've
meant that you'll have to stay hungry and die.
The problem is most of our feelings in today's world are unethical, politically
incorrect or even outright harmful. It takes a great deal of effort to retrospect and
self-analyze our feelings to judge whether they are ethical or not.
Let us take a few common examples ánd see how to tackle those feelings:
Groupism, Patriotism, Dunbar's number, Negative feelings to content on Social
Networks.
1. Groupism
a. Natural feeling: I am part of a group, I am supposed to help this group
become better. I am also supposed to compete with other groups.
b. Reasoning: Being part of a herd made it easier for us ancestors to survive
in the wild. There were so many survival benefits that belonging to a
group brought. Naturally, our ancestors started developing good feelings
about belonging to a group.
C.
Ethical viewpoint: Help the group. Help other groups too. There is no
compelling reason to compete in today's times of peace.
2. Patriotism
a. Natural feeling: I was born in a place. I am supposed to help people in
the geographical vicinity around me. There are human-decided borders
that define my country. Those outside the border don't deserve that much
attention as those inside the border do.
b.
Reasoning:Patriotism is Groupism in a higher scale. Most borders were
drawn for political benefits by a small group of individual running that
country. There have been countless stories of propaganda bygovernments
to motivate people to join their wars to fight people over borders. We
humans tend to justify these efforts as noble.
c. Ethical viewpoint: Wars are always bad. There is no reason to be proud
of your country just because you were born in it. It is okay to be in your
country and help your country because you are used to it. But it is also
okay to move to other countries and help those countries.
3. Dunbar's number
a. Natural feeling: I cannot maintain more than 150 stable relationships.
b. Reasoning: Our brains have limited capacity and it becomes mentally
hard to maintain more relationships.
c. Ethical viewpoint: Acceding to the Dunbar'snumberpromotesGroupism.
Just as we push ourselves to become better humans, we should also try
to push the Dunbar number limit further. Accepting that all life forms in
this world (and outside the world if life exists) are part of the same group
counters the negative effects of Groupism.
4.Negative feelings to content on Social Networks
a. Natural feeling: I hate what's being posted on Facebook. They are just
stupid selfies, people gloating their achievements or just distracting,
unproductive content.
b. Reasoning: Many of us have been taught to compete with others since our
childhood. We tend to compare ourselves with others.
Wedon'tlike selfies because theyare attention-seeking and we look down
upon those who seek attention.
Distracting,unproductive content is noise to us and we cannot handle too
much noise in our daily life.
c. Ethical viewpoint: We don't have to compete with our friends. We can
applaud their life achievements without comparing our lives with theirs.
We don't have to look down upon those who seek attention. Comedians,
actors and other entertainers are attention-seeking. But we don't look
down upon them.
It is up to us to filter out noise in our lives. Social networks aren't thrusted
into our face. We can choose to stay away from them if they are noisy.
Or even better, adjust the content shown in our feed and tailor it to our
comfort.
Conclusion
It is easy to give in to our feelings. An analogy would be with unhealthy foods.
It is easy to choose unhealthy foods because they are tasty and easy to prepare. But
we hit the gym, avoid those foods and exercise because we want to become better
individuals. Similarly, we can take the ethical route, avoid negative feelings and
exercise those reactions because we want to become better individuals.
Steps in Moral Reasoning Model
Ethical reasoning is how to think about issues of right or wrong. Processes
of reasoning can be taught, and the college or university is an appropriate place
to teach these processes because so often it is taught no place else, and because it
is essential for a successful adulthood. Although parents and especially religious
institutions may teach ethics, they do notalways teach ethical reasoning. Academic
courses are the logical place to teach the cognitive process of reasoning especially
as ethical issues relate to the content of a particular discipline. No matter how
knowledgeable one is about his/her profession, if the knowledge is not backed
by ethical reasoning, long-term success in the career is likely to be severely
compromised.
Ethical reasoning is hard because there are so many ways to fail. Ethical
behavior is far harder to display than one would expect simply on the basis of
what we learn from our parents, from school, and from our religious training
（Sternberg, 2009). To intervene, individuals must go through a series of steps, and
116
unless all of the steps are completed,they are not likely to behave in an ethical way,
regardless of the amount of training they have received inethics, and regardless of
their levels of other types of skills.
Given the fact that ethical dilemmas may not always be readily resolved
through the use of codes of ethics, it might be useful to have a framework in which
to analyze and make ethical decisions. The following ethical decision-making
model comes from the work of Corey et. al. (1998).
Step 1:
Identify the problem. What facts make this an ethical situation?
Step 2:
Identify the potential issues involved. What level- of ethical issues are
we dealing with: systemic, corporate, or individual?
Step 3:
Review relevant ethical guidelines. Given the facts and the ethical
issues, what alternative actions are possible in this situation?
Step 4:
Know relevant laws and regulations. Who will be affected by the
alternatives and to what degree?
Step 5:
Obtain Consultation. Use ethical principles to decide on the best
alternative. The ethics of each of the most plausible alternatives is
assesséd using ethical principles or rules.
Step 6:
Considerpossible and probable courses ofaction. Can thebestalternative
be put into effect? Having decided on one alternative, we need to see
whether there are any practical constraints which might prevent that
alternative from being acted upon.
Step 7:
List the consequences of the probable courses of action.
Step 8:
Decide on what appears to be the best course of action. Implementing
the best alternative. Having selected the best alternative which is
not ruled out by practical constraints, we need to decide on the steps.
necessary to carry it out.
It is extremely important that you keep your immediate supervisor and all
involved parties informed during this process. After you have made your decision,
take some time to reflect on the process and to review what you have learned with
a trusted supervisor or colleague.
The Difference Between Reason and Will
Will, generally, is that faculty of the mind which selects, at the moment of.
decision, the strongest desire from among the various desires present. Will does
not refer to any particular desire, but rather to the mechanism for choosing from
among one's desires. Within philosophy the will is important as one of the distinct
parts of the mind-along with reason and understanding. It is considered central
to the field of ethics because of its role in enabling deliberate action.
117
When we become conscious of ourselves, we realize that our essential
qualities are endless urging, craving, striving, wanting, and desiring. These are
characteristics of that which we call our will. Schopenhauer affirmed that we can
legitimately think that all other phenomena are also essentially and basically will.
According to him, will “is the innermost essence, the core, of every particular
thing 'and also of the whole. It appears in every blindly acting force of nature,
and also in the deliberate conduct of man. Schopenhauer (1998) said that his
predecessors mistakenly thought that the will depends on knowledge. According
to him, though, the will is primary and uses knowledġe in order to find an object
that will satisfy its craving. That which, in us, we call will is Kant's thing in itself
according to Schopenhauer.
Schopenhauer's philosophy holds that all nature, including man, is the
expression of an insatiable will to life. It is through the will that mankind finds all
their suffering. Desire for more is what causes this suffering. He argues that only
aesthetic pleasure creates momentary escape from the will.
Since the derivation of actions from laws requires reason, the will is nothing
but practical reason. To explain, the will is guided byreason, where, as determined
by reason, action is performed according to rational requirements, or laws of
reason. Reason directs action by “determination of the will - as long as the will
is guided by reason. Where the will is determined by reason in accordance with
which action is performed, reason is -practical, i.e. action-directing. Reason has,
in other words, the capacity to direct action. Further, where the will is guided by
reason, it is free.
LESSON 2
Moral Theories
Introduction
A theory is a structured set of statements used to explain or predict a set of
facts or concepts. A moral theory, then, explains why a certain action is wrong or
why we ought to act in certain ways. In short, it is a theory of how we determine
right and wrong conduct. Also, moral theories provide the framework upon which
we think and discuss in a reasoned way, and so evaluate, specific moral issues.
For the strategist, a useful theory provides a way of understanding the
dynamics of the complexstrategicenvironment, recognizable indicators or warning
signals of change, and agreed-upon means of dealing with change. Simply put, a
theory is one's notion of cause and effect.
Moral Theories
Through the ages, there have emerged multiple common moral theories and
traditions. We will cover each one briefly below with explanations and how they
differ from other moral theories.
Consequentialism. Consequentialist theories, unlike virtue and deontological
theories, hold that only the consequences, or outcomes, of actions matter morally.
According to this view, acts are deemed to be morally right solely on the basis of
their consequences. For instance, most people would agree that lying is wrong.
But if telling a lie would help save a person's life, consequentialism says it's the
right thing to do.
Consequentialism is sometimes criticized because it can be difficult, or even
impossible, to know what the result of an action will be ahead of time. Indeed,no
one'canknow the future with certainty. Also, in certainsituations,consequentialism
can lead to decisions that are objectionable, even though the consequences are
arguably good.
Consequentialism is based on two principles:
1. Whether an act is right or wrong depends only on the results of that act;
2. The better consequences an act produces, the better or more right that act.
It gives us this guidance when faced with a moral dilemma: A person should
choose the action that maximizes good consequences and it gives this general
guidance oň how to live: People should live so as to maximize good consequences.
Moral Subjectivism. Right and wrong is determined·by what you, the
subject, just happens to think or 'feel' is right or wrong. In its common form, Moral
Subjectivism amounts to the denial of moral principles of any significant kind,
and the possibility of moral criticism and argumentation. In essence, 'right' and
＇wrong' lose their meaning because so long as someone thinks or feels that some
action is 'right', there are no grounds for criticism. If you are a moral subjectivist,
you cannot object to anyone's behavior assuming people are in fact acting in
accordance with what they think or feel is right. This shows the key flaw in moral
subjectivism probably nearly everyone thinks that it is legitimate to object, on
moral grounds, to at least some peoples' actions. That is, it is possible to disagree
about moral issues (Brandt, 1959).
Moral Subjectivism holds that there are no objective moral properties and
that ethical statements are in fact arbitrary because they do not express immutable
truths. Instead, moral statements are made true or false by the attitudes and/or
conventions of the observers, and any ethical sentence just implies an attitude,
opinion, personal preference or feeling held by someone. Thus, for a statement
to be considered morally right merely means that it is met with approval by the
person of interest. Another way of looking at this is that judgments about human
conduct are shaped by, and in many ways limited to, perception.
There are different types of Moral Subjectivism:
1. Simple Subjectivism: the view that ethical statements reflect sentiments,
personal preferences and feelings rather than objective facts.
2. Individualist Subjectivism: the view originally put forward by Protagoras,
that there are as many distinct scales of good and evil as there are individuals
in the world. It is effectively a form of Egoism, which maintains that every
human being ought to pursue what is in his or her self-interest exclusively.
3. Moral Relativisım (or Ethical Relativism): the view that for a thing to be
morally right is for it to be approved of by society, leading to the conclusion
that different things are right for people in different societies and different
periods in history.
4. Ideal Observer Theory: the view that what is right is determined by the
attitudes that a hypothetical ideal observer (a being who is perfectly rational,
imaginative and informed) would have. Adam Smith and David Hume
espoused early versions of the Ideal Observer Theory, and Roderick Firth
（1917-1987) is responsible for a more sophisticated modern version.
5. Ethical Egoism. Right and wrong is determined by what is in your self-
interest. Or, it is immoral to act contrary to your self-interest.
Ethical Egoism is usually based upon Psychological Egoism - that we, by
nature, act selfishly. Ethical egoism does not implyhedonism or that we ought
to aim for at least some 'higher' goods example, wisdom, political success, but
124
rather that we will idealy act so as to maximize our self-interest. This may
require that we forego some inmediate pleasures for the sake of achieving
ome long term goals.Also,ethical egoism does not exclude helping others.
However,egoists will help others only if this will further their own interests.
An ethical egoist will claim that the altruist helps others only because he/she
wants to (perhaps because he/she derives pleasure out of helping others) or
because he/she thinks there will be some personal advantage in doing so.
That is, they deny the possibility of genuine altruism (because they think we
are all by nature selfish). This leads us to the key implausibility of Ethical
Egoism-that the person who helps others at the expense of his/her self-
interest is actually acting immorally.Many think that the ethical egoist
has misunderstood the concept of morality -i.e.,morality is the system of
practical reasoning through which we are guided to constrain our self-interest,
not further it. Also, that genuine altruism is indeed possible,and relatively
commonly exhibited.
6. Utilitarianism. Utilitarianism, first popularized by British philosophers
Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill in the 19th century, is a theory that
holds that the best way to make a moral decision is to look at the potential
consequences of each available choice,and then pick the option thateither does
most to increase happiness or does least to increase suffering: Utilitarianism,
also known as consequentialism, is often summed up as a philosophy ofThe
greatest good for the greatest number. (NOTE:This is discussed fully in the
succeeding chapter)
7. Deontology.Deontology or Deontological Ethics is an approach to Ethics
that focuses on the rightness or wrongness of actions themselves, as
opposed to the rightness or wrongness of the consequences of those actions
（Consequentialism) or to the character and habits of the actor (Virtue Ethics).
What makes a choice right is its conformity with a moral norm: Right takes
priority over Good.
The word 'deontology' derives from the Greek words deon for duty and
logos for science (or study). In contemporary moral philosophy, deontology is
one of those kinds of normative theories regarding which choices are morally
required, forbidden, or permitted. In other words, deontology falls within the
domain of moral theories that guide and assess our choices of what we ought
to do (deontic theories), in contrast to those that guide and assess what kind
of person we are and should be.
Deontology is a duty-based moral theory. Deontology states that society
needs rules in order to function, and that a person can only be called moral
to the extent that he abides by those rules. The most famous and eloquent
exponent of deontology is generally agreed to be Immanuel Kant.Kant coined
the following maxim, known as the Categorical Imperative, to help people
125
decide which actions should be governed by rules: Act'only according to that
maxim by which you' can also will that it would become a universal law. In
other words, people should only do things that they would be happy to see
everyone does. For example, people shouldn't lie, because if everyone lies all
the time then society would collapse.
Deontology is simple to apply. Itjust requires that people follow the rules
and do their duty. This approach tends to fit well with our natural intuition
about what is or isn't ethical.
＇Kant's deontology, sometimes called deontological ethics, starts by
acknowledging that actions and their outcomes are independent things.
Basically, there are things you have to do, even though you know they are
wrong, such as shooting that intruder to protect your family. According to
deontology, you need to focus on the act, such as protecting your family, and
not the likely death it will mean for the intruder.
8. Virtue Ethics. A virtue is an excellent trait of character. It is a disposition,
well entrenched in its possessor-something that, as we say, goes all the way
down, to notice, expect, value, feel, desire, choose, act, and react in certain
characteristic ways. Virtue ethics emphasizes an individual's character as the
key element of ethical thinking, rather than rules about the acts themselves
（Deontology) or their consequences (Consequentialism).
To possess a virtue is to be a certain sort of person with a certain complex
mindset. A significant aspect of this mindset is the wholehearted acceptance
of a distinctive range of considerations as reasons for action.
Virtue ethics states that only good people can make good moral decisions.
Therefore, the best way to be moral is to constantly seek to improve oneself.
Virtueethicists listanumber ofqualities that they believe are universal, and are
appreciated in all cultures. They include wisdom, prudence, loyalty, honesty,
temperance,bravery, magnanimity, and justice. Virtue ethicists argue that ifa
person tries his best to embody these traits, then by definition he will always
be in a good position to make moral judgments.
There are three main elements of.Virtue Ethics:
1. Eudaimonism. It is the classical formulation of Virttie Ethics. It holds that the
proper goal of human life is eudaimonia (which can be variously translated as
＂happiness well-being or the good life), and that this goal can be achieved
byalifetimeofpracticingarête(thevirtues)inone'severydayactivities,subject
to the exercise of phronesis (practical wisdom) to resolve any conflicts
or dilemmas which might arise. Indeed, such a virtuous life would in itself
constitute eudnimonia, which should be seen as an objective, not a subjective,
state,characterized by the well-lived life, irrespective of the emotional state of
the person experiencing it.
126
A virtue is a habit or quality that allows individuals to succeed at
their purpose. Therefore,Virtue Ethics is only intelligible if it is teleological
example, it includes an account of the purpose or meaning of human life, a
matter of sòme contention among philosophers since thne beginning of time.
Aristotle, with whom Virtue Ethics is largelyidentified, categorized the virtues
as moral virtues (including prudence, justice, fortitude and temperance)
and intellectual virtues (including sophia or theoretical wisdom),and
＂phronesis or practical wisdom. Aristotle further argued that each of the
moral virtues was a golden mean, or desirable middle ground, between two
undesirable extremes.For example, the virtue of courage is a mean between
the two vices of cowardice and foolhardiness.
This character-based approach to morality assumes that we acquire
virtue through practice. By practicing being honest, brave, just, generous,
and so on, a person develops an honorable and moral character.According to
Aristotle, by honing virtuous habits, people will likely make the right choice
when faced with ethical challenges.
2.Ethics of Care was developed mainly by Feminist writers Annette Baier (1987).
in the second half of the 20th century, and wàs motivated by the idea that
men think in masculine terms such as justice and autonomy, whereas women
think in feminine terms such as caring. It calls for a change in how we view
morality and the virtues, shifting towards virtues exemplified by women,
such as taking care of others, patience, the ability to nurture, self-sacrifice,
etc., which have been marginalized because society has not adequately valued
the contributions of women. It emphasizes the importance of solidarity,
communityand relationships rather than universal standardsand impartiality.
It argues that instead of doing the right thing èven if it requires personal cost
or sacrificing the interest of family or community members, as the traditional.
consequentialist and deontological approaches suggest, we can, and indeed
should, put the interests of those who are close to us above the interests of
complete strangers.
Agent-Based Theories, as developed recently by Michael Slote (1993),
give an account of virtue based on our common-sense intuitions about which .
character traits are admirable (e.g. benevolence, kindness, compassion, etc.),
whichwecanidentifybylookingat thepeopleweadmire,ourmoralexemplars.
The evaluation of actions is therefore dependent on ethical judgments about
the inner life of the agents who perform those actions.
The Theory of Natural Rights. Natural rights theorists believe that every
person is endowed with certain inalienable rights, such as the right to life, the
right to own property, and the right to liberty. Natural rights theorists argue
that these rights are self-evident, and would exist even if nobody believed
in them. The reason that natural rights theorists hold these rights as self-
evident is that they are essential to the flourishing of human happiness and
127
－
the foundation of civil society.For example, they argue that without the right
to own property, there is no incentive to create property and therefore there is
no mechanism by which society can advance (Pangle, 1988).
Lockebelieved that the most basichumanlaw ofnatureis the preservation
of mankind.To'serve that purpose, he reasoned, individuals have both a right
and a duty to preserve their own lives. Murderers, however,forfeit their right
to life since they act outside the law of reason.
Locke also argued that individuals should be free to make choices about
how to conduct their own lives as long as they do not interfere with the liberty
of others.Locke therefore believed liberty should be far-reaching.
By property, Locke meant more than land and goods that could
be sold, given away, or even confiscated by the government under certain
circumstances. Property also referred to ownership of one's self,which
included a right to personal well-being. Jefferson,however,substituted the
phrase, pursuit of happiness, which Locke and others had used to describe
freedom of opportunity as well as the duty to help those in want.
The purpose of government, Locke wrote, is to secure and protect the
God-given inalienable natural rights of the people. For their part, the people
must obey the laws of their rulers. Thus, a sort of contract exists between
the rulers and the ruled. But, Locke concluded, if a government persecutes
its people with a long train of abuses over an extended period, the people
have the right to resist that government, alter or abolish it, and create a new
political system. .
3. Moral Relativism. Moral relativism is a theory which states that no one
person's morals are better or worse than any other. Relativists argue that a
person's moral code is shaped by the society in which he is raised, and that no
society is inherently better or worse than any other.
Normative moral relativism is the idea that all societies should accept
each other's differing moral values, given that there are no universal moral
·principles.
Moral relativism is on the opposite end of the continuum from moral
absolutism;, which says that there is always one right answer to any ethical
question. Indeed, those who adhere to moral relativism would say, When in
Rome, do as the Romans do.
Relativistic positions may specifically see moral values as applicable only
within certain cultural boundaries (Cultural Relativism) or in the context of
individual preferences (Ethical Subjectivism). A related but slightly different
concept is that of Moral Pluralism (or Value Pluralism), the idea that there
are several values which may be equally correct and fundamental, and yet in
conflict with each other example; the moral life of a nun is incompatible with
that of a mother, yet there is no purely rational measure of which is preferable
（Rachels, 1999).
28
LESSON 3
Mental Frames
Introduction
To put theories or mental models to work, we use an approach referred to
as systems thinking. While strategic thinking involves consideration of the big
picture, systems thinking begins when we consider a real-world phenomenon and
seek to understand the cause and effect relationships characteristic of a system.
A systems thinker wonders how an organization works, looking at the parts as
dynamic aspects of the whole. It is the interrelationships of the elements of an
organization that interests the systems thinker.
The Mental Frames
Organization leaders use mental frames to simplify the world they are
observing and to make the decision-making process more efficient. Under normal.
conditions, mental frames are generally very useful.
Mental framing is a selective, reductive excessively narrow way by which a
question or information used to take a decision is expressed, presented, worded,
formulated, categorized, and pictured.
A framing is done by the agent itself who designates his selective perceptions
and representations of realities and issues and by the advisors or third parties
who fed the agent with a selective formulation that disseminates their own
picture of things. Example, 50 pesos a day seems less costly than 18000 pesos a
month; Saying there is 50% chance of success” instead of “50% chances to fail”
could change a decision (the famous half-full or half-empty glass is a common
expression, generally used rhetorically to indicate that a particular situation could
be a cause for optimism (half full) or pessimism (halfempty), or as a general litmus
test to simply determine an individual's worldview).
Some framing is due to pure reasoning errors, logical fallacies, confusions,
and bogus information or knowledge that sneakily infiltrated the memory at one
time or another. Then, the decisions use mixed up or misunderstood notions or
facts.
Framing is the process of understanding and interpreting a particular event.
Goffman (1974) defines frames as “principles of organization which govern events
＇at least social ones and our subjective involvement in them. Frames are the
“schemata of interpretation that allow individuals “to locate, perceive, identify,'
133
and label a seemingly infinite number of concrete occurenceso rendering whar
Would otherwise be a meaningless aspect of the scene into something that is
meaningful.
Gitlin(1980)suggeststhat Frames are principles of selection,emphasis,and
presentation composed of litle tacit theories about what exists,what happens,and
what matters.
Shön (1983) describes framing as a mental device that sets the boundaries
of our attention,while Ahn and Ergin(2006) model frames in terms of different
levels of awareness.
Mental frames are important in decision making not only by simplifying
the chaotic situation that the agent faces,but also by defining the problem itsel.
Brubaker,Loveman, and Stamatov(2004)suggest that cognitive perspectives are
not things in the world but ways of seeing the worldKahneman and Tversky
（1979)incorporate framing as an essential part of their prospect theory,where
they distinguish two discrete phases in a decision-making process: a phase of
framing, editing and analysis, followed by a phase of evaluation of the various
prospects. Later studies (Tversky and Kahneman, 1981; 1986) have documented
large and systematic changes in an individual's preference caused by variationsin
the framing of the available options in terms of gains and losses.
Individuals use frames to simplify the interconnections in their environment.
In that sense, framing acts similar to a model is an attempt to simplify complex
issues. Consequently, a mental frame carries along the shortcomings of theoretical
models - its deduction results in high efficiency in decision making since the
agent uses mental shortcuts and rules of thumb instead of considering all possible
relations; however, it also results in a major drawback since anything what is left
out of the frame is ignored. A basic notion underlying much of the literature on
heuristics is that these mental shortcuts are many times systematically biased
（Kahneman, et. al, 2000).
Mental frame is a frame through which we view the world. We attend to what
is inside our frame, oblivious sometimes to what occurs outside our frames, which
can lead to dangerous blind spots. Frames can be useful insofar as they direct
our attention toward the information we seek. But they can also constrict our
peripheral vision, keeping us from noticing important information and, perhaps,
opportunities. Once liberating, mental models can become shackles.
and label a seemingly infinite number of concrete occurenceso rendering whar
Would otherwise be a meaningless aspect of the scene into something that is
meaningful.
Gitlin(1980)suggeststhat Frames are principles of selection,emphasis,and
presentation composed of litle tacit theories about what exists,what happens,and
what matters.
Shön (1983) describes framing as a mental device that sets the boundaries
of our attention,while Ahn and Ergin(2006) model frames in terms of different
levels of awareness.
Mental frames are important in decision making not only by simplifying
the chaotic situation that the agent faces,but also by defining the problem itsel.
Brubaker,Loveman, and Stamatov(2004)suggest that cognitive perspectives are
not things in the world but ways of seeing the worldKahneman and Tversky
（1979)incorporate framing as an essential part of their prospect theory,where
they distinguish two discrete phases in a decision-making process: a phase of
framing, editing and analysis, followed by a phase of evaluation of the various
prospects. Later studies (Tversky and Kahneman, 1981; 1986) have documented
large and systematic changes in an individual's preference caused by variationsin
the framing of the available options in terms of gains and losses.
Individuals use frames to simplify the interconnections in their environment.
In that sense, framing acts similar to a model is an attempt to simplify complex
issues. Consequently, a mental frame carries along the shortcomings of theoretical
models - its deduction results in high efficiency in decision making since the
agent uses mental shortcuts and rules of thumb instead of considering all possible
relations; however, it also results in a major drawback since anything what is left
out of the frame is ignored. A basic notion underlying much of the literature on
heuristics is that these mental shortcuts are many times systematically biased
（Kahneman, et. al, 2000).
Mental frame is a frame through which we view the world. We attend to what
is inside our frame, oblivious sometimes to what occurs outside our frames, which
can lead to dangerous blind spots. Frames can be useful insofar as they direct
our attention toward the information we seek. But they can also constrict our
peripheral vision, keeping us from noticing important information and, perhaps,
opportunities. Once liberating, mental models can become shackles.
The Framing Bias
Blanking all parts of the universe that are outside the frame.Framing becomes
easily a damaging mental bias, which distorts the perception and analysis of an
issue and the whole decision-making process. The framing bias gives a selective
（framed) and simplistic picture of reality. This leads to flawed decisions with
unwanted effects. This has some relation with heuristic:
1. Representativeness heuristic in which we take simplified stereotypes as
models, and;
2.Availability heuristics such as our first perception/interpretation of things, or
the memory of a recent event or data seen as similar, but often unrelated or
irrelevant, that jumps into the mind.
Biased mental frames can result from a kind of cognitive myopia a narrow
mental selectivity (selection bias), or a representation that is deliberately reductive,
manipulative, one-sided, partial, truncated, non-neutral.
The consequences of deciding with blinders.
To use narrow, selective (or wrong) data, explanations, ideas and approaches
about either an issue (i.e. stressing gains or losses) or the facts themselves:
1. Thwart the ensuing reasoning, conclusions and decisions. As a' common
example, gives usually a too favorable or too unfavorable impression (positive
or negative framing);
2. Those flawed decisions bring dubious, damaging or at least anomalous
practical effects.

