Ethics Chapters 13 & 14 PDF

**CHAPTER 13: FEELINGS AND REASON: UPSURGE OF FEELINGS IS NATURAL AND WHAT WE DO WITH THEM IS WHAT MAKES US ETHICAL OR UNETHICAL** As a matter of fact, we need to seek to promote mature, thoughtful reflection on ethical matters and values, sacred and secular. This is in a purpose of global ambition...

**CHAPTER 13: FEELINGS AND REASON: UPSURGE OF FEELINGS IS NATURAL AND WHAT WE DO WITH THEM IS WHAT MAKES US ETHICAL OR UNETHICAL** As a matter of fact, we need to seek to promote mature, thoughtful reflection on ethical matters and values, sacred and secular. This is in a purpose of global ambition, hoping to appeal to any individuals interested in ethics. We are motivated not only by our appreciation of non-Christian ethical positions, but also our belief that Christians committed to ethical reflection need to appreciate the value of other traditions. We encourage contributions that are specific to an ethical tradition (such as Christianity, Buddhism and so on) as well as contributions that are comparative or secular in nature. At social level, ethical instances can drive both the oppression and liberation of entire groups of people. Slavery was justified in the United States with a number of theological and philosophical arguments. The oppression of African American has been driven not just by economic and political motivations, but also by flawed, poisonous conceptions of Gods will. Modern day oppression continues to be philosophically and theologically supported. Liberation is also brought about through ethical reflection. Thinkers from Martin Luther King to Cornel West have harnessed theological ethics to combat social oppression. We hope to contribute social justice, equality, and liberation through our further discussion of this matter. **LEARNING OUTCOMES** At the end of the chapter, you should be able to: 1\. Analyze one's personal feelings in a moral experience; 2\. Determine the difference between reasonable and emotional responses; and 3\. Resolve to get hold on one's personal feelings in a moral experience. **Activity** Recount a recent personal experience. Take note of your personal feelings during that experience. **Feelings and Reason:** Reason and emotion are often supposed to be at odds with each other. From one perspective, our emotions are like unruly toddlers, demanding and whimsical, that need to be held in check by the adult intellect. From another perspective, the rational mind is cold and calculating and needs the warmth of the passions to grasp what really matters. I don't think that either of these perspectives, properly understood, is wrong. Where they are potentially confusing is if they suggest that emotions and reason are two separate sources of agency vying for supremacy. Plato encourages this confusion with his tripartite model of the soul (e.g. in The Republic). Kant does the same in the Critique of Practical Judgement (e.g. Bk.I, Ch.3) when he supposes that the rational grasp of moral imperatives can motivate action independently and even in rejection of our passionate impulses. In contrast to Plato and Kant, we must remember that humans (and other animals) are single agents and we have not evolved the resources of emotion and reason to fight against each other, but to ever more effectively protect the things we care about. Given this consideration, I think the correct thing to say is that reason elaborates emotion. To explain: Most philosophers and psychologists of emotion these days suppose that emotions have a descriptive function (alongside their motivational function). Emotions inform us about the state of the world- that it is dangerous, enviable, disgusting and so on. Naturally, the kinds of properties we are describing rely on the person caring about certain things; they are relative to the individual in this sense. But given that the person cares about certain things (e.g. the integrity of his body, the status of his loved ones) it can be entirely factual that a situation threatens or supports him. Now along comes the capacity for rational inference. This allows the emotions to massively expand their capacity to track the things the individual cares about, to check whether the initial emotional representation is accurate, to infer consequences, and have further emotions towards those consequences. This, I contend, is the main purpose of reason. At the same time, it is misleading to say that reason is slave to passions, as Hume famously declares in A Treatise of Human Nature. In my book I argue that the motivational juice driving all cognition is drawn from our underlying homeostatic regulation systems. Emotions are one cognitive resource for elaborating these systems while rational inferences are a further resource. This means that one concern-regulating system can overrule another, where the first is rationally elaborated and the second is not. The resulting experience can be one where we rationally infer that acting impulsively (say to run away from giving an important speech) could destroy one's reputation and we accordingly stop ourselves. Thus there is room for motivational conflict, but nothing so simple as reason controlling emotion. We could as easily say that one emotion is controlling another emotion here, or that one kind of thinking is controlling another kind of thinking. There is no consensus about a standard use of reason, but it is frequently used as a contrast or complimentary term for faith. On this view, reason stands for the faculties of rational reflection, sensations and experience, memory and inference, and any a priori or posteriori judgement that may be exercised without relying on a religious faith that is unsupported by reason. In this scheme, faith is beyond reason, but it may or may not be incompatible with reason. 1\. Ethics are not the same as our feelings. Our feelings are not always accurate indicators about a particular action being unethical (e.g., taking a long lunch or spending too much personal time on the Internet while at work). We all develop defense mechanisms to protect ourselves, so we may not feel badly about a particular unethical act. Some people may actually feel good about behaving unethically. 2\. Ethics are not the same as religion. Most religions champion high ethical standards, but not everyone is religious. Ethics apply to everyone. 3\. Ethics are not necessarily synonymous with the law. There will be instances in which ethical behavior and the law are the same (e.g., in the cases of murder, discrimination, whistleblower protection, and fraud). Such instances are illustrative of a good legal system. There will, however, be times when the law takes a different path than ethics---the result being ethical corruption that serves only the interests of small groups. 4\. Ethics are not about following cultural norms. Following cultural norms works only for ethical cultures. Although most cultures probably like to see themselves as ethical, all societies have been and will be plagued with norms that are unethical (e.g., slavery in the United States prior to the Civil War and sweatshops in developing countries). 5\. Ethics are not synonymous with science. Science cannot tell us what to do. The sciences can provide us with insights into human behavior, but ethics provides the reasons and the guidance for what we should do. 6\. Ethics are not the same as values. Although values are essential to ethics, the two are not synonymous. Values are enduring beliefs that a given behavior or outcome is desirable or good.Milton Rokeach, The Nature of Human Values (New York: Free Press, 1973), 5, as cited in Wayne D. Hoyer and Deborah J. MacInnis, Consumer Behavior (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2001), 416. They create internal judgments that will determine how a person actually behaves. Ethics determine which values should be pursued and which should not. Jeff Landauer and Joseph Rowlands, "Values," Importance of Philosophy, 2001, accessed October 7, 2011, **ASSESSMENT** On a sheet of paper, do the following: 1\. Recall the experience you shared at the start of the chapter. If you were to choose a color about your feelings of the experience, what would it be and why? 2\. Discuss whether your responses on that personal experience reasonable or emotional. **REFERENCE** Velasquez, M. et al.,(2010) What is Ethics,? Santa Clara University, Markula; Center For Applied Ethics. **CHAPTER 14: SEVEN STEPS OF MORAL REASONING** Today's generations human beings are complex beings. Unlike other organisms that are simply driven by the survival instinct, human beings experience the world in a variety of ways through a variety of perceptive capacities. Bacteria are driven solely Bacteria are driven solely to replicate themselves: plants seek only nourishment and growth, and animals seek to address their hunger and reproduce themselves. Apart from rational capacity which allows us to reckon reality with imaginative and calculative lenses, our feelings also play a crucial part in determining the way we navigate through various situations that we experience. We do not simply know the world and others: We also feel their existence and value. We are placed when others compliments us for a job well done. We get angry when we are accused of a wrong doing we did not do. We become afraid when we are threatened by someone, and we feel anguish and despair in moments of seemingly insurmountable hardship. Most of the time, we act based on how we feel. This is something we share with animals to a certain degree. We seek food when we are hungry and we wish for companionship when we are lonely. However, unlike animals that are instinctively programmed to act accordance with how they feel, we have the capacity to reflexively examine a situation before proceeding to act with respect to how we feel. In other words, although feelings provide us with an initial reckoning of a situation, they should not be the sole basis for our motives and actions. A person who is in the state of rage towards a perceived enemy or competitor is likely unable to process the possible consequences of his or her actions done impulsively. Feelings seek immediate fulfilment, and it is our reason that tempers these compulsions. Feelings without reason are blind. Reasons sets the course for making ethical and impartial decisions especially in moral situations although it is not the sole determining factor in coming up with such decisions. **LEARNING OUTCOMES** At the end of the chapter, you will be able to: 1\. Explain the seven steps of moral reasoning; and 2\. Share a real life case using the 7- step model. **STEPS IN MORAL REASONING MODEL** **1. Stop and think**- Before making any decisions, it is best to take a moment to think about the situation itself, your place in it and other surrounding factors which merit considerations, such as the people involved and the potential effects of your decisions on them. This involves a step back from the situation to make sure that you do not act out of impulse. **2. Clarify goals** - It is also necessary to clarify your short term aims. One often decides on the basis of what she /he wants to accomplish. Sometime, in the heat of moment short terms want eclipse long term goals. Thus, you must determine if you are willing to sacrifice more important life goals to achieve your short term goals. **3. Determine facts-** Make sure you gather information before you make a choice. An intelligent choice is one that is supported by verified facts. You must first make sure that what you know is enough to merit action. Without verifying facts, you may regret your choice in the future once various aspects of the situation come to light. Never make a choice on the basis of hearsay. Make sure your sources are credible and have integrity. **4. Develop options-** Ones you are clear in terms of your goals and facts, try to come up with alternative options to exhaust all possible courses of actions. Most of the time, the