Evangelista - Chapter 1: Ethics and the Moral Person PDF

# UNIT 1: Ethics and the Moral Person ## CHAPTER 1: Ethics: Basic Concepts and Issues We cannot but encounter moral questions and issues in our life, since the actions that we do are bound to affect ourselves and other people either positively or negatively. We inevitably face choices that may ben...

# UNIT 1: Ethics and the Moral Person ## CHAPTER 1: Ethics: Basic Concepts and Issues We cannot but encounter moral questions and issues in our life, since the actions that we do are bound to affect ourselves and other people either positively or negatively. We inevitably face choices that may benefit or harm other people. Our actions may promote the welfare of other people, just as they may infringe on their rights and violate their dignity. Everyone of us at one time or another has experienced asking about what the morally right thing to do is, or more generally about what things should be valued. Some of our moral questions may be straightforwardly practical (Should we take away a scholarship grant from an underprivileged student due to a low grade she incurred? Is it right to deceive a friend to spare him from a certain risk?) or more abstract (What is the ultimate good? What is justice? Is morality relative?) Some moral questions we have may concern our own actions (Should I reveal the truth? Should I give to this charity?) or deal with the actions of others (Was it morally permissible for the President to make those remarks? Should the government legalize divorce?) These questions, which vary in kinds, are the concerns of a particular branch of philosophy called ethics. This philosophical discipline basically deals with humanity's inquiries about right conduct, the good life, moral values, and other related issues. As rational beings, we are capable of acting freely rather than merely driven by instinct. Our actions are preceded by an understanding of the value of such acts, their consequence, and their rightness or wrongness. And because of our rationality, we are inclined to think about and try to understand the basis of what we believe in, or what we should pursue in life. We do not want to simply depend on what authorities say or what social conventions and norms prescribe as right and wrong. As Socrates once said, "The unexamined life is not worth living." In the same spirit of this classical statement, it can also be said that the morally examined life is truly worth living. It is, indeed, worthwhile to engage in ethics for it provides us with the opportunity to look into the reasons and justifications behind our own actions and the actions of others, the bases and principles of our decision-making, and the goals of our moral life in order to find clearer answers to the various moral issues and problems that we encounter in life. However, before we tackle the practical questions of ethics, we must first clarify the fundamental concepts and issues we often encounter in moral discourses. Before we venture into analyzing and resolving particular moral problems and cases, we need to be clear regarding certain questions that underlie our moral views and judgments: What is the nature of morality? What is the good and how will we know it? Are moral principles objective, or are they relative to culture or individual decision? What relationship does morality have with religion, law, and etiquette? Addressing these questions will provide us a basic framework for understanding the foundation and structure of morality. Only then can we proceed to profitably discuss the various moral issues affecting our life and our world today. ## A. What is Ethics? Ethics has been understood by people in different ways. It is also sometimes confused with morality, as these two concepts are often loosely interchanged with each other. Thus, it is important that we first clarify what ethics means so that we can see how it differs from morality, what particular questions are raised in ethics, and what subject areas are under or overlap with ethics. ### Ethics and Morality Let us first attempt to inquire on the meaning of morality. When we speak of morality, we refer to the set of standards a person has about what is right and wrong. How we judge whether an act is good or bad, whether someone is virtuous or not, whether we ought to do this or not, depends largely on these standards. It is for this reason we can say that people can have different morality, that is, we can have different standards, views, or perspectives by which we understand what is right and wrong. Such differences can be attributed to how our moral standards originate. As a child, each person has been taught and influenced by his/her family, friends, and elders to accept some actions or behaviors as right and some as wrong. The church and the school the person went to, the books he/she read, the films he/she watched, the organizations he/she joined, contributed to the formation of one's basic ideas of morality. Since people vary in terms of the social influences that we have in life, we also differ in the morality we espouse. Some people think that homosexual marriage should be allowed, while others believe it is wrong. Some regard death penalty as immoral while others think it is morally justified. Our judgments and