ETHICS MODULE

Prepared by:

BONI FERNANDO A. SUAREZ, ALVIN B. PANO, & ALVIN J. CARREON

INSTRUCTOR

2020
 Preface

Dear Students,
“I’m frustrated.” “Life is chaotic right now.” “It’s just not how I thought this semester
would go.” Amid the COVID-19 pandemic, these are your primary responses as I
continually ask the question, “Are you doing OK?”
I’m sorry, and I know it’s not fair. I feel like I should be doing something. Along those
lines, perhaps I should also be asking a second question: “What do you think you’ll
learn from this?”
I’ve realized that my job as a instructor has a little to do with teaching content, and a
great deal more to do with facilitating opportunities for your growth. Because let’s be
honest, most of the content—definitions, theories, models—can easily be retrieved in a
whopping five seconds with a targeted Google search.
Equipping you with self-awareness and critical thinking skills that you can carry with
you into the real world upon graduation is what actually matters. Meeting that goal,
however, hinges upon whether or not I can create an experience—something that
significantly alters the way you view the world and yourselves.
Ironically, and unfortunately, the COVID-19 pandemic has created just such an
experience. It’s unlikely to be forgotten, and if viewed with a growth mindset—the belief
that one’s skills and qualities can be cultivated through effort and perseverance—it can
be life-changing.
Outlined below are three opportunities for growth, including practicing adaptive
performance, engaging in intellectual opposition, and learning to manage stress. These
are three areas of my scholarship as a management professor that are consistently
discussed in the evidence-based, management and organizational behavior literature. I
challenge you to consider these growth opportunities as you manage your way through
the remainder of this semester.
Inspired? Challenged? Then let’s strike the iron while it’s hot! Let’s buckle down for
learning and face the challenges of the new normal. Have fun!

Truly yours
B.F. SUAREZ, A. PANO, & A. CARREON

ZDSPGC | ETHICS 2020

ZDSPGC | ETHICS 2020
 Table of Contents

ZDSPGC | ETHICS 2020

 Contents Page Number
Cover page
Preface/Letter to the Students i
Table of Contents ii
Course Outline Iii
Lesson 1 Introduction of Ethics 1
Chapter 1 Defining Ethics
Chapter 2 Comparison between Ethics and other Sciences
Chapter 3 Human Acts and Morality
Activity 1
Lesson 2 HUMAN ACT
Chapter 4 Analysis of Human Act
Chapter 5 Ethical Theories
Chapter 6 Facts and Values
Chapter 7 Ethical Statements and Logical Analysis
Chapter 8 Ethical Evaluation and Justification
Activity 2
Prelim Examination Sheet
Lesson 3 Ethical Value
Chapter 9 Values
Chapter 9.1 Socrates: Intellectualism
Chapter 9.2 Plato: The Philosophical Life
Chapter 9.3 Aristotle: Virtue Ethics
Activity 3
Lesson 4 Human Nature
Chapter 10 Stoicism
Chapter 11 Natural Law Ethics
Course Facilitator B.F. SUAREZ, A. PANO, & A. CARREON
Activity 4
Course Code and
GE 107:MidTerm
ETHICS Examination Sheet
Title
Lesson
Course 5 Duty None
Prerequisite and Society
Chapter
Course 12 Deontologism:
Description This course guides Kantthe students to be both reflective and critical in their approach to the question
and application of morality, “what5 is a good act?.” To help the students think critically and ethically,
Activity
this course
Chapter 13 Conventionalism: Hobbes provides both the normative theories of ethics and a moral reasoning model.
Representatives of both Western and Eastern traditions and paradigms in moral thinking will also
be given to afford the Activity
students 6a broader but also a more profound view in dealing with ethical
Lesson 6 Pleasure questions and problems..
Chapter
Course 14 Hedonism:
Objectives To realize itsAristippus and itsEpicurus
vision, accomplish mission and attain its goal, the college endeavour to:

Chapter 15 Utilitarianism: Bentham and Mill quality yet affordable academic degrees on relevant
Help Zambosurians to obtain
programs andActivity
field of studies;
7
 Conduct highly relevant research that addresses current problems and issues besetting the
Finaland
society Examination
the environment.Sheet
 Collaborate with various stakeholders from both government and private sectors in pursuit
of social and economic community development.
 Mitigate the effects of climate change by promoting organic agriculture.

Course Outline/Topics and Time Frame

Time Frame Course Contents / Topics
No. of Course
3 hours every week for 18 week or 48 hours in a semester
Hours
Flexible Learning Learning Modalities
Week Course Topics / Teacher’s Activity (Input)

General Class and Course Orientation

1. Discuss Course Outline, Requirements (Outputs), and Classroom Protocols
2. Distribute Course Packets
Week 1

ZDSPGC | ETHICS 2020

 A. Introduction
a. Defining Ethics
Week 2-3 b. Comparison between Ethics and other Sciences
c. Human Acts and Morality

B. Analysis of Human Act

C. Ethical Theories
Week 4-5
a. Deontological
b. Teleogical
D. Facts and Values
E. Ethical Statements and Logical Analysis
Week 5-6
F. Ethical Evaluation and Justification

PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION
A. Values
a. Socrates: Intellectualism
i. Knowledge and Virtue
ii. Moral Life in the Society
Week 7-8 b. Plato: The Philosophical Life
i. Philosophy
ii. Allegory of the Cave
c. Aristotle: Virtue Ethics
i. Virtue Ethical Theories
ii. Virtue
iii. Deontology and consequentialism

Week 9-10 B. Human Nature

ZDSPGC | ETHICS 2020

 a. Stoicism: Epictetus
i. The Third Topos: Ethics
ii. Stoic Resilience and the Path to Tranquility
b. Natural Law Ethics:
i. Augustine
Week 11-12 ii. Scholasticism
iii. Immanuel Kant
iv. Robert Adams
v. Alternative theories
MIDTERM EXAMINATION
A. Duty and Society
a. Deontologism: Kant
i. Knowledge of Morality
Week 13-14
ii. Moral Postulates
iii. Good Will and Moral Duty
iv. Categorical Imperatives
a. Convetionalism: Hobbes
v. Nature and Society
vi. The Natural Condition of Mankind
Week 15 - 16
vii. The Laws of Nature and the Social Contract
viii. The Sovereign Power

