Ethics - Foundations of Moral Valuation PDF

# **ETHICS** ## **Foundations of Moral Valuation** ### **Oscar G. Bulaong Jr. • Mark Joseph T. Calano** ### **Albert M. Lagliva • Michael Ner E. Mariano** ### **Jesus Deogracias Z. Principe** # **Chapter I** ## **The Ethical Dimension of Human Existence** ### **Chapter Objectives** After reading...

# **ETHICS** ## **Foundations of Moral Valuation** ### **Oscar G. Bulaong Jr. • Mark Joseph T. Calano** ### **Albert M. Lagliva • Michael Ner E. Mariano** ### **Jesus Deogracias Z. Principe** # **Chapter I** ## **The Ethical Dimension of Human Existence** ### **Chapter Objectives** After reading this chapter, you should be able to: - identify the ethical aspect of human life and the scope of ethical thinking. - define and explain the terms that are relevant to ethical thinking. - evaluate the difficulties that are involved in maintaining certain commonly-held notions on ethics. ## **Introduction** In August 2007, newspapers reported what seemed to be yet another sad incident of fraternity violence. Cris Anthony Mendez, a twenty-year-old student of the University of the Philippines (UP), was rushed to the hospital in the early morning hours; unconscious, with large bruises on his chest, back, and legs. He passed away that morning, and the subsequent autopsy report strongly suggests that his physical injuries were most probably the result of "hazing" (the term colloquially used to refer to initiation rites in which neophytes may be subjected to various forms of physical abuse). What exactly happened remains an open question, as none of those who were with him that night came forward to shed light on what had transpired. Needless to say, none of them came forward to assume responsibility for the death of Cris. Even as the leaders of the Sigma Rho fraternity publicly denounced the death of Cris, those members of theirs who had been with him that night vanished, avoiding and refusing to cooperate with legal authorities. Meanwhile, UP students and the general public clamored for justice. In a move that surprised the student body, the UP chancellor called on all fraternities to justify their continued existence. Meanwhile, the case of the tragic death of Cris Anthony Mendez was left unresolved. It remains that way up to this day. No one knows just what exactly happened. No charges have been filed, no definitive testimony has been forthcoming. But there is more to this for us than just a criminal mystery. Pondering on the death of Cris, we may find ourselves asking questions such as “What is the value of one's life?”"What exactly were the wrongs done to Cris by his so-called fraternity brothers?" or perhaps even "Is there any good to fraternities?" These questions that concern good and bad, or right and wrong—and these are questions concerning value-are the kind of questions that we deal with in ethics. ## **Value** Ethics, generally speaking, is about matters such as the good thing that we should pursue and the bad thing that we should avoid; the right ways in which we could or should act and the wrong ways of acting. It is about what is acceptable and unacceptable in human behavior. It may involve obligations that we are expected to fulfill, prohibitions that we are required to respect, or ideals that we are encouraged to meet. Ethics as a subject for us to study is about determining the grounds for the values with particular and special significance to human life. ## **Clarifications and Terminology** Recognizing the notions of good and bad, and right and wrong, are the primary concern of Ethics. In order to start, it would be useful to clarify the following points. ### **Kinds of Valuation** Our first point of clarification is to recognize that there are instances when we make value judgments that are not considered to be part of ethics. For instance, I could say that this new movie I had just seen was a "good" one because I enjoyed it, or a song I had just heard on the radio was a "bad" one because it had an unpleasant tone, but these are not part of a discussion of ethics. I may have an opinion as to what is the "right" dip (sawsawan) for my chicken barbecue, or I may maintain that it is "wrong" to wear a leather vest over a Barong Tagalog, and these are not concerns of ethics. These are valuations that fall under the domain of aesthetics. The word "aesthetics" is derived from the Greek word _aisthesis_ ("sense" or "feeling") and refers to the judgments of personal approval or disapproval that we make about what we see, hear, smell, or taste. In fact, we often use the word "taste" to refer to the personal aesthetic preferences that we have on these matters, such as “his taste in music" or "her taste in clothes." Similarly, we have a sense of approval or disapproval concerning certain actions which can be considered relatively more trivial in nature. Thus, for instance, I may think that it is "right" to knock politely on someone's door, while it is "wrong" to barge into one's office. Perhaps I may approve of a child who knows how to ask for something properly by saying, "please" and otherwise, disapprove of a woman that I see picking her nose in public. These and other similar examples belong to the