beliefs on these matters are influenced by the moral standards that pervade in our life. Morality, however, pertains not just to a person's standards, but to a particular society's standards of what is right and wrong. As a social, cultural, or religious group, people share certain standards of actions or behaviors that guide them in what they accept or practice. In Islamic societies, Muslims refrain from eating pork; in some European societies, homosexual relationships are acceptable; in Eskimos communities, infanticide is permissible. There are social norms that pervade in every society that serve as the basis of its members to decide on what it right or wrong. Given this understanding of what morality is, how does ethics differ from morality? Although sometimes used to refer to one's set of moral beliefs and practices, strictly speaking, ethics is the discipline that examines the moral standards of an individual or a society. In a sense, ethics is a study of morality. It looks into the soundness, reasonableness, and appropriateness of the moral standards a person or a society espouses. It is one thing to accept or adopt a set of moral standards, it is another thing to reflect on and examine these standards. Thus, a person engages in ethics when he/she reflects on the moral standards he/she has imbibed from his/her family, church, and friends, and asks: "Are these standards reasonable? Are these practices morally permissible? Are we justified to do this or that?" As mentioned above, morality begins to form in childhood, which is a time when we usually unquestioningly and mechanically accept what is taught to us with regard to what is right and wrong. Thus, it is important that, as we mature in reason, we subject our moral beliefs and practices to a reflective analysis. We ought to question those moral standards that we simply acquired in the past without any critical inquiry. We need to espouse only those standards which are supported by good reasons. It is here where the enterprise of ethics comes in. Just as what other philosophical disciplines do, it invites us to exercise self-awareness and self-criticism with regard to our own fundamental views and beliefs about morality. In guiding us in evaluating our own moral beliefs and standards, ethics aims to shed light on the basic questions such as what is right conduct, what principles should govern our moral decision-making, and what basically is a good life. Ethics is not limited to particular moral actions and practices, but it concerns itself with the whole of moral ideals and behaviors. ## Areas of Ethics As a branch of philosophy that examines and reflects about morality, ethics is usually categorized into three general subject areas: metaethics, normative ethics, and applied ethics. Metaethics, also known as analytic ethics, looks into the nature, meaning, scope, and foundations of moral values and discourses. The term "meta" means after or beyond; and, thus, metaethics involves an abstract and detached way of thinking philosophically about morality. It attempts to shed light on the basic ideas, concepts, and assumptions that underlie our moral beliefs and judgments. If the other two areas focus directly on the question what is moral, metaethics focuses on the more fundamental question what morality itself is in the first place. For this reason, metaethics is also occasionally referred to as "second-order" moral theorizing, to distinguish it from the "first-order" level of normative theory. The first part of this book is devoted to metaethics as it inquires about fundamental queries on morality-What is the nature of moral claims? How is morality distinct from other normative standards? Is morality objective or relative? Who have moral rights? What does it mean to be morally accountable? Metaethical positions respond to these questions by examining the basic meanings, ideas and connotations involved in moral discourse. They shed light on issues pertaining to the status of moral beliefs and judgments, the conditions of moral personhood and accountability, and other concepts that lie underneath the subject of morality. Normative ethics, tackled in the second part of the book, is concerned with the moral standards to determine right from wrong conduct. It involves the formulation of moral norms or rules that can serve as basis of the kind of actions, institutions, and ways of life that we should pursue. Theories proposed to answer what moral standards should govern human action usually fall into three broad categories, namely, a) consequentialism, b) deontology, and c) virtue ethics. These represent the three aspects of an action that are often considered in judging an action's moral rightness (or wrongness): its consequences, the rule it follows (or violates), and the character of the person performing it. The third area of ethics is applied ethics, which is the subject of the third part of this book. Its thrust is to examine the particular issues in both the personal and social spheres that are matters of moral judgment. Focusing on the more practical concerns of ethics, it uses philosophical methods to determine the moral permissibility of specific actions and practices. By using the conceptual tools of metaethics and normative ethics, applied ethics attempts to