Lesson_1_-_The_Ethical_Dimension_of_Human_Existence[1].docx

PLVal **PAMANTASAN NG LUNGSOD NG VALENZUELA** Tongco Street, Maysan, Valenzuela City **[E T H I C S]** **THE ETHICAL DIMENSION OF HUMAN EXISTENCE** **Lesson 1** **I. DEFINITION OF ETHICS** Ethics, generally speaking, is about matters such as the good thing that we should pursue and the bad th...

PLVal **PAMANTASAN NG LUNGSOD NG VALENZUELA** Tongco Street, Maysan, Valenzuela City **[E T H I C S]** **THE ETHICAL DIMENSION OF HUMAN EXISTENCE** **Lesson 1** **I. DEFINITION OF ETHICS** Ethics, generally speaking, is about matters such as the good thing that we should pursue and the bad thing that we should avoid; the right ways in which we could or should act and the wrong ways of acting. It is about what is acceptable and unacceptable in human behavior. It may involve obligations that we are expected to fulfill, prohibitions that we are required to respect, or ideals that we are encouraged to meet. Ethics as a subject for us to study is about determining the grounds for the values with particular and special significance to human life. **II. CLARIFICATIONS AND TERMINOLOGY** Recognizing the notions of good and bad, and right and wrong, are the primary concern of ethics. In order to start, it would be useful to clarify the following points. **A. Kinds of Valuation** The first point of clarification is to recognize that there are instances when we make value judgments that are *not* considered to be part of ethics. For instance, I could say that this new movie I had just seen was a "good" one because I enjoyed it, or a song I had just heard on the radio was a "bad" one because it had an unpleasant tone, but these are not part of a discussion of ethics. These are valuations that fall under the domain of *aesthetics.* Similarly, we have sense of approval or disapproval concerning certain actions which can be considered relatively more trivial in nature. Thus, for instance, I may think that it is "right" to knock politely on someone's door, while it is "wrong" to barge into one's office. Perhaps I may approve of a child who knows how to ask for something properly by saying "please" and otherwise, disapprove of a woman that I see picking her nose in public. These and other similar examples belong to the category of *etiquette.* We can also consider how a notion of right and wrong actions can easily appear in a context that is not a matter of ethics. This could also be when learning how to play basketball. It is against the rules to walk more than two steps without dribbling the ball. Obeying this rule to not travel is something that makes sense only in the context of the game and is not an ethical prohibition. This and other similar examples belong to the category of *technical* valuation. **B. Ethics and Morals** Our second point of clarification is on the use of the words "ethics" and "morals." This discussion of ethics and morals would include cognates such as ethical, unethical, immoral, amoral, morality, and so on. As we proceed, we should be careful particularly on the use of the word "not" when applied to the words "moral" or "ethical" as this can be ambiguous. The term "morals" may be used to refer to specific beliefs or attitudes that people have or to describe acts that people perform. Thus, it is sometimes said that an individual's personal conduct is referred to as his morals. However, we also have terms as "moral judgments" or "moral reasoning," which suggest a more rational aspect. The term "ethics" can be spoken of as the discipline of studying and understanding ideal human behavior and ideal ways of thinking. Thus, ethics is acknowledged as an intellectual discipline belonging to *philosophy.* However, acceptable and unacceptable behaviors are also generally described as ethical and unethical, respectively. In addition, with regard to the acceptable and unacceptable ways of behaving in a given field, we have the term "professional ethics." **C. Descriptive and Normative** The third point of clarification is to distinguish between a descriptive and a normative study of ethics. A *descriptive* study of ethics reports how people, particularly groups, make their moral valuations without making any judgment either for or against these valuations. A *normative* study of ethics, as is often done in philosophy or moral theology, engages the question: What could or should be considered as the right way of acting? In other words, a normative discussion prescribes what we ought to maintain as our standards or bases for moral valuation. When engaging a discussion of ethics, it is always advisable to recognize whether one is concerned with a descriptive view or with normative perspective. We need to go further. A philosophical discussion of ethics goes beyond recognizing the characteristics of some descriptive theory; also, it does not simply accept any correct normative theory. A philosophical discussion of ethics engages in a critical consideration of the strengths and weaknesses of these theories. This will be the primary concern of this subject throughout our study. **D. Issue, Decision, Judgment, and Dilemma** *Moral Issue* is often used to refer to those particular situations that are often the source of considerable and inclusive debate. When one is placed in a situation and confronted by the choice of what act to perform, she is called to make a *moral decision.* When a person is an observer who makes the assessment on the actions or behavior of someone, he is making a *moral judgment.* When an individual is torn between choosing one of the two goods or choosing between the lesser of two evils, this is referred to as a *moral dilemma.