General Education Ethics PDF

GENERAL EDUCATION ETHICS RYAN M. CASTRO RYAN M. CASTRO i|Page Copyright © 2024 Ryan Mangune Castro. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or used in any manner without the prior written permission of the copyright owner. Table of Contents Table of Contents......................................................................................................................................... ii Introduction................................................................................................................................................. 1 The Question of Ethics............................................................................................................................ 1 What is Ethics?................................................................................................................................... 2 Freedom and Responsibility: Determinism and Willing....................................................................... 3 Human Acts: Only Man can become Ethical....................................................................................... 6 Human Action and the Acts of Man..................................................................................................... 7 What is a Moral Dilemma?.................................................................................................................. 8 Activities for Introduction....................................................................................................................11 Chapter I................................................................................................................................................... 12 The Rise of Ethics and Morality............................................................................................................ 12 The Problem of Culture and Moral Codes......................................................................................... 14 Social Order and the Benefits of Morality through the lens of the Enlightenment............................. 16 Moral Principles................................................................................................................................. 18 Kohlberg’s Stages of Moral Development......................................................................................... 18 Activities for Chapter 1...................................................................................................................... 21 Chapter II.................................................................................................................................................. 22 The Moral Agent.................................................................................................................................... 22 Culture: its role in developing moral behavior................................................................................... 23 Values, Norms, and Virtues............................................................................................................... 25 Filipino Culture and the Crisis and Challenge of Philosophy............................................................. 27 Acquisition of Knowledge.................................................................................................................. 29 Activities for Chapter 2...................................................................................................................... 34 Chapter III................................................................................................................................................. 35 Human Beings Are Intermediate Beings That Brings Mediation to All Levels of Reality........................ 35 The Possibility of Fault: Knowing, Feeling and Acting....................................................................... 36 The Requirement of Impartiality and Mediation................................................................................. 39 The Seven Steps for Moral Reasoning............................................................................................. 41 Activities for Chapter 3...................................................................................................................... 46 Chapter IV................................................................................................................................................. 47 Frameworks of Ethics............................................................................................................................ 47 The Key Ethical Theories...................................................................................................................... 47 Virtue Ethics.......................................................................................................................................... 48 ARISTOTLE 384-322........................................................................................................................ 48 Aristotle Takes on Ethics................................................................................................................... 49 Moral and Intellectual Virtue.............................................................................................................. 50 ii | P a g e Copyright © 2024 Ryan Mangune Castro. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or used in any manner without the prior written permission of the copyright owner. Happiness......................................................................................................................................... 50 Pleasure............................................................................................................................................ 51 Self-Deception and Fascination........................................................................................................ 52 Happiness and the Person................................................................................................................ 53 Natural Law........................................................................................................................................... 56 ST. THOMAS AQUINAS (1225-1274)............................................................................................... 57 Aquinas's Interpretation of Aristotle’s Notion of Causes.................................................................... 57 Four Causes of Aristotle and St. Thomas Four Laws and Causes.................................................... 60 The Seven (7) Basic Goods in the Natural Law................................................................................ 61 Deontology............................................................................................................................................ 63 IMMANUEL KANT (1724-1804)........................................................................................................ 63 Kantian Ethics................................................................................................................................... 64 The Categorical Imperative............................................................................................................... 65 Utilitarianism......................................................................................................................................... 70 Jeremy Bentham (1748–1832).......................................................................................................... 70 Hedonic Calculus of Jeremy Bentham.............................................................................................. 71 John Stuart Mill (1806-1873)............................................................................................................. 72 Mill’s Interpretation of Utilitarianism................................................................................................... 73 Theory of Justice................................................................................................................................... 74 John Rawls (1971-2002)................................................................................................................... 74 Background of “A Theory of Justice”................................................................................................. 74 The Just and Unjust: Rawls foundation of justice.............................................................................. 75 The liberty and difference principles.................................................................................................. 77 Activities for Chapter IV..................................................................................................................... 83 Chapter V.................................................................................................................................................. 85 Ethics in Real-Life Issues...................................................................................................................... 85 Environmental Ethics........................................................................................................................ 85 Animal Rights.................................................................................................................................... 89 Bioethics........................................................................................................................................... 91 Activities for Chapter V...................................................................................................................... 93 Bibliography.............................................................................................................................................. 94 iii | P a g e Copyright © 2024 Ryan Mangune Castro. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or used in any manner without the prior written permission of the copyright owner. iv | P a g e Copyright © 2024 Ryan Mangune Castro. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or used in any manner without the prior written permission of the copyright owner. Introduction The Question of Ethics “The story of one person is the story of everyone, and one man’s quest is the quest of all of humanity.1” You may wonder, what is the point of understanding the different ethical perspectives of Aristotle, the ancient Greek philosopher who believed in the concept of virtue ethics, St. Thomas, the medieval theologian who developed the natural law theory; Immanuel Kant, the Enlightenment philosopher who proposed the deontological ethics, Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, the utilitarian philosophers who advocated for the greatest happiness principle, and John Rawls, the contemporary philosopher who introduced the theory of justice as fairness in the restructuring of social institutions? Is one’s religion or personal notion of right and wrong not enough to address moral dilemmas and current issues? How did we qualify each philosopher, wherein there are different views on ethics? Is this because they are well-known ethicists, or maybe because the proponents of ethics specialized in them and failed to recognize the view of other ethicists? 