Introduction

 Ethics, also called moral philosophy.

 The discipline concerned with what is morally good and bad
and morally right and wrong.
 The term is also applied to any system or theory of moral
values or principles.

How should we live? Shall we aim at happiness or at

knowledge, virtue, or the creation of beautiful objects? If we choose
happiness, will it be our own or the happiness of all? And what of the
more particular questions that face us: is it right to be dishonest in a
good cause? Can we justify living in opulence while elsewhere in the
world people are starving? Is going to war justified in cases where it is
likely that innocent people will be killed? Is it wrong to clone a human
being or to destroy human embryos in medical research? What are
our obligations, if any, to the generations of humans who will come
after us and to the nonhuman animals with which we share the
planet?
The terms ethics and morality are closely related. It is now
common to refer to ethical judgments or to ethical principles where it
once would have been more accurate to speak of moral judgments or
moral principles. These applications are an extension of the meaning
of ethics.
In earlier usage, the term referred not to morality itself but to
the field of study, or branch of inquiry, that has morality as its subject
matter. In this sense, ethics is equivalent to moral philosophy.
Although ethics has always been viewed as a branch of philosophy, its
all-embracing practical nature links it with many other areas of study,
including anthropology, biology, economics, history, politics, sociology,
and theology. Yet, ethics remains distinct from such disciplines
because it is not a matter of factual knowledge in the way that the
sciences and other branches of inquiry are. Rather, it has to do with
determining the nature of normative theories and applying these sets
of principles to practical moral problems.
 Lesson 1 presents the basic discussions to introduce the
nature, concept and theoretical framework of Ethical dimension of
human existence. It also provides students an understanding of the
difference kinds of valuation and morals which will eventually develop
students’ ability to apply these concepts to current issues on
governance and development.

Chapter 1: introduction to ethics

Overview
The field of ethics (or moral philosophy) involves systematizing,
defending, and recommending concepts of right and wrong behavior.
Philosophers today usually divide ethical theories into three general
subject areas: “metaethics,” normative ethics, and applied ethics.
“Metaethics” investigates where our ethical principles come
from, and what they mean. Are they merely social inventions? Do they
involve more than expressions of our individual emotions?
“Metaethical” answers to these questions focus on the issues of
universal truths, the will of God, the role of reason in ethical
judgments, and the meaning of ethical terms themselves.
Normative ethics takes on a more practical task, which is to
arrive at moral standards that regulate right and wrong conduct. This
may involve articulating the good habits that we should acquire, the
duties that we should follow, or the consequences of our behavior on
others.
Finally, applied ethics involves examining specific controversial
issues, such as abortion, infanticide, animal rights, environmental
concerns, homosexuality, capital punishment, or nuclear war.
By using the conceptual tools of “metaethics” and normative
ethics, discussions in applied ethics try to resolve these controversial
issues. The lines of distinction between “metaethics,” normative
ethics, and applied ethics are often blurry.
For example, the issue of abortion is an applied ethical topic
since it involves a specific type of controversial behavior. But it also
depends on more general normative principles, such as the right of
self-rule and the right to life, which are litmus tests for determining
the morality of that procedure. The issue also rests on metaethical
issues such as, “where do rights come from?” and “what kind of beings
has rights?”

LESSON 1: THE ETHICAL DIMENSION OF HUMAN EXISTENCE

Respect for life requires that science and technology should
always be at the service of man and his integral development.
Society as a whole must respect, defend and promote the
dignity of every human person, at every moment and in every
condition of that person’s life.

-St. Pope John Paul II

HAZING DEATHS IN THE PHILIPPINES: A RECENT HISTORY

1. Camille Diola (The Philippine Star) - July 10, 2014 - 9:55am
MANILA, Philippines — De La Salle-College of Saint Benilde student
Guillo Servando's death from alleged hazing resurrected the clamor
for more stringent measures against violence in fraternities and
schools.
The enactment of Republic Act 8049 Anti-Hazing Law in 1995
under President Fidel Ramos did not stop the brutal rites usually to
admit new members into a brotherhood, organization or profession.
Many of the reported deaths due to hazing since 2000 cited below did
not lead to justice for the victims' families.
2. 2014 Guillo Servando
An 18-year-old Benilde sophomore believed to have suffered
severe beating and died following initiation rites under the Tau
Gamma fraternity.
3. 2013 John Mark Dugan 
A 19-year-old sophomore marine cadet in the Maritime
Academy of Asia and the Pacific whose death was linked to hazing.
4. 2012 Marc Andre Marcos
 A 20-year-old San Beda University law student who was
allegedly beaten to death by members of Lex Leonum fraternity. The
accused were cleared from charges in 2013.
5. Marvin Reglos 
A 25-year-old San Beda law student was reportedly killed
during hazing rites held by the Lambda Rho Beta fraternity in Antipolo
City.
6. 2011 E.J. Karl Intia 
A University of Makati student believed to have aspired to join
the Alpha Phi Omega fraternity but ended being killed in initiation
rites. His body was recovered near a 30-foot cliff in Laguna.
7. 2010 Noel Borja Jr. 
A 15-year-old elementary student and neophyte who
reportedly was assaulted to death by members of Tau Gamma Phi
fraternity. The brotherhood learned that Borja's parents belong to
rival Alpha Kappa Rho fraternity.
8. 2009 Glacy Monique Dimaranan 
A 15-year-old girl who died of a single gunshot wound in the
head during initiation rites. A member of Scout Royal Brotherhood in
Laguna accidentally pulled the trigger of the gun he was pointing at
the victim.
9. John Daniel Samparanda 
An 18-year-old Lyceum of the Philippines student in General
Trias, Cavite believed to have died in Tau Gamma Phi fraternity rites.
10. Elvin Sinaluan
A 21-year-old Scout Royal Brotherhood entrant whose life was
reportedly ended in brutal admission rites. Sinaluan and fellow victims
"were hit by paddle every 30 seconds for two hours," authorities said.
11. Karl Anthony Gaudicos 
A 18-year-old engineering student of the Holy Cross of Davao
College who died in hazing activities under the Tau Gamma Phi and
Tau Gamma Sigma.
12. 2007 Cris Anthony Mendez 
 A 20-year-old University of the Philippines student and
allegedly a Sigma Rho fraternity neophyte died of mauling during
initiation rites.
13. Jan Angelo Dollete
A 21-year-old engineering student suspected to be killed in
Sapian, Capiz by members of the Alpha Phi Omega.

What is the value of human life? Is there any good to fraternities?

This questions that concern good and bad, or right and wrong –
and these are questions concerning value – are the kinds of questions
that we deal in ethics.

VALUE
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 is what acceptable and unacceptable in human
behavior. It may involve obligations that we are expected to fulfil,
prohibitions that we are required to respect, or ideals that are
encouraged to meet. Ethics as a subject or us to study about
determining the grounds for the values with particular and special
significance to human life.

CLARIFICATION AND TERMINOLOGY

Recognizing the notions of good and bad, and right and wrong,
are the primary concerns of ethics.

FIRST PART OF CLARIFICATION

KINDS OF VALUATION
Aesthetics is not part of ethics…
Our first point of clarification is to recognize that there are
instances when we make value judgment 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 “bad” one because it had an unpleasant tone,
but these are not part of a discussion of ethics. I may have an opinion
as to what is the “right” dip (sasawan) for my chicken barbecue, or I
may maintain that is “wrong” to wear a leather vest over a Barong
Tagalog, and these are not concerns of ethics. These are valuation that
fall under the domain of aesthetics. The word “aesthetics” is derived
from Greek word aesthesis (“sense” or “feeling”) and refers to the
judgments of personal approval or disapproval that we make about
what we see, hear, smell or taste.

Similarly, we have a 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 the public. Etiquette, which
is concerned with right and wrong actions, but those which might be
considered both quite grave enough to belong to a discussion on
ethics.

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 bake, for instance. I am told that the
right thing to do would be to mix the dry ingredients first, such as flour
or sugar before bringing in any liquids, like milk or cream; this is the
right thing to do in baking, but not one that belongs to a discussion of
ethics. This could also be when leaning how to play a basketball. I am
instructed that it is against the rules to walk more than two steps
without dribbling the ball; again, obeying this rule to not travel is
something that makes sense only in the context of the game and it is
not an ethical prohibition. We derive from Greek word “techne” the
English words “technique” and “technical” which are often used to
refer to a proper way (or right way) of doing things, but a technical
valuation (or right and wrong technique of doing things) may not
necessarily be an ethical one as these examples show.
 Recognizing the characteristics of aesthetic and technical
valuation allows us to have a rough guide as to what belongs to a
discussion of ethics. They involve valuations that we make in a sphere
of human actions, characterized y certain gravity and concern the
human well-being or human life itself. Therefore, matters that concern
life and death such as war, capital punishment, or abortion and
matters that concern human well- being such as poverty, inequality or
sexual identity are often included in discussion of ethics. However, this
general description is only a starting point and will require further
elaboration.

SECOND PART OF CLARIFICATION

ETHICS AND MORALS
As a philosophical discipline of study, ethics is a systematic
approach to under-standing, analyzing distinguishing matters of right
and wrong, good and bad, and admirable and deplorable as they
relate to the well-being of and the relationships among sentient
beings. Ethical determinations are applied through the use of formal
theories, approaches, and codes of conduct, such as codes that are
developed for professions and religions. Ethics is an active process
rather than a static condition, so some ethicist uses the expression
doing ethics. When people are doing ethics, they need to support their
beliefs and assertions with sound reasoning; in other words, even if
people believe that ethics is totally subjective, they must be able to
justify their positions through logical, theoretically based arguments.
Feelings and emotions are a normal part of everyday life and can play
a legitimate role in doing ethics. However, people sometimes allow
their emotions to overtake good reasoning, and when this happens, it
does not provide a good foundation for ethics- related decisions.
Evaluation generated through the practice of ethics requires a balance
of emotion and reason. Throughout history, people, based on their
culture, have engaged in actions that they believed were justifiable
only to shave the light of reason later show otherwise.
 As contrasted with ethics, morals are specific beliefs,
behaviors, and ways of being derived from doing ethics. One’s morals
are judged to be good or bad through systematic ethical analysis. The
reserve of morality is immorality, which means societal, religious,
cultural, or professional ethical standards and principles; examples of
immorality include dishonesty, fraud, murder, and sexually abusive
acts. A moral is a term used to refer to actions that can normally be
judged as moral or immoral, but are done with a lack of concern for
good behavior. For example, murder is immoral, but if a person
commits murder with absolutely no sense of remorse or maybe sense
of pleasure, the person is acting in an amoral way. Acts are considered
to be nonmoral if moral standards essentially do not apply to the acts;
for example, choosing between cereal and toast and jam for breakfast
is a non-moral decision.