4.2
1. This theory believes that every person is endowed with certain inalienable rights. Virtue thics
2. It just requires that people follow the rules and do their duty. Deontology
3. Eudaimonia means Happiness
4. Phronesis means Practical Wisdom
5. States that only good people can make good moral decisions. Vuirtue thics
6. According to virtue ethicist the best way to be moral is to constantly seek to improve goals
7. According to Michael Sloti, there are admirable character traits except Virtue
8. Relative virtue positions may specifically see moral values as applicable only without certain social
boundaries. Cultural boundaries
9. Locke believes that liberty should be Far-reaching
10. Locke believe that liberty should be Far-reaching

4.3
1. Framing is the process of understanding and ______________ a particular event. Interpreting
2. Frames are the ________________ that allows individuals "to locate, perceive, identify, and label a
seemingly infinite number of concrete occurrences... rendering what would otherwise be a meaningless
aspect of the scene into something that is meaningful. Schemata of interpration
3. A mental frame carries along the shortcomings of – Therotical models
4. According to Gitlin, frames are ________________, emphasis, and presentation composed of little
tacit theories about what exists, what happens, and what matters. Principle of selection
5. Mental frames are important in decision making not only by simplifying the chaotic situation that the
agent faces, but also by defining the – Problem
6. Mental frame is a frame through which we view the - World
7. Flawed decisions results to the following except – Satisfactory effect
8. Biased Mental frames can result from – A kind of cognitive myopia
9. Frames can be useful insofar as they direct our attention toward the information we seek. True
10. Individuals use frames to – simplify complex issues