pressure of a situation make you feel you have less options than you think. Clear your mind and try to think of other creative ways of clarifying your motives and implementing your actions with least ethical compromise. **5. Consider consequences** -- Filter your choices and separate the ethical from the unethical choices bearing in mind both your motives and potentials consequences of your ACTION. Think of a long term consequences and act in accordance with the principles of justice and fairness. Consequences are historical realities that bear upon the lives of others. A decision turns something in your mind into reality. **6. Choose --** Make a decision. If the choice is hard to make try consulting others who may have knowledge or experience of your situation. Find People with a virtuous character and compare your reasoning with your moral analysis. Once you make up your mind, summon the will to do the right thing even if it is hard and seemingly counter -- intuitive. **7. Monitor and modify**- Monitor after what happens to your decision and have enough humility to modify your actions or behavior necessary. Pride may get in the way of admitting that you might have not thought out a decision well enough. As you become more aware of the consequences of your actions, especially on the lives of others, summon the strength and determination to make changes to rectify any shortcomings. Do not hesitate to revise your decisions in light of new development in the situations. These seven steps can help you ensure that you do not take moral decisions lightly. The shed light on the various aspects of moral situations that you have to consider before you make decisions. An important element, though, is your will to commit to an action based on moral principles. You must have the necessary resolve to put your choice in motion after a long process of deliberation. **ASSESSMENT:** On a piece of paper, do the following activities: 1\. Make a reflection on the issue of mercy killing by applying the seven steps of moral reasoning. 2\. Defend your idea in this quotable quote:" When we shrink from the sight of something, when we shroud it in euphemism, that is usually a sign of inner conflict, of unsettled hearts, a sign that something has gone wrong in moral reasoning." **REFERENCES:** Pasco, Marc Oliver D., Suarez, Fullente V. Rodriguez, Agustin Martin G. "Ethics", C&E Publishing, Inc.,2018 Kohlberg, Lawrence: Power, Clark (1981). "Moral Development, Religious Thinking, and the Questions of a Seven Stage". In Kohlberg Lawrence(ed). Essays on Moral Development Vol. 1 Philosophy of Moral development. San Francisco, CA: Harper and Row ISBN p78000047605 **CHAPTER 15: THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN REASON AND WILL** Reason and will can generally be considered as standing in an antithetical relationship. This fact originates from the different historical developments of the natural law and legal positivist theories. Originally, natural law was an idea that explained the nature of morality and not the nature of law. Man could (by using reason) understand the revelation of the Gods. By this, he could understand how he should behave in respect of other human beings around him. (Minnevick, 2017). Legal positivist theories have historically been considered originating from the free will of the human being. This means that if the law is made by man the law is valid even if totally lacking any kind of reason or morals. Here we can see two contraposed concepts of law. Natural law (and reason) is the first concept and legal positivism (and free will) is the second concept of law.(Minnevick, 2017). **LEARNING OUTCOMES:** 1\. Define Reason and Will; 2\. Differentiate knowing and actually executing a good moral decision; and 3\. Judge their own moral behavior in terms of planning and execution in important moral experiences. The concept of reason was central in the tradition of classical natural law. Reason was crucial for people to understand the natural laws. Plato wrote that reason was crucial in order to understand his concept of Ideas. Cicero developed the concept of reason even further by stating that reason was an inborn gift from the Gods. Reason was therefore crucial for the relationship between man and God. Reason (since it had been given to all people) therefore made natural law available and applicable for all human beings. Reason and Will within the Theories Presented by Suárez and Finnis In this chapter, will follow an explanation of two opposing ideas on reason and will. The first is presented by one of the most influential purely penal law theorists Suárez and the second is presented by Finnis. One of the most influential purely penal law theorists of all time was Suárez. He developed a theory on the concepts of reason and will that Finnis several centuries later would oppose to. Suárez explained free and deliberate human actions as consisting of a chain of interacting components. He explained that the human mind was intelligent enough to, by using reason, understand and see a possible outcome in the end of that chain of actions. Furthermore, Suárez meant that if a person could see that possible 'good' outcome of a certain chain of actions, the situation still required for that person to actively desire that 'good' end for himself. Ultimately, that desire was what Suárez considered as the free 'will' of the human mind. The thoughts following that desire (for instance the ability of an intelligent human mind to consider different outcomes by different choices) were what Suárez considered the 'reason'. So far, Suárez agreed with the ideas of St Thomas Aquinas. In contrast to St Thomas Aquinas, Suárez wrote that one's decision will start one's actions. This meant that it was the 'will' that lay behind human action and the 'will' of a superior that controlled the political arena. St Thomas Aquinas drew a distinction here. In the process of a persons' decision-making, he added a component that he called 'command'. This 'command' he meant stemmed from one's reason. It would act as a guideline to how one should act. This 'command' could be explained as the result of one's intelligence that steered one's decisions and therefore also one's actions. The purpose of the 'command' was to make one choose an action with the aim at 'the good of an end' and the aim at taking into consideration the appropriateness of the means. These two aims should be attributed to 'reason' rather than the free 'will'. The 'command' however presupposed also the free 'will' since one's desire for a certain outcome was what steered one's actions. To sum up what Suárez has stated about the concepts of reason and will and to also see the difference between the ideas of Suárez and St Thomas Aquinas, following will be mentioned. Suárez and St Thomas Aquinas agreed on the idea that the free 'will' of the human mind was reflected in the desires that humans felt, when assessing between which choices to make in situations that offered several possible outcomes. They also agreed on the ideas that thoughts following that desire, as for instance the assessment of advantages and disadvantages of a certain choice, were attributed to reason. In contrast to one another, Suárez believed that it was the 'will' that lay behind human action and the 'will' of a superior that controlled the political arena. St Thomas Aquinas however, added a component to a person's decision-making, that he called 'command'. This 'command' he meant stemmed from one's reason. The 'command' was a guideline for peoples' behavior. All in all, reason has from the very beginning of the traditions of natural law been a central element. Reason has made it possible for humans to understand the underlying morals that the natural laws consisted of.106 For Plato, reason was important since it made it possible for the human mind to understand the Ideas of good and evil and to recognize concrete subjects existing in actual reality. Cicero explained reason as a gift for humanity that was given by the Gods. This gift was given to all people so that they could be able to understand what the natural law was and to enjoy certain rights stemming from that natural law. St Thomas Aquinas went a step further and explained his view upon reason and God being the same. He also stated that unmoral laws that were unreasonable were in fact not law at all. During the time of Plato, natural law was an abstract idea that the human mind could understand by reasoning. With the works of Grotius natural law developed into a more graspable idea of a set of rules and duties that consisted of the law of nations. Furthermore, Suárez presented ideas that related both to the concepts of reason and free will. In his opinion, reason and will were two different components in different ends of a chain consisting of human actions. Reason represented the intelligence that human beings possessed. Humans used this intelligence when assessing certain outcomes of different actions. Free will was expressed through the desire within humans to choose an outcome that was most desirable for oneself. Suárez stated that the desire within human beings was steered by their reason. Their reason demanded a certain choice of action and through that, a certain outcome. In his work, Finnis developed the theories of natural law into becoming a general idea of what humanity considered being good. This general idea of what was good could be understood by practical reasoning. (Randall, 2009) In the paragraph above we see yet again, a connection between reason and will. However, they are different components, belonging to different legal traditions. As mentioned, reason has been discussed as a concept related to natural law traditions. The free will has been discussed both in the natural law and legal positivist traditions. The natural law and legal positivist traditions have as mentioned been two opposing traditions. Therefore, this indirectly means that also reason and will are opposing concepts. The very core definitions of reason and will are very different. Reason has historically always been connected to morals. The free will has not been connected to morals, as we have seen an example of in the theories of Kelsen. A concrete example of a legal system where the free will has stood on its own was in the Nazi Third Reich in Germany. Luckily, modern legal theories developed later, by such thinkers as Finnis, Dworkin and Raz have pinpointed the importance of free will being influenced also by reason. After having surveyed the historical views upon the concept of reason and the concept of will, it is clear to see the importance of both as components in any 'good' legal theory. A well-functioning legal system should always be based upon such a legal theory. Both the concepts of reason and will are crucial for a successful legal system. They are dependent on one another. This indirectly means that the concepts of reason and will are opposites. Imagine a battery with a negative pole and a positive pole. They are both crucial for the battery to work, yet they have totally different polarities. **ASSESSMENT:** On a piece of paper, do the following activities: 1. Make a Venn Diagram showing the similarities and differences between **reason** and **will**. Use your own words. Below is an example of Venn Diagram for similarities and differences. Source::https://www.google.com/search?q=example+of+venn+diagram+with+topic&tbm=isch&hl=en&chips=q:example+of+venn+diagram+with+topic&rlz=1C1CHBD\_enPH905PH905&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjb3MTsm6ntAhVXAKYKHQJKCiIQ3VZ6BAgBEBk&biw=1349&bih=657\#imgrc=EkeLGeKPoHvaqM 2\. Cite two life-changing experiences in the past which made you alter/change your view of your moral behavior in the present. **REFERENCES:** Francisco Suárez, De Legibus Deo Legislatore (first published in Coimbra 1612) Book I, ch 9.John Mitchell Finnis, *Natural Law and Natural Rights* (Clarendon Press 1980). Minnevik, Natalie, Reason and Will A Historical Review from the Point of View of the Theories of Natural Law, Legal Positivism and the Analytical Philosophies of Law Presented by Dworkin and Raz. St Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica Ia-IIae, 5 vols (first published 1485, Fathers of the English Dominican Province trs, Christian Classics 1948) **CHAPTER 16: MORAL THEORIES AND MENTAL FRAMES: Why they are important** Moral theories are not mere theories in the dismissive sense either. They too are based on repeated observations, are likely to integrate hypotheses, and attempt to explain and justify a range of moral or ethical judgements about particular cases. But neither are moral theories quite like scientific theories. The data that scientific theories try to explain is provided by observation of the natural world. The data that moral theories try to explain is our considered moral judgements; judgements that have, we might say, survived the test of good logical and critical thinking. There is an obvious difference here. In the case of moral theories, we use our considered judgements to supply the data by which we judge the adequacy of moral theories. Still, even with this difference acknowledged, we do use moral theories, and often in very similar ways to their scientific counterparts. For the strategist, a useful theory provides a way of understanding the dynamics of the complex strategic environment, recognizable indicators or warning signals of change, and agreed-upon means of dealing with change.  