TITLE: Feeling as a Modifier of Moral Decision-Making | Reason and Impartiality as Minimum

Requirements for Morality

INTRODUCTION:

Moral Emotions are the feelings and intuitions–including shame, disgust, and empathy–that play a major role in most of the
ethical judgments and decisions people make. Emotions – that is to say feelings and intuitions – play a major role in most
of the ethical decisions people make. Most people do not realize how much their emotions direct their moral choices. But
experts think it is impossible to make any important moral judgments without emotions.

ABSTRACTION

Feelings in Decision-making

Feeling, in general, is an emotional' state or reaction, experience of physical sensation, like feeling of joy, feeling of
warmth, love, affection, tenderness, etc. How do they affect moral decision-making? "Several studies conclude that up to
90 percent of the decisions we made are based on emotion. We use logic to justify our actions to ourselves and to others.

Researches also show that "actual emotional states can influence the process of moral reasoning and determine moral
judgment."

Feelings are instinctive and trained response to moral dilemma. They can be obstacles to making right decisions but they
can also help in making the right decisions.

Are there advantages of emotional decision making? According to recent research, feelings or emotions have positive
effects on decision making. Some are identified as follows:

• A totally emotional decision is very fast in comparison to a rational decision. This is reactive (and largely subconscious
and can be useful when faced with immediate danger, or in decisions of minimal significance.

• Emotions may provide a way for coding and compacting experience, enabling fast response selection. This may point to
why expert's "gut level decisions have high accuracy rates.

• Decisions that start with logic may need emotions to enable the final selection, particularly when confronted with near
equal options.

• Emotions often drive us in directions conflicting with self-interest.

Emotional decision making can also come with a number of negatives.

We make quick decisions without knowing why, and then create rational reasons to justify a poor emotional decision.

• Intensity of emotions can override rational decision-making in cases where it is clearly needed.

• Immediate and unrelated emotions can create mistakes by distorting and creating bias in judgments. In some cases this
can lead to unexpected and reckless action.

• Projected emotions can lead to errors because people are subject to systemic inaccuracy about how they will feel in the
future."

Moral statements as expressions of feelings

Are moral statements or values mere expressions of feelings or emotions as claimed by the linguistic philosophers?
According to some linguistic philosophers, called (emotivists) the statement "stealing is wrong" is not a statement of fact, it
is an expression of a desire or emotion. The rule or maxim "Stealing is wrong" means "I desire that you do not steal." An
emotional statement is not verifiable like factual statement. "Pedro stole my cat" is verifiable, can be established by
evidence. But "Pedro's act of stealing my cat is morally wrong" which is equivalent to "I desire that Pedro should not steal"
is not verifiable. The following explains this ethical theory:
Emotivism, is the view. that moral. judgments do not function as statements of fact but rather as expressions of the
speaker's or writer's feelings. According to the emotivist, when we say "You acted wrongly in stealing that money, we are
not expressing any fact beyond that stated by "You stole that money." It is, however, as if we had stated this fact with a
special tone of abhorrence, for in saying that something is wrong, we are expressing our feelings of disapproval toward it.
Emotivism was expounded by A. J.

Ayer in Language, Truth and Logic (1936) and developed by Charles Stevenson in Ethics and. Language (1945)

The emotivist thus goes further by saying that ethical statements being emotional expressions are not verifiable.

Emotional expressions are not assertions of what is true or false. They are like expressions of taste. There is no dispute or
there can be no dispute on matters of taste. "De gustibus non disputandum est." One cannot argue with one's taste, emotion.

It may be said that an analogy between legal and moral statement may be made to show that moral statements may treated
like a factual statement.

In criminal law, the allegation that "Juan's act of stealing is wrong" may be established by evaluating the act in the light of
the elements of the crime of stealing under the law. For instance, the law provides that stealing is taking the property of
another without the latter's consent. So if there is an evidence that Juan has taken a property, that the property belongs to
someone else, that the taking is without consent, then it can be decided that a crime of theft is committed; in other words,
the statement has been verified.

What then would prevent one in applying the same procedure in establishing the truth or falsehood of a moral statement.
For instance, the moral principle or rule is "stealing is wrong" that it is explained by moral or ethics teachers that the
statement is meant to be referring to an act of taking someone else property without the owner's consent. May not
someone's act of stealing be verified by finding out if the actor has indeed filen someone's property with the latter's
consent? And that, therefore, his act may be judged as wrong?

The emotivist will still argue that such argument only proves that a certain individual act has characteristic that can be
described as stealing. does not make the statement "stealing is wrong" as a factual statement, which is correct, since all
maxims or rules are non-factual and only the particular instances evaluated on the basis of these rules would be considered
as factual.

Managing Feelings

Aristotle wrote:

"Anyone can get angry--that is easy---but to do this to the right person, to the right extent, at the right time with the right
motive, and in the right way, that is not for everyone, nor is it easy. (Book Il, Nicomachean Ethics). In other words your
anger should not be displaced. The moral person manages his/her feelings well.

KEY TAKEAWAYS

Feelings can be obstacles to making right decisions but they can also help in making the right decisions.

• Feelings can help persons in making the right decisions if they are reasonably managed.

• Acting on one's convictions imply involvement of both reason and feeling.

• One teaches effectively when he/she touches the heart. This is the main feature of value education that works.

• To be an ethical person, one must manage his/her feelings well.

Reason and Impartiality as Minimum Requirements for Morality

APPLICATION'

1. Teaching and learning in the affective domain involve feelings. Can you succeed teaching in the affective domain devoid
of feeling?
2. Recall one thing you learned which you clearly remember up to this moment. Is it correct to say that if ever you
remember that which you learned up to now, it is because it touched you somehow? What does this tell you about emotion
in relation to learning?

3. In logic, there is a fallacy on "appeal to pity" (argumentum ad misericordiam). What does this tell you regarding the
roles of feeling and reason in making moral decision?

ACTIVITY

Read these arguments. Are these based on reason? Defend your answer.

1. "You didn't even finish high school. How could you possibly know about this?"

2. I am filing for reconsideration of the offenses complained about.

Since I am a well-known athlete, I can make your University great again.

3.,Oh, Officer, there's no reason to give me a trafic ticket for going too

'fast because I was just on my way to the hospital to bring blood bags to my dying child. They are needed in a few minutes.

4. After Sally presents an eloquent and compelling case for a more. equitable taxation system, Sam asks the audience
whether we should believe anything from a woman who isn't married, was once arrested, and smells a bit weird.

5. Linus Pauling, winner of two unshared Nobel prizes, one for chemistry, another for peace, stated his daily medication of
Vitamin C delayed the onset of his cancer by twenty years. Therefore, vitamin C is effective in preventing cancer.

6. "UFOs are not real, because the great Carl Sagan said so." You haven't held a steady job since 1992. Worse than that, we
couldn't find a single employer who'd provide you with a good reference."

7. 'People like you don't understand what it's like to grow up in the slums. You have no right to argue about the gang
violence on our streets."

8. "Well, it's not like you graduated from a good school, so I can see Why you wouldn't know how to properly grade a
writing assignment."

9. "You're clearly just too young to understand."

"How can you make a decision about someone having marital problems if you've never been married yourself?"

ABSTRACTION

The minimum requirements of morality are reason and impartiality.

"Moral judgments must be backed up by good reason and impartiality.

"Morality requires the impartial consideration of each individual's interests." Moral judgments, or resolving a dilemma of
moral judgments must be backed by good reason.

Reason and impartiality refer to a mental activity following the basic principle of consistency, the lack of contradiction
between one idea and another. It is a process of deriving necessary conclusion from premises, avoiding all forms of
deception or fallacy of reasoning. It avoids ad hominem, by not attacking the personality of the opponent and instead
directing one's argument against his idea.

Examples of argumentum ad hominem are # 1; 4, 8 and 9 in the Activity phase of this Lesson.

Reason avoids ad misericordiam, appeal to pity, since appearing miserable does not improve an argument. Reason does not
resort to ad verecundiam, appeal to authority, one's power and influence cannot make a wrong right. Examples of
argumentum ad verecundiam are # 2, 5, 6, 7 and 10. In other words, good reasons include consistent and coherent reasons.
'A logical, impartial, objective reason avoids ambiguities like equivocation, circular reasoning, amphibology, etc. Coherent
reasoning is needed to establish truth and meaningfulness of moral judgments.

"Morality requires impartial consideration of each individual's interest." In arriving at a sound moral judgment you must
listen to everyone trying to speak. Biases and prejudices must be placed between brackets, suspended.

Everyone's message, silent or verbal, should be allowed to be unveiled.

Everyone has always something to tell. No has a monopoly of the truth. A moral subject must be seen from various
perspectives and standpoints.

SCOTT RAE'S 7 STEPS OF MORAL REASONING

› The following is another sample method of arriving at an ethical or goral decision, the 7 steps a Scott Rae’s moral
reasoning. (1996)

First , gather the facts, information. The simplest way of clarifying an ethical dilemma is to make sure the facts are clear.
Ask: Do you have all facts that are necessary, to make a good decision? What do we know? What do we need to know?"

Second, determine the ethical issues, similar to «statement of the problem." «... The competing interests are. what
create the dilemma. Moral values and virtues must support the competing interests in order for an thical dilemma to exist.
If you cannot identify the underlying values virtues then you do not have an ethical dilemma. Often people hold these
positions strongly and with passion because of the value/virtue beneath them."