LESSON
1
The Early Philosophers
While moral theory does not invent morality, or even reflection on it, it does
try to bring systematic thinking to bear on the phenomenon. Ancient moral theory,
however, does not attempt to be a comprehensive account of all the phenomena
that fall under the heading of morality. Rather, assuming piecemeal opinions and
practices, it tries to capture its underlying essence.
Aristotle on Ethics
The most famous and thorough of Aristotle'sethical works is his Nicomachean
Ethics.This work is an inquiry into the best life for human beings to live. The life
of human flourishing or happiness (eudaimonia) is the best life. It is important to
note that what we translate as "happiness" is quite different for Aristotle than it
is for us. We often consider happiness to be a mood or an emotion, but Aristotle
considers it to be an activity-a way of living one's life. Thus, it is possible for one
to have an overall happy life, even if that life has its moments of sadness and pain
（Barnes,1984).
Happiness is the practice of virtue or excellence (arete), and so it is important
to know the two types of virtue: character virtue, the discussion of which
makes up the bulk of the Ethics, and intellectual virtue. Character excellence
comes about through habit-one habituates oneself to character excellence by
knowingly practicing virtues. To be clear, it is possible to perform an excellent
action accidentally or without knowledge, but doing so would not make for an
excellent person, just as accidentally writing in a grammatically correct way does
not make for a grammarian. One must be aware that one is practicing the life of
virtue (Broadie,1991).
Aristotle arrives at the idea that '"the activity of the soul in accordance with
virtue" is the best life for human beings througi Ye"human function" argument.
f,says Aristole, human beings have a function or work (ergon)to perform,then
we can know that performing that function well will result in the best sort of life.
he work or function of an eye is to see and to see well. Just as each part of the
body has a function,says Aristole,so too must the numan being as a whole have
afunction,This is an argument by analogy. The function of the human being i5
gos or reason, and the more thoroughly one livesthe life of reason,the happier
one's life will be (Kraut, 2014).
So, the happiest life is a practice of virtue, and this is practiced under the
guidance ofreason. Examples of character virtues would be courage, temperance,
iberality, and magnaninity(Rorty,1984).One must habitually practice these
virtues in order to be courageous,temperate, and so forth.For example,the
courageous person knows when to be courageous, and acts on that knowledge
whenever it is appropriate to do.Each activity of any particular character virtuehas
a related excessive or deficient action. The excess related to courage,for example,
is rashness, and the deficiency is cowardice.Since excellence is rare,most people
will tend more towards an excess or deficiency than towards the excellent action.
Aristotle's advice here is to aim for the opposite of one's typical tendency, and
that eventually this will lead one closer to the excellence. For example, if one tends
towards the excess of self-indulgence, it might be best to aim for insensibility,
which will eventually lead the agent closer to temperance.
Friendship is also a necessary part of the happy life. There are three types
of friendship, none of which is exclusive of the other: a friendship ofexcellence,
a friendship ofpleasure, and a friendship ofutility. A friendship of excellence is
based upon virtue, and each friend enjoys and contemplates the excellence of his/
her friend. Since the friend is like another self, contemplating a friend's virtue will
help us in the practice of virtue for ourselves. A mark of good friendship is that
friends "live together," that is that friends spend a substantial amount of time
together, since a substantial time apart will likely weaken the bond of friendship.
Also, since the excellent person has been habituated to a life of excellence,his/her
character is generally firm and lasting. Likewise, the friendship of excellence is the
least changeable and most lasting form of friendship.
The friendships of pleasure and use are the most changeable forms of
friendship since the things we find pleasurable or useful tend to change over a
lifetime. For example, if a friendship forms out of a mutual love for beer, but the
interest of one of the friends later turns towards wine, the friendship would likely
dissolve. Again,if a friend is merely one of utility,then that friendship will likely
dissolve when it is no longer useful.
Since the best life is a life of virtue or excellence, and since we are closer
to excellence the 'more thoroughly we fulfill our function, the best life is the life
of theorina or contemplation.This is the most divine life,since one comes closest
to the pure activity of thought. It is the most self-sufficient life since one can
think even when one is alone.What does one contemplate or theorize about?
One contemplates one's knowledge of unchanging things. Some have criticized
Aristotle saying that this sort of life seems uninteresting, since we seem to enjoy
the pursuit of knowledge more than just having knowledge. For Aristotle,
however,the contemplation of unchanging things is an activity full of wonder.
Seeking knowledge might be good, but it is done for the sake of a greater end,
namely having knowledge and contemplating what one knows. For example,
Aristotle considered the cosmos to be eternal and unchanging. So, one might have
knowledge of astronomy, but it is the contemplation of what this knowledge is
about that is most wonderful. The Greek word theoria is rooted in a verb for seeing,
hence our word "theatre." So, in contemplation or theorizing, one comes face to
face with what one knows (Barnes, 1991).
The way Aristotle sketches the highest good for man as involving both a
practical and theoretical side, with the two sides necessary for each other, is also
in the tradition of Socrates and Plato-as opposed to pre-Socratic philosophy.
As Burger (2008) points 'out "The Ethics does not end at its apparent peak,
identifying perfect happiness with the life devoted to theõria; instead it goes on to
introduce the need for a study of legislation, on the grounds that it is not sufficient
only to know about virtue, but one should try to put that knowledge to use." At the
end of the book, according to Burger, the thoughtful reader is led to understand
that "the end we aré seeking is what we have been doing" while engaging with the
Ethics.
Aristotle also made mention of telos. A telos is derived from the Greek word
for “end”， “purpose”， or “goal." It is an end or purpose, in a fairly constrained
sense used by philosophers such as Aristotle. It is the root of the term "teleology",
roughly the study of purposiveness, or the study of objects with a view to their
aims, purposes, or intentions. Teleology figures centrally in Aristotle's biology and
in his theory of causes. It is central to nearly all philosophical theories of history,
such as those of Hegel and Marx. One running debate in modern philosophy of
biology is to what extent teleological language (as in the "purposes" of various
＇organs or life-processes) is unavoidable, or is simply a shorthand for ideas that
can ultimately be spelled out non-teleologically. Philosophy of action also makes
essential use of teleological vocabulary: on Davidson's account, an action is just
something an agent does with an intention-that is, looking forward to some end
to be achiéved by the action.
St. Thomas Aquinas on Virtue
Thomas' broad account of virtues as excellences or perfections of the varioue
human powers formally echoes Aristote,both wini regard to the nature of a virtue
and many specific virtues.
The moral philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274)involves a merger
of at least two apparently disparate traditons, Aristotelian enudaimontism and
Christian theology.On the one hand, Aquinas follows Aristotle in thinking that
anact is good or bad depending on whether it contributes to or deters us from out
proper human end-the telos or final goal at which all human actions aim.That
telos is endnimonia, or happiness,where "happines" is understood in terms of
completion,perfection, or well-being.Achieving happiness, however,requires a
range of intellectual and moral virtues that enable us to understand the nature of
happiness and motivate us to seek it in a reliable and consistent way.
On the other hand,Aquinas believes that we can never achieve complete
or final happiness in this life. For him, final happiness consists in beatitude, or
supernatural union with God. Such an end lies far beyond whaf we through our
natural human capacities can attain. For this reason, we not only need the virtues,
we also need God to transform our nature- to perfect or "deify" it-so that we
might be suited to participate in divine beatitude. Moreover, Aquinas believes that
we inherited a propensity to sin from our first parent, Adam. While our nature
is not wholly corrupted by sin, it is nevertheless diminished by sin's stain, as
evidenced by the fact that our wills are at enmity with God's. Thus we need God's
help in order to restore the good of our nature and bring us into conformity with
his will. To this end, God imbues us with his grace which comes in the form of
divinely instantiated virtues and gifts.
However, even though this beatitudo is brought about supernaturally by the
power of God, it is not utterly foreign to human nature. In effect, the supernatural
power of God elevates or expands the powers of intellect and will to a kind of
completion beyond themselves and yet not foreign to them. So this distinction of
a “two-fold happiness" should not be thought of as involving two fundamentally
distinct goals or ends of human life. The second supernatural happiness is seen as
a kind of surpassing perfection of the first (Bradley,1997).
This distinction of a two-fold happiness in human life leads to a distinction
between the natural virtues and the theological virtues.Natural virtues are virtues
that pertain to the happiness of this life that is “proportionate” to human nature.
Theological virtues pertain to the bentitudo that is not proportionate to human
nature, the supernatural good of life with God.Natural virtues are divided into
mral virtues and intellectual virtues. The intellectual virtues perfect the intellect
and confer an aptness for the good work of the intellect which is the apprehension
of truth. The moral virtues are the habits that perfect the various powers concerned
with human appetites,including rational appetite,conferring upon them an
aptness for the right use of those appetites (Hankley, 1987).
The cardinal natural virtues are Prudence,Justice,Courage,and Temperance.
Prudence is an intellectual virtue since it bears upon the goal of truth in the good
ordering of action.In addition,because there are two specific powers of the generic
sensitive appetite, the concupiscent and the irascible,there are two cardinal virtues
that pertain to them.The concupiscent appetite inclines one toward what is suitable
and away from what is harmful to human bodily life.Temperance is the cardinal
virtue that pertáins to it. The irascible appetite inclines one toward resisting those
things that attack human bodily life. Courage is the cardinal virtue that pertains
to it. Finally, Justice is a virtue of the rational appetite or will. These virtues.are
called “cardinal” both because of their specific importance, but also as general
headings under which the wide array ofparticular virtues are classed. Temperance
and Courage are ordered toward and perfect the good of the individual as such,
while Justice is ordered toward and perfects the good of others in relation to the
individual.
The theological virtues are Faith, Hope, and Love. They bear upon eternal
beatitude and are simply infused by God's gift of grace. They cannot be acquired
by human effort. However, as noted above the "second" supernatural happiness
is not foreign to the first natural happiness, but a kind of surpassing perfection of
it. So along with the infusion of the theological virtues, Thomas holds that natural
virtues are infused along with them. Thus there is a distinction between “infused
natural virtues" and “acquired natural virtues.” As infused, the natural virtues
cannot be acquired by human effort, although they may be strengthened by it.
Acquired natural virtues, on the other hand, are the corresponding virtues that
can be acquired by human effort without the gift of divine grace. While Thomas
acknowledges that these acquired natural virtues can in principle be developed by
human effort without grace, he thinks that their actual acquisition by human effort
is very difficult due to the influence of sin (De Young et.al, 2009).
In addition, the infused natural virtues spring from Charity as its effects, and
thus bear upon its object, which is the love of God and the love of neighbor in God.
A primary example for Thomas is Misericordia which is the virtue that pertains
to suffering with others and acting to alleviate their suffering. It looks like Justice
because it bears upon the good of another. And yet it is different from Justice
because it springs from the natural friendship that all human beings bear to one
another, and requires that one take upon oneself the sufferings of other human
beings. Thomas explicitly búit unconvincingly claims that Aristotle recognized it.
And yet in the Summa Theologine he says that it is an effect of Charity. In that case
there is an acquired form of it and an infused form of it. As infused, it is informed
by the love of God and the love of neighbor in God which is beatitude.
Theinfusednatural virtues differin importantrespects from thecorresponding,
acquired virtues because as infused they point ovard the supernatural end
and the mean in acquired virtue is fixed bynt nan reason while the mean in
the infused virtue is according to divine rule. Thomas gives as an example the
difference between acquired and infused Temperance. Acquired temperance is
a mean inclining a human being to eat enough food to sustain his or her health
d not harm the body.Infused temperance is a mean inclining the human being
through abstinence to castigate and subject the body.
ven one mortal or grave sin destroys both Charity and all the infused moral
itues that proceed from it,while leaving Hope and Faith as lifeless habits that
are no longer virtues. On the other hand, a single sin, whether venial or mortal,
does not destroy the acquired natural virtues.
Charity,as we've seen, is the love of God and neighbor in God. It resides in
the will.Hope is the desire for the difficult but attainable good of eternal happiness
or beatitude. It too resides in the will. Faith is intellectual assent to.revealed
supernatural truths that are not evident in themselves or through demonstration
from truths evident in themselves. So it resides in the intellect. It is divided into
believing that there is a God and other truths pertaining to that truth, believing
God, and believing “in" God. The distinction between the last two is subtle. It is
one thing to say you believe me. It is a different thing to say you believe in me. The
latter connotes the relation of your intellect to the will's desire to direct yourself to
me in love. Thus believing in God goes well beyond believing that there is a God.
It suggests the other theological virtues of Charity and Hope.
In beatitude and felicity, the fulfillment of intellect and will respectively, the
virtues of Faith and Hope fall away, and do not exist, for one now sees with the
intellect what one believed, and has attained what one hoped for with the will.
Only Charity abides.
Kant on Good Will
To act out of a “good will" for Kant means to act out of a sense of moral
obligation or “duty". In other words, the móral agent does a particular action not
because of what it produces (its consequences) in terms of human experience, but
because he or she recognizes by reasoning that it is morally the right thing to
do and thus regards him or herself as having a moral duty or obligation to do
that action.One may,of course, as an added fact get some pleasure or other gain
from doing the right thing, but to act morally, one does not do it for the sake of
its desirable consequences, but rather because one understands that it is morally
the right thing to do. In this respect Kant's view towards morality parallels the
Christian's view concerning obedience to God's commandments,according to
which the Christian obeys God's commandments simply because God commands
them, not for the sake of rewards in heaven after death or from fear of punishment
in hell. In a similar way, for Kant the rational being does what is morally right
because he recognizes himself as having a moral duty to do so rather than for
anything he or she may get out of it.
Kant's analysis of common sense ideas begins with the thought that the only
thing good without qualification isa "good will". The idea of a good will is closer
to the idea of a "good person", or, more archaically, a "person of good will". This
use of the term “will" early on in analyzing ordinary moral thought prefigures
later and more technical discussions concerning the natuire of rational agency.
Nevertheless, this idea of a good will is an important common sense touchstone
to which Kant returns throughout his works. The basic idea, as Kant describes it
in the Groundwork, is that what makes a good person good is his possession ofa
will that is in a certain way “determined" by, or makes its decisions on the basis
of, the moral law. The idea of a good will is supposed to be the idea of one who is
committed only to make decisions that she holds to be morally worthy and who
takes moral considerations in themselves to be conclusive reasons for guiding her
behavior. This sort of disposition or character is something we all highly value,
Kant thought. He believes we value it without limitation or qualification. By this,
we believe, he means primarily two things.
In Kant's terms, a good will is a will whose decisions are wholly determined
by moral demands or, as he often refers to this, by the Moral Law. Human beings
inevitably feel this Law as a constraint on their natural desires, which is why such
Laws, as applied to human beings, are imperatives and duties. A human will in
which the Moral Law is decisive is motivated by the thought of duty.
Kant's pointed out that to be universally and absolutely good, something
must be good in every instance of its occurrence. He argues that all those things
which people call"good" including intelligence, wit,judgment, courage, resolution,
perseverance, power, riches, honor, health, and even happiness itself can become
＂extremely bad and mischievous if the will which is to make use of them..is not
good." In other words, if we imagine a bad person example, one who willed or
wanted to do evil, who had all of these so-called "goods" intelligence, wit, etc.
these very traits would make only that much worse his will to do what is wrong.
Kant on Rights
Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) examined the idea of human rights within
politics in such a way that it “is only a legitimate government that guarantees