category of etiquette, which is concerned with right and wrong actions, but those which might be considered not quite grave enough to belong to a discussion on ethics. To clarify this point, we can differentiate how I may be displeased seeing a healthy young man refuse to offer his seat on the bus to an elderly lady, but my indignation and shock would be much greater if I were to see a man deliberately push another one out of a moving bus. We can also consider how a notion of right and wrong actions can easily appear in a context that is not a matter of ethics. This could also be when learning how to bake, for instance. I am told that the right thing to do would be to mix the dry ingredients first, such as flour or sugar before bringing in any liquids, like milk or cream; this is the right thing to do in baking, but not one that belongs to a discussion of ethics. This could also be when learning how to play basketball. I am instructed that it is against the rules to walk more than two steps without dribbling the ball; again, obeying this rule to not travel is something that makes sense only in the context of the game and is not an ethical prohibition. We derive from the Greek word _techne_ the English words "technique" and "technical" which are often used to refer to a proper way (or right way) of doing things, but a technical valuation (or right and wrong technique of doing things) may not necessarily be an ethical one as these examples show. Recognizing the characteristics of aesthetic and technical valuation allows us to have a rough guide as to what belongs to a discussion of ethics. They involve valuations that we make in a sphere of human actions, characterized by certain gravity and concern the human well-being or human life itself. Therefore, matters that concern life and death such as war, capital punishment, or abortion and matters that concern human well-being such as poverty, inequality, or sexual identity are often included in discussions of ethics. However, this general description is only a starting point and will require further elaboration. One complication that can be noted is that the distinction between what belongs to ethics and what does not is not always so clearly defined. At times, the question of what is grave or trivial is debatable, and sometimes some of the most heated discussions in ethics could be on the fundamental question of whether a certain sphere of human activities belongs to this discussion. Are clothes always just a matter of taste or would provocative clothing call for some, kind of moral judgment? Can we say that a man who verbally abuses his girlfriend is simply showing bad manners or does this behavior deserve stronger moral condemnation? ### **Ethics and Morals** Our second point of clarification is on the use of the words "ethics" and "morals." This discussion of ethics and morals would include cognates such as ethical, unethical, immoral, amoral, morality, and so on. As we proceed, we should be careful particularly on the use of the word “not” when applied to the words “moral” or “ethical" as this can be ambiguous. One might say that cooking is not ethical, that is, the act of cooking does not belong to a discussion of ethics; on the other hand, one might say that lying is not ethical, but the meaning here is that the act of lying would be an unethical act. Let us consider those two words further. The term "morals" may be used to refer to specific beliefs or attitudes that people have or to describe acts that people perform. Thus, it is sometimes said that an individual’s personal conduct is referred to as his morals, and if he falls short of behaving properly, this can be described as immoral. However, we also have terms such as "moral judgment" or "moral reasoning," which suggest a more rational aspect. The term "ethics" can be spoken of as the discipline of studying and understanding ideal human behavior and ideal ways of thinking. Thus, ethics is acknowledged as an intellectual discipline belonging to philosophy. However, acceptable and unacceptable behaviors are also generally described as ethical and unethical, respectively. In addition, with regard to the acceptable and unacceptable ways of behaving in a given field, we have the term "professional ethics" (e.g., legal ethics for the proper comportment of lawyers and other people in the legal profession; medical ethics for doctors and nurses; and media ethics for writers and reporters). Therefore, various thinkers and writers posit a distinction between the terms "moral" and "ethics" and they may have good reasons for doing so, but there is no consensus as to how to make that distinction. Ordinary conversation presents a much less rigid distinction between these terms, and in this book, we will lean in that direction as we do not need to occupy ourselves here with the question of how different thinkers and writers construe that distinction. So, in this book, we will be using the terms "ethical" and “moral" (likewise, “ethics” and “morality") interchangeably. ### **Philosophy** Philosophy is commonly thought of today as a particular discipline in a college curriculum, perhaps a subject that one could take, or a course in which one could get