Ethics Modules PDF

**Ntroduction** The purpose of this instructional material is to help students live a principled existence in their daily life and not just about having to know meanings of words. Knowledge and good definitions are good for better understanding but leading a life based on what is right and acceptab...

**Ntroduction** The purpose of this instructional material is to help students live a principled existence in their daily life and not just about having to know meanings of words. Knowledge and good definitions are good for better understanding but leading a life based on what is right and acceptable is another. Hence, this instructional material aims at making students in the general education program develop a critical attitude and mind-set that would assist them in making rightful choices and righteous decisions beneficial not only for themselves but equally considerate of others. The material is inspired by the book of James Rachels, The Elements of Moral Philosophy, being the textbook used in the preparation and conceptualization by the Commission on Higher Education (CHED) program in Ethics as mentioned by Professor Fides Bernardo Bitanga, the trainer for Ethics teachers of the General Education Program in English or the Modified CHED Second Generation GE Faculty Training. This instructional material delves on how to apply ethics in daily life, a few concepts on which ethics or morality is anchored. It highlights the four most employed ethical frameworks by most Filipinos according to a survey undertaken by CHED which include the Utilitarianism, Kant's Ethics, Virtue Ethics and the Natural Law Ethics. Rawls's Theory on Justice as Fairness was added due to its practical contribution and increasing popularity. It is hoped that the students will be able to acquire a better understanding of these frameworks and how they are applied in daily life. A critical analysis of the framework will allow also the students to be able to know their strengths and weaknesses, thereby giving them the opportunity to make use of the more positive aspects of the different frameworks and avoiding their pitfalls. Also, the material hopes to develop a critical mind about current issues affecting them. These include the issues on globalization, taxation, filinnials and religion. These topics are deemed necessary to help students understand their mechanisms and manage their life better and live a more fruitful and meaningful life. As a matter of pedagogical approach, this instructional material provides activities to allow students more opportunities to share what they know about the different topics and learn from one another aside from the inputs by their respective teachers. With this method, it provides also an occasion for teachers to be aware of common student concerns and to address them whenever possible and necessary. It must be noted that this instructional material does not delve much on the definition of terms like what other references in moral philosophy or ethics as they are oftentimes used interchangeably but each has its specific meaning. The same is also true to other terminologies relative to the discipline in focus. The presentation of contents is contextualized among Filipinos as elaborated by Professor Bitanga during the seminar for teacher in ethics except those cited from other few sources. **Unit I** **Moral and Non-Moral Problems** **Introduction** People encounter various problems every day, some are simple, some are complex. In all aspects of life, things are not always simple. From the time one wakes up in the morning until practically bedtime, one may be preoccupied with something to be done or about things that are undone. Not everything is foreseeable. There are always things that are missing; some others need immediate fixing, someone else getting a flat tire just before leaving for work and many more situations of the same type. We are not always ready and we cannot foresee everything. Something, somewhere, somehow is not alright. There are problems or situations that call for moral or ethical valuation or judgment. It may be about contemplating whether or not to tell a teacher about a cheating incident during an examination. As a student, a problem may be about what to do having known that she is pregnant. Should she reveal to her parents about it? What could her parents' reaction be? Should a student lie to his/her professors for not having been in class very often for no reason at all? Must one spread rumors using the social media about someone he/she hates since his/her identity can remain unknown and can inflict more pain and moral damage on the person? Is suicide a better solution to end all the troubles? There can be other serious problems that anyone is going through and the question is what to do in these difficult circumstances. Distinguishing between a moral problem and non- moral problem is the aim of this topic. When do you say a problem pertains to what is right or wrong or when it is simply a matter of fact?  **Learning Outcomes** 1. Differentiate between moral and non-moral problems 2. Describe what a moral experience is as it happens in different levels of human experience. **Activating Prior Learning** In a group of 5, list down rules in your school, at home, in your community or organization. Evaluate the rules by responding to the following questions: a. Which of the rules do you find constricting (in the sense of restricting)? Why? b. Why are rules important to social beings. Try these: In school, you may come up with the rules in the school relative to the wearing of school uniforms, ID's and many more which you believe are constricting or restricting. At home, you may come up with rules which you believe curtail your freedom. These rules may include curfew time imposed by your parents, table manners, requiring evening prayers, telling the truth, respect for each member of the family, eating together or that the last one to finish eating will have to fix the table, etc. In the community, you may discuss rules that may involve anti-littering, segregation of garbage, leashing pets, curfew time, rules restricting public disturbance and gambling, rules prohibiting driving without license, etc.  **Presentation of Contents** **Distinction between Moral and Non-Moral Problems** In the context of the discussion about constricting rules, there are rules that are formulated by authorities for the common good or for improvement but are not moral precepts. As such, they are clearer when they are expressed in the imperative mood. They are constricting rules but are not moral concerns and hence, are classified as non-moral rules. When does a rule become a moral problem or enter the domain of morality? It can be stated that a rule becomes a moral rule if it violates certain standards. For instance, a rule may be stated in the following terms: HIV infected individuals will be treated with disdain and are not allowed to join any public forum. Such rule violates the inherent human dignity and the right of an individual to be part of the larger society. This type of rule implies moral valuation. The rightness or the wrongness of the rule is put into question. Should people who are victims of the curse of the virus be treated in such a manner? Is isolating them the appropriate way of dealing with them. Do human dignity and the right of the human person end when one gets contaminated with the virus? Your response to this can be further clarified by knowing the different kinds of valuations. **Kinds of Valuations that do not imply Moral Judgment or are not part of Ethics** 1. **Aesthetic Valuation**. Some things are considered good or bad because of their appeal to the senses. It is possible that one finds the food served by the waiter as good or bad depending on whether the taste buds approve or disapprove them. Or, one might consider a painting good because it is pleasing to the eyes when looking at it. Or, someone could not appreciate a piece of music because it disturbs and is irritating to one's tympanic membrane and is therefore judged to be bad. These valuations or judgments require the sense of approval or disapproval depending on whether or not they have good appeal to the senses. But they are not valuations in the realm of ethics. These are known as aesthetic valuations. Quite a number of times people use this type of valuation in different situations. People make judgments but they have nothing to do with morality or ethics. It is important that people know that they are not making a judgment that has moral implication but simply a manner of making an appreciation relative to their senses. **Technical Valuations.** Some things are considered right or wrong depending on whether or not the proper manner of doing them has been respected. This type of valuation is within the realm of technical valuation. When baking a cake, one must see to it that the right procedure and right amount of ingredients are respected. If they have been respected, chances are the result of the effort in baking will be good. If not respected, the cake might taste bad. In the same manner, as a driver, most likely, passengers will be anxious if the driver does not execute the proper rules of driving. Driving too fast or sudden stops will make passengers uncomfortable and fear an eminent danger. We say that the driver is either a good or a bad driver. These examples are not; however, properly considered within the realm of ethics but are proper to technical knowledge and skills. 2. **Etiquette.** People approve or may disapprove about certain ways of doing. For example, inside a library, I see to it that I do not make noise because people inside need to concentrate on their studies. Or, I greet my teachers when I happen to meet them along the school corridor. Knocking at the door before entering an office is perceived to be the proper manner. These ways of doing are judged to be the proper observation of certain standards or etiquette but are not judged according to ethical standards. Individuals who demonstrate the proper etiquettes are appreciated and those who lack them are not. However, there is a need to properly distinguish what is in the realm of etiquette and one which is beyond this realm. It is a good demonstration of a good etiquette when offering a seat to an elderly inside a bus for the person to feel more comfortable and safer but it would be utterly deplorable if you push an elderly out of the bus while it is in motion (Bulaong Jr. et al., 2018). 3. **Acts of Man versus Human Acts.** The distinction between acts of man versus human acts will further help to consider certain activities that absolutely imply no coloration of ethical concern and one which is clearly within the domain of morality. The acts of man refers to the involuntary activities that are necessary to sustain human life, like in the case of breathing, the continuous beating of the heart and involuntary movements of the intestines and lungs. They are crucial activities that sustain life and without them, life ceases to exist. Other than that, other natural acts like speaking, hearing, eating and walking are also natural acts but have no moral implication as such. On the other hand, helping someone in need and other gestures that relieve people from their uncomfortable or disadvantaged experience or from their sufferings, making people suffer and placing them in difficult situation are human acts. Understandably, the activities categorized as acts of man carry no ethical valuation. But those that fall under the category of human acts call for moral or ethical considerations. After the discussion on the different categories and situations that do not enter the category of moral valuation, let us now consider situations and issues which call for moral valuation or fall under the realm of morality or ethics. Below are two situations in which moral valuations are called upon. **Valuations that Involve Moral or Ethical Valuations** 1. Moral problems according to Bulaong Jr. et al. (2018) "involve valuations that belong to the sphere of human actions characterized by certain gravity and concern the well-being or human life itself." Pre-meditating or making a plan how to kill another is an act that qualifies under moral problems. Or, deciding whether to allow passive euthanasia to happen is a decision with gravity and concerns the well-being or human life itself. These and other acts relative to one's well-being and the well-being of others involve ethical or moral valuations. Furthermore, an act may not directly be an affront to human life but its consequences are clearly indicative of serious threat. Open pit mining is certainly an activity that is intended to benefit people involved in it. However, it is a system that seriously damage nature resulting to environmental catastrophe beyond imagination affecting the lives of people living in the vicinity. In fact, it might even result to more damages resulting to natural imbalance with greater impact affecting an entire region and beyond. 