Ethics and Moral Standards PDF

Rules are important to social beings. Just imagine the chaos that results from the absence of rules. What happens when students and professors alike come to school in any attire they want? Imagine what happens when in the classroom everyone wants to talk at the same time. Let\'s go out of the classr...

Rules are important to social beings. Just imagine the chaos that results from the absence of rules. What happens when students and professors alike come to school in any attire they want? Imagine what happens when in the classroom everyone wants to talk at the same time. Let\'s go out of the classroom for more examples. What if there were no traffic rules? Rules can be expanded to include the Philippine Constitution and other laws. What if there were no Constitution and other laws of the land? Rules are meant to set order. Rules (the Philippine Constitution and other laws included) are meant for man. The greatest Teacher, Jesus Christ, preached emphatically, \"The Sabbath is made for man and not man for the Sabbath\". The law of the Sabbath, i.e. to keep it holy and observe rest, is meant to make man whole by resting and by giving him time to thank and spend time in prayer and worship for his own good. For the sake of order in society, everyone is subject to rules. In a democratic country like the Philippines, we often hear the statement \"No one is above the law,\" including the highest official of the country. We are all subject to rules or else court chaos. Rules are not meant to restrict your freedom. They are meant to help you grow in freedom, to grow in your ability to choose and do what is good for you and for others. If there are rules or laws that restrict your ability or strength to do good, they are suffocating laws and they are not good laws. They ought to be abolished. Any rule or law that prevents human persons from doing and being good ought to be repealed. They have no reasons to exist. In fact, if you are a rule or a law-abiding citizen, you don\'t even feel the restricting presence of a rule or law because you do what the law or what the rule states everybody should do. Looking from a higher point of view, this is the state when one acts not because rules demand it but because one sees he has to act that way. It is like saying one no longer needs the rule or law because one has become mature and wise enough to discern what ought to be done. This is an ideal state which the ancient Chinese sages (Confucius, Lao Tzu) referred to as state of no-more rules, no-more laws, because people discern what is right or good and do what is right or good without thinking or a rule or law; people are no longer in need of a government because they can govern themselves. It is a state where one owns the moral standard, not just abide by the moral standard. Rules are not meant to restrict your freedom. They are meant to help you grow in freedom, to grow in your ability to choose and do what is good for you and for others. If there are rules or laws that restrict your ability or strength to do good, they are suffocating laws and they are not good laws. They ought to be abolished. Any rule or law that prevents human persons from doing and being good ought to be repealed. They have no reasons to exist. In fact, if you are a rule or a law-abiding citizen, you don\'t even feel the restricting presence of a rule or law because you do what the law or what the rule states everybody should do. Looking from a higher point of view, this is the state when one acts not because rules demand it but because one sees he has to act that way. It is like saying one no longer needs the rule or law because one has become mature and wise enough to discern what ought to be done. This is an ideal state which the ancient Chinese sages (Confucius, Lao Tzu) referred to as state of no-more rules, no-more laws, because people discern what is right or good and do what is right or good without thinking or a rule or law; people are no longer in need of a government because they can govern themselves. It is a state where one owns the moral standard, not just abide by the moral standard. Etymology and Meaning of Ethics The term \"ethics\" comes from the Greek word \"ethos\" meaning \"custom\" used in the works of Aristotle, while the term \"moral\" is the Latin equivalent. Based on the Greek and Latin etymology of the word \"ethics\", ethics deals with morality. When the Roman orator Cicero exclaimed, \"O tempora o mores\" (Cicero, 1856) (Oh, what time and what morals), he may have been trying to express dismay at the morality of his time. Ethics or moral philosophy, is a branch of philosophy which deals with moral standards, inquires about the rightness or wrongness of human behavior or the goodness or badness of personality, trait or character. It deals with ideas, with topics such as moral standards or norms of morality, conscience, moral values and virtues. Ethics is a study of the morality of human acts and moral agents, what makes an act obligatory and what makes a person accountable. \"Moral\" is the adjective describing a human act as either ethically right or wrong, or qualifying a person, personality, character, as either ethically good or bad. Moral Standards or Moral Frameworks and Non-Moral Standards Since ethics is a study of moral standards, then the first question for the course is, what are moral standards. The following are supposed to be examples of moral standards: \"Stealing is wrong.