a degree. The word "philosophy" is rooted in the Greek words that translate to "love of wisdom" (philia is the noun often translated into English as some form of "friendship" or "love," while sophia is the noun often translated into English as "wisdom"). More specifically, the word "philosophy" had been first used by thinkers to refer to their striving to better understand reality in a maintained and systematic manner. Historically speaking, it can be said that philosophy started among the ancient Greeks around two and a half thousand years ago, when certain people in the Mediterranean made the mental effort of trying to make sense of the world and of human life in a unique way. As time passed, asking certain specific questions would develop into specific methods; these particular topics and the ways of addressing them established themselves as disciplines in their own right, which is why we now have the empirical sciences such as biology or the social sciences such as psychology. Philosophy remains as the unique discipline that asks significant questions that other fields are unable to address. The different branches or areas of philosophy correspond to some of these questions, generally stated as follows: metaphysics wonders as to what constitutes the whole of reality; epistemology asks what is our basis for determining what we know; axiology refers broadly to the study of value and is often divided into aesthetics, which concerns itself with the value of beauty, and ethics, which concerns itself with the value of human actions. ### **Descriptive and Normative** Our third point of clarification is to distinguish between a descriptive and a normative study of ethics. A descriptive study of ethics reports how people, particularly groups, make their moral valuations without making any judgment either for or against these valuations. This kind of study is often the work of the social scientist: either a historian (studying different moral standards over time) or a sociologist or an anthropologist (studying different moral standards across cultures). A normative study of ethics, as is often done in philosophy or moral theology, engages the question: What could or should be considered as the right way of acting? In other words, a normative discussion prescribes what we ought to maintain as our standards or bases for moral valuation. When engaging in a discussion of ethics, it is always advisable to recognize whether one is concerned with a descriptive view (e.g., noting how filial piety and obedience are pervasive characteristics of Chinese culture) or with a normative perspective (e.g., studying how Confucian ethics enjoins us to obey our parents and to show filial piety). We need to go further. A philosophical discussion of ethics goes beyond recognizing the characteristics of some descriptive theory; also, it does not simply accept as correct any normative theory. A philosophical discussion of ethics engages in a critical consideration of the strengths and weaknesses of these theories. This will be our primary concern throughout this book. ### **Issue, Decision, Judgment, and Dilemma** As the final point of clarification, it may be helpful to distinguish a situation that calls for moral valuation. It can be called a moral issue. For instance, imagine a situation wherein a person cannot afford a certain item, but then the possibility presents itself for her to steal it. This is a matter of ethics (and not just law) insofar as it involves the question of respect for one's property. We should add that "issue” is also often used to refer to those particular situations that are often the source of considerable and inconclusive debate (thus, we would often hear topics such as capital punishment and euthanasia as moral “issues”). When one is placed in a situation and confronted by the choice of what act to perform, she is called to make a moral decision. For instance, I choose not to take something I did not pay for. When a person is an observer who makes an assessment on the actions or behavior of someone, she is making a moral judgment. For instance, a friend of mine chooses to steal from a store, and I make an assessment that it is wrong. Finally, going beyond the matter of choosing right over wrong, or good over bad, and considering instead the more complicated situation wherein one is torn between choosing one of two goods or choosing between the lesser of two evils: this is referred to as a moral dilemma. We have a moral dilemma when an individual can choose only one from a number of possible actions, and there are compelling ethical reasons for the various choices. A mother may be conflicted between wanting to feed her hungry child, but then recognizing that it would be wrong for her to steal is an example of a moral dilemma. ## **Reasoning** Why do we suppose that a certain way of acting is right and its opposite wrong? The study of ethics is interested in questions like these: Why do we decide to consider this way of acting as acceptable while that way of acting, its opposite, is unacceptable? To put it in another way, what reasons do we give to decide or to judge that a certain way of acting is either right or wrong? A person's fear of