B. Pleasure
a. Hedonism: Aristippus and Epicurus
i. Extreme and Sensual Pleasure
Week 17-18 ii. Real Pleasure: Moderate and Peaceful Life
b. Utilitarianism: Bentham and Mill
i. Quantitative Utilitarianism
ii. Qualitative Utilitarianism

FINAL EXAMINATION

Prepared By: Approved By: Noted By:

B.F. SUAREZ, A. PANO, & A. CARREON VANESSA P. CANOY, MAED JEHUEL NATHAN R. DACULIO, M.S. Math
Course Facilitator Program Coordinator Academic Head

Date Signed: _______________

ZDSPGC | ETHICS 2020

Lesson 1: Introduction of Ethics

Chapter 1: Defining Ethics:

Youtube: https://youtu.be/4vWXpzlL7Mo (you can watch a short video about defining ethics)
The term ethics often describes the investigation and analysis of moral principles and dilemmas. Traditionally,
philosophers and religious scholars have studied ethics. More recently, scholars from various disciplines have
entered the field, creating new approaches to the study of ethics such as behavioral ethics and applied ethics.
The term ethics can also refer to rules or guidelines that establish what conduct is right and wrong for
individuals and for groups. For example, codes of conduct express relevant ethical standards for professionals
in many fields, such as medicine, law, journalism, and accounting.
Some philosophers make a distinction between ethics and morals. But many people use the terms ethics and
morals interchangeably when talking about personal beliefs, actions, or principles. For example, it’s common to
say, “My ethics prevent me from cheating.” It’s also common to use morals in this sentence instead.

ZDSPGC | ETHICS 2020

So, whether we use the term ethics to refer to personal beliefs, or rules of conduct, or the study of moral
philosophy, ethics provides a framework for understanding and interpreting right and wrong in society.
Reference: https://ethicsunwrapped.utexas.edu/glossary/ethics

Understanding of Ethics
Ethics is based on well-founded
standards of right and wrong that
prescribe what humans ought to
do, usually in terms of rights,
obligations, benefits to society,
fairness, or specific virtues.
The meaning of "ethics" is hard to
pin down, and the views many
people have about ethics are
shaky.
Many people tend to equate
ethics with their feelings. But
being ethical is clearly not a
matter of following one's feelings.
A person following his or her
feelings may recoil from doing
what is right. In fact, feelings
frequently deviate from what is
ethical.
Nor should one identify ethics with religion. Most religions, of course, advocate high ethical standards. Yet if
ethics were confined to religion, then ethics would apply only to religious people. But ethics applies as much to
the behavior of the atheist as to that of the devout religious person. Religion can set high ethical standards and
can provide intense motivations for ethical behavior. Ethics, however, cannot be confined to religion nor is it
the same as religion.
Being ethical is also not the same as following the law. The law often incorporates ethical standards to which
most citizens subscribe. But laws, like feelings, can deviate from what is ethical.
Finally, being ethical is not the same as doing "whatever society accepts." In any society, most people accept
standards that are, in fact, ethical. But standards of behavior in society can deviate from what is ethical. An
entire society can become ethically corrupt.

ZDSPGC | ETHICS 2020

CHAPTER 2: Comparison between Ethics and other
Sciences
Isn't it obvious that ethics and science are opposites? Isn't it obvious that science is objective while ethics is
subjective? Isn't it obvious that science deals with facts, while ethics deals with opinions? Isn't it clear that
science relies on evidence, while ethics relies on feelings?
It's too simple, that's what. Simplistic, according to many ethicists.
Facts
Imagine a conversation between two people about, say, the ethical acceptability of doing research on primates
which results in significant suffering of the primates. (Suppose that the research results in the introduction of
spinal tumors in the primates.) Joe believes that such research is morally wrong under any circumstance, while
Julia believes that such research is morally acceptable under certain circumstances.
Now, perhaps you have been in such an argument. Did you find yourself trying to convince the other person
that your perspective was the better one? Were you convinced that your position was correct? Of course you
were! How did you try to convince the your opponent? How did s/he try to convince you? Perhaps one of you
used statistics -- that over 3 million animals die in the midst of human technological experimentation, or that
primates display very complex social behaviors, indicating a level of intelligence that rivals young human
children.
If you ever have used statistics in your moral discussions with people, then you have appealed to "facts" to
make your case. But wait a minute -- that's what scientists do. Are facts, then, sometimes relevant to
establishing moral responsibilities? Are there empirical realities which can provide a sort of evidence for the
superiority of one moral position over another? It seems so .... can you think of other cases?
Conceptual Clarity
"Conservatives? These fanatics are not conservatives. Robert Taft was a conservative. These Neanderthals
are not Christians. Martin Luther King was a Christian. What we're dealing with here are a bunch of half-baked,
hard-core, fire-and-brimstone McCarthyites, racists, sexual hypocrites and assorted flat-earthers and book-
burners, and it's time society started labeling them as such. "
"The Democrats are literally bewitched by feminists, whose agenda is simple: teach women to hate their
husbands, kill their children, and become lesbians. A vote for the Democrats is a vote against family and for
immorality."
Now, hopefully none of you would be persuaded by such "reasoning". You may, in the first case, be a bed-
wetting liberal and reject the sort of "rationale" offered here, and you may even, in the second case, be a loyal
conservative, and still reject the "ad hominem" offered against the Democrats. If in an argument about the
ethical acceptability of research on primates, your opponent accuses people "like you" of ruining what's great
about America, then you might point out that that argument employs an invalid form of argument called an "ad
hominem." In short, you might suggest that your opponent fails to be rationally persuasive, because s/he fails
to use standard logic. His argument might be confused. S/he might use ambiguous language, or be "begging
the question", or committing an equivocation.
Well, don't you want your own ethical position to be based on thought which is clear, and logic that is correct?
How would you respond to somebody who tries to convince you, against your own considered opinion, that it's
wrong to use primates in medical experimentation, and whose logic is riddled with holes?
Perhaps science and ethics are not as opposed to each other as people often think! (None of this is intended
to persuade you that they are the same, or that they use identical methods to obtain true beliefs. But it is
intended to challenge those who believe that they have almost nothing in common -- that they are just so
different as to be incomparable.)

