Ethics Module 6 PDF

SYNTHESIS: MAKING INFORMED DECISIONS finite freedom - that one has the capacity to give herself a particular direction in life according to her The Moral Agent and Contexts own ideal self....

SYNTHESIS: MAKING INFORMED DECISIONS finite freedom - that one has the capacity to give herself a particular direction in life according to her The Moral Agent and Contexts own ideal self. human individual - tasked to think about what is for one’s existence is in the intersection between the “right” and why it is so, and to choose to do so fact that one’s being is a product of many forces Major topic in the act of philosophizing outside her choosing and her ideal future for herself. - Who is this individual who must engage herself in ethical thought and decision- Ethics plays a big role of forming one’s self. What making? one ought to do in one’s life is not dictated by one’s - Who one is, in the most fundamental sense, physical, interpersonal, social, or historical is another ? conditions. The Greeks were known for the saying “know thyself “. Culture and Ethics Ramon C. Reyes a Filipino philosopher in his essay A common opinion many people hold is that one’s “Man and Historical Action “ culture dictates what is right or wrong for an - explained that “who one is “is a cross point. individual. when in Rome, do as the Romans do” by - one’s identity, who one is or who I am, is a St. Ambrose applies to deciding on moral issues. product of many forces and events that one’s culture is inescapable, that is, one has happened outside of one’s choosing. to look into the standards of her society to - identifies four cross points: the physical, resolve all her ethical questions with finality. the interpersonal, the social, and the How one relates to oneself, society and other historical. elements with the natural world are all Who one is, firstly, is a function of physical events in predetermined by her membership in her the past and material factors in the present that one society and culture. Filipino traits sometimes did not have a choice in. Humans are members of end up as empty stereotypes, especially the species Homo Sapiens and therefore possess since one may be hard put to think if any the capacities and limitations endemic to human other culture does not exhibit such traits. beings everywhere. One culture, because of its particular history, may construct hospitality in a particular way An individual is also the product of an interpersonal and manifest it in its own customs and cross-point of many events and factors outside of traditions. one’s choosing. One did not choose her own James Rachels (american philosopher) parents, and yet her personality, character traits, and - provided a clear argument against the her overall way of doing things and thinking about validity of cultural relativism in the realm of things have all been shaped by the character of her ethics. parents and how they brought her up. - defines cultural relativism as the position that claims there is no such thing as objective societal: “who one is “shaped by one’s society. The truth in the realm of morality. The argument of term “society “here pertains to all the elements of the this position is that since different cultures human groups- as opposed to the natural have different moral codes, then there is no environment- that one is a member of. “Culture “in its one correct moral code that all cultures must varied aspects is included here. follow. The implication is that each culture - “who one is “molded in large part by the kind has its own standard of right or wrong, its of society and culture-which, for the most validity confined within the culture in question. part, one did not choose-that one belongs to. - questions the logic of this argument: first, that Filipinos have their own way of doing things, cultural relativism confuses a statement of their own systems of beliefs and values, and fact, which is merely descriptive, with a even their own notions of right and wrong. normative statement. - interacts with the physical and the - provides a counter argument by analogy: just interpersonal factors that the individual and because some believed that the earth was her people are immersed or engaged in. flat, while some believe it is spherical, it does historical, which is simply the events that one’s not mean that there is no objective truth to people has undergone. In short, one’s people’s the actual shape of the earth. Beyond his history shapes “who one is “right now. criticism of the logic of cultural relativism, - interacts with the previous three. - employs a reduction ad absurdum argument. - “who one is “is also a project for one’s self. It is an argument which first assumes that the This happens because a human individual claim in question is correct, in order to show has freedom. This freedom is not absolute: the absurdity that will ensue if the claim is one does not become something because accepted as such. He uses this argument to one chooses to be.  show what he thinks is the weakness of the ethical. What is important is that one does not position. wander into ethical situations blindly, with the three absurd consequences of accepting the naïve assumption that the ethical issues will claim of cultural relativism. be resolved automatically by her beliefs and traditions. Instead, she should challenge First, if cultural relativism was correct, then herself to continuously work toward a fuller one cannot criticize the practices or beliefs of maturity in ethical decision-making. another culture anymore as long as that Moral development then is a prerequisite if the culture thinks that what it is