punishment or desire for reward can provide him a reason for acting in a certain way. It is common to hear someone say: "I did not cheat on the exam because I was afraid that I might get caught," or "I looked after my father in the hospital because I wanted to get a higher allowance." In a certain sense, fear of punishment and desire for reward can be spoken of as giving someone a "reason" for acting in a certain way. But the question then would be: Is this reason good enough? That is to say, this way of thinking seems to be a shallow way of understanding reason because it does not show any true understanding of why cheating on an exam is wrong or why looking after a member of my family is in itself a good thing. The promise of rewards and the fear of punishments can certainly motivate us to act, but are not in themselves a determinant of the rightness or wrongness of a certain way of acting or of the good or the bad in a particular pursuit. Is it possible to find better reasons for finding a certain way of acting either acceptable or unacceptable? I am in a situation wherein I could obtain a higher grade for myself by cheating. I make the decision not to do so. Or I know that my friend was in a position to get a better grade for herself by cheating. She refuses to do so; I then make the judgment of praising her for this. In making this kind of moral decision or moral judgment, the question can be asked: Why? Asking the question "why" might bring us to no more than a superficial discussion of rewards and punishments, as seen above, but it could also bring us to another level of thinking. Perhaps one can rise above the particulars of a specific situation, going beyond whatever motivation or incentive is present in this instance of cheating (or not doing so). In other words, our thinking may take on a level of abstraction, that is, detaching itself from the particular situation and arriving at a statement like, "Cheating is wrong," by recognizing proper reasons for not acting in this way. Beyond rewards and punishments, it is possible for our moral valuation-our decisions and judgments-to be based on a principle. Thus, one may conclude that cheating is wrong based on a sense of fair play or a respect for the importance and validity of testing. From this, we can define principles as rationally established grounds by which one justifies and maintains her moral decisions and judgments. But why do we maintain one particular principle rather than another? Why should I maintain that I should care for fair play and that cheating is, therefore, wrong? Returning to the case of fraternity hazing where we started this chapter, why is it wrong to cause another person physical injury or to take another's life? We can maintain principles, but we can also ask what good reasons for doing so. Such reasons may differ. So, for example, what makes the death of Cris such a tragedy? One person may say that life is sacred and God-given. Another person may declare that human life has a priceless dignity. Still another may put forward the idea that taking another's life does not contribute to human happiness but to human misery instead. How exactly do we arrive at any of these claims? This is where we turn to theory. A moral theory is a systematic attempt to establish the validity of maintaining certain moral principles. Insofar as a theory is a system of thought or of ideas, it can also be referred to as a framework. We can use this term, “framework,” as a theory of interconnected ideas, and at the same time, a structure through which we can evaluate our reasons for valuing a certain decision or judgment. There are different frameworks that can make us reflect on the principles that we maintain and thus, the decisions and judgments we make. By studying these, we can reconsider, clarify, modify, and ultimately strengthen our principles, thereby informing better both our moral judgments and moral decisions. **Plato (427-347 BCE)** The Greek thinker Plato is credited as one of the pioneers of philosophy as his various writings bring up and discuss carefully and creatively some of the questions that later thinkers will find to be of lasting significance to humankind, such as "Can virtue be taught?" "What is beauty?" and "What is love?” He started a school in Athens which would be known as the Academy and is believed to be the first institution of higher learning in the Western world. **The Myth of Gyges** Now, that those who practice justice do so involuntarily and because they have not the power to be unjust will best appear if we imagine something of this kind: having given both to the just and the unjust power to do what they will, let us watch and see whither desire will lead them; then we shall discover in the very act the just and unjust man to be proceeding along the same road, following their interest, which all natures deem to be their good, and are only diverted into the path of justice by the force of law. The liberty which we are supposing may be most completely given to them in the form of such a power as is said to have been possessed by Gyges, the ancestor of Croesus the Lydian. According to the tradition, Gyges was a shepherd in the service of the king