GECETH Ethics Modules 1-6 PDF

1 Module In ETHICS (GECETH) Prepared by: Soledad D. Estares Lovelyn L. Granfiel  2 T...

1 Module In ETHICS (GECETH) Prepared by: Soledad D. Estares Lovelyn L. Granfiel  2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Title Page Number How to Use the Module -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3 Module I ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4 The Scope and Meaning of Ethics Module II ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 15 The Ethical Dimension of Human Existence Module III ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 30 Utilitarianism Module IV ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 37 Deontology Module V ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 44 Virtue Ethics Module VI ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 54 Synthesis: Making Informed Decisions References ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 70 Rubric ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 71 Post-test ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 72  3 How to use this Module Hi student. Welcome, this is your module for GEC ETH (Ethics). This a Self- Learning Module. The content of this module is all Ethics and part of your General Education Course. This self-learning module is composed of six modules with Six different topics about ethics. Each module has the following teaching-learning activities such as, (1) Engage, (2) Explore, (3) Explain, (4) Elaborate and (5) Evaluate. Please follow the following steps for you to be guided properly: 1. Begin with the module by reading the objectives and the introduction to have a brief knowledge on what to expect. 2. Read and internalize the teaching-learning activities. It is the meat of each module. Each learning activities are pre-lude to the next level of learning and springboard for the next activity. It is very important that you must read instructions carefully before proceeding and answering the activity. You may contact your instructor/ professor in case you need some clarifications. 3. All learning activities are graded (see attached rubrics) and should be submitted on time on a specified date to be given by your instructor. Do not leave learning activities unanswered. Use yellow pad paper as your answer sheet. Label each according to subject, the module number, activity number and arrange your answer sheet per module and per activity. Write your name, course year and section in every answer sheet. 4. For the submission of this module and answer sheet, placed it inside a plastic envelope and seal it. Wait for the instruction on the manner of submission of your envelope. 5. Activities must be done honestly and vigorously. Take time, exert effort, and put your heart in it. Rest if you must, but don’t you quit. 6. All learning activities are graded and it will be recorded as part of your individual output. While, assessment will be recorded as test. Assessments are vital as to how much you got hold of the lessons. Take them seriously. They must be done honestly and vigorously as well. Remember, cheating is for losers; once you cheat, you have already accepted defeat. 7. After completing all the modules, take the post test.  4 MODULE 1 THE SCOPE AND MEANING OF ETHICS Time Allotment: 9 hours Instructor: _______________________________ Contact details: _____________________________ COURSE OUTCOMES: CLO1. Differentiate between moral and non-moral problems. CLO2. Describe what a moral experience is as it happens in different levels of human experience. CLO4. Describe the elements of moral development and moral experience. I. LESSON OBJECTIVES: At the end of this module, you will be able to: 1. Define ethics; 2. Explain the relationship of ethics to other sciences and phases of human life; and 3. Enumerate the importance of the study of ethics. II. INTRODUCTION Man alone of all earthly creatures is a moral being. He endowed with the great gift of freedom of choice in his actions, yet he is responsible for his own freely chosen acts, his conduct. He distinguishes between right and wrong, good and bad in human behavior. He can control his own passions. He is the master of himself, the sculptor of his own life and destiny. This moral power in man is the most distinctive features of the human personality. For MAN is principally and primarily a human person whose highest faculty is moral power, his willpower, his freedom. Viewed in this perspective, everything Human has naturally a moral bearing, reference and relevance. Thus, to be truly human, is to be moral which is the essence of ethics. Ethics is the philosophy of life. It delves into the deepest whys and wherefores of human existence, men’s actions, problems and destiny. To live well and happy we must know what we are living for. This is taught to us by ethics, that investigates the meaning and purpose of human life. According to Socrates the unexamined life is not worth living for a man. Plato proclaimed ethics as the supreme science, the highest in the hierarchy of human values, as it is Ethics that  5 is concerned with the attainment of life’s greatest Good and Goal-- HAPPINESS. We will discuss ethics further in this chapter. III. TEACHING-LEARNING ACTVITIES A. Engage Try to remember the pivotal moments when your life was shaped as a young person. Recall the values your parents passed on to you. Then, choose six core values that you and your young person believe would be good ones to embrace today. You may choose words as simple as honesty, service, or generosity and explain. ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ B. Explore How does these values affect your life? Think of a specific situation in your life that you think has something to do with these values? Explain. ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ C. Explain Definition of Ethics Ethics is concerned with what is good for individuals and society and is also described as moral philosophy. The term is derived from the Greek word ethos which can mean custom, habit, character or disposition. From this etymological meaning, ethics is taken to mean as a philosophical science that deals with the morality of human conduct or human acts. General Ethics is a philosophical inquiry concerning norms of morality, its  6 clarification, justification, and application in relation to good life. We derive from this definition the following elements of general ethics: First, general ethics is a philosophical inquiry. It is based on reason and not on divine revelation. Meaning, it establishes its claims and justification through the aid of human reason alone. Second, it is about an inquiry on moral norms or standard of what is good and what is evil, what ought to be done and what ought not to be done, and tries to find out the strengths and weaknesses of moral positions and the arguments of ethical proponents. The principles in general ethics will help in resolving moral problems arising in the practice of the profession. Third, it is about the formation of moral character that can promote good life of the individual and of the society as whole. Ethics is merely concern in laying down the different moral perspectives. It is necessary to inquire to know the moral justification of an ethical theory. Since ethics is a branch of philosophy and philosophy is concerned with reason, we must direct our endeavor in searching for a reason towards ethical theories’ moral justification. It is a widely held definition that ethics is the study of the morality of human acts. It is also significant to study the moral basis why a human act is said to be moral or immoral. Ethics concerns not only the basis of what is good or bad but also the basis of our being as well because our moral perspective reflects the kind of character we have. The study of ethics aims not only to give students information but also guide them on things they want to change in themselves. It is not merely information but transformation of one’s character and giving individual a moral paradigm in making moral decision. It aims also to widen student’s in looking of reality. The Idea of Good “Good” has been given various meanings and justification by several philosophers. According to proponents a situation or an action may have two moral spectrums: the first considered that goodness lies in an action itself which is the position of the so-called deontologist and the second considered that goodness lies in the consequences of an action, which is the position of the so-called consequentialist. Let’s consider the instance when we were children, parents do usually tell their children not to hit other kids because according to them hitting or spanking is bad. Hitting is bad, and that’s it, period. Other parents would rather focus on explaining the consequences of the action. They would tell their children that hitting or spanking is bad because the other child gets hurt, physically and emotionally. When do we say that an action is good? According to Aristotle, the goodness of an action lies in the action itself  7 whatever consequences it may occur. For instance, the act of “truth telling”, whatever consequences it may incur, is good itself. What is essential if you do the right things base on your deliberation on what is good. It is very important to understand this idea of good because there are situations where some of our actions accrued negative consequences even though we have good intention in performing an action. Let’s consider this situation: A teacher defends the school which he works for from his co-teachers badmouthing and engaging in activities degrading the school’s integrity. The teacher tells his colleagues not to bite the hand that feed them. He believes this is the right thing to do- to defend his school, to show loyalty. However, his colleagues got offended and later resort to being unfriendly and indifferent to the teacher. They even conspire to make a sinister move against the teacher. Reflecting on this situation, is the teacher’s action good because loyalty is good in its nature or it is wrong because of its consequences? The human good can be achieved through and by action, especially when it is a good action. The good for Aristotle is attainable by action. It is not something beyond the practical life of man. As Plato conceived it, the good lies in the other realm and possesses independent existence. It is a thing as such. The problem here is how it is connected to the world, to the practical life of man. For Aristotle, however, the good is a human act and not an abstract idea. Aristotle also mentioned the good of a man which can be further understood in his theory of the Ergon which states, that “So the goodness and performance of man would seem to reside in