* **III. REASONING** Why do we suppose that a certain way of acting is right and its opposite wrong? The study of ethics is interested in questions like these: Why do we decide to consider *this* way of acting as acceptable while *that* way of acting, its opposite, is unacceptable? To put it in another way, what *reasons* do we give to decide or to judge that a certain way of acting either right or wrong? A person's fear of punishment or desire for reward can prove him a reason for acting in a certain way. In a certain sense, fear of punishment and desire for reward can be spoken of as giving someone a "reason" for acting in a certain way. But the question then would be: Is this reason good enough? That is to say, this way of thinking seems to be a shallow way of understanding reason because it does not show of true understanding of why, for example, cheating on an exam is wrong or why looking after a family member is in itself a good thing. The promise of rewards and the fear of punishment can certainly motivate us to act, but are not in themselves a determinant of the rightness or wrongness of a certain way of acting or of the good or the bad in a particular pursuit. Is it possible to find better reasons for finding a certain way of acting either acceptable or unacceptable? Consider this situation: You are in a situation wherein you could obtain a higher grade by cheating. You make the decision not to do so. Or you know that your friend was in a position to get a better grade by cheating. She refuses to do so: You then make the judgment of praising her for this. In making this kind of moral decision or moral judgment, the question can be asked: Why? Asking the question "why" might bring us to no more than a superficial discussion of rewards and punishments, as seen above, but it could also bring us to another level of thinking. Perhaps one can rise above the particulars of a specific situation, going beyond whatever motivation or incentive is present in this instance of cheating (or not doing so). In other words, our thinking may take on a level of abstraction, that is, detaching itself from the particular situation and arriving at a statement like, "Cheating is wrong," by recognizing proper reasons for not acting this way. Beyond rewards and punishments, it is possible for our moral valuation -- our decisions and judgments -- to be based on a principle. Thus, one may conclude that cheating is wrong based on a sense of fair play or a respect for the importance and validity of testing. From this, we can define *principles* as rationally established grounds by which one justifies and maintains her moral decisions and judgments. But why do we maintain one particular principle rather than another? Why should I maintain that I should care for fair play and that cheating is, therefore, wrong? In the case for instance of fraternity hazing, why is it wrong to cause another person physical injury or to take another's life? We can maintain principles, but we can also ask what good reasons for doing so. So such reasons may differ. So, for example, what makes the death of a fraternity member due to hazing a tragedy? One person may say that life is sacred and God-given. Another person may declare that human life has a priceless dignity. Still another may put forward the idea that taking another's life does not contribute to happiness but to human misery instead. How exactly do we arrive at any of these claims? This is where we turn to theory. A *moral theory* is a systematic attempt to establish the validity of maintaining certain moral principles. Insofar as a theory is a system of thought or of ideas, it can also be referred to as a *framework.* We can use this term, "framework," as a theory of interconnected ideas, and at the same time, a structure through which we can evaluate our reasons for valuing a certain decision or judgment. There are different frameworks that can reflect on the principles that we maintain and thus, the decisions and judgments we make. By studying these, we can reconsider, clarify, modify, and ultimately strengthen our principles, thereby informing better both our moral judgments and moral decisions. **IV. SOURCES OF AUTHORITY** Several common ways of thinking about ethics are based on the idea that the standards of valuation are imposed by a higher authority that commands our obedience. In the following section, we will explore three such of ideas: the authority of the law, the authority of one's religion, and the authority of one's own culture. **A. Law** It is supposed that law is one's guide to ethical behavior. In the Philippines, Filipinos are constrained to obey the laws of the land stated in the country's criminal and civil codes. Making these even more particular, in Cebu, residents are constrained to follow any provincial laws or city ordinances. One can easily imagine becoming even more localized to the *barangay* or village level. The term *positive law* refers to the different rules and regulations that are posited or put forward by an authority figure that requires compliance. At first glance, this seems to make a lot of sense. We recognize that there are many acts that we immediately consider unethical (e.g., murder or theft), which we also know are forbidden by law. Furthermore, the law is enforced by way of a system of sanctions administered through persons and institutions, which all help in compelling us to obey. Taking law to be the basis of ethics has the benefit of providing us with an objective standard that is obligatory and applicable to all. So, we would not be surprised if we were to hear someone say, "Ethics? It's simple. Just follow what the law says." **B. Religion** *"Love the Lord, Your God, therefore, and always heed his charge: his statutes, decrees, and commandments."* This verse is the first line of Chapter 11 of the book of Deuteronomy. It expresses a claim that many people of a religious sensibility find appealing and immediately valid: the idea that one is obliged to obey his God in all things. As a foundation for ethical values, this is referred to as the *divine command theory.