2. Something is about moral problem when it violates certain standards. Example, cultural practices and values are perceived as standards of behaviour. Unrespectful attitudes are judged as wrong. Among Filipinos, a very strong cultural element is respect to the elderly. Anyone who treats the elderly with respect is considered a person of excellent moral upbringing. However, anyone who treats the elderly with disdain is unethical. It is ethically right to respect the elderly and ethically wrong to disrespect them. A religious belief may also qualify as a standard of this nature. The religious conviction that it is a call to assist someone in need is a moral demand and maybe a moral imperative. Thousands of people and maybe more are deeply motivated by such conviction that it is an ethical obligation to help others who are in need. People do not hesitate to give their all-out support and donate whatever they can to victims of devastating natural calamities. Imagine what happened to Tacloban and other events that triggered so much anguish and loss of lives. People moved by their compassion and religious commitment offered whatever they could without a second thought to save lives and ease the effect of almost annihilating circumstances. In the same vein of ideas, an act is a moral problem if it violates certain moral standards. The examples below of moral standards will clarify this perspective. a\. "That we should not use people." b\. "That we should not kill one person to save another." c\. "That every life is sacred." d\. "That it is wrong to discriminate against the handicapped" (Rachels, 2003) These moral rules or standards imply that these help us live a morally acceptable fashion. Their violation would be judged as morally or ethically wrong or incorrect. There are other standards and principles of these kind. They are considered standards by which we pattern our life and tell us whether we are morally upright or unethical in the way we live. These standards are particularly valuable and make sense when we experience extreme difficulty and the easier way out is their violation. In any culture and as a way of life, most of us agree that honesty is the best policy. It is expected that in any situation one should always be honest. One's value of honesty is especially challenged when one is in a difficult situation like that of deprivation. At this moment, a person is tempted to give up honesty if it would become a way out of the situation of deprivation. I might consider stealing as an option knowing that it will relieve me from my discomfort and respond to certain needs. Before acting however on such alternative, the individual makes a thorough consideration how the act can possibly affect the people who would be victim or victims of the act and what it implies to the individual himself or herself. Is the act worth considering? Are there other alternatives that are better than stealing and will not negatively affect others or make them suffer? Doing acts that violate moral rules and in broader sense principles are not easily acted upon because they call for moral judgment and people know they are violating important principles. **Why only human beings can be ethical?** From St. Thomas Aquinas point of view, the human being is ethical because the human person has the rational soul. If plants according to him have the vegetative soul and animals have sentient soul, only human beings have the rational soul, the highest form of soul. Plants may have the capacity to feel but they are incapable of responding being unable to move and express their feelings. Animals may have more than what plants possess and are capable of movements but possess no capacity for understanding. They have limited capacity and cannot exercise judgement. Rationality which individuals or human beings possess allows them to be aware of their situation and their environment. Their consciousness and their ability to think make them capable of making judgment. These capacities allow them to foresee the consequences of their actions and make a judgment about the rightness or wrongness of their actions. Only human beings have this capacity. Hence, according to St. Thomas, we can ascribe morality only to human beings. Also, the ethical assumptions; namely, free will and reason are important bases that determine why only human beings can be ethical. Reason or rationality and freedom are important elements to determine whether actions are within the realm of morality or not. For without such assumptions no amount or degree of ethical valuation can be ascribed to an act. Only human beings have them, which make them the only ethical beings. (This will be further discussed in the topic dealing specifically with the moral assumptions.) We also add the element of conscience or the inner voice that tells one about the rightness or wrongness of an act. It is an aspect only true to human beings. Conscience tells us whether or not we did what we ought to do and whether we have done the right thing or the opposite. It makes one happy or comfortable when he or she knows the right thing was done and feels guilty or suffers from deep sense of remorse knowing that what was wrong has been committed. The three; reason, freedom and conscience altogether determine therefore why only human beings can be ethical. Another authority explains that human beings have rules, principles, desires (the desire to do what is good), consciousness, sensitivity to higher order (ability to recognize God) and AKRASIA (Greek word for courage). AKRASIA or courage is ability. As ability it has a double meaning. Someone can have the ability to do something unacceptable or otherwise it also signifies ability to do something acceptable. Doing something moral or ethical, or immoral or unethical depends on one's courage to do it. Whether acceptable or unacceptable, it requires the persistence of doing it. When one insists on doing something, it requires the courage to do it. **What is moral experience and how moral rule is born?** Professor Bitanga explains how moral rule is born. For instance, you found a wallet that contains 5,000 pesos and an ATM card with the pin number as well! Something inside tells you to get it but at the same time you remember the prohibition; "Thou shall not steal." That is a moral experience and where moral rule is born. It calls for judgment. **Summary** Moral rule constitutes a moral situation that calls for or requires moral judgment to do good or the opposite. This knowledge of what constitute moral problems as well as the parameters to identify them is significant so that individuals are guided when they make decisions. By that, one considers with seriousness their plans before acting, considering their consequences and the principles that can possibly be violated by the acts. It is important because individuals whose actions imply moral valuations also imply moral responsibilities. Therefore, one cannot just ignore actions that carry with them important ethical implications. It is probably the mistake of many who confuse moral actions with those without. If people think that whatever actions they do are just any other action, there is a danger of ignoring their actual responsibility over the action. Without having to make distinction between those morally loaded and those that carry no moral significance, people make instant decisions and act instinctively knowing that they have no responsibility over them. If we think in this manner, we lose the chance to be better individuals and become a "neighbor" to others. With such thinking, we permit ourselves to make promises without the intention of fulfilling them. Deceiving others will make no difference at all. **Moral Dilemma**  It is expected that you have a clear grasp now of what is moral and non- moral valuation. Also the differences of human acts and acts of man. Now, the topic on moral dilemma is of significance. People especially the youth are easily perturbed when they are confronted to make choices in their life. They do not know how to deal with their problems and make choices to solve them. Their reaction is maybe to ignore a pressing problem for lack of knowledge or skill to solve it, or that they just allow the problem to persist which at the end of the day becomes more complicated and therefore more difficult to solve. Technology has made life very easy. Our life has been taken over by the invention of instant technology. You name it; instant food, instant clothing, instant domicile, instant information and people are getting married instantly without having to know much about their future partner. This instant thing has psychologically made a deep imprint in the mind and attitudes of people. People avoid what is complicated and those that demand significant effort and anything that takes time. In fact, people avoid reading that takes time and thinking requiring patience and energy on their part. Everybody prefers whatever is easily available and in unison with the Frenchman they can say: Voila! Or, in Spain, Presto! People want to be like the magician who makes things appear even in the most unusual and unexpected ways. The problem; however, with this system is that it doesn't work all the time. There are more complicated matters that require deliberation and hard work to deal with them. At this time, the instant choices or solutions do not apply anymore. The too easy life we live do not prepare us to face the more complex situations. Too often, we live with unresolved problems and undetermined solutions. Hence, the topic on moral dilemmas can help people decipher and make choices. **Learning Outcome** 1. Explain moral dilemma; 2. Demonstrate decision making in moral dilemma; 3. Perform the series of making choices in moral dilemma; and A student gets a warning from parents that getting into a relationship and getting pregnant while studying will mean discontinuance of all support to continue her studies. Despite such warnings and admonitions, the student disobeyed and is now two months pregnant. What is she going to do? She is afraid to tell her parents about her situation otherwise her parents will tell her to stop studying. But she wants to finish her studies. The predicament is, what to do in such a case? Will she resort to abortion and continue her studies, or, tell her parents about her present status seeing the evil of abortion and continue her pregnancy but stop schooling? What is a good alternative to her problem? **Instructions.