Third, determine what virtues/principles have a bearing on the case. This is similar to identifying the relevant factors
(internal and external). "In an ethical dilemma certain values and principles are central to the competing positions. Identify
these. Determine if some should be given more weight than others. Ask what the source for the principle is -constitution,
culture, natural law, religious tradition... These supplement biblical principles."

Fourth, list the alternatives or develop a list of options. "Creatively determine possible courses of action for your
dilemma. Some will almost immediately be discarded but generally the more you list the greater potential for coming up
with a really good one. It will also help you come up ‘with a broader selection of ideas.»

Fifth, compare the alternatives with the virtues/principles. "This step eliminates alternatives as they are weighed by the
moral principles which have a bearing on the case. Potentially the issue will be resolved here as all alternatives except one
are eliminated: Here you must satisfy all the relevant virtues and values - so at least some of the alternatives will be
eliminated (even if you still have to go on to step 6). Often here you have to weigh principles and virtues - make sure you
have a good reason for each weighing."

Sixth, consider the consequences or test the options. "If you disclose the information directly possible consequences
include; - family feel alienated, cultural values have been violated - family may take patient to another hospital - patient
may 'give up? - patient might be happy they are finally being told the truth." If you continue withholding information
possible consequences include; - patient continues to be fearful and anxious about the treatment - patient finds out
somehow and trust is compromised - family are happy cultural values are being respected.

In general, the following may be used to test the options: (Davis, 1999)

• Harm test: Does this option do less harm than the alternatives?

• Publicity test: Would I want my choice of this option published in the newspaper?

• Defensibility test: Could I defend my choice of this option before a congressional committee or committee of peers?

• Reversibility test. Would I still think this option was a good choice if I were adversely affected by it?

• Colleague test: What do my colleagues say when I describe my problem and suggest this option as my solution?

• Professional test: What might my profession's governing body for ethics say about this option?
• Organization test: What does my company's ethics officer or legal counsel say about this?

Seventh, make a decision. "Ethical decisions rarely have pain-free solutions - it might be you have to choose the solution
with the least number of problems/painful consequences. Even when making a "good" decision you might still lose sleep
over it!"

Values Clarification

Moral reasoning either arrives at what is right or wrong, good or bad (valuable or not valuable). The moral reasoning
process may thus follow a model called values clarification.

Values clarification method as a part of the moral reasoning model consists of a series of questions which one may ask
himself or others in order to arrive at one's true values, values that he really possesses and acts upon. The following
consists of the steps of the values clarification model:

1. Choosing freely “Did you choose this value freely? Where do you suppose you first got that idea?" or "Are you the
only one among your friends who feels this way?".

2. Choosing from alternatives "What reasons do you have for your choice?" or "How long did you think about this
problem before you decided?"

3. Choosing after thoughtful consideration "What would happen if this choice were implemented? If another choice was
implemented?" or "What is good about this choice? What could be good about the other choices?"

4. Prizing and being happy with the choice. "Are you happy about feeling this way?" or "Why is this important to you?"

5. Prizing and willing to affirm the choice publicly "Would you be willing to tell the class how you feel?" or"Should
someone who feels like you stand up in public and tell people how he or she feels?»

6. Acting on the choice "What will you do about your choice? What will you do next?" or "Are you interested in joining
this group of people who think the same as you do about this?"

7. Acting repeatedly in some pattern of life "Have you done anything about it? Will you do it again?" or "Should you try
to get other people interested in this?"

To discover whether or not one really values something, one may go through the process of asking and answering the seven
questions. First is choosing freely. Are you free to choose? Are you not under duress? Second, are you choosing from
alternatives? If there is only one option, you may not be able to really choose what you really value. Third, are you
choosing with a thoughtful consideration of the alternatives. Why are you considering one of the alternatives as your choice
and not the others? Fourth, after making a choice, are you happy with it? Or are you having second thoughts? Fifth, are you
willing to let others know about your choice, affirm your choice publicly, and are happy to tell them about it? Sixth, are
you acting on your choice. If it is about a course in college, are you going to enroll and seriously pursue it? If it is about
food, are you going to eat it. If it is about a game, are you going to play it? If it is a choice of principles or rules, are you
going to follow it? Seventh, are you acting on it repeatedly? In other words, are you pursuing the course and make it as
your career? Would you repeat eating the food? Would continue playing the game, given the chance?

And do you always abide by the principle. you have chosen to follow? The answers to these questions will ultimately
reveal what you really value in life, they will clarify your values.

The 7 questions can be summed up into 3 big clarifying questions:

1). Did you choose your action freely from among alternatives after thoughtfully considering the consequences of each
alternative;

2) Do you prize or cherish your choice by publicly affirming it and by campaigning for others to choose it?;

3) Do you act on your choice repeatedly and consistently? If the answers to the questions are a YES, then the moral choice
or moral decision can be said to be a product of reason.
As a result of the process, one may discover an ideal priority of values. One may need to recollect and re-orient oneself to
genuine moral values.

Critique: Creative Responsibility

When a moral problem comes one's way, which may be communicated as a silent or verbal message, or through a
happening or an incident, the serious response would be a process of moral reasoning. One may use the aforementioned
reasoning models. One may automatically apply classic or traditional frameworks or norms. One may be legalistic or
situationist.

But one significant guide to the moral reasoning process is what ethicist like Fr. Gorospe (1974) termed as "creative
responsibility" which has the following characteristics:

First, a creative and fitting response involves some form of positive human action...

Second, to give a filing human response in some form of positive action inevitably means "create" a response. The creative
responsibility is something to be discovered and created and is best envisioned in concrete cases.

Third, a creative response means one has to choose from among many possible fitting responses. It is impossible to find
only one possible fitting response to a human situation.

Fourth, in order that creative response of the individual be authentic he must be in constant dialogue with the community
and culture in which he lives. Creative responsibility is not only individual but collective; it is co-responsibility.

Creative responsibility is responding silently or verbally to a call and address an ethical problem creatively by considering
all possible points of view, thinking outside the box, using relevant frameworks. There are always available norms or rules
to follow, but one should apply them creatively, apply them, in the light situations and conditions and be ready to bend the
rule where there is no other remedy in sight. It is easier to understand this concept from a wider point of view, like that of a
ruler or government. For instance, the response of government to the problem of drugs, like adopting the policy of killing
(murdering) the drug addict, upon the assumption that he/she is dangerous and useless being, is uncreative and
irresponsible.

One technique of coming up with a creative response is applying the phenomenological method of suspending judgment,
placing former knowledge, biases, prejudices, etc. between brackets, letting the thing be or show itself as itself.

APPLICATION

1. Group ease analysis. Using Scolt Rae's 7-step model on the business thics case, how should the salaries and benefts of a
star employee be determined?

2. You are the newly elected mayor of your municipality. You got an TRA amounting to 20 million pesos. You can work
on 3 projects: I) extension of the municipal hall; 2) construction of a welcome arch boundary on the highway, and 3)
scholarships for out-of-school youths for livelihood programs. Rank these 3 projects from the most important to the least
important. Do you really value that which you ranked # 12

Ask yourself the value clarifying questions to test if you really value most your rank 1.

3. State in metaphorical statement Gorospe's creative responsibility as an approach to a moral problem, e.g. Creative
responsibility is thinking without the box for the solution to a moral problem.

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• The minimum requirements of morality are reason and impartiality.

• Moral decisions should be arrived at by the use of reason.

• The use of reason is exemplified in the 7-step model of Scott Rae and the value clarification process.

• Fallacious reasoning such as ad hominem, ad verecundiam and ad miserecordiam has no place in moral decisions.
TITLE: Feelings and Moral Decision Making

INTRODUCTION/OVERVIEW

 There are at least two theories in ethics that give focus on the role of feelings.

 Abstract inference and emotional intuitions or instincts are seen as having relative roles in ethical thinking.

 Ethical judgments are highly emotional as people emotionally express their strong approval or disapproval of different
acts.

 Ethical subjectivism basically runs contrary to the principle that there is objectivity in morality.

 Ethical subjectivism holds that truth or falsity of ethical propositions is dependent on feelings, attitudes, or standards
of a person or group of persons.

 Emotivism claims that ethical sentences do not convey authentic propositions.

 Emotivism teaches that moral judgments are not statements of facts but are mere expressions of the emotions of the
speaker especially since they are usually feelings-based.

 Logical positivism claims that any legitimate truth claim must be empirically verifiable.

 Feelings or emotions involved in moral thinking should be anchored on careful consideration of a full range of right
goals, including altruistic ones.

ABSTRACTION

Feelings in Decision-making

Feeling, in general, is an emotional' state or reaction, experience of physical sensation, like feeling of joy, feeling of
warmth, love, affection, tenderness, etc. How do they affect moral decision-making? "Several studies conclude that up to
90 percent of the decisions we made are based on emotion. We use logic to justify our actions to ourselves and to others.

Researches also show that "actual emotional states can influence the process of moral reasoning and determine moral
judgment."

Feelings are instinctive and trained response to moral dilemma. They can be obstacles to making right decisions but they
can also help in making the right decisions.