Simply put, a theory is one\'s notion of cause and effect. **LEARNING OUTCOMES:** 1\. Explain the role of mental frames in moral experience; and 2\. Classify the dominant mental frames. **Moral Theories** Through the ages, there have emerged multiple common moral theories and traditions. We will cover each one briefly below with explanations and how they differ from other moral theories. ***Consequentialism*** Consequentialist theories, unlike virtue and deontological theories, hold that only the consequences, or outcomes, of actions matter morally.  According to this view, acts are deemed to be morally right solely on the basis of their consequences.  The most common form of consequentialism is utilitarianism. ***Deontology*** Deontological theories (derived from the Greek word for duty, *deon*) base morality on certain duties, or obligations, and claim that certain actions are intrinsically right or wrong, that is, right or wrong in themselves, regardless of the consequences that may follow from those actions.  What makes a choice or an action right is its conformity with a moral norm.  Thus, an agent has a duty to act in accordance with a moral norm, irrespective of the (potentially beneficial) effects of acting otherwise. We might say that parents, for example, have an obligation to take care of their children.  On a deontological view, parents must fulfill this obligation, even if breaking the obligation were to result, for the parents, in some great benefit (increased financial savings, for example). The deontological view holds that some actions cannot be justified by their consequences. In short, for the deontologist, the ends *do not* justify the means. Indeed, Immanuel Kant, whose formulation of deontological ethics is perhaps the most well known, wrote that one must "act so that you treat humanity, both in your own person and in that of another, always as an end and never merely as a means."  As with other deontologists (Thomas Hobbes and John Locke, for example), Kant held that the basis of our moral requirements is a standard of rationality.  In the case of Kant, the standard is a *categorical imperative*.  This single principle of rationality comprehensively includes all of our particular duties. ***Justice as Fairness*** Justice as fairness refers to the conception of justice that John Rawls presents in *A Theory of Justice*. This conception of justice concerns society's basic structure---that is, "society's main political, constitutional, social, and economic institutions and how they fit together to form a unified scheme of social cooperation over time."^1^ Rawls constructs justice as fairness in a rather narrow framework and explicitly states, "Justice as fairness is not a complete contact theory." Its purpose is to show how we ought to allocate a cooperative surplus of resources to individuals in society. As a result, justice as fairness relies on two implicit assumptions about the societies in question: first, social cooperation is possible and can work to everyone's mutual advantage, and second, there exists a moderate surplus of available resources to be distributed. Justice as fairness cannot be used to determine the just distribution of sacrifices to be made by a society's members when resources are scarce. More generally, it cannot help us identify just social policies in societies where background conditions (e.g., scarcity of natural resources, cultural barriers, war) have eliminated the possibility of mutually advantageous social cooperation. The process for determining how the basic structure should be arranged is based on a thought experiment in which rational, mutually disinterested individuals choose principles of justice from behind a veil of ignorance, a condition that specifies they do not know specific details about themselves (e.g., personal values, race, gender, level of income) or the society in which they live (e.g., societal stage of development, economic circumstances). However, when choosing these principles, the parties do possess general social, psychological, and economic knowledge, and they also know that the circumstances of justice obtain in the society to which they belong. From this hypothetical initial situation, which Rawls calls the "original position," these individuals will presumably endorse two principles of justice. The first, known as the equal liberty principle, is that "each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive scheme of basic liberties compatible with a similar scheme of liberties for others," and the second is that "social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both reasonably expected to be to everyone's advantage, and attached to offices and positions open to all." The full application of justice as fairness can be regarded as a 4-stage sequence. The deliberations concerning the two principles occur at the first stage. With the two principles established, the parties then progressively thin the veil of ignorance and, as they acquire more specific knowledge about society at the subsequent stages, determine more specific principles of justice. At the second stage, the parties learn more about society's political and economic circumstances and create a constitution that is consistent with the two principles. At the third stage, the parties agree to laws and policies which realize the two principles within the context of the agreed-upon constitutional framework. At the fourth stage, the parties possess all available information about their society and apply the established laws and policies to particular cases. One of Rawls major tasks in presenting justice as fairness is to show that the society it generates can endure indefinitely over time. To achieve this aim, Rawls deploys the just savings principle, a rule of intergenerational savings designed to assure that future generations have sufficient capital to maintain just institutions. Additionally, Rawls argues that the society generated by the two principles is congruent with citizens' good and that citizens can develop the necessary willingness to abide by these principles. As a result, the society generated by adherence to justice as fairness is stable and can be expected to endure indefinitely over time. Notably, however, the arguments for the stability of justice as fairness that Rawls presents in *A Theory of Justice* do not prove convincing. Rawls does not account for reasonable pluralism, a critical aspect of any constitutional democracy with the guaranteed liberties that Rawls specifies. Thus, Rawls recasts his arguments for the stability of justice as fairness in *Political Liberalism* and strives to demonstrate that citizens, despite reasonable disagreement about many issues, will agree on a limited, political conception of justice through an overlapping consensus of their individual viewpoints. ***Utilitarianism*** Utilitarianism states that actions are morally right if and only if they maximize the good (or, alternatively, minimizes the bad).  Classical utilitarians like Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill (as well as many contemporary utilitarians) take 'the good' to be pleasure or well-being.  Thus, actions are morally right, on this view, if and only if they maximize pleasure or well-being or minimize suffering. This approach is sometimes called *hedonistic utilitarianism*.  For hedonistic utilitarians, the rightness or our actions are determined solely on the basis of consequences of pleasure or pain. Utilitarian theories may take other goods into consideration.  *Preference utilitarianism*, for example, takes into account not just pleasures, but the satisfaction of any preference. Utilitarianism can also be divided along other lines.  *Act-utilitarianism* claims that we must apply a utilitarian calculation to each and every individual action.  By making this calculation, we can thereby determine the moral rightness or wrongness of each action we plan to take. *Rule-utilitarianism* eases the burden that act-utilitarianism places on practical reasoning by establishing moral rules that, when followed, brings about the best consequences.  Rule-utilitarianism can be illustrated by the rule "do not kill."  As a general rule, we would be better off, that is, the best consequences, or state of affairs, would be brought about, if we all followed the rule "do not kill." **Virtue Ethics** Focuses on the character of the agent.  A virtuous agent will act morally. Virtue ethics takes its philosophical root in the work of the ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle.   Virtue theories claim that ethics is about agents, not actions or consequences.  Living an ethical, or good life, then, consists in the possession of the right character traits (virtues) and having, as a result, the appropriate moral character. **Mental Frames** In his influential book *The Fifth Discipline*, Peter Senge refers to hypotheses about cause and effect as *mental models.*  To Senge, mental models are "deeply ingrained assumptions, generalizations, or even pictures and images that influence how we understand the world and how we take action" (Senge 1990: 8).  Mental models are useful and, indeed, unavoidable.  By nature, we form beliefs about cause and effect.  One person may form a mental model that says people are best moved toward excellent work by the promise of monetary rewards.  Someone else may hold to the mental model that the best determinant of good and diligent work is the intrinsic satisfaction of the effort itself.  Both of these mental models can be stated in cause and effect terms.  A good mental model is "disconfirmable."  That is, we can put models and hypotheses to the test through experimentation or simply through continued observation of events and results. To put theories or mental models to work, we use an approach referred to as *systems thinking*.  While strategic thinking involves consideration of the big picture, systems thinking begins when we consider a real-world phenomenon and seek to understand the cause and effect relationships characteristic of a "system."  A systems thinker wonders how an organization works, looking at the parts as dynamic aspects of the whole.  It is the interrelationships of the elements of an organization that interests the systems thinker.  Though a mental model---a hypothesis about cause and effect---provides a useful way of understanding the dynamics and working of the world around us, blind adherence to entrenched models can be dangerous.  