analyze, clarify, and shed light on various ethical issues with the goal of guiding our moral judgment. Some issues in applied ethics pertain to public policy and the professions. In recent decades, new specializations in applied ethics have arisen in diverse fields: business, medicine, environmental policies, law, and the media. Other issues focus on personal concerns in everyday life, such as those pertaining to life, health, sex, and relationship. Before we delve into the basic concerns of metaethics in this chapter, it is important to note that there is another study of morality known as descriptive ethics; however, this is not considered an area of moral philosophy. Descriptive ethics endeavors to present to us what people think about right and wrong, how they behave, or how they reason about ethics. As such, it incorporates researches from the fields of anthropology, psychology, sociology, and history as part of the process of understanding the moral norms that people follow or believe in. But it is not considered a philosophical study of ethics since it does not aim to establish what should be the case-what people ought to do, what moral standards should regulate human acts, how we should view morality. Rather, descriptive ethics aims to establish what the case is. It attempts to describe or explain the world rather than prescribe what the world should be. For example, anthropologists tell us that some tribes in India practice throwing babies from the temple roof 30 to 50 feet high to be caught in a blanket held by a group of men on the ground. But anthropology, as such, does not try to determine whether it was morally right for these tribes to endanger the lives of these babies by throwing them from the temple roof. Ethics, on the other hand, tries to answer the question of whether such practice is right or wrong. It is not descriptive but normative-it asks how people should live, anthropology asks how people in fact live. Like anthropology, sociology is interested in morality in so far as it wants to find out the set of moral beliefs and practices that a particular group or society follows. It may even compare the moral beliefs of one culture to that of another. But it does not seek to establish whether this or that moral belief is sound or not. Psychology studies morality in terms of its being a component of human development. It attempts to describe how the person's sense of moral responsibility develops. But while it explains how a person makes moral judgment and what factors affect it, it does not tackle the correctness, cogency, or defensibility of moral judgments. ## B. Nature of Moral Statements To better understand ethics' normative character as a study of morality, it is important to understand the nature of claims that pertain to morality which we will label moral statements. Such clarification is important in understanding how these statements should be justified or how they should be evaluated as acceptable or unacceptable. This will also shed light on the difference of morality from law, etiquette, and religion. ### Moral Statements as Normative Statements Moral statements are categorized as normative statements rather than factual statements. A normative statement expresses a value judgment, a kind of judgment that claims that something ought to be the case as distinct from a factual judgment that claims that something is the case. As such, when one makes a normative statement, he/she presents an evaluative account of how things should be rather than what things are. Thus, we assess the correctness of normative statements by looking at certain criteria, standards or norms instead of focusing on empirical data. However, as can be seen in the examples below, aside from moral statements, there are various kinds of normative statements that have their corresponding basis of assessment: | Normative Statement | Basis of Assessment | |---|---| | You ought to return the excess change to the cashier. | Moral standard | | There should be unity, balance, and contrast in your painting. | Aesthetic standard | | You ought to use the preposition "in" rather than "on." | Grammatical standard | | It is illegal to make a U-turn there. | Legal standard | | Cover your mouth when you laugh. | Standard of etiquette | As mentioned above, since a factual statement expresses a claim that something is the case, its claim can be empirically assessed as true or false based on either research, observation, or experiment. For example: | Factual Statement | Basis of Assessment | |---|---| | The Philippine Independence day was declared on June 12, 1946. | Historical research | | Some tribes in India practice cannibalism. | Observation | | The cause of the fish kill in the river is pollution from agricultural biotoxins. | Scientific research | | A blue litmus paper will turn red when dipped in an acid solution. | Experiment | Normative statements differ from factual statements in the way they are justified, confirmed, or assessed. We appeal to certain standards when we deal with normative statements. On the other hand, we appeal to the results of research, experiment, or observation when we deal with factual statements. It can be noticed on the above examples that normative statements are of various kinds, not only those pertaining