our natural right to freedom, and from this freedom we derive other rights".
From this basis it can be assumed that Kant looks at the development, creation
and implementation of rights as primarily dependent on the state and how the
myent Within the state functions, Furthermore, Kant stresses that a society
nly fanction politicaly in reati Fuheote k endamental rights,ae
and enollements are given and enhaneea the Sale ife. as kant teahes,hee
＂righteous laws" are founded upon three rational principles:
1. The liberty of every member of the society as a man
2.The equality of every member of the society with every other, as a subject
3. The independence of every member of the commonwealth as a citizen.
An interesting aspect of these principles is that they are not given by the state
but are fundamental in the creation and acceptance of a state by the people of the
state.In this sense Kant believes that these principles are necessary above all,not
only for the founding of "righteous laws",but for the state to function in the first
place.This is so because without the acceptance of the people a state would not
exist therefore rights are necessary within states to keep the support of the people
of the state.
The book Metaphysics of Morals has two distinct parts: the "Doctrine of
eght" and the"Doctrine of Virtue".Kant sought to separate political rights and
duties from what we might call morals in the narrow sense. He limits right by
stating three conditions that have to be met for something to be enforceable as
right (Byrd,2010):
1. Right concerns only actions that have influence on other persons, directly or
indirectly, meaning duties to the self are excluded;
2. Right does not concern the wish but only the choice of others, meaning that
not mere desires but only decisions which bring about actions are at stake;
and
3. Rightdoes not concern the matter of the other's act but only the form, meaning
no particular desires or ends are assumed on the part of the agents. As an
example of the latter he considers trade, which for right must have the form
of being freely agreed by both parties but can have any matter or purpose the
agents want.
These criteria appear to be less rigid than Kant ultimately intends, for the term
“influence” is vague enough that it might include far-reaching minor effects. They
would also include under rightactions even thoseimperfect duties that “influence”
others by improving their lot, such as beneficent (humanitarian) acts of charity.
While Kant must include consideration of beneficent action as part of right, he
does not conclude that beneficent actions are required by right but only that most
are permitted by right and others violate right: His focus on free individual choice
entails that any beneficent action that interferes with or usurps the recipient's
free choice is wrong,for example, improving the recipient's property without
permission as opposed to merely donating money to a fund made available to the
recipient at the recipient's discretion (Follesdal et.al,2014).
In addition to these three conditions for right,Kant also offers direct contrasts
between right and virtue. He thinks both relate to freedom but in different ways:
right concerns outer freedom and virtue concerns inner freedom being master oi
one's own passions. Right concerns act themselves independent of the motive
an agent may have for performing them, virtue concerns the proper motive for
dutiful actions. In another formulation he says that right concerns universality as
a formal condition of freedom while virtue concerns a necessary end beyond the
mere formality of universalitý, thus appearing to tie the distinction to the first two
formulas of the categorical imperative in the Groundwork.In yet another he says
that right concerns narrow duties and virtue wide duties.
In the Feyerabend lectures, Kant notes that right is the subset of morally
correct actions that are also coercible. These various alternative formulations
of the distinction would exclude imperfect duties not because imperfect duties
do not “influence” others but, because, as imperfect, they cannot be coerced in
particular instances, since imperfect duties always allow for the moderating role
of an individual's inclinations. While these various formulations of the distinction
appear to be quite different, they can in general be summarized bysaying thatright
concerns outer action corresponding to perfect duty that affects others regardless
of the individual's internal motivations or goals (Ellis, 2012).
Cosmopolitan Rights.Relations among the states of the world, covered
above, are not the same as relations among the peoples (nations, Volk) of the
world.Individuals can relate to states of which they are not members and to other
individuals who are members of other states. In this they are considered "citizens
of a universal state of human beings" with corresponding “rights of citizens of
the world."Despite these lofty sounding pronouncements, Kant's particular
discussion of cosmopolitan right is restricted to the right of hospitality. Since all
peoples share a limited amount of living space due to the spherical shape of the
earth, the totality of which they must be understood to have originally shared in
common, they must be understood to have a right to possible interaction with
one another. This cosmopolitan right is limited to a right to offer to engage in
commerce, not a right to actual commerce itself, which must always be voluntary
trade. A citizen of one state may try to establish links with other peoples; no state
is allowed to deny foreign citizens a right to travel in its land (Flikschuh, 2014).
Cosmopolitan rightis an important component of perpetual peace. Interaction
among the peoples of the world, Kant notes, has increased in recent times. Now
＂a violation of right on one place of the earth is felt in all" as peoples depend upon
one another and know about one another more and more (8:360). Violations of
cosmopolitan right would make more difficult the trust and cooperation necessary
for perpetual peace among states (Hoffe, 2006). Rights
A right is described as,an entitlement or justified claim to a certain kind
of positive and negative treatment from others,lo support from others or no
interference from others.In other words, a riehte suomething to which every
individual in the Conmunity is morally permiled,and for which that community
isentitled to disrespect or compulsorily remove anything that stands in the
way of even a single individual getting it. Rights belong to individuals, and ne
organization has any rights not directly derived from those of its members afi
individuals; and,just as an individual's rights cannot extend to where they will
intrude on another individual's rights, similarly the rights of any organization
whatever must yield to those f a single individual,whether inside or outside the
organization. Rights are those important conditions of social life without which
no person can generally realize his best self.These are the essential conditions for
health of both the individual and his society.It is only when people get and enjoy
rights that they can develop their personalities and contribute their best services
to the society.
Nature of Rights
Laski's (1935) concepts on the nature of rights are enumerated as follows:
1. Rights are the basic social conditions offered to the individual who is an
indispensable member of the society;
2. Rights enable man to fully enhance his personality; to achieve his best self, in
the words of Laski they are 'those social conditions without which no man can
seek to be his best self';
3. Rights are inherently social because they are never against social welfare; the
rights did notexist before the emergence ofsociety; theyare those fundamental
necessities that which are very much social;
4. The state plays the role of recognizing and protecting the rights by providing
for the full maintenance and observance of the rights;
5. Rights are never absolute, the nature and extent for the fulfillment of the
rights are relative; as long men endeavor for the upliftment and betterment
of the conditions of life, rights continue to serve as means for the satisfaction
and gratification of individual's needs; so there can be no rights which are
absolute in nature because absolute rights are a contradiction in terms;
6. Rights are dynamic in nature because the essence and contents of rights vary
according to change in place, time and conditions.
Kinds of Rights
Hereunder are the different kinds of rights, namely:.
1.Natural rights-Many researchers have faith in natural rights.They stated tha
people inherit several rights from nature. Before they came to live in societ
and state, they used to live in a state of nature.In it, they appreciated certain
natural rights,like theright to life,right to liberty and right to property.Natural
rights are parts of human nature and reason.Political theory mainains thatan
individual enters into society with certain basic rights and that no government
can deny these rights.
John Locke (1632-1704), the most influential political philosophers of
the modern period, argued that people have rights, such as the right to life,
liberty, and property that have a foundation independent of the laws of any
particular society. Locke claimed that men are naturally free and equal as part
of the justification for understanding legitimate political government as the
result of a social .contract where people in the state of nature conditionally
transfer some of their rights to the government in order to better ensure
the stable, comfortable enjoyment of their lives, liberty, and property. Since
governments exist by the consent of the people in order to protect the rights
of the people and promote the public good, governments that fail to do so can
be resisted and replaced with new governments.
2. Moral rights - Moral rights are based on human consciousness. They are
supported by moral force of human mind. These are based on human sense
of goodness and justice. These are not assisted by the force of law. Sense of
goodness and public opinion are the sanctions behind moral rights.
Ifanyperson disrupts anymoral right, nolegal action can be taken against
him. The state does not enforce these rights. Its courts do not recognize these
rights. Moral rights include rules of good conduct, courtesy and of moral
behavior. These stand for moral perfection of the people.
3. Legal rights- Legal rights are those rights which are accepted and enforced by
the state. Any defilement of any legal right is punished by law. Law courts of
the state enforce legal rights. These rights can be enforced against individuals
and also against the government. In this way, legal rights are different from
moral rights. Legal rights are equally available to all the citizens. All citizens
follow legal rights without any discrimination. They can go to the courts for
getting their legal rights enforced. Distinction between Moral Rights and Legal Rights
Moral Rights are importantly distinct from Legal Rights:
Moral Rights
legal Rights
Natural:Moral rights are discovered,not
Creted: Our legal rights are created by
created.(This is a form of Moral Realism)
legislation.
Equal:Moral rights are equal rights; there is no
Can be unequal:There are many situations in
injustice in how they are distributed.
which the distribution of legal rights is unjust.
Inalienable:Moral rights cannot be taken away
Alienable:Your legal rights can be taken from
from you without consent (although you can
you against your will.
voluntarily surrender them).
Universal: Your moral rights are the same no
Local: Your legal rights change when you
matter where you are.
move from one jurisdiction to another.
LESSON 2
The Categorical Imperatives and Utilitarianism
Introduction
Categorical imperative, in the ethics of the 18th-century German philosopher
Immanuel Kant, founder of critical philosophy, a moral law that is unconditional.
or absolute for all agents, the validity or claim of which does not depend on any
ulterior motive or end. “Thou shalt notsteal," for'example, is categorical as distinct
from the hypothetical imperatives associated with desire,such as "Do not steal if
you wait to be popular." For Kant there was only one such categorical imperative,
which he formulated in various ways. "Act only according to that maxim by
wliich you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law" is a
purely formal or logical statement and expresses the condition of the rationality
of conduct rather than that of its morality, which is expressed in another Kantian
formula: "So act as to treat humanity, whether in your own person or in another,.
always as an end, and never as only a means."
Categorical Imperative
The Categorical Imperative was devised by Immanuel Kant to provide a set
of requirements a maxim (or motivation) must pass in order for the action to be
considered a moral obligation. When a Categorical Imperative is established it
becomes one's moral duty to carry out the action under any circumstances. When
carrying out this action, the individual's primary motive should always be duty
according to Kant; this is because we can decipher what our duty is by using
our reason. Human's ability to reason is what deciphers us from animals and so,
logically, must be part of being a moral agent. Reason is objective and universal for
humanity and so is a reliable and reasonable basis for a moral theory.
Kant characterized the Categorical Imperative as an objective, rationally
necessary and unconditional principle that'we must always follow despite any
natural desires or inclinations we may have to the contrary. All specific moral
requirements,according to Kant, are justified by this principle, which means that
all immoral actions are irrational because they violate the Categorical Imperative.
Kant argued that conformity to the CI (a non-instrumental principle), and
hence to moral requirements themselves,can nevertheless be shown to be essential
to rational agency. This argument was based on his striking doctrine that a rational
will must be regarded as autonomous, or free, in the sense of being the author of
the law that binds it. The fundamental principle of morality - the CI - is none
other than the law of an autonomous will (Patton, 1947).
The Categorical Imperative is determined by referring to three (3)
formulations namely:
1. Formula of the Law of Nature insists that we should act 'only according to
that maxim' which could be universalized. This means that we must be able
to universalize a principle without contradiction. If this is not possible, we
can logically assume that the act is immoral as it is counter to reason. If a rule
is not universalizable then others will not be free to act from the same moral
principles, and Kant strongly believed that autonomy and freedom were
essential to being a moral agent.
2. The Formula of End in Itself ensures that you never treat others or oneself
＇merely as a means but always as an end'. To use someone merely as a means
to some other end is to exploit their rationality, and we should value everyone
as rational beings.
3. Formula of a Kingdom of Ends asks for us to 'act as if a legislating member
in the universal Kingdom of Ends'. The Kingdom of Ends is a world in which
everyone acts from categorical imperatives, and although we may not live in
this world, we must act as if we are. According to this formula we must act
on the assumption that everyone'will follow the rules you make through your
actions. If the intended action passes each of the formulations it is a categorical
imperative and thus is not only right, but a moral obligation.
Kant holds that the fundamental principle of our moral duties is a categorical
imperative. It is an imperative because it is a command addressed to agents
who could follow it but might not. It is categorical in virtue of applying to us
unconditionally, or.simply because we possess rational wills, without reference
to any ends that we might or might not have. It does not, in other words, apply to
us on the condition that we have antecedently adopted some goal for ourselves.
Kant describes the will as operating on the basis of subjective volitional
principles he calls “maxims". Hence, morality and other rational requirements are,
for the most part, demands that apply to the maxims that we act on.
Utilitarianism
Though te first systematic account of utilitarianism was developed by
Jeremy Bentham, the core insight motivating the theory occurred much earlier.
That insight is that morally appropriate behavior will not harm others,butinstead
increase happiness or 'utility' What is distinctive about utilitarianism is its
approach in taking that insight and developing anaccount of oralevaand
moral direction that expands on it. Early precursors to the Classical Utilitarians
include the British Moralists,Cumberland,Shaftesbury,Hutcheson,Gay,and
Hume.Of these, Francis Hutcheson (1694-1746) is explicitly utilitarian when it
comes to action choice (Scarre, 1996).
Some of the earliest utilitarian thinkers were the 'theological' utilitarians such
as Richard Cumberland (1631-1718)and John Gay(1699-1745).They believed that
promoting human happiness was incumbent on us since it was approved by God.
Gay (1731) held that since God wants the happiness of mankind, and since
God's will gives us the criterion of virtue, “。 . the happiness of mankind may be
said to be the criterion of virtue, but once removed". This view, was combined
with a view of human motivation with egoistic elements. A person's individual
salvation, her eternal happiness, depended on conformity to God's will, as did
virtue itself. Promoting human happiness and one's own coincided, but, given
God's design, it was not an accidental coincidence.
Gay's influence on later writers, such as Hume, deserves note. It is in Gay's
essay that some of the questions that concerned Hume on the nature of virtue
are addressed. For example, Gay was curious about how to explain our practice.
of approbation and disapprobation of action and character. When we see an act
that is vicious we disapprove of it. Further, we associate certain things with their
effects, so that we form positive associations and negative associations that also
underwrite our moral judgments.
Anthony Ashley Cooper, the 3rd Earl of Shaftesbury (1671-1713) is generally
thought to have been the one of the earliest 'moral sense' theorists, holding that
we possess a kind of “inner eye” that allows us to make moral discriminations.
This seems to have been an innate sense of right and wrong, or moral beauty and .
deformity.
Like Shaftesbury, Francis Hutcheson was very much interested in virtue
evaluation.He also adopted the moral sense approach. However, in his writings
we also see an emphasis on action choice and the importance of moral deliberation
to action choice. Hutcheson, in "An Inquiry Concerning Moral Good and Evil",
fairly explicitly spelled out a utilitarian principle of action choice. (Hruschka,
1991)notes,however,that it was Leibniz who first spelled out a utilitarian decision
procedure.
The Classical Utilitarians, Bentham and Mill,were concerned with legal and
social reform.If anything could be identified as the fundamental motivation behind
the development of Classical Utilitarianism it would be the desire to see useless,
corrupt laws and social practices changed.Accomplishing this goal required a
normative ethical theory employed as a critical tool. What is the truth about what