1 One straightforward explanation to the above question is that it is impossible to have a perfect system of thought that immediately gives us the right decision and choice in a specific life event. We must understand that human reality is always situated in the framework of means and ends; it is not constituted in a linear reality between the I and the end. Understanding human existence is, therefore, a complex reality and an arduous endeavor. Being surrounded by a swarm of difficulties and an incomplete harmony makes understanding the human condition and its reality a maze, which is why we need a practical science to properly address what is important to us. For example, is it right to lie in order to protect someone from harm while violating our principles in life? Should our loyalty to our family, friends, and community take precedence over our duty to obey the law? Is it right to sacrifice the life of one person for the sake of saving hundreds of people? If this is right, 1 The purpose of this instructional material (IM) is to provide a students, faculties and practitioners of ethics and morality with a framework of analyzing, arriving at, and detailing answer to moral dilemmas. This IM was created out of the desire to provide a resources for PSAU students that can be customized to fit different contexts and can be updated by ethics faculties when needed. It was designed to be accessible to students who have litle to no background in ethics and philosophy. The different chapters in this IM are supported by examples that apply philosophical questions or concepts to make students develop their critical, creative and caring thinking. 1|Page Copyright © 2024 Ryan Mangune Castro. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or used in any manner without the prior written permission of the copyright owner. what if that person is the country's leader? Is it right to sacrifice him for the sake of the many? Such questions belong to a complex domain of moral reflection, where there is no simple solution. Our received ideas, customary approach, and gut feelings are insufficient and certainly lack the procedure to get things right. In this case, one must traverse the various means and ends to address such perplexity. The process includes the evaluation of various realities and processes directly or indirectly applied to ourselves as selves. On the other hand, since ethics has a long history that dates back to the time of the pre- Socratic philosophers, and studying the history of ethics (its richness and complexities) in a single semester is impossible since it springs from both Western and Eastern thoughts. The selection of the ethical theories is, therefore, because of their practicality and universality. We must understand that human beings turn to ethics because they face a serious moral difficulty that they hope to resolve or at least minimize the damage they can make from their decision or indecisions to the problem. They turn to the works of great philosophers since these people have trained and devoted themselves to this kind of situation. What is astonishing about their work is that they are practical, where everyone can quickly adopt and use their thought process and approach in moral dilemmas, and they are universal (their content, strategy, and structure) since they apply to various ethical issues. Moreover, understanding the works of Aristotle, St. Thomas Aquinas, Immanuel Kant, Jeremy Bentham, J.S. Mill, and John Rawls is not a matter of imitating or learning their works intellectually but about developing our own ethical perspective on life and providing reason for our actions. Through their works, one develops a keener sense of what does and does not matter from the lens of morality, which assists us in developing our moral compass. From Aristotle, we can learn that morality is about the development of human character and action. From St. Thomas, we can learn that our notion of good actually springs from our very nature, and we have a relationship with one another. From Kant, we can learn to treat others with respect and act universally. From Bentham and Mill, we can learn that the greatest happiness is for the greatest number of human beings, which is what matters. For Rawls, we can learn that justice begins by restructuring social institutions that emphasizes fairness and responsibility to others. What is Ethics? “Educating the mind without educating the heart is no education at all.” -Aristotle The most important question still bewilders us: What does ethics mean? One can define ethics as the understanding of right and wrong. However, we must remember that this is not a manual that immediately gives us the answer we look for in our experiences. In this case, ethics more of an exploration of how things become good and bad and how an action becomes right and wrong. In addition, if philosophy is defined as a disciplined and critical reflection on human experiences, ethics, which is part of philosophy, is a practical science that concerns the 2|Page Copyright © 2024 Ryan Mangune Castro. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or used in any manner without the prior written permission of the copyright owner. nature and purpose of human actions.2 It concerns moral views and standards that lead toward proper human action. Indeed, in the long run, we find ethics addressing the question of “what does it mean to be human?” To set the stage for this subject, one must remember that ethics has four branches that explain the differences in moral views and how they can assist human beings in attaining a good life. First, descriptive ethics refers to investigating moral standards that describe moral praxis. It describes and explains how moral deliberations occur. It serves as the initial approach, a prelude towards the different moral principles. Second, normative ethics determine how human beings ought to act and clarify how various principles should be interpreted, understood, explained, and applied to moral issues. It follows that there are three types of normative ethics. a) Deontology- pertains to the system of ethics that accords the good according to the morals, duties, or obligations. b) Teleological- pertains to the system of ethics that accords the good according to outcome or results. c) Virtue Ethics- pertains to the system of ethics that accords the good through the development of good habits of character. Third, meta-ethics refers to the study of the nature of ethical terms, statements, and judgments. It aims to explain and analyze moral judgment's meaning, reference, and truth values. Lastly, applied ethics pertains to the practical application of ethics in various disciplines. Consequently, the branches of ethics clarify that it differs from morality; they emphasize that ethics relates to the quality of goodness and or badness in a human act. It is through this quality that a basis, criterion, or standard by which goodness and badness are distinguished is created. While morality refers to individuals', societies', and groups' standards, principles, beliefs, and attitudes. To further understand morality and ethics, the notion of human act illuminates their differences. Freedom and Responsibility: Determinism and Willing It appears that before we can proceed to ethical thinking, a threatening reality emerges, hindering us from taking moral responsibility and, therefore, must be addressed. Accordingly, the view known as determinism makes moral responsibility a problem in our existence. This view implies that human beings do not possess free will. Everything is predetermined. There is an external force that manipulates human action. Thus, there can be no morality, and we are not responsible for anything we do. 3 Instead of us, it is the one who determines our fate. The one who manipulates and pulls the strings, who has to be blamed and praised for the outcomes of events For example, if an external being created the world and determines everything that occurs, does this mean if human dies, they will ascend to 3|Page Copyright © 2024 Ryan Mangune Castro. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or used in any manner without the prior written permission of the copyright owner. heaven and enjoy their afterlife there, since it is not their fault to commit various atrocities and mayhems to their fellow? They just fulfilled their role as determined by God. In contrast, libertarianism claims this is not the case; human beings have free will because they can make free choices, and if we go back to Aristotle’s notion of human beings. The agent causation tells us that we are free. If we further diagnose this situation, the idea of free will becomes a more problematic case. In this context, if we act freely, it indicates that we act according to our will. One can argue who causes that will that you will to the extent that the argument leads toward an infinite regress. Let us consider this case to understand the problem better. A series of killings happened in your town, and this has created uneasiness and terror in the town’s people. Every week, the cops keep on finding dead bodies, and the list of dead people just keeps on increasing. Upon close examination, the cop’s pathologist revealed a gruesome post-mortem finding- there is a pattern in the cause of death of the victims. All the victims died in the same way. When the townspeople found this, they concluded that there was a serial killer in your town, and they suspected that it was the other community who did it. As a judge, you now face the people's demand to bring the culprit before the court. Failure to comply will cause them to take the matter into their own hands, which could lead to bloody revenge on a particular community. In this case, what will you do? You are given a week to give them your answer. The above case imposes two things; first, if we follow the view of determinism, we have nothing to do since it is the determiner’s will that led us to this difficult situation. It was he who determined everything, and this means that those deaths and the killer were determined by him as well. Therefore, the blame must be on him since you and the people lack free will. Thus, this response appears too absurd, and moral responsibility becomes inapplicable. From the time of immemorial, philosophers and various thinkers alike have been convinced that there is a driving force behind our behavior, and free will is just an illusion that people often think of. Schopenhauer pointed out that “to act freely is to act under one’s will.”4 However, the chain of causes should not be neglected; even if there is an unwilled act, this is not free.5 Hence, it is this particular cause that causes us to will which determines our actions. This shows that the consequences of an action, whether good or bad, are not up to us; determinism imposes a covert manipulation on humans, making them exist like puppets controlled by a string. From another perspective, determinism also discloses that culture, values, customs, traditions, religions, races, and so forth limit free will. A person's upbringing strongly influences how they will act later in life. They serve as a pattern of behavior that limits the degree of having free will and moral responsibility. Indeed, determinism is supported by a sociological, psychological, and scientific view. However, this is not how things work in moral reality. Other philosophers, therefore, argue that this is not the case; there is a sliver of light on this problem of determinism and predictability. Accordingly, humans possess free will. If we follow the biblical narratives, we discover that God granted humans free will in their 4|Page Copyright © 2024 Ryan Mangune Castro. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or used in any manner without the prior written permission of the copyright owner. lives. Therefore, the state of having free will ensures that freedom and responsibility are in our hands since we are the master and source of that action. One might ask then what exactly “will” means or to say “as you will.” Will is more than the state of desire, emotions, needs, habits, etc. Will is what they solicit and affect. The will, borrowing Ricoeur’s words, is what brings order to the many involuntary as they solicit it; the “will,” in return, determines their significance by its choice (for willing is thinking), moves them by its effort (for willing is commanding oneself), and adopts them by its consent (for willing is our ability to receive and approve values).6 This is why when one speaks of willingness, we refer to our ability to open up possibilities in the network of the actual. It follows that since the self posits an equation of will, the action is his/mine. When I will, this means it is myself, and I am responsible for that action since I willed it. The outcome of my action is the object of my willingness. The moment I willed on something through the different aspects of myself, willing, is, first of all, a thrust, pro-ject, a leap, which is an act.7 This means that if we have free will, addressing the case above imposes that someone has to be taken before the court for trial. It is important to note here that the process of willingness has a hierarchy as well, where the will, which has its reasons, is at the top. As Ricoeur emphasized, “The will, in a single movement, determines both itself and the definitive form of its affective as well as its rational arguments. It imposes its decree on future existence and invokes its reason: the self resolves in light of….” 8 In this case, with human beings aiming for perfection and happiness, he realizes that his imperfections must be adjusted to fit a perfect society. It is important to note that despite the impossibility of having a perfect society, we aim to abate the effect of evil. To live in a just society where people can harmoniously co-exist and flourish is the nearly utopian society we could have. In this case, freedom and responsibility become synonymous to one another. Often, people associate the term freedom with the idea that they can do whatever they want. However, if this definition is practiced in society, it immediately becomes an aberrant situation. Regardless of the actions and consequences, doing anything creates tensions and conflicts with others. Suppose we follow the evolution of human beings from Darwin’s theory. In that case, it appears that the term homo sapiens is what is expected of us. The term “sapiens” refers to wisdom, while the term “homo” pertains to humans. Thus, we are expected to be a person of wisdom if we think of ourselves as homo sapiens. When we diagnose human existence, we find them “having motives and choice, and they have the freedom to create novelty in the act of choosing. 9” Human beings have sovereignty over their desires. They are willing beings and not just a passive victim of an alien nature.10 Clearly, freedom and nature have a unique relation that cannot be separated. They have a reciprocal relation in the context that freedom is incarnate in nature, while nature is what actualizes freedom; in return, freedom makes nature meaningful. The body is not a set of limitations imposed on us; instead, it is the organ or the means that make us actual. 11 This brings us toward the actualization of freedom that belongs to us, in subsisting in decision, power, and act affirms freedom. The act of transcending our limitations liberates freedom. What is remarkable in this event is that freedom remembers its integrity and deliverance. Thus, freedom gives rise to being where 5|Page Copyright © 2024 Ryan Mangune Castro. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or used in any manner without the prior written permission of the copyright owner. it is in each of our moments, activities, and receptivity. Ricoeur emphasized that “it constitutes itself in receiving what it does not produce: values, capacities and sheer nature.”12 In this case, to speak of willingness associated with our motives is to actualize one’s freedom. Understanding oneself, its finitude and infinitude, and the duality of soul and body gives us an understanding of what freedom is and how it is related to responsibility. When one understands that freedom has to be a reasonable consciousness, one realizes its responsibility, for the real defense of freedom lies in the imagination and consciousness.13 Human Acts: Only Man can become Ethical Following Aristotle’s ethics, he argues that only human beings can become ethical. Arguing that human beings amongst animals are the source of a specific action that imposes that being the source also indicates being the master of that action and, therefore, accountable or responsible. In this case, whatever action human beings do, regardless of its nature (either good or bad), humans are accountable for that action since the action is imputable to them.14 Let us further clarify Aristotle’s claim on human accountability by examining his notion of ethics through character development (êthos). The Greek word “ethika” and “êthos” indicates a straightforward definition. The latter means character, while the former means relating to character. Hence, to speak of character is to say what kind of person we are, and by that, we find something about our virtues or vices that we develop through habits and vices in our lifetime. According to Aristotle, habits develop when we repeatedly do an action. This means that habits are not innate but actions that have been habituated and are capable of being active. Thus, when one speaks of character, it refers to those that we repeatedly do. Clearly, speaking of character this way is too broad and spacious. However, there is an interesting line that separates vices and virtues in the attainment of character. According to Aristotle, the main factor determining us is the acquisition of powers- the natural aptitude that leads to happiness. In Nichomachean Ethics, Aristotle accords happiness in the activity that actualizes it, which accordingly are peculiar to human nature and practical at the same time. It follows that attaining happiness and developing character is not simply a matter of natural possession of relevant powers and capacities or the activity of reason 6|Page Copyright © 2024 Ryan Mangune Castro. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or used in any manner without the prior written permission of the copyright owner. alone. Instead, it is the actualization of these powers and capacities, an exercise that puts forth this to actual living. 15 In this way, we find character as a quality in accord with a prescriptive reason of the part of the soul that, though a non-rational part, is capable of following reason.16 Hence, if an action is done because of human beings' powers and capacities, all consequences are relatable to the source and master of that action. Human Action and the Acts of Man As mentioned above, not every human action can be called a human act. Some acts of man are similar to acts done by animals. This is why, for Aristotle, humans are also animals, for they share similar acts with animals- vegetative, perceptive, and emotive acts. They are called acts of man to distinguish them from our animal counterparts. In this case, human acts refer to acts appropriate to humans, which means they are voluntary- they are under our control or will and motivated by our reason and emotions. In this case, in evaluating human acts through the lens of ethics, we look at the following: 1. The voluntary acts of man. - These are actions that we have total control over; however, some acts depend on a specific situation where they are either allowed or prohibited by some laws or circumstances. 2. Acts done with knowledge and consent. - Actions done with knowledge and consent (voluntary acts) indicate that we are the master of our actions and we are aware of the consequence it has. Before taking any action in a given situation, we first evaluate what course of action is best for it. 3. Actions where we are conscious and under our control can be imputed to us. - All actions done according to our knowledge and consent can be imputed to us as the source and master of that action. We are responsible for that action, which tells us what kind of person we are. 4. Actions where we are the source and master. 5. Actions that are proper to human beings. - This kind of action is what distinguishes human beings from other animals. It is done with knowledge and free will. Here, we find the difference between ethics and morality. Ethics always pertain to evaluating our notion of goodness to produce the greatest good. It does not rely only on what society has prescribed, nor does it adhere to established rules and consider the merits of actions, but on what reason can illuminate to address the problem. In this way, ethics gives us a justified and reasonable course of action. Another difference that can be pinpointed is the differences in morality based on the cognitive development of human beings. As Khatibi and Khormaei noted, morality changes through personal development, which depends on the self's relation to their social contexts. 17 Thus, the difference between ethics and morality is that ethics recognizes that any social community is constituted by a wide range of moral positions with different ways of reacting to and 7|Page Copyright © 2024 Ryan Mangune Castro. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or used in any manner without the prior written permission of the copyright owner. constructing a personal notion of good based on their own social and cultural settings, and therefore allows the process of mediation of good Therefore, attaining goodness necessitates an unwavering effort to understand moral concepts and bring together diverse views on what is morally good. As Leovino Garcia noted, ethics comes before morality. It serves as our guide towards attaining happiness, and in a larger context, it makes every human free, civilized, and human. One can ask at this juncture, “Why do we need to study ethics?”