ZDSPGC | ETHICS 2020

CHAPTER 3: Human Acts and Morality

Youtube: https://youtu.be/0WxOGR6HKFs
Morals are the prevailing standards of behavior that enable people to live cooperatively in groups. Moral refers
to what societies sanction as right and acceptable.
Most people tend to act morally and follow societal guidelines. Morality often requires that people sacrifice
their own short-term interests for the benefit of society. People or entities that are indifferent to right and wrong
are considered amoral, while those who do evil acts are considered immoral.
While some moral principles seem to transcend time and culture, such as fairness, generally speaking,
morality is not fixed. Morality describes the particular values of a specific group at a specific point in time.
Historically, morality has been closely connected to religious traditions, but today its significance is equally
important to the secular world. For example, businesses and government agencies have codes of ethics that
employees are expected to follow.
Some philosophers make a distinction between morals and ethics. But many people use the terms morals and
ethics interchangeably when talking about personal beliefs, actions, or principles. For example, it’s common to
say, “My morals prevent me from cheating.” It’s also common to use ethics in this sentence instead.
So, morals are the principles that guide individual conduct within society. And, while morals may change over
time, they remain the standards of behavior that we use to judge right and wrong.

Types of Morality
 Personal morality - Personal morality is the values and duties you adopt for yourself.
 Societal morality - Societal morality represents the beliefs that we share with others in the society in
which we live.
 Group morality - Group morality is the values we adopt as part of self-selected sub-groups.
Take a moment to consider your personal morality and what forms your own moral value system. What are
your personal values?

For example, what are your attitudes towards life and death, your personal relationships and your
independence? What are your religious beliefs?
Consider also societal morality and what we, as a nation, value as important. For example what do
Canadians consider to be as important. For example, what do Canadians consider to be important
regarding access to health care services? To end-of-life care?
And finally, consider group morality and what physiotherapists consider to be important regarding our
professional morality, our individual responsibility to persons, our loyalty and responsibility to our
employers and colleagues and our societal responsibility.

ZDSPGC | ETHICS 2020

Take some time to reflect on these and other questions. There are no wrong answers. The intent is to
consider what you, as an individual, value.
• Personality Morality: What are your individual values?
• Societal Morality: What is our national morality?
• Group Morality: What forms the moral makeup of a physiotherapist?

The structure of morality and corresponding moral emotions, mapped by valence (help/harm) and
moral type (agent/patient). Emotions in each quadrant are elicited by their respective exemplar. For
example, villains—those who harm others—elicit anger and disgust. Emotions in the same quadrant
reinforce each other, those in different quadrants oppose each other, and agent and patient emotions
complement each other.
Moral Conflict
On occasion the values of an individual come into conflict with the morality of a sub-group to which
they belong. Some of the conflicts that professional are faced with evolve when personal values are
in conflict with the values of employers, administrators or funders. The individual is challenged to
make an ethical decision based on their own morality. Ultimately, we make decisions based on our
ethical foundation decisions based on our ethical foundation—teleological teleological, deontological
or deonutility. Now let’s put the theory into action and review a few scenarios.
MORAL CONFLICT
You are paid a lump sum to provide services to the residents of a nursing home. You are told by your
supervisor not to worry about treating Mr. X if you are short on time, as he is seldom lucid and won’t
remember if you came to see him or not.
How does this statement make you feel?
• Do you believe that this is a legitimate way to ration your time?
• Do you feel that Mr. X is just as entitled to any and all services that he needs and his cognitive
state should not determine if he gets services or not.
• What will you do?
References : https://ethicsunwrapped.utexas.edu/glossary/morals

ZDSPGC | ETHICS 2020

 Activity No. 1
ETHICS

Name: ____________________________________________ Date: _________________

Course – Year & Section: _____________________ Score: ________________

Direction: Read carefully each Scenarios and Answer the following Question

CASE STUDY:
A study of former high school and college football players found that RHI exposure predicted later-life
apathy, depression, executive dysfunction, and cognitive impairment.
After a single season, college football players had less midbrain white matter than they had started
with.
High school athletes are reluctant to report concussions.
A 2017 study found CTE in 21% of donated brains of deceased high school football players.
Over time more evidence has indicated that even mild concussions suffered by high school football
players can cause serious consequences.
Football causes more concussions than any other high school sport, and these concussions can
cause death.

In the wake of the recent pandemic, Oklahoma State head football coach Mike Gundy said “In my opinion, if
we have to bring our players back, test them. They’re all in good shape. They’re all 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22-year-
olds. They’re healthy … And people say that’s crazy. No, it’s not crazy because we need to continue and
budget and run money through the state of Oklahoma.”One commentator cited this remark as stark evidence
that “[t]he supremacy of commercial and hedonic interests over the social welfare has, unfortunately become
indelibly imprinted into the ethical fiber of American culture. “Do you agree? Why or why not?

Please look any thing in this scenario relate to the following topic. Explain the scenario to each topic.

Human Acts
Morality
Conceptual Clarity

ZDSPGC | ETHICS 2020

LESSON 2: HUMAN ACT

CHAPTER 4: Analysis of Human Act

1. The Morality of Human Acts
“Human acts, that is, acts that are freely chosen
in consequence of a judgment of conscience, can be
morally evaluated. They are either good or evil”
(Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1749).
“Acting is morally good when the choices of
freedom are in conformity with man’s true good and thus
express the voluntary ordering of the person towards our
ultimate end: God himself.”
The morality of human acts depends on:
— the object chosen;
— the end sought or the intention;
— the circumstances of the action.
“The object, the intention, and the circumstances
make up the ‘sources,’ or constitutive elements, of the
morality of human acts” (Catechism of the Catholic
Church, 1750).

2. The Moral Object

“The morality of the human act depends primarily and fundamentally on the ‘object’ rationally chosen by the
deliberate will, as is borne out by the insightful analysis, still valid today, made by Saint Thomas.” The moral
value of human acts (whether they are good or evil) depends above all on the conformity of the object or act
that is willed with the good of the person according to right reason. “The reason why a good intention is not
itself sufficient, but a correct choice of actions is also needed, is that the human act depends on
John Paul II, Enc. Veritatis splendor, August 6, 1993, 72. “The first question in the young man’s conversation with Jesus: ‘What good
must I do to have eternal life?’ (Mt 19:6) immediately brings out the essential connection between the moral value of an act and man’s
final end . . . Jesus’ answer and his reference to the commandments also make it clear that the path to that end is marked by respect
for the divine laws which safeguard human good. Only the act in conformity with the good can be a path that leads to life” (Ibid.).

