CHAPTER 1

Ethics:
Its Meaning, Nature and Scope

Chapter Objectives

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

1. define and explain the nature and scope of ethics as a philosophical discipline;

2. articulate the importance of studying ethics;

3. discuss and distinguish the different norms or standards pertaining to right and wrong/good and bad;

4. describe the moral dimension of human existence; and

5. identify the various characteristics of moral principles.

Etymological Meaning of Ethics

Ethics and morality are two words which are oftentimes used interchangeably, not just in ordinary discourse and in popular
media but also in academic discussions and fora. But are these two terms exactly the same, or, is there a shade of difference
between them?

Etymologically, the word “ethics” is derived from the Greek word “ethos” which can be roughly translated in English as
custom or a particular way and manner of acting and behaving. Thus, custom would also mean here as a form of behavior or
character. The Latin equivalent for custom is “mos” or “mores”. It is from this root word that the term “moral” or “morality”
is derived (Agapay 2008:1). The two terms, ethics and morality, in this sense, therefore, have literally the same meaning. That
is why ethics is usually taken as synonymous with morality. Also because of this, ethics is also called morality, or more
precisely, the other name of ethics is morality.

Thus, in many instances, we often hear people say: “What he or she did is moral or ethical;” “His or her conduct shows a lack
of ethics/morals;” “The problem of that person is that he or she doesn’t have a sense of morality and ethics;” “Our primary
concern as a people should be how to become moral or ethical in our behavior.”

Ethics and Morality Distinguished

Though ethics and morality, by virtue of their etymological construction, and on how they are used in people’s daily
conversations, share practically the same meaning, there is, still, a slight distinction between them.

Generally, both ethics and morality deal with the goodness or badness, rightness or wrongness of the human act or human
conduct. “But in ethics, we specifically study morality. Morality gives ethics a particular perspective of what to study about—
that is the rectitude of whether an act is good or bad, right or wrong. Morality provides with a quality that determines and
distinguishes right conduct from wrong conduct” (Sambajon 2007:7).

Ethics: A Philosophy of Action

While Ethics arms the person with a theoretical knowledge of the morality of human acts, so he/she may know what to do as
well as how to do it, there is a whole world of difference between knowing and doing, knowledge and action.

Knowledge, however, as anybody can readily attest in everyday experience, is not always performed. It does not automatically
happen that, as a person knows, then he/she does. It does not necessarily follow that knowledge leads or results to practical
action.
This would only mean that ethics, or make that—“the learning” of ethics—does not actually guarantee morality on the part
of the person’s concrete and practical conduct and behavior. A person does not necessarily do what he/she knows. It has been
said that “the farthest distance for a person to cross is the distance between the head and the heart.”

While ethics (the theory) provides certain principles and guidelines as to what is good and bad, right and wrong in human
conduct, it is morality which actualizes the theory. Ethics, as one particular author beautifully puts it, is the ‘word’, while
morality is the ‘flesh’. Morality, therefore, is here aptly understood as the application (praxis) of ethics (theory) (Babor
1999:8).

Hence, we can say that both of them—ethics and morality—truly need and complement each other. “As ethics outlines theories
of right and wrong and good or bad actions, morality translates these theories into real actions. Thus, morality is nothing else
but a doing [or the practice} of ethics” (Babor 1999: 9).

Ethics: A Practical Discipline

It may happen that some of those involved in the teaching of ethics or morality may regard it as a purely academic endeavor.
There is always the temptation, at least for some teachers, to just present the ethical theories and concepts as if they are the
end-all and be-all of the subject.

There may be also others, whose manner of instilling ethics and morality to students is through fear and intimidation, even
though it has been long proven that it just doesn’t work. Today’s young generation are practically brought up to question and
challenge almost everything, particularly on how one ought to behave morally.

It is a major tragedy, we dare say, to confine ethics to a purely intellectual exercise, just like mathematics or any other
theoretical and abstract disciplines. Ethical theories and principles may, if taught correctly and truthfully, uplift the students
mentally, may not transform them concretely into better persons or human beings, in the truest and finest sense of the term.

Ethics, we earnestly believe, should be taken not just as an academic study, but as fundamentally, a “way of life.” Ethics
“should be shown as a discipline which has an intimate connection with the daily lives of man....To be vital, the teaching must
be something more than the presentation of exacting moral theories....there [should be] a proper interaction between
knowledge and practice. Knowledge serves practice, for each new truth learned is a new reason for a better life” (Baldemeca
et al 1984: 85).

“Knowing what is right without actually changing the way we behave morally is nothing but useless knowledge. One must
be so convicted of the correctness of one’s thinking that it leads to a real and concrete transformation in one’s daily attitude
and behavior, or it becomes, at the very least, the most basic and fundamental motive behind one’s day to day conduct”
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/christian_ethics).