Are there advantages of emotional decision making? According to recent research, feelings or emotions have positive
effects on decision making. Some are identified as follows:

• A totally emotional decision is very fast in comparison to a rational decision. This is reactive (and largely subconscious
and can be useful when faced with immediate danger, or in decisions of minimal significance.

• Emotions may provide a way for coding and compacting experience, enabling fast response selection. This may point to
why expert's "gut level decisions have high accuracy rates.

• Decisions that start with logic may need emotions to enable the final selection, particularly when confronted with near
equal options.

• Emotions often drive us in directions conflicting with self-interest.

Emotional decision making can also come with a number of negatives.

We make quick decisions without knowing why, and then create rational reasons to justify a poor emotional decision.

• Intensity of emotions can override rational decision-making in cases where it is clearly needed.

• Immediate and unrelated emotions can create mistakes by distorting and creating bias in judgments. In some caseS, this
can lead to unexpected and reckless action.
• Projected emotions can lead to errors because people are subject to systemic inaccuracy about how they will feel in the
future."

Feelings as Instinctive Response to Moral Dilemmas

Some ethicist believe that ethics is also a matter of emotion. They hold that moral judgment at their best should also
be emotional. Feelings are seen as also necessary in ethical judgment as they are even deemed by some as instinctive and
trained response to moral dilemmas.

Some hold that reason and emotion are not really opposites. Both abstract inference and emotional intuitions or
instincts are seen as having relative roles in ethical thinking. For one thing, feelings or emotions are said to be judgments
about the accomplishment of one’s goals. Emotions, it is thus concluded, can be rational in being based at least sometimes
on good judgments about how well a circumstance or agent accomplishes appropriate objectives. Feelings are also visceral
or instinctual by providing motivations to act morally.

In this lesson, we will tackle how feelings as instinctive responses to moral dilemmas can serve as obstacles to
making right decisions. And to balance our treatment on feelings, we will also discuss how feelings and emotions are
trained responses to situations may help in taking ethical decisions.

Feelings as Obstacles in Making the Right Decision

Feelings and emotions, however can become obstacles to becoming ethical. This is the case especially when
feelings’ roles in ethics are misinterpreted or exaggerated. So as a way of providing this, let us discuss the two famous
(but erroneous) feeling-based theories in Ethics.

Ethical Subjectivism

It is not about what things are good and what things are bad. It also does not tell how we should live or what moral norms
we should practice. Instead, it is a theory about the nature of moral judgments.

Although it admits that moral judgments are ‘truth bearers’, Ethical Subjectivism holds that the truth and falsity of ethical
propositions is dependent on the feelings, attitudes, or standards of a person or group of persons. Contrary to the belief that
morality is about objective facts, this theory states that moral judgments simply describe our personal feelings.

For every controversial topic, say homosexuality or abortion, we usually hear at least two opposing views concerning the
matter. One camp which declares that the action as immoral may express its stand by saying that God hates it, or that is
unethical, or that the doers of the action must be punished by the government. On the other hand, the rival group may claim
that the action is perfectly normal and practitioners must be tolerated, if not respected. But there is a third stance- another
group might say that people in the first two groups are expressing their respective opinion, but where morality is
concerned, there are no objective facts and no position is objectively right. This third stance represents Ethical
Subjectivism. It submits that our moral opinions are based on our feelings, and nothing more.

In Ethical Subjectivism, it is a fact that some people are homosexual and some are heterosexual, but it is not a fact that
one is really good and the other, bad. So when someone says that homosexuality is wrong, he is, according to the theory,
not stating fact about homosexuality but merely saying something about his feelings toward it. Subjectivists hold that there
is no such thing as objective right or real wrong.

Analyzing Ethical Subjectivism

Ethical subjectivism suggests that we are to identify our moral principles by simply following our feelings. On a
positive note, it allows us to think for ourselves because it implies that we need to agree with culture and society. Ethically,
it makes sense for a theory not to ultimately base morality on what society feels or dictates.

But subjectivism has plenty of problems. It indicates, unbelievably, that the mere fact that we like something
would make it good. So just imagine how the theory would assess acts like taking prohibited drugs, getting intoxicated, and
bullying others if some persons do like them. Moreover, the theory provides a weak foundation for dealing with topics like
slavery, racism, and discrimination. In subjectivism, these things would be good only if we like them.
 Notice too, Ethical Subjectivism also implies that each of us is infallible so long as we are honestly expressing our
respective feelings about moral issues. On the contrary though, it is a fact that we are sometimes wrong in our moral
evaluation, so much so that we do want to change our judgments upon discovering that we are mistaken. So, against
subjectivism, we may submit this argument:” If Ethical Subjectivism is correct, then each of us is infallible in our moral
judgments as long as we are speaking sincerely. But we are not infallible- we may be mistaken, even when we are speaking
sincerely. Therefore, Ethical Subjectivism cannot be correct.

Furthermore, Subjectivism cannot account for the fact of disagreement in Ethics. Suppose John believes that
hazing is wrong while Peter maintains that it is good. Certainly, they have disagreement. In Subjectivism, however, there is
no disagreement between them- both of them are correct provided that they are sincere in their feeling and beliefs. That is,
John could not disagree that “Peter believes that hazing is good”. Conversely, Peter could not disagree that “John believes
that hazing is wrong”. Subjectivism entails that each should acknowledge the truth of what the other is saying.

Finally, the theory could also have dangerous implications in moral education. When the theory faithfully
subscribed to, children would be taught to simply follow their likes and dislikes. Deficient in providing us any guide on
how to develop sensible and proper feelings, the theory, in effect, tells us to simply follow our personal feelings and
emotions.

Emotivism

One way to look at Emotivism is to view it as an improved version of Subjectivism. Considered by its proponents as far
more subtle and sophisticated than subjectivism. Emotivism is deemed invulnerable to many objections. This theory that
was developed chiefly by the American philosopher Charles L. Stevenson has been one of the most influential theories of
Ethics in the 20th century.

The theory basically states that moral judgments express positive or negative feelings. “X is right” merely means
“Hooray for X!”—and “X is immoral” just means “Boo on X!” Since ethical judgments are essentially commands and
exclamations, they are not true or false; so there cannot be moral truths and moral knowledge.

Emotivism is actually the most popular form of non-cognitivism, the meta-ethical theory that claims that ethical
sentences do not convey authentic propositions. Moral judgments according to Emotivism, are not statements of fact but
are expressions of the emotions of the speaker, especially since they are usually feeling- based.

To understand how the theory views moral judgments, it would help to note that language is used in a variety of
ways. Principally, language is used to state facts or what we believe to be facts. Thus, we may say, “Marcos was president
of the Philippines,” “Gasoline costs Php 50 per liter,” and “Jose Rizal is the author of Noli Me Tangere.” In each case, we
are saying something that is either true or false, and the purpose of our utterance is, typically, to convey information to the
listener.

But there are other purposes for which language may be used. Suppose one says, “Close the door!” This utterance
is neither true nor false. It is not a statement of any kind but a command. Its purpose is not to convey information but to get
one to do something. In giving you a command, I am not trying to alter your beliefs; instead I’m trying to influence your
conduct.

Aside from commands, the following utterances are also not statements of fact: “Hurrah for Marcos”; ”Boo on the
price of gasoline!”; and “Alright Pepe!” None of these can be true or false- it would make no sense to say that, “It is true to
say that hurrah for Marcos” or It is false that boo on the price of gasoline.” Note that these sentences are not used to state
facts. Instead, they are used to express the speaker’s attitudes.

With these points in mind, let us turn our attention to ethical sentences. According to Emotivism, utterances in
ethics are not fact-stating sentences, that is, they are not used to convey information. Emotivism claims that they have two
entirely different purposes.

First, they are used as a means of influencing other’s behavior. If someone says “Stealing is immoral,” Emotivism
interprets it as an attempt to stop you from doing the act. Thus, the utterance is more like a command- it is equivalent to
saying, “Don’t do that!”
 Second, moral sentences are used to express (not report) the speaker’s attitude. Accordingly, saying “Fair play is
good” is not like saying “I approve of fair play”, but it is like saying “Hurrah for fair play!”

So there lies the difference between Emotivism and Subjectivism. Subjectivism interprets ethical sentences as
statements of fact, particularly as reports of the speaker’s attitude. In Subjectivism, when John says “Hazing is immoral,”
this is the same as “I (John) disapprove of hazing”. It is therefore seen as a statement of fact about John’s attitude, which
could be true or false.

Emotivism on the other hand, denies that John’s utterance states any fact at all, even a fact about him. Instead,
John’s utterance is viewed as equivalent to something such as (1)” Hazing—yech!” and (2) “Do not participate in hazing.

Evaluating Emotivism

In effect, Emotivism suggests that in ethical disputes, we cannot appeal to reason but only to emotion. Without
doubt, this could bring about anarchy. The theory could encourage propaganda wars in which all parties involved, not
minding to resort to reason, would simply to manipulate the feelings or emotions of the opponents. Emotivism is thus
against our basic knowledge that it is favorable if opposing groups would instead judiciously deliberate about their ethical
differences and resort to reasons to resolve them.

Emotivism fails to distinguish moral judgment from mere expressions of personal preference. For an utterance to
become a genuine moral or value judgment, it must be supported by pertinent reasons. That is, if someone tells us that a
certain action is immoral, we may ask why it is so, and if there is no reasonable answer, we may discard the proposition as
absurd.