Once we close our eyes to disconfirming evidence, once we fail to see the weaknesses of our assumptions about cause and effect, we have failed as systems thinkers.  History, of course, is replete with examples of people adhering stubbornly to old paradigms despite overwhelming evidence that a new way of thinking has become necessary. Mental models become the frames through which we view the world.  We attend to what is inside our frame, oblivious sometimes to what occurs outside our frames, which can lead to dangerous blind spots.  Frames can be useful insofar as they direct our attention toward the information we seek.  But they can also constrict our peripheral vision, keeping us from noticing important information and, perhaps, opportunities.  Once liberating, mental models can become shackles. As an illustration of the way in which mental models and frames can get out of hand, consider Donald Schon's concept of a *generative metaphor.* A generative metaphor is an "implicit metaphor that can cast a kind of spell on a community.  All solutions are understood in terms of the implicit metaphor."  Some work cultures, for example, use a sports analogy as their generative metaphor, ubiquitously describing events in sports language and casting solutions as "game plans."  A generative metaphor like this can be healthy, but it can also restrict creativity and problem-solving, since the "team" may miss out on ideas and options not endemic to the metaphorical world at hand.  **ASSESSMENT** On a separate sheet of paper, do the following activities: 1\. Analyze the given situation: A student of Mr. Jarvis' class was absent for a week without notice. On the following week, the student reported to class with bruises. Based on this, explain the possibility of what happened to the child using your mental frames as basis. 2\. Classify the following situations by using the different mental frames: 3\. Submit a [Reflection Paper]. What is the bigger context in which I make my individual decisions**?** **REFERENCES** John Rawls, *Political Liberalism: Expanded Edition* (New York: Columbia University Press, 2005), xli (fn 7). John Rawls, *A Theory of Justice: Revised Edition* (Cambridge: The Belknap Press of HarvardUniversity Press, 1999), 15. John Austin, *Lectures on Jurisprudence and the Philosophy of Positive Law* (St. Clair Shores, MI: Scholarly Press, 1977) John Finnis, *Natural Law and Natural Rights* (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1980) Joseph Raz, *The Authority of Law: Essays on Law and Morality* (Oxford: Clarendon Press, (1979) Michael Moore, "Law as a Functional Kind," in George, *Natural Law Theory*, 188- 24 **CHAPTER 17: ARISTOTLE AND ST. AQUINAS ON VIRTUE ETHICS** For Aristotle, prudence or practical wisdom is a virtue of thought that is practical rather than theoretical and deliberative rather than intuitive. It is the intellectual virtue that perfects reasoning in regard to decision making in the realm of human action. To have this virtue is to be good at thinking about how to live a fulfilled life as a whole, and to be successful in so doing. The prudent person is the only one who is truly just, courageous and temperate, and the good person is truly good only if he is prudent. According to Aristotle, there is a fundamental connection between prudence and moral virtue. This connection depends on the pre-existence of certain natural qualities. Although Aristotle stresses the importance of prudence and the ethical life, he holds that the human person - endowed as he is with the divine element of reason - is capable of an even higher way of life. **LEARNING OUTCOMES** At the end of this chapter, the students should be able to: 1\. Articulate what virtue ethics is; 2\. Critique virtue ethics; and 3\. Make use of virtue ethics. This is the life of contemplation, the life dedicated to the appreciation of truth, the life that is closest to the way of life of the gods. For St. Thomas Aquinas, Aristotle is the Philosopher. In treating of prudence, Aquinas follows Aristotle very closely especially in his Commentary on Aristotle's \'Nicomachean Ethics. He teaches that prudence is a virtue of the practical intellect that is related in a particularly close way to the moral virtues. In order to be morally good, a person needs the moral virtues, and these in turn need the judgment of prudence. Aquinas's interpretations of Aristotle's notion of prudence are more accurate than, and indeed represent improvements on, those advanced by other leading authorities of his time, including St. Albert the Great in his Super Ethica. In ways that are significant, he changes and develops some of Aristotle's teachings on prudence in both his Commentary on Aristotle's 'Nicomachean Ethics' and in some of his more theological works, e.g., his Summa Theologiae. For example, Aquinas holds that Aristotle's conception of ultimate end or human flourishing - by Aristotle's own statement - can only be realized in an imperfect way in this life. For the virtue theorist the primary question is: how can I live a good life? Aristotle thought that the best life was the life of a fully realized human being: a human being who demonstrated excellence in all human capacities, e.g., the capacity for emotion, for practical rationality, for theoretical rationality. This was a life of human flourishing. Just as the virtues of a tool (e.g., a pen) are those features (e.g., having flowing ink) that enable the tool to perform its proper function (e.g., writing), so the virtues of a person are those features (kindness, generosity, courage...) that enable it to excel as a human being. Virtues are dispositions to act in certain ways for certain reasons and with certain feelings. Amy has the virtue of courage if Amy tends to take the appropriate risks for the sake of important things without panicking. Amy has the vice of cruelty if she tends to hurt others without concern for their well-being and takes pleasure in it. Unlike utilitarianism and deontology, virtue ethics cannot give us a formula for deciding how to act. Rather, it can only suggest a model for how we should aim to be, what sort of character we should strive for: have those character traits that are present in a fully flourishing human being. The natural law is comprised of those precepts of the eternal law that govern the behavior of beings possessing reason and free will. The first precept of the natural law, according to Aquinas, is the somewhat vacuous imperative to do good and avoid evil. Here it is worth noting that Aquinas holds a natural law theory of morality: what is good and evil, according to Aquinas, is derived from the rational nature of human beings. Good and evil are thus both objective and universal. But Aquinas is also a natural law legal theorist. On his view, a human law (that is, that which is promulgated by human beings) is valid only insofar as its content conforms to the content of the natural law; as Aquinas puts the point: "\[E\]very human law has just so much of the nature of law as is derived from the law of nature. But if in any point it deflects from the law of nature, it is no longer a law but a perversion of law" (ST I-II, Q.95, A.II). **ASSESSMENT** On a separate sheet of paper, do the following activities: 1\. In your own words, discuss your own virtue ethics which made you excel as a God-fearing human being by citing personal experiences. 2\. Rolanda, a government employee is known to be a dedicated and committed public servant. One day, she was offered to do a favor by forging the signature of the head of office where she was assigned in exchange for P100, 000.00. She secretly agreed and got the money as promised. Two weeks after, criminal and administrative charges were filed against her and now she is doomed to answer her liabilities. Critique the strength of the virtues of Rolanda in completely yielding to doing the criminal and administrative acts. 3\. Using the same situation, make a Reaction Paper asserting the virtue ethics that Rolanda could have applied and the possible ways which she could have done to avoid committing such act. **REFERENCES** Aquinas, Thomas. *On Law, Morality and Politics* (Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Co., 1988) Bentham, Jeremy. *The Principles of Morals and Legislation* (New York: Hafner Press, 1948) George, Robert. *Natural Law Theory: Contemporary Essays* (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992) **CHAPTER 18: IMMANUEL KANT'S THEORY OF RIGHTS** It is common for Kant\'s rights-based liberalism to be contrasted with the communitarian authoritarianism of the later Fichte and of Hegel, and it is the concept of autonomy that is generally regarded as the theoretical fount of Kant\'s theory of natural rights, providing the analytical link between Kant\'s moral philosophy and his political and legal theory. The author argues that this view is erroneous: The notion of autonomy ultimately remains content less and incapable of providing practical political and legal prescriptions without Kant\'s substantive account of human nature, an account specifying both the proper moral ends that humans should strive for and the anthropological limits of human perfectibility. Kant\'s theory of rights is informed by both sets of considerations. Contrary to the received view, Kant develops a socially sensitive account of the self in his later writings, and comes to believe that individual autonomy depends in large measure on the realization of certain propitious sociocultural and political arrangements. For Kant, natural rights, like individual freedom, are not ahistorical, universal standards of political justice but the historical outcome of the long process of enlightenment. As such, what is right will depend on what is timely. Here Kant is much closer to Fichte and Hegel than is generally acknowledged. **LEARNING OUTCOMES** After this lesson, the student should be able to: 1\. Articulate the rights theory; 2\. Differentiate a legal and a moral right; and 3\. Make use of the rights theory. Kant, unlike Mill, believed that certain types of actions (including murder, theft, and lying) were absolutely prohibited, even in cases where the action would bring about more happiness than the alternative.  For Kantians, there are two questions that we must ask ourselves whenever we decide to act:  (i) Can I rationally will that *everyone* act as I propose to act?  If the answer is no, then we must not perform the action.  (ii)  Does my action respect the goals of human beings rather than merely using them for my own purposes?  Again, if the answer is no, then we must not perform the action.  (Kant believed that these questions were equivalent). Kant's theory is an example of a **deontological moral theory**--according to these theories, *the rightness or wrongness of actions does not depend on their consequences* but on whether they fulfill our duty. Kant believed that there was a supreme principle of morality, and he referred to it as *The* *Categorical Imperative*.  The CI determines what our moral duties are. **Morality and imperatives**:  *What does it mean for one\'s duty to be determined by the categorical imperative?* **What is an imperative?**  An imperative is a command.  So, \"Pay your taxes!\" is an imperative, as are \"Stop kicking me!\" and \"Don\'t kill animals!\" **Hypothetical Imperatives**:  these imperatives command conditionally on your having a relevant desire.  E.g. "If you want to go to medical school, study biology in college."  If you don't want to go to medical school, this command doesn't apply to you.  Another example, your father says, \"if you are hungry, then go eat something!\" - if you aren\'t hungry, then you are free to ignore the command. **Categorical Imperatives**:  These command unconditionally.  E.g. "Don't cheat on your taxes."  