to morality. Some pertain to the standards of visual arts, grammar, law, etiquette, religion, etc. We will elaborate on the distinction of moral statements from these other normative statements in the next section. Here, we will focus mainly on the normative nature of moral claims. Since a moral statement is a normative statement rather than a factual one, it cannot be justified by merely appealing to facts, empirical evidences, or data. Although providing facts may be significant in justifying a moral claim, this remains insufficient. Consider the following argument: According to a study of ten countries that enforce the death penalty, the rate of criminality in these countries went down after it has been enforced. Therefore, it is morally right to enforce the death penalty. The premise supporting the above moral claim is a statement of fact. This statement is established by gathering statistical data to arrive at a factual claim. However, to make a moral conclusion that imposing the death penalty is right needs more than merely providing a factual statement or information. There is a need to connect the factual statement with the moral conclusion by supplying certain moral standards or principles such as "An act is right if it promotes the greater good of the people." Thus, the moral argument should be: Imposing the death penalty will lower the rate of criminality in our society and thus will be beneficial to the greater number of people. An act is right if it promotes the greater good of the greater number. Therefore, imposing the death penalty is right. The moral principle (second statement) added as a premise in the argument is not factual by nature. It was not derived from appealing to research or experiment. But without citing this moral standard, the fact that death penalty has brought down the rate of criminality in countries that have imposed it, cannot suffice to justify that death penalty should be imposed. This point can be explained more by stating that though some people may also accept or agree with the fact that death penalty can reduce the rate of criminality in our society, they still hold that it is morally wrong to impose the death penalty as they believe that the right to life of a human being is sacred and inviolable. Thus, despite the greater good to society that the imposition of death penalty may bring about, others would still regard it as morally unacceptable We can see here that determining the rightness or wrongness of imposing the death penalty does not lie only on establishing certain facts but deciding what moral standards or principles to follow-pursuing the greater good or respecting the human rights of individuals. One accepts a moral claim not by looking at the facts alone. One agrees or disagrees with a moral claim on the basis of the moral standard he/she follows or believes in. Such distinction of factual and moral statements suggests that factual statements are easier to settle than moral statements, since the basis of the latter (for being true or false) is objective. That is, if there is a disagreement between two people whether the rate of criminality had gone down this year compared to last year, or whether a drug can cure a particular disease, the results of scientific research can clearly determine who is correct and who is mistaken. However, it is said that disagreements on moral claims-whether we should allow homosexual marriage or not, whether euthanasia is permissible or not-are more difficult, if not impossible, to settle or to be given any final resolution. It is for this reason that moral claims are said to be relative and their acceptability lies on one's personal opinion or cultural beliefs. Although this question of whether moral claims are relative or not will be extensively discussed in a later section of this chapter, it is worth mentioning at this point that it is a mistake to think that moral statements are always difficult to justify, and their acceptability is always subjective to the individual. The claim "It is morally wrong to torture a person for fun" or the assertion "It is morally right to give aid to typhoon victims" is not difficult to justify. It is also incorrect to think that issues dealing with factual claims are always easy to resolve or uncontroversial. Certain factual statements like "Humans evolved from primitive primates," "Imposing the death penalty will deter murder,” and “Aliens from other planets have visited the earth" are controversial and their truth (or falsity) is not easy to establish. Therefore, we cannot distinguish moral and factual statements in terms of the degree of difficulty disagreements about them can be resolved. What is clear, however, is the basis by which we determine the acceptability of these statements for factual statements we appeal to empirical data through research and observation; for moral statements, like other normative statements, we appeal to norms and standards. ### Moral Statements and Moral Standards After distinguishing moral from factual statements, it is now easier to understand the difference of moral statements from other normative statements. We have seen earlier that aside from moral statements, there are other statements that are normative, that is, those that are justified and accepted