makes an action or a policy a morally good one, or morally right? But developing
the theory itself was also influenced by strong views about what was wrong in
their society.The conviction that,for example,some laws are bad resulted in
analysis of why they were bad. And,for Jeremy Bentham,what made them bad
was their lack of utility, their tendency to lead to unhappiness and misery without
any compensating happiness. Ifa law or an action doesn't do any good, thenitisn't
any good.
Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) was influenced both by Hobbes' account
of human nature and Hume's account of social utility. He famously held that
humans were ruled by two sovereign masters -pleasure and pain. Bentham also
promulgated the principle of utility as the standard of right action on the part
of governments and individuals. Actions are approved when they are such as to
promote happiness, or pleasure, and disapproved of when they have a tendency
to cause unhappiness, or pain.
Bentham viewed liberty and autonomy as good - but good instrumentally,
。 not intrinsically. Thus, any action deemed wrong due to a violation of autonomy
is derivatively wrong on instrumental grounds as well.
On Bentham's view the law is not monolithic and immutable. Since effects of
a given policy may change, the moral quality of the policy may change as well.A
law that is good at one point in time may be a bad law at some other point in time.
Thus, lawmakers have to be sensitive to changing social circumstances. To be fair
to Bentham's critics, of course, they are free to agree with him that this is the case
in many situations, just not all - and that there is still a subset of laws that reflect
the fact that some actions just are intrinsically wrong regardless of consequences.
Bentham is in the much more difficult position of arguing that effects are all there
are to moral evaluation of action and policy.
John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) was a follower of Bentham, and, through most
of his life, greatly admired Bentham's work even though he disagreed with some
of Bentham's claims, particularly on the nature of 'happiness. To this end, Mills
hedonism was influenced by perfectionist intuitions. There are some pleasures
that are more fitting than others. Intellectual pleasures are of a higher, better, sort
than the ones that are merely sensual, and that we share with animals.
Like Bentham, the good still consists in pleasure, it is still a psychological
state. There is certainly that similarity. Further, the basic structures of the theories
are the same (Donner, 1991). While it is true that Mill is more comfortable with
notions like 'rights', this does not mean that he, in actuality, rejected utilitarianism.
The rationale for all the rights he recognizes is utilitarian.
Mill's yersion of utilitarianism differed from Bentham's also in that he placed
weight on the effectiveness of internal sanctions-emotions like guilt and remorse
which serve to regulate our actions. According to Mill, we are the sorts of beings
that have social feelings,feelings for others, not just ourselves. We care about
hen, and when we perceive harms to them this causes painful experiences in ufs
hen one perceives oneself to be the agent of that harm,the negative emotions
are centered on the self. One feels guilt for what one has done,not for what one
sees another doing: Like external forms of punishment, internal sanctions are
instrumentally very important to appropriate action.
Mill also held that natural features of human psychology, such as conscience
and a sense of justice, underwrite motivation. The sense of justice, for example,
results from very,natural impulses. Part of this sense involves a desire to punish
those who have harmed others, and this desire in turn “。。 .is a spontaneous
outgrowth from two sentiments, both in the highest'degree natural..; the impulse
of self-defense, and the feeling of sympathy."
Like Bentham, Mill sought to use utilitarianism to inform law anid social
policy. The aim of increasing happiness underlies his arguments for women's
suffrage and free speech. We can be said to have certain rights,then -but those
rights are underwritten by utility. If one can show that a purported right or duty
is harmful, then one has shown thatit is not genuine.
In Utilitarianism, Mill argues that virtue not only has instrumental value, but
is constitutive of the good life. A person without virtue is morally lacking, and is
not as able to promote the good.
Utilitarian Philosophy
Utilitarianism is a philosophical view or theory about how we should
evaluate a wide range of things that involve choices that people face. Among the
things that can be evaluated are actions, laws, policies, character traits, and moral
codes. Utilitarianism is a form of consequentialism because it rests on the idea
that it is the consequences or results of actions, laws, policies, etc. that determine
whether they are good or bad, right or wrong. In general, whatever is being
evaluated, we ought to choose the one that will produce the best overall results. In
the language of utilitarians,we should choose the option that "maximizes utility,".
i.e. that action or policy that produces the largest amount of good.
Utilitarianism is generally held to be the view that the morally right action
is the action that produces the best. There are many ways to spell out this general
claim. One thing to note is that the theory is a form of consequentialism:the right
action is understood entirely in terms of consequences produced.
Utilitarianism is the idea that the moral worth of an action is solely
determined by its contribution to overall utility in maximizing happiness or
pleasure as summed among all people. It is, then, the total utility of individuals
which is important here,the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people.
163
Utility, after which the doctrine is named, is a measure in economics of the relative
satisfaction from, or desirability of the consumption of goods. Utilitarianism can
thus be described as a quantitative and reductionistic approach to Ethics.
Utilitarianism starts from the basis that pleasure and happiness are
intrinsically valuable, that pain and suffering are intrinsically disvaluable, and
that anything else has value only in its causing happiness or preventing suffering
or as means to an end. This focus on happiness or pleasure as the ultimate end
of moral decisions, makes it a type of Hedonism (and it is sometimes knowi as
Hedonistic Utilitarianism).
Utilitarians support equality by the equal consideration of interests, and they
reject any arbitrary distinctions as to who is worthy of concern and who is not,
and any discrimination between individuals. However, it.does accept the idea
of declining marginal utility, which recognizes that the same thing furthers the
interests of a well-off individual to a lesser degree than it would the interests of a
less well-off individual.
Utilitarians believe that the purpose of morality is to make life better by
increasing the amount of good things (such as pleasure and happiness) in the
world and decreasing the amount of bad things (such as pain and unhappiness).
They reject moral codes or systems that consist of commands or taboos that are
based on customs, traditions, or orders given by leaders or supernatural beings.
Instead, utilitarians think that what makes a morality be true or justifiable is its
positive contribution to human (and perhaps non-human) beings.
Since the early 20th century utilitarianism has undergone a variety of
refinements. After the middle of the 20th century it has become more common to
identify as a 'Consequentialist' since very few phílosophers agree entirely with
the view proposed by the Classical Utilitarians, particularly with respect to the
hedonistic value theory. But the influence of the Classical Utilitarians has been
profound - not only within moral philosophy, but within political philosophy
and social policy. The question Bentham asked, "What use is it?," is a cornerstone
of policy formation. It is a completely secular, forward-looking question. The
articulation and systematic development of this approach to policy formation is
owed to the Classical Utilitarians.
FRAMEWORK AND PRINCIPLES
BEHIND MORAL DISPOSITION
Introduction:
OW
hatever can be demanded on the ground of Law is a Civil Obligation
but, in so far as moral grounds are to be observed, it is a Duty. The
word 'duty' is frequently used of legal relationships. Legal Duties are defined
as perfect and Moral Duties as imperfect because the former must be done, and
have an external necessity, while the latter depend on a subjective will. But one
might, with good reason, invert this classification in as much as the Legal Duty
as such demands only an external necessity, in which the disposition is not taken
into account, or in which we may even have a bad motive. On the contrary, for a
Moral Duty both are demanded, the right deed as regards its content and, likewise
according to form, the subjective side, the Good Intention.
Law, in general, leaves the disposition out of consideration. Morality, on the
other hand, is concerned essentially with the intention and demands that the deed
should be done out of simple regard for Duty. So too the legally right conduct is
moral in so far as its moving principle is the regard for the right.
16
With legally right conduct the moral aspect should also be essentially
connected. It may, however, be the case that with legally right action there is o
sentiment of Law present; nay, more, that an immoral intent may accompany it.
The legally right act, in so far as it is done out of regard for the Law,is,at the same
time,also moral. The legally right action,associated at the same time with a moral
disposition, is to be carried out unconditionally before there can be room for the
moral action in which there is no legal command, that is, legal obligation. Men are
very ready to act from a merely moral ground, for example, to give away with an
air of generosity rather than pay their honest debts; for in a generous action they
congratulate themselves on account of a special perfection, while, on the contrary,
in the performance of just action they would only perform the completely universal
act which makes them equal with all.
Objective:
At the end of the chapter, the students will be able to:
1. Differentiate justice from fairness;
2. Critique justice and fairness;
3. Make use of justice and fairness; and
4. Understand the ethical principles of taxation.
LESSON 1
Righteousness and Equality
Introduction
Taken in its broader sense, justice is action in accordance with the
requirements of some law (Vice, 1997). Some maintain that justice stems from
God's will or command, while others believe that justice is inherent in nature
itself. Still others believe that justice consists of rules common to all humanity
that emerge out of some sort of consensus. This sort of justice is often thought of
as something higher than a society's legal system. It is in those cases where an
action seems to violate some universal rule of conduct that we are likely to call it
“unjust."
Justice and Fairness
The definitions of"fairnes" and "justice” are very similar but are notidentical
－something like fraternal (non-identical)twins.
Justice is often about overriding principles and fairness is more commonly
about how those principles are applied to a specific set of circumstances or a
particular situation. Just as philosophy is about overriding principles and ethics is
about how those principles are applied.
When it comes to how we expect to be treated and how others expect us
to treat them, there is broad agreement that. "fairness" should be the standard
for addressing those situations. The fairness question is often raised when people
differ over how they believe a situation should be addressed or resolved, or when
decisions are being made regarding the distribution of benefits and burdens.
In an organizational context, fairness usually comes down to applying the
same rules, standards and criteria in similar situations. The purpose is to reduce
the role of bias in one's decision making, thus, leveling the playing field.
Fairness is concerned with actions, processes, and consequences, that are
morallyright, honorable, and equitable. Inessence, the virtue of fairness establishes
moral standards for decisions that affect others. Fair decisions are made in an
appropriate manner based on appropriate criteria.
We tend to think and speak in terms of fairness when we are dealing with
the behavior of individuals and everyday interpersonal relationships. We talk
about justice and equity in the context of broader social issues and institutional
obligations to individuals. Yet all three words apply to virtually any situation
where we want to judge whether an action contributes tó a good, rational, caring
society.
Fairness and fair play are less lofty terms than justice or equity. yet, on the
＇level on which most of us operate, the desire to be treated fairly and the duty to be
fair and play fair are far more relevant.
The moral obligations arising from the core ethical value of fairness are almost
always associated with the exercise of power to render judgments that bestow
benefits or impose burdens. Almost everyone has the power to give or withhold
benefits (including approval, praise, honor, and support) and to impose burdens
（including disapproval, criticism, blame, and condemnation). Parents,teachers,
employers,college administrators, building inspectors, and innumerable others
make daily judgments that significantly affect our lives.
The moral duty to be fair places constraints on our judgments and actions.
There are two aspects of fairness: fair results (substantive fairness) and fair
procedures (procedural fairness).
Principles of Fairness
Fairness requires that we:
1.Treat all people equitably based on their merits and abilities and handle an
essentially similar situations similarly and with consistency.
2. Make all decisions on appropriate criteria, without undue favoritism or
improper prejudice.
3. Never blame or punish people for what they did not do, and appropriately
sanction those who violate moral obligations or laws.
4.Promptly and voluntarily correct personal and institutional mistakes and
improprieties.
5. Not take unfair advantage of people's mistakes or ignorance.
6. Fully consider the rights, interests, and perspectives of all stakeholders,
approach judgments with open-minded impartiality (setting aside prejudices
and predispositions), conscientiously gather and verify facts, provide critical
stakeholders with an opportunity to explain or clarify, and carefully evaluate
the information.
Justice means giving each person what he or she deserves or, in more
traditional terms, giving each person his or her due. Justice and fairness are closely
related terms that are often today used interchangeably. There have, however,
also been more distinct understandings of the two terms. While justice usually has
been used with reference to a standard of rightness, fairness often has been used
with regard to an ability to judge without reference to one's feelings or interests;
fairness has also been used to refer to the ability to make judgments that are not
overly general but that are concrete and specific to a particular case. In any case, a
notion of desert is crucial to both justice and fairness.
In its narrower sense, justice is fairness. It is action that pays due regard to
the proper interests, property, and safety of one's fellows (Rescher, 1982). While.
justice in the broader sense is often thought of as transcendental, justice as fairness
is more context-bound. Parties concerned with fairness typically strive to work out
something comfortable and adopt procedures that resemble rules of a game. They
work to ensure that people receive their "fair share" of benefits and burdens and.
adhere to a system of "fair play."
People often frame justice issues in terms of fairness and invoke principles
of justice and fairness to explain their satisfaction or dissatisfaction with the
organizations they are part of, as well as their state or government (Tyler et. al,
1995). They want institutions to treat them fairly and to operate according to fair
rules. What constitutes fair treatment and fair rules is often expressed by a variety
ofjustice principles.
But sa ying that justice is giving each person what he or she deserves does not
take us very far,How do we determine vhafpeople deserve? What criteria and
what principles should we use to determine wPat is due to this or that person?
Principles of Justice
The most fundamental principle of justice, one that has been widely accepted
since it was first defined by Aristotle more than two thousand years ago is the
principle that "equals should be treated equally and unequal unequally." In its
contemporary form, this principle is sometimes expressed as follows:"Individuals
should be treated the same, unless they differ in ways that are relevant to the
situation in which they are involved." For example,if Pedro and Juan both do the
same work, and there are no relevant differences between them or the work they
aredoing, then in justice they should be paid the same wages.And if Jack is paid
more than Jill simply because he is a man, or because he is white, then we have
an injustice-a form of discrimination-because race and sex are not relevant to
normal work situations.
The principles of justice and fairness can be thought of as rules of "fair play"
for issues of social justice. Whether they turn out to be grounded in universal laws
or ones that are more context-bound, these principles determine the way in which
the various types of justice are carried out. For example, principles of distributive
justice determine what counts as a “fair share" of particular good, while principles
of retributive or restorative justice shape our response to activity that violates a
śociety's rules of “fair play." Social justice requires both that the rules be fair, and
also that people play by the rules.
Rawls identified two principles of justice, namely (Wolff, 1977):
1. Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive total system of
equal basic liberties compatible with a similar system of liberty for all. This
principle is mainly concerned with distribution of rights and liberties, the
basic liberties of citizens are the political liberty to vote and run for office,
freedom of speech and assembly, liberty of conscience, freedom of personal
property and freedom from arbitrary arrest. However, it is a matter of some
debate whether freedom of contract can be inferred to be included among
these basic liberties..
2. Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both: (a)
to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged, consistent with the just savings
principle, and (b) attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions
of fair equality of opportunity.
These principles are lexically ordered,and Rawls emphasizes the priority of
liberty. The first principle is often called the greatest equal liberty principle. The
second,until (a),the difference principle and the final addendum in (b) the equal
opportunity principle.
On the other hand, there are also criteria that we believe are not justifiable
grounds for giving people different treatment. In the world of work, for example,