** You are given 10 to 15 minutes to be able to come up with a solution to the question of what should be the right thing to do. Continue the pregnancy and stop schooling or, abort the baby and continue her studies? You may choose your partner or do it with a T- chart for your guide. **Presentation of Contents** Moral dilemmas are not rare. We often experience making choices in the face of conflicting situations. Others are courageous to make up their mind and face their problems. Many; however, are stuck and cannot make proper decisions. Or, they remain undecided and allow others to make decisions for them. Let us face it, quite a number of students are not ready to decide. Decision making is an everyday challenge that people make in their life but there are no classes to teach about making decisions. What is a moral dilemma? Moral dilemma is a situation of conflict. This occurs when two moral points are in conflict and are confused. Or, it is a "more complicated situation wherein one is torn between choosing one of two goods and choosing between the lesser of two evils... We have a moral dilemma when there are a number of possible actions and there are compelling ethical reasons for the various choices" but only one can be given preference and set aside all the rest (Bulaong Jr. et al., 2018). In the first case where one has to choose between two goods, let us study the case of Miss X who is offered a good paying job locally. However, she has always dreamt of working abroad. She fears however that working abroad would separate her from her family and the idea of separation makes her sad. She cannot divide herself and choose the two possibilities. What would be a better choice for Miss X? In the second case, let us consider the situation of a poor mother whose daughter is hungry but her situation does not permit her to buy her daughter the food she needs. But she can steal food so that her daughter can eat. What would be her choice? Allow her daughter to go hungry or steal food for her to be able to eat? A situation of dilemma is complicated or difficult because out of two or several choices, there is only one choice to make. What makes it more complicated is that there are cases when both choices are evil. Which is the lesser of the two evils? **3 Different Levels of Moral Dilemma** Moral dilemmas are categorized into three levels: personal, organizational and structural. **Personal Dilemma**. It pertains to choices affecting the individual himself or herself. The example mentioned above relating to the problem of schooling and pregnancy is a personal dilemma that an individual has to resolve. Personal dilemma may also involve problems between individuals. For instance, in a company, two very efficient employees who are both married get involved in a relationship. Company regulations sanction married individuals who are involved in illegitimate relationships. Having known about such relationship, what should the other employees do about it? Suppose they tell the administration about this illicit relationship. According to the rules, both of them would face termination from their employment. But the people are aware about their importance for the company because of their qualifications. Terminating these employees would be unfavorable for the company. If they don't, they condone illicit and immoral relationship within the company. The moral dilemma here is clearly whether or not for the other employees to tell the administration about the existing illicit relationship of the two employees of the company. **Organizational Dilemma.** Examples of this type of dilemma would refer to business, medical and public sector/company situation. Organizational dilemma has a broader scope and would tend to affect every member of the organization. Solutions arrived at also have an impact on the life of each member. **Structural Dilemma.** This dilemma would include an entire network of an institution and operative theoretical paradigm. The approval of the Bangsa Moro Law would fall under this category of dilemma. It has the broadest scope of influence and impact of the three levels. In the example given, the impact and effect of the approval would not only affect the people where the law would be applied, but the entire archipelago. It is said that Mindanao desires to have its autonomy. If you were to decide on this, would you approve the proposed law or not. Approval of the law could mean peace and order in the region. But the move might result finally to complete separation of the region. If the proposed law should not be approved, chances are; the peace and order in the region will continue to be a major problem and will continue to drain the national budget, the maintenance of strong army presence and conflict being heavily taxed on it. What is a good alternative to follow?  **Activity** Buzz Session. Group yourselves into five. Recall or think of a moral situation where a moral dilemma is involved. Present the conflicting moral rules. Apply the steps for moral analysis to resolve the dilemma. **ACTS WITH DOUBLE EFFECTS** In cases, an act performed produces two different consequences, one good and the other evil, the act is said to have **double effect.** **In complete ignorance - the wrongful consequence is completely unexpected and unintended.** **In double effect- the wrongful consequence is expected and it can either be unintended or intended.** **So: A person whose act results in an evil effect, has diminished moral responsibility over the wrongful consequence of his action if: 1. The act that brings about the double effect is in itself good or morally different. The attainment of the good effect is the intended effect. The evil effect is not perceived as a means to bring about the good effect.** **For acts with double effects, the extent of moral responsibility is determined by two general rules according to Duka, 2000.** 1. **The moral responsibility is perfect or aggravated if the person intends the evil effect and the act performed bring the evil effect is in itself wrongful.** 2. **It is exempted or diminished if the person intends the good effect and the act performed to bring it about is in itself good.( Credit to the author from which these notes were taken)** **Summary** Moral dilemmas are situations when people face difficulties in making choices or choosing an alternative from at least two or several possibilities that may be bad or evil. Making a choice is not always easy especially when alternatives are either disadvantageous or evil. Exposure to the three levels of moral dilemma is important for you as students It is a necessity to be aware that becoming a part of a larger community or institution will require participation in a more complex moral situation or dilemma. Getting involved in some complicated situations does not come from nowhere. These originate from something. Your knowledge on moral dilemma and moral analysis can now make you a wiser and better decision maker. You think twice before engaging in any gray area. Somehow, it will help you avoid to be in complicated moral situations. It is important to remember that deliberation is worthy of consideration prior to any decision or action. **Moral Assumptions** **(Foundation of Morality)** **Introduction** Certain assumptions are essential in ethics. Acts are considered moral or immoral, ethical or unethical, acceptable or unacceptable because of these assumptions. These assumptions are necessary because without them, no moral valuation can be passed on to certain acts. Here, we speak of reason and freedom as necessary assumption of moral valuation. Acts can only be judged to be moral or immoral, ethical or unethical when these assumptions are present. Their absence makes these acts morally or ethically valueless. In some references, moral assumptions are referred to as the elements of morality. This means that without reason, freedom and voluntariness an act is not moral or ethical. What are assumptions and what makes them so important? To illustrate their meaning and significance, let us take the example of my duty to do my work. It is assumed that when I report to work that I will be doing my job. The company or organization that hired me assumes that I will perform the tasks for which I was hired. For that reason, the company pays me for the services I render to it. The company assumes that I am doing my job. If it does not, there is no reason for it to keep me and pay me. Assumption is therefore based on the belief that I am doing my job whether or not it is true that I am doing it. The significance of that assumption is that the company pays my salary. Because if it does not, it has ceased to believe that I am doing my task or the assumption no longer stands to be true. Let us see why assumptions are necessary components of morality or ethics. **Learning Outcomes** 1. Define moral assumption; 2. Identify the assumptions of ethics or morality; and 3. Distinguish the differences among moral or ethical, immoral or unethical and amoral.  **Activating Prior Learning** Decide whether the situation below suggests moral implication. Suppose, the children in the neighborhood are playing one morning. As is the case when children play, they end up quarrelling. Suppose a boy pushes a playmate who falls down and starts to bleed immediately. With this scenario, consider whether the boy who pushed the playmate is morally responsible or not. Articulate your reaction. **Presentation of Contents** One crucial assumption in making moral valuation of certain acts and ascribing moral responsibility to a moral agent is reason. Reason is the first element of a human act. We assume that any person is a thinking being. By that, he or she is aware of the purpose of his or her action. Furthermore, this assumption is also true about the consequences of such action. Meaning, the person is also aware of the effects of the act. In other words, the person can make judgment whether an action is right or wrong. Through reason, one can assess the rightness or the wrongness of an act. By this, we understand that it is not possible to ascribe moral responsibility to a child who is way below the age of reason. The child cannot make a judgment whether his or her act is right or wrong. By the same token, we cannot judge the action of an insane person as right or wrong because the person has no way of evaluating the rightness or the wrongness of his or her act. Reason, therefore, is essential before we can ascribe moral valuation to any act or any moral responsibility to the doer of the act. Hence, only acts performed with deliberation or performed by anyone who knows the consequences of the act are moral or ethical acts. When reason cannot be ascribed to such acts, absolutely no moral implication is applicable. One can get so mad over an act performed by 3-year old child but we are in no position to ascribe to the child any form of moral or ethical guilt or responsibility. Reason therefore is absolutely required or is assumed to be a basis for declaring the rightness or wrongness of an act. Second element or assumption is freedom. It is considered an important element in making moral valuation and without which, no amount of reasoning can justify the ethical value of an act. We say, moral action can only emanate from individuals who act according to their choice or free will to do good. Moral valuation and moral responsibility cannot therefore be ascribed to actions devoid of the freedom to act and as such they are not qualified as moral action. Forcing someone to do an act will not make the person morally responsible for the action taken. For instance, forcing someone to contract marriage, this individual may later separate from the partner. Should the person act on that possibility, his action is without moral implication and is free to act on it because there was no marriage at all that took place since the person was forced under the threat of being killed or for any other reason. An act is considered human act with moral responsibility when it is undertaken on the basis of free choice or with a sense of freedom. Without the element of freedom, no amount of explanation can declare someone morally responsible over the act.  **Summary** Filipinos easily blame others for certain actions committed. We have the commonly used expression: "Kasalanan mo ang nangyari." (What happened was your fault.) Analyzing such accusation, we realize that it has some tone of moral valuation or judgment. Kasalanan is sin and in the Filipino context, the utilization of the word is ethically loaded with strong religious connotation. A person who commits sin has a moral responsibility and has also offended God not only another person to whom the moral agent has done something wrong. A person who is accused in these terms, may finally end up accepting not only that he or she is at fault but more significantly, accepts that he or she, is a bad person if he/she will use the catholic equivalent of moral significance and does not conform to God's law or commandments. Based on the discussion above, there is a need to be extra cautious about accusing someone to have committed a sin or is morally guilty even when evidences favor it. To ascertain the full implication of any accusation, there is a need to clarify it vis-a-vis the two moral assumptions of reason and freedom. Too often, Filipinos make others suffer from moral and religious perspectives when it should not be the case because the act is not grounded on the assumptions of reason and freedom. One who acts with complete or deliberate reason and freedom or voluntariness has the full moral responsibility of the consequences of his actions. **Standards of Moral Valuation Based on the Self** **Introduction** In the preceding discussions, it was clear that the standards we refer to when making moral judgments originate from external sources -- culture, rules, practices, authority, and the like. It came out that outside references have been considered too strongly influence people's decisions and choices. In this topic, the concern is to point out that not only external references do exist in making moral valuations but also, there are moral valuations inspired by personal choices therefore originating from a more subjective or internal point of view. In fact, the new generation would feel very much that way. They would rather consider their own thoughts and opinions when deciding on certain matters and less on what others might say about what they think is right or wrong. They are freer and more independent. Or, perhaps they would give importance to their feelings and emotions if they have to decide on something. That is their natural way and they are quite known for that -- the millennials. Whereas before when traditions had strong influence on people, everybody was quite concerned about one's reputation in the community. People would always consider what people around them might say about their decisions or about what they are going to do or are actually doing. Therefore, it is not impossible to say that one should not rely on any external authority to tell oneself what standards of moral valuations to follow, but we should instead turn inwards. We look now into three theories about ethics that focus on the self: subjectivism, psychological egoism and ethical egoism.  **Learning Outcomes:** 1\. Identify the different subjective standards as frame of reference for moral valuation; 2\. Analyze each of these subjective standards; and 3\. Use these frame of references in decision making. **Activating Prior Learning** In a small group, share your personal references or bases when making a decision? Are there personal guides that help you come up with a stance or a decision?  **Presentation of Contents** Bulaong Jr. et al. (2018) discussed the three senses of the self as these are presented below. 1\. **Subjectivism** It suggests that the individual thinking person is at the heart of all moral valuations. The person is the one confronted with the situation and is burdened with the need to make decision or judgment. From this point of view, subjectivism leaps to the more radical claim that the individual is the sole determinant of what is morally good or bad, right or wrong. Bulaong Jr. et al. suggest some clichés expressive of this mentality: - "No one can tell me what is right and wrong." - "No one knows my situation better than myself." - "I am entitled to my own opinion." - "It is good, if I say that it is good." **Criticism**: There is something appealing about these statements because they seem to express personal independence. But a closer look at these statements, reveal real problems of subjectivism. It is probable that out of extreme situation and profound disappointment, people may possibly console themselves with these clichés. But objectively; however, we may ask ourselves how many times did we make decisions and found out that we were wrong. Or, we failed to recognize that our experience is practically just a speck in comparison to the profoundness of the experience of others. Or, if only we can be honest and humble enough, then we would admit that our opinions are not as founded as the opinions of more mature people and less wiser than the opinion of the most foolish among us. And that finally, we realize that the initial good/decision is not as good as we thought it was. **2.Psychological Egoism** It is a theory that describes the underlying dynamic behind all human actions. As a descriptive theory, it does not direct one to act in a particular way. Instead, it points out that by nature, humans are self-interested and are after their own satisfaction and therefore in all their undertakings they are ultimately looking for self-fulfillment and satisfaction, aware or unaware. As such, the ego or self has its desires and interests and all actions are geared toward the satisfaction of these interests. It would seem that there is no problem with this position if we consider actions done on a daily basis: watch a movie, read books, entertain visitors, etc. It is acknowledged that we do things in pursuit of some interests all the time. The question; however, is do we try to consider actions that normally are directed toward others? Consider for instance the act of generosity. The position of the psychological egoist is that he or she would maintain that underlying such apparently other-oriented behavior is a self-interested desire, even when it is not being acknowledged or that the doer is not conscious of it. Helping another might seem an act of altruism. But the psychological egoist has inherent self-interest in expressing an act of service. In the end, the act no matter how it appears to be other-oriented, it is by nature an act that is self-serving. 3. **Ethical Egoism** Ethical egoism differs from psychological egoism in that the latter does not suppose that all actions undertaken are self-serving. But ethical egoism is a position that self-interest and personal ends are the single overriding concern. Ethical egoism is totally driven by selfish motive with no interest or concern for another. Actions are taken with the sole concern that the ultimate benefit will be for the self. One considers oneself as the sole priority and does not allow any other concern benefiting another. Ethical egoism is totally motivated by self-satisfaction and nothing more. **Summary** There are certainly individuals who are influenced or work with the three senses of the self -- subjectivism, psychological egoism and ethical egoism. They work from the perspective of the self. The self is their only point of reference in terms of their logic, choices, and decisions. There can be no problem with this since it is normal that individuals think and plan according to their needs, desires, their feelings or emotions and according to what they think is the right thing to do. They plan according to what is pleasurable or what makes sense for them. However, the problem with this is when people absolutize the self as their sole point of reference preventing them to see things from others' point of views. The world is not only about our world. The world is also a "we-world" according to the existentialist philosopher, Heidegger. He further explains that this "we-world" is to be understood in the sense of "being-with-others-in-the-world." It means that we are not alone in this world but that we share the world with others. By so doing we transform it and as a consequence of that collaboration, I am also transformed as well as the other. Mutual recognition and sharing makes our existence more meaningful. More so, we include others now in our moral valuations, that is, we become more considerate of the situation and more generous of the advantages and interests of others. The challenge therefore for people who view things only from their own perspective would be to learn to accept others in their life and view things from this new perspective shared with others. It would be something totally different if one could see and feel the world from another's point of view. Psychologists call this empathy, the ability of an individual to feel what others subjectively feel. When one is capable of this, we become more understanding of the person because we have understood him or her the way one understands oneself. With this, our judging will no longer only be based from the perspective of the self but it will include the other's perspective. **Culture and its Roles in Moral Behavior** **Introduction** What is culture? Culture has been defined in many ways. Jomil C. Baring, CSSR (www.academia.edu) citing Sir Edward Taylor defines culture as the "integrated pattern of human knowledge, beliefs and behaviors. This consists of language, ideas, customs. morals, laws, taboos, institutions, tools, techniques, and works of art, rituals and other capacities and habits acquired by a person as a member of society." By this definition, one realizes the importance and the crucial influence culture has for an individual. "I am what I am because of my culture. I am an embodiment of my culture. I am not the perfect embodiment of my culture, no one is, but somehow, as I am, I represent my culture." Such proves how cultures shapes the morality of a person. Every person born in a particular culture is an embodiment of his or her particular culture. From this, we can confidently say that culture is the basis of one's behavior, on which the moral fabric of an individual is patterned. People act, think and live according to the culture in which they are part of. And nobody is culture-free as we are always part of a society as succinctly expressed by the definition. What is the role of culture in moral behavior? Culture as fundamentally the basis of people's moral behavior is the short and precise answer to the question. Culture becomes the basis of our moral valuation as we evaluate the rightness or wrongness of our decision and action according to the values and codes of our culture. **Learning Outcomes** 1. Describe how culture serves as bases of morality; 2. Identify the relationship of culture and morality; and 3. Relate the aspects of moral development to real life situations.  **Activating Prior Learning** 1\. In the small group, answer the question: What is culture? 2\. What are those that we consider elements of our culture? Give examples. **Presentation of Contents** In a seminar in which culture was a subtopic, one participant, a former member of the Society of Jesus, described what culture is in the following terms: Culture is equal PERSIA, where: The participant made an interesting explanation about PERSIA. He explained that all these elements are part of culture. They all interact to make a culture; each cultural element having a particular role but having the same importance. He said that all that we are, all that we say, all that we think, all that we produce including our point of references in life are part of our culture. Culture penetrates each fabric of our personal and social life. **Cultural Elements** The following are the elements of culture: **Time.** Something that is part of culture must endure time. If it does not last, it might just be a fad. **Place.** A culture is limited in its coverage. It is limited in a particular place. It cannot be a practice in all places, otherwise it is a universal phenomenon and it does not reflect the culture of a particular place. **Player** (persons). In the same manner as the place, culture is also limited to particular persons living the particular culture. There has to be a people practicing the culture. If nobody practices something, it is not culture. Culture gives an identity to a particular people. It is what makes such a people unique. **Dynamism.