John Paul II, Enc. Veritatis splendor, 78; cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1751. “In order to be able to grasp the object of an act
which specifies that act morally, it is therefore necessary to place oneself in the perspective of the acting person. The object of the act
of willing is in fact a freely chosen kind of behavior. To the extent that it is in conformity with the order of reason, it is the cause of the
goodness of the will; it perfects us morally, and disposes us to recognize our ultimate end in the perfect good, primordial love. By the
object of a given moral act, then, one cannot mean a process or an event of the merely physical order, to be assessed on the basis of
its ability to bring about a given state of affairs in the outside world”(Ibid.). The “physical object” should not be confused with the “moral
object” of the action (one and the same physical action may be the object of different moral acts, e.g., cutting with a scalpel may be a
surgical operation or a homicide).

ZDSPGC | ETHICS 2020

its object, whether that object is capable or not of being ordered to God, to the One who ‘alone is good,’ and
thus brings about the perfection of the person.”
“Reason attests that there are objects of the human act which are by their nature ‘incapable of being
ordered’ to God, because they radically contradict the good of the person made in his image. These are the
acts which, in the Church’s moral tradition, have been termed ‘intrinsically evil’ (intrinsece malum): they are
such always and per se, in other words, on account of their very object, and quite apart from the ulterior
intentions of the one acting and the circumstances.”
Consequentialism and proportionalism are erroneous theories concerning the moral object of an action.
“The former claims to draw the criteria of the rightness of a given way of acting solely from a calculation of
foreseeable consequences deriving from a given choice. The latter, by weighing the various values and goods
being sought, focuses rather on the proportion acknowledged between the good and bad effects of that choice,
with a view to the ‘greater good’ or ‘lesser evil’ actually possible in a particular situation.”5

3. Intention
In human actions “the end is the first goal of the intention and indicates the purpose pursued in the
action. The intention is a movement of the will toward the end: it is concerned with the goal of the activity”
(Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1752). An act that “can be offered to God according to its object, is also
capable of being ordered to its ultimate end. That same act then attains its ultimate and decisive perfection
when the will actually does order it to God.” The intention of the person acting “is an element essential to the
moral evaluation of an action” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1752).
John Paul II, Enc. Veritatis splendor, 78.

Ibid. 80; Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1756. Vatican Council II specifies several examples: attempts against human life, such
as “any type of murder, genocide, abortion, euthanasia or willful selfdestruction, whatever violates the integrity of the human person,
such as mutilation, torments inflicted on body or mind, attempts to coerce the will itself; whatever insults human dignity, such as
subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, slavery, prostitution, the selling of women and children; as well as
disgraceful working conditions, where men are treated as mere tools for profit, rather than as free and responsible persons; all these
things and others of their like are infamies indeed. They poison human society, but they do more harm to those who practice them than
those who suffer from the injury. Moreover, they are supreme dishonor to the Creator” (Vatican Council II, Gaudium et spes, 27). Paul
VI, referring to contraceptive practices, taught that it is never licit “to intend directly something which of its very nature contradicts the
moral order, and which must therefore be judged unworthy of man, even though the intention is to protect or promote the welfare of an
individual, of a family or of society in general” (Paul VI, Enc. Humanae vitae, July 25, 1968, 14).

John Paul II, Enc. Veritatis splendor, 75. This is not the same as saying that one may do evil in order to obtain a good end. For
example, a proportionalist would not hold that one could carry out a swindle for a good aim, but rather would examine whether what is
done is or is not a swindle (whether what is “objectively chosen” is a swindle or not) by taking into account all the circumstances and
the intention. One could thus end up saying that what really is a swindle is not such given the circumstances and intention and could
justify that action (or any other).

The moral object refers to what the will wants to carry out with a specific action (for example, to kill a person, or to give alms), while
intention refers to why he wills it (for example, to collect an inheritance, to look good before others, or to help someone who is poor).

John Paul II, Enc. Veritatis splendor, 78.

“Intention is not limited to directing individual actions, but can guide several actions toward one and the same
purpose; it can orient one’s whole life toward its ultimate end . . . One and the same action can also be inspired
by several intentions” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1752).
“A good intention does not make behavior that is intrinsically disordered, such as lying and calumny, good or
just. The end does not justify the means” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1753). “On the other hand, an
added bad intention (such as vainglory) makes an act evil that, in and of itself, can be good (such as
almsgiving; cf Mt 6:2-4)” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1753).

4. Circumstances
Circumstances “are secondary elements of a moral act. They contribute to increasing or diminishing the
moral goodness or evil of human acts (for example, the amount of a theft). They can also diminish or increase
the agent’s responsibility (such as acting out of a fear of death)” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1754).
Circumstances “of themselves cannot change the moral quality of acts themselves; they can make neither
good nor right an action that is in itself evil” (Ibid.).
“A morally good act requires the goodness of the object, of the end, and of the circumstances together”
(Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1755).9

ZDSPGC | ETHICS 2020

5. Indirect Voluntary Actions
“An action can be indirectly voluntary when it results from negligence regarding something one should
have known or done” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1736).
“An effect can be tolerated without being willed by its agent; for instance, a mother’s exhaustion from
tending her sick child. A bad effect is not imputable if it was not willed either as an end or as a means of an
action, e.g., a death a person incurs in aiding someone in danger. For a bad effect to be imputable it must be
foreseeable and the agent must have
”It frequently happens that a man acts with a good intention, but without any spiritual benefit because he lacks good will. For
example, one commits a robbery to help the poor: in this case, even if on the inside his intention is good, he lacks rectitude of will
because the acts are evil. In conclusion, a good intention does not authorize performing any evil work. ‘Some claim we say—that we
should do evil that good may come of it? Their penalty is what they deserve’ (Rom 3:8)” (St. Thomas Aquinas, In duo praecepta
caritatis, Opuscula theologica II, no. 1168).

