MODULE IN

Prepared by

BENHAR A. IRIBANI, LPT

Ethics Instructor
 OVERVIEW

To the student,

This module aims to analyze the nature of mores and values in ethics. It discusses

the interplay between the individual as a free moral agent, and his/her society or

environment, as well as the process of value experience, including the difference between

values and moral values. In broad strokes, it gives a background on the nature of morality

and the mores which are the subject matter of ethics. It examines the nature of mores,

including the development of the notion of what is ‘right’ in our culture. The module also

examines the notion of freedom as it relates to morality, together with the wide range of

values and moral values, including the nature and basis of the choices that we make

COURSE CREDIT :3 – Units (54 hours Engagement)

COURSE PLACEMENT: Level 1 Second Semester
COURSE DESCRIPTION

This course will cover the basics occupational safety and health program and a
minimum of 54 hours or 18 weeks of lectures This also an introduction to the philosophical
study of morality, including the theory of right and wrong behavior, the theory of value
(goodness and badness), and the theory of virtue and vice. Besides providing familiarity
with the primary questions addressed within moral philosophy and the most influential
answers given by well-known philosophers, this course is designed to help students
develop their abilities to read, explicate, analyze, and evaluate philosophical literature, write
and express themselves well about their own ethical positions, and think critically and
analytically about ethical issues.
Objective: At the end of this course, the student should be able to:

1. Discuss the nature of mores and values in ethics

2. Explain the difference between values and moral values;
3. Differentiate between a moral judgment and a moral decision
4. Explore the difference between intellectual choice and practical choice

REQUIRMENTS AND ASSESSMENT

 Position Paper
 Group Report thru video presentation (Case Study)
 Quiz, Assignments thru E-mail or currier
 Blog/Video Blog/Journal
 Activity (Essay or Reflection)

I. GRADING SYSTEM
 Average quiz 10%
 Activity 15%
 Blogs and Journals 15%
 Course output
1. Individual 25%
2. Group 25%
Total 50%
Major Exams (Mid/Fin) 50%
 MODULE CONTENT

LESSON 1: The Realm of Morality: Ethics and More

LESSON 2: The Role of Society and the Individual in the Emergence of Mores

LESSON 3: Freedom and Morality

LESSON 4: Necessary Conditions for Morality: Freedom and Obligations

LESSON 5: Voices and Values

LESSON 7: Only Humans are Moral

LESSON 8: Value Experience: Values and Moral Values

LESSON 9: Moral Judgement and Moral Decisions

LESSON 10: Intellectual and Practical Choice

Reference:

Textbook:

E-Source

Prof. Madamba (2019). “Ethics Module,“ University of the Philippines. Retrieve at

https://www.studocu.com.ph

Disclaimer and Liability

This material is not intended for uploading nor commercial use, but purely for

educational purposes only and for the utilization of Metro Zampen College Incorporated

only content found in this module are not entirely mine and I give due credit and

acknowledge mentioned authors found in the citation and reference. Any reproduction and

distribution of this module will be subject for legal action and penalties.

Prepared by:

Benhar A. Iribani, LPT

Ethics Instructor

LESSON 1

The Realm of Morality: Ethics and Mores

Ethics is the branch of philosophy that deals with the systematic questioning and critical

examination of the underlying principles of morality. Ethics came from the root word ‘ethos’

which refers to the character of a culture. Ethos includes the attitude of approval or
disapproval in a particular culture at a given time and place. The subject matter being

studied in ethics is morality. Morality came from the root word ‘mores’, which refers to the

customs, including the customary behavior, of a particular group of people. This con-

stitutes the core of the attitudes and beliefs of a particular group of people. Therefore,

mores (in Latin) and ethos (in Greek), both refer to customary behavior. Ethics as the study

of moral goodness or badness or the rightness and wrongness of an act and it has two

general approaches — normative and meta-ethics. Normative ethics an-swers the

question, ‘What is good?’ It pertains to norms or standards of goodness and the rightness

or wrongness of an act. A comprehensive normative ethical system tries to give a moral

framework where its standards of morality are based. An example is Christian ethics with

its well defined and clear parameters and definition of what is good and bad based on its

comprehensive framework. Meta-ethics, on the other hand, examines the pre-suppositions,

meanings, and justifications of ethical concepts and principles. For example, instead of

assuming that there is an objective moral truth, meta-ethics will question the basis forthis

by asking whether or not morality is objective or subjective, or by posing questions about

the assumption of a moral theory such as ‘What is your justification for claiming in your

theory that pleasure is good?’ The study of ethics and morality entails an analysis of both

the individual human person acting as a free moral agent and his/her society with its social

rules and sanctions that set limitations on individual behavior. Individual behavior is

governed by a sense of what is the right thing to do, which is based on the customs or

mores of a particular society. For example, the way parents raise their children is governed

by the mores of their society.