* The divinity called God, Allah, or Supreme Being commands and one is obliged to obey his Creator. These are persons and texts that one believes are linked to the Divine. By listening to these figures and reading these writings, an individual discovers how the Divine wants her to act. Further, someone maintaining a more radical form of this theory might go beyond these instruments of divine revelation and claim that God "spoke" to him directly to instruct him what to do. At first glance, this seems to make a lot of sense. Many of us had been brought up with one form of religious upbringing or another, so it is very possible that there is a strong inclination in us to refer to our religious background to back up moral valuations. We are presented with a more-or-less clear code of prohibitions and many of these prohibitions given by religion -- "Thou shall not kill," "Thou shall not steal," and "Thou shall not commit adultery" -- seem to intuitively coincide with our sense of what ethics should rightly demand. In addition, there is an advance here over the law because religion is not simply prohibitive, but it also provides ideals to pursue. Further, taking religion as basis of ethics has the advantage of providing us with not only a set of commands but also a Supreme Authority that can inspire and compel obedience in a way that nothing else can. The Divine can command absolute obedience on one's part as the implications of his actions involving his ultimate destiny. Thus, we should not be surprised if we were to hear someone say, "Ethics? It is simple. Just follow whatever your religion says." **C. CULTURE** Our exposure to different societies and cultures makes us aware that there are ways of thinking and valuing that are different from our own, that there is in fact a wide diversity of how different people believe it is proper to act. There are aesthetic differences, religious differences, and etiquette differences. In these bases, it may become easy to conclude that this is the case in ethics as well. There are also various examples that seem to bear these out: nudity can be more taboo in one culture than in another. Another example would be how relations between men and women can show a wide variety across different cultures, ranging from greater liberality and equality on one hand, to greater inequality and a relation of dominance versus submission on the other. From the reality of diversity, it is possible for someone to jump to the further claim that the sheer variety at work in the different ways of valuation means there is no single universal standard for such valuations, and that this holds true as well in the realm of ethics. Therefore, what is ethically acceptable or unacceptable is relative to, or that is to say, dependent on one's culture. This position is referred to as *cultural relativism.* There is something appealing to this way of thinking because cultural relativism seems to conform to what we experience, which is the reality of the differences in how cultures make their ethical valuations. Second, by taking one's culture as the standard, we are provided a basis for our valuations. Third, this teaches us to be tolerant of others from different cultures, as we realize that we are in no position to judge whether the ethical thought or practice of another culture is acceptable or unacceptable. In turn, our own culture's moral code is neither superior to nor inferior to any other, but they would provide us the standards that are appropriate and applicable to us. So, we would not be surprised if we were to hear someone say, "Ethics? It is simple. Just follow whatever your culture says." **V. SENSES OF THE SELF** It is sometimes thought that one should not rely on any external authority to tell oneself what the standards of moral valuations are, but should instead turn inwards. In this section, we will look into three theories about ethics that center on the self: subjectivism, psychological egoism, and ethical egoism. **A. Subjectivism** The starting point of subjectivism is the recognition that the individual thinking (the subject) is at the heart of all moral valuations. He is the one who is confronted with the situation and is burdened with the need to make a decision or judgment. From this point, subjectivism leaps to the more radical claim that the individual is the sole determinant of what is morally good or bad, right or wrong. A number of clichés familiar to us would echo this idea. "No one can tell me what is right or wrong." "No one knows my situation better than myself." "I am entitled to my own opinion." "It is good if I say that it is good." **B. Psychological Egoism** "Human beings are naturally self-centered, so all actions are always already motivated by self-interest." This is the cliché that is commonly linked to *psychological egoism.* As a descriptive theory, it does not direct one to act in any particular way. Instead, it points out that there is already an underlying basis for how one acts. The ego or self has its desires and interests, and all our actions are geared toward satisfying these interests. This may not seem particularly problematic when we consider many of the actions we do on a day-to-day basis. For instance, I watch a movie or read a book because I want to. But what about other types of behavior that we would commonly say are directed toward the other? Consider, for example, an act of generosity, in which someone helps a friend with her thesis rather than play videogames, or someone makes use of her free Saturday helping build houses for Gawad Kalinga? The psychological egoist would maintain that underlying such apparent other-directed behavior is a self-serving desire, even if one does not acknowledge it or even conscious of it. Perhaps he only helped his friend with her thesis because he is trying to impress her. Perhaps he helps out with Gawad Kalinga because this is how she relieves her sense of guilt at being well-off compared to others. The idea is that whether or not the person admits it, one's actions are ultimately always motivated by self-serving desire. **C. Ethical Egoism** *Ethical egoism* differs from psychological egoism in that it does not suppose all our actions are already inevitably self-serving. Instead, ethical egoism prescribes that we should make our own ends, our own interests, as the single overriding concern. We may act in a way that is beneficial to others, but we should do that only if it ultimately benefits us. This theory acknowledges that it is a dog-eat-dog world out there and given that, everyone ought to put himself at the center. One should consider himself as the priority and not allow any other concerns, such as the welfare of other people, to detract from this pursuit.