Ethics Lecture Notes 1st Semester 2024-2025 PDF

1ST SEMESTER S.Y. 2024-2025 SIR NIŇO CHAPTER 1: BASIC CONCEPTS IN ETHICS Introduction This chapter provides key ethical terms and concepts that recur throughout the other chapters of the course. It is recommended that you study this chapter before attempti...

1ST SEMESTER S.Y. 2024-2025 SIR NIŇO CHAPTER 1: BASIC CONCEPTS IN ETHICS Introduction This chapter provides key ethical terms and concepts that recur throughout the other chapters of the course. It is recommended that you study this chapter before attempting to move further on the other chapters as it provides useful knowledge and understanding of those significant terms and concepts. Learning Outcomes At the end of this chapter, the student is expected to: a. differentiate ethics from morality; b. distinguish between moral and non-moral standards; c. detect a moral dilemma; d. identify the three levels of moral dilemmas; and e. explain freedom as a foundation of morality. TOPIC 1: ETHICS AND MORALITY Nominal Duration: 1.5 hours Learning Outcomes: Upon completion of this topic, the student must be able to: 1. distinguish Ethics from Morality; 2. explain the difference of good from right; and 3. explain the implications of following rules. INTRODUCTION ETHICS (Greek ethika, from ethos, “character,” “custom”), principles or standards of human conduct, sometimes called morals (Latin mores, “customs”), and, by extension, the study of such principles, sometimes called moral philosophy. From the etymology of ethics and morality, they both speak of character and a customary way of doing good/bad and right/wrong. Custom refers to tradition or community habit. Hence, it is something a community of persons always does in a particular way; a way a person or community usually or routinely behaves in a particular situation.  According to Gaffney (1979), the difference is basically between the realm of theory and the realm of practice. Ethics refers to a set of ideas, principles or convictions determining what one considers right and wrong in moral conduct, whereas morality refers to practical behavior as judged according to someone’s ideas about right and wrong. Ethics points to how one thinks about right and wrong and morality points to actual conduct with respect to its rightness or wrongness.  According to Meacham (2011), the primary task of ethics, or morality, is to guide one’s actions. To guide one’s actions may seem obviously easy. Any person in general, through the rule of thumb, would readily distinguish what is good from what is bad, and what is right from what is wrong. A striking problem arises when an individual could hardly make a fine line distinction between what is good from what is right. This is because what is right does not necessarily mean that it is good, and vice versa, what is good does not necessarily mean that it is right. In other words, there are many ways of thinking about ethics whose focuses are on whether specific actions are good or bad, or right or wrong. They help an individual decide what should be done in a particular case or class of cases, or evaluate the actions that a person has done.  Meacham (2011) describes two ways of thinking about ethics, which manifest themselves as two clusters of concepts and language, or domains of discourse, used to recommend or command specific actions or habits of character: they are called the good and the right THE GOOD AND THE RIGHT The good has to do with achievement of goals; the right, with laws and rules. The goodness paradigm recognizes that people have desires and aspirations, and frames values in terms of what enables a being to achieve its ends. The rightness paradigm recognizes that people live in groups that require organization and regulations, and frames values in terms of duty and conformance to rules. Goodness and rightness “are not complementary portions of the moral field but alternative ways of organizing the whole field to carry out the tasks of morality.” THE GOOD What is good has to do with benefits. Something that benefits something or someone else is called good for that thing or person. We can think of this instrumentally or biologically. Instrumentally, an android phone is good for sending emails, sending and receiving text messages, watching movies, playing online and offline games, shopping and many other activities; what is good for the phone is what enables it to do so well. Biologically, air, water, and food are good for living beings.  Instrumentally, what is good for a thing enables that thing to serve its purpose. To make sense, an instrumental usage of the term “good” requires reference to somebody’s purpose or intention. Thus, all products of technologies are good for students, professionals, businessmen and everybody in this fast-paced environment for so many reasons. The instrumental usage is expressed in terms of usefulness, of utility for achieving a purpose or intention.  