. There are various answers we can draw from this question. One can respond by simply saying that we take up ethics because it is required for a college degree. Indeed, as college students may see it, ethics is a trivial subject, a minor subject, and less important to college goals. However, the true value and lesson of ethics lies in the future a person desires to have. The seed of ethics has to be first sown before it can be reaped. We must understand that in our journey, we will inevitably encounter a problematic question (a moral dilemma) that asks us whether it is morally right to do specific actions from which goodness and badness follow. Therefore, studying ethics is to prepare oneself to be good, especially when goodness is deeply needed in those dire situations. Indeed, we can follow different moral precepts that are already in us. However, there will be instances where the things incorporated into our ways of behaving and responding to ethical issues do not fit well with the problem, particularly that of a moral dilemma. What is a Moral Dilemma? A dilemma, also known as an ethical paradox or conundrum, is a situation that presents a difficult choice where none of the choices predominates the other but requires the agent to make a critical decision or choice. It follows that the available options entail goodness and badness at the same time. In this case, as various philosophers noted, moral dilemmas make the ethical principles we have learned, or those taught to us, conflict with other principles. It questions our very identity and nature as a human being. One can argue that if this is so, we should simply avoid this situation. Dilemmas, however, are inevitable realities of the human condition. No one knows when and where it will occur, and there will be a difference in context and content. It is a perplexing problem that tests our moral standards and our humanity at the very core. Accordingly, moral dilemmas have three kinds: personal, organizational, and structural. At this point, we must remember that the complexities of our human condition make moral dilemmas perplexing and require a difficult choice. Thus, making an ethical decision or choice requires distinguishing the differences and outcomes of competing choices. For example, is it morally right to sell the medicine you discovered for cancer, which has a 90% success rate, but if reverse-engineered, it can be used as a bomb that is twice as powerful as the atomic bomb? According to Montemayor, making a choice or decision to a particular dilemma is too tricky, where one is deemed to answer whether he likes it or not. In this case, to avoid terrible consequences, one’s decision has to fit under the following conditions. 1. The act in itself should be good. 8|Page Copyright © 2024 Ryan Mangune Castro. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or used in any manner without the prior written permission of the copyright owner. 2. The evil effect should not be intended but morally allowed as a side effect. 3. The act is supported and justified by reason. 4. The evil effect does not outweigh the good effect. Indeed, doing ethics is itself a problem, for the correct answer is highly disputed. However, if we analyze the acts of human beings, they always aim towards an end. All volitional activities are directed toward an end, which is the purpose of the act. However, one must be careful in determining the end, for it might just be the mean toward the end, which we attempt to address. Thus, this leads us to a more problematic state where happiness remains at a distance and vague. Indeed, what human beings aim at is no other than happiness, which is the ultimate end. It is the reason why we seek perfection. Nevertheless, before moving on to the ethical approach, let us leave this question of happiness for now. 9|Page Copyright © 2024 Ryan Mangune Castro. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or used in any manner without the prior written permission of the copyright owner. Notes 1 Paulo Coelho, Introduction, The Alchemist Graphic Novel (London, England: HarperCollins, 2010). 2 Anthony Kenny, Moral Philosophy: Virtue and Happiness, in “An Illustrated Brief History of Western Philosophy”, 2nd ed. (Wiley-Blackwell, 2010) 66-68. 3 Jonathan Wolff, Intuitive Belief in Free Will, in “An Introduction to Moral Philosophy an Introduction to Moral Philosophy,” 2nd ed. (New York, NY: WW Norton, 2020), 59-67. 4 Jonathan Wolff, Intuitive Belief in Free Will, in “An Introduction to Moral Philosophy an Introduction to Moral Philosophy,” 2nd ed. (New York, NY: WW Norton, 2020), 60. 5 See, Ishtiyaque Haji and Justin Caouette, eds., Free Will and Moral Responsibility (Newcastle upon Tyne, England: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2013). 6 Paul Ricoeur, Freedom and Nature: The Voluntary and the Involuntary (Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press, 2006), 5-53. 7 Paul Ricoeur, Freedom and Nature: The Voluntary and the Involuntary (Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press, 2006), 63. 8 Paul Ricoeur, Freedom and Nature: The Voluntary and the Involuntary (Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press, 2006), 67. 9 Paul Ricoeur, Freedom and Nature: The Voluntary and the Involuntary (Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press, 2006), xix. 10 Paul Ricoeur, Freedom and Nature: The Voluntary and the Involuntary (Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press, 2006), xxix. 11 Paul Ricoeur, Freedom and Nature: The Voluntary and the Involuntary (Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press, 2006), xv. 12 Paul Ricoeur, Freedom and Nature: The Voluntary and the Involuntary (Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press, 2006), 484. 13 Paul Ricoeur, History and Truth, trans. Charles A. Kelbley (Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press, 2006), xiii. 14 Aristotle, Eudemian Ethics, trans. C. Reeve (Cambridge, MA: Hackett Publishing, 2021), 22-23. 15 Aristotle, Aristotle Nicomachean Ethics (Mineola, NY: Dover Publications, 2016),iii-xviii. 16 Aristotle, Eudemian Ethics, trans. C. Reeve (Cambridge, MA: Hackett Publishing, 2021), 16. 17 The meaning of the term ethics is often seen as synonymous with the term morality. Nevertheless, various thinkers argue that there is a fine line of distinction between the two that makes them totally different. 10 | P a g e Copyright © 2024 Ryan Mangune Castro. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or used in any manner without the prior written permission of the copyright owner. Activities for Introduction 11 | P a g e Copyright © 2024 Ryan Mangune Castro. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or used in any manner without the prior written permission of the copyright owner. Chapter I The Rise of Ethics and Morality “Morality differs in every society and is a convenient term for socially approved habits.” - Ruth Benedict 1For thousands of years, human beings have attempted to address the questions about their origin and role in this world. Indeed, religion, philosophy, and science have provided different ways of addressing those questions. As humans with a strong sense of consciousness, we always aim to answer what does it mean to exist. However, as time passes, we have forgotten what our ancestors had given us and their answers to this sophisticated question. Our sense of responsibility to ourselves and others has drastically diminished. In this chapter, let us travel back to explore how our sense of responsibility began to rekindle our sense of self and humanity. Accordingly, before formal societies and governments exist, humans naturally co-exist with their fellow humans and their environment. However, with everything being free, where everyone is entitled to partake in all resources, which comes without any fee, an inevitable tragedy follows, leading to various conflicts and problems in human relations. 2 The overuse of the resources shared, used, and enjoyed by all leads to the destruction or depletion of the resource. If one carefully diagnoses this tragedy, one primary reason is the conflict of interest and the lack of rules governing the use of resources. To further understand this conflict, let us say, for example, that five people live together in a specific area. There is a fishpond that supplies them with food— assuming that the pond has ten (10) fish and multiplies twice daily. If those people only took one (1) fish for themselves, the pond would never run out of fish and would continue to supply them with fish. However, suppose one takes more than one (1) fish for himself. His action will significantly affect the flow of supply and demand. 12 | P a g e Copyright © 2024 Ryan Mangune Castro. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or used in any manner without the prior written permission of the copyright owner. This brings into view that there is always a conflict of interest between individuals. Human beings do what is in their best interest and fail to realize that their actions significantly affect human relationships. In this case, their vested interest Conflict creates conflict with the others, pushing them beyond the limits of survivability. of As our history has shown, despite this tragedy that befalls humans, there is an interesting reality about Interest them: human beings are naturally social beings. They tended to live and work in social groups. In fact, from the prehistoric period that speaks of human beings always being on the move, following herds of animals into empty lands, and up to the Stone Age, where they discovered how to use stones to make tools and weapons apt to the first farmers. Humans have a natural inclination to be with others. Multiple species coexisted, one example of this is the interbred of Homo sapiens and Neanderthals. 2 However, conflicts always shadow human reality. This is because they have conflicting interests that cause various conflicts and chaos. The preservation of their own life is what stands above others. In this case, the weak become oppressed and exploited. This is why we find in history why other tribes pillage or plunder other tribes. They attacked one village after the other due to the scarcity of their resources. In so doing, they address the problems of hunger and survival at the expense of destroying human relations and responsibility. Another critical reality we find in human beings as they form groups and alliances is their capability to use rules or standards of living to protect one another and maintain a harmonious society. This reality is attested by the shift of human history from tribal period to civilization. The earliest record of humans living together in towns and cities is the Indus civilization that existed around 2500 BCE. This is followed by the cradle of civilization that emerged in the southern part of Mesopotamia and the unification of cities that occurred in 2350 BCE, where Babylon became the capital; these are historical proofs of human beings' capability to live with others. What is astonishing about this event is that it marks the birth of rules or standards of living in early human settlement. Indeed, humans are, by nature, social beings and political animals. They decide the rules they will live by and set the goals they will pursue collectively. Nonetheless, this shift shows us that if everyone has everything they want and where everyone is good, there would be no such thing as morality and politics. 2See, Jane McIntosh, Early Human Shaping the World, in “Civilization: A History of the World in 1000 objects, (London: DK publishing, 2020), 12-56. 