doing is correct. individual is to encounter ethical situations with a But if that is the case, then the Jews for clear mind and her values properly placed with example, cannot criticize the Nazi’s believed respect to each other. that they were doing the right thing. Secondly, if cultural relativism was correct, then one Religion and Ethics cannot even criticize the Nazi’s plan to Many people who consider themselves “religious exterminate all Jews in World War II, since “assume that it is the teachings of their own religion obviously, the Nazis believed that they were that define what is truly “ right “ or “ wrong “, “ good doing the right thing. or “ bad “. Secondly, if cultural relativism was correct, then one cannot even criticize the practices four largest religious groups or beliefs of one’s own culture. If that is the Christianity case, the black South African citizens under Islam the system of apartheid, a policy of racial Hinduism segregation that privileges the dominant race Buddhism in a society, could not criticize that official The Philippines is predominantly Roman Catholic, state position. Thirdly, if cultural relativism was correct, then For followers of a particular religion, the ultimate one cannot accept the moral progress which meaning of their existence, as the existence of the may happen. The fact that many societies whole reality, is found in the beliefs of that religion. now recognize women’s rights may not Therefore, the question of morality for many religious necessarily represent a better situation for followers is reduced to following the teachings of these women and children at present. argues their own religion. that recognizing and respecting differences in cultures do not necessarily mean that there is According to Ramon C. Reyes, interpretation of a no such thing as objective truth in morality. particular passage or text is the product of an - cultural relativism can recognize and respect individual’s embodiment and historicity. Any reading cultural differences and still maintain the right or interpretation is also influenced by the situation of to criticize beliefs and practices that she the reader. thinks are wrong, if she performs proper rational deliberation. (1) moral agent - must still, in full responsibility, - the challenge of ethics is not the removal of challenge herself to understand using her ones culture because that is what makes one own powers of rationality, but with full unique. recognition of her own situatedness and what - one must dig deeper into her own culture in her religious authorities claim their religion order to discover how her own people have teaches. most meaningfully explored possibly (2) one must determine what justifies the claim universal human questions or problems within of a particular religious teaching when it the particularity of her own people’s native commands its followers on what they “ought ground. to do “. Relevant to this is Plato’s - we responded specifically to the particularity philosophical question in his dialogue of our own environmental and historical Euthypro. When something is “morally good situation. “, is it because it is good in itself and that is - One can then benefit by paying attention to why God commands it, or is it good because her own unique cultural heritage because God simply says so? If a particular preacher doing so may give her a glimpse into the teaches her followers to do something profound ways her people have grappled with because it is what their sacred scripture says the question of “what ought I do?” that. If the preacher simply responds “that is - Ethics, should neither be reduced to own’s what is written in the sacred scripture “, that is own cultural standards, nor should it tantamount to telling the follower to stop simplistically dismiss one’s own unique asking questions and simply follow. Here, the cultural beliefs and practices. The latter can critical-minded follower might find herself at possibly enlighten her toward what is truly an unsatisfying impasse.  divided into two stages: the third and fourth History reveals that there were people who twisted stages of moral development. religious teaching that brought harm to their followers (3) one begins to act according to what the and to others. The problem here is not that religion larger group, she belongs expects of her. The misleads people; the problem is that too many individual here assumes that what will benefit people perform heinous acts simply because they her best is when the other members of her assumed they were following the teachings of their group approve of her actions. The general supposed religion, without stopping to think whether tendency at this age is to confirm first to the these actions are harmful. values of one’s immediate group, such as her family, playmates, or later on, barkada. Older philosophical-minded individual - critical even of children and adolescents eventually begin to her own set of beliefs and practices and to not simply value the expectations of the larger group follow for the sake of blind obedience. These critical they belong to, whether it be their school, questions about one’s culture and religious beliefs religion, or state. show us the need for maturity or growth in one’s (4) is achieved when a person realizes that morality, both in terms of intellect and character. following the dictates of her society is not just The responsible moral agent then is one who does good for herself but more importantly, it is not blindly follow eternally-imposed rules, but one necessary for the existence of society itself. who has a well-developed “feel “for making informed The