When people consider matters of ethics, they usually are

considering matters about freedom in regard to persona choices,
one’s obligations to other sentient beings, or judgment about human
character. The term unethical is used to describe ethics in its negative
form when, for instance, a person’s character of behavior is contrary
to admirable traits or the code of conduct that has been endorsed
one’s society, community, or profession. Because the word ethics is
used when one may actually be referring to a situation of morals, the
process-related or doing conception of ethics is sometimes overlooked
today. People often use the word ethics when referring to a collection
of actual beliefs and behaviors, thereby using the terms ethics and
morals interchangeably. In this book, some effort has been made to
distinguish the words ethics and morals based on their literal
meanings; however, because of common uses, the terms have
generally been used interchangeably.

Billington (2003) delineated features regarding the concepts morals

and ethics:
■Probably the most important feature about ethics and morals is that
no one can avoid making moral or ethical decisions because the social
connection with others necessitates that people must consider moral
and ethical actions.
■Other people are always involved with one’s moral and ethical
decisions.
Private morality does not exist.
■Moral decisions matter because every decision affects someone
else’s life, self-esteem, or happiness level.
■Definite conclusions or resolutions will never be reached in ethical
debates.
■ In the area of morals and ethics, people cannot exercise moral
judgment without being given a choice; in other words, a necessity for
making a sound moral judgment is being able to choose an option
from among a number of choices.

THIRD POINT OF CLARIFICATION

DESCRIPTIVE AND NORMATIVE

As a sub-discipline of Philosophy, Ethics can be divided into

two major parts, each part dealing with two of the basic questions
noted above. One part of Ethics deals with the first two questions
about the origins and justifications of our moral intuitions; we call this
part Normative Ethics. The term 'normative' broadly means "action
guiding." Thus, Normative Ethics is that part of ethical theory which
tells us what we ought to do (this is what most people think of when
they think of Ethics).
Definition: 'Normative Ethics' is that part of ethical theory which deals
with the systematic articulation and justification of moral intuitions.
Justification of actions if it in line with moral intentions. How to
determine consequence without actions? Moral philosophy
The second major part of ethical theory tells us nothing about
how to live the moral life. Thus, it is best labeled 'Non-Normative' as it
gives us no guidance. Non-Normative Ethics deals with the second pair
of basic questions listed above: the nature of moral language
(generally labeled 'Metaethics'), and the objectivity of the codes
articulated under the normative side of ethical theory. While I will
offer a brief introduction to the problem of moral language, we will
focus our attention on the more perplexing (and more interesting)
problem of the objectivity of moral codes which is called
'Descriptivism.
We're going to divide our investigation of Ethics according to
the division between the Normative and Non-Normative parts of the
theory: first, we will look at a general problem (or 'meta problem') for
any ethical theory to consider - are moral systems objective features
of the world, or are they the subjective creations of particular
individuals, cultures, or species sometimes called Moral Relativism.
This is part of what we've called 'Non-Normative Ethics'. Second, we'll
investigate the normative side of Ethics and the three main types of
theories which are part of this part of the ethical enquiry.
 Metaethics and normative ethics are two major branches of
ethics. While metaethics focuses on determining the meaning
and objectivity of moral concepts of good and bad, or right and
wrong, normative ethics attempts to determine which
character traits are good and bad, which actions are right and
wrong.

ISSUE, DECISION, JUDGMENT, AND DILEMMA

Moral law is law itself, moral judgement to a certain action.
As the final point of clarification, it may be helpful to
distinguish a situation that calls for moral valuation. It can be called a
“moral issue.” For instance, imagine a situation wherein a person
cannot afford a certain item, but then the possibility presents itself for
her to steal it. This is a matter of ‘ethics and not a law’ insofar as it
involves the question of respect for one’s property. We should add
that “issue” is also often used to refer to those particular situations
that are often the source of considerable and inconclusive debate
thus, we would often hear topics such as a capital punishment and
euthanasia as moral “issue.”
When one is called a placed in a situation and confronted by
the choice of what act to perform, she is called to make a “moral
decision”. For instance, I choose not to take something I did not pay
for. When a person is an observer who makes as assessment on the
actions or behavior of someone, she is making a “moral decision.” For
instance, a friend of mine chooses to steal from a store, and I make an
assessment that is wrong.
Finally, going beyond the matter of choosing right over wrong,
or good or bad, and considering instead the more complicated
situation wherein one is torn between choosing one of two goods or
choosing between the lesser evils: this is referred to as a “moral
dilemma.”
The greatest number of the greatest number of such action.

REASONING
Because ethics falls within the abstract discipline of philosophy,
ethics involves many different perspectives of what people value as
meaningful and good in their lives. A value is something of worth or
something that is highly regarded. Value refer to one’s evaluative
judgments about people esteem as “good” influence how personal
character develops and how people think and subsequently behave.
Hence, to put in another way, what reasons do we give to decide or to
judge that a certain way of acting in either right or wrong?
A person’s fear of punishment or desire for reward can provide
him a reason for acting in a certain way. It is common to hear
someone say “I did not cheat on the exam because I was afraid that I
might get caught,” Or “I looked after my father in the hospital
because I wanted to get a higher allowance.” In a certain sense, fear
of punishment ad desire for reward can be spoken of as giving
someone a “reason” for acting in a certain way. Furthermore, 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 the good or the bad in a
particular pursuit.
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 be 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 in this way. Beyond rewards and punishment, it
is possible for our moral valuation- our decision 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 judgment.
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? Returning to the case of fraternity
hazing where we started this chapter, why it is wrong to cause
another person physical injury or to take another ‘s life? Such reason
may differ. One person may say that life is sacred and God-given.
Another person may declare that human life does not contribute to
human happiness but to human misery instead.

MORAL 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 “framework” as a theory of interconnected ideas, and the
same time, a structure through which we can evaluates our reason for
valuing a certain decision or judgment.
There are different frameworks that can make us reflect on the
principles that we maintain and thus, the decisions and judgments we
make. By standing these, we can reconsider, clarify, modify, and
ultimately strengthen our principles, thereby informing better both
our moral judgments and moral decisions.

SOURCE 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 of such ideas: the authority of the law, the authority
of one’s religion, and the authority of one’s own culture.
“Law” is a legal code represents the minimum acceptable
behavior of a particular group. Members of a society who are
unwilling to abide by the law are sanctioned by the community as a
whole though sanctions vary in severity based on the perceived harm
to the community there is the moral code. The moral code represents
a much broader set of normative controls and is identifiable by the
inverse proportion to the severity of the sanctions associated with the
legal code. That is, societies tend to be more tolerant of moral
violations than of violations of the law. We don't use economic
sanctions or restrictions of liberty or life for those who act immorally.
There is etiquette which represents the broadest possible set of
behavioral expectations of a society. Those who violate the etiquette
codes suffer the least serious sanctions of all. While one might insult a
host or bring disgrace to Miss Manners, violations of politeness are
not treated as harshly as either violations of the law or the moral
code. What each of these codes have in common is their attempt to
control the behavior of individuals within society. The distinction
between each code seems to be located in the severity of the
punishments associated with each kind of violation.

In addition to the three normative codes noted above there is

another type of social normative system: “religion.” Like law, morality
and etiquette, religion is a normative system, i.e., it tells people how
to behave. Unlike the three systems mentioned above, it usually
entails non-natural sanctions for violations of the code of conduct.
One of the things that make an analysis of morality difficult is the fact
that these four different normative social systems overlap creating, in
some cases, fuzzy boundaries. For example, while failing to pay your
taxes is clearly a violation of the legal code, it does not seem to be
rude, immoral, or impious. Murder, on the other hand, is not only a
violation of the law; it is also generally considered to be impious,
immoral, and rude. Thus, when we are thinking about morality, we
must be careful to keep our analysis focused on the sphere of morality
to avoid conflations of religious and legal questions. Attempting to
draw the distinction between the legal and the moral, and to
understand exactly what makes some social prescriptions part of the
moral code as opposed to the legal or religious code, is in part, what
some ethicists do. “Culture” exposure to different societies and their
culture makes us aware that there are ways of thinking and valuing
that are different from our own, that there is in fact a which diversity
of how different people believe it is proper act.
Actions by itself
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
valuation are, but should instead turn inwards. In this section, we will
into three theories about ethics that center on the self: subjectivism,
psychological egoism, and ethical egoism.

SUBJECTIVISM
The starting point of subjectivism is the recognition that the
individual thinking person (the subject) is at the heart of all moral
valuations. She 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.

PSYCHOLOGICAL EGOISM
Let us consider another cliché. It would go like this: “Human
beings are naturally self-centered, so all our actions are always already
motivated by self- interest.”
This is the stance taken by “psychological egoism,” which a
theory that describes the underlying dynamic behind all human
actions. As 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 act. The ego or self has its desires and
interest, and all our actions are geared toward satisfying these
interests. This may not seem particular problematic when we consider
many of the actions that we do on day-to-day basis. I watch a movie or
read a book because I enjoy that. I take a certain course in college
because I think it will benefit me, or I join on organization because I
will get something out of it. We do things in pursuit of our own self-
interest at all time.
This theory has a couple of strong points. The first is that of
simplicity. When an idea is marked by simplicity, it has a unique appeal
to it; a theory that conveniently identifies a single basis that will
somehow account for all actions is a good example of this. The second
is that of plausibility, it is plausible that self-interest is behind a
person’s actions. It is clearly the motivation behind many of the
actions one perform which are obviously self-giving; it could very well
also be the motivation behind an individual’s seemingly other-
directed actions. It is not only plausible, but also irrefutable.
Intentions good, actions bad.