** A culture is not dead. It is alive. Cultures continue to develop or evolve to become another culture. **The Role of Culture in Moral Development** Baring (www.academia.edu) discusses the elements of moral development in the context of the society as distinguished from the Stages of Moral Development by Lawrence Kohlberg. The following elements relative to culture influence moral development: First, culture is always social and communal. Culture is learned in the context of the society in which the person lives and expands his or her horizon. One's relationship allows one to learn and be influenced by the specific culture in which the person lives and mature. In such condition, morality is promoted through the relationship in the community. Individuals learn the moral codes of the right behavior and their opposites within that context of social interaction. The people around the individual transmit those codes which the individual acquires as he matures and develops intellectually, psychologically and socially. The pattern of the person's life is conditioned by the moral standards present in his or her culture. Second, culture defines the normative principles and behavior of the society. Within the culture are sets of principles that are encouraged to guide the manner in which people will have to live. As such, there are behaviors that are recommended by the culture and the society that practice them. This includes the moral norms that the society nurtures allowing the members live and define what is right and wrong. Third, culture, sets the restrictions and boundaries in the lives of people as they relate and live in their community. In any society, not everything is tolerable as there are restrictions in order to maintain a certain order to guarantee that each member is protected in the same manner that the same member can protect others. Restrictions and boundaries are important to any society because delinquent manners may always be present. As such, they serve as guide to people's behavior. Fourth, culture helps generate the character and identity of its people and that includes their moral character. The manners in which people live together give them their identity as a unique group. The way people dress up, the way they greet each other, their food and even the type of houses symbolize their uniqueness which outsiders notice with ease. Visitors and tourists always make a way that before leaving a place they have visited to buy souvenir items unique in the place. The uniqueness of a people is not only manifested in some form of souvenir items, but the contact with them makes one aware that their true uniqueness and identity is exemplified in their moral character. It is well known in the Philippines that it exists in Batanes what is known as "honesty stores." These stores do not only represent the peculiar system the people of Batanes have adapted but demonstrate more deeply a unique type of moral character expressed in their strong sense of honesty. Finally, culture identifies the authorities. They are the symbol of guidance and control. During the earlier times, the elders had this great honor of having been looked up to because of their experience. As such they were considered to be the "talisman" of their community who offered wise and appropriate decisions to resolve conflicts and issues. According to Baring (www.academia.edu), as the previous society was patriarchal by nature, the elders were composed of the old men in communities. They were respected and their decisions were upheld by the members of their communities. Their authority did not only include the rules that govern their life -- how they dealt with each other, family, work, social interactions but they also considered the behavior of the members of the community. As such, community moral code was determined by the council of elders. Sanctions were also decided by them when rules and decisions were violated. It was important that there should be overseers in the community to safeguard the peace and order whether it is internal or outside threat that menaces their communal life.  **Summary** People are what they are because of their culture. It gives them their identity, sense of uniqueness and defines to a great extent their moral character. People behave in the way they are according to the dictates of their cultural background and practices. It is difficult to imagine how people would be without this great frame of reference for their life. In the words of Jean Paul Sartre, "how can one get rid of bad faith and live freely according to one's free will and choices?" This may be a reaction similar to the reaction of other existentialists. They were trying to point out the restrictions and limitations that culture and traditions impose upon individuals. Culture has deep impact in molding people's thoughts, feelings and moral valuation and consequently in their behavior. Same idea is confirmed by Lev Vygotsky, a prominent Russian psychologist who believes that self-regulation or independent learning can only be achieved when a child has learned the signs and symbols of one's culture. It is an important indicator according to him of the child's ability to solve problems on his or her own. Also, Gestalt psychology believes that to be able to understand a person, there is a need to understand his or her environment. Individuals are part of their environment and we cannot treat them apart from it. Hence, we can say that to understand ourselves, others and our community, including the understanding of our moral behavior, it would be necessary that we should know and understand our culture. **Cultural Relativism** Are there universal truth and absolute objective reality? It would seem that such is not the case because our exposure and knowledge about the different cultural realities tend to provide us with ample evidences that there are other ways of thinking, believing and manners of living. This implies that there is not one single existing culture but different cultures existing side by side. Cultures of different people each having its own origin, practicing its own codes and standards and having its own traditions are proofs of such co-existence. Is there such a thing as universal culture? What is evident is cultural diversity. Cultural relativism is undeniably present and the best people can do of their differences to mutually respect one another. People coming from different origins and traditions will have to treat each other as equals and co-exist in mutual respect and understanding. If such is the case, we need to understand the implication of living our culture in the midst of other cultures. In this topic, we will elucidate cultural relativism, its weaknesses and criticisms. The enlightenment we can derive from the discussion might help us develop a critical attitude not only toward other cultures but also toward our own culture.  **Learning Outcomes** 1. Define cultural relativism; 2. Analyze the criticisms and limitations of cultural relativism; and 3. Discover the alternative ways of treating our own culture and others'. **Activating Prior Learning** Students may be grouped or individualized in their responses. Define culture in differentiated tasks /activities. Rubrics answer the question: What is culture through differentiated activities.  **Presentation of Contents** What is cultural relativism? Nowadays, exchanges with and exposures to various cultural practices are not rare. Modern technology allows people to travel faster and more conveniently that attract more people to do just that and consequently experience living in another culture. Technology has made possible what was unimaginable a few decades ago -- information explosion. Information has been made readily available through the internet connection. In terms of exposure, communication technology has done more than what is needed and essential as we can be connected to access information about different societies and cultures which make us all the more deeply aware of the various ways of thinking and valuing different from our own. The contacts people have with others and exposures to different ways of life have significant consequences in the way they understand others and themselves. On this basis , people easily conclude that it is acceptable to be different; it is the same with ethics. This means to say that what is ethically or morally acceptable or unacceptable is dependent on a particular culture. This manner of considering what is right or wrong based on cultural standard is known as cultural relativism (Bulaong Jr. et al., 2018). Culture has now become the sole basis or morality; what is right or wrong is judged on the basis of culture and its standards or codes. This implies that what is moral or ethical in one culture may not be necessarily reflected in another. The rightness and wrongness of an act or decision is entirely a cultural affair. Hence, something that is morally accepted in one culture may not be in the case of another culture or what is wrong in another might be acceptable in another. This is cultural relativism. Morality or ethics depends on the valuations of each specific culture. If this is the way how morality should be understood, authorities question whether this is sound. Rachels (2003) asks whether it is alright that each culture makes its own judgment of what is right or wrong. But what about if cultural practices in one culture allows genocide to take place? Should we be silent about the genocide committed by the Nazi Germans to the Jews during the Second World War? Or, should the excision of women in a particular African culture which is extremely painful with certain irreversible biological and psychological changes in the life of the African women be allowed to continue without criticizing the practice? Is there not one right concept of how should things be? What is the answer? If it would seem that the mother Eskimos of the north did not feel remorse killing their baby girls and did it as if it were the most natural thing to do when there were too many girls in the family, it would be the most shocking discovery in the life of an outsider. It is total disrespect of human life and dignity and absolutely aberrant manner of treatment for the innocent and helpless beings. However, much to our amazement, what these Eskimo mothers were doing was exactly the protection the life of the entire family and their clan. Their natural and physical environment was such that it was too harsh and unfriendly that people cannot afford to have more liabilities or more mouth to feed as there was almost nothing to live on. Should everyone be allowed to live, paradoxically; everyone disappears from the face of the earth. Baby boys were favoured because they were potential hunters when they grow up but the girls were definitely liabilities in such kind of extremely unfavourable geographical conditions. **Why Cultural Relativism is Appealing** 1. It gives us the freedom to act in the way we want to act. It means that we need not adjust in a given situation knowing that there is diversity of valuation. 2. Cultural standards give us a basis for judging the rightness or wrongness of our own action. 3. Cultural relativism allows us to be tolerant of others from other cultures. **Consequences of Cultural Relativism** 1. We could no longer say that the customs of other societies are morally inferior to our own. 2. We could decide the rightness or wrongness of our actions by consulting the standards of our society. 3. The idea of moral progress is called onto doubt. **Difficulties of Cultural Relativism** Bulaong Jr. et al. (2018) citing James Rachels presents some of the difficulties of cultural relativism in the following terms: 1. We cannot say that any one moral valuation is the right one? 2. It is no longer possible to render any kind of judgment on the practice of another society. But what if their practices strongly suggest and call for criticism. Example, in the case of racism, genocide, etc. 3. It means also that under cultural relativism, we cannot question even our own culture and the prevailing practices. This means that as if moral perfection is achieved. 4. Cultural relativism as noted by Bulaong Jr. et al. (2018) can only be maintained by assuming that there is only a single and fixed culture while it is increasingly becoming evident that it is difficult to determine what exactly determines one's culture. **Why we cannot absolutize Cultural Relativism** 1. It is a contradiction in itself. When we insist on cultural relativism, we have made it absolute, there, it ceases to be. 2. The differences are in our belief system, not in our values. If we look closely at our values, there are more similarities than differences. 3. Other values tend to be more or less universal, e.g., telling the truth. 