we generally hold that it is unjust to give individuals special treatment on the
basis of age,sex,race,or their religious preferences.If the judge's nephew receives
a suspended sentence for armed robbery when another offender unrelated to the
judge goes to jail for the same crime, or the brother of the Director of Public Works
gets the million-peso contract to install a new building adjacent to the municipal
hall despite lower bids from other contractors, we say that it's unfair. We also
believe it isn't fair when a person is punished for something over which he or she
had no control, or isn't compensated for a harm he or she suffered.And the people
involved in the "brown lung hearings" felt that it wasn't fair that some diseases
were provided with disability compensation, while other similar diseases weren't.
Different Kinds of Justice
There are different kinds of justice, namely:
1. Distributive justice refers to the extent to which society's institutions ensure
that benefits and burdens are distributed among society's members in ways
that are fair and just. When the institutions of a society distribute benefits or.
burdens in unjust ways, there is a strong presumption that those institutions
should be changed. For example, the American institution of slavery in the
pre-civil war South was condemned as unjust because it was a glaring case of
treating people differently on the basis of race.
2. Retributive or corrective justice. Retributive justice refers to the extent to.
which punishments are fair and just. In general, punishments are held to
be just to the extent that they take into account relevant criteria such as the
seriousness of the crime and the intent of the criminal, and discount irrelevant
criteria such as race. It would be barbarously unjust, for example, to chop offa
person's hand for stealing a dime, or to impose the death penalty on a person
who by accident and without negligence injured another party. Studies have
frequently shown that when blacks murder whites, they are much more likely
to receive death sentences than when whites murder whites or blacks murder
blacks. These studies suggest that injustice still exists in the criminal justice
system in the United States.
3.Compensatory justice.Compensatory justice refers to the extent to which
people are fairly compensated for their injuries by those who have injured
them;just compensation is proportional to the loss inflicted on a person.This
174.
is precisely the kind of justice that was at stake in the brown lung hearings.
Those who testified at the hearings claimed that the owners of the cotton
mills where workers had been injured should compensate the workers whose
health had been ruined by conditions at the mills.
The foundations of justice can be traced to the notions of social stability,
interdependence, and equal dignity. As the ethicist John Rawls has pointed out,
the stability of a society-or any group, for that matter- depends upon the extent
to which the members of that society feel that they are being treated justly. When
some of society's members come to feel that they are subject to unequal treatment,
the foundations have been laid for social unrest, disturbances, and strife.The
members of a community, Rawls holds, depend on each other, and they will retain
their social unity only to the extent that their institutions are just. Moreover, as the
philosopher Immanuel Kant and others have pointed out, human beings are all
equal in this respect: they all have the same dignity, and in virtue of thís dignity
they deserve to be treated as equals. Whenever individuals are treated unequally
on the basis of characteristics that are arbitrary and irrelevant, their fundamental
human dignity is violated.
Justice, then, is a central part of ethics and should be given due consideration
in our moral lives. In evaluating any moral decision, we must ask whether our
actions treat all persons equally. If not, we must determine whether the difference
in treatment is justified: are the criteria we are using relevant to the situation at
hand? But justice is not the only principle to consider in making ethical decisions.
Sometimes principles of justice may need to be overridden in favor of other
kinds of moral claims such as rights or society's welfare.Nevertheless,justice
is an expression of our mutual recognition of each other's basic dignity, and an
acknowledgement that if we are to live together in an interdependent community
we must treat each other as equals.
LESSON 2
Political Doctrines
Introduction
In theory,"equal justice under law" is difficult to oppose. In practice,
however,it begins to unravel at several key points,beginning with what we mean
by "justice."In conventional usage,the concept seems largely procedural."Equal
justice" is usually taken to mean "equal access to justice," which in turn is taken to
mean access to law.But as is frequently noted,a purely procedural understanding
by no means captures our aspirations. Those who receive their "day in court"
do not always feel that "justice has been'done," and with reason. Money often
matters more than merits, in all the ways that Marc Galanter described in his
classic article on "why the haves come out ahead"(Galanter, 1974).Substantive
rights and procedural obstacles can be skewed, and even those who win in court
can lose in life, given post-judgment power relations. These difficulties are seldom
acknowledged in bar discussions of access to justice, which assume that more is
better, and that the trick is how to achieve it.
Egalitarian Justice
Egalitarianism is a trend of thought in political philosophy. An egalitarian
favors equality of some sort: People should get the same, or be treated the same,
or be treated as equals, in some respect. An alternative view expands on this last-
mentioned option: People should be treated as equals, should treat one another as
equals, should relate as equals, or enjoy an equality of social status of some sort.
Egalitarian doctrines tend to rest on a background idea that all human persons.
are equal in fundamental worth or moral status. So far as the Western European
and Anglo-American philosophical tradition is concerned, one significant source
of this thought is the Christian notion that God loves all human souls equally.
Egalitarianism is a protean doctrine, because there are several different types of
equality, or ways in which people might be treated the same, or might relate as
equals, that might be thought desirable. In modern democratic societies, the term
＂egalitarian" is often used to refer to a position that favors, for any of a wide array
of reasons,'a greater degree of equality of income and wealth across persons than
currently exists.
As a view within political philosophy, egalitarianism has to do both with
how people are treated and with distributive justice.Civil rights movements reject
certain types of social and political discrimination and demand that people be
181
treated equally.Distributive justice is another form of egalitarianism that addresses
life outcomes and the allocation of valuable things such as income,wealth, and
other goods.
To judge two things equal, we must also specify the relevant qualities they
have in common. Therefore,egalitarianism is the belief that all humans share an
essence or quality that makes them equal. Although all egalitarians believe in
equality,they often differ in their understanding of the qualities all humans share.
Every form of egalitarianism is cosmopolitan and inclusive. Those who
see only the members of their own group as equal are not egalitarian. Because
egalitarianism is always based on a theory of universal human commonality and
because such universal human qualities are difficult to define, their essence is often
unspecified by egalitarian thinkers. Nonetheless, anyone who believes all humans
are equal must also believe all humans have some kind of essence or quality in
common, because without commonality there can be no equality.
The term is derived from the French word "égal", meaning "equal" or.
＂level", and was first used in English in the 1880s, although the equivalent term
＂equalitarian" dates from the late 18th century.
Types of Egalitarianism
1. Economic Egalitarianism.(or Material Egalitarianism) is. where the
participants of a society are of equal standing and have equal access to all the
economic resources in terms of economic power,wealth and contribution.Itis
a founding principle of various forms of socialism.
2. Moral Egalitarianism is the position that equality is central to justice, thatall
individuals are entitled to equal respect, and that all human persons are equal
in fundamental worth or moral status.
3.Legal Egalitarianism is the principle under which each individual is subject
to the same laws, with no individual or group or class having special legal
privileges, and where the testimony of all persons is counted with the same
weight.
4.Political Egalitarianism is where the members of a society are of equal
standing in terms of political power or influence. It is a founding principle of
most forms of democracy.
5. Luck Egalitarianism is a view about distributive justice (what is just or right
with respect to the allocation of goods in a society)espoused by a variety of
left-wing political philosophers,which seeks to distinguish between outcomes
that are the result of bruite luck (e.g. misfortunes in genetic makeup,or being
struck by a bolt of lightning) and those that are the consequence of consciols
options (e.g. career choices, or fair gambles).
6. Gender Egalitarianism (or Zygarchy) is a form of society in which power is
equally shared between men and women, or a family structure where power
is shared equally by both parents.
7. Racial Egalitarianisım (or Racial Equality) is the absence of racial segregation
。（the separation of different racial groups in daily life, whether mandated by
。law or through' social norms).
8.Opportunity Egalitarianisın (or Asset-based Egalitarianism) is the idea that
equality is possible by a redistribution ofresources, usually in the form of a
capital grant provided at the age of majority, an idea which has been around
＇since Thonmas Paine (1737-1809).
9. Christian Egalitarianism holds that all people are equal before God and in
Christ, and specifically teaches gender equality in Christian church leadership
and in marriage.
Socialism (Socialist Justice)
In contrast with libertarians, socialists take equality to be the ultimate
political ideal. In the Communist Manifesto (1848), Karl Marx (1818-1883) and
Friedrich Engels (1820-1895) maintain that the abolition of bourgeois property
and bourgeois family structure is a necessary first requirement for building
a society that accords with the political ideal of equality. In the Critique of the
Gotha Program (1891), Marx provides a much more positive account of what is
required to build a society based upon the political ideal of equality. Marx claims
that the distribution of social goods must conform, at least initially, to the principle
from each according to his/her ability, to each according to his/her contribution.
But when the highest stage of communist society has been reached, Marx adds,
distribution will conform to the principle from each according to his/her ability,
to each according to his/her need.
Socialism is a populist economic and political system based on the public .
ownership (also known as collective or common ownership) of the means of
production. Those means include the machinery, tools and factories used to
produce goods that aim to directly satisfy human needs.
Socialism's mantra is "From each according to his ability,to each according to
his contribution."Everyone in the society receives a share of the production based
on how much each has contributed. That motivates them to work long hours if
they want to receive more.
Workers receive their share after a percentage has been deducted for the
common good. Examples are transportation,defense,and education.Some also
define the common good as caring,for those who can't directly contribute to
production. Examples include the elderly, children, and their caretakers.
183
Socialism assumes that the basic nature of people is cooperative. That inature
hasn't yet emerged in full because capitalism or feudalism has forced people to be
competitive. Therefore,a basic tenet of socialism is that the economic system must
support this basic human nature for these qualities to emerge.
In a purely socialist system, all legal production and distribution decisions
are made by the government, and individuals rely on the state for everything from
food to healthcare. The government determines output and pricing levels of these
goods and services.
Socialists contend that shared ownership of resources and central planning
provide a more equal distribution of goods and services, and a more equitable
society.
Origins and Development
Socialism developed in opposition to the excesses and abuses to liberal
individualism and capitalism. Under early capitalist economies during the late
18th and 19th centuries, western European countries experienced industrial
production and compound economic growth at a rapid pace. Some individuals
and families rose to riches quickly, while others sank into poverty, creating income
inequality and other social concerns.
The most famous early socialist thinkers were Robert Owen, Henri de Saint-
Simon, Karl Marx and Vladimir Lenin. It was primarily Lenin who expounded on
the ideas of earlier socialists and helped bring socialist planning to the national
level after the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution in Russia.
Following the failure of socialist central planning in the Soviet Union and
Maoist China during the 20th century, many modern socialists adjusted to a highly
regulatory and redistributive system, sometimes referred to as market socialism or
democratic socialism.
Advantages
1. Workers are no longer exploited, since they own the means of production.
All profits are spread equitably among all workers, according to his or her
contribution.The cooperative system realizes that even those who can't work
must have their basic needs met, for the good of the whole.
2. The system eliminates poverty.
3. Everyonehas equal access to health careand education.Nooneis discriminated
against.
4. Everyone works at what one is best at and what one enjoys. If society needs
jobs to be done that no one wants, it offers higher compensation to make it
worthwhile.
5. Natural resources are preserved for the good of the whole.
Disadvantages
1. The biggest disadvantage of socialism is that it relies on the cooperative nature
of humans to work. It negates those within society who are competitive, not
cooperative. Competitive people tend to seek ways to overthrow and disrupt
society for their own gain.
2. It doesn't reward people for being entrepreneurial and competitive. As such,
it won't be as innovative as a capitalistic society.
3. The government set up to represent the masses may abuse its position and
claim power for itself.
Capitalism
Capitalism is an economic system where private entities own the factors
of production. The four factors are entrepreneurship, capital goods, natural
resources, and labor. The owners of capital goods, natural resources, and
entrepreneurship exercise control through companies. The individual owns his or
her labor. The only exception is slavery, where someone else owns a person's labor.
Although illegal throughout the entire world, slavery is still widely practiced.
Capitalism, also called free market economy or free enterprise economy,
economic system,dominant in the Western world since the breakup of feudalism,
in which most of the means of production are privately owned and production is
guided and income distributed largely through the operation of markets.
Characteristics of Capitalism
1. Two-class system: Historically a capitalist society was characterized by the
split between two classes of individuals-the capitalist class, which owns the
means for producing and distributing goods (the owners) and the working
class, who sell their labor to the capitalist class in exchange for wages. The
economy is run by the individuals (or corporations) who own and operate
companies and make decisions as to the use of resources. But there exists
a "division of labor" which allows for specialization, typically occurring
through education and training, further breaking down the two class system
into sub-classes (e.g.,the middle class).
185
2.Profit motioe: Companies exist to make a profit. The motive for all companies
is to make and sell goods and services only for profits.Companies do not
exist solely to satisfy people's needs.Even though some goods or services may
satisfy needs,they will only be available if the people have the resources to
pay for them.
3. Minimal government intervention:..
Capitalist societies believe markets
should be left alone to operate without government intervention.However,
a completely government-free capitalist society exists in theory,only.Even in
the United States-the poster child for capitalism, the government regulates
certain industries, such as the Dodd-Frank Act for financial institutions. By
contrast, a purely capitalist society would allow the markets to set prices
based on demand and supply for the purpose of making profits.
4. Competition: True capitalism needs a competitive market.
Without
competition, monopolies exist, and instead of the market setting the prices,
the seller is the price setter, which is against the conditions of capitalism.
5. Willingness to change: The last characteristic of capitalism is the ability to
adapt and change. Technology has been a game changer in every society,
and the willingness to allow change and adaptability of societies to improve
inefficiencies within economic structures is a true characteristic.
Advantages
Capitalism results in the best products for the best prices. That's because
consumers will pay more for what they want the most. Businesses provide what
customers want at the highest prices they'll pay. Prices are kept low bycompetition
among businesses. They make their products as efficient as possible to maximize
profit.
Most important for economic growth is capitalism's intrinsic reward for .
innovation. This includes innovation in more efficient production methods. It
also means innovation of new products. As Steve Jobs said, "You can't just ask
customers what they want and then try to give that to them. By the time you get it
built, they'll want something new."
Disadvantages
Capitalism doesn't provide for those who lack competitive skills. This
includes· the elderly, children, the developmentally disabled, and caretakers. To
keep society functioning, capitalism requires government policies that value the
family unit.
Despite theidea of a"level playing field,"capitalism does notpromote equality
of opportunity.Those without the proper nutrition,support,and education may
never make it to the playing field. Society will never benefit from their valuable
skills.
In the short term, inequality may seem to be in the best interest of capitalism's
winners.They have fewer competitive threats.They may also use their power to
＂rig the system" by creating barriers to entry. For example, they will donate to
elected officials who sponsor laws that benefit their industry. They could send·
their children to private schools while supporting lower taxes for public schools.