ETHICAL EGOISM
Ethical egoism differs from psychological egoism in that it does
not suppose all our actions are already inevitably self-giving. 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 herself at the center. One
should consider herself as the priority and not allow any other
concerns, such as the welfare of other people, to detract from this
pursuit. It is clear that we have our interests and desires, and would
want them satisfied. Thus, this question can be asked: why should I
have any concern about the interests of others? In a sense, this
question challenges in a fundamental way the idea if not just a study
of ethics, but also the effort of being ethical.
Direction: Choose and circle the correct answers.
1. Which of the following is not in the scope of ethics?
a. Obligations c. Ideals
b. Prohibitions d. None of the above

2. “the new movie I had just seen was a good one because I enjoyed
it”
a. Aesthetics c. Technique and technical
b. Etiquette d. Attitude

3. “a song I had just heard on the radio was a bad one because it had
and unpleasant tone”
a. Attitude c. Technique and technical
b. Etiquette d. Aesthetics

4. “it is right to knock politely on someone’s door”

a. Attitude c. Technique and technical
b. Etiquette d. Aesthetics

5. Leaning how to play basketball (obeying the rules)

a. Attitude c. Technique and technical
b. Etiquette d. Aesthetics

6. Reports how people, particularly groups, make their moral

valuations without making any judgment either for or against these
valuations.
a. Descriptive study of Ethics c. Standard study of Ethics
b. Informative study of Ethics d. Normative study of Ethics

7. “A friend of mine chooses to steal from the store, and I make an

assessment that it is wrong.”
a. Moral Issue c. Moral Decision
b. Moral Dilemma d. Moral Judgement
8. Right and wrong action but not grave enough to belong to the
discussion on ethics.
a. Obligations c. Ideals
b. Etiquette d. Prohibitions

9. Learning how to bake (right thing to do in baking)

a. Attitude c. Technique and technical
b. Etiquette d. Aesthetics

10. It is a more complicated situation wherein one is torn between

choosing one of two goods or choosing between the lesser of two
evils.
a. Moral Issue c. Moral Decision
b. Moral Dilemma d. Moral Judgement

11. Right and wrong technique of doing things

a. Attitude c. Etiquette
b. Technical Valuation d. Aesthetics

12. Specific beliefs or attitudes that people have or to describe acts

that people perform.
a. Ethics c. Culture
b. Religion d. Morals

13. It equips man with a (theoretical) knowledge of the morality of the

human acts.
a. Ethics c. Morality
b. Religion d. Morals

14. If morality, therefore, is the practice of Ethics, morality, then,

should be properly called as
a. Applied Morality c. Applied Standards
b. Applied Ethics d. Applied Ethical Standards

15. “It is good if I say that it is good.”

a. Subjectivism c. Ethical Egoism
b. Psychological Egoism d. Egoistic

16. “Human beings are naturally self-centered, so all our actions are
always already motivated by our self-interest.” This is under the
theory of
a. Subjectivism c. Ethical Egoism
b. Psychological Egoism d. Moral Egoism

17. Ethics is also called Moral Philosophy, or precisely, the other name
of Ethics is
a. Applied Morality c. Moral Philosophy
b. Applied Ethics d. Moral Theology

18. It prescribes what we ought to maintain as our standards or bases

for moral valuation.
a. Descriptive study of Ethics c. Standard study of Ethics
b. Informative study of Ethics d. Normative study of Ethics

19. Three theories about ethics that centre on the self

a. Objectivism, Psychological Egoism, Ethical Egoism
b. Subjectivism, Psychological Egoism, Moral Egoism
c. Subjectivism, Physiological Egoism, Ethical Egoism
d. Subjectivism, Psychological Egoism, Ethical Egoism

20. It can be spoken of as giving someone a “reason” for acting in a

certain way.
a. Love of Desire c. Rewarding Pleasure
b. Fear of Punishment d. Desire for Compensation
CHAPTER II INTRODUCTION TO ETHICS
Overview
Utilitarianism, in normative ethics, a tradition stemming from
the late 18th- and 19th-century English philosophers and
economists Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill according to which
an action (or type of action) is right if it tends to promote happiness or
pleasure and wrong if it tends to produce unhappiness or pain—not
just for the performer of the action but also for everyone else affected
by it. 
Utilitarianism is a species of consequentialism, the general
doctrine in ethics that actions (or types of action) should be evaluated
on the basis of their consequences. Utilitarianism and other
consequentialist theories are in opposition to egoism, the view that
each person should pursue his or her own self-interest, even at the
expense of others, and to any ethical theory that regards some actions
(or types of action) as right or wrong independently of their
consequences (see deontological ethics).
Utilitarianism also differs from ethical theories that make the
rightness or wrongness of an action dependent upon the motive of the
agent—for, according to the utilitarian, it is possible for the right thing
to be done from a bad motive. Utilitarian’s may, however, distinguish
the aptness of praising or blaming an agent from whether the action
was right.
 Branch only of ethics
 normative is systematic
 Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill founders
 Considers the general / majority
 We avoid things that give us pain

The greatest happiness of the greatest number is the

foundation of morals and legislation.

-Jeremy Bentham
 Utilitarianism is an ethical theory that argues for the goodness
of pleasure and the determination of right behavior based on the
usefulness of the action’s consequences. This means that pleasure is
good and that the goodness of an action is determined by its
usefulness. Putting these ideas together, utilitarianism claims that
one’s actions and behavior are good inasmuch as they number of
persons. It roots word is “utility” which refers to the usefulness of the
consequences of one’s action and behavior. When we argue that is
permissible because doing so results in better public safety, then we
are arguing in utilitarian way.
It is utilitarian because we argue that some individual right can
be sacrificed for the sake of the greater happiness of the many.
Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) and John Stuart Mill (1806-
1873) are the two foremost utilitarian thinkers.
Their system of ethics emphasizes the consequences of
actions. This means that the goodness or the badness of an action is
based on whether it is useful in contributing to a specific purpose for
the greatest number of people. Utilitarianism is consequentialist. This
means that the moral value of actions and decision is based solely or
greatly on the usefulness of their consequences; it is the usefulness of
results that determines whether the action or behavior is good or bad.
While this is the case, not all consequentialist theories are utilitarian.
For Bentham and Mill, utility refers to a way of understanding
the results of people’s actions. Specifically, they are interested on
whether these actions contribute or not to the total amount of
resulting happiness in the world. The utilitarian value pleasure and
happiness; this means that the usefulness of actions is based on its
promotion of happiness. Bentham and Mill understand happiness as
the experience of pleasure for the greatest number of persons. Even
at the expense of some individual’s rights.

THE PRINCPLE OF UTILITY

The principle of utility is about our subjection to these
sovereign masters: pleasure and pain. On the other hand, the
principle refers to the motivation of our actions as guided by our
avoidance of pain and for pleasure. It like saying that in our everyday
actions, we do what is pleasurable and we do not do what is painful.
On the, other hand the principle also refers to pleasure as good
if, and only if, they produce more happiness than unhappiness. This
means that it is not enough to experience pleasure, but also inquire
whether the things we do make us happier. Having identified the
tendency for pleasure and the avoidance of pain as the principle of
utility, Bentham equates happiness with pleasure. Mill supports
Bentham’s principle of utility. He reiterates moral good as happiness
and, consequently, happiness as pleasure. Mill clarifies that what
makes people happy is intended pleasure and what makes us unhappy
is the privation of pleasure. The things that produce happiness and
pleasure are good; whereas, those that produce unhappiness and pain
are bad.
Clearly, Mill argues that we act and do things because we find
them pleasurable and we avoid doing things because they are painful.
If we find our actions pleasurable, Mill explains, it is because they are
inherently pleasurable in themselves or they eventually lead to the
promotion of pleasure and the avoidance of pain. Bentham and Mill
characterized moral value as utility and understood as whatever
produced happiness or pleasure and the avoidance of pain. The next
step is to understand the nature of pleasure and pain to identify a
criterion for distinguish pleasure and to calculate the resultant
pleasure or pain; it is in relation to these aforementioned themes that
a distinction occurs between Bentham and Mill.
What Bentham identified as the natural moral prefer ability of
pleasure, Mill refers to as a theory of life. It we consider, for example,
what moral agents do and how they assess their actions, then it is
hard to deny the pursuit for happiness and the avoidance of pain. For
Bentham and Mill, the pursuit for pleasure and the avoidance of pain
are not only important principles they are in fact the only principle in
assessing an action’s morality.

In determining the moral prefer ability of actions, Bentham

provides a framework for evaluating pleasure and pain commonly
called felicific calculus. Felicific calculus is a common currency
framework that calculates the pleasure that some actions can
produce. In this framework, an action can be evaluated on the basis of
“intensity or strength of pleasure”, “duration or length of the
experience of pleasure”, “certainty”, “uncertainty”, “propinquity” or
“remoteness”, “fecundity” or “productivity”, “purity”, and “extent.”
Felicific calculus allows the evaluation of all action and their resultant
pleasure. This means that actions are evaluated on this single scale
regardless of preferences and values.
In this sense, pleasure and pain can only quantitatively differ
but not qualitatively differ from other experience of pleasure and pain
accordingly.
Mill dissents from Bentham’s single scale of pleasure. He thinks
that the principle of “utility” must distinguish pleasures qualitatively
and not merely quantitatively. For Mill, utilitarianism cannot promote
the kind of pleasures appropriate to pigs or to any animals. He thinks
that there are higher intellectual and lower base pleasure. We, as
moral agents, are capable of searching and desiring higher intellectual
pleasures more than animal are capable of. Human pleasures are
qualitatively different from animal pleasures.

FOUR THESIS OF UTILITARIANISM

 Consequentialism: The rightness of actions is determined solely by
their consequences.
 Hedonism: Utility is the degree to which an act produces pleasure.
Hedonism is the thesis that pleasure or happiness is the good that
we seek and that we should seek.
 Maximalism: A right action produces the greatest good
consequences and the least bad.
 Universalism: The consequences to be considered are those of
everyone affected, and everyone equally.

TWO TYPES OF UTILITARIANISM

 Act: An Action is right if and only if it produces the greatest
balance of pleasure over pain for the greatest number. (Jeremy
Bentham)
 Rule: An action is right if and only if it conforms to a set of rules
the general acceptance of which would produce the greatest
balance of pleasure over pain for the greatest number. (John
Stuart Mill)

PRINCIPLE OF THE GREATEST NUMBER

Equating happiness with pleasure does not aim to describe the
utilitarian moral agent alone and independently from others. This is
not only about our individual pleasures, regardless of how high,
intellectual, or in other ways noble it is, but it is also about the
pleasure of the greatest number affected by the consequences of our
actions. Mill explains utilitarianism cannot lead to selfish acts. It is
neither about our pleasure nor happiness alone; it cannot be all about
us. If we are the only ones satisfied by our actions, it does not
constitute a moral good. If we are the only ones who are made happy
by our actions, then we cannot be morally good. In this sense,
utilitarianism is not dismissive of sacrifices that procure more
happiness for others.
Therefore, it is necessary for us to consider everyone’s
happiness, including our own, as the standard by which to evaluate
what is moral. Also, it implies that utilitarianism I not at all separate
from liberal social practices that aim to improve the quality of life for
all persons. “Utilitarianism” is interested with everyone’s happiness,
in fact, the greatest happiness of the greatest number. Mill identifies
the eradication of disease, using technology, and other practical ways
as examples of utilitarianism. Consequently, utilitarianism maximizes
the total amount of pleasure over displeasure for the greatest
number. Because of the premium given to the consequences of action,
Mill pushes for the moral irrelevance of motive in evaluating actions.

APPLICATION OF UTILITARIAN THEORY

A) You attempt to help an elderly man across the street. He gets
across safely.
Conclusion: The Act was a good act
B) You attempt to help an elderly man across the street. You stumble
as you go, he is knocked into the path of a car, and is hurt.
Conclusion: The Act was a bad act.