While Ethics is a subject that can be approached only academically, the learner may be tempted to study it simply for the sake
of obtaining a high grade. One may become so adept at the various theories and principles concerning morality without one
ever becoming moral. One may have a thorough grasp and mastery of ethical principles, yet, still at a loss as to their relevance
and value to the living of the good life itself (Ethics being the study of the Good Life). “Such a study would be rather like
learning the recipes in a cook book without eating the food, so to speak. Reality would elude [the person]. [One] would not
know the thing [one] knows; [one] would only know about it “(Baldemeca et al. ibid.).

The Importance of Studying Ethics

With what has been said so far, it is now clear why the study of Ethics is very important to human life. Ethics is indeed an
area of knowledge which is indispensable in the living of life which is “truly human.” It can be said that “without moral
perception, man is only an animal. Without morality, man as a rational [and free] being is a failure” (Agapay 1991:3).

The living of the “good life” has always been one of mankind’s most noble and enduring pursuits since time immemorial.
This is evident in the various works of Literature, Arts, in the Humanities in general, most notably in Philosophy, and in
Theology or Religious Studies. The question of what kind of life a person ought to live as a free and rational being, has
preoccupied some of the greatest minds in history.

In fact, the idea of right and wrong, good and evil, though viewed and applied differently at different times by different groups
of people all throughout the ages, has been a major and dominant theme of the various religions, cultures, and societies in the
entire history of human civilization. Every era, regardless whether it is aware of it or not, has its own “ethos” that defines its
character and soul. For ethics and morality served as the very foundation of every human society.

Thus, without ethics or at least a sense of morality, of what’s right and wrong, good and bad in relation to their conduct and
behavior, people and society in general would naturally and expectedly deteriorate. When the moral foundation of a nation is
shaken, and at the brink of collapse, society itself, as its very core, is also threatened — as to its very existence.

Since Ethics, as a practical science, is the study of the choices people make regarding right and wrong, good and bad, and
since many of us face several ethical choices in the course of our lives, it is a given why studying Ethics is of prime importance.
Big and small, the choices and decisions that we make in our individual and collective lives affect also the kind of life we live
to a considerable extent. Hence, we become good and bad persons through the choices we make.

Another important reason why there is a need in studying Ethics is the fact that making moral decisions is oftentimes difficult.
This is very true when we are confronted and come face to face with moral dilemmas. In here, there is a need for us to pause
and reflect as to what particular course of action to take. The study of Ethics can provide us with certain moral paradigms or
perspectives that will, in a way, guide us in determining what’s right and what’s wrong under such condition.

The study of Ethics will also enable us to reason out our moral beliefs and of why we hold them. It is not enough to have
certain beliefs on what’s good and bad. We also have to know the reason why we accept them in the first place. Our moral
views should be backed by good and sound arguments. “If you do not have good [and defensible] reasons, for your moral
opinions, why should anyone pay attention to them? More important, why should you yourself pay attention to them, if you
do not have good reasons for holding them” (Ellin 1995: 6)? Ethics, as a rational enterprise, will enable us to critically examine
the ground and foundation of our moral beliefs and claims, whether they are valid or not.

Still another important reason of studying ethics is that it will aid us to widen our horizon as to what is good and bad. An
exposure to the wide array of ethical paradigms and perspectives that a course in ethics provides, will naturally allow us to
broaden our understanding and make us appreciate the richness and diversity of ethical views held by various thinkers of
different persuasions throughout the ages. “[A]n appreciation of the complexity of ethics is valuable in counteracting our
natural tendency toward inflexibility and tribalism where we stubbornly adhere to the values of our [own] specific peer
groups” (Pojman & Fieser 2017:3).

Having stated all of the above reasons of why studying ethics is valuable, it is also worth saying that “[t]he study of ethics is
not only of instrumental value but also valuable in its own right. [For] it is satisfying to have knowledge of important matters
for its own sake. We are rational beings who cannot help but want to understand the nature of the good life and all that it
implies” (Pojman & Fieser 2017:3). Knowing the good is good in itself. (Though “doing” the good is even much better than
“just knowing” the good.)

Relatedly and more specifically, apart from its practical benefits, ethics “can [also] deepen our reflection on the ultimate
questions of life. This is of value in itself ... “(Gensler 2011:4).” Life’s ultimate questions involve questions regarding the
meaning of life and what it means to be truly human? These and other similar questions necessarily deal in one way or the
other, to a significant degree, with the question of what kind of life is worth living? As the great Socrates famously said: “An
unexamined life is not worth living.”

The Difference between Ethics and Law

But, why do we still need Ethics if we have laws to guide us on how to be good? Are the laws that we have not enough to tell
us what’s right and wrong? Is it not that Ethics essentially consists of rules concerning right and wrong, on what we ought to
do and not do?

Ethical rules are necessary even if we have the laws that are implemented by civil authorities since legality is not identical
with morality. We can be good in terms of what the law requires but we may still fall short of becoming a “moral” or “ethical”
person. At times, what is legal is not always moral. At other times, what is moral is not always legal. Ethics is not identical
with the law.