Even if you want to cheat and doing so would serve your interests, you may not cheat. **What is the connection between morality and categorical imperatives?**  Morality must be based on the categorical imperative because morality is such that you are commanded by it, and is such that you cannot opt out of it or claim that it does not apply to you. **How does the categorical imperative work?**  The categorical imperative has three different formulations.  That is to say, there are three different ways of saying what it is.  Kant claims that all three do in fact say the same thing, but it is currently disputed whether this is true.  The second formulation is the easiest to understand, but the first one is most clearly a categorical imperative.  Here is the first formulation. 1\) First formulation (*The Formula of Universal Law*):  \"Act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law \[of nature\].\" a\) What is a maxim?  A maxim is the rule or principle on which you act.  For example, I might make it my maxim to give at least as much to charity each year as I spend on eating out, or I might make it my maxim only to do what will benefit some member of my family. b\) Basic idea:  The command states, crudely, that you are not allowed to do anything yourself that you would not be willing to allow everyone else to do as well.  You are not allowed to make exceptions for yourself.  For example, if you expect other people to keep their promises, then you are obligated to keep your own promises. c\) More detail:  More accurately, it commands that every maxim you act on must be such that you are willing to make it the case that everyone always act on that maxim when in a similar situation.  For example, if I wanted to lie to get something I wanted, I would have to be willing to make it the case that everyone always lied to get what they wanted - but if this were to happen no one would ever believe you, so the lie would not work and you would not get what you wanted.  So, if you willed that such a maxim (of lying) should become a universal law, then you would thwart your goal - thus, it is impermissible to lie, according to the categorical imperative.  It is impermissible because the only way to lie is to make an exception for yourself. ***Kant on Moral Worth*** **The Moral Worth of Persons**:  Kant also has something to say about what makes someone a good person.  Keep in mind that Kant intends this to go along with the rest of his theory, and what one\'s duty is would be determined by the categorical imperative.  However, one can treat this as a separate theory to some extent, and consider that one\'s duty is determined by some other standard.  Keep in mind that what is said below has to do with how one evaluates people, not actions.  A person\'s actions are right or wrong, a person is morally worthy or lacks moral worth (i.e., is morally base).  A person\'s actions determine her moral worth, but there is more to this than merely seeing if the actions are right or wrong. **a)** **Background concepts:**  This chart should help explain the basics.   *Illustration*:  We have a perfect duty not to murder.  This means that we must never murder under any circumstances.  We have an imperfect duty to help the needy.  This means that we should do so on occasion, where this does not conflict with our perfect duties. *Examples:*   **Duties            **            **Perfect           **                                    **Imperfect**   **To Others**             tell truth                                               assist others in need don't break promises                        help others achieve goals                            don't steal, murder, enslave   **To Self          ** no suicide or              develop talents                               other forms of self-destruction **b) The basic idea**:  Kant argues that a person is good or bad depending on the motivation of their actions and not on the goodness of the consequences of those actions.  By \"motivation\" I mean what caused you to do the action (i.e., your reason for doing it).  Kant argues that one can have moral worth (i.e., be a good person) only if one is motivated by morality.  In other words, if a person\'s emotions or desires cause them to do something, then that action cannot give them moral worth.  This may sound odd, but there is good reason to agree with Kant. **c) Why motivation is what matters**:  Imagine that I win the lottery and I\'m wondering what to do with the money.  I look around for what would be the most fun to do with it:  buy a yacht, travel in first class around the world, get that knee operation, etc..  I decide that what would be really fun is to give the money to charity and to enjoy that special feeling you get from making people happy, so I give all my lottery money away.  According to Kant, I am not a morally worthy person because I did this, after all I just did whatever I thought would be the most fun and there is nothing admirable about such a selfish pursuit.  It was just lucky for those charities that I thought giving away money was fun.  Moral worth only comes when you do something because you know that it is your duty and you would do it regardless of whether you liked it. **d) Why consequences don\'t matter**:  A reason why Kant is not concerned with consequences can be seen in the following example.  Imagine two people out together drinking at a bar late one night, and each of them decides to drive home very drunk.  They drive in different directions through the middle of nowhere.  One of them encounters no one on the road, and so gets home without incident regardless of totally reckless driving.  The other drunk is not so lucky and encounters someone walking at night, and kills the pedestrian with the car.  Kant would argue that based on these actions both drunks are equally bad, and the fact that one person got lucky does not make them any better than the other drunk.  After all, they both made the same choices, and nothing within either one\'s control had anything to do with the difference in their actions.  The same reasoning applies to people who act for the right reasons.  If both people act for the right reasons, then both are morally worthy, even if the actions of one of them happen to lead to bad consequences by bad luck.\ **e) The wrong interpretation**:  Consider the case described above about the lottery winner giving to charity.  Imagine that he gives to a charity and he intends to save hundreds of starving children in a remote village.  The food arrives in the village but a group of rebels finds out that they have food, and they come to steal the food and end up killing all the children in the village and the adults too.  The intended consequence of feeding starving children was good, and the actual consequences were bad.  Kant is not saying that we should look at the intended consequences in order to make a moral evaluation.  Kant is claiming that regardless of intended or actual consequences, moral worth is properly assessed by looking at the motivation of the action, which may be selfish even if the intended consequences are good. **f) Kant does not forbid happiness**:  A careful reader may notice that in the example above one of the selfish person\'s intended consequences is to make himself happy, and so it might seem to be that intended consequences do matter.  One might think Kant is claiming that if one of my intentions is to make myself happy, that my action is not worthy.  This is a mistake.  The consequence of making myself happy is a good consequence, even according to Kant.  Kant clearly thinks that people being happy is a good thing.  There is nothing wrong with doing something with an intended consequence of making yourself happy, that is not selfishness.  You can get moral worth doing things that you enjoy, but the reason you are doing them cannot be that you enjoy them, the reason must be that they are required by duty.  Also, there is a tendency to think that Kant says it is always wrong to do something that just causes your own happiness, like buying an ice cream cone.  This is not the case.  Kant thinks that you ought to do things to make yourself happy as long as you make sure that they are not immoral (i.e., contrary to duty), and that you would refrain from doing them if they were immoral.  Getting ice cream is not immoral, and so you can go ahead and do it.  Doing it will not make you a morally worthy person, but it won\'t make you a bad person either.  Many actions which are permissible but not required by duty are neutral in this way. **g) Summary**:  According to Kant a good person is someone who always does their duty because it is their duty.  It is fine if they enjoy doing it, but it must be the case that they would do it even if they did not enjoy it.  The overall theme is that to be a good person you must be good for goodness sake. According to him, perfect duties (duties of justice) can appropriately be enforced by means of the public, juridical use of coercion, and the remainder are imperfect duties (duties of virtue), which are fit subjects for moral assessment but not coercion. **ASSESSMENT** On a separate sheet of paper, do the following activities as directed: 1\. Sanda is a ten-year old girl who is suffering from Polio. As days go by, the doctor decided to isolate Sanda because of a pulmonary complication and needs to be brought to a secluded place somewhere in the middle of a farm the family owns. Her mother disapproves of the doctor's decision as this would affect the girl physically and emotionally. Assess and decide the mother's act using Kant's Theory of Rights. 2\. Draw a table showing the similarities and differences of legal and moral right. 3\. Francisca, a sales agent, offered a house and lot to her friends who are newly married, which the latter agreed to buy on the condition that the property will be paid for 5 years on installment basis. After three years, the couple failed to pay the remaining balance because the wife had an ailment which made them prioritize hospitalizations and other medical-related needs. The sales agent decided to continue the payment without the couple's consent and later forced them to sign a waiver for the subject property asserting that the same is stipulated in the agreement. The agent successfully transferred the property in her name without paying the couple all the previous payments already made. She explained that there is need to transfer the property so that ownership will not be returned to Jerica Real State Company. Write an Analysis Paper highlighting why the option taken by the agent may be legal but not moral. **Reference** Kant, Immanuel, :Categorical Imperative". *In Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals*, translated by H.J. Paton, 162-76. New York: Harper and Row Publishers Inc., 1964 **CHAPTER 19: UTILITARIANISM** *Ethical standards are often forgotten in making decisions, which serves a vital guide in giving judgments. Ethics is the study of what is morally right or wrong. In our daily living we tend to misunderstand the reason and the will in doing things. The consequences of our decisions must be for the greater good. Some of the greatest utilitarian's are Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) and John Stuart Mill (1808-73) who prominently contributed the impact in understanding why agents act in accordance of the majority.* ***LEARNING OUTCOMES*** *Upon completion of this lesson, you should be able to:* *1. Define utilitarianism in different philosophical perspectives;* *2. Differentiate the quantitative and qualitative principle of utility; and* *3. Apply the principle of utility.* **Activity** Study the situation below: This is a situation of the famous trolley dilemma. If the person pushes the fat guy, the driver of the train can immediately pull the emergency brake just right after hitting the man, then the five persons in the railway would be save. The question now is it for the greater good? How about the side of the latter? Hence, in every action there would be consequences that we often forget. Analyze and decide. 