CRITICISMS ON BENTHAM’S THEORY

Bentham’s theory could mean that if 10 people would be happy
watching a man being eaten by wild dogs, it would be a morally good
thing for the 10 men to kidnap someone (especially someone whose
death would not cause grief to many others) and throw the man into a
cage of wild, hungry dogs. Bernard Williams criticizes the implied
“doctrine of negative responsibility” in Utilitarianism. For example, a
criminal break into my home and holds six people hostage, telling us
he will kill all of us. “However,” the criminal says, “if you will kill two of
your family, I will let you and the other three live.” With Utilitarianism,
the good thing to do is to kill two members of my family. Also,
Utilitarianism plays fast and loose with God’s commandments. If lying,
stealing, or killing could lead to an increase of happiness for the
greatest number, we are told we should lie, steal or kill. Isn’t that a
rejection of God’s commands?
Mind mapping Philosophy and Ethics
Step 1: Create a Central Idea
• The central idea is the starting point of your Mind Map and
represents the topic you are going to explore.
• Your central idea should be in the center of your page and
should include an image that represents the Mind Map’s topic.
• This draws attention and triggers associations, as our brains
respond better to visual stimuli.
Step 2: Add branches to your map
• The next step to get your creative juices flowing is to add
branches.
• The main branches which flow from the central image are the
key themes. You can explore each theme or main branch in
greater depth by adding child branches.
• The beauty of the Mind Map is that you can continually add
new branches and you’re not restricted to just a few options.
• Remember, the structure of your Mind Map will come
naturally as you add more ideas and your brain freely draws
new associations from the different concepts.
Step 3: Add keywords
• When you add a branch to your Mind Map, you will need to
include a key idea.
• An important principle of Mind Mapping is using one word per
branch. Keeping to one word sparks off a greater number of
associations compared to using multiple words or phrases.
• For example, if you include ‘Moral Philosophy’ on a branch,
you are restricted to just aspects of the Philosophy.
• The use of keywords triggers connections in your brain and
allows you to remember a larger quantity of information.
Step 4: Colour code your branches
• Mind Mapping encourages whole brain thinking as it brings
together a wide range of cortical skills from logical and
numerical to creative and special.
• The overlap of such skills makes your brain more synergetic
and maintains your brain’s optimal working level.
• Colour coding links the visual with the logical and helps your
brain to create mental shortcuts.
• The code allows you to categorize, highlight, analyze
information and identify more connections which would not
have previously been discovered.
 CHAPTER III
Deontology
Overview
Deontology
Deontology is a system of ethical analysis, most closely
associated with Immanuel Kant, that bases the correctness of one’s
actions on fulfilling the duties of the actor (Alexander and Moore,
2008). Thus individuals have moral obligations to others and, if they
fulfill those obligations, they are acting ethically; if they do not, they
are acting unethically. Among the major challenges of deontology is to
determine the basis of one’s duties and the nature of one’s duties.
Religious ethics typically is deontological. For example, the 10
commandments of the Old Testament define both specific duties all
persons are expected to fulfill and also the basis for the duties – i.e.,
the commandments of an almighty deity. Thus, for persons who are
committed to a particular religious’ tradition, their ethical duties are
often defined by that tradition. However, for those who do not
subscribe to that tradition, those duties may not be perceived as
binding. Furthermore, in a pluralistic secular society, no one religious
perspective is likely to be endorsed by all individuals. Therefore,
religiously based deontology cannot provide a common framework for
such a society’s ethics.
A. Learning Outcomes:
1. Discuss deontology and how it affects the ethical standard of
human history.
2. Apply the precepts of the deontology to cotemporary moral
concerns.
3. Relate distinct utilitarian perspectives to deontological
philosophy.

B. Time Allotment

C. Discussion

D. Activities/ Exercises
 I. Kantian Ethics
The word deontology derives from the Greek words for duty
(deon) and science (or study) of (logos). In contemporary moral
philosophy, deontology is one of those kinds of normative theories
regarding which choices are morally required, forbidden, or
permitted. In other words, deontology falls within the domain of
moral theories that guide and assess our choices of what we ought to
do (deontic theories), in contrast to those that guide and assess what
kind of person we are and should be (aretaic [virtue] theories). And
within the domain of moral theories that assess our choices,
deontologists—those who subscribe to deontological theories of
morality—stand in opposition to consequentialists.

Immanuel Kant
Immanuel Kant was born into a family of financially struggling artisans in 1724,
and he lived and worked his whole life in the cosmopolitan Baltic port city of
Konigsberg, then part of Prussia. Though he never left his native province, he
became an internationally famous philosopher within his own lifetime. Kant
studied philosophy, physics, and mathematics at the University of Konigsberg,
and taught at the same institution for the next 27 years. In 1792 his unorthodox
views led King Friedrich Wilhelm II to ban him from teaching, to which he
returned after the king’s death five years later. Kant published throughout his
career, but is best known for the series of ground-breaking works he produced in
his 50s and 60s. Though a bright and sociable man, he never married, and died at
the age of 80.
Deontology is an ethical theory that uses rules to distinguish right
from wrong. Deontology is often associated with philosopher
Immanuel Kant. Kant believed that ethical actions follow universal
moral laws, such as “Don’t lie. Don’t steal. Don’t cheat.”

Deontology is simple to apply. It just requires that people

follow the rules and do their duty. This approach tends to fit well with
our natural intuition about what is or isn’t ethical.

Unlike consequentialism, which judge’s actions by their results,

deontology doesn’t require weighing the costs and benefits of a
situation. This avoids subjectivity and uncertainty because you only
have to follow set rules.

Despite its strengths, rigidly following deontology can produce

results that many people find unacceptable. For example, suppose
you’re a software engineer and learn that a nuclear missile is about to
launch that might start a war. You can hack the network and cancel
the launch, but it’s against your professional code of ethics to break
into any software system without permission. And, it’s a form of lying
and cheating. Deontology advises not to violate this rule. However, in
letting the missile launch, thousands of people will die.

In Kantian ethical school, man acts morally because it is his

duty to be moral.

Duty
To Kant: Duty is the obligation to act from reverence, respect
for, and obedience to the moral law.
Since Kant contends that the will to perform an act is not
governed by desire or inclination, duty, therefore, is absolute and
unconditional.
According to Kant, the moral on duty is a categorical or an absolute
command. That is why he calls his brand of morality categorical
imperative.

II. Categorical imperative

Categorical imperative is an unconditional moral law applying to all

rational beings and independent of all personal desires and motives.
Categorical imperative is founded on two principles:
1. Principle of Universality
2. Principle of Humanity
The Principle of Universality is constructed by Kant in this way:
“Act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time, will
it should become universal law.”
• Man should perform only those actions that have universal
repercussions (consequences).
• Therefore, one should not perform acts that cannot be
universalized.
• Kant contends that suicide and not paying debts are actions
that cannot become universal.
 • Kant argues that one, before doing an act, should first ask if the
action per se is an action that one wants others to likewise do.
If not, then, it is not universally acceptable.
The Principle of Humanity is however, constructed by Kant in this
way:
“Act in such a way you always treat humanity, whether in your own
person or in the person of any other, never simply a means, but always
at the same time as an end.”
• Man is not a means to an end; he is an end in himself.
• This principle of humanity, however, is for Kant not derived
from experience.
• It calls for man’s unconditional respect to his fellowmen.
• Kant hate actions that lead to depersonalization,
dehumanization, and the alienation of man.

Summary of Kantian Ethics

1. Kant espouses a morality which is founded on the autonomy of
man’s rational nature as shown in the context of duty as the
moral ought, or to use his own term, categorical imperative.
2. With this, reason acts naturally by influencing the will to
become good will.
3. As a reason establishes a good will, good will in turns functions
as it acts for duty’s sake.
4. Duty, he defines, is obedience, reverence, or respect for the
moral law.

III. Critique of Kantian Ethics

Kantian ethics is, indeed, a highly idealistic one.
• It emphasizes that ethics is an absolute, or categorical and that
ethics is founded on reason.
• Kant contends that the moral law is determined by our rational
capacities. In other words, man, as a rational being, imposes
the moral law upon himself.
• This implies that the moral law is man’s own creation, not
God’s.
 • Kant espouses the idea that the moral law lies in man’s nature
as a rational being and not actually patented from the eternal
law of God.
1. According to Kant, reason makes the Moral Law.
Man only discovers the moral law in his very nature as a rational
animal. Therefore, Kant is wrong; reason does not make the moral
law; it only tells us about the law. This assessment is based on the
Thomistic ethics.
Therefore, moral law is not our own invention, because it is imposed
on us by God.
2. According to Kant, duty is the only motive in the performance
of an act; the duty does not consider whether the agent is
happy or pleased with his action or not, and God has nothing
to do with man’s moral action.
 Is duty the only motive which man should think of or
aspire for in performing an act?
 Kant forgets that there are other motives in the
performance of an act – for example, mercy, love,
happiness, pity, pleasure, among others.

3. According to Kant, man should act only if the action he wants

to perform will become a universal law.
 In this principle, it is wrong to argue that moral rules are
practiced universally, because there are many moral rules,
or actions specifically, that cannot be universalized.
 “Thou shall not kill” – it is impossible to universalize the
prohibition of killing; otherwise, there shall be no capital
punishment, war, and, of course, killing somebody in self-
defense cannot be justified anymore.
 “Thou shall not lie.” – there are times when telling a lie is
indispensable.