This spells the difference of moral judgments from mere expressions of personal preference. If after eating
someone says, “I like sweet cake”, he is not required to support it with good reasons. For that is a statement about his
personal taste and nothing more. But in case of moral judgments, they require backing by reasons. In the absence of
sensible rationale, they are merely capricious and ignorable.

Having logical positivist background, Emotivism discards moral truths. Maintaining that moral claims are not
testable by empirical observation and experimentation, the theory reduced morality to mere matters of feelings. Emotivism
fails to notice that humans have not only feelings but also reason, and reason plays a vital role in Ethics. In fact, moral
truths are truths of reason, that is, a moral judgment is true if it is espoused by better reasons than the alternatives.

Feelings Can Help in Making the Right Decisions

Our discussion on Ethical Subjectivism and Emotivism should not be construed, however, as completely removing
people’s feeling, taste, emotion, liking, and the like in the sphere of morality. Admittedly, there are situations in which our
feelings and likings are relevant to the rightness of our decisions and actions. In selecting a course to take, a job to assume,
and especially a person to marry, we wonder how one’s decision can be really right without at least considering our feeling,
taste, and preference.

Moreover, ethics-without-feeling also appears to go against Christian philosophy’s emphasis on love, for love is
basically a strong liking, desire, or emotion. Applied religiously, excluding feelings in moral living seems to go against the
biblical decree to worship and serve God with a joyful heart or feeling.

Experientially, our moral compasses are also strongly influenced by the fleeting forces of disgust fondness, or fear.
Indeed, subjective feelings sometimes matter when deciding right and wrong. Emotions, like our love for our friends and
family, are a crucial part of what gives life meaning, and ought to play a guiding role in morality. Sometimes, cold,
impartial, rational thinking is not the only proper way to make an ethical decision.

Nonetheless, the feelings or emotions involved in moral thinking should be anchored on careful consideration of a
full range of right goals, including altruistic ones. This consideration ought to mesh with an emotional instinctive reaction
that provides a motivation to act ethically and correct injustices.

TITLE: REASON AND IMPARTIALITY AS REQUIREMENTS FOR ETHICS

INTRODUCTION/OVERVIEW
 Humans have not only feelings but also reason, and reason plays an important role in Ethics as it is a moral truth.

 Reason spells the difference of moral judgments from mere expressions of personal preference.

 Moral deliberation is a matter of weighing reasons and being guided by them.

 Being defined by good reasons, moral truths are objective in the sense that they are true no matter what we might want
or think.

 The idea that each individual’s interest and point of view are equally important is impartiality.

 Impartiality requires that we give equal and/or adequate consideration to the interests of all concerned parties.

 The principle of impartiality assumes that every person Is equally important and no one is seen as intrinsically more
significant than anyone else.

 The 7-step Moral Reasoning Model is good in the sense that it has room in it to accommodate a whole host of different
moral and ethical perspectives, considering the ethnic and religious diversity of our society.

Reason and Impartiality Defined

Humans have not only feelings but also reason, and reason plays a vital role in Ethics. In fact, moral truths are
truths of reason; that is, a moral judgment is true if it is espoused by better reasons than the alternatives.

Reason is the basis or motive for an action, decision, or conviction. As a quality, it refers to the capacity for
logical, rational, and analytic thought; for consciously making sense of things, establishing and verifying facts, applying
common sense and logic, and justifying, and if necessary, changing practices, institutions, and beliefs based on existing or
new existing information.

A relevant definition of reason to our topic is “the power of the mind to think, understand, and form judgments by
a process of logic. However, one of the most influential philosophers in the history of Western philosophy, Immanuel Kant,
argued that reason alone is the basis for morality, and once the person understood this basic requirement for morality, he or
she would see that acting morally is the same as acting rationally. In Kant’s view, the definition of morality alone shows
that a person must decide what to do. You, as person, are able to think and reflect on different actions and then choose what
action to take. That a moral decision means mere desires did not force you to act in a particular manner. You acted by the
power of your will.

As a student, you are constantly in turmoil on whether to study or not to study. You know the importance of
studying and the consequence of not studying. However, you also know the importance of taking a break from the daily
grind. So, when exams are coming and you feel so stressed from fulfilling all school requirements and you feel the need to
take a break- in Kant’s argument that morality is based on reason, what is the moral choice?

Impartiality on the other hand involves the idea that each individual’s interests and point of view are equally
important. Also called evenhandedness or fair-mindedness, impartiality is a principle of justice holding that decisions ought
to be based on objective criteria, rather on the basis of bias, prejudice, or preferring the benefit of one person over another
for improper reasons.

Impartiality, in morality requires that we give equal and/or adequate consideration to the interests of all concerned
parties. The principle of impartiality assumes that every person, generally speaking is equally important; that is, no one is
seen as intrinsically more significant than anyone else.

Other ethicists however, suggest that some clarification is required. From the impartial standpoint, to say that no
one is seen as intrinsically more significant than anyone else, is not to say that there is no reason whatsoever for which an
individual might demand more moral attention or better treatment than others. Many ethicists suppose that from the
impartial point of view, properly conceived, some persons count as more significant, at least in certain ways. A virtuous
and respectable religious leader may be supposed to be more significant than a mere maid; so in an emergency (say a
building on fire) the decent religious leader ought to be rescued first. The reason, nonetheless, is not that the religious
leader is intrinsically more significant; rather, it is that he makes greater contribution to society.

How is impartiality a requirement for morality? For example, during an exam you saw your friend (who is sitting
next to you) secretly open he notebook to look for an answer on one of the test questions. Your teacher noticed that your
classmate was doing something suspicious. He called your classmate and asked if she was cheating. She surreptitiously
closed her notebook and answered, “No”. Your teacher did not trust your classmate’s answer so he asked you. What will
you say? According to philosopher and professor Dr. James Rachels, for your decision to be moral, you should think how
your answer will affect your friend, your teacher, the rest of your classmates, and how it will affect you as a person. An
impartial choice involves basing your decision on how all the person in the situation will be affected, and not to the
advantage of a particular party that you favor.

Thus, for the question, “Are reason and impartiality a requirement for morality?” Let’s go back to what Dr.
Rachels said: morality “ at the very least is the effort to guide one’s action based on the most logical choice (reason) while
giving equal importance to the interests of each person affected by your decisions (impartiality).

The Seven Step Moral Reasoning Model

Contemporary author Scott B. Rae, Ph.D. proposes a model for making ethical decisions. To say the least, his
suggested 7-step model introduces the use of reason and impartiality in deciding on moral matters.

Dr. Rae starts presenting his model by telling the case of a twenty year old Hispanic male who was brought to a
hospital emergency room, having suffered abdominal injuries due to a gunshot wounds obtained in gang violence:

“He had no medical insurance, and his stay in the hospital was somewhat shorter than expected due to his good
recovery. Physicians attending to him felt that he could complete his recovery at home just as easily as in the hospital and
he was released after only a few days in the hospital.

During his stay in the hospital, the patient admitted to his primary physician that he was HIV positive, having
contracted the virus that causes AIDS. This was confirmed by a blood test administered while he was hospitalized.

“When he was discharged from the hospital, the physician recommended that a professional nurse visit him
regularly at home in order to change the bandages on his still substantial wounds and to ensure that an infection did not
develop.’

“Since he had no health insurance, he was dependent on Medical, a government program that pays for necessary
medical care for those who cannot afford it. However, Medicard refused to pay for home nursing care since there was
someone already in the home who was capable of providing the necessary care.’

“That person was the patient’s twenty- one- year old sister, who was willing to take care of the brother until he was
fully recovered. Their mother had died years ago and the sister was accustomed to providing care for her younger siblings.
The patient had no objection to his sister providing this care, but he insisted that she not be told that he had tested HIV
positive. Though he had always good relationship with his sister, she did not know that he was an active homosexual. His
even greater fear was that his father would hear of his homosexual orientation and lifestyle. Homosexuality is generally
looked upon with extreme disfavor among Hispanics.’

Now, here lies the moral dilemma. The patient’s doctor is bound by his code of ethics that puts a very high priority
on keeping confidentiality. This code mandates that information about one’s medical condition that he or she does not want
known cannot be revealed by the physician. Some would even argue that the obligation of confidentiality is even greater
with HIV/AIDS since revelation of somebody’s homosexual orientation usually carries devastating personal costs for the
person who is forced “out of the closet.”

On the other hand, the patient’s sister, without knowing the truth, is putting herself at risk by providing nursing
care for him. Some would categorically argue that she has a right to know the risks to which she is subjecting herself,
especially since she willingly volunteered to take care of her brother.
 So, if you were the physician, what would you do in this case? Would you break the rule of confidentiality to
safeguard the patient’s sister, or would you keep confidentiality to protect the patient from harm that would come to him
from his other family members, especially his father.

For Rae, as good a question as “what would you do” in this situation is probably the question, “how would you
decide what to do” in this situation? He believes that the process of making a moral decision can be as significant as the
decision itself, and many ethical decisions that people encounter” are so complex that it is easy to exhaust oneself talking
around the problem without actually making any progress toward resolving it. The response to many moral dilemmas is
“where do I start?’ and the person who is faced with these decisions often needs direction that will enable him or her to
move constructively toward resolution and see the forest for the trees.”