Another reason why morality is still important even if we have laws to guide us in our daily conduct is that laws are only
concerned with actions that are usually “public;” actions that in a way often harmed those around us. These types of actions
are external ones that society forbids because they are detrimental to the common good or the general public.

Moreover, Ethics goes beyond the concern and parameters of law, for it includes human motivations in its investigation.
Ethics, in this respect, includes the thoughts and feelings of individuals, not just their external conduct and actions, and subject
them to moral analysis and evaluation.

Thus, morality goes beyond legality in this respect. Even actions that we do in private are covered under the umbrella of
Ethics. Morality includes things that we do that do not directly harm others or even ourselves. Here, our innermost motives
and intentions, even if they are not carried out in concrete, fall under the scope of morality.

Let us also be reminded that our laws are usually the product of a collective agreement of some sort — a kind of a social
contract where people come together and decide among themselves what’s good and bad. This means that laws, more often
than not, are decided by.a majority vote. Morality is not all about how many people say that something is good or bad, or of
how many individuals favor and decide that a certain act is right or wrong. Morality is much deeper than that.

What is right is right even though no one is doing it. Wrong is wrong even if everyone is doing it.

Lastly, we still need Ethics even if we have laws because ethics serves as the very foundation of our laws. “[I]t is because of
ethics...that we have laws in the first place, and we continue to need ethics in order to refine and perfect our legal system”
(Ruggiero 2001:9).

Thus, laws, in a sense, are not morally sensible without ethics. The only way for a law to be enacted or repealed is for more
people to make a mature, conscious and reflective discussion and decision about right and wrong. Making a decision as to
what’s good and bad is not a popularity contest.

In brief, morality precedes legality. Its scope and implications are deeper and wider than that of law.

The Distinction Between Ethics and Religion

Another important distinction that has to be made regarding Ethics as a normative discipline is its intimate relation with that
of religion or theology, an area of knowledge which is also normative, just like law. While many people identify morality
with religion, both being concerned with right and wrong behaviour “[In fact]...most religions have a long history of internal
arguments and interpretations about the nature and content of the moral law]” (Mackinnon & Fiala 2015:26), the two are not
synonymous.

Ethics as a philosophical discipline, as mentioned, solely relies on natural reason, logic and experience, especially in the
justification and validation of certain theories and principles concerning good and bad. Religion, on the other hand, relies
primarily and mainly on supernatural reason, that is—divine revelation or divine authority.

Moreover, “[t]he practice of morality need not be motivated by religious considerations and moral principles need not be
grounded in revelation [or the word of God or gods/goddesses] ...as religious teachings invariably are” (Pojman & Fieser
2017:3). Again, ethics grounds itself on reason and the wisdom of human experience, not on the supposed authority of any
holy book and sacred writings.

As a matter of fact, “[m]ost contemporary philosophers...believe that ethics does not necessarily require a religious
grounding... [It is commonly observed that] even those people for whom morality is religiously based may [also] want to
examine some of their views using reason...reflection and common sense.... [Also a lot of]...religious believers...want to be
able to engage in constructive dialogue with nonbelievers and evaluate their [moral] claims. In fact even religious believers
[themselves] regularly make moral judgments that are not based strictly on their religious views but rather on reflection and
common sense” (Mackinnon & Fiala 2015:26).

Ethics: A Definition

Philosophically, Ethics is defined as the practical science of the morality of human act or conduct and of the good life. As a
science, Ethics is a body of knowledge systematically arranged and presented in such manner that it arrives at its conclusions
coherently and logically. Ethics, as a branch of Philosophy, is also known as Moral Philosophy. “[It] is that branch of
philosophy that deals with how we ought to live, with the idea [and the pursuit] of the Good and with concepts as “right? and
‘wrong’” (Pojman & Fieser 2017:1).
As a major area of the philosophical enterprise, Ethics tries to investigate and examine critically as well as systematically,
through the use of natural reason, certain principles and codes of right or wrong, good or bad, particularly those pertaining to
human action. It asks certain fundamental and intriguing questions such as: “What constitutes the good life for human
beings?,” “What is the basis or standard by which human actions can be judged as good or bad, right and wrong?,” “What
makes good—good and what makes wrong—wrong?” “How man ought to behave so as to live a life that is truly human?”
Furthermore, Ethics as a philosophical discipline, deals with ultimate principles and truth concerning the morality of human
conduct through the use of human reason and experience alone, without the aid of supernatural reason or divine revelation.
These principles that the science of ethics deals with in its investigation provide the human person the basis, standard or norm
by which he/she must conduct his/her life. Hence, Ethics deals with the study of the right conduct of the human person, the
rectitude of his/her actions.