“those who subscribe to deontological theories of morality—stand

in opposition to consequentialists.”
DUTY AND AGENCY
• Deontology – moral theory that evaluates actions that are
done because of duty
• Greek: “deon” which means “being necessary”
• Hence, deontology refers to the study of duty and obligation.
• Main proponent: Immanuel Kant (1724-1804)
• Kant brings our attention to the fact that we, human beings,
have the faculty called rational will, which is the capacity to act
according to principles that we determine for ourselves.
• Agent- “us”
To consider the Rational Will
• Animals vs. Persons
• Animals
• Sentient organisms
• Constantly interact with their surroundings
• Humans
• Sentient organisms
• Constantly interact with their surroundings
People are Rational
• Rationality consists of the mental faculty to construct ideas and
thoughts that are beyond our immediate surroundings
• Capacity for mental abstraction from the operations of the
faculty of reason
• We have the ability to stop and think about what we are doing.
• Ability to reflect on our actions and how such actions affect the
world
• We can imagine a different and better world and create mental
images of how we interact with other people in that world.
• In the same way, an architect “first” construct her blueprint of
a house in her mind.
• When the draft of that construction is drawn, she can the give
instructions to masons and carpenters on how to build an
actual house – a “second” construction
• Young girl – nice dress and makeup
• Student – outline for an English essay
• Painter – sketches on a canvass
• First construction – how we imagine things can be
• Second construction – implementation
• Through the capacity for imagination and reflection, we
conceive of how we could affect, possibly even change, the
world we live in.
• Thus, we do not only have the capacity to imagine and
construct mental images, but we also have the ability to act on
– to enact and make real – those mental images.
• This ability to enact our thoughts is the basis for the rational
will.
• Rational will refers to the faculty to intervene in the world, to
act in a manner that is consistent with our reason.
• As far as we know, animals only act according to impulses,
based on their natural instincts.
• Thus, animals “act” with immediacy (Latin “i+medius” or “no
middle”)with nothing that intervenes between the impulses
and the action.
• No deliberations on their actions.
• We may say that animals do not “act”.
• They only “react” to their external surroundings and internal
impulses.
• Humans, therefore, are not only reacting to the surroundings
and internal impulses, but are also conceiving of ways to act
according to certain rational principles.
• E.g., you may feel lethargic. Your head feels heavy and your
eyes are droopy.
• Impulse: close your eyes and fall asleep.
• Your rational will: you have finish reading this chapter for a
quiz tomorrow, so you struggle to stay awake; stand up briefly
to stretch the legs; take some coffee; etc.
• This demonstrates the triumph of your rational will over your
base impulse to just go to sleep.
 • In philosophical discussions about human freedom, this
capacity is called agency, which is the ability of the person to
act based on her intentions and mental states.
• Hence, duty is specifically a human experience.
• Animals, if it is true that they do not possess the faculty of a
rational will, cannot conceive of having duties.
• This is the starting point of deontology.
• We may claim that as long as we have rationality, there will
always be the tension between our base impulses and our
rational will.
AUTONOMY
• Kant: the property of rational will is autonomy, which is the
opposite of heteronomy.
• Greek: autos – “self”
heteros – “other”
nomos – “law”
• Autos and nomos – autonomy – “self-law or self-legislating”
• heteros and nomos – heteronomy – “other law”
• Consider the trivial example of brushing one’s teeth which is
not a moral dilemma but could explain autonomy and
heteronomy.
• When you were child, do you like to brush your teeth? Children
do not like to brush their teeth, but parents know that children
should, to maintain oral hygiene.
• Parents will find ways to get their small children brush their
teeth.
• “hey Ryan, go and brush your teeth or else your teeth will rot!”
• “Liza, if you brush your teeth in five minutes, I will let you play
your computer game tonight.”
• In the case of Ryan and Liza, are they autonomous?
• Ryan and Liza, 20 years later when they are in their mid-
twenties.
• Growing up as teenagers, they both reflected on the whole
business of brushing one’s teeth.
1. They agreed with the principle behind it (oral hygiene)
 2. They impose it upon themselves to brush their teeth
before going to bed
• No. 1, act of legislating principle
• No. 2, enacting of the principle
• Are they autonomous?
Kant describes this as follows:
• “The will is thus not only subject to the law, but it is also
subject to the law in such a way that it gives the law to itself
(self-legislating), and primarily just in this way that the will can
be considered the author of the law under which it is subject.”
• “Subject to the law” = Latin: sub – under, jacere – to throw
• Meaning, the will is thrown or brought under the law.
• The will must comply with the law, which is the authority
figure.
• The will must give the law to itself.
• Thus, Kant describes autonomy as the will that is subject to a
principle or law
The brushing Ryan and Liza
• On the one hand, heteronomy is the simple legislation and
imposition of a law by an external authority
• Their parents are their authority figure
• The law is imposed externally by rewards and punishments
• On the other hand, autonomy belongs to the grown-up and
already rational Ryan and Liza who have adopted such a law
about brushing their teeth.
• They regularly impose such a law on themselves out of the
enactment of the will to follow the law.
Distinguishing point: Authorship of the Law
• In any given scenario where a person complies with the law,
we ask where the author is, whether it is external or internal.
• If the author of the law is external, the will is subjected to an
external authority, thus, heteronomous will.
• If the author was the will itself, imposing the law unto self,
then we describe the will as autonomous.
UNIVERSALIZABILITY
• Kinds of moral theories – substantive and formal moral
theories
• Substantive moral theory – immediately promulgates the
specific actions that comprise that theory.
• The Ten Commandments
• Formal moral theories – does not supply the rules or
commands straightaway. It does not tell you what you may or
may not do. Instead, a formal theory provides us the “form” or
“framework” of the moral theory.
• Cookbook – instructions on how to cook but not the
food themselves
• Kant endorses this Formal kind of moral theory.
• He calls it categorical imperative which provides a procedural
way of identifying the rightness or wrongness of action.
• “Act only according to such maxim, by which you can at once
will that it become a universal law”
• Key elements: action, maxim, will, universal law
• Maxim – a “subjective principle of action”, “rule” that we live
by in our day-to-day lives.
• Maxims depict the patterns of our behavior
• Thus, maxims are similar to “Standard Operating Procedure”
(SOP) in our lives.
• Talking about ourselves
• Reveal our habits and the reasons behind them
• Kant claims that we ought to act according to the maxim “by
which you can at once will that it become a universal law”
• It means that the maxim must be universalizable, which is what
it means to “will that it become a universal law”
• Kant is telling us to conceive of the maxim as if it obligated
everyone to comply.
• The proper way to imagine the universalized maxim is not by
asking, “what if everyone did that maxim?” but “what if
everyone were obligated to follow that maxim?”
• E.g., false promises: Borrowing money without intending to
return it…
• Logical plausibility
• Self-contradiction
 CHAPTER II

INTRODUCTION TO NATURAL LAW

Overview
There have been several disagreements over the meaning of
natural law and its relation to positive law. Aristotle (384–322 BCE)
held that what was “just by nature” was not always the same as what
was “just by law,” that there was a natural justice valid everywhere
with the same force and “not existing by people’s thinking this or
that,” and that appeal could be made to it from positive law. However,
he drew his examples of natural law primarily from his observation of
the Greeks in their city-states, who subordinated women to men,
slaves to citizens, and “barbarians” to Hellenes. In contrast,
the Stoics conceived of an entirely egalitarian law of nature in
conformity with the logos (reason) inherent in the human mind.
Roman jurists paid lip service to this notion, which was reflected in the
writings of St. Paul (c. 10–67 CE), who described a law “written in the
hearts” of the Gentiles (Romans 2:14–15). St. Augustine of Hippo
(354–430) embraced Paul’s notion and developed the idea of man’s is
having lived freely under natural law before his fall and subsequent
bondage under sin and positive law. In the 12th century Gratian, an
Italian monk and father of the study of canon law, equated natural law
with divine law—that is, with the revealed law of the Old and New
Testaments, in particular the Christian version of the Golden Rule.

St. Thomas Aquinas (c. 1224/25–1274) propounded an

influential systematization, maintaining that, though the eternal law of
divine reason is unknowable to us in its perfection as it exists in God’s
mind, it is known to us in part not only by revelation but also by the
operations of our reason. The law of nature, which is “nothing else
than the participation of the eternal law in the rational creature,”
thus comprises those precepts that humankind is able to formulate—
namely, the preservation of one’s own good, the fulfillment of “those
inclinations which nature has taught to all animals,” and the pursuit of
the knowledge of God. Human law must be the particular application
of natural law.

At the end of this chapter, students will be able to:

1. Recognize how St. Thomas Aquinas made use of Ancient Greek
concepts to provide a rational grounding to an ethical theory based on
the Christian faith;
2. Identify the natural law in distinction form, but also in relation to,
the other types of law mentioned by Aquinas: eternal law, human law,
and divine law: and
3. Apply the precepts of the natural law to contemporary moral
concerns.

INTODUCTION

In October 2016, newspaper reported that Pantaleon Alvarez,

Speaker of the House of Representative, was intending to draft a bill
which would amend the country’s Family Code, thereby allowing for
the legalization of same-sex unions. This would result in the possibility
f two men together or to women together being identified as a couple
with rights guaranteed and protected by the law. However, as one
newspaper report t revealed, even before anything could e formally
proposed, other fellow legislators had already expressed to the media
their refusal o support any such initiative. The reasons given in the
news article vary, ranging from the opinion that seeing two men kiss is
unsightly, to the statement that there is something “irregular” about
belonging to the Lesbian Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT)
community, and o the judgment that two people of the same sex
being together is unnatural.

We are used to hearing people justify done something by

making the appeal that what they maintain is what is “natural”, and
therefore acceptable. Likewise, people would judge something as
unacceptable on the basis that is supposedly “unnatural”. Thus, we
are no longer surprised when we hear people condemn and label
many different things as “unnatural”: maybe receiving blood
transfusions, eating meat, or, as our new realize that sometimes we
might find ourselves astonished or perplexed as to what different
people might consider “unnatural.”

In order to proceed, therefore necessary to ask: “What do the

words natural and unnatural mean?” Sometimes, the word “natural”
seems to be used to refer to some kind of intuition that a person has,
one which is so apparently true to him that is unquestioned. For
example, a woman ay claim that it is simply “unnatural” to eat any
kind of insect, and what this means is that she personally finds herself
averse to the idea of doing so. In other instances, the word is used o
try to justify a certain way of behaving by seeing its likeness
somewhere in the natural world. For example, a man might claim that
is okay for him to have more than one sexual partner, since, in a pride
of lions the alpha male gets to mate with all the she-lions. In yet other
instances, the word “natural” is used as
an appeal to something instinctual
without it being directed by reason. For
example, a man may deem it all right if
he were to urinate just anywhere
because after all he sees it as “natural”
function of humans. Lastly, we also easily find people using the word
“natural” to refer to what seems common to them given their
particular environment. For instance, a Filipina may suppose that
eating three full meals of rice and ulam every day is what is “natural”
because everyone she knows behaves in that way.

Given these varied meanings of the term “natural” e need to

find a more solid and nuanced way to understand the term. In this
chapter, we will explore how Thomas Aquinas provides this,
emphasizing the capacity for reason as what is essential in our human
nature. This understanding of human nature anchored on our capacity
for reason will become the basis of the natural law theory, a theory
which will provide us a unique way of determining the moral status of
our actions.

THOMAS AQUINAS

There have been various thinkers and systems of thought

emerging throughout history that could be said to present a natural
law theory. Among them, the one we will be focusing on is the
medieval thinker Thomas Aquinas. It has to be recognized, however,
that is natural law theory is part of larger discussion, which his moral
theory is taken as a whole. This moral theory, in turn, is part of larger
project, which is Aquinas’s vision of the Christian faith. Before we turn
to the natural law theory, let us take a look at these contexts.