In the long term, inequality will limit diversity and the innovation it creates.
For example, a diverse business team is more able to identify market niches. It can
understand the needs of society's minorities, and target products to meet those
needs.
Capitalism ignores external costs, such as pollution and climate change.
This makes goods cheaper and more accessible in the short run. But over time,
it depletes natural resources, lowers the quality of life in the affected areas, and
increases costs for everyone. The government should impose Pigouvian taxes to
monetize these external costs and improve the general welfare.
Capitalism and Private Property
Private property rights are very important in capitalism. Most modern
concepts of private property stem from John Locke's theory of homesteading, in
which human beings claim ownership through mixing their labor with unclaimed
resources. Once owned, the only legitimate means of transferring property are
through trade, gifts, inheritance or wages:
Private property promotes efficiency by giving the owner of resources an
incentive to maximize its value. The more valuable a resource, the more trading
power it provides the owner. In a capitalist system, the person who owns property
is entitled to any value associated with the property.
When property is not privately owned, but shared by the public, a market
failure can emerge, known as the tragedy of the commons. The fruit of any labor
performed with a públic asset does not belong to the laborer, but is diffused
among many people. There is a disconnect between labor and value, creating a
disincentive to increase value or production. People are incentivized to wait for
Someone else to do the hard work and then swoop in to reap the benefits without
much personal expense.
For individuals or businesses to deploy their capital goods confidently, a
System mustexist that protects their legal right to owin or transfer private property.
To facilitate and enforce private property rights, capitalist societies tend to rely on
contracts,fair dealing and tort law.
187
LESSON 3
Taxution
Introduction
The power of taxation is inherent power of the State. It rests upon necessity,
the significance of which stems from the recognition that since governments have
been established to promote and protect the general welfare, it is necessary that
government should be provided with the means by which it could carry out its
exercise the power of taxation.
Government financial operations are well-nigh impossible without taxation.
Apart from this, taxation can be a powerful means in order to achieve the goals of
social progress and the objectives of economic development.
Taxation is very important to maintain the society we live in. People are
always criticizing the government for this but it is very important.
Meaning of Taxation
Taxation is the supreme power of a sovereign state through its law-making
body, to impose burdens or charges upon persons, property or property rights
for public purpose. It is the power vested upon the legislature for the purpose of
raising revenues to finance government expenditures and for the general welfare
and protection of its citizens.
Henceforth,taxation is a State power that is exercised only through the law-
making body of the State or the Legislature. Neither the President nor the Judiciary
has the power to impose taxes. Taxes are levied by Congress by means of laws.
Taxation is the method of apportioning the cost of government among those
who, in some measure are privileged to enjoy its benefits and must therefore, bear
its burden.(Cooley,
）
Taxation does not confine itself on government expenditures. It also
regulates the flow of income in our economic system. When there is too much
money in the system, the government withdraws some of this money to check
inflation.
Philosophical View of Taxation
In the Philippines, the proportion of the economy controlled by the statehas
grown enormously over the last century, and pressures on the state are set to rise
as people live longer,meaning that tax will continue to rise for the great majoriy
of the population. What are the rights and wrongs of asking so many peoplelo
pay so much? To answer this question, let us use the arguments from political
philosophy, and the following three approaches to ethics:
1. Utilitarianism, which tells us to aim for the greatest total happiness across
the population.In the economic sphere,we can interpret happiness', ás the
satisfaction of our desires; and so utilitarianism is aiming for maximum
satisfaction of desires.
2. Deontology, which bases ethics on the idea of duty.
3. Virtue ethics, which focuses on the virtues we should have, and on what
constitutes a virtuous life. A broad conception of the virtues must be used
here,encompassing not only virtues such as honesty, but also virtues such as
using one's talents and leading a fulfilled life.
For a utilitarian the most important economic goals are to ensure that góods
and services are available to allow everyone to have a decent life, and to ensure
that these resources are distributed widely enough for all or most people to enjoy
them. A true utilitarian would only care about total satisfaction, not about the
evenness of its distribution, but with taxation we're discussing the distribution
of resources. If each person has modest resources, that should generate more
satisfaction in total than if the same total resources are concentrated in the hands of
a few people. Taxation plus government spending are an obvious way to achieve
redistribution to ensure that everybody gets something.
However, taxation and spending help to achieve wide resource distribution,
but high rates of tax reduce investment and incentives, which makes it hard to
generate sufficient total resources. Too much redistribution may thus mean too
small a pie to share out. Utilitarians must therefore strike a balance. Economists,
rather than philosophers, are the ones to advise them on how to do this balancing
of interest to get the most productive result. This is not surprising. Utilitarianism
merely lays down a computational rule. Utilitarians need experts from other
disciplines to do the computations for them.
Unlike the utilitarian, the deontologist does not tell us to make computations.
Instead, he or she lays down absolute duties.One common such duty is to respect
other people's property rights.This could be interpreted to mean that there should
be no tax at all,because tax is the forcible transfer of property away from taxpayers.
But it is difficult to make this argument watertight. Is it realistic to ask people to
opt ouf of using public roads if they don't want to pay tax? They would have to
194
move to a wilderness somewhere.But why should they be made to do that,when
they already own their homes? Deontology therefore does here what it often doeiy
It offers arguments which pull in opposite directions, and leaves us completely
uncertain about what to conclude.
Virtue ethics can be a bit more helpful on the question of the justice of.
taxation.Several virtues seem more likely to be exercised if tax rates are moderate
than if they are very high.One should use one's talents to the full. Financial
incentives can encourage people to use their talents, but very high taxation
dampens down those incentives by reducing take-home pay. Another virtue is
charity, either in cash or in time. The more take-home pay people have, the more
likely it is that they will feel able. to afford charitable donations; and the higher
peoples' pay rates, the easier it will be for them to take time away from paid work
to perform charity work or other forms of civic service, as school governors or
magistrates for example. A third virtue is independence. It is good to earn what
one needs rather than to depend on subsidies from others. Lower rates of taxation
make independence more easily achievable.
Are Taxes Moral?
One of the arguments against the existence of special government powers
such as the power to tax is that taxing is no different from theft. Since theft is
wrong, so is taxing. A careful examination of this argument shows that it assumes
that there is no moral difference between an individual under government and
an individual without government. There is good reason to believe that this
assumption is false, and that taxation is sometimes, morally acceptable if our
relationship with the common good of our society must be fair.
The argument against the morality of special government powers claims that
if I (as a person in society) protected my neighbors from criminals I could not
demand that they pay me for the service. I could not take money from them if they
refused to pay, nor could I kidnap them until they did pay. If I did any of these
things,I would be acting immorally. I agree. În this specific situation, I would.
be acting immorally were I to do any of these things. And if this were similar
to the government's actions on taxation, then the government would be taxing
immorally. But this is not analogous to the real acts of government(Torgler,2007).
First, suppose that there was no government at any level.Suppose that a
strong man agreed to protect himself and his neighbors from criminals and
predators as a full-time job. Before doing so, he requested some basic assistance
from his neighbors.This included enough money to buy weapons and maintain
a standard of living similar to that of his neighbors.All of his neighbors agreed
to do so.One of them disagreed.(This is the local anarchist.)Is it acceptable for
the neighbors to set the local anarchist an ultimátum:either pay assistance (or
195
help perform the assistance) or leave the neighborhood? 1 say yes.If it is,then
it is this situation that is similar to government.By beginning this process,th
neighbors are establishing a government.By agreeing to take on the responsibint
of protecting the community from criminals, an element of the common goodis
being entrusted to this person.
In our situation, the common good has already been entrusted b
governments.So our situation is not similar to a state prior to all governmens
Individuals in that state are different from individuals in our state. So when we
imagine a person who protects neighbors from criminals, we imagine a personin
our state doing so. If such a person were to demand compensation, then it would
either take the form of a contract or be theft. Since government is cannotbejustified
by contract, such a situation could never justify a government. But individuals
without a state are different from individuals with a state. Therefore, the analogy
of the anarchist is flawed.
The analogy brings us from a situation in which we have a government,
supposes that a third party assists in the duties of government and demands
payment for that assistance. Since we agree that this is wrong, this simply
means that third parties may not demand assistance for performing the duties of
government. But it has nothing to do with the actual justification of government
powers whether special or not. The true situation is the one given above or one
like it.
Legitimate Objective of Tax
Tax can be used for áll sorts of purposes, and it is often clear what ethicists
of any particular kind would say about these purposes. We can start with the
provision of law and order and the more extensive public services such as
healthcare and education. Utilitarians will approve of taxation for these things
because they allow more goods and services to be produced, and they also allow
more non-materialistic desires to be satisfied. Virtue ethicists will approve because
＇these services enhance people's opportunities to use their talents and to lead
flourishing lives.
When we turn to aid to the poor, utilitarians will approve because
transfering resources from rich to poor increases the happiness of the poor mo
than itreduces the happiness ofthe rich.Virtue ethicists will approve becausewib
redistribution the poor can be helped to flourish and develop virtues, and becanse
looking after the less fortunate is itself a virtue(although voluntary charity mg
bea greater vitue than forced payment).And deontologists can recognize ady
ecare for the poor.The greatest of all deontologists, mmanuel Kant certail
believed in duty to the poor, althoogh he dia too ate Itax-fanded welareste in mind as a response.
However,none of this means thatany kind of ethicist would
favor unlimited provision of any of these good things through the tax system.As
we have already seen, one has to consider the consequences of the overall level of
taxation.
A more controversial objective is the promotion of equality, in the sense
of equality of economic outcome example wealth,rather than of equality of
opportunity.Taxation can very easily be used to make the distribution of incomes
and wealth more equal, either by transferring cash from the rich to the poor, or by
providing the same state services to everyone while taxing the rich more than the
poor in order to pay for them. Greater equality may also be an accidental outcome
of using the tax system to do other things. But it can also be a goal in itself (Baron,
2012).
Tax Evasion and Tax Avoidance
Most taxpayers pay their taxes, without fuss. But not all taxpayers act in this
way. So lastly let's look at whether two other forms of behavior can be ethically
acceptable: tax evasion and tax avoidance.
Tax evasion involves knowingly misreporting the facts: for example,
declaring an income of P1,000,000.00 when the true figure is P5,000,000.00; or
declaring that an asset is owned by one companyin a group when it's really owned
by another, so paying less tax.
The tax code is extremely complex, so it's not a surprise when mistakes are
made on tax returns. That's not a crime. But purposefully under-reporting income
or claiming deductions you're not entitled to receive is tax evasion, and it's a
serious offense.
Unlike tax evasion, tax avoidance does not involve concealing information
or lying. Instead, it involves structuring business transactions to ensure that less
tax is payable than one might otherwise expect. The most ethically challenging
examples in this area are to be found in the complex schemes used by some
groups involving networks of companies and partnerships in several countries.
Tax avoidance works through compliance with the precise letter of the law, not
through breaking the law. That is to say, tax savings achieved may be accord with
the words of the law, but it is clear that if Parliament or other legislative bodies in
other countries had thought about such schemes,it would have passed different
laws in order to defeat them.
Benefits of Paying Taxes
The word tax comes from the Latin word taxare but the Romans were not the
first civilization to impose taxes on their citizens. We know the ancient Greeks and
Egyptians levied taxes on their own people and foreigners, as did the Hebrews.
Other civilizations also left records of tax-keeping,along with many names for the
fees they assessed.
The direct benefit of paying taxes for everyone is that they are used to pay
for services that governments provide to communities. In a modern society a
government needs administrators and clerks, police forces, emergency forces
such as firefighters, engineers and maintenance workers for streets and buildings,
politicians, and to pay for property used and goods consumed by the government
services.In ancient times, there were fewer government specialists but all of these
basic needs had to be met.
As large cities developed in the ancient world rulers and their communities
had to devise ways to compensate the people who delivered services to the
communities. We don't know what the earliest fórms of government revenue
were but the options were few until money was developed. As an example, ifa
city of 30,000 people nèeded to pay someone to clean the streets,they might rely on
community donations of food and shelter. Temples became centers of collection
for food and other donations and so in many early civilizations the temples were
the leading institutions of the cities.
Taxes are classified as regressive if they affect poor people more than wealthy
people and as progressive if they affect wealthy people more than poor people.
Progressive taxes have been popular throughout history, probably because
wealthy people were easier to tax and the taxes would weaken their ability to raise
their own armies.
The benefit of paying taxes is to ensure that everyone in a community
enjoys the services provided by government. Whether the taxes pay for defense,
infrastructure, education, or public safety the intention is that they create a safe
and stable environment in which people can live.
In practice this does not always happen. In fact, we can easily find many
examples where “poor” neighborhoods receive less benefit from taxation than
＂wealthy"neighborhoods.But the reasons for these disparities in government
services are complex. The distribution of taxation benefits is not directly tied to
the purpose for which taxes exist.
In a perfect world we would only pay enough taxes to ensure that everyone
receives equal benefits from their communities. In reality we pay taxes because
that is the most efficient way to provide services,safety, and infrastructure to large.
populations.
Basic Principles of a Sound Tax System
A sound tax system has the following basic principles namely:
1. Fiscal adequacy.This means that the source of revenue should be sufficient to
address the demands of public expenditures.
2. Equality or theoretical justice. This means that the tax burden should be.
proportionate to the taxpayer's ability to pay.
3.Administrative feasibility. This means that the tax should be capable of
convenience, just and effective administration.
Essential Characteristics of Taxation
1. It is an enforced contribution. All citizens are required to pay their taxes..
Failure to do so is subjected to penalty provided by law.
2. It is generally payable in money. Payments of checks, promissory notes,
or in kind are not accepted. The taxpayer must pay their taxes in terms of
prevailing currency.
3. It is proportionate in character. Collection of taxes is based upon the income
and the property of the taxpayer. The higher the income, the higher the tax
and the lesser the income, the lesser the tax.
4. It is levied on persons, property or property rights. A person who receives
an income based on skills and practice of profession are required to pay their
taxes. He is also taxed based on acquired properties deemed as taxable.
5. It is levied by the state, which has jurisdiction over the person or property.
In real property taxation, the rule is: "the place or state where the property
subject to tax is located has authority and jurisdiction to impose tax.” In
movable property, the rule is: “mobilia sequntur personan," a Latin phrase
which means “movables follow the law person.” (Black Law Dictionary,
5th ed. , 2002).
6. It is levied by the legislative branch of the state. There must be a law enacted
by Congress before assessment and collection may be implemented. The
power of taxation may be delegated by Congress to local government units
subject to conditions and terms prescribed by law.
7. It is levied for public purposes. It is intended to raise revenue for public
purposes. It is considered for public purpose if the proceeds thereof are used
for the support of the government, or for the welfare of the community.