individual at this stage values most of the moral decisions. laws, rules, and regulations of her society, and thus her moral reasoning is shaped by Moral Deliberation dutifulness to the external standards set by There is a big difference between a young child’s society. In Kohlberg’s reasoning, people who merely follow reasoning on the right thing to do and the manner a the rule and regulations of their institution, the laws of their community or state, the doctrine of their religion-even if they morally mature individual arrives at an ethical seem to be the truly right thing to do- are trapped in this decision. This necessary growth, which is a second or conventional level, which is still not yet the highest. maturation in moral reasoning, has been the focus of study of many theorists. For Kohlberg it is a psychological theory, that attempts to describe the stages of a person’s growth Lawrence Kohlberg (American moral psychologist) in moral thinking. The morally mature individual, for - theorized that moral development happens in six Kohlberg, must outgrow both stages, which he divided into three levels. (1) the pre-conventional level, whose preconventional - corresponds how infants pleasure-and-pain logic locks one into self-centered and children think. The consequences of kind of thinking, an egoism, as well as one’s actions divided into two stages. (2) the conventional level, which at first glance looks like the sensible approach to morality. The second (1) centers around obedience and the level might, de facto, be the way that many (if not avoidance of punishment: to a young child’s most) adults think about morality, that it is simply a mind, an action is “good “if it enables one to question of following the right rules. The great insight escape from punishment, “bad” if it leads to of Kohlberg, however, is that a truly morally mature punishment. individuals must outgrow even the simple following (2) learns to act according to what she thinks of supposedly right rules. will swerve her self-interest; thus, what is “good “at this age is what the child thinks can postconventional - third and highest level of bring her pleasure. Kohlberg used the term moral development for Kohlberg since the reconventional to refer to these two stages morally responsible agent recognizes that since at this age, a young child basically what is good or right is not reducible to thinks only in terms of the pain (punishment) following the rules of one’s group. Instead, it or pleasure (reward) brought about as a is a question of understanding personally consequence of her actions. Thus, her what one ought to do and deciding., using concentration is on herself and what she can one’s free will, to act accordingly. This level, feel, instead of her society’s conventions on which is also divided into two stages, what is right or wrong. represents the individual’s realization that the ethical principles she has rationally arrived at conventional since this is the age in which take precedence over even the rules or older, adolescents, and young adults learn to conventions that her society dictates. An conform to the expectations of society. This is agent has attained full moral development if the time when one learns to follow the she acts according to her well-thought-out conventions of her group. This second level is rational principles. In the earlier stage of this level of moral development in the fifth stage,  (5) the moral agent sees the value of the social contract, namely, agreements that Moral Problems rational agents have arrived at whether explicitly or implicitly in order to serve what Moral problems require set of rational deliberations. can be considered the common good are In doing so, several steps have to be undertaken. what one ought to honor and follow. This (1) Determine the level of involvement in the case at notion of common good is hand. Identify which activity we are engaged in, post-conventional in the sense that the whether we are making a judgment on a case that moral agent binds herself to what is we are not involved in or if we truly need to make a theoretical community of rational agents has decision in a situation that demands that we act. identified as morally desirable, whether the (2) Make sure of the facts. The first fact to establish agent herself will benefit from doing so or not. is whether we are faced with a moral situation or not. (6) highest stage of moral development that We must set aside all details that have no connection exists even beyond the fifth stage of the to the situation. We must also identify whether an social contract is choosing to perform actions item in consideration is truly factual or merely based on universal ethical principles that one hearsay, anecdotal, or an unfounded assumption, has determined by herself. One realizes that and thus unsupportable. This is where such things as all the conventions of society are only correct “fake news “and “alternative facts “have to be if they are based on these universal ethical weeded out. Letting such details seep into our ethical principles; they must be followed only if they deliberation may unfairly determine or shape our reflect universal ethical principles. The ethical decision-making process, leading us into significance studying the different ethical potentially baseless choices or conclusions. The theories and frameworks becomes clear only responsible moral individual must make sure that she to the individual who has achieved, or is in possesses all the facts she needs for that particular the process of achieving, moral maturity. situation, but also only the facts that she needs- no more, no less. For