4. There are some moral rules that all societies must have in common. **Summary** Cultural relativism is happening. The evidences of cultural diversity are undeniable as evidenced by the multitude of cultures around the world. People live in many different ways and that these differences range from being almost similar to being radically different. The purpose of the study of cultural relativism is not to point out that peoples around the world are different and as such they will remain different and should be treated differently. And that means also that other people have nothing to say about others' ethical standards being different. That the only way we can deal with each other is by mutual respect which is respecting the differences that there are in each culture including the existing moral valuations honoured by each culture. Rachels (2003) obviously wants more than simply mutual respect. He believes that there is something that binds different people better than mere accepting or allowing other cultural practices without questioning them or that others would do the same. He suggests that more than mutual respect for the differences he proposes that we should go farther and recognize that there are more commonalities that bind the people of the world. He believes that the values behind the practices of different cultures are more important to consider as they are basically the same. When he points out that the Callatians practiced the eating of the dead bodies of their fathers while the Greeks burned them, he actually meant to point that despite the utter differences in their practices, both were meant to express the same value in quite amazing differences -- that of respect for the dead fathers. If we know more of the values behind our practices, we can establish the highest form of respect that is based on the inherent similarity of values found in each of the cultures. Cultural relativism is not the promotion of antagonism between and among cultures but to seek for the elements that can unite and tie up harmoniously what seems to be different and separated. This is the best alternative because deep down the different practices are common universal values. People of different cultures may have different practices, but remain the same because of the inherent common values behind and beyond their practices. **Is there a Filipino Culture?** **Introduction** Filipinos themselves doubt about their proper answer to the question "What is the Filipino culture?" Writers about the Filipino culture are unanimous in their opinion that this difficulty originates from the history of the Philippines. The country has been successively colonized by Spain and by the United States and both brought cultural influences that until now are practiced by the Filipinos. Filipinos do not find it difficult to identify which practices are of Spanish influence in the same manner that Filipinos will be able to identify easily which is a practice that is American. However, the difficulty is to which of these two influences a Filipino would identify himself or herself more. The confusion is so deep that it would be difficult for many to say what is the Filipino culture. Things are so dynamically intertwined that it is difficult to determine what is finally the Filipino culture or who is a Filipino? However, this dynamic intertwining is a Filipino ingenuity that makes it in a sense Filipino. Some say it is Spanish-Filipino or Filipino-American. What matters probably is that it is practiced by a Filipino who identifies himself to be a Filipino and not otherwise. Would it be important to delve into the question: Is there a Filipino understanding of right or wrong? From the point of view of what has been previously discussed about cultural relativism, it would seem that we have our sense of what is right or wrong, first, from our cultural point of view. In this succeeding discussion, we analyze cultural and traditional practices of our own.  **Learning Outcomes** 1. Identify common Filipino practices and traditions; 2. Express appreciation to these practices and traditions; 3. Criticize some of the present Filipino traditions and practices. **Activating Prior Learning** 1. For fifteen minutes, in small groups, they will identify some Filipino practices and traditions and; 2. Criticize these practices by pointing out their advantages and disadvantages.  **Presentation of Contents** **A. Difficulties of Identifying the Filipino culture** First, when we talk about the Filipino culture, we have a difficulty. Filipinos do not know exactly which of the cultures they will talk about. Why, because there is not a single Filipino culture. The Filipino culture is a combination or blend of the east and west cultures. Basically the western influence would include Spanish and American cultures as part of the colonial past of the Philippines. Asian influences can also be added to the list as there are Japanese, Indonesian and even Arabic traces in the Philippine culture. Hence, the problem arises when we want to assert that there is only one Filipino culture. Obviously, it will be a mistake to insist on the idea. From the point of view alone of the number of languages and dialects spoken in the entire archipelago, the more or less 170 languages and dialects spoken of which eight are considered major languages, are signs of cultural diversity in the country. Second, having been born in a subculture of a major culture raises a problem about to which culture will someone identify with exactly? What is going to be his or her cultural identity? The question has also been raised by Bulaong Jr. et al. (2018) in relation to cultural relativism. Since cultural relativism can only work within the context of a very well defined and determined culture, it implies the necessity of a single, definite and clear cultural identity. However, in an increasingly open and globalized world, the notion of cultural relativism is being put into question. But whether or not cultural relativism is tenable, for the Filipino in quest for his or her cultural identity, will always have the problem of identifying with a specific culture. **B. Source of Cultural Identity** Cultural identity may remain evasive because of the Filipino historical and socio-cultural cross-points, but certain practices do give the Filipino his or her own cultural identity. Some of the Filipino traditional practices from multi-cultural origin are: - Asking the elders' approval before getting married, concern, pagmamano or "Mano po Culture". Asking God's blessing through kissing of hands. Use of the polite expressions "Po and Opo", hospitality, adaptability and resiliency. Cultural identity for the Filipino is not to be found in the manner that we define what the Filipino culture is nor in trying to identify ourselves with a specific culture whether Tagalog, Iloko, Ybanag, Itawes, Cebuano, Bicolano or another, but it is to be found in the practices and traditions with which we are accustomed to. As Filipinos we are identified with and through how we identify ourselves with one another. Not even with the color of the skin and the language that we speak, but in the manner that we live and deal with one another that we are able to identify who is a Filipino and what is the Filipino culture. This manner of making sense of the Filipino culture from the point of view of the existing practices and traditions makes the Filipino culture boundless. Whether American, European or Spanish, if you feel like a Filipino, think like one and eat with them, for them you are a Filipino and you share in the Filipino culture. The Filipino cultural identity is a lived identity. The practices that one practices will be the measure by which your being a Filipino will be measured and identified. **C. Being critical about our practices** Filipinos should not remain unperturbed about their traditions and practices. It is not because they are traditions that they are forever true and remain unquestionable. The significance and meaning of traditions might have changed positively or negatively overtime. For instance, a very important Filipino tradition, is the one related to strong family ties. It symbolizes the unity and strong bond in the family. The tradition gives a sense of support and security for all the members of the family or even for the entire clan. In times of crisis and difficult moments, one can always rely on this tradition and family members will not hesitate to rescue someone in trouble. However, the same tradition can be abused by any member of the family and it may lead to perpetual dependence of a family member. Someone from the family might have his or her own family, but remains dependent on the parents for every need like finances, in terms of decision making and for every other need that arises. Another trait we easily associate to us as Filipinos is that of being religious. The Filipino reliance on divine providence is extraordinary. It is expressive of the Filipino faith in the power of the Omnipotent and All powerful God. Our deep sense of religiosity can give us hope and from which we draw strength and courage and it can redefine our direction and sense of fulfilment. However, it is sometimes misconstrued to mean that everything will have to come from God and that God will always intervene on our behalf. We have forgotten that we have to do our part to make things come true. We tend to forget that God helps those who help themselves. Faith does not justify laziness, indecisiveness and lack of initiative. Religiosity cannot be taken also as a substitute for good work. **Summary** We have learned from our exposure to the different cultures that much of what we have considered uniquely Filipino cultures are in fact shared with other people of other cultures. We have so often considered, for instance, hospitality as a strongly and uniquely Filipino trait only to find out that the same attitude is very much alive in others and perhaps more alive in them. People for instance are always welcome to come at any time of the day and can dine with the family. Filipinos have no problem at all with that and that is very Filipino. When your hosts know that you have come from afar they will always offer you something to eat. That is hospitality for the Filipino. The whiteman might not entertain you immediately and asks you to wait until he or she is finished or done with something she is busy about or won't invite you to dine with him or her. And we say, the whiteman is not at all hospitable. "We were not entertained immediately and we were made to wait." This is the usual reaction that Filipinos have when not given attention as soon as possible by their hosts. Filipinos have no sense of formality. They are gatecrashers, they may come at anytime. The whiteman needs to be informed and an appointment is very important for him or for her. He or she doesn't want to be caught unaware. However, if you are invited or made an appointment with the whiteman, you need to consider that very seriously. If you get invited for a meal at home, you are there for half a day or maybe during the whole day. When Europeans invite you, they really mean it. They will try to foresee every need to the last detail to make you most comfortable during the entire duration of your stay. A meal can mean all the nice words upon arrival that naturally continues with an aperitif with more stories and continues at table for the "plat de resistance" that goes on and on at least for the next two or more hours. Next you have the dessert and later the post cafe and another cup of coffee. That is the whiteman's hospitality. It is a serious thing which means that when you are invited, you have to take it seriously as well and must really give time for it and nothing else. Their hospitality is unbelievable. After you have left you remember the event long after the invitation. But for Filipinos, you might have encountered so often, but have no idea exactly why you had to see each other. "Palabra de honor" or being a person of one word reveals that it is also not only Filipino but is shared with others. The terms themselves reveal that they are of Spanish origin. Filipinos have their own version of "Palabra de honor." We can be proud to note that in history. It is a known fact that the early Filipinos have always respected their promises to Chinese traders transacting with them. The Chinese trader goes back to China and comes back after many months and the Filipino costumer waits for his return. No