of Lydia; there was a great storm, and an earthquake made an opening in the earth at the place where he was feeding his flock. Amazed at the sight, he descended into the opening, where, among other marvels, he beheld a hollow brazen horse, having doors, at which he stooping and looking in saw a dead body of stature, as appeared to him, more than human, and having nothing on but a gold ring; this he took from the finger of the dead and reascended. Now the shepherds met together, according to custom, that they might send their monthly report about the flocks to the king; into their assembly he came having the ring on his finger, and as he was sitting among them he chanced to turn the collet of the ring inside his hand, when instantly he became invisible to the rest of the company and they began to speak of him as if he were no longer present. He was astonished at this, and again touching the ring he turned the collet outwards and reappeared; he made several trials of the ring, and always with the same result-when he turned the collet inwards he became invisible, when outwards he reappeared. Whereupon he contrived to be chosen one of the messengers who were sent to the court; whereas soon as he arrived he seduced the queen, and with her help conspired against the king and slew him, and took the kingdom. Suppose now that there were two such magic rings, and the just put on one of them and the unjust the other; no man can be imagined to be of such an iron nature that he would stand fast in justice. No man would keep his hands off what was not his own when he could safely take what he liked out of the market, or go into houses and lie with any one at his pleasure, or kill or release from prison whom he would, and in all respects be like a God among men. Then the actions of the just would be as the actions of the unjust; they would both come at last to the same point. And this we may truly affirm to be a great proof that a man is just, not willingly or because he thinks that justice is any good to him individually, but of necessity, for wherever any one thinks that he can safely be unjust, there he is unjust. For all men believe in their hearts that injustice is far more profitable to the individual than justice, and he who argues as I have been supposing, will say that they are right. If you could imagine any one obtaining this power of becoming invisible, and never doing any wrong or touching what was another's, he would be thought by the lookers-on to be a most wretched idiot, although they would praise him to one another's faces, and keep up appearances with one another from a fear that they too might suffer injustice. In the Republic, the characters are engaged in a discussion about justice. Socrates gets his companions to first consider the question, "What justice?" and later, "Why should one be just?" In Book 2 of the text, the character named Glaucon provides a powerful restatement of the case for egoism by way of a myth. The myth describes a man, a figure named Gyges, who obtains the power to make himself invisible at will and how he quickly learns how to use this power for his own desires rather than for any notion of "justice." Glaucon then asks plaintively, would not we ourselves act with impunity if we had this power to be invisible? To put it simply, if we would never be called in order to account for our actions, perhaps we, too, would just choose to do whatever we want. It seems, Glaucon concludes, that if we are to be honest with ourselves, we would admit that what we really care for is our own self-interest rather than some notion of justice or moral goodness. It will take Socrates the rest of the ten books of the Republic to try to answer this most important question on whether the pursuit of ethics is worthwhile. Does it make sense to be ethical? The beginning of Socrates's answer can be found in Book 4, in which Socrates presents how the good human life stems from a proper harmony of the parts of the soul. Harmony requires a certain ordering, a hierarchical system in which reason as the "highest" part is in charge dutifully followed by the “lower" parts of the soul of will and appetite. The presence of such an internal ordering that one consciously strives to accomplish is what it means for justice to be present in the individual. On the other hand, the absence of order or the lack of harmony, with desires and appetites running rampant, results in acts of injustice. This point is developed in Book 9 with the portrayal of the tyrant. The presence of internal disorder in a person placed in power turns the seemingly pleasant prospect of doing whatever one wants-of acting with impunity-into a terrifying portrait of a character without self-control or self-possession. Being nothing more than a disordered and nervous jumble of cravings, such a person would be so obsessed with these longings than to bother caring about how this might affect others. Situating this story into a larger social and political context, the connection can be made between one's pursuit of one's own interest with abuse of power that may easily result in the misery of millions. The question then that we can ask is: Do we still want to say, in the face of what