Ethics - Introduction PDF

# ETHICS / Introduction ## A. Prologue Morality is life itself. It must not be considered a mere extract from the crude ore of facts and events that happen to us daily. Neither must morality be considered as a product of brooding about one's own feelings, nor must it be construed as a matter of fr...

# ETHICS / Introduction ## A. Prologue Morality is life itself. It must not be considered a mere extract from the crude ore of facts and events that happen to us daily. Neither must morality be considered as a product of brooding about one's own feelings, nor must it be construed as a matter of frills rather than fundamentals. “We must abandon straight off the idea that we have to sacrifice morality in favor of "practicality" to earn an inch of progress in our economic capabilities.” To install a moral upheaval against the backdrop of moral decadence or moral founder is everybody’s responsibility. And once moral quandary is dispensed with and resolved, moral recovery must be spread aggressively. We have to build a community of persons who are exposed to proper training so that they will be well equipped with the necessary virtues in order for them to smash the fetters that hinder us from attaining a high pitch of moral ideals. A profound reflection of the moral demands is absolutely necessary. In this vein, we need the philosophers whose thoughts exerted not a negligible influence of moral teachings. Empowered by the flames of creativity and critical awareness, we have to create a storm of protest against asinine beliefs that philosophy bakes no bread or that philosophy is among the fossilized ideas that one must forget. Without philosophy, we will never get to the bottom of our moral problems. ## We, therefore, have to be vigilant and attentive to the warp and woof of the fraying moral fabric. If the school is a very influential venue for effecting a sound formation and transformation of human persons, then, let us start there. One of the “in-things” of the day is the much-desired reality called progress. It may mean a lot of things. But to the students, it may be capsulized in the word relevance. Students are beginning to analyze and reflect if the education they have bears some semblance of relevance to today’s life. They begin to assert that there is a need to restructure the contents of the subjects they have to take in their curricula. Ethics is one of these subjects. In this regard, the question of the relevance of ethics in today’s education should also be raised. What is the place of ethics in the life of the contemporary man? If ethics is a philosophy of action, how can it affect the life of man of today? The relevance of ethics is seen in the fact that it is a basic discipline. It is the backbone of human existence. It serves as the vertebrate that gives support to the whole life direction of man. Without ethics there will be a total collapse of the whole human person and the entire human society. Life itself will become a stinking mess. By nature, ethics is absolute and immutable; there is only one moral law. But, the problem is that the moral law is translated by so many charismatic thinkers – most of who are philosophers and theologians. This is the reason why we have manifold kinds of ethical theories or call them moral teachings. There is a dialectical ethical theory, hedonism, pessimism, situationism, utilitarianism, evolutionism, existentialism, Kantianism, and the rest of the Western ethical theories. In the East we have a lot to study and reflect on. There is ethics in Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, Islam, Confucianism, Zen Buddhism, among others. Despite all these, we still cannot say that the contemporary man is harmoniously attuned to the immutable and absolute Natural Moral Law. Until today, there remains a need to reecho the basic moral question that seems to remain intriguing. The question goes: “Why do we want to be moral?” There are varied answers to the question. Kant says because it is man's rational duty. Mill and Bentham say because of pleasure and happiness. Fletcher says it depends upon the situation. Lawrence Kohlberg says because of our fear of punishment. Thomas Nagel says because of the intrinsic impersonal standpoint any moral agent is supposed to do, every person being a person among others. Ralph Barton Perry says because every human person is a creature of values. Beauchamp, from his end, argues that the human person wants to be moral because as a member of a certain society he adopts a particular moral way of life. Saints Augustine and Aquinas say because there is God. Aristotle, Plato, and Socrates say because of happiness. The Hindu seers say because of man’s Karma to be one with the Brahman. Lao-Tzu and Confucius say because of man’s deepest pleading to be in harmony with nature. And for Mohammed, because of Allah. But can the Why-do-we-want-to-be-moral question be simply answered from the standpoint of our intrinsic longing, or call it desire, for happiness and pleasure? What about the answer from the standpoint of the existence of God? Majority of us would perhaps appeal that we want to be moral because there is God. But what if there is no God, would that mean we cannot be moral anymore? “Can't we be good without God?"