Material Object of Ethics

Every field of study has a specific subject matter that it investigates from a particular point of view or perspective. The material
object of a science is its subject matter, the thing, or things, or that which the science deals with in its study. The subject matter
of Ethics as a particular field of study is human conduct or the human act. Human conduct, which the science of ethics mainly
deals with, refers to the act that is done by a human person which he/she is conscious of, which proceeds from one’s
deliberation and freewill, and thus, for which one is held morally responsible.

Formal Object of Ethics

The formal object of any science is the special or particular way and viewpoint that a science employs in dealing with its
specific subject matter. The formal object of ethics in its investigation is the morality or the moral rectitude of human act or
human conduct. Ethics deals with the human person’s right conduct, whether his/her actions conform to right reason which is
the immediate norm of morality. Morality is that quality in the human act by which it is judged to be good or bad, right or
wrong, moral or immoral. Ethics does this through the use of the natural light of human reason and experience alone.

Due to this particular and special concern, Ethics differs from all other fields of study which also deal with human conduct or
human act, such as the science of Psychology, Anthropology, Sociology, Economics and the like. These sciences merely deal
with the way humans actually behave, without telling and judging the rightness and wrongness, goodness and badness of their
actions, while Ethics studies how one ought to behave. It tries to assess and determine whether the actions are moral and worth
doing, or immoral, and have to be avoided. This makes ethics as a critical normative and prescriptive discipline, while the
other above mentioned fields are simply descriptive. They just deal with the facts as they are and do not make any evaluative
judgments on them whatsoever.

Divisions of Ethics

Ethics, as a specific field or branch of philosophy, is traditionally divided into two general areas or major parts: General
Ethics and Special (Applied) Ethics. General Ethics is usually considered as the basic course in the study of Ethics. (The first
part of this book is actually under this particular heading.) General Ethics mainly deals with the morality of human acts (its
major elements or constituents and modifiers, the norms of morality (law and conscience), and the specific determinants of
morality (major sources of morality).

The second part, which is Special or Applied Ethics, essentially applies the specific and fundamental norms and principles of
General Ethics in various specific areas of human life and activity, both in the individual and social domain (Individual Ethics
and Social Ethics), such as in the areas of family, the State, the Church, and other societal issues and concerns (rights and
duties, ecology/environment, labor and work ethics, sex and marriage, bioethics, politics and government, etc.).

Kinds of Valuation and Types of Norms

One very important element by which human conduct is determined and assessed in terms of its morality is in reference to a
norm. What is a norm? A norm is here understood as a rule, standard, or measure. Specifically, it is something by which an
act or conduct is measured as good or bad, right or wrong, moral or immoral.

Richard Gula defines norm as “the criteria of judgment about the sorts of person we ought to be and the sorts of actions we
ought to perform” (as cited in Agapay 2008:77).

Thus, by norm of morality, we mean the standard of right and wrong in human actions. This is precisely the very reason why
certain actions are considered as morally good and others as morally bad (Montemayor 1994:17). The norms of morality
therefore are the “standards that indicate the rightfulness or wrongfulness, the goodness or evilness, the value or disvalue of
{human conduct]” (Agapay 1991:53),

The concepts of good and bad, right and wrong, moral and immoral, proper and improper, appropriate and inappropriate are
the primary concern and focus of ethics as a philosophical discipline. However, these concepts are not its sole and exclusive
domain. These concepts, to some extent, in one way or the other, are also found and used in many other areas of human
experience. Thus, there is a need to find out what are these other areas and clarify how each area specifically employed the
above concepts.

What follows, in relation to the above point, comes from Ramon Reyes in his book The Ground and Norm of Morality
(1989:1-3).

According to Reyes, upon closer analysis of the various meanings of the expression “what is proper,” or “what is good and
right” and other similar expressions, “we can [identify and differentiate] at least four types of norms or standards within [what
he calls as] the ethos or mores of a community.

1. Technical Norm — “This refers mainly to man’s needs which come from his bodily space-time limitations.
This norm has to do with survival, health and well-being. It is concerned with problems of effecting change, of transforming
the natural world, the problems of coping with natural forces.... Thus, [this]... norm is concerned with the techniques of [how
certain things pertaining to survival, among others, should be done or not done]....{and]...because of [these]... every
community [then] prescribes certain proper ways of working and doing things. For example, there are the ‘right’ way of
preparing the field for planting rice, the ‘correct’ way of constructing the roof of a house, [etc.] because of this technical norm
certain community members are considered ‘good,’ meaning good workers, ...efficient and productive. Others are considered
lazy, good-for-nothing....”

Some specific examples where this kind of norm is evident are found in the following statements: “that’s not the proper way
to wash the dishes, “your manner of dribbling the ball is bad,” “your way of fixing that broken door knob is not good,” “you
ought to do the PowerPoint presentation this way,” “her approach in solving that math problem is wrong.”