To sufficiently address the ethical dilemmas that people encounter regularly, Rae offers model which can be used
to ensure that all the needed bases are covered. He admits that the model is not a formula that will automatically generate
the “right’ answer to an ethical problem but a guideline in ascertaining that all the right questions are being asked in the
process of ethical deliberation.

The following are the steps or elements of a model for making moral decisions:

a) Gather the Facts. Gathering the facts is the indispensable first step prior to any ethical analysis and reflection on the
case. In examining a case, we want to know the available facts at hand, as well as any facts present not known but that
need to be determined. We thus have to ask not only “what do we know?” but also “what do we need to know?” in
order to generate an intelligent ethical decision. In the case of the Hispanic male in the story of Rae the following are
the relevant facts:

The patient is a young man, infected with HIV and an active homosexual.

He suffered fairly severe abdominal wounds but is recovering well.

Homosexuality is looked down upon in Hispanic communities.

The patient has insisted that his physician maintain confidentiality about his HIV status.

The patient is afraid of rejection by his father if his homosexuality is discovered, an understandable fear given the way
homosexuality is viewed in the Hispanic community.

He was wounded by gunfire in gang violence. It is not clear but is a reasonable assumption that he is a gang member. As a
result, he likely fears rejection and perhaps retribution from his fellow gang members, especially if they discover that he is
HIV positive.

He is uninsured and cannot afford home nursing care by a professional.

Medical refuses to pay for professional home nursing care.

The patient’s sister is wiling and able to provide the necessary nursing care for her brother. She is accustomed to providing
maternal-like care for her brothers and sisters.

The patient has specifically requested that his sister not be told of his HIV status. She does not know that his brother is an
active homosexual.

The patient’s sister would be changing fairly sizable wound dressings for her brother and the chance are high that she
would come into contact with his HIV and infected blood. The probability of her becoming infected with the virus from
this contact is difficult to predict.
b) Determine the Ethical Issue (s). In the case, the competing interests are those of the sister who will provide the care
and the patient who will receive it. Both of them have interests in being protected from harm. The patient fears being
harmed in a psycho- social way if his homosexuality and HIV status were discovered. In effect, he has put the
physician in a difficult situation by demanding that his right to confidentiality be kept. Though she does not know it,
his sister fears medical harm due to the risk of contracting the HIV virus from contact with her brother’s blood.

The case be stated as a conflict between confidentiality for the patient vs. the right to know the patient’s condition for his
sister due to the risk she would be taking in giving him nursing care. By way of summary, the conflict is the need for
patient confidentiality vs. the duty to warn the sister of risk of harm.

c) Identify the Principles that have a Bearing on the Case.

So, what principles have bearing in the case? Two ethical principles that speak to the case come out of the way in which
the moral issue is stated. The case is about a conflict of rights, a conflict of duties that the physician has toward his patient
and toward the sister. He is morally obligated to exercise compassion toward both, but what compassion ( or the duty to
“do no harm”) requires depends on which individual in the case is in view.

Two principles are thus dominant. First is the widely acknowledged principle that patients have a right to have their
medical information kept confidential, especially the information that could be used to harm them if it were revealed. But a
second principle relevant to the case is the duty of the physician to warn interested parties other than the patient if they are
at risk of looming and considerable harm.

A difficult aspect of any ethical decision is deciding what weight to give the principles relevant to the case. No doubt, the
principle of confidentiality is deemed virtually sacred in the medical profession and most physicians will argue that it is
necessary to keep confidentiality if

patients are to trust their physicians and continue coming for treatment. However, confidentiality is often measured as
subordinate to the duty to warn someone who will likely be harmed if that information is not revealed. For example, if a
psychologist believes that his patient will kill his wife, or beat her severely, he has a moral obligation to inform the wife
that she is in danger from her husband. The duty to warn someone from imminent severe harm is usually considered a more
heavily weighted principle than confidentiality in case like these.

In the case, the crucial question is weighing the two conflicting principles is the degree of risk that patient’s sister is taking
by providing nursing care for her bother. If the risk is not considerable, then that weighs confidentiality a bit more heavily.
But if the risk is substantial, then the duty to warn is the more heavily weighted principle.

Considering that the sister has volunteered to perform a very sel-sacrificing service for her brother, it can be argued that her
self-sacrifice is an additional factor that weighs the duty to warn principle more heavily. Some would even claim that the
patient’s HIV is an example of “reaping what one sows”, and that all the more minimizes consideration of the patient’s
desire for confidentiality.

Another element that should be considered in the deliberation is that the risk to the patient, though it may have a higher
probability of happening, is not as severe as the risk to the sister. After all, if the worst scenario happened to the patient, his
father will disown him and the gang would throw him out. He would recover from all of that. But if his sister contracted
HIV, she would not recover from that. Though the probability of the worst- case scenario is higher for the patient, the
results of the worst case are clearly higher for the sister.

d) List the Alternatives

This step involves coming up with various alternative course of action of as part of the creative thinking included in
resolving a moral dilemma. Though there will be some alternatives which you will rule out without much thought, in
general, the more alternatives that are listed, the better the chance that your list will include some quality ones. In addition,
you may come up with some creative alternatives that you had not considered before.
In the case, one option is to tell the sister that her brother is HIV positive. This alternative comes out of considering the
duty to warn principle as higher priority. A second option is to refuse to tell her that information, considering the
confidentiality principle is carrying the most weight, thereby upholding the patient’s request for confidentiality.

However, there are other alternatives that do not involve compromise and they each reflect a weighing of the two
principles. One alternative is for the physician to warn the patient’s sister in general terms about taking suitable precautions
for caring for these types of wounds. At all times, she is to wear gloves and a mask when handling the bandages. If she gets
any blood on her clothes or body, she has to wash instantly with a disinfectant soap. Meaning, she has to take universal
precautions that any medical professional normally takes in caring for patients.

Another alternative is to request that the patient inform his sister of his condition. The patient could then request that she
not tell any other family member or any of his friends. If the patient declined, then the next step might be to say to him in
effect, “If you don’t tell her, I will.

e) Compare Alternatives with Principles

This step involves eliminating alternatives according to the moral principles that have a bearing on the case. In many cases,
the case will be resolved at this point, since the principles will remove all alternatives except one. As a matter of fact, the
purpose of this comparison is to determine whether there is a clear decision that can be made without further deliberation.

f) Assess the consequence

If the principles do not produce a clear decision, then ‘a consideration of the consequence of the remaining available
alternatives is in order. Both positive and negative consequences are to be considered. They should be informally weighted,
since some positive consequences are more beneficial than others and some negative consequences are more detrimental
than others.

The undertaking here is to take the viable alternatives that attempt to predict what the likely consequences ( both positive
and negative) of each would be. Furthermore, it should be tried to estimate approximately how beneficial are the positive
consequences and how severe the negative ones are, since some consequences are evidently more substantial than others.

Usually when two opposing alternatives are offered, the consequences of one are the mirror image of the other. This is
exemplified by our case’s alternatives of telling the sister, or refusing to tell her of her brother’s HIV status.

The option of telling the sister (or insisting that the patient tells his sister) has the following likely consequences:

The sister would be properly warned about the risks of taking care of her brother minimizing the risk of her contracting
HIV, and saving her from the risk of developing a fatal illness.

The brother’s HIV status would be out in the open, leaving family and gang friends to draw their own conclusions about
the homosexuality. Should they draw the right conclusion, which is likely, he suffers significant psycho-social harm from
his gang members, and possibly (though not certainly) from his family.

Trust with the physician and the patient suffers and he may refuse to see that physician, or any other one again until a dire
medical emergency. This would be unfortunate since due to his HIV status, he will need ongoing medical care.

In the alternative of the physician refusing to disclose the information, the following may be estimated as the likely
consequences:

The sister would not know about the risks she is taking, making her vulnerable to contracting an infection for which there
is no cure. The degree of risk that she is taking is open to debate, but some would argue that if the degree of risk is any
more than minimal, that justifies warning her since the virus produces fatal disease.

The patient’s HIV status is a well-kept secret,as his homosexuality can be kept a secret forever, since as HIV develops into
full-blown AIDS, both are likely to come out at some point in the future.

Trust between the physician and patient is maintained.

For one thing, Rae’s model is good in the sense that it has room in it to accommodate a whole host of different
moral and ethical perspectives, considering the ethnic and religious diversity of our society. Finally, it promotes the primal
consideration of reason and impartiality in ethics without necessarily eradicating the role of feelings in ethical deliberation.

TITLE: Aristotle’ Virtue Ethics

Virtue or character ethics

The following excerpts clarifies what virtue ethics is:

An ethical act is the action that a virtuous person would do in the same circumstances. Virtue ethics is person-
based rather than action-based. It looks at the virtue or moral character of the person carrying out an action, rather than at
ethical duties and rules or the consequences of particular actions.

Virtue ethics does not only deal with the rightness or wrongness of individual actions. It provides guidance as to the sort of
characteristics and behaviors a good person will seek to achieve. In that way, virtue ethics is concerned with the whole of a
person's life, rather than particular episodes or actions. A good person is someone who lives virtuously - who possesses and
lives the virtues.

Virtue ethics uses the following as a framework for ethical decision making. This is how it is done: In the Virtue
framework, we try to identify the character traits (either positive or negative) that might motivate us in a given situation.
We are concerned with what kind of person we should be and what our actions indicate about our character. We define
ethical behavior as whatever a virtuous person would do in the situation, and we seek to develop similar virtues.