- an atheist philosopher by the name of Friedrich Nietzsche once raised the question and, for sure, his answer to this question dances to the tune of the wilderness of his atheism. In the crucial twist of Nietzsche's thoughts, he believes that God has nothing to do with man's quest for goodness. For Nietzsche, man could do good even without God. God is dead and God has nothing to do with man's moral life, says the author of the highly controversial books: The Birth and Genealogy of Morals and Thus Spoke Zarathustra. Confronted with Nietzsche's irreligious stance, any moral being should reflect seriously over the question: "Why do we want to be moral?" The tone of the statement displays a subjective imposition towards a moral life and this is a realistic question. Thus: “Why do we need to be moral?" The realistic question can be answered in a threefold manner. First, we want to be moral because we want to win the good opinion or impression of others concerning our self-image. Second, we want to be moral because we want to refrain from troubles, or consequently, punishment, which could result from immorality. Third, we want to be moral because we are persons, persons who exist in the collectivity of persons. Because we live with others, we have to respect each other's rights as persons. To put these reasons in a lighter vein, man's realistic desire to be good is caused by a great deal of his obsessive concern with public relations. Now, as believers in God, we cannot just get stuck in the realistic level of positing the why-be-moral question. Otherwise, if the realistic level is the terminal point of our why-be-moral question, then, there is no difference between our stance and that of Nietzsche's. There should be a point of departure between the realistic why-be-moral question from our faith in God. Thus, the fundamental reason why we want to become moral is because we need to be moral; because for all we know, the moral law cannot be dissociated from the Natural Law and the Eternal Law of God. ## But, why do we need to be moral, anyway? By their etymological definitions, ethics is derived from the Greek word ethos and morality from the Latin word mos or moris. Surprisingly, both mean one and the same thing, i.e., custom. Would this mean that our need to be moral is just part and parcel of our custom so that if it is our custom to be immoral then we can be immoral? Can we prove that morality is indeed founded on the Natural and Eternal laws of God² and not just on custom? Much of what we know from the bases of our common experience is that we want to be good, and we, indeed, do good deeds because of our belief in salvation. Doesn't this demonstrate that we are reward-oriented creatures? Isn't it right if we say that of all creatures, man alone is the reward-oriented mammal? One has never seen a carabao that clamors to his master for a reward after a hard day's work under the scorching heat of the sun, nor has one seen a dog that bites his master for an unjust reward. So, we are just "lucky" enough that God, in His own wisdom, knows how to reward us properly not only later in Heaven but already here on earth. Probably, a few clarificatory remarks would help put our contention in a better perspective. It is very difficult to provide a delineating line between moral philosophy and moral theology. There is much faith that sustains the moral agent in his struggle to do good. Thus, it is an absurdity to deny that Natural and Eternal laws of God, and most importantly our faith in them, have nothing to do with our moral lives. ## The categorical association of the moral law with the Natural Law and the Eternal Law of God is the broad schema which this book follows. Moreover, this book, for the sake of philosophical inquiry and analysis, deals also with other ethical theories that are not oriented to aforesaid schema – Oriental Ethics, Greek Ethics, Kantian Ethics, Existential Ethics, and Situation Ethics. The book has the following parts, namely: introduction, expose of Western and Eastern Ethics, general ethics, and special ethics. In the introductory part, the following are presented: prologue, meaning of ethics, ethics compared with other sciences that deal with man, and morality and human existence. Part One has two chapters; Part Two has two chapters; and Part Three has five chapters. ## B. Meaning of Ethics Let us formally start our inquiry by studying the meaning of ethics. ### 1. Definition Etymologically, ethics is derived from the Greek word ethicos, or that which pertains to ethos, the English translation of which is “custom" or “character.” From this etymological meaning, ethics is taken to mean as a philosophical science that deals with the morality of human conduct or human acts. Ethics is a philosophical science. This means that ethics is one of the many disciplines in philosophy. In general, we can speak of four divisions or disciplines in philosophy, namely: descriptive or speculative, normative, practical, and critical. Descriptive or Speculative Philosophy is a discipline in philosophy that posits the question: What is the nature (essence, substance) of reality? Metaphysics (philosophical science of beings) falls under this. Normative Philosophy is a discipline in philosophy that posits the question: What is good and what is bad? Or what is right action or wrong action? Ethics or Moral Philosophy is categorized under this. Practical Philosophy is a discipline in philosophy which reflects upon truth in relation to action. Logic belongs to this discipline. And Critical Philosophy is a discipline in philosophy that posits the question: What is truth? Epistemology falls under this discipline. So, ethics as a philosophical science is a normative philosophy. But what makes ethics as a normative philosophy a science? Ethics is a science (normative science) because it systematically establishes standards or norms of human conduct. It, therefore, qualifies human conduct as to whether it is good or bad and right or wrong. After it qualifies human conduct, Ethics also requires a definitive human conduct. This means that it requires man to act properly as a human being. And to act properly as man, Ethics idealistically requires man to do what is good and what is right. Since we have already clarified our terms on ethics as a philosophical science, now let us investigate how and why ethics deals with the morality of human acts. What do we mean by "morality of human acts"? Morality of human acts refers to the goodness or the badness, the rightness or the wrongness of human acts. With this, we now say that ethics is a normative philosophical science that deals with the goodness or badness, the rightness or the wrongness of human acts. ### 