whatever is his function” (Ostwald, 1962). Everything in the universe has a function and because everything has a function, man has a function as well. There is purpose in being human. That’s why it is significant to know precisely the proper function of man and whatever we do that can flourish out ability to act rationally is good for man. Value Is the value of something intrinsic or is something valuable because it is valued? This is a question regarding values. According to the voluntarist conception, valuing is the ground value. A thing can only be valuable when it is valued; therefore, it has no intrinsic value. As a consequence, there are no other considerations to account on value so long as something is that being valued is valuable. For instance, studying has no intrinsic value unless it is valued by an individual. We can observe that there are people neglecting their studies. Is that because they are lazy or because it is not valuable for them? On the contrary, if value is will, choice or desire independent, how can it be an action guiding? How can it stimulate action if it is not valuable to a person? That’s why it is very important to look again at the definition of good in relation to value. Good is everything that is desirable but we know for a fact that there are things that we do not value but valued by others. In other words, not just because a thing is not desirable for  8 me, it does not have value. On the other hand, the value of something may not be intrinsic but int the state potentiality which can be actualized and achieved through valuation. Virtue Imagine a person being lectured by his teacher on how to drive a bicycle. After the lecture, do you think the student would have learned driving a bicycle? Imagine another student being taught of driving a bicycle with his teacher holding the bicycle seat while running along with the bicycle. The student keeps on falling but the teacher never stopped guiding him. Do you think the student would learn driving? The same with virtue, it is formed through action, by performing an action. The student who actually rides a bicycle will most likely learn how to run a bicycle. Likewise, a person learns how to be generous by performing a generous act and learns how to be courageous by performing courageous act. Virtue is a disposition or character that enables its possessor to perform a noble or good action according to the mean as determined by practical wisdom. 1. It is a character realized in an action according to the mean. It is character formed and integrated in us when we do good actions (eupraxia) repeatedly (habit), as much as when a bad action is done over and over it gradually becomes a vice. 2. Virtue enables its possessor to perform a noble or good action. It is only in having a good character that a person performs a good action according to the mean. That’s why it is very important that a person is taught of good during childhood. 3. It is through practical wisdom that a person can become virtuous because it is through practical wisdom that we may have a clear understanding of what is good and it is the enabling virtue that put us into action. It is a character. For even a vicious person may perform an action the way it was done by virtuous person. So, an action may vary depending on the person’s character performing the virtuous action. Therefore, if an action is done by a person of good character, that action can be called virtuous action. That’s why it is important that we know that virtue is a character. It is not a capacity because capacity comes from nature, but virtue is formed through habit. If virtue comes from nature, there is no way to change it. It is not a capacity for even a person may have the capacity to perform a virtuous action but opt not to do so. It is not a feeling for we cannot be praised nor blamed for our feelings. Virtue is a character and a person who has a virtuous character performs a good action and performs for the sake of performing good action, not for other reason. For instance, a person may perform a generous act nut intends other people to see his action. However, to a virtuous  9 person, what is significant is the performance of good action and not the reaction of other people towards the action. Virtue enables its possessor to determine the end and practical wisdom guides our character to move towards the end. Because even if we know that our end must be the good, if we are not able to prepare the way towards it we cannot be virtuous. That’s why Aristotle says, “It is impossible to be good in the full sense of the word without practical wisdom or to be a man of practical wisdom without moral excellence or virtue” (Ostwald, 1962). Practical wisdom is not only a guide to our character but it is united with it. Different Applied Fields in Ethics There are different ethical fields wherein the provision of general ethics can be applied. It is not enough to be acquainted with different ethical theories without gaining knowledge about their application in actual situations that we confront in our daily lives. We can come up with the realization of the significance of the different moral principles into their application in the setting of the different ethical fields. We can also come up with the realization of how valuable it is that an individual or groups have knowledge about moral principles and apply them in performing an action. 1. Bioethics/Biomedical Ethics - concerned with the rightness or wrongness of procedures that are performed in the practice of medicine and the provision of health care systems. Let us try to understand this description of bioethics in the light of this situation. “Theresa Ann Campo Pearson, an infant known to the public as “Baby Theresa” was born in Florida in 1992. Baby Theresa had anencephaly, one of the worst genetic disorders. Anencephalic infants are sometimes referred to as “babies without brains”, but that is not accurate. Important parts of the brain --the cerebrum and cerebellum are missing, as is the top of the skull. The brain stem, is still there, and so the baby can still breathe and possess a heartbeat. In the United States, most cases of anencephaly are detected during pregnancy, and the fetus are usually aborted. Of those aborted, half are still born. About 350 are born alive each year, and then they usually die within days. Baby Theresa’s story is remarkable only because her parents made an unusual request. Knowing that their baby would die soon and could never be conscious, Theresa’s parents volunteered her organs for immediate transplant. They thought her kidneys, liver, heart, lungs and eyes should go to other children who could benefit from them. Her physicians agreed. Thousands of infants need transplants each year, and there are never enough organs available. But Theresa’s organs were not taken, because Florida law forbids the removal of organs until the donor is dead. By the time Baby Theresa died, nine days later, it was too late-her organs deteriorated too much to be harvested and transplanted.  10 Baby Theresa’s case was widely debated. Should she have been killed so that her organs could have been used to save other children? (Rachels & Racchels, 2012). 2. Environmental Ethics - it covers acceptable or unacceptable actions affecting the environment (De Castro & De Villa, 2012). As what one of the green movements’ slogans is saying, “harm to the environment will bring harm to the people.” So, this particular ethical field promotes the welfare of human beings by promoting the well-being of the environment since we are part of it. Here is a simple example of an environmental ethical concern. There was a news that the mayor in one of the municipalities was trying to catch the endangered species Butanding in their seas because Butandings were eating small fishes in their bodies of water which was causing loss of income to the townspeople. Are you in favor of the mayor’s initiative? What is your moral valuation about the practice of catching sharks and to get their spin and returning the shark to the sea after? 3. Business Ethics - concerned with what is acceptable and unacceptable business code of conducts are affecting the business enterprises. And when speaking of the business enterprise, it includes both the owner or investor and or the consumer. This field measures and establishes guidelines for the economic dynamics as a whole, including the moral aspect of the supply and demand, the benefits-cost-profit ratio, rule of competition and fair opportunity for the consumers. Let’s also take a look at the example below. It is wrongful for a celebrity to endorse a product that may be harmful to consumers? Is it wrongful if a celebrity endorses a product that he or she does not use? What about the companies that set up these deals? Do they have any responsibilities to the celebrities who sign on with them? (Bredeson, 2012) 4. Legal Ethics - norms of conduct or standards that law practitioners, such as judges, lawyers, notary public, law makers, must follow in the practice of the profession. Relation of Ethics with Other Sciences Ethical science is particularly concerned with the study of man and human conduct and is, therefore, especially related to all those sciences dealing with the study of human nature and human living. 1. Ethics and Logic. - Logic is the science of right thinking. Ethics is the science of right living. But right living presupposes right thinking. Doing follows thinking. To think right often means to do right, as knowledge of right leads to the doing of right. Both ethics and logic aim at rectitude: the former aims at right doing; the latter, at right thinking.  11 2. Ethics and Psychology - Both deal with the study of man, human nature, and human behavior. There is, however, a basic difference. Psychology is not interested in the morality of human behavior, unlike ethics. Psychology studies how man behaves; ethics studies how man ought to behave. The word “ought” to be emphasized to show the difference: Ethics is concerned with moral obligation while psychology is not. 3. Ethics is related to Sociology - Ethics deals with the moral order which includes the social order. Whatever does violence to the social order does violence also to the natural and the moral order. Society depends on ethics for its underlying principles: Sociology deals with human relations in a society, but human relations are based on proper order and proper order comes only with proper observance of moral laws and principles which regulate the actions of men in a community. 