13 | P a g e Copyright © 2024 Ryan Mangune Castro. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or used in any manner without the prior written permission of the copyright owner. You might wonder at this point why we are leading towards the notion of politics wherein our subject is ethics. Morality and politics are actually related; the laws that people use are based on moral principles that people have agreed to prevent conflict and chaos from arising. This is what makes politics a noble activity. The law is the language of values a society holds that are crucial to its flourishing. It explains and justifies the development of ideas and concepts for defending social politics and governing people. Indeed, politics can be understood in various ways. However, one thing is clear: what makes it exist lies within human experience. Human beings always compete, struggle, and sometimes fight with others. So people, rather than accepting the terrible fate of being oppressed and exploited, agree to a system of rules for mutual benefit. Indeed, politics arises when a response is needed to the challenges of everyday life where morality is on the line. It also comes when an unavoidable reality needs to be recognized, particularly that of the collective action leading to flourishing or chaos. Hence, despite being noble, values can become useless if they are not exercised. The Problem of Culture and Moral Codes As Ruth Benedict pointed out, morality has a geographical accident relative to societies' purposes and motivations that highlight their culture. The rightness and wrongness of an action depend on social agreements, which vary from society to society.3 From the perspective of ethics, this is the one they call ethical relativism. It perceives that every culture has its own concept of right and wrong due to the beliefs and experiences that provide them with different orientations, values, and expectations. Indeed, culture is the historical material of society, while morality is the set of common rules, habits, and customs. The problem, however, is that there is no fine line of distinction between having a universal principle that would protect the rights of others since morality is acquired through social approval. This is similar to saying that individuals who act immorally do not have any need for morality. We must remember that as human civilization progresses, humans are still shadowed by conflict. Warfare between rival city-states had also emerged and disrupted peaceful societies. As McIntosh noted, the conflict between city-states referring to the early human civilization is reflected in their art, which 14 | P a g e Copyright © 2024 Ryan Mangune Castro. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or used in any manner without the prior written permission of the copyright owner. we now call artifacts.4 What is inscribed in them is the failure of early human beings to create a peaceful society that recognizes the rights and differences of people. It is the distinction of morality that varies from society to society, where ethics comes in and plays a crucial role. Thus, whatever the origin of morality is, if we only see it limited to what culture presents to get on with our lives. This reduces morality into a kind of social contract for a specific circle of people, and those outside the circle are not considered as equals who have rights as well. In such a condition, there is no place for others to be the constitutive paradox of the self since responsibility is limited to their own circle. Morality only has an instrumental value that only pertains to self-interest. As Rawls noted, any laws that deems to violate the rights of others must be abolished. As Rousseau pointed how is it even possible for human beings who are equal in strength, intelligence and power became a victim of a scoeity that enslaved the mass. Consider the following cases to grasp the meaning of a moral dilemma. 1) In Africa, there is a particular tradition where girls are circumcised- cutting out their clitoris. As research has shown, this is seen by Africans as a good act, and this is right because (1) it is a just sacrifice for marital stability, and (2) it prevents women from committing adultery. Nevertheless, millions of women have suffered and died from this practice. This imposes that women have no rights for pleasure, and those who are not part of their society should stay away from their cultural beliefs. 2) In order for a group of men to show their manhood in their society, they are required to cut the head of another person. This practice has been part of their society since the time of immemorial, and many people have lost their lives because of this practice. Does this justify that killing someone is good since it brings you your manhood in society? 3) As Rousseau noted, to address the scarcity of resources, society needs the privatization of property. However, human beings driven by self-interest failed to meet the purpose of the privatization of property. Instead of addressing the problem of scarce resources, they move to another direction. In addition, not everyone was given a property. Others, therefore, steal from others to feed themselves, while others sell themselves into slavery to make ends meet. In effect, the privatization of property also leads to various crimes since people are still oriented towards survivability and conflict of interest. Let us examine another set of views since the tragedy that befalls human beings raises many questions about our moral responsibility to others. Here, we find the Enlightenment period as an example, which introduced a new view on human existence and how morality would work in a society. We must remember that the transition between the Middle Ages and the Enlightenment is because of their different conceptions of human behavior and condition. Thus, the enlightenment thinkers believed that to suppress the self-interest of human beings and the rise of chaos in society, a system of government is needed, provided that it meets the needs of its citizens and promotes good behavior. 15 | P a g e Copyright © 2024 Ryan Mangune Castro. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or used in any manner without the prior written permission of the copyright owner. Social Order and the Benefits of Morality through the lens of the Enlightenment The problem of survivability and conflict of interest brings us to the role of a leader and government. As Hobbes emphasized, we need a leader who refers to the monarchs because human beings possess warlike DNA. There is evil in every human being, and in order to suppress it, a leader has to Without a common stand over them. Through a leader, people can unite and create power to keep them all in a life with a common goal. Without a common power to keep awe, they [men] are in that them all in awe and leave them ungoverned, they are all condition called war. disposed to chaos, for they will terrorize each other. For Thomas Hobbes example, there is a common enemy, a leviathan - a sea monster who can destroy a village. In this situation, people set aside their differences. They give up their personal liberties for the common good and unify themselves to defeat the monster. They enter into a certain contract to solve disputes. The social contract which all rational people accept prevents the cruel fate that awaits human beings. Thus, through their collective effort, human beings become triumphant over the monster since the destructive impulses of each individual are in check. According to Hobbes, this is what a leader should do. Even if there is no common enemy, he has to embody the Leviathan thinking; he has to unify the people and make them move and live in a specific direction. He has to maintain social order, unite the people, and make them live in a society that embodies a common goal. However, if we further evaluate this, Hobbes's theory for Locke is insufficient. For Locke, there will be leaders who will come into power and will not pursue The purpose of law is not to the good. In this case, if the leader fails his duty, the social abolish or restrain, but to contract is broken, leading us back to a state of nature. 3 Thus, we preserve and enlarge need a government that will protect people's basic rights- the right freedom. to life, liberty, and property, and not simply a leader that will John Locke govern us. For Locke, authoritarian rule is similar to civil disorder, that of being dangerous. The power to rule is not a matter of birth 3According to Hobbes, in the state of nature, all men are at war with one another. Thus, human beings always live in a constant state of fear from their fellow human beings. 16 | P a g e Copyright © 2024 Ryan Mangune Castro. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or used in any manner without the prior written permission of the copyright owner. right and divine will. The government's role is to preserve its citizens' rights and punish those who violate the rights of others. This is the main reason why people enter into a social contract. The government settles disputes and regulates disagreements among people, preventing conflicts by formulating laws. When there are no laws to govern people, this is like having no freedom. Locke added that the government must have a limited function and not an absolute one. Such a government is not enough, and we need, according to Montesquieu, a government that has a distinctive power and guarantees the protection of the rights of people. In this case, the government must be divided into three parts: legislative, executive, and judicial. In this way, people’s needs and concerns can be addressed appropriately since these powers are The deterioration of a separate and dependent on one another. This prevents the government begins almost overlapping of influence of one power to the other. Hence, this always by the decay of its maintains balance in the government. Montesquieu noted that principles. despotism is the greatest threat to the liberty of the citizens. Montesquieu On the other hand, Rousseau added that such a government cannot correctly work if the people do not participate in it. In this case, a social contract has to be made, an unwritten contract that every citizen follows and binds themselves to this contract. This is why a state will always have four parts that must work harmoniously: People, Territory, Government, and Sovereignty. Voltaire added the final recipe for the Enlightenment period: separating the church and the state, arguing that matters have to be settled against the view of the church. The religious context cannot fully address cultural differences, and society, in order for them to live harmoniously, must address the problems of differences away from the religious context. This brings us to the question of the nature of morality. For starters, we can look at morality this way: moral judgment is supported by reason and considers each individual’s interests. This means that when a person follows morality, he needs to be a conscientious moral agent who follows the nature of morality. He does do something without thinking and considering the interests of others. However, when one speaks of an ethical person, this is also the same; however, it goes beyond reason and considers the other essential structure of the self in understanding a certain situation. Let us examine the following scenarios to better understand the difference between ethics and morality. In Karl Marx's theory of Capitalism, he presents class consciousness and struggle, the problem of exploitation, inequality of people, surplus value, and alienation in the 19th century. In Marx's theory, there is a failure to recognize the other as human. The working class is viewed as the lower class, and their work alienates them, which indicates the failure of responsibility among the upper class. Consequently, these sets of realities still manifest themselves in the 21st century. Nevertheless, Marx noted, “society does not consist of individuals, but expresses the sum of interrelations, the relations within which these individuals stand. 