That is to say, for a free act to be ordered to our true ultimate end, it requires:

a) that in itself it be capable of being ordered to that end: that it be objectively good, given the object of the moral act

b) that it be capable of being ordered to that end given the circumstances of place, time, etc. in which it is carried out.

c) that the will of the person acting effectively orders it to our true ultimate end: that it be subjectively good, by the intention.

“For example, an accident arising from ignorance of traffic laws” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1736). When someone is
ignorant of elementary traffic laws (voluntarily and culpably), the consequences of that ignorance can be said to be willed indirectly.

the possibility of avoiding it, as in the case of manslaughter caused by a drunken driver” (Catechism of the
Catholic Church, 1737).
An effect can be said to be “willed indirectly” when it is not willed either as an end or a means for
anything else, but it is something that necessarily accompanies the desired action. This is important in the
moral life, because at times actions can have two effects, one good and another bad, and it may be licit to
carry them out in order to obtain the good effect (willed directly), even though the evil one cannot be avoided
(which, therefore, is willed only indirectly). These situations at times require great moral discernment, where
prudence dictates seeking advice from someone able to give sound guidance.
An act is voluntary (and thus blameworthy) in causa when, though not chosen for itself, it frequently
follows a directly willed action. For example, a person who fails to keep proper custody of the eyes before
obscene images is responsible (because it has been willed in causa) for the disorder (not directly chosen) in
one’s imagination.
6. Responsibility
“Freedom makes man responsible for his acts to the extent that they are voluntary” (Catechism of the
Catholic Church, 1734). The exercise of freedom always brings with it responsibility before God: in every free
act we either accept or reject God’s will.
“Imputability and responsibility for an action can be diminished or even nullified by ignorance,
inadvertence, duress, fear, habit, inordinate attachments, and other psychological or social factors” (Catechism
of the Catholic Church, 1735).

7. Merit
“The term ‘merit’ refers in general to the recompense owed by a community or a society for the action of one of
its members, experienced either as beneficial or harmful, deserving reward or punishment. Merit is relative to
the virtue of justice, in conformity with the principle of equality which governs it” (Catechism of the Catholic
Church, 2006).
We have no strict right to any merit before God for our good works (cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church,
2007). Nevertheless, “filial adoption, in making us partakers by grace in the divine nature, can bestow true
merit on us as a result of God’s gratuitous justice. This is our right by grace, the full right of love, making us ‘co-
heirs’ with Christ and worthy of obtaining the promised inheritance of eternal life” (Catechism of the Catholic
Church, 2009).
“The merit of man before God in the Christian life arises from the fact that God has freely chosen to associate
man with the work of his grace” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2008).

ZDSPGC | ETHICS 2020

References: https://odnmedia.s3.amazonaws.com/files/Topic%2027-Morality%20of%20Human%20Acts.pdf

CHAPTER 5: Ethical Theories

We will review how ethics have evolved; the classical ethical theories that support decision-making; the
foundations of ethical behavior (including an opportunity to reflect on the ethical behaviour that you are most
comfortable with); and finally, the ethical principles that form the basis of ethical decision-making.
At the conclusion of this chapter you will have reviewed basic biomedical ethics and will be able to differentiate
between four generally accepted ethical principles. The opportunity to review hypothetical situations and apply
the ethical principles to the scenarios will clarify the use of the principles and prepare you for the next chapter
that discusses ethical decision-making.
While there are a variety of ethical theories or foundational constructs, most centre around either
TELEOLOGICAL, or DEONTOLOGICAL THEORY.
EACH PRACTITIONER knowingly or unknowingly, CHOOSES ONE
of these theoretical constructs that is most comfortable for them.
This FORMS THE BASIS for their own PERSONAL STYLE in ethical decision making. We will briefly discuss
each in turn.
Teleological Theory
Teleological theory focuses on the effect, the consequences or the end result. A teleological approach would
attempt to minimize adverse consequences while bringing about the greatest good. It is the tailoring of one's
conduct to bring about the greatest good with a minimum of adverse consequences. "The ends justify the
means."
Telos is Greek for "end" or "goal
Teological Theories:
Ethical theories that determine an act's moral correctness in relation to some end or purpose that is seen as
desirable or good.
Consequentialist Theories: Teological theories in which an act's consequences are the sole factors that
determine the act's moral correctness.
Utilitarianism: The doctrine that an act's moral correctness depends upon whether the consequences produce
a more good than evil, i.e., an act is right when it brings about more good than evil in relation to the other
possible actions. The greater the good that results and the more individuals it affects, the better the action.
What distinguishes the various utilitarian theories is the definition given the idea 'good'. Ideal utilitarianism

ZDSPGC | ETHICS 2020

argues that 'good' is indefinable. Eudiamonistic utilitarianism defines 'good' as happiness. Hedonistic
utilitarianism defines 'good' as pleasure. Theological utilitarianism defines 'good' as what God wills or desires.
Act Utilitarianism: An act's moral worth depends upon the good or bad consequences that arise in each
individual act judged in itself.
Rule Utilitarianism: An act's moral worth depends upon whether it follows a valid moral rule. [John Stuart Mill]
Egoistic Hedonism: The doctrine that (a) pleasure is the highest good, (b) pleasure is an intrinsic good, (c)
pleasure should be sought and (d) an act's moral worth depends upon the amount of pleasure it produces.
Ethical Egoism: The view that all individuals should promote their own interests and that one's own happiness
is the principal good and all other values depend upon this.
Instrumentalism: The doctrine that the good is that which works both to increase personal satisfaction and to
resolve group tensions.
Non-consequentialist: Teological theories that consider a moral act's general goal or purpose rather than the
act's actual consequences.
Natural Law: The doctrine that the obligations and principles that govern moral and ethical conduct are
derivable through an examination of the universe and human nature. [John Locke]
Deontological Ethical Theory
Deontological ethical theory is rule or duty focused and concentrates on the rules without particular concern for
the consequences. Deontological theory forms the basis for religious commandments and edicts, professional
codes of conduct and societal laws.
Deon is Greek for "duty"
What Guides Your Actions?
Every physiotherapist has a decision-making set that is most comfortable for them and helps them to establish
a framework for decision-making. Which is more important to you: following the rules or achieving the best
outcome? Are you driven more by duty or by goals?
Theories in which what determines a moral act's correctness or incorrectness, at least in part, with reference to
formal rules that underlie conduct rather than an action's consequences, and which argue that some actions in
conformance with these rules are in fact moral obligations despite the possible consequences.
Act Deontology: The position that the basic judgments about obligations are all particular ones like "In this
situation I should do such-and-such."
Rule Deontology: The view that there are one or more moral rules that determine whether an act is right or
wrong. These rules can be rather concrete ('We ought to tell the truth in all cases') or more abstract. These
rules are valid no matter what the consequences.
Christian Ethics: Right consists in obedience to God's will and dictates.
Stocism: What is right consists in the conformance to natural law and indifference to the consequences.
Kantian Ethics: Right consists in the rational realization that there are certain duties and that there is an
obligation to fulfill these duties for their own sake. [Immanuel Kant]
How comfortable are you with the consequences of your actions? Do the ends justify the means or are
the rules more important?
Deonutility Ethics
Although the previous example serves to highlight the difference between teleological and deontological
approaches, most individuals do not subscribe wholly to one or other of the ethical theories but rather use a
combination of the two.
Deonutility ethics combines a respect for the rules with a concern for the consequences and is represented
by the phrase, “Good principles and guidance bring good results”.