4. Ethics and Economics - Man is also an economic being because he has to support himself by earning a living. He has to live by bread (though he does not live by bread alone). Economics and morality are two aspects of one and the same human nature. Economics deals with such topics as wages, labor, production and distribution of wealth. But will determine the relations between employer and employee, for instance? This and all other relations in business must be based on justice and charity which, after all are moral principles. In order that peace and happiness will prevail in a community, the actions of man must be governed by the invariable principles of morality. Morality and Other Phases of Human Life Life is a “many-splendored thing.” It is a unity of many aspects: the social, the economic, the moral, the physical, the religious, etc. Since the rational and the moral are the essential distinguishing characteristics of man (since these distinguish him from the other animals), it follows that morality is the basic element of human life and cannot be separated from the other phases of human activity. Ethics and Education - Education develops the whole man: his moral, intellectual and physical capacities. Since man, however, is primarily a rational moral being (endowed with reason and will, which ranks him above brute creation), the primary objective of education should be the development of these powers in man, which consists his true perfection. This recognized in our constitution when it mentions “moral character” as the first and primary aim of all education. “All schools should develop good moral character, personal discipline, civic consciousness, etc. Education, a great educator said, is life; it is con-extensive with life. With greater reason and emphasis, we can even say that ethics is life because ethics is the very science and art of human living, one that gives life its direction, goal, worth, and meaning. Ethics is both co-extensive and co-intensive with life.  12 Morality and Law - Morality and Law are intimately related. Right and wrong, good and bad in human actions presuppose a law or rule of conduct. Furthermore, the laws of the state are restatements, specifications or interpretations of an anterior natural moral law. There is, however, a striking difference between what is moral and what is legal. The legal only covers the external acts of man; the moral governs even the internal acts of man, such as the volitional and the intentional activities of the will and mind, I.e., man’s thoughts and desires. Ethics and Art - Ethics stands for moral goodness; art, for beauty. But as transcendentals the beautiful and the good are one. Evil always implies ugliness or defects and the good is always beautiful since it is the very object of desire and therefore, like beauty, pleases when perceived. The question often arises as to whether a piece of art which is offensive to morals can ever be considered beautiful. There can be no conflict between true art and true morality because both have the same aim: to arouse and to inspire the noble emotions of man. Consequently, a piece of art which arouses the basic impulses of man defeats the very purpose of art. Ethics and Politics - Man owes allegiance to the State. Politics aims at good government for the temporal welfare of the citizens. But between the temporal and the spiritual and eternal welfare there is no conflict. The two are inseparable in ma’s present state of experience, where the material and the spiritual, the body and the spirit, form one person. Politics has often become very dirty and the reason is precisely because it is divorced from ethics. Disorder and confusion inevitably follow in a state from such violations of ethical principles, as: electoral frauds, bribery, graft, blackmail, intrigue, etc. Religion and Ethics - The relationship between religion and ethics is the closest among the phases of human activity. This is evident from the following considerations: A) Both of these are based on the same postulates: 1. The existence of a Creator 2. Freedom of the will of man 3. Immortality B) Both have the same end- the attainment of man’s supreme purpose or man’s ultimate end. C) Both prescribe the same means for attaining the goal of man: right living. The question sometimes arises whether there can really be ethics apart from religion. The answer is that true ethics can never be separated from God. Reason: Ethics implies morality and morality presupposes a distinction between right and wrong in human actions. The Importance of Ethics  13 The Importance of the study of ethics follows immediately from the importance of ethics itself. 1. Ethics means right living and good moral character, and it is in good moral character that finds his true worth and perfection. The supreme purpose of human living lies not in acquisition of material goods or bodily pleasures nor in the attainment of good health and strength, not even in the development of intellectual skills but in the development of the moral qualities which lift man for above creations. 2. Education is the harmonious development of the whole man- of all man’s faculties; the moral, intellectual, and physical powers in man. The highest of man’s powers in man. The highest of man’s powers are his reason and will. Thus, the primary objective of education is the moral development of the will. “Knowledge is good, bodily health and strength and strength are good, but first and above all- GOOD CHARACTER. 3. According to Socrates, “the unexamined life is not worth living: for man”. Ethics is the investigation of the meaning of life. That is why Plato calls and considers ethics the supreme Science, the Science par excellence, as it is this science that deals with the SUMMON BONUM, (HAPPINESS) the supreme purpose of human living. 4. Ethics is an indispensable knowledge. without moral perception, man is only an animal. For morality is the foundation of every human society: a. “without civic morality, communities perish,” b. “Without personal morality their survival has no value.” Every culture admits the importance of morality as a standard of behavior. When the moral foundations of a nation are threatened that society, itself is threatened. 5. Ethics is LIFE because ethics is the very science and art of human living, one that gives life its direction, goal, worth, and meaning. D. Elaborate Answer the question below: (15pts) Of all man’s activities, with what is ethics most intimately related? Justify your answer. ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ IV. ASSESSMENT  14 E. Evaluate I. Identification. Identify what is being asked in the following statements. Write the answer on the space provided before the number. _____________ 1. It is an inquiry concerning norms of morality, its clarification, and justification that can be applied to different moral fields and situation. _____________ 2. He is the philosopher who held that the good of a man resides in his function. _____________ 3. It is a character or disposition realized in action according to the mean. _____________ 4. It is the belief that good lies in the consequences of an action. _____________ 5. It is the problem in philosophy regarding values. _____________ 6. He is the philosopher who considers good as a substance. _____________ 7. It is an ethical field concerned with the relationship of the medical practitioners and their clients. _____________ 8. It is the belief that values depend on the group value system. _____________ 9. It is an ethical field that governs the conduct of lawyers in the practice of the profession. _____________ 10. This is the ethical field concerned with the acceptable or unacceptable actions affecting the environment. B. Answer the following questions. Use the space provided. (15 pts each) 1. Choose one from the choices given below, and discuss how ethics contribute to the moral development and moral experience of the people involved. a.) Bioethics b.) Environmental Ethics c.) Business Ethics d.) Legal Ethics ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________  15 MODULE 2 THE ETHICAL DIMENSION OF HUMAN EXISTENCE Time Allotment: 9 hours Instructor: _____________________________________ Contact details: _________________________________ COURSE OUTCOMES CLO2. Describe what a moral experience is as it happens in different levels of human experience. CLO3. Explain the influence of Filipino culture on the way students look at moral experiences and solve moral dilemmas. CLO4. Describe the elements of moral development and moral experience. I. LESSON OBJECTIVES After reading this module, the you should be able to: 1. Identify the ethical aspect of human life and the scope of ethical thinking; 2. Define and explain the terms that are relevant to ethical thinking; and 3. Evaluate the difficulties that are involved in maintaining certain commonly-held notions on ethics II. INTRODUCTION In August 2007, Cris Anthony Mendez, a twenty-year old student at University of the Philippines (UP) passed away that morning, and the subsequent autopsy report strongly suggest that his physical injuries were most probably the result of “hazing” (the term colloquially used to refer to initiation rites in which neophytes may be subjected to various forms of physical abuse). What exactly happened remains an open question, as none of those who were with him that night came forward to shed light on what had transpired. Needless to say, none of them came forward to assume responsibility for the death of Cris, those members of theirs who had been with him that night vanished, avoiding and refusing to cooperate with legal authorities. No one knows just what exactly happened. But there is more to this for us than just a criminal mystery. Pondering on the death of Cris, we may find ourselves asking questions such as  16 “What is the value of one’s life?” “What exactly were the wrongs done to Cris by his so-called fraternity brothers?” or perhaps even “Is there any good fraternities?” These questions that concern good and bad, or right and wrong- and these are questions concerning value- are the kind of questions that we deal with ethics in this module. III. TEACHING-LEARNING ACTIVITIES A. Engage What would you do if you were confronted by these situations? A. ______________________________________ ______________________________________ ______________________________________ B. ______________________________________ ______________________________________ ______________________________________ C. ______________________________________ ______________________________________ ______________________________________ B. Explore Share your own personal experiences where difficulty besets you in deciding for what is right and wrong. How did you eventually resolve the issue? ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________  17 C. Explain Ethics - generally speaking, is about matters such as the good thing that we should pursue and the bad thing that we should avoid; the right ways in which we could or should act and the wrong ways of acting. It is about what is acceptable and unacceptable in human behavior. It may involve obligations that we are expected to fulfill, prohibitions that we are required to respect. Or ideals that we are encouraged to meet. Ethics as a subject for us to study is about determining the grounds for the values with particular and special significance to human life. CLARIFICATIONS AND TERMINOLOGY Recognizing the notions of good and bad, and right and wrong, are the primary concern of ethics. To start, it would be useful to clarify the following points. Kinds of Valuation Our first point of clarification is to recognize there are instances when we make value judgments that are not considered to be part of ethics. For instance, I could say that this new movie I had just seen was a “good” one because I enjoyed it, or a song I had just heard on the radio was a “bad” one because it had an unpleasant tone, but these are not part of the discussion of ethics. I may have an opinion as to what is the “right” dip (sawsawan) for my chicken barbecue, or I may maintain that it is “wrong” to wear a leather vest over a Barong Tagalog, and these are not concerns of ethics. These are valuations that fall under the domain of aesthetics. The word “aesthetics” is derived from the Greek word aesthesis (“sense” or “feeling”) and refers to the judgments of personal approval or disapproval that we make about what we see, hear, smell, or taste. In fact, we often use the word “taste” to refer to the personal aesthetic preferences that we have on these matters, such as “his taste in music” or “her taste in clothes”. Similarly, we have a sense of approval or disapproval concerning certain actions which can be considered relatively more trivial in nature. Thus, for instance, I may think that it is “right” to knock politely on someone’s door, while it is “wrong” to barge into one’s office knock politely on someone’s door, while it is “wrong” to barge into one’s office. Perhaps, I may approve of a child who knows how to ask for something properly by saying “please” and otherwise, disapprove of a woman that I see picking her nose in public. These and other examples similar examples belong to the category of etiquette, which is concerned with right and wrong actions, but those which might be considered not quite grave  18 enough to belong to a discussion on ethics. To clarify this point, we can differentiate how I may be displeased seeing a healthy young man refuse to offer his seat on the bus to an elderly lady but by indignation and shock would be much greater if I were to see a man deliberately push another one out of a moving bus. We can also consider how a notion of right and wrong actions can easily appear in a context that is not a matter of ethics. This could also be when learning how to bake, for instance, I am told that the right thing to do would be to mix the dry ingredients first, such as flour, or sugar before bringing in any liquids, like milk or cream; this is the right thing to do in baking but not one that belongs to the discussion of ethics. This could also be when learning how to play basketball. I am instructed that it is against the rules to walk more than two steps without dribbling the ball; again, obeying this rule to not travel is something that makes sense only in the context of the game and is not an ethical prohibition. We derive from the Greek word techne the English words of “technique” and “technical” which are often used to refer to a proper way (or right way) of doing things, but a technical valuation (or right and wrong technique of doing things) may not necessarily be an ethical one as these examples show. Recognizing the characteristics of aesthetic and technical valuation allows us to have a rough guide as to what belongs to a discussion of ethics. They involve valuations that we make in a sphere of human actions, characterized by certain gravity and concern the human well-being or human life itself. Therefore, matters that concern human well-being such as poverty, inequality, or sexual identity are often included in discussion of ethics. One complication that can be noted is that the distinction between what belongs to ethics and what does not is not always so clearly defined. At times, the question of what is grave and trivial is debatable, and sometimes some of the most heated discussion in ethics could be on the fundamental question whether a certain sphere of human activities belongs to this discussion. Are clothes always just a matter of taste or would provocative clothing call for some kind of moral judgment? Can we say that a man who verbally abuses his girlfriend is simply showing bad manners or does this behavior deserve stronger moral condemnation? Ethics and Morals Our second clarification is on the use of the word’s “ethics” and “morals”. This  19 discussion of ethics and morals would include cognates such as ethical, unethical, immoral, amoral, morality, and so on. As we proceed, we should be careful particularly on the use of the word “not” when applied to the words “moral” or “ethical” as this can be ambiguous. One might say that cooking is not ethical, that is, the act of cooking does not belong to a discussion of ethics; on the other hand, one might say that lying is not ethical, but the meaning here is that the act of lying would be an unethical act. Let us consider those two words further. The term “morals” may be used to refer to specific beliefs or attitudes that people have or to describe acts that people perform. Thus, it is sometimes said that an individual’s personal conduct is referred to as his morals, and if he falls short of behaving properly, this can be described as immoral. However, we also have terms such as “moral judgment” or “moral reasoning”, which suggest a rational aspect. The term “ethics” can be spoken of as the discipline of studying and understanding ideal behavior and ideal ways of thinking. Thus, ethic is acknowledged as an intellectual discipline belonging to philosophy. However, acceptable and unacceptable behaviors are also generally described as ethical and unethical, respectively. In addition, with regard to the acceptable and unacceptable ways of behaving in a given field, we have the term “professional ethics” (e.g., legal ethics for the proper comportment of lawyers and other people in the legal profession; medical ethics for doctors and nurses; media ethics for writers and reporters). Therefore, various thinkers and writers posit a distinction between the terms “moral” and “ethics” and they may have good reasons for doing so, but there is no consensus as to how to make that distinction. Ordinary conversation presents a much less rigid distinction between these terms, and in this book, we will lean in that direction as we do not need to occupy ourselves here with the question of how different thinkers and writers construe that distinction. So, in this book, we will be using the terms “ethical” and “moral” (likewise, “ethics” and “morality”) interchangeably. Descriptive and Normative Our third point of clarification is to distinguish between a a descriptive and a normative study of ethics. A descriptive study of ethics reports how people, particularly groups, make their moral valuations without making any judgment either for or against these valuations. This kind of study is often the work of the social scientist: either a historian (studying different moral standards over time) or a sociologist or an anthropologist (studying different moral standards across cultures). A normative study of ethics, as is often done in philosophy or moral theology, engages the question: What could or should be considered as the right way of acting? In other words, a normative discussion prescribes what we ought to maintain as our standards or bases for moral valuation. When engaging in a discussion of ethics, it is always advisable to recognize whether one is concerned with a descriptive view (e.g., noting how filial piety and obedience are  20 pervasive characteristics of Chinese culture) or with a normative perspective (e.g., studying how Confucian ethics enjoins us to obey our parents and show filial piety). We need to go further. A philosophical discussion of ethics goes beyond recognizing the characteristics of some descriptive theory; also, it does not simply accept as correct any normative theory. A philosophical discussion of ethics engages in a critical consideration of the strengths and weaknesses of these theories. Issue, Decision, Judgment, and Dilemma As the final point of clarification, it may be helpful to distinguish a situation that calls for moral valuation. It can be called a moral issue. For instance, imagine a situation wherein a person cannot afford a certain item, but then the possibility presents itself for her to steal it. This is a matter of ethics (and not just law) insofar as it involves the question of respect for one’s property. We should add that “issue” is also often used to refer to those particular situations that are often the source of considerable and inclusive debate (thus, would often hear topics such as capital punishment and euthanasia as moral “issues”). When one is placed in a situation and confronted by the choice of what act to perform, she is called to make a moral decision. For instance, I choose not to take something I did not pay for. When a person is an observer who makes an assessment on the actions or behavior of someone, she is making a moral judgement. For instance, a friend of mine chooses to steal from a store, and I make an assessment that it is wrong. Finally, going beyond the matter of choosing right over wrong, or good over bad, and considering instead the more complicated situation wherein one is torn between choosing one of two goods or choosing between lesser of two evils: this is referred to as a moral dilemma. We have a moral dilemma when an individual can choose only one from a number of possible actions, and there are compelling ethical reasons for the various choices. A mother may be conflicted between wanting to feed her hungry child, but then recognizing that it would be wrong for her to steal is an example of a moral dilemma. REASONING Why do we suppose that a certain way of acting is right and its opposite is wrong? The study of ethics is interested in questions like these: Why do we decide to consider this way of acting as acceptable while that way of acting, its opposite, is unacceptable? To put it in another way, what reasons do we give to decide or to judge that a certain way of acting is either right or wrong?  