1\. The most prominent moral philosophy in the last two centuries is known as a consequentialist theory, a subclass of teleological moral theory- an ethical system judges the rightness of an act in term of an external goal or purpose. 2\. Consequentialist theory proposes that actions, rules or policies must be done after evaluating the possible consequences not by the motive or personal intention of an agent. However, it's being contradicted by the absolutists who told if the actions would be wrong in the first place it must not be done no matter the results are. 3\. The most influential consequentialists theory is "Utilitarianism" **What is Utilitarianism?** 1\. The word "Utilitarianism" is derived from the Latin term *utilis* which means useful. It basically states that what is useful is good, and that the moral value of actions is determined by the utility of consequences. *2. This principle can be applied to either particular actions or general rules.\ * **Act Utilitarianism (Classical Utilitarianism)** 1\. In any given situation, you should choose the action that produces the greatest good for the greatest number. Example: If a driver stopped at a checkpoint in high traffic area and he does not have his registration or driver's license with him but the traffic police let him go (after taking some money from him), then the drivers in the cars in line behind him are happy, the driver himself is happy and the police officers are happy. This single action immediately brings the greatest amount of pleasure to the greatest number of people. **Rule Utilitarianism** 1\. Version of the theory that says we ought to live by rules that, in general, are likely to lead to the greatest good for the greatest number. Example: Cheating and not taking action by accepting bribes as in the previous example for act utilitarianism, will lead to a very negative society and such this is not acceptable in rule utilitarianism because the motives are questionable and they are not judge as single actions, but with harsh consequences in the long run if universally followed. **Origins and Nature of the Theory** Jeremy Bentham founded the doctrine of utilitarianism but John Stuart Mill later systematized and modified some of Bentham's utilitarian principles. +-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ | Jeremy Bentham | John Stuart Mill | +===================================+===================================+ | The principle of utility thus | Advocates the greatest happiness | | states that an action is right | principle' which states that it | | insofar as it tends to produce | is the greatest happiness of the | | the greatest happiness for the | greatest number that is the | | greatest number. | measure of right and wrong. | +-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ | Quantitative hedonist or | Qualitative hedonist- | | quantitative utilitarian\-\-- The | | | physical, the moral, the | Lower pleasure- can be both | | religious and the political- the | experience by humans and animals | | physical source | such as food, drinks and sex. | | | | | | Higher pleasure- Mill basically | | | means intellectual, which | | | includes artistic, political and | | | even spiritual pleasures. | +-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ **An Analysis of Utilitarianism** 1\. Utilitarianism appears to be a direct negative reaction against Kantian Ethics. While Kant proposes that an act is justified by the person's motive to perform his duty, Bentham and Mill counteract this by submitting that actions are evaluated through their consequences. 2\. As a moral theory, utilitarianism appears to be attractive. Basically anchored on the pleasure and pain concepts. Moreover, the principle of utilitarianism somehow inspires and encourages people to act morally. **Understanding Utilitarianism principle in other perspective** A pharmaceutical company, for instance, may operate by the principle that it will release officially approved drug with some side effects as long as it aids more persons combat a specific disease than the number bothered by a minor side effect. On act utilitarian grounds, if the benefits are adequately great and the problems with the side effects satisfactorily limited, then the action of the pharmaceutical company may be justified. **ASSESSMENT** On a separate sheet of paper, answer the following questions: 1. Make an outline of the different meaning of utilitarianism in the different philosophical perspectives. 2. In a table show the differences between quantitative and qualitative principles of utilitarianism. **REFERENCES** De Guzman, Jens Micah, et al. Ethics (Principles of Ethical Behavior in Modern Society) **CHAPTER 20: JUSTICE AND FAIRNESS** Justice and fairness are concepts or notions that are hard to define without taking the help of the other. Justice and fairness are talked about in the same breath, and we have come to accept that what is just is also fair and that to be seen as fair, we must be just. However, all justice is not fair, and all that is fair may not just. Taken in its broader sense, justice is action in accordance with the requirements of some law (Vice, 1997). Some maintain that justice stems from God have will or command, while others believe that justice is inherent in nature itself. Still others believe that justice consists of rules common to all humanity that emerge out of some sort of consensus. This sort of justice is often thought of as something higher than a society's legal system. It is in those cases where an action seems to violate some universal rule of conduct that we likely to call it "unjust.'' **LEARNING OUTCOMES** Upon completion of this lesson, you should be able to: 1\. Use basic concepts across the domains of knowledge; 2\. Advocate respect for human rights; and 3\. Manage one's knowledge, skills, and values for responsible and productive living Justice and fairness are concepts or notions that are hard to define without taking the help of the other. Justice and fairness are talked about in the same breath, and we have come to accept that what is just is also fair and that to be seen as fair, we must be just. However, as will be clear after reading this module is that all justice is not fair, and all that is fair is not just. Let us take a closer look at the statement. Justice is the moral fabric that binds modern societies and civilizations. It is a concept based upon morals and ethics and what is morally correct is seen as just. We talk about social justice that is a concept of equality and strives for equal rights for all sections of the society. In this sense, justice means providing every person in the society what he or she deserves. Justice for all is a slogan that has become fashionable in all societies, and it is a standard that is sought to be achieved by all societies. It is a fact that life is not always just for all, but the concept of justice seeks equality for all. Justice is often seen as a quality of being just or fair. In the field of law, justice is seen as meting out punishment to the culprit who has done a crime or harmed another individual. In broader terms, justice is giving a person his due. Justice means giving each person what he or she deserves or, in more traditional terms, giving each person his or her due. Justice and fairness are closely related terms that are often today used interchangeably. There have, however, also been more distinct understandings of the two terms. While justice usually has been used with reference to a standard of rightness, fairness often has been used with regard to an ability to judge without reference to one\'s feelings or interests; fairness has also been used to refer to the ability to make judgments that are not overly general but that are concrete and specific to a particular case. In any case, a notion of being treated as one deserves is crucial to both justice and fairness. Fairness is concerned with actions, processes, and consequences that are morally right honorable, and equitable. In essence, the virtue of fairness establishes moral standards for decisions that affect others. Fair decisions are made in an appropriate manner based on appropriate criteria. Fairness refers to the equal and impartial treatment of others by supervisors and co-workers regardless of age, race, gender, national origin, disability, religious beliefs, or sexual orientation. **Generalization** The foundations of justice can be traced to the notions of social stability, interdependence, and equal dignity. As the ethicist John Rawls has pointed out, the stability of a society---or any group, for that matter---depends upon the extent to which the members of that society feel that they are being treated justly. When some of society\'s members come to feel that they are subject to unequal treatment, the foundations have been laid for social unrest, disturbances, and strife. The members of a community, Rawls holds, depend on each other, and they will retain their social unity only to the extent that their institutions are just. Moreover, as the philosopher Immanuel Kant and others have pointed out, human beings are all equal in this respect: they all have the same dignity, and in virtue of this dignity they deserve to be treated as equals. Whenever individuals are treated unequally on the basis of characteristics that are arbitrary and irrelevant, their fundamental human dignity is violated. Justice, then, is a central part of ethics and should be given due consideration in our moral lives. In evaluating any moral decision, we must ask whether our actions treat all persons equally. If not, we must determine whether the difference in treatment is justified: are the criteria we are using relevant to the situation at hand? But justice is not the only principle to consider in making ethical decisions. Sometimes principles of justice may need to be overridden in favor of other kinds of moral claims such as rights or society\'s welfare. Nevertheless, justice is an expression of our mutual recognition of each other\'s basic dignity, and an acknowledgement that if we are to live together in an interdependent community we must treat each other as equals. But justice isn\'t the only principle consider in making ethical decisions. Sometimes, principles of justice need to be overridden in favor of other kinds of moral claims such as rights or society\'s welfare. Nevertheless, justice is an expression of our mutual recognition of each other\'s basic unity, and an acknowledgement that if we are to live together in an interdependent community we must treat each other as equals. **ASSESSMENT** On a separate sheet of paper, answer the following questions: 1\. When do we say that there is fairness in justice? Explain and cite examples. Is justice and fairness the same? 2\. Does being fair mean you always treat people equally? Explain your answer. 