THE CONTEXT OF THE CHRISTIAN STORY

 The fundamental truth maintained and elaborated by Aquinas
in all his works is the promise right at the centre of the Christian faith:
that we are created by God in order to ultimately return to Him. The
structure of his magnum opus Summa Theologiae follows the
trajectory of this story. There are three parts of this voluminous work.
In the first part, Aquinas speaks of God, and although we acknowledge
that our limited human intellect cannot fully grasp Him, we
nevertheless are able to say something concerning His goodness, His
might, and His creative power. Recognizing then that we are created
by God, we move on to the second part, which deals with man or the
dynamic of human life. This is characterized by our pursuit of
happiness, which we should realize rests ultimately not on any
particular good thing that is created BY God. But in the highest good
which is God Himself. Our striving for this ultimate happiness, while
important, will not itself bring us to this blessed state. In other words,
salvation is only possible through the presence of God’s grace and that
grace has become perfectly incarnate in the person of Jesus. Thus, the
third part focuses on Jesus as our Savior.

Given that our concern here is the question of ethics, it would

seem clear that what would be of greatest interest to us is the second
part or the section of this story that centre’s
human life and its striving toward God.
However, bringing up the notion that living a
good life leads us to God could easily be
misunderstood as a simple exhortation to obey
certain rules as given to us through Church
doctrines or by following certain passages
lifted randomly from sacred Scriptures. In
other words, we may fall into the danger of the
divine command theory, which we had
explored in the first chapter. Instead, we should hope to find that
there is much greater complexity, but also coherence, to the ethics of
Aquinas.

THE CONTEXT OF AQUINAS’S ETHICS

A full consideration of Aquinas’s ethics would require us to

explore his discussion of other matters, such as how, in our pursuit of
happiness; we direct our actions towards specific ends. We might
explore how emotions “the passions” are involved in this process, and
therefore require a proper order if they are to properly contribute a
good life. We might explore how our actions are related to certain
disposition (often referred to as “habits”) in a dynamic way since our
actions both arise from our habits and at the same time reinforce
them. We might explore his discussion of how we develop either good
or bad habits with a good disposition leading us toward making moral
choices, thereby contributing to our moral virtue, and a bad
disposition inclining us toward making immoral choices, bringing us to
vice. The Christian life, therefore, is about developing the capacities
given to us by God into a disposition of virtue inclined toward the
good.

Aquinas also puts forward that there is within us a conscience

directs our moral thinking. This does not refer to some simple intuition
or gut feeling. For
Aquinas, there is a
sense of right and
wrong in us that
we are obliged to
obey. However,
he also adds that this sense of right and wrong must be informed,
guided, and ultimately grounded in an objective basis for morality. So,
we are called to heed the voice of conscience and enjoined to develop
and maintain a life of virtue. However, these both require content, so
we need something more. We need a basis for our conscience to be
properly informed, and we need a clearer guidepost on whether
certain decisions we make lead us toward virtue or vice. Being told
that one should heed one’s conscience or that one should try to be
virtuous, does very little to guide people as to what specifically should
be done in a given situation. Thus, there is a need for a clearer basis of
ethics, a ground that will more concretely direct our sense of what is
right and wrong. For Aquinas, this would be the natural law.
We can recall how the ethical approach called the divine command
theory urges a person toward unthinking obedience to religious
percepts. Given the problems of this simplistic approach to ethics, we
can contrast how the moral theory of Aquinas requires the judicious
use of reason. In doing so, one’s sense of right and wrong would be
grounded on something stable: human nature itself.

We will start by exploring how Aquinas restates the Christian

message, making use of a philosophical vocabulary appropriated from
the ancient Greeks. We then look at how Aquinas speaks of the
essence and also the varieties of law. From there, we will be able to
explore the precepts of the natural law.

THE GREEK HERITAGE

God creates. This does not only mean that He brings about
beings, but it also means that He cares for, and for thus governs, the
activity of the universe and every creatures? This central belief of the
Christian faith, while inspired by divine revelation, has been shaped
and defined by an idea stated in the work of the ancient Greek
philosopher Plato, which had been put forward a thousand years
before Aquinas. He is credited for giving the subsequent history of
philosophy in one of its most compelling and enduring ideas: the
notion of a supreme and absolutely transcendent good.

In his work The Republic, it is often supposed that Plato is

trying to envision the ideal society. But that plan is only a part of a
more fundamental concern that animates the text, which is to provide
an objective basis and standard for the striving to be moral. In other
words, it can be said that Plato was trying to answer questions such as,
“Why should I bother trying to be good?” and “why cannot good be
just whatever I say it is? His answer, placed in the mount of the main
character Socrates, is that the good is real and not something that one
can pretend to make up or ignore. Socrates, in discussing this, elevates
the notion of the good to unprecedented heights: Readers of the ‘The
Republic’ have long been baffled by this enigmatic passage and are
still trying to figure out how exactly to interpret it. Rather than be
dismissed, this idea of the good- a good which is prior to all being and
is even the cause of all being- will become a source of fascination and
inspiration to later thinkers even to this day.

In the next centuries after Plato’s time, some scholars turned

to his texts and tried to decipher the wealth of ideas contained there.
Because they saw their task as basically clarifying and elaborating on
what the great thinker had already written, these later scholars are
often labeled as Neo-Platonists. In the hands of Neo-Platonists, Plato’s
idea of the good, which is the source of all beings, becomes identified
with the One and the Beautiful. This is the ultimate reality, which is
the oneness that will give rise to the multiplicity of everything else in
the cosmos. All these beings have a single goal, which is to return to
that unity. Through Neo-Platonists like Plotinus, the Platonic idea of
the good would continue well into the Christian Middle Ages, inspiring
later thinkers and allowing it to be thought anew in a more personal
way as a creative and loving God.

ARISTOTELIAN BEING AND BECOME

In Aristotle’s exploration of how to discuss beings, he proposes

four concepts which provide a way of understanding any particular
being under consideration. Any being according to Aristotle, can be
said to have four causes. Frist, we recognize that any being we can see
around is corporeal, possessed of a certain materially or physical
“stuff.” We can refer to this as the material cause. A being is
individual- it becomes the unique, individual being that it is because it
is made up of this particular stuff. Yet, we also realize that this
material takes on a particular shape: so a bird is different from a cat,
which is different from a man. The “shape” that makes a being a
particular kind can be called its form. Thus, each being also has a
formal cause.

One can also realize that a being does not simply “pop up”
from nothing, but comes from another being which is prior to it.
Parents beget a child. A mango true tree used to be a seed that itself
came from an older tree. A chair is built as the product of a carpenter.
Thus, there is something which brings about the presence of another
being. This can be referred to as the “efficient cause”. Also, since a
being has an apparent end or goal, a chair to be sat on, the “final
cause” of each being. Identifying these four causes- material, formal,
efficient and final- gives a way to understand any being. Of course, it is
not a case of a being that is something which is already permanently
set as it is and remains forever unchanging. So in addition to
describing a being, Aristotle also has to explain to us the process of
becoming or the possibility of change that takes place in a being. A
new pair of principles is introduced by him, which we can refer to as
potency and act. A being may carry within itself certain potentials, but
these require being actualized. A puppy is not yet a full-grown dog.
These potencies are latent in the puppy and are actualized as the
puppy grows and achieves what it is supposed to be. The process of
becoming or change can thus be explained in this way. Understanding
beings, how they are and how the become or what they could be, is
the significant Aristotelian contribution to the picture which will be
given to us by Aquinas.

SYSTHESIS

The idea of a transcendent good prior to all being resurfaces in

Aquinas in the form of the good and loving god, who is Himself the
fullness of being and goodness; as Aquinas puts it, God is that which
essentially is that which essentially is and is essentially good. So, we
recognize that all beings are only possible as participating in the first
being, which is God Himself. God’s act, like an emanation of light, is
the creation of beings.

Insofar as God is that from which all beings come, it is possible

for us to speak of Him as the first efficient cause. Insofar as God is that
toward which all beings seek to return, it is possible for us to speak of
Him as the final cause. We see here the beginning of the synthesis by
nothing how the Neoplatonic movement from and back toward the
transcendent is fused with the Aristotelian notion of causes. Hat God
had is God’s will and love that are the cause of all things; to every
existing thing, God wills some good. Creation therefore is the activity
of the outpouring or overflowing, each being is in some sense good.
However, while beings are good because they are created by God, the
goodness possessed by being remains imperfect. For Aquinas, only
God in the fullness of His being and goodness is perfect; all other
beings are participating in this goodness, and are good to that extent,
but are imperfect since they are limited in their participation. But,
once again, instead, God did not create us to simply be imperfect and
to stay that way as He leaves us alone. The notion of divine providence
refers to how beings are properly ordered and even guided toward
their proper end; this end, which is for them to reach their highest
well, is to return to the divine goodness itself.

God communicates to each being His perfection and goodness.

Every creature then strives to its own perfection; thus the divine
goodness is the end of all actions. All things come from God and are
created by Him in order to return to Him. We now need to recall that
beings are created by God in a particularly way. It is not accidental
how being emerge into existence; each being is created as determine
substance, as a particular combination of form and matter. This
applies to all beings including man. The particular form determines the
materiality which makes a being a certain kind of being; the unique
way that we have been created can be called our nature. This nature,
as a participation in God’s goodness, is both good and imperfect at the
same time. Coming from god, it is good, but in its limitations, it has yet
to be perfected. This perfection means fulfilling our nature the best
we can, thus realizing what God had intended for us to be. We
accomplish this by fulfilling or actualizing the potencies that are
already present in our nature.
 While all beings are created by God in order to return to Him,
the way the human being is directed toward God is unique. Given that
we are beings with a capacity for reason, our way of reaching God is
by knowing and loving him. It is of key importance then that the
presence of a capacity for reason is the very tool which God placed in
our human nature as the way toward our perfection and return to
Him. This applies not only to an individual human being, but also to all
humankind. But we should not forget how the whole community of
being, which is the universe itself, is directed toward its return to God.
This is not, as mentioned earlier, an unthinking process, but it is the
very work of divine reason itself or God’s will. We can think, then, of
the whole work of creation as divine reason governing in a community
toward its end. Under the governance of the Divine, beings are
directed as to how their acts are to lead them to their end, which is to
return to Him. We shall now try to understand this dynamic once
again, but this time think of it in terms of law.

THE ESSENCE AND VARIETIES OF LAW

ESSENCE

As rational beings, we have a free will. Through our capacity for

reason, we are able to judge between possibilities and to choose to
direct our actions in one way or the other. Our actions are directed
toward attaining ends or goods that we desire. We work on a project
to complete it. We study in order to learn. My mother bakes in order
to come up with some cookies. Maybe my brother practices playing
his guitar in order to get better at it. It can be as simple as the fact
that I play basketball because I enjoy doing so. These are goods, and
we act in a certain way to pursue them, so goods are sometimes
referred to as the ends of actions. There are many possible desirable
ends or goods, and we act in such ways as to pursue them. However,
just because we think that a certain end is good and is therefore
desirable does not necessarily mean it is indeed good. It is possible to
first suppose that something is good only to realize later that doing so
was a mistake. This why it is important for reason to always be part of
the process. Acts are rightly directed toward their ends by reason. But
this does not simply mean through supposed to be good for us; what
is necessary is to think carefully of what really is in fact good for us.