21 A person’s fear of punishment or desire for reward can provide him a reason for acting in a certain way. It is common to hear someone say: “I did not cheat on an exam because I was afraid that I might get caught,” or “I looked after my father in the hospital because I wanted to get a higher allowance.” In a certain sense, fear of punishment and desire for reward can be spoken of as giving someone a “reason” for acting in a certain way. But the question then would be: Is this reason good enough? That is to say, this way of thinking seems to be a shallow way of understanding reason because it does not show any true understanding of why cheating on an exam is wrong or why looking after a member of my family is in itself a good thing. The promise of rewards and the fear of punishments can certainly motivate us to act, but are not in themselves a determinant of the rightness or wrongness of a certain way of acting or of the good or the bad in a particular pursuit. Is it possible to find better reasons for finding a certain way of acting either acceptable or unacceptable? As Traer (2013) explains, in moral philosophy, an argument is not simply about our beliefs or opinions; instead, it is about the reasons underlying those beliefs or opinions. This means that the real value of discussing and debating ethical questions is not to ‘win the argument’ or to ‘score points’ against the other person! It is more important to provide carefully considered arguments to support our ideas, and to allow for rational – and deeper – understanding of the reasons underlying our beliefs, ideas and attitudes. Crucially, this requires careful listening to, analysis of and learning from the arguments that others make. One common fault with many arguments about what is ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ – and one that Traer (2013) highlights – involves what is known as a rationalization. A rationalization occurs when we use what at first glance seem to be rational or credible motives to cover up our true (and perhaps unconscious) motives. Types of reasoning Traer (2013) explains that we can uncover these types of errors in our own and others’ arguments by using what he calls critical reasoning. Three forms of critical reasoning: 1. Reasoning by analogy - explains one thing by comparing it to something else that is similar, although also different. In a good analogy, the similarity outweighs the dissimilarity and is clarifying. For instance, animals are like and unlike humans, as humans are also animals. Is the similarity sufficiently strong to support the argument that we should ascribe rights to nonhuman animals as we do to humans?’ 2. Deductive reasoning - applies a principle to a situation. For instance, if every person has human rights, and you are a person, then you have human rights like every person. 3. Inductive reasoning - involves providing evidence to support a hypothesis. The greater the evidence for a hypothesis, the more we may rely on it. The fact that there is mounting evidence that the burning of fossil fuels is having a detrimental effect on global climate, for  22 example, is used to substantiate the argument that we have a moral duty to reduce carbon emissions. From this, we can define principles as rationally established grounds by which one justifies and maintains moral decisions and judgments. But why do we maintain one particular principle rather than another? Why should I maintain that I should care for fair play or returning to the case of fraternity hazing, why is it wrong to cause another person physical injury or take another’s life? We can maintain principles, but we can also ask what good reasons for doing so. Such reasons may differ. So, for example, what makes the death of Cris such a tragedy? One person may say that life is sacred and God-given. Another person may declare that human life has a priceless dignity. Still another may put forward the idea that taking another’s life does not contribute to human happiness but to human misery instead. How exactly do we arrive at any of these claims? This is where we turn to theory. A moral theory is a systematic attempt to establish the validity of maintaining certain moral principles. Insofar as a theory is a system of thought or of ideas, it can also be referred to as framework, as a theory of interconnected ideas, and at the same time, a structure through which we can evaluate our reasons for valuing certain decision or judgment. SOURCES OF AUTHORITY Several common ways of thinking about ethics are based on the idea that the standards of valuation are imposed by a higher authority that commands our obedience. In the following section, we will explore three of such ideas: the authority of laws, the authority of one’s religion, and the authority of one’s own culture. Law Law is an ordinance of reason promulgated for the common good by one who has charge of society (St. Thomas Aquinas). It is supposed that law is one’s guide to ethical behavior. Laws are “ordinance of reason” because they are rational deliberations intended to guide men towards what is good for them and for society. They direct men to perform certain activities as good for them and for society. The main objective or purpose of the laws is the attainment of the common good. Laws are “promulgated” – that they are made known to the people who are bound to observe them. Laws are passed by “one who has charge of society” – because they can only be valid if they are only be valid if they are the legitimate exercise of authority. Accordingly, only those who have the power and responsibility to govern have the power to enact the law.  23 Laws are necessary to man. They regulate human activity. Without laws, there will be anarchy and chaos, because each one will act according to his wishes without regard for the common good. Without laws, Man will not realize his ultimate purpose in life. Classification of Law 1. Eternal Law -Are those promulgated, or made known to us, by special command of God/ Instituted by the will of God. -Is the design of God, as a Supreme Creator, to direct all created things to their respective proper ends. - God’s eternal plan and providence for the universe. Example: The Decalogue of Moses- Ten Commandments 2. Natural Law/Moral Law - (God as the author - THE ALL- WISE) -Is the Eternal law as known to man by his reason. -Is recognized by all men regardless of creed, race, culture or historical circumstances. - Man’s reason shows him the natural order as a thing to be conserved and not disturbed. By his rational nature, man is aware of a general law: “Conserve the natural order”, or in other words, “Do good and avoid evil”. This is the fundamental expression of the Natural Law. THEREFORE: Natural Law commands the conserving of the natural order, is a law unchanging and unchangeable for it is a direction to guide mean to their proper ultimate end thus, the direction toward that end must be constant and unchanging. *The reason why it is called natural is because it is not communicated in a supernatural way; this is not a result of a command of a legislative or authority; the precept of a natural law is found and derived from the nature of man. Example: Not obeying the elders is against the natural law. Properties of the Natural Law 1. It is universal- it is true wherever human nature manifest itself. 2. It is obligatory- it is imperative because it is a duty that ought to be fulfilled. 3. It is recognizable – it enables man to recognize self- evident principles, such as: “Do good and avoid evil”. 4. It is immutable or unchangeable – it is immutable because man’s essential nature can never be lost as long as man is man.  24 5. Indispensable- no one is dispensed or excused in the observance of the natural law. Because the origin of the natural law is God. Natural law is identical with God’s will. Evidently, man has no authority over a law of this status. This means that if there is in dispensation of this law, there is a violation in God’s law. That every sane adult must know that good is to be done and evil avoided, and must recognize the obviously good things as good and evident evils as evil. In the Philippine, Filipinos are constrained to obey the laws of the land as stated in the country’s criminal and civil codes. Making this even more particular, in Cebu, residents are constrained to follow any provincial laws or city ordinances. One can easily imagine this becoming even more localized to the barangay or village level, where local or municipal layers of obligation are there for residents to follow. The term positive law or human positive law refers to the different rules and regulations that are posited or put forward by an authority figure that require compliance. It is law enacted by church or state. An ordinance of reason, derived from the natural law, or making a concrete and determinate application of the natural law, promulgated for the common good by human agency in charge of a society. These laws are intended to preserve peace and harmony within a society and to direct each member of that society to work towards the common good. Examples of Positive Law are: 1. The Laws of the State - embodied in the Constitution. Example: Everyone must pay his due taxes, obey traffic rules. 2. The Laws of the Catholic Church - embodied in the Canon Law. Example: Attend mass every Sunday, love God above all. Etc. Properties of Human Positive Laws: 1. Human laws must conform to divine laws. This is because all legitimate authority emanates from God. No human authority may willfully contradict God’s will. 2. Human laws must promote the common good. This common good is spelled out in terms of prosperity, health, peace and order, intellectual and moral growth- for the whole society. 3. Human law must be just and not discriminatory of certain individuals or groups. All laws must be applied proportionately to all members of society so that the needs and requirements of each are served. Human Positive Law, when it is truly law, binds the conscience of its subjects, for it is rooted in the natural law, and remotely in the Eternal Law of God Himself.  