2. The Difference between Ethics and Morality On the basis of etymology, there is no difference between ethics and morality. As cited earlier, ethics comes from the Greek word ethos meaning "custom." Morality, on the other hand, comes from the Latin word mos or moris, which also means “custom.” In this regard, ethics is also called moral philosophy, or precisely, the other name of ethics is moral philosophy. There is of course an undeniable affinity of ethics with moral philosophy and vice versa, based on their etymological construction. However, there is a slight difference between the two. This difference can be traced, if not asserted, by way of applying the concept of theory and practice in ethics. Ethics, as a normative philosophical science, is a theoretical science of good and bad or right and wrong actions. So, ethics provides the principles on the morality of human acts; it equips man with a (theoretical) knowledge of the morality of human acts. We know, however, that knowing is different from doing. It does not necessarily follow that man does what he knows. This means that ethics does not actually guarantee that man will be moral or good. One can only become moral (or good human person) when one applies ethics. In other words, when one does the theories of ethics one actually performs the theory, meaning one is actually doing ethics. This is morality: the praxis of the theory (Ethics). If morality, therefore, is the practice of ethics, morality, then, should be properly called Applied Ethics. While ethics (as a theoretical science) provides principles or bases of right or wrong and good or bad actions, morality actualizes the theory. As ethics outlines theories of right and wrong and good or bad actions, morality is nothing else but a doing of ethics. ### 3. Postulates in Ethics Postulates are proven facts that need to be presupposed. Some examples of postulates are: the Theory of Relativity or the Theory of Gravitational Pull and other established scientific theories. Ethics need not prove them; instead it takes them as they are because they are already proven by other sciences. In moral philosophy, there are three basic postulates, viz.: - The existence of God; - The existence of intellect and free will; and - The spirituality and the immortality of the soul. ## C. Ethics Compared with Other Sciences that Deal with Man ### 1. Ethics and Psychology Psychology is a descriptive philosophy that treats of man's intellect, free will, and conduct while ethics guides man's intellect to know moral truths and man's will to translate his intellectual knowledge of moral truths into action (conduct). Further, psychology, generally, deals with human behavior. It posits the question: “How does man behave?" Ethics, on the other hand, asserts the question: "Why does man ought to behave?" ### 2. Ethics and Sociology Sociology deals with human relations. Human relations, however, presuppose proper setup or order in society. This proper order postulates the observance of proper laws. These proper laws postulate the moral laws or order of right and wrong action, which is ethics. Therefore, ethics and sociology are closely associated with each other. Apart from ethics there can be no civilized or humanized relations in society. ### 3. Ethics and Logic Logic is the branch of philosophy that deals with man's correct thinking. Ethics, on the other hand, deals with man's correct doing and correct living. Therefore, like sociology, logic is closely associated with ethics since a person who does not know how to think correctly can never live his life rightly. ### 4. Ethics and Anthropology Anthropology deals with man's origin and the behavior of primeval man. Ethics, on the other hand, deals with the principles of right conduct as applied to all men at all times. ### 5. Ethics and Moral Theology Moral Philosophy (Ethics) and Moral Theology presuppose God's existence; they too have the same end, i.e., the attainment of man's ultimate goal: God. They have the same means towards the attainment of this end, i.e., right living. The two, however, differ in their basis. Moral Philosophy bases its principles on reason. On the contrary, Moral Theology bases its principles on Faith or Divine Revelation and reason. ## D. Morality and Human Existence Categorically, there is morality only in the context of humanity. There is no morality outside the context of humanity. In simple terms, we say there is morality because there is man. ### 1. Man is the Only Moral Being Man is the only moral being by virtue of the following reasons: - Man is a being of action. Man acts and knows his acts. Because he knows his acts, he knows he is responsible for his actions. - Man has intellect. His intellect enables him to know, to know what is right or wrong and good or bad actions. Because he is capable of knowing, he is therefore mandated to face the consequences of his actions. Thus, the morality of human acts can be applied only to those who have the knowledge of right or wrong and good or bad actions. Morons, idiots, imbeciles, mongoloids, insane persons, and the like are not moral agents. The same thing can be said of infants and children who have not yet reached the age of reason. - Man has will. Man is free to act or not to act. Man's will equips man with the power to choose either good or bad and right or wrong actions. It is his will that enables him to enjoy freedom to act or not to act and freedom to choose what course of action to perform. Man's will, therefore, requires of man a decision which obligates him to be responsible for the consequences of his actions. It is his nature or his being what he is, that makes man moral. But, what is man? Ethics does not provide a detailed and complete answer; Philosophy of Man does. In ethics, we simply take refuge into the Aristotelian view of man as a rational animal. It is man's being rational, therefore, that makes man a moral agent. This is the reason why those people who are not capable of rationality are