5” Another reality we can examine to show how ethics and morality existed is the Great Holocaust. Here, the life of the human being is not what is important; it is the view that the other is superior and the other is inferior to them. If we examine this event, it is evident that the creation of class status brings further chaos in society. We see and judge people 17 | P a g e Copyright © 2024 Ryan Mangune Castro. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or used in any manner without the prior written permission of the copyright owner. in terms of differences and not what is universal to all humans, which is the right to life and what they can contribute to societal progress. The prejudice or bias we have toward others is a form of illness that we inflict on others, destroying human relations and disrupting human progress as a whole. As an outcome of the war, various thinkers, like Paul Ricoeur, Emanuel Levinas, and Hannah Arendt, renewed their interest in ethics and the human condition to help the next generation understand human relations and humanity. They argue that ethics is about the character that must guide us in becoming human beings. Indeed, ethics has a massive benefit in our practical and everyday life. Through it, we free ourselves from prejudice and dogmatism by making us aware of the various conditions of human existence. Let us look at the existential structure of human beings to understand the problem of the human condition further. According to Ricoeur, the existential structure of human beings comprises three essential structures- thinking, feeling, and acting. These structures make us capable of being human and, at the same time, capable of attaining the humanity in us. Moral Principles Moral principles are practical guides to human action. Through them, goodness gets a rational explanation that separates them from accepted beliefs and a conventional idea of good. One can ask how moral principles do this. The answer lies in its specific character. A moral principle, accordingly, is (1) prescriptive, (2) universal, (3) authoritative, (4) publicity, and (5) it requires commitment and critical reflection. 6 It is prescriptive because it is collectively created and agreed upon by people and society, where it prescribes a specific course of action on a specific event. As a result, they advise and influence action. In addition, they are often expressed as commands or imperatives.7 Second, it is universal, for it applies to all people in a similar situation and to all evaluative judgments. A general set of principles applies to all, regardless of their background. Third, it is authoritative that overrides other principles to serve an overall moral purpose, and this overall purpose may give us moral reasons to obey. Fourth, it is public. It is shared publicly to prescribe behavior and prevent moral turpitude. Lastly, the traits mentioned above require a high level of commitment and critical reflection, for other principles may not work despite having a significant bearing on an event. There is a need to understand what would work well in a given event. It is important to note that moral principles are also descriptive despite being prescriptive in nature. They describe the nature of an event and seek to provide the best possible course of action. Accordingly, most ethical systems consider human limitations. Kohlberg’s Stages of Moral Development In his theory of moral development, Kohlberg argues that human beings pass through a sequential stage of moral development. Kohlberg theory has three levels where each level is composed of two stages. Following Jean Piaget Kohlberg utilizes storytelling as mean of showing the moral development of a person. Level Stages Meaning Social Implication 18 | P a g e Copyright © 2024 Ryan Mangune Castro. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or used in any manner without the prior written permission of the copyright owner. Pre- 1. Punishment/ A person obeys to Blind Egoism Conventional Obedience avoid punishment Orientation Morality is 2. Instrumental A person focuses on Rational controlled Purpose Orientation satisfying personal Egoism externally. needs and rewards Conventional 3. Good Boy/Girl A person wants to Social It conforms to Orientation win social approval Relationship rule but focuses or win the affection of on self-interest. others 4. Law and Order The law determines Social System Orientation the person’s behavior Post- 5. Social Contract A person sees rules Contractual Conventional Orientation and laws for It goes beyond improving human the perspective purposes of the society. 6. Universal Ethical This is the highest Mutual Morality is Principle stage and only few Respect defined by were able to attain it. abstract This refers universal principles and ethical principles values 19 | P a g e Copyright © 2024 Ryan Mangune Castro. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or used in any manner without the prior written permission of the copyright owner. Notes 1 https://fritsahlefeldt.com/2012/10/16/the-real-tragedy-of-the-commons-illustration/ 2 Garrett Hardin, “The Tragedy of the Commons,” in Green Planet Blues (Sixth Edition. | New York: Routledge, 2019. | Revised edition of Green Planet Blues, : Routledge, 2019), 41–49. 3 Ethics Discovering Right and Wrong, 25-27. 4 Civilization: A History of the World in 1000 objects, (London: DK publishing, 2020), 12-56. 5 Karl Marx, Grundrisse: Foundations of the Critique of Political Economy, trans. Martin Nicolaus (London, England: Penguin Classics, 1993). 6 Louis P. Pojman and James Fieser, Ethics: Discovering Right and Wrong, 8th ed. (Wadsworth Publishing, 2016). 7. 7 They share this trait with all normative discourse and is used to appraise behavior, assign praise and blame, and produce feelings of satisfaction or guilt. See, Louis P. Pojman and James Fieser, Ethics: Discovering Right and Wrong, 8th ed. (Wadsworth Publishing, 2016), 8. 20 | P a g e Copyright © 2024 Ryan Mangune Castro. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or used in any manner without the prior written permission of the copyright owner. Activities for Chapter 1 21 | P a g e Copyright © 2024 Ryan Mangune Castro. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or used in any manner without the prior written permission of the copyright owner. Chapter II The Moral Agent “Let no one be slow to seek wisdom when he is young nor weary in the search of it when he has grown old. For no age is too early or too late for the health of the soul. And to say that the season for studying philosophy has not yet come, or that it is past and gone, is like saying that the season for happiness is not yet or that it is now no more. Therefore, both old and young alike ought to seek wisdom, the former in order that, as age comes over him, he may be young in good things because of the grace of what has been, and the latter in order that, while he is young, he may at the same time be old, because he has no fear of the things which are to come.”1 Epicurus, LETTER TO MENOECEUS Different influences play a significant role in formulating our notion of right and wrong, between good and evil. Until a child begins to mingle and associate with others outside the four corners of his/her home, he/she is likely first to attain the notion of right and wrong from the people inside his/her home. These are his family members. Often, the values being passed down by their parents are values inherited from their parents, too, or other influences such as society. As Filipinos, we acquire the values of respect for elders, hospitality, amor propio, and many more from our parents, who are the source of values in our family. However, if we assert that this answer tells the whole story of our formulation of right and wrong, an obvious problem emerges instantaneously. Some parents act according to their own convictions and perspectives of things. Where in some cases, their perspective of things is considered aberrant in the society they are currently in. For example, according to the popular conception, when old-age strikes, rather than waiting around as they dwindle toward death and eating food. The elderly Eskimos are taken to the sea and set adrift on a floating iceberg facing their end, uncomfortable and horrifyingly alone. This is not the case for Filipinos. Filipinos have to take care of their elders as a form of respect for them and as an act of paying their debt to their parents. If a woman is pregnant and sees the reality that she cannot support her own child and can only give the child a miserable life, abortion is, therefore, the right choice. In the Philippines, this is not morally permissible, for abortion is a crime and is punishable by the law. This indicates that various influences give us ethical or moral prescriptions and proscriptions. One of which is our culture. 22 | P a g e Copyright © 2024 Ryan Mangune Castro. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or used in any manner without the prior written permission of the copyright owner. Culture: its role in developing moral behavior Culture is a complex whole. As anthropologist pointed out, it is one of the most complicated words and it is so difficult to define. 4 Nevertheless, culture is composed of values, traditions, customs, and the capabilities and habits acquired by human beings in a society.2 It follows that culture is a collective mentality that influences the behavior of human beings in a society. Accordingly, our notion of what is good and bad relies on our conception of culture since culture provides the criteria we use to identify the moral worth of a thing. Hence, when one speaks of culture, it pertains to all aspects of human activity that give human beings their identity and role in society.3 However, culture varies from society to society. We must understand that since society consists of patterns of relationships among people in a given territory. Hence, culture is a shared way of life that is passed down from one generation to the other.4 As various anthropologists put it, culture is learned and not simply inherited through biological processes. We learn about culture through the process of enculturation, which can be done either through formal or informal learning. In addition, through the process of social learning, when one person observes members of society, whatever he learns from that society or community, he later on adds to his own behavior. Social learning is not the only way of acquiring culture from other societies. There is also a symbolic learning process that is grounded on the ability of the person to use language and understand symbols, which are the conceptual devices used to communicate abstract ideas to one another.5 In this case, the acquisition of culture depends on our linguistic and cognitive ability to understand symbols, however, despite culture having the characteristic of being shared and learned. There is a degree of difference in the process of acquisition 4 In this instructional material for ethics, I am not suggesting that the meaning of culture has finally been defined. The term culture is so complex that it includes the key concepts between the past and present. Its richness makes it so perplexing that is why its definition constantly being developed to give justice to it. 23 | P a g e Copyright © 2024 Ryan Mangune Castro. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or used in any manner without the prior written permission of the copyright owner. and learning. Different people learn different aspects of culture, leading to the idea that culture varies from society to society and from person to person. In thinking about how culture develops morality, it is essential to note that culture is constituted by values, norms, and virtue, providing us with the criteria distinguishing good and bad. Let us, therefore, move towards the notion of collective and habitual actions to illuminate how culture develops morality. We often regard habits as patterns of behavior that we fall into or develop on our own accord. We repetitively make these habits because we find them appropriate and easy when a specific course of events occurs. Doing so shapes not only what we do and what we perceive but also what we want. Habits can be classified as either good or bad. They are good if they allow us to flourish as human beings and do not take away from us the very experience of the event, where our essential structure harmoniously participates. They are then bad if they turn us away from the humanity we aim for and the happiness we want to achieve. However, this classification derives its validity from the society an individual belongs to. Different societies have different preferences and priorities regarding human acts, which can be regarded as good or bad. On the collective level, some actions are mutually shared and recognized. This collective action forms our notions of cultural practices and discloses our social behavioral patterns. This is why culture is one of the unique aspects of a particular society. Its materials (customs, beliefs, and traditions) develop human behavior and way of living. According to Hofstede, speaking of culture is similar to that of computer software. It is like a mental programming that forms the person from birth to death. The process starts with the family and is reinforced by schools and organizations. 6 It instills in its members the value of moral codes and standards. Hence, when we try to understand an individual or group's identities, the most logical way is by looking at their sense of belonging to a particular culture, for morality tacitly demands that an individual be loyal to those cultures. As the anthropologist Luzbetak noted, culture is a dynamic system of socially acquired and shared ideas. Thus, when we try to understand Filipino culture, various layers must be considered to unfold its true value. We must remember that Filipino culture is comprised of national, regional, gender, generational, and social classes.7 We must remember that culture is encoded in our body; in return, our body becomes the device for expressing and communicating cultural codes.8 We have to remember that the accepted attitudes and practices of a specific group are justified because of the influence and pressure they give to individuals. Indeed, it might sound as a form of coercion to make people behave in a morally desirable way. This brings into view that whatever forms of behavior vary from place to place, intuitions to institutions, gender to gender, generation to generation and so forth. There are many influences that later on make their way to a different culture. As a child begins to mingle and associate with others, he also acquires values from society. In particular, the people surrounding him, the school, the church, and the law of the land. 24 | P a g e Copyright © 2024 Ryan Mangune Castro. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or used in any manner without the prior written permission of the copyright owner. For example, if one ponders what is happening today, some children do not reflect most of their parents’ moral views and behavior throughout their lives; others, even on the most significant issues, knowingly move in divergent directions, probably as a result of understanding and acquiring better notion of right and wrong or perhaps due retaliation. Another cause is a generation gap that strongly affects our formulation of right and wrong. For example, before, paying one debt in the form of a fixed marriage or accumulating properties by marrying (selling) your daughters to rich people was a good idea that was accepted in society. Slavery was good. Women were the property of their husbands or fathers, so women’s rights were seen as an evil idea. Values, Norms, and Virtues For us to differentiate the meaning of good and bad, understanding the meaning of values, norms, and virtue is essential in ethics since they lead us to an inquiry about goodness. We have to remember that ethics is not a set of rules that immediately give us the answer. Instead, it is the quest for the right action, and this is what makes it interesting. In this case, values, norms, and virtue are facets of human existence that determine and distinguish the goodness of a thing. It follows they are part of normative ethics and, therefore, need to be clarified and distinguished before we move to the different theories. Values pertain to human principles or standards. It speaks of what is good and worthy for individuals or social collectives. This implies that the development of values is essential for the sustainability of life and society, both individuals and social collectives. However, as human beings live in a society, they also encounter and adopt other sets of values created by society. Typically, statements of values entail the notion of approval, disapproval, and obligation: good, bad, and ought. These qualities are considered the most admirable in a human being and can be summarized in the notion of character. Moreover, values motivate human beings to act in a way that corresponds to their notion of good. They work as guides to human actions, for they are ideals that people want to achieve. Generally speaking, people are subjected to follow values they are raised with as part of their culture. This means that one way of understanding others is to look at their cultural background, which speaks of what is right for them. We must remember that in every culture, society, and civilization, people have their own sense of self and 25 | P a g e Copyright © 2024 Ryan Mangune Castro. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or used in any manner without the prior written permission of the copyright owner. responsibility for their actions. Values also present a sense of conviction. It follows that there are two kinds of values: intrinsic and instrumental. The former presents a value in itself that is worth striving for. On the other hand, the latter is a value that contributes to an intrinsic value. They are instrumental as means to end. Norms are set of rules that prescribe a specific action in a situation. Some norms are so important and prescriptive that they have become laws. This indicates that since norms can often be construed from values, they are the means of realizing values. It follows norms and has four types: folkways, more, taboo, and law. Folkways are norms that stem from causal interactions, and through repetitive acts, they later become a common action or behavior of society. Mores, on the other hand, are much more complex than folkways. They determine moral and ethical behavior that distinguishes the rightness and wrongness of an act. One example of a more is our religious doctrines. A taboo is quite different from mores and folkways; they indicate a strong negative norm. It expresses a prohibition. Laws are also norms, compared to the other three laws are formally inscribed in the constitution and enforced by the government. Moral virtues are character traits or properties to have to make someone a good person and allow him to lead a good life. As Aristotle sees it, a virtue is a trait of character manifested in habitual action. 5 They are acquired through constant practice. Indeed, we might see virtues to be similar to values; what makes them different is that virtues always refer to the power and capacities of the doer of the action. The following are partial list of virtues: benevolence fairness patience civility friendliness Prudence compassion generosity reasonableness conscientiousness honesty self-discipline cooperativeness industriousness self-reliance courage justice tactfulness courteousness loyalty thoughtfulness dependability moderation tolerance 5 James Rachels, 159 26 | P a g e Copyright © 2024 Ryan Mangune Castro. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or used in any manner without the prior written permission of the copyright owner. Filipino Culture and the Crisis and Challenge of Philosophy Our culture as Filipinos is rich in ethical practices that make us flourish. This claim, however, appears to be problematic for others. What we are claiming here is that we have our own philosophy as Filipinos. Of course, if the basis for philosophy is the number of materials, the lack of written materials becomes an apparent problem in saying there is a Filipino Ethics. According to Mercado, but if we define philosophy as a worldview and ethics as a discipline that deals with good and evil, moral duty, and principles of conduct. This definition discloses to us that there is a Filipino philosophy and ethics.9 Our values reflect a worldview unique to us, and if we follow Aristotle's notions of ethics (virtue and character development), this is the same as what Filipino values do. Our culture is a social and mental conditioning that determines and shapes our identity. As part of this culture, we embrace the values expected from us as Filipinos, and if we analyze them, they speak with what western ethics aims at; for example, the Kantian imperative of treating others as an end in themselves is emphasized by our values- pakikisama, respect for elders, and hospitality. Many of our values are universal in principle. Besides, the very goal of our values is to address the question of “what does it mean to be human?”