1. Capitalism results in the best products for the – best prices

2. The position that equality is central to justice, that all individuals are entitled to equal respect,
and that all human persons are equal in fundamental worth. Moral egalitarian
3. This system eliminates – Poverty
4. This was developed in opposition to the excesses and abuses to liberal individualism. Socialism
5. The motive for all companies is to make and sell goods and services only for Profir
6. Economic theory says government should take a "hands-off" approach to capitalism – non
interference
7. Capitalist societies believe markets should be left alone to operate without. Government
intervention
8. Capitalist society was characterized by the split between two classes of individuals the capitalist
class and the – working
9. It is the idea that equality is possible by a redistribution Opportunity egalitarian
10. The fruit of any labor performed with a public asset does not belong to the Laborer

1. Which of the following is a principle of justice? - each person is to have an equal right it the
most extensive
2. The central part of the ethics. – justice
3. This refers to the extent to which people are fairly rewarded for their injuries by those who have
injured them; just compensation is proportional to the loss inflicted on a person. –
compensatory justice
4. Which of the following is a principle of fairness? – make all decisions on
5. Rawl's emphasizes the priority of- liberty
6. The foundations of justice can be traced to the notions of the following except- make all
decisions on appr
7. This refers to the extent to which society's institutions ensure that benefits and burdens are
spread among society's members in ways that are fair and just. – distributive justice
8. These represent obligatory behaviors because their in fraction results to punishment, formal or
informal. – laws
9. In evaluating any moral decision, we must ask whether our actions- treat all individuals equally
10. This refers to the extent to which punishments are fair and just. – retributive Justice
1. The 3rd Earl of Shaftesbury- Anthiny Ashley Cooper
2. According to Gay, the happiness of mankind may be said to be the- criterion of virtue
3. According to Kant, we can decipher what our duty is by using our-reason
 4. Mill held that natural features of human psychology, such as conscience and a sense of justice,
underwrite- motivation
5. When this is established, it becomes one's moral duty to carry out the action under any
circumstances. – categorical imperatives
6. According to utilitarianism, these are the things that can be evaluated except- - none of the
above
7. Kant describes the will as operating on the basis of subjective volitional principles he calls- -
maxim
8. Utilitarianism starts from the basis that pleasure and happiness are intrinsically. Priceless
9. This formula insists that we should act' only according to that maxim' which could be
universalized. Formula of the law of the nature
10. Utilitarianism was first developed by- Jeremy bentham

The power of taxation is inherent power of the State. It rests upon necessity, the significance of which
stems from the recognition that since governments have been established to promote and protect the
general welfare, it is necessary that government should be provided with the means by which it could
carry out its exercise the power of taxation.

Government financial operations are well-nigh impossible without taxation. Apart from this, taxation
can be a powerful means in order to achieve the goals of social progress and the objectives of economic
development.

Taxation is very important to maintain the society we live in. People are always criticizing the
government for this but it is very important.

Taxation is the supreme power of a sovereign state through its law-making body, to impose burdens or
charges upon persons, property or property rights for public purpose. It is the power vested upon the
legislature for the purpose of raising revenues to finance government expenditures and for the general
welfare and protection of its citizens.

Henceforth, taxation is a State power that is exercised only through the law making body of the State or
the Legislature. Neither the President nor the Judiciary has the power to impose taxes. Taxes are levied
by Congress by means of laws.

Taxation is the method of apportioning the cost of government among those who, in some measure are
privileged to enjoy its benefits and must therefore, bear its burden. (Cooley, n.d.)

Taxation does not confine itself on government expenditures. It also regulates the flow of income in our
economic system. When there is too much money in the system, the government withdraws some of
this money to check inflation.

In the Philippines, the proportion of the economy controlled by the state has grown enormously over
the last century, and pressures on the state are set to rise as people live longer, meaning that tax will
continue to rise for the great majority of the population. What are the rights and wrongs of asking so
many people to pay so much? To answer this question, let us use the arguments from political
philosophy, and the following three approaches to ethics:
1.) Utilitarianism, which tells us to aim for the greatest total happiness across the population. In the
economic sphere, we can interpret 'happiness' as the satisfaction of our desires; and so utilitarianism is
aiming for maximum satisfaction of desires.

2.) Deontology, which bases ethics on the idea of duty.

3.) Virtue ethics, which focuses on the virtues we should have, and on what constitutes a virtuous life. A
broad conception of the virtues must be used here, encompassing not only virtues such as honesty, but
also virtues such as using one's talents and leading a fulfilled life.

For a utilitarian the most important economic goals are to ensure that goods and services are available
to allow everyone to have a decent life, and to ensure that these resources are distributed widely
enough for all or most people to enjoy them. A true utilitarian would only care about total satisfaction,
not about the evenness of its distribution, but with taxation we're discussing the distribution of
resources. If each person has modest resources, that should generate more satisfaction in total than if
the same total resources are concentrated in the hands of a few people. Taxation plus government
spending are an obvious way to achieve redistribution to ensure that everybody gets something.

However, taxation and spending help to achieve wide resource distribution, but high rates of tax reduce
investment and incentives, which makes it hard to generate sufficient total resources. Too much
redistribution may thus mean too small a pie to share out. Utilitarians must therefore strike a balance.
Economists, rather than philosophers, are the ones to advise them on how to do this balancing of
interest to get the most productive result. This is not surprising. Utilitarianism merely lays down a
computational rule. Utilitarians need experts from other disciplines to do the computations for them.

Unlike the utilitarian, the deontologist does not tell us to make computations. Instead, he or she lays
down absolute duties. One common such duty is to respect other people's property rights. This could be
interpreted to mean that there should be no tax at all, because tax is the forcible transfer of property
away from taxpayers. But it is difficult to make this argument watertight. Is it realistic to ask people to
opt out of using public roads if they don't want to pay tax? They would have to move to a wilderness
somewhere. But why should they be made to do that, when they already own their homes? Deontology
therefore does here what it often does. It offers arguments which pull in opposite directions, and leaves
us completely uncertain about what to conclude.

Virtue ethics can be a bit more helpful on the question of the justice of taxation. Several virtues seem
more likely to be exercised if tax rates are moderate than if they are very high. One should use one's
talents to the full. Financial incentives can encourage people to use their talents, but very high taxation
dampens down those incentives by reducing take-home pay. Another virtue is charity, either in cash or
in time. The more take-home pay people have, the more likely it is that they will feel able to afford
charitable donations; and the higher peoples' pay rates, the easier it will be for them to take time away
from paid work to perform charity work or other forms of civic service, as school governors or
magistrates for example. A third virtue is independence. It is good to earn what one needs rather than
to depend on subsidies from others. Lower rates of taxation make independence more easily achievable.

One of the arguments against the existence of special government powers such as the power to tax is
that taxing is no different from theft. Since theft is wrong, so is taxing. A careful examination of this
argument shows that it assumes that there is no moral difference between an individual under
government and an individual without government. There is good reason to believe that this assumption
is false, and that taxation is sometimes morally acceptable if our relationship with the common good of
our society must be fair.

The argument against the morality of special government powers claims that if I (as a person in society)
protected my neighbors from criminals I could not demand that they pay me for the service. I could not
take money from them if they refused to pay, nor could I kidnap them until they did pay. If I did any of
these things, I would be acting immorally. I agree. In this specific situation, I would be acting immorally
were I to do any of these things. And if this were similar to the government's actions on taxation, then
the government would be taxing immorally. But this is not analogous to the real acts of government
(Torgler, 2007).

First, suppose that there was no government at any level. Suppose that a strong man agreed to protect
himself and his neighbors from criminals and predators as a full-time job. Before doing so, he requested
some basic assistance from his neighbors. This included enough money to buy weapons and maintain a
standard of living similar to that of his neighbors. All of his neighbors agreed to do so. One of them
disagreed. (This is the local anarchist.) Is it acceptable for the neighbors to set the local anarchist an
ultimatum: either pay assistance (or help perform the assistance) or leave the neighborhood? I say yes.
If it is, then it is this situation that is similar to government. By beginning this process, the neighbors are
establishing a government. By agreeing to take on the responsibility of protecting the community from
criminals, an element of the common good is being entrusted to this person.

In our situation, the common good has already been entrusted to governments. So our situation is not
similar to a state prior to all governments. Individuals in that state are different from individuals in our
state. So when we imagine a person who protects neighbors from criminals, we imagine a person in our
state doing so. If such a person were to demand compensation, then it would either take the form of a
contract or be theft. Since government is cannot be justified by contract, such a situation could never
justify a government. But individuals without a state are different from individuals with a state.
Therefore, the analogy of the anarchist is flawed.

The analogy brings us from a situation in which we have a government, supposes that a third party
assists in the duties of government and demands payment for that assistance. Since we agree that this is
wrong, this simply. means that third parties may not demand assistance for performing the duties of
government. But it has nothing to do with the actual justification of government. powers whether
special or not. The true situation is the one given above or one like it.

Tax can be used for all sorts of purposes, and it is often clear what ethicists of any particular kind would
say about these purposes. We can start with the provision of law and order and the more extensive
public services such as healthcare and education. Utilitarians will approve of taxation for these things.
because they allow more goods and services to be produced, and they also allow more non-materialistic
desires to be satisfied. Virtue ethicists will approve because these services enhance people's
opportunities to use their talents and to lead flourishing lives.

When we turn to aid to the poor, utilitarians will approve because transferring resources from rich to
poor increases the happiness of the poor more than it reduces the happiness of the rich. Virtue ethicists
will approve because with redistribution the poor can be helped to flourish and develop virtues, and
because looking after the less fortunate is itself a virtue (although voluntary charity may be a greater
virtue than forced payment). And deontologists can recognize a duty to care for the poor. The greatest
of all deontologists, Immanuel Kant, certainly believed in duty to the poor, although he did not have a
tax-funded welfare state in mind as a response. However, none of this means that any kind of ethicist
would favor unlimited provision of any of these good things through the tax system. As we have already
seen, one has to consider the consequences of the overall level of taxation.

A more controversial objective is the promotion of equality, in the sense of equality of economic
outcome example wealth, rather than of equality of opportunity. Taxation can very easily be used to
make the distribution of incomes and wealth more equal, either by transferring cash from the rich to the
poor, or by providing the same state services to everyone while taxing the rich more than the poor in
order to pay for them. Greater equality may also be an accidental outcome of using the tax system to do
other things. But it can also be a goal in itself (Baron, 2012).

Most taxpayers pay their taxes, without fuss. But not all taxpayers act in this way. So lastly let's look at
whether two other forms of behavior can be ethically acceptable: tax evasion and tax avoidance. Tax
evasion involves knowingly misreporting the facts: for example, declaring an income of P1,000,000.00
when the true figure is P5,000,000.00; or declaring that an asset is owned by one company in a group
when it's really owned by another, so paying less tax.

The tax code is extremely complex, so it's not a surprise when mistakes are made on tax returns. That's
not a crime. But purposefully under-reporting income or claiming deductions you're not entitled to
receive is tax evasion, and it's a serious offense.

Unlike tax evasion, tax avoidance does not involve concealing information or lying. Instead, it involves
structuring business transactions to ensure that less tax is payable than one might otherwise expect. The
most ethically challenging examples in this area are to be found in the complex schemes used by some
groups involving networks of companies and partnerships in several countries. Tax avoidance works
through compliance with the precise letter of the law, not through breaking the law. That is to say, tax
savings achieved may be accord with the words of the law, but it is clear that if Parliament or other
legislative bodies in other countries had thought about such schemes, it would have passed different
laws in order to defeat them.

The word tax comes from the Latin word taxare but the Romans were not the first civilization to impose
taxes on their citizens. We know the ancient Greeks and Egyptians levied taxes on their own people and
foreigners, as did the Hebrews, Other civilizations also left records of tax-keeping, along with many
names for the fees they assessed.

The direct benefit of paying taxes for everyone is that they are used to pay for services that
governments provide to communities. In a modern society a government needs administrators and
clerks, police forces, emergency forces such as firefighters, engineers and maintenance workers for
streets and buildings, politicians, and to pay for property used and goods consumed by the government
services. In ancient times, there were fewer government specialists but all of these basic needs had to
be met.

As large cities developed in the ancient world rulers and their communities had to devise ways to
compensate the people who delivered services to the communities. We don't know what the earliest
forms of government revenue were but the options were few until money was developed. As an
example, if a city of 30,000 people needed to pay someone to clean the streets, they might rely on
community donations of food and shelter. Temples became centers of collection for food and other
donations and so in many early civilizations the temples were the leading institutions of the cities.
Taxes are classified as regressive if they affect poor people more than wealthy people and as progressive
if they affect wealthy people more than poor people. Progressive taxes have been popular throughout
history, probably because wealthy people were easier to tax and the taxes would weaken their ability to
raise their own armies.

The benefit of paying taxes is to ensure that everyone in a community enjoys the services provided by
government. Whether the taxes pay for defense, infrastructure, education, or public safety the intention
is that they create a safe and stable environment in which people can live.

In practice this does not always happen. In fact, we can easily find many examples where "poor"
neighborhoods receive less benefit from taxation than "wealthy" neighborhoods. But the reasons for
these disparities in government services are complex. The distribution of taxation benefits is not directly
tied to the purpose for which taxes exist.

In a perfect world we would only pay enough taxes to ensure that everyone receives equal benefits from
their communities. In reality we pay taxes because that is the most efficient way to provide services,
safety, and infrastructure to large populations.

Basic Principles of a Sound Tax System A sound tax system has the following basic principles namely:

1.) Fiscal adequacy. This means that the source of revenue should be sufficient to address the demands
of public expenditures.

2.) Equality or theoretical justice. This means that the tax burden should be proportionate to the
taxpayer's ability to pay.

3.) Administrative feasibility. This means that the tax should be capable of convenience, just and
effective administration.

1.) It is an enforced contribution. All citizens are required to pay their taxes. Failure to do so is subjected
to penalty provided by law.

2.) It is generally payable in money. Payments of checks, promissory notes, or in kind are not accepted.
The taxpayer must pay their taxes in terms of prevailing currency.

3.) It is proportionate in character. Collection of taxes is based upon the income and the property of the
taxpayer. The higher the income, the higher the tax and the lesser the income, the lesser the tax.

4.) It is levied on persons, property or property rights. A person who receives an income based on skills
and practice of profession are required to pay their taxes. He is also taxed based on acquired properties
deemed as taxable.

5.) It is levied by the state, which has jurisdiction over the person or property. In real property taxation,
the rule is: "the place or state where the property subject to tax is located has authority and jurisdiction
to impose tax." In movable property, the rule is: "mobilia sequntur personan," a Latin phrase which
means "movables follow the law person." (Black Law Dictionary, 5th ed., 2002).
6.) It is levied by the legislative branch of the state. There must be a law enacted by Congress before
assessment and collection may be implemented. The power of taxation may be delegated by Congress
to local government units subject to conditions and terms prescribed by law.

7.) It is levied for public purposes. It is intended to raise revenue for public purposes. It is considered for
public purpose if the proceeds thereof are used for the support of the government, or for the welfare of
the community.