Ethics Chapter IV - Virtue Ethics PDF

Ethics Chapter IV VIRTUE ETHICS This is a property of PRESIDENT RAMON MAGSAYSAY STATE UNIVERSITY NOT FOR SALE Chapter 4 Virtue Ethics Introduction Virtue ethics is a philosophy developed by Aristotle and other ancient Gre...

Ethics Chapter IV VIRTUE ETHICS This is a property of PRESIDENT RAMON MAGSAYSAY STATE UNIVERSITY NOT FOR SALE Chapter 4 Virtue Ethics Introduction Virtue ethics is a philosophy developed by Aristotle and other ancient Greeks. It is the quest to understand and live a life of moral character. This character-based approach to morality assumes that we acquire virtue through practice. So, virtue ethics helps us understand what it means to be a virtuous human being. Example Scenario An online news accounts narrates key officials from both the legislative and executive branches of the government voicing out their concern on the possible ill effects of too much violence seen by children on television. The news estimates that by the time children reach 18 years old, they have watched around 18,000 simulated murder scenes. This prompted then Department of Education Secretary Bro. Armin Luistro to launch the implementation guidelines of the Children‘s Television Act of 1997 in order to regulate television shows and promote more child friendly programs. According to the news article, the DepEd held a series of consultations with various stakeholders to address the issue of exposure of children to TV violence. They also implemented the rules and guidelines for viewing safety and created a television airtime for shows conducive to children. Luistros claim seems to be based on a particular vision of childhood development. Children at a young age have not yet achieved full personal growth and mental development. This situation makes them particularly vulnerable to possible undesirable effects of seeing violent images presented on television. When they see violence on television on a regular basis, they may consider such violent acts as normal and part of the daily occurrences in life. Much worse is that they might tend to believe that such acts, since committed by adults are permissible. In this situation the saying ―Life imitates art‖ becomes uncomfortably true. Mature individuals are aware that it is vital for children to go through the process of building personality, identity or character. How does the continuous exposure to violence on television affect the character that children develop? Is it possible that constant watching of violence on television affect that children develop? Is it possible that constant watching of violence on television result aggression among children? What is the role of the child‘s environment in her capacity to develop in to a good individual? Perhaps it is best to look closely at how good moral character is developed among individuals. What elements are involved in order to achieve this? One theory This is a property of PRESIDENT RAMON MAGSAYSAY STATE UNIVERSITY NOT FOR SALE that can possibly provide a comprehensive understanding of how an individual can develop moral character is virtue of ethics. Specific Objectives At the end of the lesson, the students should be able to: 1. Discuss the meaning and basic principle of virtue ethics. 2. Distinguish virtuous acts from non virtuous acts; and 3. Apply Aristotle ethics in understanding the Filipino character. Duration Virtue Ethics - 9 hours (7 hours lecture; 2 hours assessment) Lesson HAPPINESS AND ULTIMATE 1 PURPOSE Virtue ethics is an approach to ethics that takes the notion of virtue (often conceived as excellence) as fundamental. Virtue ethics is primarily concerned with traits of character that are essential to human flourishing, not with the enumeration of duties This is a property of PRESIDENT RAMON MAGSAYSAY STATE UNIVERSITY NOT FOR SALE VIRTUE is the ethical framework that is concerned with understanding the good as a matter of developing the virtuous character of person. Focused on the formation of one‘s character brought about by determining and doing virtuous acts. The two major thinkers of Ancient Greece, Plato and Aristotle , had discourses concerning virtue. Aristotle book entitled Nicomachean Ethics is the first comprehensive and programmatic study of virtue of Ethics. Aristotle discourse of ethics departs from the Platonic understanding of reality and conception of the good. Both Plato and Aristotle affirm rationality as the highest faculty of a person and having such characteristic enable of a person to realize the very purpose of her existence. But at the end they differ in their appreciation of reality and nature, which in turn results in their contrasting stand on what the ethical principle should be. For Plato the real is outside the realm of any human sensory experience, but somehow grasped by one‘s intellect. For Aristotle REAL is found within our everyday encounter with objects in the world. What makes nature intelligible is its character of having both form of matter. The truth and the good cannot exist apart from the object and are not independent of our experience. When one speaks of the truth for example how beautiful Juan Luna‘s Spoliarium is, she cannot discuss its beauty separately from the particular painting itself. Same is true with understanding of good. One sees the ethical theory of Aristotle as engaging the good in our day to day living. HAPPINESS AND ULTIMATE PURPOSE This is a property of PRESIDENT RAMON MAGSAYSAY STATE UNIVERSITY NOT FOR SALE Aristotle – ―every act that a person does is directed toward a particular purpose, aim on what the Greeks called TELOS. There‘s a purpose why one does something. Every pursuit of a person hopes to achieve a good. One eats for the purpose of the good that it gives sustenance to the body. Chosen career aiming for a good that is to provide a better future for her family. A person will not do anything which is not beneficial to her. Even a drug user thinks that substance abuse will cause her good Drug is good, but drug addict would want to believe that such act is good. For Aristotle Good is considered to be the telos or purpose for which all acts seek to achieve. One must understand