someone who is still in Kohlberg’s (3) Identify all the people who may potentially be pre-conventional or conventional stages, moral affected by the implications of a moral situation or by valuation remains a matter of seeking reward or our concrete choice of action. These people are avoiding punishment, or at best, a question of called the stakeholders in this particular case. It following the dictates of other people. Feelings in force us to give consideration to people aside from ourselves. The psychological tendency of most of us Moral Deliberation when confronted with an ethical choice is to simply think of ourselves, of what we need, or of what we Emotions or feelings - purely rationalistic want. When we identify all the stakeholders, we are perspectives as having no place in a properly obliged to recognize all the other people potentially executed moral decision. Although some emotions or concerned with the ethical problem at hand, and feelings can derail one from a clear-minded decision must think of reasons aside from our own selfserving in an ethical situation, it is also not possible that ones, to come up with conclusions that are impartial, human choice can be purged of all feelings; the though still thoroughly involved. moral agent, after all, is neither robot nor computer. (4) determine how stakeholders are affected by A more realistic attitude toward decision-making is to whichever choice the agent makes in the given appreciate the indispensable role emotions have on ethical situation, as well as to what degree. A an agent’s act of choosing. person’s awareness of these probabilities is necessary to gain a more comprehensive moral virtue goes beyond intellectually identifying assessment of the matter at hand in order to arrive at the right thing to do. It is the condition of one’s stronger reasons for making a definite ethical character by which the agent is able to manage her conclusion or choice. emotions or feelings. (5) ethical issues at hand will be identified. First thing Aristotle reiterated that, cultivating one’s character is to clarify whether a certain action is morally right or lies in learning to manage one’s feeling. In Aristotle’s morally wrong. The second type involves determining Book II of the Nicomachean Ethics, “Anyone can get whether a particular action in question can be angry at us easy… but to do this to the right person, identified with a generally accepted ethical or to the right extent, at the right time, with the right unethical action. The third type points to the motive, and in the right way, that is not for everyone, presence of an ethical dilemma. nor is it easy. “Doing the right thing for Aristotle is being able to manage one’s feelings so that she Dilemmas - ethical situations in which there are is actually driven or propelled to do what she competing values that seem to have equal worth. already sees (intellectually) as right. One has to identify the fundamental values in conflict in such a situation in order to assess later if a workable solution to the ethical problem can be determine one’s moral duty. Kant focuses on one’s negotiated that will somehow not end up autonomy as constitutive of what one can consider surrendering one value for the sake of another. The as moral law that is free from all other ends and individual must try to find the best balance possible inclinations-including pain and pleasure as well as that may honor the competing values. conformity to the rules of the group. This shows Kant’s disdain for these rules as being authorities (6) individual must make her ethical conclusion or external to one’s own capacity for rational will. From decision, whether in judging what ought to be done in valuing all human beings to intuiting what is a given case or in coming up with a concrete action universally good and to practicing one’s autonomy in she must actually perform. Real ethical decisions are determining what ought to do, all of these explore the often very difficult enough to make and for so many possible roles of reason and free will in identifying different reasons. Not all the facts in a given case what ought to do in a given moral situation. may be available to the agent for her consideration. The responsible moral individual, however, must What Aristotle’s virtue ethics in the end for the forge on realizing full well that cultivating one’s habituation of one’s character to make any and all capacity for mature moral choice is a continuing of these previous considerations possible. To weigh journey. Aristotle recognizes the importance of the collective happiness of human beings, to choose continuous habituation in the goal of shaping one’s to act on what one’s innermost nature dictates, and character so that she becomes more used to to practice one’s autonomy regardless of all other choosing the right thing. considerations. But what can possibly sustain or brace a moral agent so that she is able moral individual - a human being whose intellect to maintain the effort to implement such rigorous demands on the part of remains finite and whose passions remain dynamic, reason?Aristotle’s answer is he solid resolve of one’s and who is always placed in situations that are character, which can only be achieved through the unique. right kind of habituation. The responsible moral individual must test the cogency and coherence of The Value of Studying Ethical Theories or the ethical theory or framework in question against Frameworks the complexity of the concrete experience at hand. In such a spirit of experimentation, the moral These ethical theories or frameworks may serve as individual is able to play of the theories