Societal Norm — “This [particular type of norm] has [something] to do with the need for group cohesion and for strengthening
the bonds that keep the community together. In relation to this norm, for, example, certain manners or attire, certain ways of
speaking or of conducting oneself, certain rituals and ceremonies are considered ‘proper’ and ‘fitting ‘appropriate’ or
‘recommended,’ because they Maintain and strengthen the bonds that keep the community together. Other ways of behavior
are prescribed or frowned upon because they are unmindful of or destructive of social relations.”

Some specific examples of the above type of norm are found in such expressions as: “you ought to knock first before you
open the door, “one should not pick one’s nose in public,” “it's not right to talk that way in the presence of visitors,” “one
must not talk while one’s mouth is full,” “one ought to follow the rituals set forth by her fraternity when it comes to accepting
new members,” These and other similar examples belong to the category of etiquette or what is known as “GMRC” (Bulaong
Jr. et al. 2018:2).

3. Aesthetic Norm — “This refers to typical perceptual forms regarding color, shape, space, movement, sound, feeling and
emotion, touch and texture, taste, scent and odor...which are considered by the community as ‘ennobling,’ ‘cathartic,’
‘heightening man’s existence,’ or ‘beautiful,’ because they represent a certain free play and celebration of the human spirit.”

Some specific examples of this type of norm are found in such expressions as: “country music is good,” “the latest Star Wars
movie is bad,” “the food sold at the school cafeteria is terrible,” “Leonardo da Vinci’s painting is admirable,” “the color of
my ethics teacher’s hair is disgraceful,” “my female students’ styles of dressing are obnoxious,” “Vice Ganda’s fashion sense
is simply outrageous,” “President Duterte’s manner of speaking is utterly disgusting.”

4. Ethical or Moral Norm — “The moral [or ethical] norm refers to some ideal vision of [a human person], an ideal stage or
perfection of [his/her being], which serves as the ultimate goal and norm. In relation to [this kind of] norm, [the human person]
and his [or her] actions are judged to be right or wrong, good or bad. Because of this ideal vision of [what a human person
should be], a community has what is sometimes called the ‘non-negotiables,’ those things which the community cherishes
and considers of ultimate worth, which [also] give ultimate sense and direction to human existence. Therefore, all the other
norms—technical, societal, aesthetic—are to be subordinated to this moral [or ethical] norm.”

The above discussion shows us that it is important to be able to identify and differentiate the various types of norms from one
another. Being able to do this, allows us to pin point, with a certain degree of accuracy and consistency, as to what particular
kind of valuation we are making in a given context. In this way, we would be able to render meaningful, relevant, and most
importantly, critical assessment on certain moral issues and actions that we encounter.
The proper recognition of what belongs to the technical, societal and aesthetic sphere would also “allow us to have a rough
guide as to what belongs to a discussion of ethics. [These are the ones that are] .... characterized by certain gravity and concern
[of] the human well-being or human life itself. Therefore, matters that concern life and death such as war, [terrorism, graft
and corruption, poverty], inequality,...are often included in discussions of ethics. However, this general description is only a
starting point and will require further elaboration” (Bulaong Jr. et al. 2018:3),

Having said that, there is still one problem that we need to grapple with even if we are successful in making a distinction of
what belongs to the domain of ethics and what does not. This complication is brought about by the fact that the distinction
itself “...is not [always] so clearly defined. At times, the question of what is grave or trivial is debatable, and sometimes some
of the most heated discussions in ethics could be on the fundamental question of whether a certain sphere of human activities
belongs to this discussion” (Bulaong et al. 2018:3).

Take for instance the matter of wearing clothes. Is this just a “question of taste” or, are there really certain manner of wearing
them (na may pagka bastos) that call “for some kind of moral judgment and evaluation”? Can we just say that President
Duterte’s way of speaking (the cursing and all the expletives) “is ~ simply showing bad manners” (and thus, a question merely
of etiquette) or just “a cultural thing”? (Ngin-ana man gyud manulti ang mga Bisaya), or, does this style of verbal behavior
by the President deserve moral outrage?

The Moral Dimension of Human Existence

“The experience of morality,” according to Michael Moga “is part of every person’s life” (1993:1). “It is found in the various
obligations that arise, the experience of actions which should be either performed or avoided.” Thus, terms such as “good,”
“bad,” “right,” “wrong,” “appropriate,” “ought,” “obligation”, “duty” and the like, are commonly found in various forms in
human conversations.

But it can be asked whether the whole of human experience fall under the ambit of morality? Are all areas of human life
covered by ethical evaluation and judgment? Are all human conduct and enterprise subject to moral praise or condemnation?
Or, are there some aspects in human experience not within the domain of ethics and morality? “Are we to think of morality
as something which is [only] found in one limited area of human life without any relevance to the other areas [such as in the
social, aesthetic, religious, business, scientific, etc.] Or are we to conceive of morality as [an integral] part of every human
experience...” (Moga 1993:1)?