that an individual does actions and pursuits in life and correspondingly each of theses activities has different aims. Aristotle is aware that one does an act not only to achieve a particular purpose , but believes purpose can be utilized for a higher goal activity. Which can be used to achieve an ever higher purpose and so on. When one diligently writes down notes while listening to a lecture given by the teacher, she does this for the purpose of being able to remember the lessons of the course. This purpose of remembering, becomes an art to achieve a higher aim which is to pass the examinations given by the teacher. It is important to Aristotle that one becomes clear of the hierarchy of goals that the different acts produce in order for a person to distinguish which actions are higher than other. This is a property of PRESIDENT RAMON MAGSAYSAY STATE UNIVERSITY NOT FOR SALE Aristotle discusses the general criteria in order for one to recognize the highest good of man. FIRST THE HIGHEST GOOD OF A PERSON MUST BE FINAL o As a final end it is no longer utilized for the sake of arriving at a much higher end. o The purpose of remembering lesson in the course , that is why one writes down notes, is not the final end because it is clear that such purpose is aimed at achieving a much higher goal. SECOND THE ULTIMATE TELOS OF A PERSON MUST BE SELF SUFFICIENT. o Satisfaction in life is arrived at once this higherst good is attained. o Nothing else is sought after and desired, once this self-sufficient goal is achieved, since this is already considered as the best possible good in life. o The goal of remembering the lesson in the course is not yet the best possible good because a person can still seek for other more satisfying goals in her life. HIGHEST GOAL FOR ARISTOTLE o What goal is both final and self sufficient? It is interesting to note that for Aristotle, the question can only be adequately answered by older individuals because they have gone through enormous and challenging life experiences which helped them gain a wealth of knowledge. o Other individuals would agree that the highest purpose and the ultimate good of a man is happiness or for the Greeks, EUDAIMONIA means happiness (Greeks) This is a property of PRESIDENT RAMON MAGSAYSAY STATE UNIVERSITY NOT FOR SALE  o Wealth, Power, and Pleasures are not chosen for themselves but for the sake of being a means to achieve happiness. If one accumulates wealth, for example, she would want to have not just richness but also power and other desirable thing as well such as honor and pleasure. o Happiness for Aristotle is the only self-sufficient aim that one can aspire for. No amount of wealth or power can be more fulfilling than having achieved the condition of happiness. o Not for richness or fame. o Even though older individuals agree that happiness is the highest end and good that human aspire for. o For Aristotle what defines human beings is her function or activity of reason. This function makes her different from the rest of beings. o Dancer, Waiter, Doctor etc. Lesson 2 VIRTUE AS EXCELLENCE Achieving the highest purpose of a human person concerns the ability to function according to reason and to perform an activity well of excellency. This excellent way of doing things is called VIRTUE. WHAT EXACTLY MAKES A HUMAN BEING EXCELLENT One needs to understand the very structure of a person‘s soul which must be directed by her rational activity in an excellent way. For Aristotle the human soul is divided into two parts This is a property of PRESIDENT RAMON MAGSAYSAY STATE UNIVERSITY NOT FOR SALE Irrational element- this part of the man is not realm, where virtue is exercised because as the term suggests, it cannot be dictated by reason. It consists the Vegetative and Appetitive Aspects The VEGETATIVE ASPECTS function as giving nutrition and providing activity of physical growth in person. The APPETETIVE ASPECTS works as a desiring faculty of man, that naturally runs counter to a reason and most of the soul. Sexual Impulse for example is strong in person that one tends to ignore reasonable Rational Faculty- man exercise excellence in him. One can rightly or wrongly apply the use of reason in this part. o Where a person can attain excellence in the intellectual faculty o Attains through teaching o This faculty is further divided into two aspects Moral- which concerns the act of doing and Intellectual- which concerns the act of knowing. One rational aspect where a person can attain excellence is in the intellectual faculty of the soul, excellence is attained through teaching. Two ways by which one can attain intellectual excellence: PHILOSOPHIC AND PRACTICAL This is a property of PRESIDENT RAMON MAGSAYSAY STATE UNIVERSITY NOT FOR SALE  PHILOSOPHIC WISDOM- deals with attaining knowledge about the fundamental principles and truths that govern the universe (ex. General theory on the origin of things) Understand meaning of life PRACTICAL WISDOM- Excellence in knowing the right conduct in carrying out a particular act. In other words one can attain a wisdom that can provide us with a guide on how to behave in our daily lives. o The condition of being excellent can be attained by a person through the intellectual aspect of the soul; this situation does not make her into a morally good individual. o For SOCRATES moral goodness is already within the realm of intellectual excellence. o Knowing the good implies the ability to perform morally virtuous acts. o For ARISTOTLE however having intellectual excellence does not necessarily mean that one already has the capacity of doing the good. o Knowing the good that needs to be done is different from doing the good that one needs to accomplish. Therefore, rational faculty of a person tells us that she is capable of achieving two kinds of virtues: moral and intellectual. A morally virtuous man for Aristotle is someone who habitually determines the good and does the right actions. Moral virtue is acquired through habit. This is a property of PRESIDENT RAMON MAGSAYSAY STATE UNIVERSITY NOT FOR SALE  Being a good basketball player for example involves constant training and endless hours of shooting and dribbling