ZDSPGC | ETHICS 2020

Chapter 6: Facts and Values

Many conflicts involve disputes about facts and values. Despite important differences, facts and values are
often confused -- a conflict of values may be thought to be a conflict of facts, or vice versa. Because of the
nature of their differences, factual issues and value issues will contribute different kinds of problems to a
conflict. Parties must be able to sort these out, handling each type appropriately, in order to be able to address
a conflict constructively.

Objective Facts
The term "fact" refers to a truth about the world, a statement about some aspect of objective reality. For
example, there is a fact that can be given as an answer to each of the following questions:

 What is the average flow rate of the Colorado River?

 When taken into custody, what was the suspect's blood-alcohol level?
 Is the global warming trend natural or the result of pollution?
An accurate answer to any one of these questions is a matter of fact. A wrong answer, whether the result of a
mistake or a lie, would not be a fact. A fact does not depend on who believes it or who presents it. A fact
simply is.
The most useful kinds of facts are those that can be verified by others. By performing a scientific experiment or
a thorough investigation, we can become convinced that a claim is an authentic fact. Other kinds of facts,
though, may be more difficult to find, or may even be completely unknowable. For example, it might not be
possible to know whether the global warming trend is part of a natural long-term cycle or is being caused by
human activity. This doesn't mean there is no fact, it merely means we have no access to it. Facts exist at
every point on the spectrum between what is knowable and what is unknowable, and this changes over time --
some things that we cannot know today may be within our grasp at some point in the future.

ZDSPGC | ETHICS 2020

Subjective Values

Values, as opposed to facts, have a clearly

subjective element. They vary from person to
person and from situation to situation. For
example, a value judgment is called upon to
answer each of the following questions:

 Who has a better foreign policy,

Republicans or Democrats?
 Should we have a moment of prayer in our
school?
 Is it appropriate to work on Saturdays?
The answers to these questions are both
subjective, in that each of us likely has our own
opinion, and relative, in that they may be
answered in different ways in different contexts.
Perhaps you or I like the Democrats' foreign policy
in today's state of the world, but would favor the Republican approach at some other time. A moment of prayer
may be quite appropriate in a Catholic school, but is probably inappropriate in a public school. Some value
issues are relative to a social or religious group - I may work on a Saturday without giving the matter much
thought, but an Orthodox Jew would view it as a violation of the Sabbath.
Questions that call for value judgments are not susceptible to matter-of-fact answers. We expect people to
have different personal opinions on such matters. Though you and I may argue over a value judgment, we are
likely at some point to accept whatever differences we may have. We also tend to accept the fact that people
with differing cultural backgrounds and/or religious views will have different sets of values. Members of a
cultural or religious group expect similar values of other members, but do not expect these values to be found
in non-members. So, for example, if I have several Jewish co-workers they might expect each other to observe
the Sabbath and avoid working on Saturday, but none of them will be offended if I, a non-Jew, work on
Saturday.

Objective Values
The situation becomes more complicated for other kinds of value judgments -- specifically, moral ones.
Offering a moral judgment can resemble offering a fact in that it is an attempt to describe objective reality
instead of merely stating a preference or opinion. For example, consider the following statements:

 Killing, except in self-defense, is wrong.

 If you make a promise to someone, you should keep it.
 It is important to be tolerant of others of different races and ethnic backgrounds.
These kinds of claims fall under the category of ethics and morality. Like a statement of preference, people
may differ on these kinds of issues. But making a moral statement goes beyond offering an opinion. For
example, if I say killing is wrong I don't mean that as my opinion, I mean that as if it were a fact. I also may not
mean it to be relative to just me or my social group, instead meaning it is wrong for anyone, anywhere. In this
way, ethical statements try to express something that is supposed to be objectively true. And unlike when
someone disagrees with me about foreign policy or the celebration of a religious holiday, when someone
disagrees with me on an ethical issue, I'm much more likely to be shocked or appalled instead of thinking they
merely have a different point of view.
Just because moral claims are sometimes offered as fact doesn't mean that they really are. This matter has
been fiercely debated for quite some time. After all, what kind of scientific experiment or investigation can be
performed in order to find the basis for a value, such as the importance of being tolerant or the immorality of
murder? This is known as the "is-ought barrier," reflecting that it is difficult or impossible to say with any

ZDSPGC | ETHICS 2020

certainty that because something is some way that it ought to be that way. Some feel that all values, including
moral ones, are merely matters of opinion and preference, relative to the person and their culture. But this view
has an unappealing consequence: if all value judgments are subjective, then it is possible to justify any action,
including the worst one can imagine.
For example, some of the most notorious and brutal criminals have attempted to justify their actions,
suggesting that they actually did "the right thing." If values really are relative, who's to say they were wrong?
This allows any act to be morally justified. Uncomfortable with such moral relativism for this very reason, many
ethicists have channeled considerable effort into finding a foundation for morality. The task has proved
daunting. In the meantime, ethics lie somewhere between values and facts -- we expect some variation but
won't tolerate it when it is too serious or adversely affects us.