Obviously, this framework is useful in situations that ask what sort of person one should be. As a way of making sense of
the world, it allows for a wide range of behaviors to be called ethical, as there might be many different types of good
character and many paths to developing it. Consequently, it takes into account all parts of human experience and their role
in ethical deliberation, as it believes that all of one's experiences, emotions, and thoughts can influence the development of
one's character.

Stated similarly, virtue ethics is "the ethics of behavior" which "focuses on the character of the persons involved in the
decision or action. If the person in question has good character, and genuine motivation and intentions, he or she is
behaving ethically." The rightness or wrongness of one's action, or the goodness or badness of one's personality depends on
his character, motivations and intentions. Virtue ethics, "is an ethics whose goal is to determine what is essential to being a
well-functioning or Flourishing human person. Virtue ethics stresses an ideal for humans or persons. As an ethics of ideals
or excellences, it is an optimistic and positive type of ethics."

Basic Types of Virtue (Excellence)

Aristotle gave two types of virtue. These are 1) intellectual virtues and ) moral virtues. Intellectual virtues refer to
excellence of the mind while moral virtues refer to a person's dispositions to act well. Intellectual virtues include ability to
understand, reason, and judge well while moral virtues dispose a person to act well. In the context of Aristotle, virtue is an
attained, actualized or self-realized potential or possibility. It can serve as a moral framework, When one has the potential
or possibility of becoming a musician, he tries to train and study to become a musician following a musician's virtue as a
framework.

Aristotle (384-323 BC) posited an ethical system that may be termed "self realizationism." In Aristotle's view,
when a person acts in accordance with his nature and realizes his full potential, he will do good and be content. At birth, a
baby is not a person, but a potential person. To become a "real" person, the child's inherent potential must be realized.
Unhappiness and frustration are caused by the unrealized potential of a person, leading to failed goals and a poor life.
Aristotle said, "Nature does nothing in vain.
 Therefore, it is imperative for people to act in accordance with their nature and develop their latent talents in order
to be content and complete. Happiness was held to be the ultimate goal. All other things, such as civic life or wealth, are
merely means to the end.

Self-realization, the awareness of one's nature and the development of one's talents, is the surest path to happiness.
The material world is in state of actualizing, realizing what it is potential for. Everything has its potency for something, its
nature. Nature unfolds naturally, it has no obligation to be so. It has no intellect and will. But a person has an obligation to
be what he/she is meant or in potency to be. It his/her obligation to develop his/her talent and virtues. The highest good or
end, telos, of a person is the fullness of his/her self-development or actualization. The concomitant result of this
development or actualization of his/her potentials is what Aristotle termed as happiness or the experience of happiness. In
short, virtue means excellence and virtue ethics is excellence ethics.

Virtue as a Mean

For Aristotle, virtue is the Golden Mean between two extremes. The virtue of courage is a mean between two
extremes of deficiency and extreme, namely, cowardice and foolhardiness, respectively. Too little et al 2015) courage is
cowardice and too much courage is foolhardiness (MacKinmon,

Virtue Ethics in Other Traditions

Confucius emphasized two virtues, jen (or ren) and li Jen means humaneness, human-heartedness and compassion.
Li means propriety, manners or culture.

Hinduism emphasizes five basic moral virtues: non-violence, truthfulness, honesty, chastity, freedom from greed. It also
emphasizes mental virtues: calmness, self-control, self-settledness, forbearance, faith and complete concentration, hunger
for spiritual liberation.

Buddhism also has its intellectual and moral virtues. From the eight-fold path are the intellectual virtues of right
understanding and right mindfulness and the moral virtues of right speech, right action and right livelihood. Jesus Christ
preached the virtues of love, mercy and compassion, hunger for justice, patience, kindness, gentleness, self-control. St.
Thomas Aquinas taught the theological virtues. - faith, hope and love. Christian tradition teaches four cardinal moral
virtues, namely: prudence, justice, temperance and fortitude. St. Thomas being an eclectic philosopher, integrated into his
own philosophy anything that is good conceived by his predecessors like Aristotle. But he enriched their thoughts with his
own insights or learning. The attainment of the highest good, which is happiness, includes its diffusion. "Bonum difusivum
est.? Goodness as goodness necessarily diffuses itself. A person's virtue diffuses itself in a right action. Goodness shares
itself, like a light that shines before all men.

One more point regarding various potentials of man which when actualized becomes virtues is Hans George
Gadamer's re-interpretation of Aristotle definition of man as a "homo logos," a speaking animal. In other words, in the light
Aristotle's wisdom, the virtue of being man is being a speaking animal, meaning, his attainment of a meaningful, refined,
and civilized language. Gutter language is vice; beautiful, meaningful and refined language is virtue. One who has a virtue
of a refined language speaks rightfully.

The virtuous person did not inherit his/her virtues. Neither were these virtues simply passed on to him
automatically. His being a person of virtue a product of deliberate consistent, continuous choice and practice or

Questions Raised About Virtue Ethics

Here are some questions raised about virtue ethics:

1. How do we determine which traits are virtues and whether they are virtues in all circumstances. Are the virtues for the
Christian culture the same with those of the Muslim, Buddhist and Hindu cultures?

2) Mao Intyre, a contemporary philosopher, believes that virtues depend at least partly on the culture of society. A warlike
society will value virtue whereas a peaceful society may think of generosity as a more important virtue.

3. Who is more courageous - the person who wants to run away but does not or that one who does not even want to run
away? This has something to do with the degree of effort and discipline required to be virtuous.
APPLICATION

1. The ethical person is a person of virtue/s. Describe this person of virtue based on:

a. Aristotle

b. Confucius

c. Hindu

d. Buddhist

e. Christian

f. Gadamer

2. A morally virtuous person habitually determines the good and does the right actions. How did Aristotle distinguish
philosophic wisdom from practical wisdom? How do you apply these thoughts in your self-project to become a virtuous
person?

3. The virtuous person did not inherit his/her virtues. Neither did the virtuous person just pop up. Neither were these virtues
simply passed on to him automatically. What message does this tell you?

4. Here is a quote attributed to Lao Tzu.

Watch your thoughts; they become your words.

Watch your words; they become your actions.

Watch your actions; they become your habits.

Watch your habits; they become your character.

Watch your character; it becomes your destiny."

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• For virtue ethics framework, ethical behavior is what a virtuous person would do in a situation.

• Aristotle gave two types of virtue - intellectual and moral.

• Intellectual virtues refer to excellence while moral virtues dispose a person to act well.

• The highest good of a person is the fullness of his self-actualization.

For Aristotle, virtue is the Golden Mean between two extremes.

• For Confucius two virtues jen (humaneness) and li (propriety are most important.

• Hinduism emphasizes five basic moral virtues: non-violence, truthfulness, honesty, chastity and freedom from greed.

• Buddhism has intellectual virtues - right understanding and right mindfulness.

The moral virtues are right speech, right action and right livelihood.

Jesus Christ preached the values of love, mercy and compassion.

• Virtue diffuses itself in a right action.

Definition of Virtue Ethics

It is a moral philosophy that teaches that an action is right if it is an action that a virtuous person would perform in the same
situation. According to the theory, a virtuous person is someone who acts virtuously and people act virtuously if they
possess and live the virtues. A virtue is a moral characteristic that an individual needs to live well.

Virtue Ethics outs emphasis on developing good habits of character and| avoiding bad character traits or vices. Virtue
ethicist, such as Aristotle, holds that people live their lives trying to develop their faculties to the fullest extent. We have
many faculties to develop such as intellectual, physical, social, moral, and so on.

Basically, the virtues are the freely chosen character traits that people praise in others. People praise them because (1) they
are difficult to develop; (2) they are corrective of natural deficiencies (for instance, industriousness is corrective of one's
tendency to be lazy) (3) they are beneficial both to self and society.

Aristotle's Ethics

Most virtue ethics theories take their inspiration from Aristotle who declared that a virtuous person is someone who has
ideal character traits.

Aristotle was born in a small colony of Stagira in Greece. That was fifteen years after the death of Socrates, the teacher of
Plato. His father was Nichomachus, who happened to be the court of physician during the reign of King Amyntas. Because
of this affiliation, Aristotle became the tutor of Alexander the Great, who was the grandson of the King. When Aristotle's
father died, he left Stagira and went to Athens to join the Academy, a famous school of Plato, and became student of Plato
for twenty years. He joined the school at the age of seventeen. His known works that are related to moral philosophy are:
Nicomachean Ethics (NE), Eudemian Ethics(EE) and the Magna Moralia.

Three general descriptions, which are interrelated, can be used to depict Aristotle's ethics. First, his ethical system may be
termed "self-realization." In his philosophy, when someone acts in line with his nature or end (telos) and thus realizes his
full potentials, he does moral and will be happy. Aristotle's view is also a type known

Three general descriptions, which are interrelated, can be used to depict Aristotle's ethics. First, his ethical system may be
termed "self-realization." In his philosophy, when someone acts in line with his nature or end (telos) and thus realizes his
full potentials, he does moral and will be happy. Aristotle's view is also a type known as eudaimonistic. As such, it focuses
on happiness (eudaimonia), or the good for man, and how to obtain it. Finally, his moral philosophy is aretaic, or virtue-
based. Whereas act-oriented ethics is focused mainly on what we should do, a virtue ethics is interested basically in what
we should be, that is, the character or the sort of person we should struggle to become.