the ball in the right way until one habitually does the right same with…. A moral person habitually chooses the good and consistently does good deeds. It is in this constant act of choosing and doing the good that a person is able to form her character. Lesson MORAL VIRTUE AND 3 MESOTES MESOTES ,the meaning of the center is a major element in the definition of human virtues in Aristotle‘s Nicomachean Ethics. On the other hand, the principle of mesotes often is described as powerful. Developing a practical wisdom involves learning from experiences. Knowledge is not inherent to a person. Knowing the right thing to do when one is confronted by a choice is not easy. One needs to develop this knowledge by exercising the faculty of practical reason in her daily life. In attaining practical wisdom, she may initially make mistakes on how reason is applied to a particular moral choice or action. But through these mistake, she will be able to sustain practical wisdom to help steer another‘s ability to know morally right choices and action. This is a property of PRESIDENT RAMON MAGSAYSAY STATE UNIVERSITY NOT FOR SALE  This is why when it came to life choices, one can seek the advice of elders in the community. Based on Aristotle, a morally virtuous person is concerned with achieving her appropriate action in a manner tt is neither excessive nor deficient. In other words, virtue is the middle or the intermediary point in between extremes. One has function in a state that her personality manifests the right amount of feelings, pasions and ability for a particular act. Generally, feelings and passions are neutral which means that, in themselves, they are neither morally right nor wrong. But the rightness or wrongness of feelings, passions, and abilities lies in the degree of their application in a given situation. It is right to get angry at an offensive remark but it is not right to get angry at an offensive remark but it is not right to get angry at everyone just because you were offended by someone. A morally virtuous person targets the mesotes. For Aristotle the task of targeting the mean is always difficult because very situation is different from one another. As pointed out by Aristotle the mean is simply into and understanding the situation and assessing properly every particular detail relevant to the determination of the mean once can be angry with someone but the degree and aid of reason dictates how humans should show different anger toward a child and a mature individual. MESOTES determines whether the act applied is not excessive or deficient. In relation to the news article, the government and its agencies responsible for protecting and assisting the young in their personal development should act in view of the middle measure, the government could have dismissed the issue or could have banned television shows portraying violence. This is a property of PRESIDENT RAMON MAGSAYSAY STATE UNIVERSITY NOT FOR SALE But such extremes censure the citizen‘s freedom of expression and artistic independence, which can result in another issue. Wisely the government acted on the side of the middle measure by going through a series of consultation to address the issue of television violence-implementing the rules and guidelines for viewing safety, dedicating 15% of television airtime for child friendly shows, and enforcing a television violence rating code that tool into account the sensibilities of children. It seems that the government acted in a manner that is not deficient and excessive. MORAL VIRTUE 1ST the condition arrived at by a person who has a character identified out of her habitual exercise of particular action. One‘s character is seen as a growth in terms of the continuous preference for the good. 2nd in moral virtue the action done that normally manifests feelings and passions is chosen because it is the middle. The middle does not fall short or is excessive of the proper proportion by which these feelings or passions should be expressed. Aristotle adds that the middle is relative to us. This does not imply that mesotes totally depends on what the person identifies as the middle. But Aristotle middle is not relative to the person but to the situation and the circumstance that one is in. This means that in choosing the middle, one is looking at the situation and not at oneself in identifying the proper way that feelings and passions should be dispensed. 3rd the rational faculty that serves as a guide for the proper identification of the middle is practical wisdom. The virtuous person learns from her experiences and therefore develops that capacity to know the proper way of carrying out her feelings, passions and develops the capacity to know the proper, specifically practical wisdom aid in making a virtuous person develop this habit of doing the good. A moral person in this sense is also someone whose is wise. Aristotle clarifies further that not all feelings, passions, and actions have a middle point. When one murder someone, there is nothing excessive or deficient in the act: murder is still murder. Further , there is no intermediary for Aristotle in the act because there is no proper way that such act can be committed. This is a property of PRESIDENT RAMON MAGSAYSAY STATE UNIVERSITY NOT FOR SALE Aristotle also provides example of particular virtues and the corresponding excesses and deficiencies of these. This table shows some of the virtues and their vices. EXCESS MIDDLE DEFICIENCY Impulsiveness Self-Control Indecisiveness Recklessness Courage Cowardice Profanity Liberality Meanness In the table Aristotle identifies the virtue of courage as the middle, in between the vices of being coward and reckless. Cowardice is a deficiency in terms of feelings and passions. This means that one lacks the capacity to muster enough bravery of carrying herself appropriately in a given situation. Recklessness, on the other hand is an excess in ones feelings and passions. In this regard one acts with a surplus of guts that she is being to act daringly enough but able to weigh up possible implications of such act that she precedes with caution. References/Additional Resources/Readings Copleston, SJ, Frederick. A