More specifically, when can one truly say that “something (an act/conduct/behavior) or someone is moral or immoral, ethical
or unethical?” Are there clear and neat rules that govern morality that can easily be accessed in practically all situations of
human existence?

Moga cites and explores two basic positions to the above questions in his book Toward Authentic Morality: An Ethics
Textbook for the Philippines (1993:2-3). The first position is what he calls as the “A-Morality” position. In here, morality is
understood as occupying just one area among the many diverse areas in human life. The other areas, which are termed as non-
moral “have their own meanings, [rules] and goals and are [said to be free and] independent [from any form of moral or
ethical] evaluation. Morality’s scope is simply confined to a specific and — limited area in human existence. Hence, the rest
of the other areas in human experience are not subject to ethics or morality.

The second position is quite the opposite of the previous position. This position claims that practically all of human life is
under the domain of morality. That morality is “ever present and is necessary for [man to be truly human].” Moreover, this
particular- position “would affirm that there are clear cut moral rules for every situation in life. It insists that “[t]o be human
means that [one] recognizes[s] these rules and [strictly] follow them since they are the basic guides for everything we do.”
Thus, this position totally considers morality as permeating all facets of human experience.

After evaluating these two extreme positions, and taking into account their respective value to human life, Moga offers a third
position. This third position is what he considers as a “middle’ ground to the previous two positions. He says that
“[m]orality is not [just] limited to a few select areas of man’s life but is found in every situation in various ways.... [as] [t]here
are situations in life where the focus of human experience is a moral obligation or value, when we are concentrating on what
should [italics included] be done.”
However, “there are [also] other situations in life when morality is more [italics mine] in the background. [While]...[morality]
is not explicitly thought about...it serves as a horizon or’ context which gently and implicitly guides us....Morality may not
take the form of clear moral rules or precise moral actions. There may be no clear guidelines given [to] us [but] it is present
as an awareness of a moral dimension which subtly evaluates [a given] situation.”
In conclusion, Moga contends that “[i]f we are to be fully human we must somehow manage to maintain [a sort of balance
in] all of these areas of our lives without neglecting any.” We have to avoid, according to him, to simply focus in one or on a
few limited areas and fail to give justice to the others. Human existence is too rich and complex to confine ourselves to a
single or few dimensions only. “Life challenges us to live fully in all areas, balancing a mature moral sensitivity with a well-
rounded involvement in other areas of life.”

Characteristics of Moral Principles

Moral principle is an important feature of morality. Moral philosophers in contemporary times are able to come up with a
short list of specific and particular characteristics that, taken as a whole, can be a good description of the distinctiveness or
uniqueness of moral principles in particular, and of morality in general,

While admittedly there is no universal agreement on the traits that moral or ethical principles (or morality) must have, “there
is a wide consensus as to what these traits are” (see Pojman & Fieser 2017:6-7; Rachels & Rachels 2015:10-13;
Pojman 2005:10-11; Harris 1997:9-10; & Ellin 1995: 5-6):

1. Reasonability — This means that primarily, [m]oral judgments must be backed by good reasons [or arguments]. ...if we
want to discover the truth [about what’s good and bad, right and wrong] we must let our feelings [and emotions] be guided as
much as possible by reason. This is the essence of morality. The morally right thing to do is always the thing best (italics
mine) supported by...[sound] arguments.... In this way, moral judgments are different from expressions of personal taste”
(Rachels & Rachels 2015:10-11). Thus, we can be confident that something is right if it is “reasonable.” If it does not appeal
to reason and common sense/experience, then it has to be viewed with suspicion and reservation.

2. Impartiality - This means that an ethical or moral rule should be neutral when it comes to the question as to who are its
recipients. Moral standards are supposed to apply to everyone regardless of one’s status and situation in life. “Morality
requires the impartial consideration of each individual’s interests” (Rachels & Rachels 2015: 10). The contemporary socio-
political theorist John Rawls (1921-2002), in his book Theory of Justice, advances the idea of “veil of ignorance” (akin to the
blindfolded image of Lady Justice) for us to wear—so we'll be able to treat everyone fairly and justly—irrespective of our
differences, especially the ones brought about by the “lucky stars” we have at birth (natural lottery/luck of the draw). Moral
rules should not advance the interest of a few, or worse, of one person alone. “To be impartial is to treat everyone alike, no
one gets special treatment. By contrast, to be partial is to show favoritism. Impartiality also requires that we [should] not treat
the members of particular groups [italics included in the original] as inferior. Thus it condemns fall] forms of discrimination
like sexism and racism” (Rachels & Rachels 2015: 12-13). For James Rachels (a contemporary American ethical thinker),
impartiality (aside from reasonability), are the two “minimum requirements of morality.”

3. Prescriptivity — This refers to the practical, or action- guiding nature of morality. This is also “the commanding aspect of
morality.” “Moral principles are generally put forth as some kind of commands or imperatives” since they are intended to
direct people on what to do and to avoid. They try to influence the way we act in accordance with certain rules of conduct.
Examples of this are injunctions or imperatives such as: “Do not kill,” “Do no harm to your fellowmen,” “Love your
neighbor,” “Do not steal,” “Tell the truth,” among others. All normative disciplines, such as Law and Theology, do share this
particular characteristic.