 LESSON 2

The Role of Society and the Individual

in the Emergence of Mores
 William Graham Sumner, a well-known sociologist and anthropologist, claims that

our notion of what is ‘right’ stems from our basic instinct to survive. That is, human beings

formed groups in order to meet the task of survival, and from living in groups they ob-

served best practices and developed the most practical way of doing things. From these

practices emerged traditions and notions of the right thing to do. For example, for each

group of people there is a right way of catching game, a right way of treating guests, and a

right way of dressing up. Sumner refers to these notions of ‘right’ and ‘true’ as ‘folkways’.

Sumner states further that mores come from folkways, with the added element of societal

welfare embodied in them. In order to preserve society and its accepted norms and prac-

tices, the individual, consciously or unconsciously, defends and upholds society’s notions of

what is right. At the same time, the group as a whole develops social rules and sanc-tions,

which may be implicit or explicit, in order to preserve the group practices and to control the

behavior of the individual for the purpose of maintaining order in society. Thus, customs

emerge out of repeated practices, while from the individual observance of group practices

emerge habits. This becomes the culture of a particular group or society. Mores become

the compelling reason to do what ought to be done, because it is the right thing to do to

preserve and protect society. Mores exert social pressure on the individual to conform to

society’s expectations in terms of character and behavior — that is, to come as close as

possible to the ideal man or woman. Even as society defends and preserves its mores,

these same mores may change to adapt to new conditions. The changes in the mores of a

particular society do not happen in an in-stant, but they happen unconsciously over time.

For example, during the Spanish period, women wore dresses that covered them from

head to toe, and it was thought that seeing a woman’s ankles was tantamount to seeing her
naked. But women’s fashion has changed so much through the years that our Spanish

ancestors might well be rolling in their graves at the way women are dressed today.

According to Sumner, this point can be summarized thus: “The ‘morals’ of an age are never

anything but the consonance between what is done and what the mores of the age

requires.” Consequently, with regard to morality one always has to consider two points of

view — the point of view of society, together with its customs, social rules, and social

sanctions, and that of the individual or the free moral agent who develops habits in the

course of following the social norms established by society. Ultimately, it is still the

individual, in his/her capacity as a rational and free moral agent, who will decide whether to

follow these norms. On the other hand, society is not homogenous, because there is an

interplay of varying views and groups where the individual belongs. The factors that may

affect the individual’s choices are varied and even contradictory at times. The individual

may belong simultaneously to different groups, and these groups could exert varying and

sometimes contrasting degrees of influence on him/her. For example, individuals can be

influenced by their family, peer groups, church, school, the mass media, and social media.

Ultimately, however, it is still the individual who would make his/her own moral decisions.

As mentioned, the notion of morality develops with the interplay between society and the

individual. Here, society would be composed of different groups that directly or indirectly

shape the values of the individual. These values serve as the individual’s guide in his/her

pursuit of what he/she believes to be the moral or the ‘good’ life. Note that the individual is

assumed to be a free moral agent who can make choices and deliberate or reflect before

acting or making a decision. Moreover, as society grows and becomes more complex, the

different groups that comprise it could put forward competing values, including different
notions of ‘what is good’. In this case, it is the rational individual who can decide for

him/herself which moral principles to uphold, based on his/her upbringing and the influence

of various groups in his/her society (family, church, school, peer groups, social media,

mass media, etc.). Therefore, the individual plays a pivotal role as a free moral agent in

analyzing, choosing, and valuing what he/she considers as most important when he/she

makes his/her choices. ETHICS 1 - Ethics and Moral Reasoning in Everyday Life Society,

as a whole, functions as a way of controlling the behaviour of an individual. It becomes

necessary to impose social controls and sanctions so that the individual would be guided

accordingly. To a certain extent, society coerces its members to follow its rules to maintain

order. For example, even if we are irritated by people who disobey traffic rules, we are not

free to do what we would like to do, like kill them, because we are bound by the mores of

our society. These mores become the basis of the morals of that society when expressed

or laid out as ethical principles that its members are bound to respect and follow. This is the

force or power of mores. The individual can feel this power whenever he/she does

something against the rules of society and he/she is bothered by his/her ‘con-science’ as if

he/she is hearing the voices of elders telling him/her what he/she should do. According to

Sumner, as society grows, it becomes more difficult to control the behavior of its members,

and there is a need to formalize and codify some of the rules that we are bound to follow.