written contracts, only promises were at stake. But that shows at the same time the Chinese "palabra de honor" indicating that is not uniquely Filipino. The point is, if certain values are shared by different nationalities, it is in the manner that these values are practiced where differences are found. Rachels (2003) explained that Eskimos also practiced hospitality but in the manner unique to them expressed by offering their wives to their male visitors at night. In the same manner, the way we practice the same values as Filipinos gives form to them and makes them unique. There is a uniquely Filipino culture in terms of the practices through which we express the same values shared with other people of other nationalities. **The Moral Development Stages of the Moral Agent** **Introduction** We have discussed how we can be more ethical or moral in our actions and decisions. Morality or ethics constitute a fundamental guide to people's existence that without which, it would be impossible for people to co-exist harmoniously. Furthermore, the topic about ethics is not just a guide about co-existence but it has an important role to play for people to live more meaningful and positive relationships that bring about transformative changes to the quality of life. In this topic, we will underscore moral development. The understanding of moral development can help us gain insights about our role in providing avenues for its development. Morality might have its own course of natural development, but we might just have the responsibility to choose to allow or impede its full maturation in us or in other people. For children, they need assistance from more mature individuals to reach the full development of their moral or ethical reasoning and judgment. It will always be to their advantage if they are guided and given the chance to be empowered by such wise and experienced individuals. The different stages of moral development have been the focus of the study of the American moral psychologist Lawrence Kohlberg. He theorized that moral development involves three levels which are discussed in this chapter:  **Learning Outcomes** 1. Identify the different levels of moral development; 2. Characterize one's present stage of moral development; and 3. Evaluate the roles of more mature people in the moral development of younger people. **Activating Prior Learning** Recall that event when you started to have knowledge about having done something good or bad. Share it to class. (15 minutes)  **Presentation of Contents** **The Levels and Stages of Moral Development by Lawrence Kohlberg** **Level I. Pre-conventional** The pre-conventional level corresponds to how infants and children think. The type of reasoning at this level is centered on the consequences of one's action and the level is divided into two stages. **Level II Conventional** At this stage, older children, adolescents and young adults learn to conform to societal expectations. Conventions acquire significance for the individual and learn to follow them. They now understand the importance of conventions in their life. Level II is subdivided into two stages. **Level III. Post-Conventional** In the post-conventional level**,** people realize that what matters is no longer the simple following of rules in the society that takes precedence. The moral agent by now knows that what is at stake is more on doing or acting upon the personally acquired beliefs or principles. What one does is what one ought to do is now the new challenge for the individual moral agent. **Summary** The different stages of moral development according to Lawrence Kohlberg are not to be confused with determining what is morally right or wrong. But the stages describe only the characteristics of each of the developmental stages. Hence, one must be careful not to pass on moral judgment to an act based on the stages of moral development developed by Kohlberg. Kohlberg argues that in the stages of moral development, most people are locked up in the fourth stage. Only very few are able to go beyond it. This means that most people relate their moral judgment to communal or societal conventions, rules, laws and regulations. Therefore, the rightness and wrongness of an act depends on whether one follows them or not; implying therefore a kind of legalistic mentality. **Feelings and Moral Decision-Making**  **Introduction** When people decide at the height of their emotion, decisions made are most likely to be subjective or biased. If one is mad, hurt, depressed or going through a painful experience, his or her decisions may not be the most appropriate ones as they are clouded with strong emotional nuances and lack objectivity. When one is at the height of one's rage, he or she does not even consider making a decision but acts upon it immediately without considering the consequences of the action. People end up having more complicated problems having not considered first where their actions may lead to. The topic deals with emotion and moral decision-making. Should one disregard one's emotion or emotions when taking a stance? Should an individual be pathetic so that decisions arrived at are wise and objective? Let us consider below some ideas concerning this intriguing topic on emotion and moral decision-making situations. **Learning Outcomes** 1. Attribute the role of emotions in moral actions; 2. Differentiate actions based on reason and feelings; and 3. Analyze their feelings in personal moral experiences.  **Activating Prior Learning** In a group, capture an experience when you made a decision at the height of your emotion. What were the consequences of your decision? Was there regret after you have decided? (Share it in class) 15 minutes. **Presentation of Contents** The rationalistic point of view that emotion has no place in moral decision needs to be examined. No person has the capacity to be unaffected or separate himself or herself completely from one's feelings or emotions. Psychologically, it is a condition that is not possible because individuals experience the situations of their life in all its dimensions -- as a rational being, as a feeling being, as a social being, as a religious being and more. And as such these dimensions can never be compartmentalized or segregated from each other and experience one and put aside the others. One dimension may dominate the others but they can never be completely erased or neglected during a particular experience. Where there is a need to make moral decisions, it is impossible to purge the individual of one's feelings or emotions that may derail him or her from making the most appropriate one. After all, human beings are not robots. Bulaong Jr. Et al (2018) suggests citing the ideas of Aristotle that moral virtue is far beyond the pure and simple act of intellectually determining the right thing to do. Moral virtue is the character of the person through which a moral agent is able to have control over one's emotions or feelings. Aristotle does not suggest the elimination of feelings but the cultivation of one's character at the basis of learning how to be able to control them. It would seem that the Filipino agrees to this idea, when he or she says: "Huwag kang padadala sa bugso ng iyong damdamin." Or, "Huwag mong paiiralin ang iyong emosyon." These suggest that Filipinos have a way in order to tame one's emotions or feelings. It must be a corollary experience that somehow there is a way to be able to manage one's emotions. All these tell us that the human being is intellectual as much as emotional. Being a human being is to have both the rational and emotion aspects and people will always be. Aristotle proposes that decisions or moral virtues are arrived at by the mature moral agent because of habitually managing one's emotions in the rightful manner. Hence, the responsible moral agent accepts that feelings cannot be put aside as they will always be there. But what is necessary so that they will not detract anyone from making an informed moral decision is learning how to cultivate them so that one's emotional life does not remain in the, pre-conventional level in which self-interest is the motivation of decision making. It should be noted that the cultivation of one's character is a process of continuous habit of doing what is right. It is not therefore, a result of an overnight and single attempt but really of a prolonged endeavor to train one's reaction to situations to arrive to what is called character. Managing one's emotions and feelings would require every individual this process until the individual has attained a mature moral character.  **Summary** Emotions can easily prompt individuals to make decisions based on their prevailing emotional state. Emotions have value in moral decision-making but knowing how to control it would be essential in order to make the rightful decisions by habitually doing what is right. By practicing something it evolves as the moral agent's character or natural manner in dealing with situations. Knowledge is one aspect and managing one's emotions through character is the other ingredient honored by responsible moral agents **Introduction** Making decision may not be easy. People change their decisions now and then. They vacillate in their stance unsure about the right thing to do. This is usually the case when facts and ideas about certain issues are unclear. Furthermore, people's decision about certain issues gets more confused because of their knowledge about the people to be affected by their decisions. Whether right or wrong, they seem to favor more those close to them and are quite harsh and unforgiving to those they have less knowledge about. Decisions do not seem to depend on the issue but rather on the people involved. In fact, decisions are all the more biased and subjective when the persons who are supposed to decide are themselves involved in the issue. They are more concerned about saving their skin even if the responsibility for certain errors are theirs and definitely have less or no consideration at all to other parties involved even if they are right. People obstinately insist only on their rights, privileges and interests but are not fair toward others' legitimate demands and interests. How can people arrive at a more objective and right decisions? Even when people are up to what is legitimate and acceptable decision for everyone, it looks like decisions made are not always the way everybody wants them to be. Something always escapes and remains unattended. The topic might help people in their quest for a more objective, fair and rightful solutions to issues affecting their lives. **Learning Outcomes** 1. Perform the 7-step Moral Reasoning Model; 2. Judge their personal moral actions using the 7-step moral reasoning model; and 3. Check real life cases using the 7-step model.  **Activating Prior Learning** **Presentation of Contents** How does one arrive at an acceptable and right moral decision? The following steps are suggested as guides in making moral decision which is called the Seven (7) Step Moral Reasoning Model. 1. **State the problem. Gather the facts** Before any decision, it is important that decisions makers have in their possession all the necessary facts and data concerning an issue. Decisions are based on facts and not on opinions neither on hearsay. Facts and data clarify the issues that need to be resolved. When facts are incomplete a definite resolution to a problem may not be reached. The acceptability also of a solution to a problem or issue will depend on the completeness of facts and evidences. 2. **Check the facts. Determine the ethical issue** (Is it moral if...) In the second step, it is necessary to determine the ethical issue. In other words, what is the problem about? It is a point of clarifying and distinguishing whether a situation demands moral valuation or not. Some issues do not really qualify to be considered a moral or ethical issue. When I have to decide about the time I should eat my breakfast or, when I have to decide whether I have to study for tomorrow's examination in my Physics class do not necessarily require deliberate moral decision. But when contemplating to secretly sell a family property without the knowledge of the other members is an example of a situation in which a moral valuation is called for. Here, I have to ask myself whether my intention to sell the family property is ethical or unethical. Is it the right thing to do even if I have important needs to address? 