4. Overridingness — Moral standards must have hegemony. This means that they should reign supreme over all the other
standards or norms of valuation, whatever they may be. They have “predominant authority and override other kinds of
principles.” Sure, they are not the only standards—where human actions can be judged or assessed—but they should take
precedence over others, including the technical, legal, religious, cultural, and aesthetic standards. So whenever there is a
conflict between the moral norm and any other norm, the moral must prevail. Say, morality over legality; morality over
technicality; people over dogma.

5. Autonomous from Arbitrary Authority — Moral standards should stand on their own logic independent of the arbitrariness
of the majority. We can always challenge on logical grounds the tyranny of numbers and the tide of public opinion on matters
of right and wrong. Something is right or wrong regardless of what the majority decides or says. Moral rules only bow down
before the throne of “right reason” even if there are undue pressures coming from the mob and public opinion. To follow
“wherever the [better] argument leads” is morality’s sole guiding light.

6. Publicity - This means that moral rules and principles must be made public if they are to serve as clear guidelines to our
actions. The obvious reason for this is that principles are made and promulgated to render advice as well as assign praise or
blame to certain behaviors. It would be self-defeating to just keep them from public knowledge. For one cannot be made
morally accountable for something which one truly does not know. If moral principles are indeed impartial and of primordial
value, then by all means, they have to be made public. Keeping them in secret defeats the very purpose why they are created.
You do not hide something that you really think is genuinely good and noble.

7. Practicability - Moral rules should not be impossible to achieve or else they are not for men but for angels. They must be
“workable,” and not “too idealistic.” Ethical standards must not be over what an ordinary human being is capable of doing. It
should not lay too heavy a burden on people. For what practical use is a norm if it is simply impossible for anyone to follow
it?

8. Universalizability — A moral rule or principle must be applicable to everyone, without exception, provided of course that
all people are in a relevantly similar situation or context. “If I judge that an act is right [or wrong] for a certain person, then
the act is right [or wrong] for any other relevantly similar person. This particular trait is one of the major formulations of the
categorical imperative found in Kant’s Deontological ethics (more on this later in Chapter 6). This also echoes the famous
Golden Rule: “Do unto others what you want others to do unto to you,” or put negatively: “Do not do unto others what you
don’t want others to do unto you.”

Again, even as moral philosophers among themselves do not fully agree all the time about the above characteristics, at least
the aforementioned discussion provides an invaluable idea of the general features of moral principles that will also enable us
to have a deeper understanding as to what the discipline of ethics is all about.

Review Questions

1. How are ethics and morality related?

2. Why is ethics a practical discipline?

3. What makes studying ethics important?

4. Are all human experiences subject to morality?

5. Is morality different from legality? Why or why not?

6. What are the different types of norms? Differentiate one from the other.

7. What makes the ethical/moral norm distinct and unique from all the others?

8. Should all areas of human existence be covered by ethics? Why or why not?

9. What are the various characteristics of moral principles?

10. Which characteristic do you think is the most important? Why? Justify your answer.

ACTIVITY TIME

Things to Do

1. List down five specific actions that can be considered as belonging to the domain of morality and another same number
that do not. Provide a justification why do you consider them as moral and non-moral actions respectively.

2. Give five specific and concrete examples (in the form of evaluative statements/expressions) on each of the various types
of norms. Explain what makes the moral/ethical norm distinct from the rest.

3. Look for an article or news in the net that deals with a particular contemporary ethical issue. Discuss why the issue is an
ethical one.
CHAPTER EXERCISE

TRUE OR FALSE

______ 1. Ethics and morality do not share the same etymology.

______ 2. Ethics and morality are exactly the same.
______ 3. Ethics is defined as the Theological study of the morality of human acts.
______ 4. Ethics is also known as Moral Philosophy.
______ 5. Ethics is a practical science for it deals mainly with theories and principles.
______ 6. Ethics deals primarily with the rightness or wrongness of human thinking.
______ 7. Ethics and law are both concerned with right and wrong.
______ 8. As a science, Ethics employs the aid of divine revelation in its investigation.
______ 9. Ethics also deals with the ultimate principle and truth concerning the physical universe.
______ 10. As a theoretical science, Ethics can be considered as a “way of life.”
______ 11. Ethics, like the other sciences, does have a material object.
______ 12. The material object of ethics is the human act.
______ 13. Aside from having a material object, Ethics has also an informal object.
______ 14. The formal object of ethics is the act of man.
______ 15. Ethics is a minor field in Philosophy.
______ 16. Ethics, as a particular area of knowledge, has two major divisions.
______ 17. The divisions of Ethics are General Ethics and Applied Ethics.
______ 18. Applied Ethics consists of the application of general moral principles.
______ 19. Ethics and religion are both normative disciplines.
______ 20. Ethics also grounds itself in human experience, aside from reason and logic.