against one guideposts, given that they are the best attempts to another, noting the weakness in one for a particular understand morality that the history of human case and possibly supplementing it with the thought has to offer. As guideposts, they can shed strengths of another. light on many important considerations, though of course not all, in one’s quest to answer the twin Self, Society, and Environment questions of “What ought I to do?” and “Why ought I to do so? “ SELF - one has to pay attention not just on how one deals with oneself, but also on how one interacts with Utilitarianism other individuals in personal relations. One may pays tribute to the value of impartiality, respond to the demand for an ethically responsible argues that an act is good if it will bring about “care for the self “by making full use of the different the greatest good for the greatest number of theories or frameworks: those affected by the action, and each one of those affected should be counted as one, John Stuart Mill’s utilitarianism, though seemingly a each equal to each. hedonistic theory given emphasis on maximizing pleasure puts more value on the notion of “common and minimizing pain, elevates the human element above good “compared to any of the other ethical the animalistic and above the merely selfish. frameworks we have covered. The natural law theory, on the other hand, puts more Jeremy Bentham, which first posited that what makes an action good is that it brings about the greatest happiness emphasis on the supposed objective, universal for the greatest number. Greatest happiness for Bentham nature of what is to be considered morally good, then means quantity, but not just for oneself since the basing its reasoning on the theorized existence of a other half of his maxim refers to “the greatest number “that “human nature “. This theory has the advantage of points to the extent or number of people affected by this both objectivity and a kind of intuitiveness. The latter happiness. pertains to the assumption that whatever is right is what feels right, that is, in the innermost recesses of Thomas Aquinas’ natural law theory states as its first one’s being or of one’s conscience because what is natural inclination of the innate tendency that all human good is imprinted in our very being in the form of beings share with all other existing things; namely, the natural inclinations. Kantian deontology puts the natural propensity to maintain oneself in one’s existence. Any action therefore that sustains and cultivates one’s premium on rational will, freed from all other biological or physical existence is to be called bad or evil. considerations, as the only human capacity that can Specifies that taking care of one’s being is a moral duty involves identifying the relevant feelings that are that one owes to herself and to God. Aquinas calls on a involved and being able to manage them. It happens person to go beyond what she thinks she wants and to too often in one’s personal relationship with others, realize instead what her innermost nature inclines her to whom one is close to, that “feelings “get in the way of do, which is the promotion of life, of the truth, and of forming meaningful, constructive bonds. harmonious coexistence with others. Social Life: In the Philippine Context and in the Immanuel Kant’s deontology celebrates the rational faculty of the moral agent, which sets it above merely Global Village One’s membership in any society sentient beings. Kant’s principle of universalizability brings forth the demands of communal life in terms of challenges the moral agent to think beyond her own the group’s rules and regulations. Philippine society, predilections and desires, and to instead consider what The demands of the nation-state, as seen in the laws everyone ought to do. His principle of humanity as end in of the land, sometimes clash with the traditions of itself teaches one to always treat humanity, whether in her indigenous culture. Filipinas cannot simply assume own self or in any other individual, as the end or goal of all that their action is good because their culture says human actions and never merely as the means. Kant goes so. Instead, the fundamental question ought to be, beyond simply telling people to not use others as “Will this action bring about the greatest happiness instruments. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with using for the greatest number?” An individual must a human being as a means or a tool for one’s own purposes because human interaction is not possible therefore think carefully whether her action, even if without that happening. What Kant is concerned with is her culture approves of it, will truly benefit everyone when someone merely uses a human being whether affected by it. The notion of the “greatest number another person or herself, and forgets to treat that human “can also go beyond the borders of one’s own being as the goal or purpose of an action in and of herself, perceived territory. and forgets to treat that human being as the goal or purpose of an action in and of herself. Thomas Aquinas, on the other hand, in his natural law theory, has a clear conception off the principles Aristotle’s virtue ethics teaches one to cultivate her that should guide the individual in her actions that own intellect as well as her character to achieve affect her larger society. Once more, human life, the eudaimonia in her lifetime. One’s ethical or moral care and education of children, and the promotion of responsibility to herself is one of self-cultivation. truth and harmonious social living should be in the Aristotle is quite forgiving when