The biological usage is expressed in terms of health and well-being. Biologically, what is good for an organism is what helps it survive and thrive, what nourishes it. Some things are better for us than others in this respect. For instance, a diet of whole grains and vegetables is better, in the sense of providing better health for humans, than a diet of simple carbohydrates and fats. Another example: some plants need full sunlight to thrive, and others need shade; thus full sunlight is good for the former, and shade is good for the latter. The good, in this sense, is that which enables a thing to function well  The approach to ethics that emphasizes goodness is called the teleological approach, from a Greek word, telos, which means “end”, “purpose”, or “goal”. Biologically, what is good for an organism helps that organism survive and thrive. Instrumentally, what is good for a thing enables that thing to serve its purpose. This approach is also sometimes called a consequentialist approach or an effectoriented approach because both usages give meaning to the term “good” by reference to the consequences or effects of an action or event.  The Goodness approach to ethics uses the terms “good” and “bad” and their variants and synonyms to evaluate actions, things, people, states of affairs, etc., as well as maxims or guidelines for conduct. Some synonyms for “good” in this context are “helpful,” “nourishing,” “beneficial,” “useful” and “effective.” Some synonyms for “bad” are their opposites: “unhelpful,” “unhealthy,” “damaging,” “useless” and “ineffective.” THE RIGHT What is right has to do with conformance to rules or regulations. The approach to ethics that emphasizes rightness is called the deontological approach, from a Greek word, deon, that means “duty.” A person does her duty when she acts according to the moral rules. We could also call this a rules- based approach. According to the deontological approach, an action is justified on the basis of a quality or characteristic of the act itself, regardless of its consequences. That characteristic is its conformance to a rule. Morality is concerned with identifying and obeying moral rules.  It is right to obey the rules and wrong to disobey them. Any particular act can be judged right or wrong according to whether and to what extent it conforms to the moral rules. A central concern, then, is to identify the rules so one can make sure one is acting in accordance with them. Once the rules are established, all one needs to do in order to be moral is to do one's duty, which is to act in accordance with the rules. The language associated with this school uses the terms “right” and “wrong” to evaluate actions. Some synonyms for “right” are “proper,” “legal” and “correct.” Some synonyms for “wrong” are “improper,” “illegal” and “incorrect.”  The primary meaning of “right” in an ethical context is conformance to moral rules. There are a number of other uses of the term “right” in addition to conformance to moral rules, such as the following: 1) Correct, truthful, as in “the right answer.” This implies that rightness is exclusive, that there is one right answer or opinion and that others are wrong. 2) The best possible option or a very good option, as in “the right choice.” This also implies exclusivity, but is problematic. Often one does not need to do what is best. Sometimes one only needs to do something good enough to get a useful response, a response that gives feedback so one can further hone one’s strategy, one’s response to what is happening. 3) Fitting, appropriate, in harmony with the way things are. This sense is more akin to the goodness paradigm. It asserts an aesthetic component of rightness, as when one artistically puts an element of a composition in “the right place.” 4) What the speaker approves of or assumes people generally approve of. This is an uncritical usage and is the least useful. WHY IT MATTERS If someone says something is good, one can always ask “good for what?” If someone says something is right, one can always ask “according to what rule?” The two domains of discourse really are separate, and it is not useful to mix them. Mixing them is a form of category error, that is, an error “by which a property is ascribed to a thing that could not possibly have that property.” That something has good effects does not make it right. That something is in accordance with a moral rule does not make it good. IMPLICATION TO FOLLOWING RULES Rules are not just sufficient but rather necessary to social beings in the promotion of the common good in every society. Making the distinction between good and right is important because it promotes clarity of thought and allows an individual to assess oneself and understand why rules have to be followed. It does not mean, however, that clarity of language is a necessary condition for clarity of thought, but it certainly helps. The clearer one’s thinking, the more likely one is to follow rules. Accurate thinking based on accurate perception leads to accuracy of action, action that leads to attainment of one’s goals. TOPIC 2: MORAL VERSUS NON-MORAL STANDARDS Nominal Duration: 1.5 hours Learning Outcomes: Upon completion of this topic, the student must be able to: 1. differentiate Moral from Non-moral standards; 2. cite the metaphors for moral standards; and 3. explain the characteristics of moral standards. INTRODUCTION Moral Standards are principles, norms or models an individual or a group has about what is right or wrong, what is good or bad. It is an indication of how human beings ought to exercise their freedom. Norms are expressed as general rules about our actions or behaviors. Some examples are: “Take responsibility for your actions”; “Always tell the truth”; “Treat others as you want to be treated”; “It is wrong to kill innocent people”. Values are underlying beliefs and ideals that are expressed as enduring beliefs or statements about what is good and desirable or not. Some examples are: “Honesty is good”; “Injustice is bad.” Moral Standards are a combination of norms and values. They are the norms about the kinds of actions believed to be morally right or wrong, as well as, the values placed on what we believe to be morally good and morally bad. In other words, they point us towards achievable ideals (De Guzman, 2018).  