25 Religion The idea that one is obliged to obey her God in all things, expresses a claim that many people of a religious sensibility find appealing and immediately valid. As a foundation to ethical values, this is referred to as the divine command theory. The divinity called God, Allah, or Supreme Being commands and one is obliged to obey her Creator. Many of us had been brought up with one form of religious upbringing or another, so it is very possible that there is a strong inclination in us to refer to our religious background to back up our moral valuations. However, one concern on this matter is the presence of a multiplicity of religions in our society. Each faith demands differently from its adherents, which would apparently result in conflicting ethical standards. For instance, certain religions have prohibitions concerning what food maybe consumed while others do not share the same constraints. Culture Our exposure to different societies and their cultures makes us aware that there are ways of thinking and valuing that are different from our own, that there is in fact a wide diversity in how different people believe it is proper to act. Therefore, what is ethically acceptable or unacceptable is relative to, or that is to say, dependent on one’s culture. This position is referred to as cultural relativism. There is something appealing to this way of thinking because cultural relativism seems to conform to what we experience, which is reality if the differences in how cultures make their ethical valuations. Second, by taking one’s culture as the standard, we are provided for the basis of our valuations. Third, this teaches us to be tolerant of others from different cultures, as we realize that we are in no position to judge whether the ethical thought or practice of another culture is acceptable or unacceptable. In turn, our own culture’s moral code is neither superior to nor inferior to any other, but they would provide us the standards that are appropriate and applicable to us. Cultural relativism is the ability to understand a culture on its own terms and not to make judgments using the standards of one’s own culture. The goal of this is promote understanding of cultural practices that are not typically part of one’s own culture. Using the perspective of cultural relativism leads to the view that no one culture is superior than another culture when compared to systems of morality, law, politics, etc. It is a concept that cultural norms and values derive their meaning within a specific social context. This is also based on the idea that there is no absolute standard of good or evil, therefore every decision and judgment of what is right and wrong is individually decided in each society. The concept of cultural relativism also means that any opinion on ethics is subject to the perspective of each person within their particular culture. Overall, there is no right or wrong ethical system. In a holistic understanding of the term cultural relativism, it tries to promote the understanding of cultural practices that are unfamiliar to other cultures such as eating insects, genocides or genital cutting.  26 There are two different categories of cultural relativism: 1. Absolute: Everything that happens within a culture must and should not be questioned by outsiders. The extreme example of absolute cultural relativism would be the Nazi party’s point of view justifying the Holocaust. 2. Critical: Creates questions about cultural practices in terms of who is accepting them and why. Critical cultural relativism also recognizes power relationships. Absolute cultural relativism is displayed in many cultures, especially Africa, that practice female genital cutting. This procedure refers to the partial or total removal of the external female genitalia or any other trauma to the female reproductive/genital organs. By allowing this procedure to happen, females are considered women and then are able to be married. FGC is practiced mainly because of culture, religion and tradition. Outside cultures such as the United States look down upon FGC, but are unable to stop this practice from happening because it is protected by its culture. Cultural relativism can be seen with the Chinese culture and their process of feet binding. Foot binding was to stop the growth of the foot and make them smaller. The process often began between four and seven years old. A ten-foot bandage would be wrapped around the foot forcing the toes to go under the foot. It caused the big toe to be closer to the heel causing the foot to bow. In China, small feet were seen as beautiful and a symbol of status. The women wanted their feet to be “three-inch golden lotuses”. It was also the only way to marry into money. Because men only wanted women with small feet, even after this practice was banned in 1912, women still continued to do it. To Western cultures the idea of feet binding might seems torturous, but for the Chinese culture it was a symbol of beauty that has been ingrained the culture for hundreds of years. The idea of beauty differs from culture to culture. Senses of the Self It is sometimes thought that one should not rely on any external authority to tell oneself what the standards of moral valuation are, but should instead turn inwards. In this section, we will look into three theories about ethics that center on the self: subjectivism, psychological egoism and ethical egoism. Subjectivism The starting point of subjectivism is the recognition that the individual thinking person (subject) is at the heart of all moral valuations. She is the one who is confronted with the situation and is burdened with the need to make a decision of judgment. From this point, subjectivism leaps to more radical claim that the individual is the sole determinant of what is morally good or  27 bad, right or wrong. We often encounter these statements: “No one can tell me what is right and wrong.” “I am entitled to my own opinion.” There is something appealing about these statements because they seem to express a cherished sense of personal independence. But a close look at these statements may reveal problems and in seeing these, we see problems of subjectivism. “No one can tell me what is right and wrong.” In a sense, there is some validity to this. No one can compel another to accept a certain value judgment if she herself does not concur with it. However, we know that this statement cannot be taken as absolute. We realize, in many instances, that we had maintained an idea or an opinion that further discussion reveals it was actually erroneous. We realize that we can be mistaken and that we can be corrected by others. Why is this not also possibly applicable when we are speaking of ethics? “I am entitled to my own opinion.” Here, once again, is a valid point that is often misused. Certainly, each person has the right to believe what she believes and has the right to express this. But this right is often stubbornly misconstrued as some kind of immunity from criticism and correction. To insist on one’s right in to having opinions whatever these happen to be is to exhibit a closed-mindedness that rightly invites censure from someone trying to think more critically about values. Psychological Egoism Let us consider this another cliché. It would go like this: “Human beings are naturally self- centered, so all actions are always already motivated by self-interest.” Psychological Egoism - 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 there is already an underlying basis for how one acts. The ego itself has its desires and interests, and all our actions are geared toward satisfying these interests. For instance, I watch a movie or read a book because I want to, or go for a walk and do some window shopping in the mall because I enjoy that. I take a certain course in college because I think it will benefit me, or I join an organization because I will get some good out of it. We do things in pursuit of our own self-interest all the time. But what about other types of behavior that we would commonly say are directed toward the other? Consider, for example, an act of generosity, in which someone helps a friend with her thesis rather than play video games, or someone makes use of her free Saturday helping build house for Gawad Kalinga? The psychological egoist would maintain that underlying such apparently other-directed behavior is a self-serving desire, even if one does not it or is even conscious of it. Perhaps, he only helped his friend with her thesis because he trying to impress her. Perhaps she helps out with Gawad Kalinga because this is how she relieves her sense of guilt  28 at being well-off compared to others. This idea is that is that whether or not the person admits it, one’s actions are ultimately always motivated by self-serving desire. Ethical Egoism Ethical egoism differs from psychological egoism in that it does not support all our actions are already inevitably self-serving. Instead, ethical egoism prescribes that we should make our own ends, our own interests, as the single overriding concern. We may act in a way that is beneficial to others, but we should do that only if it ultimately benefits us. This theory acknowledges that it is dog-eat-dog world out there and given that, everyone ought to put herself at the center. One should consider herself as the priority and not allow any other concerns, such as the welfare of other people, to detract from this pursuit. It is clear that we have our interests and desires, and would want them satisfied. Thus, this question can be asked: Why should I have any concern about the interests of others? This is what ethical egoism ultimately translates into-- not just some pleasant pursuit of one’s own desires, but the imposition of a will to power that is potentially destructive of both the self and of others. One can take this view, if one wishes, but it is also possible to wonder whether there is a way of recognizing our being in the world with others, of thinking our own well-being concomitantly with the well-being of others. Perhaps this is what the study of ethics is all about. D. Elaborate In relation to the current crisis, we are facing today, how does Law, Culture, and Religion guide our behavior in society? ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ IV. ASSESSMENT E. Evaluation I. Identification. Identify the following statements as Subjectivism, Psychological Egoism or Ethical Egoism. ______________ 1. There is already an underlying basis for how one acts.  29 ______________ 2. The heart of all moral valuation is the individual thinking person. ______________ 3. Human beings are naturally self-centered. ______________ 4. It prescribes that we should make our own ends, our own interest, as the single overriding concern. ______________ 5. The “self” has its desires and interest, and all our actions are geared toward satisfying this interest. ______________ 6. We act in a way that is beneficial to others, but it should do that only if it ultimately benefits us. ______________ 7. It is a way of recognizing our being in the world with others. ______________ 8. The individual is the sole determinant of what is morally good or bad, right or wrong. ______________ 9. We have our interest and desires, and would want them satisfied. ______________ 10. It is thinking of our own well-being concomitantly with the well-being of others. II. Answer the following in not more than 5 sentences. (15pts each) 1. Imagine you are a legislator. What rules or laws that currently prohibit certain acts or practices would you want to amend or repeal? This could be certain acts or practices currently permitted by the law. Think of this on the level of your school, your city and the nation. ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ 2. Is looking after the benefit of your own family over all other aspects considered as another form of egoism? Discuss. ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________  30 MODULE 3 UTILITARIANISM Time Allotment: 9 hours Instructor: _________________________________ Contact details: ______________________________ COURSE OUTCOMES CLO6. Make sound ethical judgments based on principles, facts, and the stakeholders affected. CLO7. Develop sensitivity to the common good. CLO8. Understand and internalize the principles of ethical behavior in modern society at the level of the person, society, and in interaction with the environment and other shared resources. I. LESSON OBJECTIVES After reading this module, you should be able to: 1. Discuss the basic principles of utilitarian ethics; 2. Distinguish between two utilitarian models; and 3. Apply utilitarianism in understanding and evaluating local and international scenarios. II. INTRODUCTION In one of the Congress investigations that followed the tragic mission of the 84th Special Action Force (SAF) at Tukanalipao, Mamasapano in Maguindanao also known as Oplan Exodus (were 44 SAF members were killed), then Senate President Franklin Drilon and Senator Francis Escudero debated the public hearing of an audio recording of an alleged conversation that attempted to cover up the massacre of the PNP-SAF commandos. Drilon questioned the admissibility of these recordings as evidence under the Anti-Wire Tapping Law protects only the recording and interception of private communications. Drilon cited Section 4 of the Anti-Wire Tapping Act (RA 4200) and explained that “any communication of spoken word, or the existence, contents, substance, purport, or meaning of the same or any part thereof, or any information therein contained/obtained or secured by any person in violation of the preceding sections of this Act shall not be admissible in evidence in any judicial, quasi-judicial, legislative or administrative hearing or investigation.” Senator Grace Poe, previous chairperson of the Senate committee on public order and dangerous drugs, argued otherwise. Senator Poe’s response leads us to ask: Can the government infringe individual rights? If it is morally permissible for the  31 government to infringe individual rights, when can the government do so? Does it become legitimate to sacrifice individual rights when considering the greatest benefit for the greatest number of people? This case exposes the aftermath of the Mamasapano incident and the Senate investigations. The Senate inquiry proceedings raised questions on the possibility of wiretapping and the intrusion to one’s right to privacy. While the 1987 Philippine Constitution does protect one’s right to private communication, it did provide some exemptions to its inviolability. These exemptions include a lawful order of the court and/or issues involving public safety and order. In fact, RA 4200 (or Anti-Wire Tapping Law) and RA 9372 (or the Human Security Act of 2007) both provided exemptions to the inviolability of the right to privacy in instances of treason, espionage, rebellion, and sedition. While this is certainly moral and legal issue, can it also constitute a moral concern? On what instances is wiretapping morally permissible and on what instances is it not morally permissible? These points will be clarified on the topic of this module. III. TEACHING-LEARNING ACTIVITIES A. Engage Picture Analysis By looking at this picture, what message does it convey? _______________________________________________ _______________________________________________ _______________________________________________ _______________________________________________ https://www.facebook.com/AngLagalagPH/photos/ a.206942782796206/1213977905426017/ B. Explore Answer the question below: Do you think it is acceptable to listen to other people’s conversation when you have a valid reason for doing so? Explain briefly.  32 ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ C. Explain Utilitarianism When considering the moral permissibility of wiretapping, we calculate the costs and benefits of wiretapping. If we calculate the costs and benefits of our actions, then we are considering an ethical theory that gives premium to the consequences of actions as the basis of morality and as such is utilitarianism. Utilitarianism -is an ethical theory that argues for the goodness of pleasure and the determination of right behavior based on the usefulness of the action’s consequences. This means that pleasure is good and that the goodness of an action is determined by its usefulness. Its root word is “utility”, which refers to the usefulness of the consequences of one’s action and behavior. When we argue that wiretapping is permissible because doing so results in better public safety, then we are arguing in a utilitarian way. It is utilitarian because we argue that some individual rights can be sacrificed for the sake of the greater happiness of the many. Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) and John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) are the two foremost utilitarian thinkers. Their system of ethics emphasizes the consequences of actions. This means that the goodness or the badness of an action is based on whether it is useful in contributing to a specific purpose for the greatest number of people. Utilitarianism is consequentialist. This means that the moral value of actions and decisions is based solely or greatly on the usefulness of their consequences; it is the usefulness of results that determines whether the action or behavior is good or bad. While this is the case, not all consequentialist theories are utilitarian. For Bentham and Mill, utility refers to a way of understanding the results of people’s actions. Specifically, they are interested on whether these actions contribute or not to the total amount of resulting happiness in the world. The utilitarian value pleasure and happiness; this means that the usefulness of actions is based on its promotion of happiness. Bentham and Mill understand happiness as the experience of pleasure for the greatest number of persons, even at the expense of some individual’s rights. The Principle of Utility In the book An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation (1789),  33 Jeremy Bentham begins by arguing that our actions are governed by two “sovereign masters” -- which he calls pleasure and pain. These “masters” are given to us by nature to help us determine what is good or bad and what ought to be done and not; they fasten our choices to their throne. The principle of utility is about our subjection to these sovereign masters: pleasure and pain. This principle refers to the motivation of our actions as guided by our avoidance of pain and our desire for pleasure. It is like saying that in our everyday actions, we do what is pleasurable and we do not do what is painful. On the other hand, the principles also refer to pleasure as good if, and only if, they produce more happiness than unhappiness. This means that it is not enough to experience pleasure, but to also inquire whether the things we do make us happier. Having identified the tendency for pleasure and the avoidance of pain as the principle of utility, Bentham equates happiness with pleasure. Mill supports Bentham’s principle of utility. He reiterates moral good as happiness and, consequently, happiness as pleasure. Mill clarifies that what makes people happy is intended pleasure and what makes us happy is the privation of pleasure. The things that produce happiness and pleasure are good; whereas, those that produce unhappiness and pain are bad. Mill argues that we act and do things because we find them pleasurable and we avoid doing things because they are painful. If we find our actions pleasurable, Mill explains, it is because they are inherently pleasurable in themselves or they eventually lead to the promotion of pleasure and the avoidance of pain. Bentham and Mill characterized moral value as utility and understood it as whatever produced happiness or pleasure and the avoidance of pain. The next step is to understand the nature of pleasure and pain to identify a criterion for distinguishing pleasures and to calculate the resultant pleasure or pain. What Bentham identified as the natural moral preferability of pleasure, Mill refers to as a theory of life. If we consider, for example, what moral agents do and how they assess their actions, then it is hard to deny the pursuit for happiness and the avoidance of pain. For Bentham and Mill, the pursuit for pleasure and the avoidance of pain are not only important principles--- they are in fact the only principle in assessing an action’s morality. Why is it justifiable to wiretap private conversations in instances of treason, rebellion, espionage, and sedition? Why is it noble to build schools and hospitals? Why is it good to improve the quality of life and the like? There is no answer than the principle of utility, that is, to increase happiness and decrease pain. Four Theses of Utilitarianism 1. Consequentialism: The rightness of actions is determined solely by their consequences. 2. Hedonism: Utility is the degree to which an act produces pleasure. Hedonism is the thesis that pleasure or happiness is the good that we seek and that we should seek. 3. Maximalism: A right action produces the greatest good consequences and the least bad. 4. Universalism: The consequences to be considered are those of everyone affected, and everyone equally.  