based on standards rather than facts. However, the standards used to justify normative statements are not moral standards. The standards of etiquette by which we judge manners as good or bad, the standards of law by which we judge an action to be legally right or wrong, the standards of language by which we judge what is grammatically right and wrong, the standards of aesthetics by which we judge good and bad art, and the athletic standards by which we judge how well a basketball or a football game is being played these standards are not moral standards. So how can we distinguish moral standards from non-moral standards? Addressing this question can shed light to how different moral statements are from other normative statements, as well as how distinct morality is from etiquette, law, and religion. Ethicists have identified a number of characteristics that speak of the nature of moral standards. Although each of these characteristics may not be unique to moral standards, if taken together, they can distinguish moral standards from non-moral standards. First, moral standards deal with matters that we think can seriously harm or benefit human beings. The conventional moral norms against cheating, lying, and killing deal with actions that can gravely hurt people. Whether human dignity is respected or degraded, work conditions are safe or dangerous, and products are beneficial or detrimental to our health are matters that affect human well-being. The standards that govern our conduct in these areas are moral standards. Second, moral standards have universal validity. They apply to all who are in the relevantly similar situation. If it is morally wrong for a person A to do act X, then it is wrong to do X for anyone relevantly similar to P. This characteristic is exemplified in the moral rule: "Do not do unto others what you would not have them do unto you." If we believe that killing a person is morally wrong, then we expect that people in other places follow the same belief, regardless of their culture or religion. In comparison, other standards are only valid to a particular group governed by such standards. The rule on fasting at certain times is observed in some religions but not to other religions or to non-believers. Etiquettes such as not wearing red in a funeral or taking off your shoes when entering a house are practiced in some cultures but not to others. Third, moral standards are generally thought to have a particularly overriding importance, that is, people feel they should prevail over other values. A violation of the moral rule against killing or stealing is more important than a violation of the rules of etiquette or of grammar. Similarly, a moral judgment weighs more than an aesthetic judgment. Moral claims are also more important than claims pertaining to law. Thus, laws are questioned when they are thought to be unjust or are contrary to moral standards. Moreover, legislators determine what laws to enact on the basis of certain moral principles such as common good, respect for human dignity, fairness, and justice. This point will be elaborated more in the next section when we discuss morality and law. Fourth, moral standards are not established by the decisions of authoritarian bodies, nor are they solely determined by appealing to consensus or tradition. While laws and legal standards are established by the authority of the legislature, religious beliefs and practices are taught by the Church fathers and scholars, rules of etiquette emanate from tradition and consensus, moral standards, however, are not established by a particular authority. Instead, the validity of moral standards lies on the adequacy of reasons that support or justify them. So long as these reasons are adequate, the standards remain valid. Guided by these characteristics of moral standards, let us look into how, in particular, morality differs from law, etiquette, and religion. These three are often identified with morality, since these are also institutions and customs that lay down certain norms that serve as our basis in determining what we ought to do and not do. ## C. Morality and Other Normative Subjects ### Morality and Etiquette Etiquette refers to the set of rules or customs that determine the accepted behaviors in a particular social group. Following these rules makes us show respect and courtesy to others. In eating out, for example, one should wait until all the people on the table have been served before he/she starts eating. Of course, there are various areas in our social life where our courtesy to others is expected. Aside from dining, we have etiquette at certain occasions such as baptism and funeral, we have etiquette on riding a public transportation, doing business, and even communicating (thus, we need to also observe certain rules in the more modern ways of communicating such as sending emails and posting in social media.) But these so-called rules of etiquette vary from one culture to another. What may be an accepted behavior in one culture may not be in another. Etiquette is different from morality in that the former is concerned with proper behavior while the latter with right conduct. Etiquette is also more arbitrary and culture-based than morality. To get others' approval of our action, to be thought of well