What moral standards do? First, they promote human welfare or well-being; Second, they promote the “good” (animals, environment, and future generations); and third, they prescribe what humans ought to do in terms of a.) Rights (responsibilities to society); and b.) Obligations (specific values/virtues). NON-MORAL OR CONVENTIONAL STANDARDS Are standards by which we judge what is good or bad and right or wrong in a non-moral way. Some examples are: good or bad manners, etiquettes, house rules, technical standards in building structures, rules of behavior set by parents, teachers, other authorities, the law, standards of grammar or language, standards of art, rules of sports, and judgments on the way to do things. Hence, we should not confuse morality with etiquette, law, and aesthetics or even with religion. As we can see, non-moral standards are matters of taste or preference. Hence, a scrupulous observance of these types of standards does not make an individual a moral person. Violation of said standards also does not pose any threat to human well-being.  “Amoral”. If a person who is immoral acts against his conscience, a person who is amoral does not have a conscience to act against in the first place. Infants could be said to be amoral since they have not yet developed a mature mind to understand right and wrong. Some extreme sociopaths are also amoral, since they lack a conscience as a result of a cognitive disorder. In other words, an immoral person has a sense of right and wrong but fails to live up to those moral standards. An amoral person has no sense of right and wrong and does not recognize any moral standard. “Unmoral” (n.d.). It refers to something to which right and wrong are not applicable, such as animals, forces of nature, and machines. For example, Typhoons cause damages to properties and loss of lives but they are unmoral, since they are formed by unconscious natural processes that exist outside the bounds of morality. When talking about non-moral agents, such as animals or weather patterns, we use unmoral. METAPHORS FOR MORAL STANDARDS 1. Carpenter’s Square. Moral norms are like a carpenter’s square used to measure human freedom and construct morally good character and right actions. Moral norms are standards or criteria for judging and acting. Its purpose is first, to provide moral standards, criteria, or measures for judging; and second is to guide one’s conscience in making moral judgments. 2. Moral Road Signs. Moral road signs are guides to being and doing; they are indications or directions to types of actions that are right or wrong, obligatory or permitted. Its purpose is to preserve and protect moral goods and values by guiding us; and to focus our attention on what is morally important. 3. A Model for an Art Class. Moral norms are ideals indicating who we ‘ought’ to become and what we ought to do. They are models and patterns for how to do so. Hence, the purposes of moral norms are to provide models to help us concretize our values and realize our ideals, and to prioritize our values and help us to fit them with our circumstances. 4. An Architect’s Blueprint for a Building. Moral norms are a set of instructions and expectations for the moral life. Their purposes are: to teach moral wisdom of a community and serve as moral reminders of communal wisdom; and, to set moral expectation that shape how we see and act. FIVE CHARACTERISTICS OF MORAL STANDARDS 1. Involved with serious injuries or benefits. They deal with situations, conditions and behaviors we think can seriously injure or significantly benefit the well-being and the good of human beings, animals and the environment. Some examples are fraud, theft, murder, assault, rape, slander, etc. 2. Not established by law or legislature. Moral standards are not formed or changed by the decision of particular authoritative bodies such as the senate or congress or even the college of bishops of the Church. The validity of these moral standards lies on the adequacy of the reasons that are taken to support and justify them. We do not need a law to back up our moral conviction that killing innocent people is absolutely wrong. 3. Overriding. They should be preferred to other values including self-interest. If a person has a moral obligation to do something, then the person ought to do that even if this conflicts with other non-moral values or self-interest. At work, for instance, moral values of honesty and respect for lives come first rather than compromising them for keeping a well-paid job. 4. Based on impartial considerations. Moral standards do not evaluate on the basis of the interest of one particular individual or group but one that goes beyond personal interests to a universal standpoint in which everyone’s interest are objectively counted as equal. 5. Associated with special emotions and vocabulary. Emotions such as guilt and shame, and vocabulary such as right, wrong, good and bad revolve around moral standards. The feeling of guilt, shame and remorse arise as an individual acts contrary to certain moral standards. If your heart and mind tell you an action you have done had an unsettling and seemingly disconcerting ending, then the action was probably morally wrong and not the best way to react.