University of the Philippines Visayas

Miagao 5023, Iloilo Philippines College of Arts and Sciences

Division of Social Sciences Political Science Cluster

Ethics 1 – Ethics and Moral Reasoning in Everyday Life

Asynchronous Learning Materials
Prepared by: Antonio D. Salazar Jr. & Clyde Gacayan

Module 2 Ethics 101: key terms, assumptions, and development

of the field

Welcome to the first part of Module 2. Recall that in the first module introduced
ethics as field of inquiry and moral dimension of life. It also surveyed basic issues
and questions and concerns on Ethics. A discussion on the competing theories of
moral reasoning was initiated in the module.

Upon completion of the module, the student is expected to:

(1) Demonstrate the usage of commonly used ethical terms and

(2) Discuss the theoretical underpinnings of subjectivism, relativism and

emotivism

(3) Explain ideas on human nature, freedom and arguments against morality

(4) Compare and contrast ancient and modern ethics through understanding
it’s development

Specifically, module 2 (Part 1) will provide guidance on the common language

used across the field of ethics. The aim is to further ground the field, and equip
students with the appropriate tools in future discussions and class work (e.g.
essays, exams).

1
DIRECTIONS:

(1) Make sure that the your answers for the activities found in this material are
computerized and are highlighted in red.

(2) ☐ Put a check or a mark on boxes once you have finished the reading parts.
You may leave a mark such as this example: X☐

(3) Once you are done with reading and answering the activities in this module,
make sure that you save the file as PDF then attach the file to an email to be
sent to your instructor’s email using this file name: SECTION (_), SURNAME,
FIRSTNAME, MODULE _ Part _.

(4) Please note that this course pack is intended only for your use as a student
currently enrolled in Ethics 1. You are NOT ALLOWED to share, reproduce or
distribute it to anyone else. Should you need to use the course pack for any
other purpose than class, you should seek permission from the Author/Editor.

Week 4-5. Ethics 101 : key terms, assumptions, and

development of the field

Study Schedule:

Nature of Ethics and moral

reasoning 1. Introduce commonly used
Mar02/03 1. Ethical vocabulary and ethical terms and discussions
ethical traps on subjectivism, relativism and
emotivism
2. Discuss ideas on human
Mar 09/10 2. Human Nature and nature, freedom and arguments
Challenges to Ethics against morality
3. Compare and contrast
Mar16/17 3. Ancient Ethics and ancient and modern ethics
Modern Morality through understanding it’s
development

2
n2.1 Communicating clearly in ethical discussion

☐ Using the words should and ought to better express

oneself in discussion on ethics (1/4)
(Put a mark on the box once you have finished this section)

Oftentimes, when ethics is discussed, we are stuck with using the

terms good/bad or right/wrong. This, however, have gaps and
pitfalls. To avoid these, one can use the terms ought and should.
Good can be understood as something that you are ought to do.
Something bad can be understood as something you should do.

This implies that ethics is not concerned with what is but on what it
ought to be.

Consider this

You hear about the PHILHEALTH corruption scandal, and you

hear your peers say “ganyan, talaga ang mundo—maraming
korakot”

The statement points to a description—what the world is. Ethics is

prescriptive in the sense we expect that politicians ought to uphold
public trust.

Requiring, forbidding, permitting:

To further help you explain your position on issues concerning

ethics, it is useful to provide nuance thru the use of terms: ethically
require, ethically forbidden, and ethically permit.

✓Ethically required – an act that ought follow goodness strictly

(e.g. public service)
✓Ethically permited – to mean the circumstances warrant an
action to follow goodness despite associated costs (e.g.
euthanasia)
✓Ethically forbidden – an act should not be done (e.g. corruption)

3
☐ Ethics and Morality (2/4)
(Put a mark on the box once you have finished this section)

The concept of ethics and morality are different in so far as how

thinkers have used the term.

✓Ethics - reflection of good life that a human being ought to live

✓Morality - principles concerning right/wrong & good/Bad

An act can be immoral while at the same being ethical. The

converse can also be true where an act can be moral but at the
same it is unethical.

However, it should be noted that in order to progress in the

conversation of ethics, the primary focus is on the oughtiness of an
act.

☐ Ethics and Law

Another dichotomy that should be emphasized is on the

differences and intersection of Ethics and Law.