history of Philosophy: Greece and Rome. Vol. 1 , New York Doubleday Dell Publishing Group, Inc 1993 Nussbaum, Martha C. The Fragality of Goodness. New Yourk: Cambridge University Press, 1986. The Cambridge Companion to Aristotle, edited by Jonathan Barnes, New York: Cambridge University https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-virtue/ This is a property of PRESIDENT RAMON MAGSAYSAY STATE UNIVERSITY NOT FOR SALE  Ethics Chapter VI MAKING INFORMED DECISIONS This is a property of PRESIDENT RAMON MAGSAYSAY STATE UNIVERSITY NOT FOR SALE Chapter V Making Informed Decisions Introduction What is the value of a college-level class in Ethics? We have been introduced to four major ethical theories of frameworks: utilitarianism, natural law ethics, Kantian Deontology and virtue ethics. None of them is definitive nor final. What then is the use of studying them? Each represents the best attempts of the best thinkers in history to five fully thought out to the answers to the question ―what ought I do so?‖ this quest has not reach its final conclusion; instead, it seems that the human condition of finitude will demand that we continue to grapple with these question. The story of humanity appears to be the never ending search for what it means to be fully human in the face of moral choices. The preceding chapters clarified several notions: 1. These question of what the right thing to do is and why are question that all human beings-regardless of race, age, socioeconomic class, gender, culture, educational attainment, religious affiliation, or political association will have to ask at one point or another in their lives. 2. Neither the laws nor rules of one‘s immediate community or of wider culture or religious affiliation can sufficiently answer these question, especially when different duties, culture and religion intersect and conflict. 3. Reason has a role to play in addressing these questions, if not in resolving them. This last element, reason , is the power that identifies the situation in which rules and principles sometimes conflict with one another. Reason hopefully will allow one to finally make the best decision possible in a given situation of moral choice. Specific Objectives At the end of the lesson, the students should be able to: Identify the different factors that shape an individual in her moral decision making Internalize the necessary steps toward making informed moral decisions Apply the ethical theories of framework on moral issues involving the self- society and the non-human environment Duration Chapter 6: Making Informed Decisions = 9 hours (7 hours discussion; 2 hours assessment) This is a property of PRESIDENT RAMON MAGSAYSAY STATE UNIVERSITY NOT FOR SALE Lesson 1 The Moral Agent And Context Along the same vein as Kant, some philosophers believe personhood requires moral agency, the capacity to make moral decisions based on the perception of right and wrong. Stated simply, it's the ability to judge between good and bad, moral and immoral. Building on this definition, a moral agent is a being who is conscious of the concepts of right and wrong. Chapter 1 pointed out one of the capacities reason provides us – It enable us to distinguish between human situations that have a genuinely moral character from those that are non-moral (for amoral). It shows us that Aesthetic consideration and questions of etiquette are important facets of human life, but they do not necessarily translate into genuine ethical or moral value. Reason also reminds us that the distinctions are not always easy to neither identify nor explain. The choice of clothing that one is to wear in general seems to merely question of aesthetics and thus one is taste. In many urban centers in the Philippines in the first century, people wear a variety of clothing style and such a situation does not seem to attract attention. Some cultures what a woman wears may bring upon harsh punishment to her according to the community rule Afghanistan in the 1990s was ruled by the Taliban and women were expected to wear the full body burqa: a woman caught in public even the small area of her body exposed will be flogged severely. Mistake can be frowned upon by members of one human society or another but need not merit the severest of punishments or penalty. Ethics is clearly concerned with the right way to act in relation to other human beings and toward self. How she takes care of herself versus how she treats herself badly , substance abuse , suicide etc. Is a question of ethical clue that is concerned mainly with her own person. This is a property of PRESIDENT RAMON MAGSAYSAY STATE UNIVERSITY NOT FOR SALE  The second level where moral valuation takes place is societal. Society in this context means ones immediate community (one‘s neighborhood, barangay, or town) the larger sphere (one‘s province, region, or country) or the whole global village defined as the interconnection of the different nations of the world. All level of society involves some kind of culture which may be loosely described as the way of life of a particular community of people at a given period of time. Culture is a broad term it may include the beliefs and practices a certain group of people considered valuable and can extend to such realms as art (music, literature, arts and performance)laws (injunctions against taboo practices) fields of knowledge (e.g. scientific, technological and medical beliefs and practices at a given point in time) and customs of a community. Ethics serves to guide one through the potentially confusing thicket of an individual’s interaction wither her wider world of social roles. THE MORAL AGENT AND CONTEXT The one who is tasked to think about what is right and why it is so and so to choose and do so, is individual human. Who is this individual who must engage herself in ethical thought and decision making? Who one is in the most fundamental sense is another major topic in the act of philosophizing. Greeks has a famous saying for it: ―Epimeleia he auto‖ usually translated into English as ―know thyself‖. In response to this age-old philosophical challenge the Filipino philosopher RAMON C. REYES (1935-2014) writing in his essay Man and This is a property of PRESIDENT RAMON MAGSAYSAY STATE UNIVERSITY NOT FOR SALE Historical Action explained the ―who he is‖ is a cross point. By this he means that one‘s identity, who one is or who I am, is product of many forces and events that headed outside of one choosing. Reyes identifies four cross points the physical, the interpersonal, the social and historical. Biography RAMON C. REYES (1935-2014) attended the Ateneo de Manila University in Quezon City Bachelor of Arts degree in 1956 PhD in Philosophy from the University Catholique de Louvain in Belgium 1965 Techer in ADMU from 1965 to 2013 Ethics and Modern Philosophy and Contemporary Philosophy Most Outstanding Teacher Awarded by Metrobank 1987 Book- Ground and Norm of Morality; Ethics for College Students published in 1988. PHYSICAL EVENTS Past material factors that one did not have the choice in. You are member of the species Homo Sapiens and therefore possess the capacities and limitation endemic to human being everywhere. Inherited by genetic material of both biological parents. All of these are given they have happened or are still happening whether you want it or not. You did not choose to be a human being nor to have this particular set of biological parents nor to be born in and grow up in such physical environment. Filipinos born in archipelago , tropical climate, with specific flora and fauna which shape human life in this country to a profound degree Individual is also a product of an interpersonal cross point of many events and factors outside of ones choosing. One did not choose her own parent and yet personality, character traits and her overall way of doing things and thinking about things have all been shaped by the character of her parents and how they brought her up. A third cross point for Reyes is the societal ―who one is‖ is shaped by ones society. The term society here pertains to all the elements of the human This is a property of PRESIDENT RAMON MAGSAYSAY STATE UNIVERSITY NOT FOR SALE  groups- as opposed to the natural environment- that one is a member of. ―Culture‖ in its varied aspects is included here. The fourth cross point Reyes names is the historical which is simply the events that one‘s people has undergone. The effect of colonization that affects how Philippines society has been formed and how Philippine culture has developed. This effect in turn shapes the individual who is a member of the Philippine society. WHO ONE IS also a project for one‘s self. We can the ethics plays a big role in this existential challenge of forming one‘s self. CULTURE AND ETHICS Culture dictates what is right or wrong for an individual. As people saying when in Rome do as the Romans do by ST. AMBROSE. This quote implies that one culture is inescapable that is one has to look into the standards of her society to resolve all her ethical questions with finality. Filipino traits sometimes end up as empty stereotypes, especially since one may be hard put to think if any other culture does not exhibit such traits. We hear claim from time to time that ―Americans are individualistic; Filpinos are communal,‖ supposed difference that grounds for some people radically different sets of moral values. But one may ask is there really any radical difference between one cultures moral reasoning or another? The American Philosopher JAMES RACHELS (1941-2003) provided a clear argument against the validity of cultural relativism. This is a property of PRESIDENT RAMON MAGSAYSAY STATE UNIVERSITY NOT FOR SALE CULTURAL RELATIVISM- the idea that a person beliefs, values and practices should be understood based on that persons own culture rather than be judged against the criteria of another. Also Rachels defines cultural relativism as the position that claims that there is no such thing as objective truth in the realm of morality. The argument of this position is that since different cultures have different moral codes, then there is no one correct moral code that all cultures must follow. The implication is that each culture has its own standards of right or wrong.its culture confined within the culture. o FIRST if cultural relativism was correct, then one cannot even criticize the practices or beliefs of another culture anymore as long as the culture thinks that what is doing is correct. o SECOND if cultural relativism was correct then one cannot even criticize the practices or beliefs of ones culture. If that is the case, the black South African citizen under the system of Apertheid a policy of racial segregation that privileges the dominant race in the society, could not criticize that official state position. o THIRD if cultural relativism was correct then one cannot even accept that moral progress can happen. If that is the case then the fact that many societies now recognize women‘s rights and children‘s rights does not necessarily represent a better a situation than before when we societies refused to recognize that women and children had rights. Rachel’s ends his article on cultural relativism by nothing that someone can recognize and respect cultural differences and still maintain the right to criticize beliefs and practices that she thinks are wrong, if she performs proper rational deliberation. This is a property of PRESIDENT RAMON MAGSAYSAY STATE UNIVERSITY NOT FOR SALE RELIGION AND ETHICS There are many religions in the world. Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism are four of largest religious groups in the world at present based on population. The Philippines is predominantly Roman Catholic, yet many other religions continue to flourish in the archipelago. Beyond all the differences, however, other religions continue to flourish in the archipelago. Beyond all the differences however other religions continue to flourish in the archipelago. Many religions followers assume that what their religion teaches can be found either in their sacred scripture (eg BIBLE for CHRISTIANS, the Qur‘ans for Muslim or body of writings (eg Vedas including Upanishads and other text for HINDUS; the Tao Te Ching , Chuang-tzu and other Taoist classics for Taoist or in other form. Religious teachings are relative to the individual‘s particular situation (implying no objective and universal truth about the situatedness of the reader. This implies that the moral agent in question must still, In full responsibility, challenge herself to understand using her own powers of rationality, but with full recognition on her own situatedness and what is religious authorities claim their religion teaches. Second one must determine what justifies the claim of a particular religious teaching when it commands its followers on what they ―ought to do‖ whether in general or in specific situations. Relevant to this is Plato philosophical question in his dialogue Euthyphro which was mentioned in an earlier chapter: is the pious loved by the gods because it is loved by the gods? ―Philosophers have modified this question into a moral version: when something is ―morally good,‖ is it because it is good in itself and that is why God commands it, or is it good because God simply say so. This is a property of PRESIDENT RAMON MAGSAYSAY STATE UNIVERSITY NOT FOR SALE Lesson 2 MORAL DELIBERATION There is a big difference between a young childs reasoning on the right thing to do and the manner a morally mature individual arrives at an ethical decision. This necessary growth, which is a maturation in moral reasoning, has been the focus of study of many theorist. One of them is the American moral psychologist Lawrence Kohlberg (1927-1987) who theorized the moral development happens in six stages which he divided into three levels. a. FIRST STAGE – PRE-CONVENTIONAL in this stage there is two level 1. Obedience Vs. Avoidance and Punishment o it corresponds to how infants and young children think o Reasoning is centred on the consequences of action. o Obedience vs avoidance of punishments to a young child‘s mind. 2. Reasoning and learns to act what she thinks (Naively Egoistical) o If an action is good they can avoid punishment ; if its bad it lead to punishment o Pleasure and Punishment This is a property of PRESIDENT RAMON MAGSAYSAY STATE UNIVERSITY NOT FOR SALE b. SECOND STAGE CONVENTIONAL In this age in which older children, adolescent and young adults learn to conform to the expectation of the society. 3. Good boy and Good Girl Orientation o One follows conventions of her group. o Begins to act according to what the larger group she belongs to expects of her. o The general tendency at this age is to conform fist to the values of ones immediate group , such as her family playmates or later on barkada. 4. Law and Social Order o When a person relizes that following the dictates od her society is not just good for herself but more importantly it is necessary for the existence of society itself. o The individual at this stage values most the laws, rules, and regulation of her society and thus her moral reasoning is shaped by dutifulness to the external standards set by society. c. POST CONVENTIONAL – in this stage is divided into two stages represents individual realization that the ethical principles she has rationally arrived at take precedence over even the rules or conventions that her society dictates. 5. Legalistic Social Contract o Namely agreement that rational agents have arrived at whether explicitly or implicitly in order to serve what can be considered the common good are what one ought to honor and follow. This is a property of PRESIDENT RAMON MAGSAYSAY STATE UNIVERSITY NOT FOR SALE  o This notion of common good is conventional in the sense that the moral agent binds herself to what this theoretical community of rational agents has identified as morally desirable, whether the agent herself will benefit from doing so or not. o What is good or right is what honours the social contract; what contradicts it is bad. 6. Universal ethical Principles o Perform action based on universal ethical principles that one has determined by herself. One realizes that all conventions (laws, rules and regulations) of society are only correct if they are based on these universal ethical principles. o Full maturity post conventional thinking since this stage recognizes that in the end the question of what one ought to do goes back to the individual moral agent and her own rationality. The significance of studying different ethical theories and framework becomes clear only to the individual who has achieved or is in the process of achieving, moral , maturity. FEELINGS IN MORAL DELIBERATION Emotions or feelings have long been derided by purely rationalistic perspective as having no place in properly executed moral decision. This prejudice, however, needs to be re-examined thoroughly. Although some emotion or feelings can derail one from a clear minded decision in an ethical situation, it is also not possible that human choice can be purged of all feelings; the moral agent, after all, is neither robot nor computer. Aristotle points out that moral virtue goes beyond the mere act of intellectual identifying the right thing to do. Instead, it is the condition of ones character by which the agent is able to manage her emotions or feelings. Note that Aristotle does not say ―Remove all feelings‖ Tulak ng bibig kabig ng dibdib is the popular Filipino saying, the mouth says one thing but the heart drives you to do another thing. There can be a disconnection between intellectual knowledge of the good and the actual ability of an individual to perform accordingly. The responsible moral agent then as a supposedly ―dispassionate‖ moral decision maker is an unrealistic idea. The passions or feelings do not necessarily detract from making an informed moral decision. One can even argue that making a moral decision , because is all about what she values, cannot but involved her most serious feelings. What she must do is to educate and to cultivate. This is a property of PRESIDENT RAMON MAGSAYSAY STATE UNIVERSITY NOT FOR SALE MORAL PROBLEMS We must first understand that there are different types of moral problems each one requiring a particular set of rational deliberations. We may attempt to construct an outline of what we ought to do when confronted with the potential ethical issue. a. FIRST STEP- determine the level of involvement in the case