by people, and to show respect to them, we try to observe common rules of etiquette. Violating the rules can lead society to consider you ill-mannered, impolite, or even uncivilized-but not necessarily immoral. Making loud slurping sound when taking noodles or not closing your mouth as you chew your food may result to being called impolite or being perceived as lacking in manner, but they are not basis for claiming that one is acting immorally. In the same way, it does not necessarily mean that following what etiquette demands is acting morally. Shaw (2002) pointed out that scrupulous observance of rules of etiquette can camouflage moral issues. Before the laws against racial discrimination were enacted in the America, it was thought that it is bad manners for blacks and whites to eat together or to sit side by side in a bus. But for one who believed that such rule of etiquette is rooted in racial discrimination and human degradation, promoting or simply conforming to such rule does not amount to doing the moral thing. Such was the point shown by a 42-year-old black woman named Rose Parks when she was asked to give up her seat for a white man and refused. Though she may not comply with the social expectation, she stood her ground knowing that she has not done anything immoral. On the contrary, she believed she was doing the morally right thing to do as she fought for equality and fairness. Though morality and etiquette are not synonymous with each other, there is a relationship between the two since both concern human action. For example, disregarding or scorning etiquette can be considered immoral in certain circumstances. There can be different ways of greeting a person among various cultures. In Japan people greet each other by bowing, and their bows differ in angle and duration depending on the person they are greeting. In Oman, men greet each other by pressing their noses together. In Thailand, people greet each other by pressing their hands together in the fashion of a prayer and slightly bowing their heads. But as pointed out by Pojman (1999), once the custom is adopted, the practice takes on the importance of a moral rule, subsumed under the wider principle of showing respect to people. In Islamic societies, standards of modesty call for a woman to cover her body, particularly her chest. Thus, some Muslim women wear hijab or a scarf that covers the head and neck and falls below the level of the shoulders to cover the upper chest area. Muslims who follow this practice believe that it protects women's dignity and promote modesty. Although there is nothing immoral for a non-Muslim woman to wear sleeveless blouse or skimpy clothes, appearing in such an outfit in a Muslim community may well be so offensive that it is morally insensitive or scandalous. ### Morality and Law Like etiquette, law also regulates human conduct, which is why it is often confused with morality. We ought not to exploit the weak, deceive another person, or take what is not ours because these acts are morally and legally wrong. The moral imperative not to kill a person coincides with the legal imperative not to commit murder or homicide. Law and morality, however, are different. Breaking the law is not always an immoral act, just as following the law is not necessarily doing what is morally right. Let us take an example to illustrate this point. Suppose your mother suffered a heart attack and she needed to be brought to the hospital immediately. You took her in your car and rushed her to the hospital driving at a speed of 100 kph. Although you are prohibited by law to drive at more than 60 kph on that road, it does not seem morally right for you to follow the law and drive at that speed limit knowing that doing so will jeopardize the life of your mother. Driving the car at that speed may break the law, but is morally right. It can also be said that an action that is legal can be morally wrong. For instance, abortion may be legal in a particular country, but the question whether it is morally right to commit an abortion remains an issue; thus, some of its citizens may stage a protest or demonstration urging the state to respect the right to life of the unborn. Or when Janet Napoles, the alleged mastermind behind the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) scams, repeatedly invoked the right to self-incrimination, thus evading the questions and being mum on what she knew about the politicians who were involved in corruption. It may be legal to remain silent rather than to tell the truth, but such act jeopardizes truth and justice, and thus is morally questionable. In those cases, it is clear that certain actions may be in accordance to the law, but not morally right. Despite their differences, how are law and morality related to each other? We can say that in many cases, laws are based on morality. We determine what laws to adopt or enact on the basis of certain moral principles. RA 9211 or the Tobacco Regulation Act of 2003 which prohibits people from smoking in public places is based on the moral principle of the greater good for the greater number. Since law is derived from morality, people tend to equate what is lawful with what is moral. To a significant degree, law codifies a society's moral ideals and values. But we should not