✓Ethics - reflection of good life that a human being ought to live

✓Law - proscribed actions made in effect by government
policies/code Ethics and laws overlap, but are not always in line
with one another Laws may be inspired by ethical standards, and
are compulsorily implemented

It should be noted that not all ethical standards have

corresponding laws, self-policing is important.

4
Activity: Short Essay
Reflect on a law in the country that you find to be unethical. Use the
terms ethically required, ethically permissible, and/or ethically
forbidden in the short essay. (70 Words Max)

________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________

☐ Subjectivism (3/4)

According to this approach, ethical statements really are just

statements of personal opinion and nothing more.
✓ The approach captures the thought that what’s right and
wrong could be radically different for everyone
✓Subjectivism is a form of relativism because it says right and
wrong are completely relative to our own subjective
preferences.
✓no one can be wrong about their ethical beliefs (drug related
deaths)

☐Cultural Relativism

According to this approach, no one universal ethical standard

transcends cultures. What should matter to individuals are the
collective ethical opinions that their home cultures hold.
✓It asserts that an ethical standard transcends individual
opinion.
✓Thus, a person can do something wrong if she goes against
the norms of her home culture.

5
☐Emotivism

According to this approach, ethical statements are expressions of

emotions and not a matter of fact.
✓In this approach, when you say “cheating in exams is bad”,
what you really mean is “boo on cheating and you should not do
that”
✓Booing or cheering aren’t simply personal choices, they are far
more complex because expressions of emotion are intended to
alter the behavior of others or bring them on board with a certain
emotion

☐ Why do you need to be ethical? (4/4)

At this point, ethics sounds like a lot of work to understand

and apply. However there is value in pursuing an ethical path in
one’s life.

On a practical level the following can be achieved by a person:

✓personal level benefit where you are able to achieve self-
fulfillment, peace and happiness because you live an ethical life.
It caters to your personal interest.
✓social level benefit where living an ethical life reinforces your
intra-personal relations. If everyone has an agreed upon moral
framework, it promotes a cohesive society.

Note: This section highlights the consequences or the benefits

you get.

At a substantive level where you will not consider the benefit

ethics create, an ethical life is also central to one’s integrity.
Which can be divided into two aspects:
✓Integrity as a state of wholeness/completeness where not
living an ethical life entails that you are incomplete. This kind of
integrity is characterized by an understanding of who you ought
to be.
✓Integrity as a commitment to living in accord with
principles, character and behaviors. This is best characterized
with the awareness of what composes one’s ideal ways of living.

6
☐ Applying ethics in your life

The goal of this class (among others) are to:

• demonstrate skills and competencies underpin ethical
reasoning
• identify values that one lives by
• generate decisions based on reasoned appraisal

Helpful terms to remember:

✓Mindfulness - awareness at all times of one what feels, thinks
and does in particular situations

Quick note: are you mindful of what you feel and what you think
right now?

✓Moral intuitions - issue/circumstance based values that form

one’s moral core

Your moral intuitions will tell what you will do when you
encounter a moral dilemma. For example, you are in a situation
where you encounter a beggar, your decision to give or not give
alms is informed by your moral intuitions.

☐ Remember
An ethical life is a moving target where you will regularly
encounter issues/dilemmas where you need to be mindful such
that you respond with an action consistent with your moral
intuitions.

You will encounter personal conflicts in living an ethical life,

especially in this university.

You need to be mindful of what moral inconsistencies you are

committing, and work on how to better improve that.

7
Activity

Below is a table that aims to ask the students to reflect on

their intuitions on a select set of issues. Your answers will
not be graded on the positions that they will take but simply
on your ability to answer yes/no on the blank columns. You
are not required to provide a reason but should you feel that
need to, feel free to do so.

Issue Intuition
Do you practice being mindful of
your waste and carbon footprint?

Do you support LGBTQ rights and

causes (e.g. SOGIE Bill, Same Sex
Marriage?
Do you see value in engaging in
online discussions in the comment
section of a socially discussed
issue?
Do you think vloggers and social
media influencers should be held to
a standard (i.e. politically
correctness)?
Will you still buy coffee/milk tea from
a company that sources its goods
from farms that have a bad human
rights record (e.g. child labor)?