Highlights of the Teachings of Aristotle

1. Aristotle's Telos

It is an end or purpose. He believes that the essence or essential nature of beings, including humans, lay not at their cause
(or beginning) but at their end ('telos) Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics can be thus summarized in this manner:

All humans seek happiness ("well being" ), but in different ways. True happiness is tied to the purpose or end (telos) of
human life. The essence (or telos) of human beings (that which separates and distinguishes them as species) is reason.
Reason employed in achieving happiness (human 'telos') leads to moral virtues (e.g. courage, temperance, justice and
prudence) and intellectual virtues (e.g. 'science', 'art', practical wisdom, theoretical wisdom)." ("Aritotle ❞n.d.)

In terms of his ethics, Aristotle thus believes in the excellence of philosophical contemplation and virtuous actions
stemming from virtuous persons. By virtuous actions, he means those which the person with wisdom would choose
because what is good is obvious to such a person.

2. Happiness and Virtues

Aristotle believes that ultimate human goal is self-realization. This entails achieving one's natural purpose by functioning
or living consistently with human nature. Accomplishing it, in turn, produces happiness; whereas inability to realize it leads
to sadness, frustration, and ultimately to poor life. It therefore behooves us to act in accordance with our nature so as to be
content and complete. In detail, what does Aristotle mean by human nature?

Aristotle identifies three natures of man: the vegetable or physical, animal or emotional, and rational or mental. As
previously explained, the thing that distinguishes humans from all other creatures is the rational nature or the ability to
reason. Rational development is thus deemed the most important, as it is uniquely human. Accordingly, living in
accordance with reason is viewed as vital in self- realization or developing one's potential.

This self-realization-the awareness of our nature and the development of our potentials-is the key to human happiness. But
what is this happiness in line with Aristotle's ethical view?

3. Virtue as Habit

Aristotle's idea of happiness should also be understood in the sense of human flourishing. This flourishing is attained by the
habitual practice of moral and intellectual excellences, or 'virtues'.

Moral virtue, for Aristotle, is the only practical road to effective action. The virtuous person, who has a good character,
sees truly, judges rightly, and acts morally.

4. Virtues and the Golden Mean

Virtue refers to an excellence of moral or intellectual character. As mentioned earlier, Aristotle distinguishes two kinds of
virtues: The first corresponds to the fully rational part of the soul, the fully rational part of the soul, the intellect; the second
pertains to the rational soul which can 'obey reason'. Moral virtue is an expression of character, formed by habits reflecting
repeated choices, hence is also called virtue of character.

Ethics, for Aristotle, is the inquiry into the human good. This is to say that the purpose of studying ethics is to make
ourselves good, though Aristotle assumes that we already want to become good. This human good is eudaimonia or
happiness.

Aristotle observed that wise persons seek an end that is self-sufficient, final, and attainable over one's life. This end is
happiness which all human beings want. Aristotle also considers happiness as the summum bonum- the greatest good of
all human life. He adds that it is the only in human life. He adds that it is the only intrinsic good, that is, the good that is
pursued for its own sake. While all other things, such as pleasure, wealth, and honor are merely means to an end, happiness
is man's ultimate goal as it is an end itself.

In fact, Aristotle fundamentally connects happiness to virtues, as he explains happiness in terms of activities manifesting
the virtues. Human good, he says, is the activity of the soul in accordance with excellence or virtue. Aristotle's happiness,
therefore, is not much of a subjective feeling of well-being, but human being itself, being the human good. Moreover, his
account of eudaimonia is different from hedonist and utilitarian account of happiness as pleasure.

Aristotle mentions four basic moral virtues: courage, temperance, justice and prudence. Courage is the golden mean
between cowardice (deficiency) and tactless rashness (excess). The coward has too little bravery, the reckless individual
has too much, the courageous shows just the proper amount of bravery.

Temperance is the mean between gluttony (excess) and extreme frugality (deficiency). Both overindulgence and denying
oneself of bodily pleasures make one less happy; whereas practicing temperance makes one virtuous and fulfilled. This
directly exemplifies the connection between being happy and being virtuous.

Justice is the virtue of giving others right what they deserve, neither more nor less. Now, what helps us to know what is just
or reasonable in various circumstances, enabling us to keep away from excess and defect is the moral virtue called
prudence or wisdom.

The question why we should be moral was also answered by Aristotle by his doctrine of virtue. By simply including justice
or morality among his list of virtues, he implies that man has to be moral. Additional moral virtues include generosity,
civility, trustworthiness, reliability, sociability, dependability, honesty, sincerity, gentleness, tolerance, benevolence,
cooperativeness, empathy, tact, kindness, and good temper.
Aristotle nonetheless admits that some actions, such as adultery, theft, and murder, do not admit of a mean and are always
wrong. We could never excuse anyone for committing just the right amount of murders, nor defend someone for
committing just the right amount of murders, nor defend someone for committing adultery with the right person at the right
time in the right way. In the same vein, no culture considers envy, spite, dishonesty, insensitivity, cruelty, arrogance,
injustice, cowardice, self-centeredness, and the like to be virtue.

TITLE: St. Thomas Natural Law Ethics

Read Cicero's explanation of the natural law from then answer the questions below:

True law is right reason conformable to nature, universal, unchangeable, eternal whose commands urge us to duty,
and whose prohibitions restrain us from evil... This law cannot be contradicted by any other law, and is not liable to
derogation or abrogation.

Neither the senate nor the people can give us any dispensation for not obeying this universal law of justice. It needs
no other expositor and interpreter than our conscience. It is not one thing at Rome, and another at Athens; one thing today
and another tomorrow; but in all times and nations this must universal law must forever reign, eternal and imperishable. It
is the sovereign master and emperor of all beings.

God himself is its author, its promulgator and enforcer. And he who does not obey it flies from himself, and does
violence to the very nature of man. And so, by doing he will endure the severest penalties even if he avoids the other evils
which are usually accounted punishments.

Form groups of 5 then discuss your answer to the ff. questions.

1. Can persons choose to amend your ant abolish natural law? • Read the statement that supports your answer.

2. Is the natural law applicable only to a select group of people and countries? - Read the statement that supports your
answer.

3. What are the consequences to persons who disobey the natural aw? - Read the statement that supports your answer.

4. The phrase. whose prohibitions restrain us from evil, (whose referring to natural law-) is an act evil because natural law
forbids it so? Or does natural law forbid an act because in itself the act is evil? Which is CORRECT?

5. Who is the author of the natural law?

ANALYSIS:

Based on your answers to questions 1 and 2, is the sense of right and wrong ingrained in our nature as human persons?

ABSTRACTION

Meaning of Natural law and Other Laws

Based on the phrase "natural law ethics," what is ethical is what the natural law says. What is natural law? Natural
law is the *ordinance of Divine Wisdom, which is made known to us by reason and which requires the observance of the
moral order." It may also be defined to be "The eternal law as far as it made known by human reason." By the eternal law
we mean all that God necessarily decrees from eternity. That part of the eternal law which reason reveals as directive of
human acts, we call the natural law.

Eternal law is what God wills for creation. We are part of God's creation and so we are part of Gods eternal law.
We may not be able to understand the eternal law fully given our limitations. However, by reason we have a grasp or a
sense of the eternal law. This is natural law.

St. Thomas Aquinas wrote:

There is in man an inclination to good, according to the nature of his reason, which nature is proper to him; thus,
man has a natural inclination to know the truth about God, and to live in society; and in this respect, whatever pertains to
this inclination belongs to the natural law; for instance, to shun ignorance, to avoid offending those among whom one has
to live, and other such things regarding the above inclination.

Let us relate natural law to other kinds of law:

Rev. Charles Coppens, S.J. explains the various kinds of law accordingto St. Thomas:

A law decreed by Almighty God is a divine law; one established by man is a human law. Those laws for human
conduct which God, having once decreed creation, necessarily enacts in accordance with that decree, constitute the
natural law; those which God or man freely enacts are positive laws.

Now, between the natural law and positive laws, there are these four points of difference:

1. The natural law, unlike positive laws, does not depend upon the free will of God; its requirements flow from the intrinsic
difference between right and wrong, which is determined by the very essences of things. Hence, under this law, certain acts
are not evil primarily because they are forbidden, but they are forbidden because in themselves they are evil.

2. Consequently, the natural law is the same at all times, in all places, and for all persons; but this is not true of positive
laws, which may be changed with changing circumstances, or, if the law-giver so wills it, even without change of
circumstances.

3. The natural law emanates from God alone; but positive laws may be enacted by men.

4. The natural law is promulgated through the light of reason; positive laws require for their promulgation a sign external
to man.

In summary, we have an eternal law, God's law for the whole creation, which we cannot fully grasp given our limitation.
But with our gift of reason, we have a grasp of that eternal law, that is natural law. Divine law is decreed by God while
human law is decreed by man.

Natural Law as a Universal Formula

As an ethical framework, the natural law or maxim may be applied as implicitly illustrated in the following.