3. **What principles have a bearing on the case? Identify relevant factors.** In the case mentioned above about secretly selling a family property, I should consider the principles that would be violated by my decision. It is dishonest to sell a common property without the knowledge of my co-owners. I am violating the principle that I should be honest at all times. Furthermore, my intention violates the principles about private properties owned by others. My intention violates at least two principles. In the example, there are principles that have a bearing on the intention to secretly sell a communal property and these principles tell us about some irregularities ethically speaking. **4. List down the alternatives. Develop a list of options.** Finding a solution to a moral issue may involve several alternatives. Again, in the example above about selling the family property secretly may not be the only solution to a financial crisis. Other alternatives may be possible like asking the other co-owners to buy themselves my own share in the property. Or, maybe, if I have an existing problem in which considerable amount of money is involved, it is possible that I can have recourse to the generosity of my siblings. They may not be the only alternatives found, others may still be possible. Should my siblings and other members of the family know my situation; they might be able to offer better alternatives other than those I know. By listing down possible alternatives to resolve a problem, I have created several or a few possibilities from which I can choose a more feasible alternative. **5. Compare the alternatives with principles. Test the options.** It would be interesting to compare the different alternatives; this involves the examination of the different alternatives analyzing their advantages and disadvantages. It would also require finding which of the alternatives would violate less the identified principles with bearing on the issue. An alternative solution that does not violate any principle would normally be the recommended one. **7. Make a decision (Review steps 1-6)** Note: For more readings on this topic, & Step Method for Ethical Decision Making, contact Center for the study of Ethics in the Professions. Illinois Institute of Technology CSEP \@IIT.EDU.312.567. 3017.Copy right. Seven Step Method for Ethical Decision Making, Michael Davis, 2013.  **Summary** A disorganized and unsystematic way of dealing with situations like problems or in this case an ethical issue would lead us to nowhere. To be able to systematically address a situation, there is a need to work with a certain framework or model or at least a guide. The 7-step reasoning model is precisely a guide in making a moral decision. Going through the different steps may be a laborious one, but it helps moral agents not to neglect and disregard important considerations before arriving at a resolution. The temptation is always to make shortcuts since it saves time and energy and voila an instant solution is at hand. This manner of course of solving a problem would be most welcome if we hit the most appropriate alternative from the many. However, it is not always the case. By deploying our efforts to the wrong alternative we consume more time and energy because that would lead us back to the point of departure and rethink the entire process and thus, we are back to zero. It is usually the case of the heuristic method. It is best known as the trial and error method. People may be lucky but we can never be sure about this method in looking for the best solutions. In solving moral issues, one should not attempt to find easy solutions but one should rather opt for lasting solutions to problems even if it will require more deliberation, brainstorming and getting together. A solution moreover that is the fruit of a collaborative effort is better than the one found by a single individual because more people will give their commitment in the implementation of the solution. The 7-step moral reasoning model is just like that; by considering every element in finding a solution, people do arrive at a more permanent, lasting and morally right alternatives. **Ethical Frameworks and Principles in Moral Disposition** **Introduction** In the succeeding discussions, only the four mental frameworks are discussed - Virtue Ethics, the Natural Law, the Utilitarian Theory and Kant's Theory. The reason for this is that before the preparation and conceptualization of the suggested curriculum in Ethics by the Commission on Higher Education CHED, a survey of the different frameworks commonly used by Filipinos has been undertaken. The survey revealed that these are most commonly used frameworks. People are unaware, they are utilizing these frameworks in the way they deal with their situation in life, but the manner in which they decide and act upon those decisions are reflective of the models mentioned above. By studying them, people will be able to maximize the benefits they can get from the models with which they are working with. Furthermore, learning them will help them realize the advantages and disadvantages of the models in use. Another benefit is that the study of the different models can bring about the limitations and weaknesses of the models. Such awareness can make people more critical and avoid the pitfalls inherent in each of the models. **Virtue Ethics** **Introduction** What makes virtue ethics different from the other ethical frameworks is that it is anchored on the character of the individual. By this, it should be understood that the application or the practice of the model is not based on the knowledge of the framework per se but on the character of the individual. Someone does or reacts in a particular manner because it is his or her character reacting in that manner. The person who has the habit of practicing kindness is most likely to display the virtue when it is called for. It is unlikely that he or she will react violently even if his or her situation may necessitate it. Being kind has become part of the character of the person. Kindness or virtues for that matter are then products of a long process of forming a habit of practicing what is ethical or what is upright and continuously correcting oneself in the process. By saying this, the natural implication is that virtues are not acquired overnight or instantaneously. No book will be as effective in teaching virtues as helping a child practice them constantly. The framework reminds us about the importance of educating or forming character as early as possible and more specifically among children so that by the time they reach the age of reason, they must have imbibed in them the virtue necessary to live ethically, doing what promotes the good and acceptable to the rational mind.  **Learning Outcomes** 1. Explain the role of Virtue Ethics in moral experience; 2. Articulate the virtue ethics; and 3. Criticize virtue ethics. **Activating Prior Learning** In a small group share your idea about the following: Imagine you are trapped in the middle of a forest. With you are other adults and women and children. There is not much food left. How are you going to apportion the food left for everybody to survive while waiting for the rescuers? (Share it!) 15 minutes.  **Presentation of Contents** **Arete (Virtue) as Moral Excellence** Values can be good or bad. The good values are virtues and the bad ones are vices. Since virtue has the ability to bring positive changes and enhance the quality of life, it is power in itself. It is power as disposition or state. This power is a means to attain excellence or human excellence, "the ability to function according to reason and to perform an activity well or excellently" (Bulaong Jr. et al, 2018). It can be achieved by developing the good values. Hence, the role of human reason is vital in the discernment in which manner power has to be used. Individuals do not become virtuous overnight. The power to attain excellence is nourished by the moral character of a person as a result of practicing the virtue. If virtue or the manner of doing things excellently is achievable only by training oneself or by constant practice, virtue must be something which individuals must strive for. They must constantly make the habit of practicing them in their day-to-day existence, constantly doing what is good and correcting oneself if one falls short in its practice. In the same vein of idea, virtue cannot be the result of a single act. The act of honesty is considered virtue if it is done not once, not twice but when it has become part of one's character. **Virtue as the Golden Mean (Nicomachean Ethics)** It is not clear whether it is Aristotelian or written by Aristotle himself but it is clearly dedicated to his son Nichomea. The concept of virtue is explained by the golden mean (mesotes or measurement). It is a means by which the human person is acting in measured way being rational. The question therefore to be asked is "where can I find excellence?". The answer is found in the mean or moderation. Example, the lack of love is hatred or indifference. And excessive love is obsession as illustrated below: The mean is in the middle. It signifies how strong you are to withstand tension between the lack of and excess of love. It is the test to the moral character of an individual. Aristotle is concerned about achieving the appropriate action which is neither deficient nor excessive. Virtue is found in the middle or intermediary between extremes. It is the application of the right amount of passion or feelings and the exercise of one's ability to do a particular act. It follows that in themselves, feelings and passions are neither good nor bad. It is in the manner of applying them that the wrongness or rightness of the act is manifested. It is alright for instance to be angry when it is reasonable but it is not right to be angry beyond what is required by the situation that triggered it. Another question that must be settled here is the question of how to judge the mesotes or the middle. Does it depend on the individual? According to Aristotle, the mean or mesotes does not depend on the person because it is different from one person to another. Otherwise, the person will be accused of relativism or subjectivism. Rather, the mesotes depends on the situation. It requires a serious consideration and examination or the situation. It is the situation that will determine where mesotes is found or what is the mesotes for a particular situation. Again, reason will be important in order to appropriately assess any given situation, thereby appropriately judging as well where mesotes is to be found. Another idea that needs special consideration about virtue ethics is that it is the counterpart of Duty Ethics. Where duty ethics is the power to live virtuously in accordance with what is right in terms of obligation and duties. Morality in virtue ethics is procedural and process. Duty ethics is based on what is right and what is wrong which is based on laws and duties. If you do it, you are doing the right thing. Virtue ethics is different. What you set is human excellence. Virtue implies that you do something more than doing what is right. Virtue is doing not only following rules and therefore, it is not enough to be right (following rules) but looking for excellence. As cited by Professor Bitanga, religion is asymmetrical; it is always giving more to the other. In the same manner, the way in which you treat someone in a relationship characterized by respect and recognition of the importance of the other, you always think in terms of the maximum that you can offer the other person and not simply in accordance to what is dutiful. Also, moderation is not the same as the mean. Moderation in the sense of the middle does not apply to all situations. For example, in the use of shabu, moderation or the middle is not applicable. We cannot say that moderately using the drug is the best way. It is simply not applicable since using it in any manner is unacceptable. Virtue as the power to stay w