it comes to individual mind of an individual when she performs actions actions, knowing full well the difficulty of “hitting the directed to the larger whole. For Aquinas, no mark “in a given moral situation. The realm of the harmonious social life will be possible if individuals personal also extends to one’s treatment of other that comprise such a society do not value human life, persons within one’s network of close relations. telling the truth and peaceful coexistence. Immanuel Utilitarianism’s recognition of the greatest happiness principle shows that even in interpersonal interaction, Kant argues for the use of the principles of what must rule is not one’s own subjective notion of universalizability and of humanity as end in itself to what is pleasurable. Natural law theory, through its form a person’s autonomous notion of what she recognition of the inviolable value of human life ought to do. According to Kant’s framework, if a whomever it belongs to, immediately offers an ethic person is to follow any of these heteronomous laws, of interpersonal relationships. Coupled with this, the it must not be in any way contrary to it. Kant is not value that saying that a person ought not to follow any heteronomous laws. Instead, she must make sure Aquinas gives to the production and care for that if she were to follow such a law, that she offspring, as well as to the promotion of the truth and understands why it is truly the right thing to do. More the peaceful and orderly social life, provide guidance positively, citizens of a particular ought to make sure on how one ought to relate with her close relations. that the laws and rules that they come up with are actually in line with what universalizability moral duty Kant’s deontology recognizes the principle of will prescribe. humanity as end in itself and as a cornerstone of ethical decision-making because this theory Aristotle’s virtue ethics prescribes mesotes as the recognizes the full autonomy of every single rational guide to all the actions that a person has to take, agent. Thus, one must not abuse either oneself, nor even in her dealing with the larger community of one’s fellow human beings by treating them as mere people. Virtues such as justice, liberality, means. magnificence, friendliness, and rightful indignation suggest that they are socially oriented Aristotelian Aristotle’s Virtue Theory teaches that one must virtues. A person ought to be guided by them in her always find and act on the mesotes whether in dealings with either the local or the wider global treating oneself or any other human being. This society. Within the Philippines, there are around 175 mesotes points to the complexity of knowing what ethnolinguistic groups, each with its own language must be done in a specific moral situation, which and culture, and therefore each with its own set of beliefs and practices. Filipino workers abroad, on the something in the end-these are part and parcel of other hand, perform their jobs in other countries, and making informed moral decisions. so they must balance the need for acculturation on one hand and keeping one’s Filipino identity on the other. Temperance once again presents itself as one Aristotelian virtue other than, justice in dealing with the other participants in social intercourse. The Non-Human Environment Questions of environmental ethics, of the ethical or moral responsibilities human beings have toward the non-human world, only appeared in the twentieth century. Previously, most ethical theorists focused more on interhuman relations rather than human-to-non-human relations. In the case of utilitarianism, some scholars point out that this hedonistic doctrine that focuses on the sovereignty of pleasures and pains in human decision-making should extend into other creatures that can experience pleasures and pains; namely ,animals. One of the sources of animal ethics is utilitarianism. Animals themselves cannot become moral agents because they do not seem to have reason and free will. Some would therefore argue that since the greatest happiness principle covers the greatest number of creatures that experience pleasure and pain, then that number should include animals. Humans are expected to make moral decisions and must always take into account the potential pleasure or pain that they may inflict on animals. There is a general call for actions that do not just benefit humans but the whole ecosystem as well, since it is possible that nonhuman creatures might be harmed by neglecting the ecosystem. Thomas Aquinas, on the other hand, may not necessarily talk about the physical environment and human moral responsibility to it as such, but one can try to infer from his philosophy that certain actions should be avoided because they do not produce a harmonious, peaceful society. Lastly, according to Aristotle, one becomes a better person if she learns to epand her vision to see beyond what is merely at close hand. One must see beyond the satisfaction of 68 immediate economic needs and make sure that harming the environment for the sake of such will not eventually lead to something much worse. A Closing that is Really an Opening The four frameworks have proven to be some of the most influential in human thought and should serve as an introduction to other theories or to further discussions on moral philosophy. The more productive use of these frameworks instead is to employ them as beginning guides to one’s further exploration into the topic of morality. Realizing the finitude of human understanding and of the capacity to make choices, but at the same time hoping that one’s best attempt at doing what is right mean