In thinking about what is good for us, it is also quite possible

that we end up thinking exclusively of our own good. Aquinas reminds
us that this will not do; we cannot simply act in pursuit of our own
needs or good without any regard for other people’s ends or good. We
are not isolated beings, but beings that belong to a community. Since
we belong to a community, we have to consider what is good for the
community as well as our own good. This can be called “common
good.”

What exactly the common good is might not always be easy to

determine as there are many variables to consider, such as the
particular community we are thinking of or the particular ends that
the community is pursuing. But that need not occupy us right now.
What is of greater significance for us here is the recognition that, since
we must consider not have to be some kind of measure to our acts. It
is good for us to not simply be free to act in whatever way we like. We
should recognize the proper measure or the limits in our actions that
would allow us to direct our acts in such a way that we can pursue
ends, both our own and also that of others, together. The
determination of the proper measure of out acts can be referred to as
law. Using a simple example, we can think of traffic rules. A
motorist cannot just drive in any way he likes, but must respect traffic
rules. These rules seem to measure or place a limit on his driving, for
example, by placing a maximum speed he can travel on a particular
road. Such a limit or such a rule is something good, for both him and
for others as it helps prevent motor accidents. A Aquinas put it, the
law must regard properly the relationship to universal happiness. A
law, therefore, is concerned with the common good. In a way, making
of a law belongs either to the whole people or to public person who
has care for the common good or is tasked with the concern for the
god of the community or of the whole people.

Consider some of these examples. On a modest scale, imagine

a student organization of twenty members. Together, all the members
decide that it would be best if they were to meet on Friday afternoons
or that they all had to contribute for lunch in their meetings. On a
larger scale, a teacher who is in charge of a class of forty students has
to put some rules in place so that things will go smoothly. Perhaps, she
would maintain that students may not just walk in and out of the
classroom and that they are not on a whom, but for the good of the
class. On a still larger scale, city officials put up ordinances concerning,
for example, garbage collection, traffic schemes, or zoning to control
building sites. Ideally speaking, these all re done in view of what would
be best for the community.

It is also necessary for rules or laws to be communicated to the

people involved in order to enforce them and to better ensure
compliance. This is referred to as promulgation. In an ideal sense,
without considering the early that sometimes rules are not properly
thought out or seem to favor select persons or groups rather than the
common good, we can speak of law as a form of restriction and
direction of human actions in such a way that the common good is
promoted. Aquinas’s own summary of this point worth citing: The
definition of law may be gathered; and it is nothing else than an
ordinance of reason for the common good, made by him who has care
of the community, and promulgated. Now, n thinking about a
community, what if we thought more grandly, not just a small group, a
class, a city, or even a country? What if we think of vast community
which is the entire universe and everything in it, or in other words, all
of being? Is there someone in charge of this community, guiding all
toward their common good and directing all with His wisdom?

VARIETIES

We have noted earlier how God, by His wisdom, is the Creator

of all beings. By saying this, we do not only recognize God as the
source of these beings, but also acknowledge the way they have been
created and the way they could return in Him, which is the work of His
divine reason itself. This includes the proper measure governing the
acts of these beings. Aquinas writes: “He governs all the acts and
movements that are to be found in ach single creature, so the type of
Divine Wisdom, as moving all things to their due end, bears the
character of law.” This line involves the assertion that the divine
wisdom that directs each being toward its proper end can be called
the “eternal law.”

Eternal law refers to what God wills for creation, how each
participant in it is intended to return to Him. Given our limitations, we
cannot grasp the fullness of the eternal law. Nevertheless, it is not
completely opaque to us. We must recognize that first, we are part of
the eternal law, and second, we participate in it in a special way.
 All things partake in the eternal law, meaning, all beings are
already created by God in a certain way intended to return to Him.
Thus, we can find in them the very imprint of the rule and measure of
the acts by which they are guided. These can be determined in the
very inclinations that they possess, direction their acts toward their
proper ends. All things partake in the eternal law, meaning, all beings
are already created by God in a certain way intended to return to Him.
Thus, we can find in them the very imprint of the rule and measure of
the acts by which they are guided. These can be determined in the
very inclinations that they possess, directing their acts toward their
proper ends. Therefore, irrational creatures (plants and animals) are
participating in the eternal law, although we could hardly say that they
are in any way. “Conscious” of this law. Aquinas notes that we cannot
speak of them as obeying the law, except by way similitude, which is
to say that they do not think of the law or chose to obey it, but are
simply, through the instinctual following of their nature, complying
with the law that ural law, these god has for them. More
appropriately, these creatures are moved by divine providence.

On the other hand, human beings participation is different. The

human being, as rational, participates more fully and perfectly in the
law given the capacity for reason. The unique imprint upon us, upon
our human nature by God, is the capacity to think about what is good
and what is evil, and to choose and direct ourselves appropriately. So
Aquinas writes “Wherefore it has a share of the Eternal Reason,
whereby it has a natural inclination to its proper act and end: and
this participation of the eternal law in the rational creature is called
the natural law.”

Therefore, by looking at our human nature, at the natural

inclinations given to us by God, we can determine the rule and
measure that should be directing our acts. These are the precepts of
the natural law, which we will study more closely in the next section.
However, let us mention first two more kinds of law provided by
Aquinas. Aquinas points out that while reflecting on our human nature
will provide us the precepts of the natural law, these are quite general
and would have to be made more specific, and at the same time more
concrete in the actual operation of human acts. For this reason, there
is also ‘human law.’

Human law refers to all instances wherein human beings

construct and enforce laws in their communities. Given the larger
picture of Aquinas’s view, one would have a basis for assessing the
validity or invalidity of a human law: whether or not it conforms to the
natural law. Insofar as human law goes against what nature inclines us
toward, it is not properly speaking a law in the ideal sense of directing
us to the common good but instead unjust and can be called a matter
of violence. Finally, Aquinas asks us to recall that there is a certain
form of happiness that proportionate to our human nature, which can
obtain by means of our natural principles. However, there also is
another, more complete, happiness that surpasses human’s nature, a
supernatural happiness that can be obtained through the power of
God alone. To direct us toward our supernatural end, we had been
given further instructions in the form of divine law. These terms, often
confused with eternal law, refers specifically to the instances where
we have percepts or instructions that come from divine revelation. For
example, we have what is handed down to us in the sacred Scripture.

While this is necessary for Aquinas as he sees our end as the

blessed return to God, it is not our concern here insofar as, given that
our concern is ethics, one need not rely on the divine law in order to
be moral. Of interest then about this natural law theory of Aquinas is
that while it is clearly rooted in a Christian vision, it grounds a sense of
morality not on that faith but on human nature. Aquinas write “So
then no can know the eternal law, as it is in itself, except the blessed
that see God in His Essence. But every rational creature knows it in
its reflection, greater or les… Now all men the truth to a certain
extent, at least as to the common principles of the natural law.”

The statement is a remarkable claim: anyone, coming from any

religious tradition, just by looking at the nature that she shares with
her fellow human beings, would be able to determine what is ethical.
The complication one may have over an overtly religious presentation
is dispelled when we recognize the universal scopre that AQUINAS
envisions.

NATURAL LAW

We may now turn to the specifics concerning the natural law.

‘Summa Theologiae 1-2, Question 94, Article 2’

“Since, however, good has the nature of an end, and evil, the nature of
a contrary, hence it is that all those things to which man has a natural
inclination, are pursuit, and their contraries as evil, and objects of
violence. Wherefore according to the order of natural inclinations, is
the order of the precepts of the natural law. Because in man there is
first of all an inclination to good in accordance with the nature which
he has in common with all substances: inasmuch as every substance
seeks the preservation of its own being, according to its nature: and by
reason of this inclination, whatever is a means of preserving human
life, and of warding off its obstacles, belongs to the natural law.
Secondly, there is in man an inclination to things that pertain to him
more specially, according to that nature which he has in common with
other animals: and in virtue of this inclination, those things are said to
belong to the natural law, “which nature has thought to all animals,”
such as sexual intercourse, education of offspring and so forth. Thirdly,
there is on man an inclination to good, according to the nature of his
reason, which nature is proper to him: thus man has a natural
inclination to know the truth about God, and to live in society: and in
this respect, whatever pertains to this inclination belongs to the
natural law; for instance, to shun ignorance, to avoid offending those
among whom one has to live, and other such things regarding the
above inclinations.”

IN COMMON WITH OTHER BEINGS

In reading Aquinas we have to consider how mw, human

beings, are both unique and at the same time participating in the
community of the rest of creation. Our presence in the rest of creation
does not only mean that we interact with creatures that are not
human, but that there is also in our nature something that shares in
the nature of other beings.

Aquinas thus identifies first that there is our nature, common

with all other beings, a desire to preserve one’s own being. A
‘makahiya’ leaf folds inward and protect itself when touched. A cat
cowers and then tries to run away when it feels threatened. Similarly,
human beings have that natural beings have that natural inclination to
preserve their being. For his reason, Aquinas tells us that it is
according to the natural law to preserve human life. We can say that it
would be a violation of the natural law, and therefore unethical to
take the life of another. Murder, for instance, would be a clear
example of a violation of the natural law. On a more controversial
note, it seems that taking one’s life would be unacceptable, even in
the form of physician-assisted suicide. On a more positive note, we
can confidently posit that acts that promote the continuation of life
are to be lauded as ethical because they are in line with the natural
law.

IN COMMON WITH OTHER ANIMALS

Aquinas then goes on to say that there is in our human nature,

common with other animals, a desire that has to do with sexual
intercourse and the care of one’s offspring. As a matter of fact,
animals periodically engage in sexual intercourse at a specific time of
“heat” and this could result in offspring. In human beings, too, that
natural inclination to engage in the sexual act and to reproduce exists.

The intrinsic connection between the sexual act and fecundity

gives rise to a number of notions of what is acceptable and
unacceptable in varying degrees of contentiousness. An ethical issue
that is hotly contested in some parts of the world is whether abortion
is acceptable. From the stance of the natural law, the act of preventing
the emergence of new life would e considered unacceptable. Not so
controversial, perhaps, would be the claims that we could more easily
make about how it is good to care for the young, to make sure that
they are properly fed, sheltered, and educated. On the other hand, it
is bad to abuse the young, to force children into hard labour or to
deprive them basic needs or otherwise abuse them in a physical or
emotional way.