8
n2.2 Human Nature and Challenges to Ethics

☐ What is human nature (1/4)?

Human nature is an inborn structure that defines the human
being. That structure affects and shapes not only what’s possible
for humans but also what or how human beings are more or less
likely to react to the situations in which they find themselves.

Human nature determines possibilities and impossibilities, and it

also can make certain behaviors or responses toward the world
more or less likely

Think of human nature as an inherent property/characteristic of

humans.

Intersection of Human Nature and Ethics

Ethics is concerned not just with what’s possible for you but also
with how you ought to respond to the world around you, revealing
the deep intersection between ethics and human nature.

Are we innately good as human beings? What limitations

disprove this position?

In the proceeding sections we will discuss how thinkers across

history have thought about human nature and its impact in the
predispositions of human to pursue the ‘good’, ’bad’, or ‘ neutral’.

☐Human Nature is innately good (2/4)

(Put a mark on the box once you have finished this section)

Many philosophers think human nature is innately good,

meaning that humans have a built-in disposition toward
what’s seen as good by ethics. However, as we review the
arguments of scholars in support of this claim, we will noticed
that there is still an expectation from us to develop and
strengthen that ‘goodness’

Mencius makes some bold claims here, specifically that: Human

nature moves you to sympathize with the predicament of the
child, who’s clearly about to be seriously hurt. Your human
9
nature nudges you to identify with the child’s situation and be
distressed.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau (see picture)

(1712–1778), felt that before humans entered
into societies they were harmoniously
disposed toward the natural world. Similar to
Rousseau, the ancient Chinese Taoists felt
that human nature started off good and pure,
disposing people to live lives in sync with
their surroundings.

Note: natural goodness is like a small sprout, an undeveloped

tiny plant that’s tender and easy to destroy. To actually live
ethically, you need to do some serious gardening work to grow
your sprouts. That means training and habituating yourself to
actually do the sorts of things that your natural goodness seems
to push you toward.

☐⇒ Human Nature is innately bad (3/4)

(Put a mark on the box once you have finished this section)

While some philosophers argued that human nature is innately

good, some scholars forward the opposite—arguing that human
nature have a built-predisposition that is innately egoistic and
selfish.

Xunzi (see picture) makes two basic

points:
1. Human nature begins as evil or
bad, which means that humans have
a built-in tendency toward what
benefits them individually. If le`
unchecked, this desire will inevitably
lead to strife and conflict with others.
2. Humans can, through
conscious effort and not by nature,
become good

10
Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679). Hobbes thought that if humans
were le` in their natural pre-societal state, they would eventually
end up in a “war of all against all,” leading to an unfortunate
conclusion:

1. “Life would be solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.”

2. Society must be ruled by an iron-willed authoritarian ruler
(called a leviathan) — a ruler who is merciless about
punishing those who cheat on those agreements. Once
living under such a punishment-driven system, Hobbes is
optimistic that human nature won’t lead to chaos, and
social goodness will be possible.

☐⇒ Human Nature is neither good nor bad (4/4)

(Put a mark on the box once you have finished this section)

Philosophers have also pondered an have taken a middle

position in viewing human nature. Some scholars would forward
that individuals start with a predisposition for both good and bad
and ethics. Others argue that humans have no natural
predisposition in either direction.

✓Dong Zhongshu saw human nature as a mixture of both

good and evil. Individuals have impulses from both directions,
and one predominates over the other because an individual
develops bad or good habits.

✓Yang Xiong thought that the yang in the human was good,
which he associated with a capacity or potential for goodness
built in to nature, and the yin was bad, which he associated with
the emotions

✓Existentialists argued that there is no such thing as fixed

moral direction to be pulled toward or away from human nature
is actually empty, consisting of merely potential, and having no
moral trajectory or content or tendencies whatsoever.

11
Reflection Question:

Think of a creative way of explaining why philanthropy and

foundations exists within the framework of “human nature is
innately bad”

_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
______________________________________________

12
Activity:
Fill the matrix the below. Please do NOT just copy and paste the
material from discussion. Provide only one argument in the blank
columns using a maximum 2 sentences. (Note: I know it is tempting to
use complex sentences, but please refrain from doing so)

If human nature is predisposes individuals to be bad, good or neither,

what is the role of ethics?