CHAPTER EXERCISE

FILL IN THE BLANKS

1. __________________ speaking, “ethics” comes from a Greek word.

2. “Morality” is taken from the word mores in __________________.
3. Because of its etymological construction, Ethics is also called __________________.
4. Ethics is a practical science since it is meant as the ____________ of certain theories and principles concerning morality.
5. Ethics is also known as moral __________________.
6. As a specific area of knowledge, Ethics is considered a ____________ field in philosophy.
7. Ethics as a field of study has a __________________ and formal object.
8. The formal object of ethics is the __________________ of human conduct.
9. __________________ norm refers to the proper way of doing things.
10. __________________ norm refers to the judgment we make on things that are pleasant or unpleasant to the senses.
11. __________________ norm refers to the judgment concerning what is acceptable or not in a given culture.
12. __________________ norm concerns grave human concerns such as poverty, inequality and oppression.
13. Ethics as a field of Philosophy has two main __________________.
14. The second division of Ethics is __________________ Ethics.
15. The first division of Ethics is __________________ Ethics.
16. Ethics is important, in a way, because _________ it, society in general, will deteriorate and be shaken as to its very core.
17. Ethics deals with ______________ , while law deals with legality.
18. _________________ Ethics is also called Applied Ethics.
19. _______________ Ethics concerns with the application of general moral principles and norms to the various specific
areas of human life.
20. These areas of human life that Special Ethics deals with include both individual and _____________ domain.
ENUMERATION

1. Characteristics of Moral Principles:

1.1 ________________________________________________
1.2 ________________________________________________
1.3 ________________________________________________
1.4 ________________________________________________
1.5 ________________________________________________
1.6 ________________________________________________
1.7 ________________________________________________
1.8 ________________________________________________

2. Types of Norms:

2.1 ________________________________________________
2.2 ________________________________________________
2.3 ________________________________________________
2.4 ________________________________________________

3. Divisions of Ethics:

3.1 ________________________________________________
3.2 ________________________________________________

IDENTIFICATION

________________ 1. The Latin word for morality.

________________ 2. The material object in the study of ethics.

________________ 3. Type of norm that concerns with the proper or right way of doing things.

________________ 4. A norm that the community comes to accept as good/bad.

________________ 5. The Greek origin of the word “ethics.”

________________ 6. A specific trivial norm known as GMRC.

________________ 7. Ultimately a product of majority decision.

________________ 8. Morality should be applied to everyone.

________________ 9. Part of ethics dealing with practical moral issues.

________________ 10. The formal object in the study of ethics.

________________ 11. This refers to the guiding nature of morality.

________________ 12. Moral principles should be made public.

________________ 13. Morality should not lay too much burden on people.

________________ 14. Moral principles are meant for humans.

________________ 15. Moral rules should be neutral.

SHORT ESSAY

Instruction: Write a short reflection on the question below after reading the story of “Gyges” in Plato’s book The Republic.
In summary: “Gyges is a shepherd who stumbles upon a ring that at his command makes him invisible and, while in that state,
he can indulge in his greed to the fullest without the fear of getting caught. He can thus escape the restraints of society, its
laws, and punishments. So he kills the king, seduces his wife, and becomes king himself” (Pojman & Fieser 2017:67-68). So
imagine you got the ring of Gyges, would you still do what is good and what is right? In brief, would you still act morally?
Why should you, or not?
Write your answer/s below:

Should I be Moral?

MATCHING TYPE: WRITE ONLY THE LETTER ON THE SPACE PROVIDED.

______ 1. Ethics A. Morality must be applied to all

______ 2. Morality B. Particular viewpoint of Ethics

______ 3. Aesthetic norm C. Formal Object of Ethics

______ 4. Universalizability D. Philosophical study of morality

______ 5. Formal Object of Ethics E. Quality of human act as good or bad

______ 6. Natural Reason F. Human act

______ 7. Religion G. Ethics as a branch of Philosophy

______ 8. Human Conduct H. Environmental Ethics

______ 9. Material Object of Ethics I. Grounded on revelation

______ 10. General Ethics J. Independent from arbitrariness

______ 11. Moral Philosophy K. Judgment on beauty

______ 12. Social Ethics L. Foundation of Special Ethics

______ 13. Impartiality M. Hegemonic authority of Ethics

______ 14. Applied Ethics N. Known to everyone to be binding

______ 15. Climate Change O. Ethics employs in its investigation

______ 16. Reasonability P. Commands and imperatives

______ 17. Prescriptivity Q. Family, State, Church

______ 18. Overridingness R. Equality in application of morality

______ 19. Publicity S. That which Ethics studies

______ 20. Autonomy T. Practical moral issues

U. Backed by sound arguments