see what is lawful and what is moral as identical for, as pointed out by Shaw (2002), "law cannot cover the wide variety of possible individual and group conduct, and in many situations it is too blunt an instrument to provide moral guidance." (p. 6). Laws may be enacted, amended, or repealed by legislators to protect their vested interests, and may not really be beneficial to the general welfare. One may wonder why the Anti-Political Dynasty bill which aims to remove the concentration of political power within a particular clan has been proposed in the Philippine Congress several times already, but has not gotten the nod of the legislators. It can be surmised that enacting such law will be detrimental to the interests of those political personalities in the Congress. ### Morality and Religion Despite their difference, morality is often identified with religion. In various societies around the world, religion has so much influenced the moral life of the people so as to be seen as indistinguishable from morality. A Christian forgiving those who offended him/her mindful of Christ's commandment of love; a Jew preparing and consuming food based on the law of Kosher; a Muslim giving alms to the needy according to the fourth pillar of Islam-these moral practices of most of humanity throughout the ages are testaments to how morality has become identified with conformity to God's command. Indeed, religion, like law, is related to morality. But unlike law which is often based on morality, religion is generally perceived to be the basis of morality. People tend to think that what is right can be derived from religious beliefs and teachings. Because this line of thinking is anchored on the idea that God is the source of goodness, living a moral life, then, is achieved by adhering to God' will, while acting immorally is basically disobeying God. But should morality be based on religion? This question was asked in as early as Plato's the Euthyphro, in which Socrates asks the pious Euthyphro, “Do the gods love goodness because it is good, or is it good because the gods love it?" Following the point of question raised by Socrates, we want to know whether God commands what is good because it is good, or whether the good is good because God commands it. Although religion gives moral basis and direction to people, thinking that morality depends on religion raise some problems. First, the moral directives given by the world's great religions are general and imprecise. People encounter moral dilemmas in particular situations or contexts that demand specific moral precept. For example, Christianity teaches its believers "Thou shalt not kill.” However, even with such directive, there remains a disagreement among Christians whether imposing death penalty is morally justified, or whether legalizing abortion is morally permissible, or whether administering euthanasia to a patient in an irreversible vegetative state is morally right. These moral situations cannot be resolved by a general moral admonition not to kill. There are certain specific issues and factors that must be considered which have a lot of weight in determining whether an act is good or bad. The Bible fails to give unambiguous answers to specific moral problems humanity confronts. What do religions say regarding more complex yet specific moral issues of today's world such as artificial reproduction, genetic engineering or the use of animals in research? We will remain inquiring what God expects us to do. Second, can we really be certain what God wants us to do? We know that there are different religions the world over. These religions may vary in terms of their moral doctrines and practices. There are cases when they have conflicting answers to certain moral questions. If one depends on the moral teachings of the religion he/she belongs to, how can he/she deal with the moral beliefs of people from other religions especially when they conflict with his/her own moral beliefs? There should be a basis of morality that transcends religious boundaries, lest we fail to carry out an objective rational moral discussion with people from other religions. Third, as rational beings we are doing ourselves a disservice if we simply base our judgment of right and wrong on what our religion dictates. We ought not to think or reason anymore if morality is dependent on the teachings of the Church. We merely have to know what our religion says about a certain moral issue and conform to it. But are we leading a rational life if this is how we view morality? What is our faculty of reason for? This point becomes more pronounced when we find ourselves in certain times when what we believe to be right (or wrong) does not conform to the church stand on the issue. In the past, the Catholic Church's stand on the persecution of heretics, the Crusade movement, and the Inquisition have been questioned even by its own members. Its view on homosexual relationship and artificial contraception may not find support to all Catholics. Although we are not saying that the Church's teachings on these matters are unsound or wrong, it is important to understand that an authentic sense of morality must not merely rely on religion. Indeed, religion can guide us in making moral judgment and leading a moral life, but morality