A universal formula which contains in brief an expression of the whole natural law is this: "Keep the moral order,"
or "Observe right order in your actions." Some writers state it simply as, "Do good and avoid evil." Now, the right order of
human acts consists evidently in their proper direction to man's last end, which is, subjectively, his perfect beatitude and,
objectively, God Himself. God must direct His free creatures to their last end, hence He commands them to observe the
moral order and forbids them to depart from it.

So, what is natural and ethical for a human person is to "keep the moral order, to "observe right order," to "do good
and avoid evil" to preserve his/ her being. Suicide and murder work against preservation of human life, therefore, are a
violation of the natural law.

Law Defined

'St. Thomas explained that the natural law is promulgated through the light of reason. Positive laws require for
their promulgation a sign external to man. Laws that are enacted are called positive laws. St. Thomas defined law in
general as *an ordinance of reason which is for the common good, and has been promulgated by one having charge of the
community." For a law to be a law, it must have the four requisites, namely, a) ordinance (order, command) of reason, b)
for the common good, c) promulgation, and d) by one who has charge of the community. Based on the definition, an
unreasonable law is not law; a law that favors one to the prejudice of another or does not equally protect all is not a law; a
law that is not promulgated or published or made known to all, is not a law; and a law that is enacted by unauthorized
persons is not a law.

A law must be a product of reason not purely of emotion. When the heart rules the mind, we can be highly
unreasonable. A law is promulgated for the common good because we are meant to be social, we belong to a community. A
law that favors the male gender at the expense of the female gender cannot be a law. A law must be promulgated by one
whose primary ask is to care for his/her people, the community. The primary task of our lawmakers is to care for and
protect their people by legislating laws for the common good. The law must be made known or communicated to all people
to ensure correct understanding and compliance. A law that is promulgated does not take effect immediately.

APPLICATION: Read these two laws. Does each law fulfill the definition of a law as given? COME UP WITH AN
ANALYSIS PAPER. YOUR VIEWPOINT SHOULD BE EXAMINED CLOSELY AGAINST ST. THOMAS'
DEFINITION OF A LAW.

Speed Limiter in Public Vehicles

Republic Act 10916. or "An act requiring the mandatory installation of speed limiter in public utility and certain
types of vehicle" will require all covered public transportation vehicles to have a speed limiter.

Vehicles without speed limiters. before. the passage of the law will have to comply within 18 months after it takes
effect.

The absence of a speed limiter will not be allowed for registration or be given a franchise permit, and the owners or
operators for the vehicle will be fined with P50,000.

Meanwhile, the driver's license will be suspended for one month and the franchise permit for three months for the
first offense.

Sanctions for succeeding offenses will be license suspension for three months and franchise suspension for six
months on top of imposed fines at the second offense; and revocation of license and franchise suspension for at least a year,
and an imposed fine for the third offense.

Offenders caught tampering with speed limiters will be imprisoned for six to 36 months and fined with P30,000.

Anti-age discrimination for employees

Republic Act 10911 or "An act prohibiting discrimination

against any individual in employment on account of age and providing penalties therefore" prohibits employers from
withholding promotion or deny training opportunities, compensation and privileges from employees on the basis of age.

Recruitment and employment agencies are also prohibited from refusing to help individuals regardless of age from
seeking employment and labor organizations are prohibited from refusing employees of membership because of their age.

Violators will be fined at least P50,000 but not more than P500,000 and/or be imprisoned between three months to
two years.

KEY TAKEAWAYS

What is ethical according to the natural law ethics framework is that which the natural law commands us to do - "do good,
avoid evil?

There are many types of law. Eternal law is Divine Wisdom that directs all beings toward their end, God Himself.
Natural law is law "written in the hearts of men." Positive laws are those enacted by God or men. Divine law is decreed by
God in the Ten Commandments and in the new commandment of love taught and exemplified by Jesus Christ. Human law
is promulgated by persons.

Natural law has the following characteristics: 1) flows from the intrinsic difference between right and wrong,
which is determined by the very essences of things; 2) the same at all times, in all places, and for all persons; 3) emanates
from God alone, and 4) is promulgated through the light of reason.

Positive law 1) depends on the free will of God; 2) not the same at times, places and for all persons; 3) may be
changed with changing circumstances, or, if the law-giver so wills it, even without change of circumstances, and 4)
requires for their promulgation a sign external to persons. A law is an ordinance of reason promulgated for the common
good by one.
TITLE: Ethics of Thomas Aquinas

Thomas Aquinas' Ethics

Also called the Angelic Doctor and the Prince of Scholastics, Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) is an Italian philosopher and
theologian who ranks among the most important thinkers of the medieval time period.

In Ethics, Aquinas depends so heavily on Aristotle. Like the Greek philosopher, Aquinas believes that all actions are
directed towards ends and that happiness is the final end. Aquinas thinks that happiness consists in activities in accordance
with virtue. But like Augustine, Aquinas declares that ultimate happiness is not attainable in this life, for happiness is the
present life remains imperfect. True happiness then, is to be found only in the souls of the blessed in heaven or in beatitude
with God.

Central also in Aquinas ethics is the typology of laws. By the term 'law', he means an ordinance of reason for the common
good, promulgated by someone who has care of the community.

For Aquinas, there are four primary types of law:

⚫ Eternal law refers to the rational plan of God by which all creation is ordered. As God is the supreme ruler of
everything, the rational pattern or form of the universe that exists in His mind is the law that directs everything in the
universe to its appointed end.

⚫ Natural law is the aspect of the eternal law which is accessible to human reason. Because mankind is part of the eternal
order, there is a portion of the eternal law that relates specifically to human conduct. This is the moral law, the law or order
to which people are subject by their nature ordering them to do good and avoid evil.

⚫ Human law refers to the positive laws. Because natural law is too broad to provide particular guidance, the human law's
precise, positive rules of behavior are supposed to spell out what the natural law prescribes. This human law includes the
civil and criminal laws, though only those formulated in the light of practical reason and moral laws. Human laws that are
against natural law are not real laws, and people are not obliged to obey those unjust laws.

⚫ Divine law serves to complement the other types of law. It is a law of revelation, disclosed through sacred text or
Scriptures and the Church which is also directed toward man's eternal end. Though concerned also with external aspects of
conduct, the divine law is more focused on how man can be inwardly holy and eventually attain salvation.

Features of Human Actions

Aquinas evaluates human actions on the basis not only of their conformity to the natural law but also of their specific
features. He mentions at least three aspects through which the morality of an act can be determined—in terms of:

⚫ Species of an action refers to its kind. It is also called the object of the action. Human deeds can be divided into kinds,
some of which are good (e.g. improving one's own property), some bad (e.g. theft), and some indifferent or neutral (e.g.
walking in the park). Aquinas holds that for an action to be moral, it must be good or at least not bad in species.

⚫ Accidents simply refer to the circumstances surrounding the action. In ethically evaluating an action, the context in
which the action takes place is also considered because an act might be flawed through its circumstances. For instance,
while Christians are bound to profess one's belief in God, there are certain situations in which it is inappropriate or even
offensive and distasteful to do so.

⚫ End stands for the agent's intention. An act might be unjust through its intention. To intend to direct oneself against a
good is clearly immoral. Aquinas gives murder, lying, and blasphemy as instantiations of this ill will. Correspondingly, a
bad intention can spoil a good act, like giving of alms out of vainglory. Nonetheless, an intention, no matter how good it
may be, cannot redeem a bad act. For Aquinas theft is intrinsically bad. Hence, stealing to give the poor, as in the case pf
Robin Hood, is an unjust act. In this view, converting to a particular religion, say Christianity, merely for material gains is
an unjust act.
Happiness, Moral Virtues, and Theological Virtues

Aquinas believes that all actions are directed towards ends and that happiness is the final end. He also thinks that happiness
is not equated with pleasure, material possessions, honor, or any sensual good, but consists in activities in accordance with
virtue. A person needs a moral character cultivated through the habits of choice to realize real happiness.

Aquinas defines virtue as "a good habit bearing on activity" or a good faculty-habit. Habits are firm dispositions or "hard to
eradicate❞ qualities that dispose us to act in a particular manner. Notice that not all habits are virtue, but only those that
incline us towards our good or end.

Aquinas mentions at least two kinds of infused virtues:

⚫ Moral virtues have as their object not God Himself, but activities that are less virtuous and inferior to the final end. To
this kind belong the four basic virtues- (prudence, fortitude, temperance, and justice)

⚫ Theological virtues are concerned directly with God. They provide us with true knowledge and desire of God and of
His will. The virtues of (1) faith which makes us recognize and believe in the true God, (2) hope makes us wish to be with
Him, and (3) love makes us desire and adore Him. Unlike Aristotle's virtues, Christian virtues are not applications of the
golden mean between extremes. We ought to exercise these virtues according to what God demands of us and according to
our capacity as individuals.

FOUR CARDINAL VIRTUES OF AQUINAS

• Prudence- this virtue is an exercise of understanding that helps us know the best means in solving moral problems in
which we encounter in the concrete circumstance

• Justice- this habit is an exercise of the will to give or render the things, be intellectual or material, to anyone who owns it

• Fortitude- this habit is an exercise of courage, to face any dangers one encounters without fear, especially when life is at
stake

• Temperance- this habit is an exercise of control in the midst of strong attraction to pleasure

1. What particular moral and cardinal virtue you would like to develop at this point in your life?

2. What are other virtues you think will follow as consequence of practicing your chosen virtue?