34 Principle of the Greatest Number Equating happiness with pleasure does not aim to describe the utilitarian moral agent alone and independently from others. This is not only about our individual pleasures, regardless of how high, intellectual, or in other ways noble it is, but it is also about the pleasure of the greatest number affected by the consequences of our actions. Utilitarianism can lead to selfish acts. It is neither about our pleasure nor happiness alone;it cannot be all about us. If we are the only ones satisfied by our actions, it does not constitute a moral good. If we are the only ones who are made happy by our actions, then we cannot be morally good. In this sense, utilitarianism is not dismissive of sacrifices that procure more happiness for others. Therefore, it is necessary for us to consider everyone’s happiness, including our own, as the standard by which to evaluate what is moral. Also, it implies that utilitarianism is not at all separate from liberal social practices that aim to improve the quality of life for all persons. Utilitarianism is interested with everyone’s happiness, in fact, the greatest happiness of the greatest number. Justice and Moral Rights Mill understands justice as a respect for rights directed toward society’s pursuit for the greatest happiness of the greatest number. For him, rights are a valid claim on society and are justified by utility. Mills expounds that the above-mentioned rights referred are related to the interests that serve general happiness. The right to due process, the right to free speech or religion, and others are justified because they contribute to the general good. This means that society is made happier if its citizens are able to live their lives knowing that their interests are protected and that society (as a whole) defends it. Extending this concept to animals, they have rights because of the effect of such principles on the sum total of happiness that follows as a consequence of instituting and protecting their interests. It is not accidental, therefore, that utilitarians are also the staunchest defenders of animal rights. A right is justifiable in utilitarian principles in as much as they produce an overall happiness that is greater than the unhappiness resulting from their implementation. Utilitarians argue that issues of justice carry a very strong emotional import because the category of rights is directly associated with the individual’s most vital interests. All of these rights are predicated on the person’s right to life. In this context, our participation in government and social interactions can be explained by the principle of utility and be clarified by Mill’s consequentialism. Mill further associates utilitarianism with the possession of legal and moral rights. We are treated justly when our legal  35 and moral rights are respected. Mill enumerates different kinds of goods that he characterized as rights and are protected by law. Mill understands that legal rights are neither inviolable nor natural, but rights are subject to some exceptions. Mill creates a distinction between legal rights and their justification. He points out that when legal rights are not morally justified in accordance to the greatest happiness principle, then these rights need neither be observed, nor be respected. This is like saying that the law is not morally justified and, in this case, even objectionable. D. Elaborate Answer the following questions in 5-10 sentences. (15pts each) 1.Is it justifiable to build a basketball court because there are basketball fans, than to build a hospital because there are fewer sick people? ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ 2. What is the principle of the greatest good for the greatest number? In which instances do you see such manifestation in local setting? ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ IV. ASSESSMENT E. Evaluation I. Answer the following questions in 5-10 sentences. (15pts each) 1.Do you agree that happiness is the pursuit of pleasure and the avoidance of pain, and that all actions are directed toward pleasure? Explain your answer using a specific example. ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________  36 ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ 2. Go online and look for an instance where animal rights and welfare can be considered an issue. What issue can you cite in relation to the concepts of utilitarianism? Discuss your findings and opinion. ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________  37 MODULE 4 DEONTOLOGY Time Allotment: 9 Hours Instructor: _________________________________ Contact details: ______________________________ COURSE OUTCOMES CLO4.Describe the elements of moral development and moral experience. CLO6. Make sound ethical judgments based on principles, facts, and the stakeholders affected. CLO7. Develop sensitivity to the common good. I. LESSON OBJECTIVES After reading this chapter, you should be able to: a.) Discuss the basic principles of deontology; b.) Apply the concepts of agency and autonomy to one’s moral experience; and c.) Evaluate actions using the universalizability test. II. INTRODUCTION Deontology (or Deontological Ethics) in an article by Austin Cline (https://www.learnreligions.com), refers to a branch of ethics in which people define what is morally right or wrong by the actions themselves, rather than referring to the consequences of those actions, or the character of the person who performs them. The word deontology comes from the Greek roots deon, which means duty, and logos, which means science. Thus, deontology is the "science of duty." Deontological moral systems are characterized by a focus upon and strict adherence to independent moral rules or duties. To make the correct moral choices, one must understand what those moral duties are and what correct rules exist to regulate those duties. When the deontologist follows his or her duty, he or she is by definition behaving morally. Failure to follow one's duty makes one immoral.  38 A classic example in Philippine setting was the story of Felipe dela Cruz who was praised by the radio announcer for exhibiting honesty in the performance of his task or practice of his profession. Felipe returned a bag containing essential items, a cellphone worth Php 15,000.00 and a purse containing an amount of Php 20,000.00 to a certain Anita Berta. Felipe believed that it was the right thing to do. Even if he could have benefitted from the proceeds of the valuable items in the bag pack, he believed the principle that it is right to do the right thing. Felipe was holding on to this moral conviction as a principle of action. To hold a moral conviction means believing that it is one’s duty to do the right thing. What is duty? Why does one choose to follow his duty even if doing otherwise may bring her more benefits? III. TEACHING-LEARNING ACTIVITIES A. Engage List down the duties and responsibilities (at least 3) of the following: ________________________________________________ ________________________________________________ ________________________________________________ https://ph.news.yahoo.com/watch-president- duterte-congratulates-communist-093740064.html _______________________________________________ ________________________________________________ ________________________________________________ https://www.alike.com.ph/journals/view/my- teacher-my-hero-remembering-our-filipino-teachers- 60 ________________________________________________ ________________________________________________ ________________________________________________ https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/featured/about- the-pnp/  39 B. Explore Make a list of your duties and responsibilities as a student and as Filipino citizen. What difficulties do you face in the exercise of these duties at present? Duties and Responsibilities Difficulties Student Filipino Citizen ________________________ ________________________ ________________________ ________________________ ________________________ ________________________ ________________________ ________________________ ________________________ ________________________ ________________________ ________________________ C. Explain Duty and Agency Viewed objectively, duty means anything that ought to be done or omitted. Subjectively, duty means the moral obligation of a person to respect the rights of others. As a moral obligation, duty binds the will or it is laid on the will. Duty may come in six kinds namely, natural, positive, affirmative, negative, perfect, and imperfect. A natural duty is one imposed by the natural law such as the duty to preserve human life. Positive duty is one which comes from positive law such as the duty to hear mass on Sundays and to pay taxes. Affirmative duty refers to the moral obligation to do an act. Negative duty refers to the moral obligation of a person to avoid or omit something an example of which is “do not steal”. A perfect duty is one which obliges one under strict justice such as the payment of a just wage. Lastly, an imperfect duty is one which does not obligate a person from the standpoint of justice, but from the standpoint of charity or other virtues. Giving donations during calamities can be a perfect example (Babor, page 222). The word deontology derives from the Greek words for duty (deon) and science (or study) of (logos). In contemporary moral philosophy, deontology is one of those kinds of normative theories regarding which choices are morally required, forbidden, or permitted. In other words, deontology falls within the domain of moral theories that guide and assess our choices of what we ought to do (deontic theories), in contrast to those that guide and assess what kind of person we are and should be (aretaic [virtue] theories). And within the domain of moral theories that assess our choices, deontologists—those who subscribe to deontological theories of morality— stand in opposition to consequentialists (Stanford). Deontology is best known for the study of duty and obligation. The main proponent is none other than Immanuel Kant, a German enlightenment philosopher who wrote, Groundwork Towards a Metaphysics of Morals in 1785. In this work Kant brings our attention to the fact that  40 we, human beings, have the faculty called rational will, which is the capacity to act according to principles that we determine for ourselves. Rational will set humans different from animals. Furthermore, rationality consists of the mental faculty to construct ideas and thoughts that are beyond our immediate surroundings. This is the capacity for mental abstraction, which arises from the operations of the faculty of reason. Thus, we have the ability to stop and think about what we are doing. We can remove ourselves mentally from the immediacy of our surroundings and reflect on our actions and how such actions affect the world. We can imagine a different and a better world, and create mental images of how we interact with other people in that world. Like an architect first constructs her blueprint of a house in her mind. When the draft of that construction is drawn, she can give instructions to masons and carpenters on how to build the actual house, which becomes the second construction. The first construction consists in how we imagine things and the second on implementation. Through the capacity for imagination and reflection, we conceive of how we could affect, possibly even change the world we live in. On the other hand, the rational will refers to the faculty to intervene in the world, to act in a manner that is consistent with our reason. Unlike animals, humans have reason which intervenes between impulse and act. We have the ability to stop and think about what we are doing to evaluate our action