Human Nature Human Nature Human nature is

is innately bad is Innately Good neither bad or
good
Argument
in support

The role
of ethics
in the
context

If human nature is innately good, then you should continue reading

because you are predisposed to do so;

If human nature is innately bad, then continue reading because it will

allow you to develop ethical standards to counter that;

If human nature does not exist, then will yourself to continue reading
as there is a value in developing an ethical life.

13
n2.3. Ancient Ethics and Modern Morality

☐About the Reading (1/3)

• Author - John Stewart Gordon from the University of
Cologne
• The reading examines the differences and ancient ethics
and modern morality by analyzing their main defining
features in order to show that the two ethical approaches
are less distinct than one might suppose.

• Arguments:
a. There vital difference between ancient ethics and modern
morality ethics; but
b. Stereotypes exist about old and new ways of thinking
ethics such that it may seem that two approaches are
fundamentally different;
c. Close examination of the two approaches reveal that the
two (ancient ethics and modern morality) approaches are
less distinct than one might suppose;
d. Despite the systematic difference concerning the
importance of the question of the good life in the two
approaches – there is a significant overlap of important
lines of reasoning.

• Takeaway:
Do not immediately assume that ‘old ways of ethical thinking
(ancient ethics) is significantly distinct to ‘new ways’ of
thinking (modern morality). It is far more complex than that.

☐Resurfacing the Ethics and Morality Dichotomy

Notice that in reading assignment, a distinction between ethics and

morality was resurfaced. The following are insights derived:

• In studying the ancient and modern thought on ethics and

morality, morality and ethics are used differently in Ancient
Philosophy
• Plato and Aristotle as well as the Stoics and Epicureans are
really talking about morality since their main focus is limited
to the agent’s happiness, which obviously “ sound much like
14
 morality”
• Ancient ethics is about living a good and virtuous life
according to the ethical virtues, that is, to become a virtuous
person,
• On the other hand, the modern notion of morality is primarily
focused on the interests of other people and the idea of
deontological constraints.

☐Ancient thought: Why should we bother about ancient

ethics? (2/3)

Why should we bother revisiting theories of ancient white

men thinking what is good life and what is a virtuous
individual?

The following are reasons to consider:

• People in antiquity already employed a very efficient way

of ethical reasoning and decision-making ;
• Understanding old ways of thinking can help us address
new ethical issues and come up with a new ways of
discussing current issues using ancient ethics.
• There is a need to update and enhance a particular moral
theory in order to make it compatible with the latest
demands.

☐Ancient Thought

✴Hellenistic Period (i.e. Greek) is an important era in ancient and

pre-modern thought

The period can be roughly divided into four eras (see figure 1.)
1) Socrates and his arguments
2) Formation of post-Socratic philosophical schools (i.e.
Cynics, and Plato’s Academy)
3) Formation of New philosophical schools (i.e. Aristotle’s
peripatetic school)
4) Epicureanism and Stoicism

15
 Figure 1. Ancient Ethics

☐Medieval Thought: Kant’s deontological ethics

1. Immanuel Kant is the founder of deontological ethics. Kant’s
ethics is deontological in the sense that one has to obey the
duties and obligations which derive from his supreme
principle of morality, that is, the Categorical Imperative

2. Utilitarianism derives it views from hedonistic values (relating

to what are pleasant sensations). The following four main
aspects of utilitarianism:
a. The consequence principle
b. Happiness:
c. Greatest Happiness Principle:
d. Maximizing:

IMPORTANT:
A deeper discussion of the differences of Kantianism and
Utilitarianism will be explored in future lessons. What you just
need to remember is that these two are approaches in
modern morality are the dominant ways of ethical thinking in
the period of modernity.

16
☐ Are you still with me? If so…. (3/3)

If Socratic arguments, Cyrenaics, Cynicism, Aristotelianism,

Epicureanism and Stoicism is to Ancient Ethics;

Then ________________, and ________________ is to Modern

Morality

☐ Defining Features of Ancient Ethics and Modern Morality

Table 1 provides a detailed illustration of the main defining

features of the conflicting stereotypes of ancient ethics and
modern morality.

Take away:

These are features commonly attributed to ancient ethics and

modern morality respectively. However, close examination
reveals that these are stereotypes and not really defining
differences of the two approaches.