Facts vs. Values in Conflicts

Issues of facts and value can be important in nearly any kind of conflict. When this is the case, parties must
address the following kinds of potential complications:
Separation: Before a mediator can get a clear picture of the conflict issues, which is needed to diagnose the
problems, one has to separate factual issues from value issues. Determining whether a conflict is a debate
over facts, values, or a combination of the two can be difficult. This difficulty is made worse by conflict rhetoric
-- sometimes a fact is stated as if it is clearly undesirable or immoral, or a value statement is offered as if it
were a fact. This can be done unintentionally as well as deceitfully. Separating the relevant facts from the
parties' values is, therefore, an important starting point for diagnosing a conflict.
Focus: Contending parties may debate factual issues when the conflict is actually reducible to an essential
value conflict, or vice-versa.[4] Mediation resources are finite. If a conflict is, at its core, a debate over one kind
of issue and not the other, resources devoted to the wrong kind of issue will be largely wasted. Such a
mistaken focus can lead to a missed opportunity for resolution, and may even prolong the conflict by
stimulating unnecessary debate.
Resolution strategy: A fact-based conflict will likely reach resolution in a very different way than a value-based
conflict. Reasonable people, when faced with overwhelming evidence for a particular fact, come under
tremendous pressure to accept that fact. Of course, no one likes to openly admit that they are wrong, but a
well-supported fact is a powerful thing. So, in a fact-based conflict, the strategy will be to get to the relevant
facts and eliminate speculation and bias. While this isn't always easy, once it is done, the power of facts will
likely do most of the work toward resolution. In contrast, people do not usually "give in" to someone else's
value choices. Values are much closer to the core of a person or group, a central part of what makes them
unique and gives them identity. One's values are among one's most cherished beliefs. Given these
attachments and the fact that it is hard to find concrete evidence that one value is better than another, values
are seldom subject to external change. They can even become stronger in the face of a challenge. In this way,
one side conceding to the other's point of view almost never resolves value conflicts. Rather, they demand
different confrontation strategies (for example, advocacy, activism, or constructive confrontation.)
Experts and Resources: Factual debates and value conflicts demand the use of a different set of experts and
different kinds of resources. A person or group that is qualified to judge one may not be qualified to judge the
other. For example, a dispute over some scientific fact will demand that experts in the appropriate fields be
employed, tests and experiments may be required, and data must be analyzed. Specific resources may be
needed, such as testing and laboratory equipment. An inquiry into legal facts will require lawyers and legal
support staff. Values conflicts may benefit from mediators or facilitators who are experienced with constructive
dialogue. Access to the right experts and the right resources at the right time is crucial.
Bias: Value and ethical judgments are invariably biased -- the value judgments are the points of bias. On the
other hand, facts are supposed to be unbiased. Unfortunately, this is often not true: factual claims are often
biased in subtle ways by disputants engaging in "adversary science" which distorts, misinterprets, or
misrepresents facts to conform to a particular point of view. So while bias is to be expected when the issue is a
difference in values or ethics, it needs to be uncovered and eliminated in factual disputes.
References : https://www.beyondintractability.org/

ZDSPGC | ETHICS 2020

CHAPTER 7: Ethical Statements and Logical Analysis
Shortly after the end of the first World War, a group of mathematicians, scientists, and philosophers began
meeting in Vienna to discuss the implications of recent developments in logic,
including Wittgenstein‘s TRACTATUS. Under the leadership of Moritz Schlick, this informal gathering (the
“Vienna Circle“) campaigned for a systematic reduction of human knowledge to logical and scientific
foundations. Because the resulting logical positivism (or “logical empiricism”) allowed only for the use of
logical tautologies and first-person observations from experience, it dismissed as nonsense the metaphysical
and normative pretensions of the philosophical tradition. Although participants sometimes found it difficult to
defend the strict principles on which their programme depended, this movement offered a powerful vision of
the possibilities for modern knowledge.

During the thirties, many of the younger positivists left Europe for England and the United States, where their
influence over succeeding generations was enormous. Herbert Feigl and Otto Neurath concentrated on the
philosophy of science, developing and refining systematic principles for study of the natural world.
Mathematician Kurt Gödel used sophisticated reasoning to explore the limits of the logicist programme. Others
became interested in the philosophy of language:Gustav Bergmann continued efforts to achieve a perspicuous
representation of reality through an ideal logical language, while Friedrich Waismann began to examine the
analysis of ordinary language.

Verifiability and Meaning

British philosopher A. J. Ayer presented many of the central doctrines of the positivist movement in his 1936
book, Language, Truth, and Logic. Ayer’s polemical writing tried to show how the principle of verification could
be used as a tool for the elimination of nonsense of every sort. In Ayer’s formulation, the principle itself is a
simple test:

We say that a sentence is factually significant to any given person, if and only if, [she or] he knows how to
verify the proposition which it purports to express—that is, if [she or] he knows what observations would
lead [her or] him, under certain conditions, to accept the proposition as being true, or reject it as being
false.

Like the pragmatic theory put forward by Peirce, verificationism proposes that assertions are meaningful only
when their content meets a (minimal) condition about the ways in which we would go about determining their
truth. Moreover, like Hume‘s distinction between matters of fact and relations of ideas, the principle leaves no
room for anything other than verifiable empiricalobservations of the natural world and the meaningless but
useful tautologies of logic and mathematics.Thus, much of Ayer’s book was negative, emphasizing the
consequences of a strict application of the positivist program to human pretensions at transcendental
knowledge. Traditional metaphysics, with its abstract speculation about the supposed nature of reality, cannot
be grounded on scientific observation, and is therefore devoid of significance. For the same reason, traditional
religious claims are meaningless since it is impossible to state any observable circumstances under which we
could be sure—one way or the other—about their truth. Even much of traditional epistemology is likely to fail
the test; only the psychological study of observable human behavior regarding beliefs will remain. Mathematics
and natural science are secure, but little else remains.

Although Ayer, Hempel, and other positivists spent a great deal of energy on technical refinements of the
principle of verification, its basic content continued to guide the direction of the positivist movement. The major
point is that much of what we try to say is meaningless blather.