history has shown us of tyrants and dictators, that to act with impunity is desirable? This is what ethical egoism ultimately translates into-not just some pleasant pursuit of one's own desires, but the imposition of a will to power that is potentially destructive of both the self and of others. One can take on this view, if one wishes, but it is also possible to wonder whether there is a way of recognizing our being in the world with others, of thinking of our own well-being concomitantly with the well-being of others. Perhaps this is what the study of ethics is all about. **Returning to the Case of Cris:** Do you think it is acceptable that those responsible for the death of Cris got away with murder? Do you think it is right for someone to look after his or her own welfare over any other concern such justice? Later, we shall see more nuanced ways of thinking about happiness—our own and that of others-in both Utilitarianism and in the Virtue Ethics of Aristotle. ## **Summary (and Next Steps)** In this chapter, we have established the scope and the rationale for a discussion of ethics. We explored various domains of valuation in order to distinguish what makes a particularly grave type of valuation a moral or ethical one. We clarified some of the terms that will be used in the study of ethics. We have also explored a number of problematic ways of thinking of ethics; some give a too simplistic answer to the question of our grounds or foundations for moral valuation, while others seem to dismiss the possibility of ethics altogether. In the following chapters, we will explore a number of different moral theories that have been handed down to us by the history of philosophy. These are various approaches from thinkers who have presented to us their own unique way of thinking on how to determine the moral principles that should be maintained. We will first explore Utilitarianism, which establishes that the best consequences for everyone concerned might be our measure for determining what is right: We then turn to a different notion in the Natural Law Theory, which puts forward the idea that we can base our notion of good and bad on something more intrinsic than the consequences of our actions-that is our human nature itself. We will then turn to Deontology, which will argue that it is unreliable to base ethics on consequences or on a supposed intrinsic nature; however, reason is able to determine through its own exploration of itself what our moral duty is. We then round out our discussion of theories with one often referred to as Virtue Ethics, which requires us to think of our concept of reason within the larger context of the development of a moral character. In the final chapter, we will see how these diverse theories—which at first glance may seem to simply be contradicting each other—can inform our own attempts to think of our own grounds for determining moral value. ## **Key Words** * Ethics * Morality * Aesthetics * Etiquette * Technique * Descriptive * Normative * Positive Law * Divine Command Theory * Cultural Relativism * Subjectivism * Psychological Egoism * Ethical Egoism ## **Study Questions** 1. Identify a list of: (a) obligations we are expected to fulfill, (b) prohibitions we are required to respect, and (c) ideals we are encouraged to meet. Discuss whether these are ethical in nature or not. 2. Are clothes a matter of pure aesthetic taste, or does it make sense for clothes to become a subject in a discussion of ethics? Why? How about other forms of adornment, such as tattoos and piercings? 3. Look for a newspaper article that tackles an ethical issue. Consider the following questions: a. What makes this a matter of ethics? b. What is your own ethical judgment on this case? c. What are your reasons for this judgment? 4. Brainstorm and come up with a list of common Filipino values. Consider the strengths and weaknesses of these. 5. Imagine that you are a legislator. What rules or laws that currently prohibit certain acts or practices would you want to amend or repeal? Also, are there certain acts or practices currently permitted by the law that you would want to prohibit? Think of this on the level of your school, your city, and the nation. 6. Comment on this statement: "What I believe must be true if I feel very strongly about it." 7. Is looking after the benefit of your own family over all other aspects considered as another form of egoism? Discuss. ## **Suggested Readings** * Frankfurt, Harry. “Freedom of the Will and the Concept of a Person." The Importance of What We Care About: Philosophical Essays. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988, pp. 11-25. * Nagel, Thomas. "The Fragmentation of Value." Mortal Questions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979, pp. 128-41. * Rachels, James. “Can Ethics Provide Answers?" The Hastings Center Report, Vol. 10, No. 3, June 1980, pp. 32-40. * Reyes, Ramon Castillo. "The Relation between Ethics and Religious Belief." The Moral Dimension: Essays in Honor of Ramon Castillo Reyes, edited by Nemesio S. Que, Jr., Oscar G. Bulaong, Jr., and Michael Ner E. Mariano, Quezon City: Office of Research and Publications, Ateneo de Manila University, 2003, pp. 107-112.