3\. Here are some examples of being fair and just and of not being fair and just. Draw a table and align your answers appropriately to which the following examples belong. Playing by the rules Widespread economic and social inequality ------------------------------------------------------------------ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Allowing everyone an equal opportunity to succeed Being open-minded Oppression of cultural and religious groups throughout the world Include considering all the facts in a situation before making a decision Violence against women The infanticide of baby girls in India and China Sharing and listening to others Taking turns **REFERENCES** beyondinteractibility.org/essay/principles\_of\_justice goodcharacter.com/middle\_school/fairness/ school.cms.k12.nc.us/beverlywoodES/Documents/Janjustice.pdf reference.com/word-view/examples-being-fair-ed338b02c3968581 reference.com/world-view/current-examples-injustice-e60fd86902426fa9 differencebetween.com/difference-between-justice-and-vs-fairness scu.edu/mcae/publications/iie/v3n2/homepage.html. josephsononbusinessethics.com/2010/12/fairness/ https://youtu.be/18hBt-JY458 https://cubegroup.com.au/why-equality-and-fairness-matters/ https://quotesgram.com/qoutes-about-justice-and-fairness/ https://www.pinterest.com/pin/174584923029374330/ http://www.sliderbase.com/spitetem-371-2.html **CHAPTER 21: GLOBALIZATION AND ITS ETHICAL CHALLENGES** Globalization has been in the air. It has now come to be one of the most frequently used terms in Politics and Economics. It is being projected as the common objective of the whole humankind. The dynamic force of globalization will continue to change our perception, as it reshapes our lives, the way we make a living and the way we relate. The changes are economic, technological, cultural and political. Perspectives of ethics on making moral decisions tend to focus in protecting the best interest of the global communities in which ethical conducts are integrated that would aim to achieve both national and global goals. **LEARNING OUTCOMES:** At the end of this lesson, the learner is expected to: 1\. Identify the important moral challenges of globalization. **What is Globalization?** We often hear the word globalization in many contexts and repeated frequency as a concept to denote more trade, foreign companies and even the ongoing economic crisis. Technology has been the principal driver of globalization. Advances in information technology have dramatically transformed economic life. Globalization in many cases involves political decisions about deregulation, free trade, and the integration of markets. It changes the life styles and living conditions for people around the world, presenting new opportunities to some, but risks and threats the others. Individuals, firms, governments, and transnational organizations that are lifted out of the framework of the nation state all face challenges of how to respond to globalization. **Reasons for Globalization** There are several key factors which have influenced the process of globalization: **1. Improvements in transportation** -- Transport improvements also mean that goods and people can travel more quickly with decreased cost of transport. **2. Freedom of trade** -- Organizations like the World Trade Organization promote free trade between countries, which help to remove barriers between countries. **3. Improvements of communications** -- The internet and mobile technology have allowed greater communication between people in different countries. **4. Labor ability and skills** -- Labor intensive industries such as clothing can take advantage of cheaper labor costs and reduced legal restrictions. **Salient Features of Globalization** Hereunder are the general characteristics of globalization: **1. Liberalization**. It stands for the freedom of the entrepreneurship to establish any industry or trade or business venture, within their countries or abroad. **2. Free Trade**. It stands for free flow of trade relations among all the nations. It stands for keeping business and trade away from excessive and rigid regulatory and protective rules and regulations. **3. Globalization of Economic Activity**. Economic activities are governed both by the domestic markets and the world market. It stands for the process of integrating the domestic economies with the world economy. **4. Liberalization of Import-Export System**. It stands for the liberalization of the import-export activity involving a free flow of goods and services across borders. **5. Privatization**. Globalization stands for keeping the state away from ownership of means of production and distribution and letting the free flow of industrial, trade and economic activity among the people and their corporations. **6. Increased Collaborations**. Encouraging the process of collaboration among the enterprises with a view to secure rapid modernization, development and technological advancement is a feature of Globalization. **7. Economic Reforms**. Encouraging fiscal and financial reforms with a view to give strengths to free trade, free enterprise and market forces of the world, globalization stands for integration and democratization of the world's culture, economy and infrastructure through global investments. **Globalization and Its Ethical Challenges** The globalization's demands on fundamental change in values, focusing on human security, democracy, and economic justice have challenged morality all throughout the world. By thinking globally and acting collectively, each must adjust to contribute building a more compassionate, humane, and peaceful world. Globalization is indeed a phenomenon that has led to the integration of regional economies, societies, and cultures through communication, transport and trade. However, the phenomenon of globalization is usually driven by a combination of economic, technological, socio-cultural, political and biological factors. It also includes internationalization, liberalization, universalization and werternization, which cross the boundaries of nations which have led to internationalization not only of business processes but affecting political, educational, cultural and social processes as well. With that, cross boarder movement of people has become easier to influence ethical issues in cross-cultural settings. Meanwhile, ethics is an important aspect in the life of individuals. It attempts to distinguish right from wrong and good from bad. With the advent of the internationalization in addressing ethical challenges brought by international terrorism, cybercrimes, international syndicates, global warming, climate change, among others have shaped measures in addressing national moral issues that will conform to moral standards set by international organizations such as United Nations, UNICEF, International Human Rights Council, and regional/international security community just to mention a few. With the foregoing phenomena, perspective of ethics on making moral decisions tend to focus in protecting the best interest of the global communities in which ethical conducts are integrated that would aim to achieve both national and global goals. **Ethical Issues of Globalization** The expansion of the global economy is an important part of globalization, but normative issues are involved. Some of the ethical issues identified as follows: 1\. Reduction of protectionism is unfair unless applied fairly. Protectionism is the economic policy of restricting imports from other countries through methods such as tariffs on imported goods, import quotas, and a variety of other government regulations. 2\. Inequality of power, example with no or few trade unions leads to massive exploitation by multinationals. 3\. The gap between rich and poor in the world is still very large. 40% of the world's population live on less than \$2 a day and receive only 5% of the world's income. 4\. Economic globalization marginalizes the poor, destroys the environment and damages culture. 5\. Globalization increases inequality and further impoverishes the poor. 6\. Many of the global problems are by-products of the expansion of the global economy such as pollution or resources shortages; global warming; expansion of global tourism; the spread of AIDS and other health hazards facilitated by global transport; internet fraud; and terrorism. 7\. Poverty. There are still too many people who die because they are too poor to live. 8\. Income gaps have widened both within countries and between countries. A recent UN study show that global trade increases wealth but the trade benefits are uneven. What is a fair division of a growing pie? This raises ethical questions. 9\. International trade and technological change create a significant decline in demand for unskilled, semiskilled and traditionally skilled workers. 10\. About 180 million people lack adequate nutrition, more than 850 million are illiterate and almost all lack access to basic sanitation. Everyday three hundred thousand young children die from preventable causes. 11\. The World Trade organization does ignore labor rights and the environment. 12\. Brain drain -- The "brain drain" effect of globalization is another ethical issue, it refers to talented or educated people in Third World countries who leave their countries of origin for better opportunities in First World countries. This leaves Third World countries lacking homegrown, educated. 13\. Natural Resources -- Tropical rainforests around the world are being felled for fuel and cattle-grazing pastures. This reduction of rainforests will have a huge effect on oxygen levels for the entire planet. **Solutions to Ethical Problems of Globalization** Some of the solutions to the problems of globalization are: 1\. Countries must accept shared responsibilities for managing the risks that it has engendered. Rich countries should assist poor countries for them to propel economic growth and development. 2\. Coordinated action is required to address the problems of poverty and malnutrition worldwide. The nature of the response needs to be tailored to the problems. 3\. In the case of pandemics, the key is to support countries where outbreaks occur and help those most at risk of infection. 4\. Widespread dangers, such as climate change or a new financial crisis, can require the cooperation of countries and institutions. In Nearly every case, an international effort is needed. 5\. In confronting dangers such as the Islamic state, ebola, financial crisis, climate change, or rising inequality, long-term political expediency is required. **Ethical Challenges for Business Working in a Globalized World** Business ethics is a form of applied ethics that examines ethical principles and moral problems that arise in a business environment. It applies to all aspects of business conduct and is relevant to the conduct of individuals and entire organizations. It aims at inculcating a sense of value orientation within company's employee as to how to conduct business responsibly (Velazques, 2009). In the present world having severe and all pervasive deterioration of values, practices of hypocrisy in pursuit of self-interest, corruption, egoism, violence and pursuit of material wealth is prevalent everywhere. Everyone is on wild race to acquire more and more, mostly by shortcut means. There is no end of desire. Further criminalization of the fractured polity, relationship with the underworld fellows, unethical exploitation of religion, corruption, prevalence of terrorism and trade union militancy are pointers to the burning need of steering a value based course to the existing cause and effect syndrome. It is in this context that values and ethics have its significance. Ethics is needed to business for several reasons as stated below (Chavan, 2010): 1\. Ethics creates credibility with the public. 2\. Ethics helps better decision making. 3\. Ethics and profits. 4\. Law cannot protect society, ethics can. 5\. Ethical influence of globalization on stakeholders. **ASSESSMENT** On a separate sheet of paper, answer the following questions. 1\. How is our world connected with other countries? Name some examples and create an album of photographs on how you were able to connect with the rest of the world. 2\. Create an album of some news clippings showing rich people enjoying their comfortable life and poor people living in misery. 