Logical Construction of the World

On a more positive note, the positivists supposed that what remains—consistent logical and mathematical
reasoning, together with cautious observation of nature—comprises a great deal of worthwhile human
knowledge. Rudolf Carnap‘s DER LOGISCHE AUFBAU DER WELT (THE LOGICAL STRUCTURE OF THE
WORLD) (1929) outlined the world-view that is likely to result from a thorough application of the positivist

ZDSPGC | ETHICS 2020

program. The logical rigor of articles like “Testability and Meaning” (1936-37) illustrates both the power and the
limitations of this procedure.

Carnap begins with an account of the methods and procedures by means of which we employ sensory
observations to verify (or at least to confirm) the truth of scientific hypotheses about the operation of the
physical universe. Using the formal methods of mathematical logic, then, the goal is to construct a strictly
scientific language that perspicuously represents the structure of the world as a whole. The details are highly
technical, of course, but it is only with the detailed treatment that the difficulties of the procedure become
evident. The fundamental problem is that empirical generalizations are themselves incapable of direct support
within such a system.

This was a crucial part of the insight of Karl Popper, another Viennese philosopher of science. Popper
proposed abandonment of the quest for verification, noting that the key feature of scientific hypotheses is
precisely their falsifiability rather than their confirmation. We best know what we mean when we carefully
state the conditions under which we would be forced to give up what we have supposed.

Ethical Emotivism
The central tenets of logical positivism clearly have serious consequences when applied to moral philosophy.
Attributions of value are not easily verifiable, so moral judgments may be neither true nor false, but as
meaningless as those of metaphysics. Among the original members of the Vienna Circle, only Moritz
Schlick devoted any attention to ethics at all, and he regarded it as thedescriptive task of cataloging the ways
in which members of a society express their feelings about human behavior of various sorts.

It was the American philosopher C.L. Stevenson who worked out the full implications of postivistic theories for
expressions of moral praise or blame. The most vital issue to be considered is the meta-ethical question of
what moral terms mean. Although Moore had correctly noted that good cannot be defined simply in terms of
the approval of human beings, Stevenson made the even more radical suggestion that moral judgments have
no factual content at all. Analysis of moral language should focus instead on its unique function as a guide to
human behavior, what Stevenson called the “magnetism” of moral terms.

In “The Emotive Meaning of Ethical Terms” (1937) Stevenson argued that we must distinguish clearly between
the descriptive or cognitive content of a term and its non-descriptive or emotive meaning. At a purely literal
descriptive level, statements about moral value are indeed unverifiable and therefore meaningless, but
considered as appeals to human emotions, they may have powerful dynamic effects. Saying “Murder is
wrong,” may have no factual significance, but it does succinctly convey a host of expressive suggestions,
including (at least) “I don’t like murder,” “You shouldn’t like murder,” and “We should disapprove of murderers.”
Stevenson’s ethical emotivism, further developed in Ethics and Language (1944), quickly became an
influential twentieth-centurynoncognitivist theory about the meaning of moral language.

References: https://courses.lumenlearning.com/sanjacinto-philosophy

ZDSPGC | ETHICS 2020

CHAPTER 8: Ethical Evaluation and Justification
Ethics are moral principles that govern a persons behaviour or the conducting of an activity. Justification is the
act of showing something to be right or reasonable. Some may say that ethics's are the only reasonable
justification for anything. Alternatively one can argue anything may be justified ethically. It all depends on what
morals you subscribe to.
For example you could argue that it’s wrong to let people suffer for the rest of their lives so euthanasia is
ethically sound in that circumstance.
You could also argue that killing is always wrong so euthanasia is ethically unsound.
Ethics and morals are subjective and impossible to define absolutely. Politicians through the ages have loved
them because they can be used to justify anything.
Moral philosophers have spent lifetimes developing and defending systems of moral justification. Should we
justify by reference to higher authority, social mores, or the greatest good of the greatest number? Yet no one,
not one person I have been able to find, has questioned or analyzed within the context of ethical theory the
concept of justification itself, or its validity. Ethics dictionaries and encyclopedias ignore it virtually completely.
Everyone asks how to justify. No one asks whether to justify.
My contention is that moral justification does not work. It does not give people tools for ethical decision-making.
On the contrary; it facilitates moral irresponsibility and so undermines the entire moral enterprise.
Moral justification is, simply put, a process whereby a person who is evaluating a morally questionable act
attempts to make it seem right. This person looks for a way to shine a favorable light on such an act in order to
maintain a clear conscience. In other words, it is a kind of alchemy whereby unsavory actions are transformed
by persuasive argumentation into something acceptable, if not outright positive. Lead into gold, evil into good!
As they say, if something sounds too good to be true, it probably is. But this nifty trick has fooled people for
hundreds of years, and the philosophers keep on riding the same worn rail, oblivious to any problems with this
fundamental assumption.

ZDSPGC | ETHICS 2020

 Activity No. 2
ETHICS

Name: ____________________________________________ Date: _________________

Course – Year & Section: _____________________ Score: ________________

Direction: Read carefully each Scenarios and Answer the following Question

Case Study: Nancy is a self- supporting student taking up nursing. She is working part time in the private
hospital. She is about to graduate this semester. At the end of the semester she was assigned to handle
additional work in the hospital that demanded her stay late at night. Nancy needed to have the work no matter
how inconvenient it was for her studies, because it would land her a regular and fulltime job in the hospital. In
the night before the final exam, she was not able to study her lesson in the philosophy subject due to heavy
work. In the morning she entered the room very tired and sleepless. If Nancy failed this exam, she would not
pass the subject and would not graduate. Nancy cheated on the exam by opening her book and looking at the
answer of her seatmate! She passed the exam through cheating! Nancy graduated and she is now working in
the hospital as regular employee.
Analysis of the Human act:
Act:
Agent:
Recipient:
Place:
Time:
Manner:
Please look any thing in this scenario relate to the following topic. Explain the scenario to each topic.
 The Morality of Human Acts
 The Moral Object
 Intention
 Circumstances
 Indirect Voluntary Actions
 Responsibility
 Merit
 Utilitarianism
 Justification
 Rule Deontology
 Emotivism

ZDSPGC | ETHICS 2020

ZDSPGC | ETHICS 2020