at hand. Do we need to make moral decision in a situation that needs action on our part? Or are we trying to determine the right thing to do in a particular situation being discussed? In the latter situation , we may be making a moral judgement on a particular case. Being moral agent specifically refers to the latter situation we must therefore identify which activity we are engaged in, whether we are making a judgement on a case that we are not involved. b. SECOND STEP- after ascertaining our involvement in the potential moral situation, we then need to make sure of the facts. The first fact to establish is whether we are faced with a moral situation or not. Are we truly confronted with a genuinely moral situation, or one that merely involves judgement in the level of aesthetics or of etiquette. c. THIRD STEP- identify all the people who may potentially be affected by the application of a moral situation or by our concrete choice of action. These people are called the stakeholders in the particular case. Identifying these stakeholders forces us to give consideration to people aside from ourselves. After establishing the facts and identifying the stakeholders and their concerns in the matter, we must now identify the ethical issue at hand. These are several types of ethical problems or issues. a. The first one is a situation in which we need to clarify whether a certain action is morally right or wrong. b. The second one involves determining whether a particular action in question can be identified with a generally accepted ethical or unethical action. E.g death penalty, is death penalty tantamount to murder? c. The third one is to presence of an ethical dilemma. Dilemma are ethical situations in which there are competing values that seem to have equal worth. The problem can be concerned either with a choice between two competing moral goods or between two evils. This is a property of PRESIDENT RAMON MAGSAYSAY STATE UNIVERSITY NOT FOR SALE The final step of course is for the individual to make her ethical conclusion or decision whether in judging what ought to be done in a given case or in coming up with a concrete action she must actually perform. Real ethical decisions are often very difficult enough to make and for so many different reason. The responsible moral individual, however must forge on realizing full well that cultivating ones capacity for mature moral choice is continuously journey in her life. A moral individual is always a human being whose intellect remains finite and whose passions remain dynamic and who is always placed in situations that are unique. THE VALUE OF STUDYING ETHICAL THEORIES OR FRAMEWORKS May serve as guide points given that there are the best attempts to understand morality that the history of human thought has to offer, in ones quest to answer the twin question of ―what ought I do? What ought I to do so? UTILITARIANISM- Puts every single stakeholder at par with everyone else, with no one being worth more than any other. Rich or poor, man or woman, young or old everyone has a much worth as anyone else, values the ―common good‖ compare to any other ethical frameworks we have covered. NATURAL LAW-puts more emphasis on the supposed objective, universal nature of what is to be considered morally good, basing its reasoning on the theorized existence of a ―human nature‖. This theory has the advantage of both objectivity and a kind of intuitiveness. The latter pertains to the assumption that whatever is right is what feels right, that is. KANTIAN DEONTOLOGY- put the premium on rational will, freed from all other consideration as the only human capacity that can determine ones moral duty. Kant focus on ones autonomy as constituted of what one can consider as moral law that is free from all other ends and inclinations- including pain and pleasure as well as conformity to the rules of the group. What the responsible moral individual must instead perform is to continuously test the cogency and coherence of the ethical theory or framework in question against the complexity of the concrete experience at hand. This is a property of PRESIDENT RAMON MAGSAYSAY STATE UNIVERSITY NOT FOR SALE In the following section, let us try to show the strengths and drawbacks of each theory or framework in application to the different realms of human action: the personal the social (both local and global) and the environmental. Lesson SELF, SOCIETY, AND 3 ENVIRONMENT INDIVIDUAL/SELF In the realm of the self, as noted earlier, one has to pay attention not just on how deals with oneself, but also on how one interacts with other individuals in personal relations. One may respond to the demand for an ethically responsible ―care for the self‖ by making full use of the four ethical theories or frameworks. JOHN STUART MILLS UTILITARIANISM, though seemingly a hedonistic theory given its emphasis on maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain, elevates the human element above the animalistic and above the merely selfish. Mill builds on the earlier version of utilitarianism, the one espoused by JEREMY BENTHAM, which first posited that what makes an action good is that it brings about the greatest happiness for the greatest number. Not just in number but in kind and not just for him/her but for everyone affected by her acts. THOMAS AQUIANAS NATURAL LAW THEORY – states that as its first natural inclination the innate tendency that all human beings share with all other existing things; namely the natural propensity to maintain oneself in one‘s existence. Any action therefore that sustains This is a property of PRESIDENT RAMON MAGSAYSAY STATE UNIVERSITY NOT FOR SALE and cultivates ones biological or physical existence is to be deemed good while all action lead to destruction of ones existence is to be called bad or evil. Healthy life and that one avoids all things that may hurt one or cause on harm. Part of human nature is to promote the truth and cultivate a harmonious life in the society with other humans. To live peaceful social life is part of ones responsibility. Aquinas teaches that a person cannot remain within her own selfish desires since doing so might lead her to harm herself to dispense with the truth or to destroy harmony in her community. Thus the moral philosophy of Aquinas calls on a person to go beyond what she thinks she wants and to realize instead what her innermost nature inclines her to do, which is the promotion of life of the truth, and of harmonious coexistence with others. KANTS DEONTOLOGY Celebrates the rational faculty of the moral agent, which sets it above merely sentient beings. Kant principle of universability challenge the moral agent to think beyond her own predilections and desires and to instead consider what everyone ought to do. His principle of humanity as end in itself teaches one to always treat humanity whether in her own self or in any other individual, as the end or goal of all human actions and never merely as the means. Kant foes beyond simply telling people not use others as instruments. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with using a human being as a means or a tool for ones own purposes because human interaction is not possible without that happening. Kant principle of autonomy teaches us that no one else can tell her what she ought to do in a particular situation; the highest authority is neither the king nor the general nor the pope. The highest authority that which is self legislating in the realm of moral law, is none other than the rational individual herself. One must always treat humanity, whether in oneself or in any other , always as end in itself,‖ ARISTOTLE VIRTUE OF ETHICS Ones ethical or moral responsibility to heself is one of self cultivation. Aristotle is quite forgiving when it comes to individual actions, knowing full well the difficulty of ―hitting the mark‖ in a given moral situation. One may make mistakes from time to time but in the end the important question is whether th person is learned from such mistakes, then the person has not become EUDAIMON or a happy (that is flourishing) This is a property of PRESIDENT RAMON MAGSAYSAY STATE UNIVERSITY NOT FOR SALE  Finally this theory teaches us one must always find and act on the mesotes, whether in treating oneself or any other human beings. This mesotes points to the complexity of knowing what must be done in a specific moral situation. SOCIAL LIFE IN THE PHILIPPINE CONTEXT AND IN THE GLOBAL VILLAGE One‘s membership in any society brings forth the demands of communal life in terms of the group rules and regulations. It made up of many ethno linguistic groups, each with its own possibly unique culture and set of traditions. The demands of the nation state as seen in the laws of the land sometimes clash with the traditions of indigenous culture, one example is the issue of land ownership when ancestral land is at stake, can members of an indigenous group lay claim to a land that they do not technically own because they do not have a legal title for it? Mills utilitarian will always push the greatest happiness principle as the prime determinant of what can be considered as good action, whether in the personal sphere or in the societal realm. Thomas Aquianas on the other hand in his natural law theory has a clear conception of the principles that should guide the individual in her actions that affect her larger society, human life , the care and education of children and promotion of truth, and harmonious social living. Immanuel Kant arues for the use of the principles of universalizabilitu and of humanity as end Itself to form a persons autonomous notion of what she ought to do. These principles an and should apply directly to the construction of ethical duty in ones social life. Aristotle prescribe mesotes as the guide of all the actions that a person has to take even in her dealing with the larger community of people, such as liberality, justice, magnificence, friendliness and rightful indignation suggest that they are socially oriented. This is a property of PRESIDENT RAMON MAGSAYSAY STATE UNIVERSITY NOT FOR SALE THE NON-HUMAN ENVIRONMENT In case of UTILITARIANISM some scholars point out that his hedonistic doctrine focuses on the sovereignty of pleasures and pains in human decision making should extend into other creatures that can experience pleasure and pains; namely, animals. Animals themselves cannot become moral agents because they do not seem to have reason and free will. Some would therefore argue that since the greatest happiness principles cover the greatest number of creatures that experience pleasure and pain, then that number should include animals. Therefore though only humans can make moral decisions, animal ethics, proponents argue that humans should always take into account the potential pleasure or pain that they may inflict on animals. KANTIAN DEONTOLOGY focused on the innate dignity of the human being as possessing reason , I can be argued that one cannot possibly universalize maxims that in the end will lead to an untenable social existence. Can one accept the following maxims that in the end will lead to an untenable social existence? Can one accept the following maxim as something that everyone ought to follow: THOMAS AQUINAS may not necessarily talk about the physical environment and human moral responsibility to it as such but one can try to infer from his philosophy that certain actions should be avoided because they do not produce a harmonious peaceful society. One can argue that neglecting the physical environment because of shortsighted economic goals. (overfishingthe waters off the coast of out islands or cutting down trees in our mountains and hills will eventually lead to disasters such as flooding or famines that will affect the society in a detrimental fashion. References/Additional Resources/Readings Appiahm Kwameh Anthony. Cosmopolitanism: Ethics in a World of Strangers (Issues in Our Time). New York: W.W Norton & Co., 2006 Arivia, GAdis and Donny, Gahral Adian, editors. Relations between Religion and Cultures in Southeast Asia (Indonesian Philosophical Studies,) Washington, D.C: Council for Research in Values and Philosophy, 2009. Chaleff, Ira. Intelligent Disobedience: Doing Right When What Youre Told to Do is This is a property of PRESIDENT RAMON MAGSAYSAY STATE UNIVERSITY NOT FOR SALE