\" \"Killing is wrong.\" \"Telling lies is wrong.\" \"Adultery is wrong.\" \"Environment preservation is the right thing to do\". \"Freedom with responsibility is the right way.\" \"Giving what is due to others is justice\". Hence, moral standards are norms or prescriptions that serve as the frameworks for determining what ought to be done or what is right or wrong action, what is good or bad character. In the Activity phase of this Lesson the following can be classified as moral standards: - - - - An indicator whether or not a standard is moral or nonmoral lies in its compliance as distinguished from its non-compliance. Non-compliance with moral standards causes a sense of guilt, while non-compliance with a non-moral standard may only cause shame or embarrassment. Classification of the Theories of Moral Standards Garner and Rosen (1967) classified the various moral standards formulated by moral philosophers as follows: 1\) Consequence (teleological, from tele which means end, result, or consequence) standard states that an act is right or wrong depending on the consequences of the act, that is, the good that is produced in the world. Will it do you good if you go to school? If the answer is right, because you learn how to read and write, then going to school is right. The consequence standard can also be a basis for determining whether or not a rule is a right rule. So the consequence standard states that the rightness or wrongness of a rule depends on the consequences or the good that is produced in following the rule. For instance, if everyone follows the rules of a game, everyone will enjoy playing the game. This good consequence proves the rule must be a correct rule. 2\) Not-only-consequence standard (deontological, holds that the rightness or wrongness of an action or rule depends on sense of duty, natural law, virtue and the demand of the situation or circumstances. The rightness or wrongness of an action does not only depend or rely on the consequence of that action or following that rule. Natural law and virtue ethics are deontological moral standards because their basis for determining what is right or wrong does not depend on consequences but on the natural law and virtue. Situation ethics, too, is deontological because the rightness or wrongness of an act depends on the situation and circumstances requiring or demanding exception to rule. Rosen and Garner are inclined to consider deontology, be it rule or act deontology, as the better moral standard because it synthesizes or includes all the other theories of norms. Under this theory, the rightness or wrongness of an action depends on (or is a function of) all the following: a\) consequences of an action or rule, what promotes one\'s greatest good, or the greatest good of the greatest number; b\) consideration other than consequences, like the obligatoriness or the act based on natural law, or its being one\'s duty, or its promoting an ideal virtue. Deontology also considers the object, purpose, and circumstances or situation of the moral Non-moral standards originating from social rules, demands of etiquette and good manners. They are guides of action which should be followed as expected by society. Moral standards are based on the natural law, the consequence of one\'s actions and sense of duty. Moral standards are based on natural law, the law of God revealed through human reason or the \" law of God written in the hearts of men.\" Moral standards are based on consequences standards. That which leads to a good consequence or result like the greatest good of the greatest number is what is moral. Moral standards are based also on non-consequence standards or sense of duty that you wish would be followed by all. Respect for humanity, treatment of the other as a human person, an act that is moral, springs from a sense of duty, a sense of duty that you wish is wished by all and applies to all human persons. For theists, the origin of moral standards is God who \"wrote his law in the heart of every person\", the natural law. For non-theists, the origin of moral standards is the moral frameworks formulated by philosophers like Confucius, Immanuel Kant, Stuart Mill, et al. The evolutionist claims that the sense of moral standards must have evolved with man, not something that was implanted in every human person instantly at the moment of creation. Creation as a process may have taken place not only in 6 days as the creationist claims but in billions of years as the evolutionist asserts. For the theists, belief in God strengthens them to be moral.