With regard to the sexual act, the moral judgment gets more
volatile. This argument seems to provide ground for rejecting various
forms of contraception since these allow for the sexual act to take
place, but inhibit procreation. This also seems to justify the claim that
any form of the sexual act that could not lead to offspring must be
considered deviant. One of these is the homosexual act.

To explain, Thomas Aquinas writes “certain special sins are said

to be against nature; thus contrary to sexual intercourse, which is
natural to all animals, is unisexual lust, which has received the special
name of the unnatural crime.” The question can be raised as to
whether all animals “naturally” engage in homosexual (rather than
unisexual or homosexual) intercourse as Aquinas (with the much more
rudimentary scientific knowledge of his time) believed. Another
question is whether there must be a necessary connection between
the act of sexual intercourse and procreation.

UNIQUELY HUMAN

After the first two inclinations, Aquinas presents a third reason

which states that we have an inclination to good according to the
nature of our nature. With this, we have a natural inclination to know
the truth about God and to live in society. It is of interest that this is
followed by matters of both an epistemic and a social concern. The
examples given to us of what would be in line with this inclination are
to shun ignorance and to avoid offending those people with whom
one lives. We could surmise on the basis that acts of deception or
fraud would be unacceptable to Aquinas. This, as mentioned, is
surmise because this is not something we are told directly by Thomas.

In fact, a characteristic of the text which may be frustrating to

anyone trying to read Aquinas is that he does not go into great detail
here enumerating what specific acts would be clearly ethical or
unethical. Instead, he gave certain general guideposts: the epistemic
concern, which is that we know we pursue the truth, and the social
concern, which is that we know we live in relation to others. The
question of what particular acts would be in line with these or not is
something that we have to determine for ourselves through the use of
reason. Let us elaborate on this further.

Frist, we had been presented with these three inclinations as

bases for moral valuation. In light of this, we know that preserving the
self is good. Contrary to common misconception, the sexual inclination
and the sexual act are considered good things, not something to be
deplored or dismissed. However, reason is not only another inclination
that we have in par with the others. Instead, reason is the defining
part of human nature. Thomas tells us that there is a priority among
the powers of our soul, with the intellectual directing and
commanding our sensitive and nutritive capacities. What this amount
to is the need to recognize that while our other inclinations are good,
as they are in our nature, what is means to be human is, precisely to
exercise our reason in our consideration of how the whole self should
be comported toward the good. I cannot simply say, “Sex is natural,”
if what I mean by that is that I could just engage in the act in any way I
like without thought or care. Instead, we are enjoined to make full use
of our reason and determine when the performance of our natural
inclinations is appropriate.

Second, recognize how being rational is what is proper to man,

the apparent vagueness of the third inclination that Aquinas mentions
is counter-balanced by the recognition that he is not interested in
providing precepts that one would imply, unthinkingly, follow. To say
that the human being is rational s to recognize that we should take up
the burden of thinking carefully how a particular act may not be a
violation of our nature. It is to take the trouble o think carefully about
how our acts would either contribute to, or detract from, the common
good.

For this reason, in making human laws, additions that are not
all problematic for the natural law are possible. At first glance, it may
seem like there is nothing “natural” bout obeying traffic rules or
paying taxes. However, if it has been decided that these contribute
Aquinas puts it, nothing hinders a change in the natural law by way of
addition, since our reason has found and can find may many things
that benefit individual and communal human life.
 Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274) lived at a critical
juncture of western culture when the arrival of the
Aristotelian corpus in Latin translation reopened the question of
the relation between faith and reason, calling into question
the modus vivendi that had obtained for centuries. This crisis
flared up just as universities were being founded. Thomas, after
early studies at Montecassino, moved on to the University of
Naples, where he met members of the new Dominican Order. It
was at Naples too that Thomas had his first extended contact
with the new learning. When he joined the Dominican Order he
went north to study with Albertus Magnus, author of a
paraphrase of the Aristotelian corpus. Thomas completed his
studies at the University of Paris, which had been formed out of
the monastic schools on the Left Bank and the cathedral school
at Notre Dame. In two stints as a regent master Thomas
defended the mendicant orders and, of greater historical
importance, countered both the Averroistic interpretations of
Aristotle and the Franciscan tendency to reject Greek
philosophy. The result was a new modus vivendi between faith
and philosophy which survived until the rise of the new physics.
The Catholic Church has over the centuries regularly and
consistently reaffirmed the central importance of Thomas's work,
both theological and philosophical, for understanding its
teachings concerning the Christian revelation, and his close
textual commentaries on Aristotle represent a cultural resource
which is now receiving increased recognition. The following
account concentrates on Thomas the philosopher.
Thomas Aquinas thought that morality is important to
everyone and a being good person whose a vital part of God’s
plan for each of us. But, not everyone is exposing to the Bible or
uneven heard God. How people follow God’s moral rules also
known as Divine Commands. If did not know who made the
commandments. Aquinas just could believe that God works
made expectations for us, if he didn’t give us, all of us. Hence,
Aquinas theorize that God made us pre-loaded with all the tools
we need to know what is good this idea because known us
Natural law theory. Natural law based on the idea that wants
us to follow specifically good thing. Hence, “Aquinas argued
also, that God created the world according to Natural Laws-
predictable, goal-driven systems whereby life sustained, and
everything functions smoothly” and it is part of natural order
that God made certain things that could be good for his very
creatures. Nevertheless, sunlight and water are good for flowers,
etc. because God is awesome he instill all of his creatures desire
for the things that he design to be best for them. The things that
we are design or to seek are known as Basic goods and there are
seven of them.
The first things that all living things just naturally want
Aquinas said self-preservation the drive to sustain life. Aquinas
thought that God build all creatures with survival instinct and it
is pretty much thrive. Meaning to say, we avoid dangerous
situation. After preserving our own lives our next most
expressing basic good is to make more life. In other words to
reproduce some beings are able to do this in their own. But for
us we need to coordinate to our partner. God instill us the sex
drive and make the process feel good and make sure that we do
it.
Educate one’s offspring these three basic goods is just
for human beings, because of particular being we are. Aquinas
thought we are built with un-instinctual desire to knolife w God
he believes we seek Him in our lives whether expose to the idea
of God or not. Interestingly, the existentialist Jean Paul-
Sartre agree on this, he said we are all born with God
shape.
Love in society
Shun Ignorance we are built to shun ignorance were
natural knowers. Hence, this is another trait that we are share
with non-human animals, because knowledge promotes survival
and ignorance can mean starting to death or ending up
someone’s dinner. This is the basic goods and from them we can
derive from the Natural laws. For Aquinas, we don’t need the
Bible, or religion class, or Church in order to understand the
natural law. Instead, our instinct shows us the basic goods, and
reasons allow us. To derive the natural law from them right acts.
Therefore, it is simply and in accordance with the natural law.
So, how the system works. I recognize the basic good of life,
because I value our own life and that is clear with me because I
have survival instinct that keeps me from doing things.
My life is value
Your life is like my life
Your life is value
I shouldn’t kill you
From there I see that killing is a violation of natural law.
So, for each negative law or prohibition there is usually
corresponding positive injunction.

Prohibition Basic Life Positive

Injunction

1. Do not kill 1. Life 1. promote

life
2. Don’t 2. reproduction
prevent 2. procreate
reproduction

Divine Command Theory or Natural Law Theory

If God created us to seek well, and if were built with the ability to
recognize and seek it, then why do people violate the natural law
all the time? “Ignorance and emotion according to Aquinas
sometimes, we seek what we thank is good, but we’re wrong,
because we’re just ignorant.” And yes, that happened when
Aquinas follow Aristotle even if we are rational and emotional
being.

ARISTOTLE FOUR CAUSES OR ARISTOTLE AND

CAUSATION
One of the most important question human beings ask is
Why? Following Aristotle and St. Thomas Aquinas thinks there
are four ways to answer this question, traditionally called four
causes.
Table think about table, chair or dining table and why
table, chair or dining table in this way? Now, the first answer
might refer to the carpenter who made the table, chair or dining
table. He is the efficient cause. In general the efficient cause is
the agent or things that bring something about and this most
people think of. When they hear the word cause. In fact the word
efficient comes from the Latin term or making the efficient cause
is what makes the thing or fact.
The next answer to this question why is table this way? Is
the material cause of the table wood? This might a big difference
in equality and properties of the table. Hence, there is third
reason why table in this way? The form, structure or the design
of the table. This is what we called formal cause. Now by form
Aquinas means more than the physical shape of the thing he is
preparing to the essence or the nature of the thing, what makes
it, the kind of the thing it is. Now, Aquinas thinks that all natural
things have intrinsic form or essence the form, essence why lion
is a kind of animal it is and this form or nature is really intrinsic
in the lion. Now, in addition to this Aquinas identifies some form
that is outside or extrinsic to a thing. He calls this ideas or an
exemplar think for example a tables design it. Start in carpenters
mind as he thinks about what going to make and this idea then
guides his activity. He doesn’t saw any kind of wood, but he
follows his plan. In fact, it is kind of metaphysical law that every
act of efficient causality is guided by some formal causality. Now,
this idea or exemplar to become a measure of carpenters work.
Fourth reason why is the way it is? This forth causes is
extremely importance and it is called final cause, because it
refers to the ultimate end or reason for the thing. What is the
table for? In this case dining we can’t fully explain something
unless we know what is for? Now of course, the carpenter might
have other reason for making a table like earning money, but that
human purpose falls outside of the intrinsic end or for the table.
The final cause of the table itself properly speaking, doesn’t refer
to the carpenters personal; mode of, but to what table is for.
Now, Aquinas, thinks that this four causes can be applied by way
of analogy to everything in creation and to offer powerful way of
explaining the WHY of this.
VIRTUE ETHICS
At the end of this chapter, you should be able to:
Discuss the meaning and basic principles of virtue ethics
Distinguish virtuous acts from non-virtuous acts
Apply Aristotle’s ethics in understanding Filipino character
Outline:
• Happiness and ultimate purpose
• Virtue as excellence
• Moral virtues and Mesotes
What is Virtue Ethics?
• Ethical framework that is concerned with understanding the
good as a matter of developing the virtuous character of a
person.
• It focuses on the formation of one’s character brought about
by determining and doing virtuous acts.
• Greek thinkers: Plato and Aristotle – concerned with virtue.
• Nicomachean Ethics of Aristotle – first comprehensive and
pragmatic study of virtue ethics.
• Aristotle’s discourse of ethics departs from the Platonic
understanding of reality and conception of the good.
• Plato and Aristotle affirm rationality as the highest faculty of a
person and having such characteristics enables a person to
realize the very purpose of her existence.
• But at the end, they differ in their appreciation of reality and
nature, which, in turn, results in their contrasting stand on
what the ethical principle should be.