3\. Is Globalization good or bad for the country? Write your answers on a separate sheet of paper in the given format below. Do not write anything on this table. A deduction of points will be given accordingly. **Good points** **Bad points** ----------------- ---------------- **4. Multiple Choice**: Choose the letter of the correct answer and write your answers on a separate sheet of paper. Do not write your answers on this handout. There will be a deduction of points to be given accordingly. +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | 1\. Perspectives of ethics on making | | \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ tend to focus in | | protecting the best interest of the global communities | | | | a\. moral decisions | | | | b\. improvements | | | | c\. reforms | | | | d\. solutions | +=======================================================================+ | 2\. Encouraging the process of relationship among the entrepreneurs | | with a view to secure rapid modernization, development and | | technological advancement is a feature of Globalization. | | | | a\. Increased Collaboration | | | | b\. Liberalization of Import-Export System | | | | c\. Free Trade | | | | d\. Economic reforms | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | 3. Under globalization, many states functions as -- | | | | a\. Police state | | | | b\. Socialist state | | | | c\. Welfare state | | | | d\. All of the above. | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | 4. According to Herman, globalization is both an active process of | | -- | | | | a\. Corporate expansion | | | | b\. Industrial expansion | | | | c\. Agriculture expansion | | | | d\. All of the above | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | 5\. It stands for keeping business and trade away from excessive and | | rigid regulatory and protective rules and regulations. | | | | a\. Liberalization | | | | b\. Free trade | | | | c\. Market economy | | | | d\. All of the above | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ 5. Answer briefly: As an individual aspiring success, how are you going to apply the solutions to the different ethical challenges in globalization. **REFERENCES:** Agdalpen, Renato T. et al. 2019. "Ethics: Ako at ang Kagandahang Asal Bilang Isang Filipino", Mindshapers Co., Inc. Leaño, Jr., Roman D., et al., 2018. "Ethics for College Students", Mindshapers Co., Inc. **CHAPTER 22: MILLENNIALS & FILINNIALS: ETHICAL CHALLENGES & RESPONSES** This module will focus on the study of Challenges of Fillinnials and Millennials. We will deal with the Ethical Outlook and Cultural Identity of each generation, which includes their Work Ethics. **LEARNING OUTCOMES** At the end of this lesson, you should be able to: **1.** Compare the responses of baby boomers and millennials to shared moral dilemmas; 2\. State qualities of the filinnials and millennials; and 3\. Apply the different principles and behaviors of Filinnials and Millennials according to its ethical standard of the society. **Millennials and Filinnials** The Center for Generational Kinetics mentions five generations that presently make up our society and specifies birth years for each generation as follows (''An Intro to Generations,''n.d.): Gen Z, iGen, or Centennials: Born 1996 Millennials or Gen Y: Born 1977 to 1995 Generation X: Born 1965 to 1976 Millennials are generally the children of baby boomers and older Gen Xers. Filinnials is a term used to denote the Filipino Millennials. Seven basic traits are ascribed to the Millennials: "special, sheltered, confident, team-oriented, conventional, pressured, and achieving. Their beig 'team-oriented,' nonetheless, is questioned, as one study reveals that they have "a sense of entitlement and narcissism, based on personality surveys showing increased narcissism among Millennials compared to preceding generations when they were teens and in their twenties". Some psychologists thus consider Millennials (including Filinnials) to be part of what is called 'Generation Me,' instead of 'Generation We.' Millennials came of age in a time where the entertainment industry started to be signifiantly influenced by the internet. Being the most ethnically racially varied compared to the generations older than they are, millennials nonetheless are seem to be the most educated. **Ethical Outlook and Cultural Identity** In the United Kingdom a 2013 pool found that Millennials were more open-minded than their parents on controversial topics. In 2013, a Pew Research Poll found that 84% of Generation Y members favored legalizing the use of marijuana. In 2014, the same research center issued a report revealing that Millennials in adulthood are detached from insitutions and networked with friends. Some authors describe Millennials' approach to social change ''as pragmatic idealism'' with a deep desire to make the world a better place, combined with an understanding that doing so requires building new insitutions while working and outside existing institutions. Millennials are also labeled as the 'Boomerang Generation' or Peter Pan generation,' because of their perceived tendency for delaying some rites of passage into adulthood for longer periods than most generations before them and for living with their parents for longer periods, than previous generatios. Generation Y members are very upbeat and more open to change than older generations. Based on a survey by the Pew Research Center in 2008, Millennials are ''the most likely of any generations to self-identify as liberals and are also more supportive of progressive domestic social agenda than older generations. Concerning beliefs on ethical issues, most millennials of every religion, race, and ethnicity support access to affordable contraception according to a study (Grossman,n.d.). ""And 56 percent of people agest 18 -- 35 say that in some situations, choosing to have abortion "is the most responsible decision that a woman can make" (Grossman,n.d.). A sampling of other findings reveals the following (Grossman,n.d.): a\. One-quarter of millennials say that marriage has become old fashioned and out of date, while 71 percent disagree. b\. Millennials fall into a four-way split on "pro-life" and "pro-choice" labels. While 25 percent say they are exclusively "pro-life" and 27 percent say they're "pro-choice," 22 percent rebuff both labels and nearly 27 percent say that both labels described them equally well. c\. 7 percent of millennials identify either as lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender. **Work Ethics** It is said that whereas Boomers are hardworking, idealistic, and commited to harmony and Gen Xers are entrepreneurial, flexible, and self-reliant, and comfortable with technology, on the other hand, millennials are tech-savvy, appreciative of diversity, and skilled in multitasking (Verschoor, n.d.). Concerning negative traits and workplace attributes, Boomers are said to be self-centered with sense of entitlement, workaholics, self-otivated , don't appreciate feedback while Millennials lack basic literacy fundamentals, very short attention spans, not loyal to organization, demand immediate feedback and recognition, integrate technology into the workplace, expect to have many emplyers and multiplrs,e careers and work dress is whatever feels comfortable (Verschoor, n.d.). One study concerning generational analysis reveals relatively high percentages of Millennials who consider some behaviors in the workplace to be ethical, including(Verschoor, n.d.): The widespread use of social networking appears to pose challeneges, as substantial numbers of Millennials post questionable information on their persoal social networking sites, ncluding the following (Verschoor, n.d.). Millennials expect close relationships and frequent feedback from supervisors. They typically associate job satisfaction with free flow of information, strong connectivity to supervisors, and more immediate feedback. Generation Y members can also be characterized by an inclination to a flat corporate culture, an emphasis on work-life balance and social consciusness. Millennials put an emphasis on producing meaningful work, finding a creative outlet, and favoring familial over corporate values. Their extensive use of social media has augmented their collaborative skills and created a preference for a team-oriented environment. **Secularism and humanism** **Secularism** is basically a non-theistic belief system or a worldview which does not acknowledge supernatural or divine views of reality. As such it includes atheism, agnosticism, naturalism, materialism, scientism, Darwinism, and other ideologies that reject all spiritual explanation of the world. **Humanism** is a system of thought which gives emphasis to the value of human beings and favors man's thought over faith or religious doctrine. **ASSESSMENT** On a separate sheet of paper, do the following activities: 1\. From the lesson discussion you have read, you are going to discuss some ethical outlooks and cultural identities of the Millennials and Filinnials. Discuss some feature of their work ethics. Write your answers on the blank diagram that you will provide on a separate sheet of paper following the format below. 2\. As a Filinnial/Millennial, how will you respond to the challenges of globalization and the difference of mindset caused by differing generational relations to technology and social media? 3\. Make a table and write the different qualities of the baby boomers, millenials and fillinials. **REFERENCE** De Guzman, Janes Micah. ETHICS (Principles of Ethical behavior in Modern Society) **CHAPTER 23: ETHICS OF TAXATION** Any discussion of ethics at its core involves understanding right and wrong. This may seem simple on the surface, but as anyone who has studied philosophy will readily admit, there is much more complexity to this practice. In professions like tax preparation, accountancy, and other similar professions, ethical questions are likely to arise on a regular basis. Naturally, federal and local laws govern a great deal of these decisions, as well as ethical codes laid out by professional organizations. At the end of the day, making that crucial distinction between right and wrong in a given scenario requires tax professionals to use their training to make an informed judgment. In addition to equipping students to navigate complex tax laws, there are several sources and books available to reinforce understanding the importance of ethics relating to taxation. **LEARNING OUTCOMES** At the end of this lesson, you should be able to: 1. Understand ethics of taxation, the obligation of citizens to pay taxes, and the State's duty to spend and utilize taxes properly; and 2. Differentiate the three philosophical approaches in understanding ethics of taxation as a whole. In the Western world, the proportion of the economy controlled by the state has grown enormously over the last century, and pressures on the state are set to rise as people live longer, meaning that tax will continue to rise for the great majority of the population. What are the rights and wrongs of asking so many people to pay so much? To answer this we can ask several questions, including how much tax should be collected in total, which objectives of taxation are legitimate, and how individuals should conduct themselves as taxpayers. We will address these questions by using arguments from political philosophy, and the following three approaches to ethics: 1. **Utilitarianism**, which tells us to aim for the greatest total happiness across the population. In the economic sphere, we can interpret 'happiness' as the satisfaction of our desires; and so utilitarianism as aiming for maximum satisfaction of desires. 2. **Deontology**, which bases ethics on the idea of duty. 3. **Virtue ethics**, which focus on the virtues we should have, and on what constitutes a virtuous life. A broad conception of the virtues must be used here, encompassing not only virtues such as honesty, but also virtues such as using one's talents and leading a fulfilled life. **The Total Amount of Tax** For a utilitarian the most important economic goals are to ensure that goods and services are available to allow everyone to have a decent life, and to ensure that these resources are distributed widely enough for all or most people to enjoy them. A true utilitarian would only care about total satisfaction, not about the evenness of its distribution, but with taxation we're discussing the distribution of resources. If each person has modest resources that should generate