. Filipino values, as Mercado noted, possess the development of moral character. They are ideals that give significance to our lives and are reflected and consistently repeated in our choices and actions. Our values are the givers of our moral identity, which defines us Filipinos.10 In addition, values are the essential elements behind all human behavior. They are the guiding principles of Filipino lives. It appears, however, that due to various influences Filipinos receive today, the value system that defines us as moral agents has started to lose its place. Instead of seeing and embracing our values, some Filipinos start deviating from them and, in the worst case, live without them. They prefer other cultures, for they see them as valid or suitable for everyday life. They see them as bearers of happiness. For example, Filipinos are no longer as hospitable as they were several years ago, probably a result of the difficulty of life that forces them to austerity. Filipino values have an ambivalent or bipolar condition, which makes them tricky to understand. There are instances that they have the potential to work as good and bad. One straightforward explanation for this bipolarity of Filipino values is our lack of critical understanding of them. Filipinos are intelligent beings, as manifested by their capability to adapt quickly to different environments. However, the lack of proper understanding of our values makes them deviate from what is expected from them as Filipinos. Understanding our values is, in fact, necessary for the country’s development since they are the foundation of our country and identity. Besides, understanding them makes our culture plausible and robust, which imposes the check and balance process. This reality tells us that we failed to realize that to be a Filipino does not necessarily mean being born in the Philippines or attaining citizenship through the naturalization process or legality. Instead, what makes us Filipino is that we must live and manifest the Filipino value system. In fact, our value system is what distinguishes us from other nations and cultures. 27 | P a g e Copyright © 2024 Ryan Mangune Castro. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or used in any manner without the prior written permission of the copyright owner. Accordingly, we have different values as Filipinos. Like pakikisama, bayanihan, hiya, hospitality, awa, respect for elders, courtship, amor propio and utang na loob to name a few.6 Each of these values transcends not just our personality but our humanity in general in such a way that we embrace the ethical concept that different philosophers aim to present. We must remember that our values are a shared pattern of thinking, feeling and acting. 1. Pakikisama refers to our capacity to have and maintain good relationships with our fellow. This value emphasizes social acceptance and treating oneself and others as subjects and not as objects. Pakikisama imposes respect, recognition of others, and friendship. 2. Utang na Loob refers to our sense of gratitude and indebtedness that constantly reminds us of our past. It imposes reciprocity and recognition of the other, creating a network of favors asked and favors repaid. 3. Respect for elders refers to how we deal with and recognize our elderly, like using gestures and honorifics to distinguish people. 4. Amor Propio refers to honoring one’s dignity or honor. It showcases our self-love and self-regard. 5. Hiya means self-regard. It depicts how one should act in a situation and appears before the other. 6. Awa refers to our compassion for others. 7. Hospitality pertains to our way of accepting and welcoming others. It promotes generosity, responsiveness, and personal and social connection, creating a sense of belonging. 8. Bayanihan refers to our heroic acts for individuals and communities in need of help without expecting anything in return. Let us consider the experience of riding a jeepney to further realize how the different values work. When we board this famous transport vehicle, we immediately realize that it is not just us who are the passengers. As we take our seats, there is recognition and respect for other passengers. We see them as our equals, where we set aside out differences. No one asks when you ride about your status, social status, academic status, achievements, type of work, etc. Instead, everyone simply rides harmoniously to their destination. When we pay we don’t say, “Manong, sa Marquee lang po, CUM LAUDE” or “Manong, bayad po, Manager sa Bangko” etc. Instead, we simply passed our fare to the other, where others respectfully received it and gave it to the driver. We show good public relations inside the jeep to avoid clashes or discomfort with other passengers. Thus, we maintain good personal interaction to get along with others. We see them not as our adversary or rival but as part of our journey. In this example, the value differs from good since good, as the object of volition, is not fixed. Value is narrower than good since it only pertains to persons capable of value. Clearly, cultures promote goodness, as in the case of Filipino culture. 7 However, relating the validity of morality towards culture may appear first as a plausible explanation, but if 6 The list of values in this instructional material is limited to those that gives us a universal principle. In fact, if we diagnose our values there are all interrelated, where the other is a part of the other. 7 This will be illuminated in the succeeding discussions. 28 | P a g e Copyright © 2024 Ryan Mangune Castro. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or used in any manner without the prior written permission of the copyright owner. one closely inspects this validity, we encounter major problems. In fact, this case was raised by the critiques of ethical relativism. Ethical relativism is susceptible to anarchistic individualism.11 What is important right now is that despite societies are founded on families or communities and are fostered by values. Self-interest weakens these values and leads to social collapse. From this example, we have to realize that our acquisition of knowledge also follows a specific process. Accordingly, knowledge acquisition begins with our experience, which we do not have any control over. Experience has the structure of elements of negativity, orientation to new experiences, and human finitude. Acquisition of Knowledge Accordingly, with the human mind capable of creating or foreseeing various possibilities in our experiences, our experiences of things, therefore, come to a certain point of disappointment or dissatisfaction with the outcome since we do not have any control over it. In some instances, our prediction or expectation of it does not meet the results we are looking for. In this case, it gives the experience the element of negativity that dissatisfies oneself. Nevertheless, this element of negativity also opens up the self to a new experience that leads to a different experience. Moreover, the orientation to new experiences is also a result of the unpredictability of experiences. The last structure is the realization of human finitude. Human capabilities have a specific limit, and this is an undeniable fact of human existence. However, human finitude makes us understand how things work according to this limitation. Nonetheless, all experiences will never have any meaning unless we understand or pay attention to them. For example, when you are inside a fast-food restaurant like Jollibee or McDonald', you can hear everything that is inside there. But these are all meaningless since the mind does not give attention to them. But if the mind chooses to give meaning or pay attention to those words and sounds, they become meaningful and significant since they now follow the process of understanding experience. To make it more meaningful, this requires the process of oscillation of understanding, a back-and-forth movement to 29 | P a g e Copyright © 2024 Ryan Mangune Castro. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or used in any manner without the prior written permission of the copyright owner. draw a better understanding or deliberation of the experience. The formulation of judgment then follows this since all deliberation requires a certain end. However, this process of experience-understanding-judgment falls short; one must also understand the judgment that has been rendered. In this way, one can achieve a better judgment on the event. This process of understanding our judgment is needed in the process of attaining an ethical decision. As mentioned in the previous chapter, there is a diversity of morality over time, and it varies in different places and where people find it important to follow traditions. There is a fine line between what is morally accepted in a society and what is ethically accepted. Objections on Morality Interestingly, this leads us towards some objections to morality. One can ask, does the rules of morality have an independent justification? Are they simply customs that people follow and cannot break? Can we replace the rules of morality since their time has passed and use a more positive set that are suitable for our time? As Wolff pointed out, we can draw different objections, like moral nihilism, which denies that morality has any fundamental justification. Morality does not have moral facts and truths. At the same time, individual subjectivism approaches morality according to one’s culture or personal preference, creating conflict between one party and the other since both claim they are true.12 Indeed, it is hard to convince the other that you are right and he is wrong since he also proposes a moral fact related to his belief. Consequently, this is the reason why there are universal principles that apply to all humans. They address the problems presented by cultural relativism, subjectivism, objectivism, cognitivism, and noncognitivism, which limit the scope and application of morality. As Ricoeur pointed out in Fallible Man, the moment we choose a single side, it is the exact moment that we fail to recognize the others that constitute the whole. What we attained is only a partial reality and a biased response. Hence, regardless of where they spring from, each view raises a plausible perception of right and wrong and a line of arguments.13 When thinking about how we should act as moral agents, this reality compels us to broaden our understanding of things. Remember, the moment we limit our acquisition of knowledge to experience, understanding, and judgment without understanding and judging the judgment we have rendered is similar to denouncing the view of the other. To speak of the whole is not to speak of a single part. The whole comprises many parts, where each part may differ from the other but are still connected and constitute the whole. As moral theories emphasized, like Aristotle, an action is right if it is performed by a virtuous person who knows what is right and what is wrong, and do what is right for the right reason. Deontologist also argues that morality is based on laws known by a person and it contains moral facts on which moral truth can be based. Noncognitivists also argues that we can arrive at moral facts by adopting stable and general perspective.14 In this case, the notion of what is right cannot be simply reduce to pleasure and happiness. The moment we say “it is wrong” is to say that we have a reason why it is wrong based on the inherent r

General Education Ethics PDF

Document Details

Tags

Related

Summary

Full Transcript

Upgrade to continue