should transcend religion. Ultimately, it is a matter of reason rather than mere adherence to religion. ## D. The Issue of Ethical Relativism As mentioned in the previous section, the moral beliefs and practices of people are greatly influenced by the environment that surrounds them. How the individual was brought up and the social and cultural elements that the person was exposed to contribute to his/her understanding and judgment of what is right and wrong. Given such phenomena, can we conclude that morality is relative, that is, what is right varies from one person to another or from one culture to another? Or is morality objective, that is, what is right is based on a universal principle that applies to all people regardless of culture, religion, or ideology? This is one major meta-ethical issue in philosophy which this section will address. The view which holds that all moral principles are valid relative to a particular society or individual, is called ethical relativism. It is to be distinguished from ethical skepticism-which claims that there are no valid moral principles at all (or at least we cannot know whether there are any) and from ethical objectivism which asserts that there are universally valid moral principles binding on all people. According to the relativist perspective, the rightness or wrongness of an act depends on the moral norms of society or the moral inclinations of the individual, and no absolute standard exists by which differing rules or inclinations can be judged. So, what is morally right for a Chinese society may be morally wrong in an American society, just as what is morally right for Pedro might be morally wrong for Juan. From this description, we can infer that there are two forms of ethical relativism: cultural ethical relativism and individual ethical relativism. According to the former, also known as ethical conventionalism, the rightness or wrongness of an action depends on society's norms. According to the latter, also known as ethical subjectivism, the rightness or wrongness of an action lies on the individual's own commitments. Of the two, cultural ethical relativism has been considered the more acceptable and reasonable version and it will be the main focus of this section. But let us briefly say something about individual ethical relativism, and why it has gained little support. Individual ethical relativism holds that the basis of what is morally right or wrong ultimately lies on the person's own standard, and there is no objective standard outside the individual's perspective by which his/her moral belief or standard can be judged. According to this view, a moral judgment or claim merely implies an attitude, opinion, preference or feeling held by someone. Although social and cultural factors can come to play in the formation of one's personal attitudes and preferences, what the theory recognizes is that they constitute the individual's notion of what is morally right and wrong. In the end, the individual is left with a personal standard of morality. In individual ethical relativism, an act is morally right or wrong depending on the approval or disapproval of the person of interest. In this line of thought, deceiving customers to gain profit from a business may be morally right for one but morally wrong for another. But objectively, it is neither right nor wrong. It is different from one individual to another. In a way, this form of relativism follows the view of Protagoras, expressed in his famous statement “man is the measure of all things," which holds that there are as many distinct scales of good and evil as there are subjects in the world. Though individual ethical relativism stands on basic arguments that also support cultural ethical relativism, the former encounters strong resistance from different camps, even from cultural relativists themselves, due to its radical stance on the subjectivism of morality. Often, those who oppose this view would say that treating moral judgments like taste or aesthetic judgments which are relative to the individual renders morality a useless concept, since little or no interpersonal criticism or judgment is possible. Suppose you heard a news of a policeman killing a suspected teenage drug-user, and were repulsed by such act. Following individual ethical relativism, you cannot condemn the officer if his ethical belief is that it is permissible to kill people who have become dependent on illegal drugs to solve the drug problem in our society. In the same way, we are not in a position to judge Adolf Hitler's obsession to annihilate the Jews as morally wrong. In fact, on the basis of ethical subjectivism, Hitler could be considered as moral as Gandhi, so long as each lived by his own standards. Each individual person is the measure of moral judgment. But such view is difficult for a rational mind to accept since it contradicts the very concept of morality it is supposed to characterize. Morality has to do with resolving interpersonal dispute or conflict among individuals in order to promote the good life. It aims to prevent a Hobbesian state of nature wherein life is "solitary, nasty, poor, brutish and short." However, in individual ethical relativism morality cannot do this for there is no interpersonal basis by which to judge whether