not moral agents but this does not mean they cease to be human beings. ### 2. Man as an Animal Perhaps, it helps if we present a diagram to illustrate man both as an animal and as a rational being: MAN - Animal - Knowledge: Senses - Appetency: Instinct - Rationale - Knowledge: Senses and Intellect - Appetency: Instinct and Will As we see in the diagram, it is clear that brutes and ordinary grades of animals do acquire knowledge through their senses. Their senses, undoubtedly, are their indispensable medium of knowledge. As an animal, man also acquires knowledge through his senses. By appetency, we mean the drive to seek or to strive for something. Brutes and ordinary forms of animals are driven to seek for something out of their instincts. Instincts are natural biological drives of animals. Thus, man, being an animal, is also a subject of these drives. Just like any other animal, man desires for food when hungry and seeks for water when thirsty. There are manifold kinds of psychological drives or instinctive drives. Sex is one of them. And inasmuch as man is an animal, he is also subject to the instinctive sexual drive. In this given schema, nothing special can be said of man. He is just like any of the other forms of animals. If we rely on this, man cannot be conceived of as a moral agent. His animality does not give him a license to be moral. ### 3. Man as a Rational Animal As cited earlier, it is his being rational that makes man man. It is only in this context that man is to be understood as a moral being or a moral agent. It is man's being rational that makes him a unique grade of animal. Being rational, man's sensual knowledge (perception) is further "processed" by his intellect in the form of abstraction. Man's perceptual knowledge helps him draw judgments as he compares ideas so that eventually he engages in what is called reasoning. Man, therefore does not just perceive things but also analyzes, assesses, criticizes, or, in a word, intellectualizes things. As a rational animal (animal rationale not capax rationale or capable of reason), man strives for something not only through his instincts, but also through his will. It is true that man has instinctive drives, but man can transcend all his drives into a higher dimension. Man, therefore, is capable of injecting a dose of discipline to his physiological drives because he has intellect and will. ### 4. Intellect Compared with Will Intellect and will are correlative faculties that are intrinsically endowed in man as the moral agent. In order that we can view the difference between intellect and will properly, let us consider another diagram: - Intellect: Will - Wisdom: Highest Goal: Virtue - Truth: Goal: Good - Thinking: Function: Doing - Knowing: Purpose: Choosing Because man is a moral being, man possesses intellect and will. Through his intellect, man knows and can know right or wrong actions. Through his will man can choose between good or bad actions. Man’s intellect makes him capable of understanding right or wrong actions; his will makes him capable of doing (or expressing) his choice, either good or bad actions. Man’s intellect enables him to search for truth while his will, for good. When man is in possession of truth, then, he can practice what he knows (wisdom) while his exercise of good makes him virtuous (from the English term virtue which is derived from the Roman word vir which means "man." Thus, the term virtus is interpreted as "what is proper to man"). In the fundamental moral option between right or wrong and good or bad actions, man is will-bound to choose what is right and what is good. This is the moral imperative demanded in ethics. And this is highly emphasized in the Catholic Christian moral tradition. However, whether or not man should choose what is wrong or what is bad, he still remains a moral being since he has freedom. ### 5. Concrete Basis of Morality There are still other questions that we have to consider: “Is morality absolutely based only on the categories of intellect and will?” “Is morality merely a cerebral affair?” “Is morality anchored only in the sphere of concepts?" "When can we say that morality is real enough or experienceable?” Morality is not a mere cerebral affair; it is applied ethics. Therefore it is also real or concrete. It becomes real, perhaps, through the following: - When one encounters a moral experience; - Moral experience could ensue when one encounters a moral problem; and - A person encounters a moral problem when the problem injuncts him of moral obligation. Not all experiences, obviously, are moral. It can be moral only when it makes one entangled in a moral problem. In like manner, not all problems are moral. A problem can be moral only when such a problem calls one on his obligation. It is obligation, therefore, that makes the problem and an experience moral. There can be no morality apart from obligation. That is why morality is always associated with the "ought." What is the meaning of ought? "Ought" is only one of the degrees of moral obligations. In reality moral obligation is of three degrees, namely: "should," "must," and "ought." Any of these degrees singles out man to be responsible for his actions. But, since man has freedom, it is "ought" that fits in morality. Therefore, when one is caught up in a moral problem one should face his obligation: "What ought I to do?" "What must I do?" and "What should I do?" These are moral questions and they belong to the intellectual level of man. What about the will? Because man has will, man can also entertain options on what to do with his obligation. In the context of the will, we can speak of the polarity in morality. What is meant by this? By polarity in morality we mean that man has freedom to choose between good and bad or right or wrong responses to his obligation. Let us illustrate it in the following diagram: ACTIONS MAN (IN HIS FREEDOM) ACTIONS - GOOD - BAD - RIGHT - WRONG - OR: GOOD (better) - OR: GOOD (best?) - BAD (less) - BAD (worse or worst)