17
Table 1: Ancient Ethics and Modern Morality

18
Case: Trolley Dilemma

There is a runaway trolley barreling down the railway tracks. Ahead,

on the tracks, there are five people tied up and unable to move. The
trolley is headed straight for them. You are standing some distance
off in the train yard, next to a lever. If you pull this lever, the trolley
will switch to a different set of tracks. However, you notice that there
is one person on the side track. You have two options:

a. Do nothing and allow the trolley to kill the five people on the
main track.
b. Pull the lever, diverting the trolley onto the side track where it
will kill one person.
__________________________________________________
__________________________________________________
__________________________________________________
__________________________________________________
__________________________________________________
__________________________________________________
__________________________________________________
__________________________________________________
__________________________________________________
__________________________________________________
Reflect if your position on this question is informed by:
(1) The lives that you will save
(2) Motivation to act in a dutiful manner.
(3)Principle that you live by

19
nConclusion of Module

☐ Summary

You have done a good job to reach this far. In the first part of Module.
Tool (e.g. appropriate definitions and terms) were discussed to better
equip you in writing and speaking about ethics. The module explored
the similarities/differences of commonly used terms in discussions
on ethics such as:
a. Subjectivism – Ethical statements really are just statements
of personal opinion and nothing more.
b. Cultural Relativism – Ethical statements really are just
statements of personal opinion and nothing more.
c. Emotivism – ethical statements aren’t statements, they are
cognitive judgments about emo4on; statements are
expressions of emotion.

In part 2, the module delved into deeper into human nature where
we will examine whether we are predisposed to be good, bad or
neither. To do this, the module highlighted the different ways by
which philosophers have viewed human nature and how it animates
human action.

Specifically we looked into the following perspective:

a. Human Nature is Innately Good

b. .Human Nature is Innately Good
c. Human nature is neither bad or good

In part 3 it provided a discussion of ancient ethics and modern

morality. A reading was provided to facilitate the discussion and
learning process. Notable aspects of the reading are as follows:

1. The dichotomy between morality and ethics was resurfaced

where the differences and similarities between ancient
ethics and modern morality was situated in this dichotomy.
2. Ancient ethics and the different schools of thoughts that
arose during those two distinct periods.
3. Arguments on how close examination of the two approaches
reveal a less clear distinction.
20
Reference materials:

Gordon, J.S. (2020). “Modern Morality and Ancient Ethics”. The Internet
Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ISSN 2161-0002. Retrieved from:
https://iep.utm.edu/anci-
mod/#:~:text=Ancient%20ethics%20is%20about%20living,the%20idea%
20of%20deontological%20constraints.

Panza, C., & Potthast, A. (2010). Ethics for dummies. Hoboken, NJ:
Wiley Publishing, Inc..

21
Guider Criteria for evaluating activities/responses and assessment

Rating Criteria
A = Excellent • Focused, Succinct Thesis
• Organized from the beginning to end to Support Thesis
• Effective, Germane Use of Textual Support
• Originality of Ideas
• Clear, Well Formulated Sentences
• Correct Citation Form, Well Documented
• Precise and Effective Language
• Fluid Transitions
B = Good • Focused, Succinct Thesis
• Adequately Organized to Support Thesis
• Some Originality of Ideas
• Textual Support not always Effective, Germane
• Mechanical Problems that do not Interfere with Readability
• Clear, Well Formulated Sentences
• Correct Citation Form, Well Documented
C = Fair • Unfocused, Weak Thesis
• Partially Organized to Support Thesis
• Paucity of Original Ideas
• Ineffective Textual Support
• Incomplete, Poorly Formulated Sentences
• Informal, inappropriate Language
• Careless Editing, Incorrect Citation Form
• Mechanical Errors that do not Interfere with Readability
D = Poor • No Thesis
• Lack of Organization
• No Original Ideas
• Little Textual Support, Irrelevant Appeal to Text
• Mechanical Errors that Interfere with Readability
• Lack of Editing, Incorrect/Missing Citation
• Inadequate Length, Underdevelopment of Ideas
U = Unacceptable • Plagiarism
• Inappropriateness
• Unintelligibility
• No Thesis
• No Organization/Structure
• Failure to Submit

22