Thus, from mores as the embodiment of societal welfare, laws and institutions emerge in

order to protect society and to set some system of societal control over the behavior of

individual members. These laws could be positive laws and customary or common laws,

while institutions could be crescive or enacted. Sumner states that common laws or

customary laws are part of the customs of our society, and they emerge unconsciously as
part of the mores of our culture, whereas positive laws are formulated and are products of

rational reflection, discussion, and verification. For example, our constitution and penal

code are part of the positive laws of the Philippines while certain practices in our culture like

‘sabong’ or cockfighting with its own rules of the game, or the informal practice of

transacting personal loans without collateral (also known as “5-6”) from enterprising people,

and even keeping common law wives on the part of philandering husbands have long been

part of our culture and are examples of our customary or common law. They may not be

legal but these practices are part of the Fil-ipino culture and are accepted or tolerated by

many. Institutions, on the other hand, can be considered crescive or enacted.

Cresciveinstitutions, according to Sumner, are products of our mores like our very rich

religious practices which mirror the religiosity of Filipinos. In contrast, enacted institutions

are products of rational reflection and are purposely established to cater to the needs of the

members of society, in the process establishing order and protecting society. Examples of

enacted institutions are our banking system and land titling system. Unfortunately, not

everything that has been passed into a positive law can be considered moral or in

accordance with the mores originally intended to serve societal welfare and protect society.

In this regard, an important question to consider is: Is what is legal moral?

Social Responsibility and Ethics

Social responsibility is an ethical theory in which individuals are accountable for

fulfilling their civic duty, and the actions of an individual must benefit the whole of society. In
this way, there must be a balance between economic growth and the welfare of society and

the environment. If this equilibrium is maintained, then social responsibility is accomplished.

What it Means to be Socially Responsible and Ethical?

The theory of social responsibility is built on a system of ethics, in which decisions

and actions must be ethically validated before proceeding. If the action or decision causes

harm to society or the environment, then it would be considered to be socially irresponsible.

Moral values that are inherent in society create a distinction between right and wrong. In

this way, social fairness is believed (by most) to be in the “right”, but more frequently than

not this “fairness” is absent. Every individual has a responsibility to act in manner that is

beneficial to society and not solely to the individual.

Find out how Social Justice and Environmental Justice are intrinsically interconnected.

When Do Social Responsibility and Ethics Apply?

The theory of social responsibility and ethics applies in both individual and group

capacities. It should be incorporated into daily actions/decisions, particularly ones that will

have an effect on other persons and/or the environment. In the larger, group capacity, a

code of social responsibility and ethics is applied within said group as well as during

interactions with another group or an individual. Businesses have developed a system of

social responsibility that is tailored to their company environment. If social responsibility is

maintained within a company, then the employees and the environment are held equal to

the company’s economics. Maintaining social responsibility within a company ensures the

integrity of society and the environment are protected. Often, the ethical implications of a

decision/action are overlooked for personal gain and the benefits are usually material. This

frequently manifests itself in companies that attempt to cheat environmental regulations.

When this happens, government interference is necessary. Unfortunately, social

responsibility and ethics are often not practiced by American companies outside of U.S.

borders, which makes regulation difficult.

The Pachamama Alliance

Pachamama Alliance is an organization that seeks to instill social responsibility in

the industrialized or “modern” world. Our partnership with the indigenous Ecuadorian tribe,

the Achuar, began when they recognized the imminent threat of oil drilling in their home.

This tribe, hidden deep in the Amazon forest, has inhabited this area for thousands of years

and is at risk of total destruction. The goal of The Pachamama Alliance is to restore a

sense of active decision-making to the people and companies of the modern world.

Currently, the Achuar and their home are in danger because of our addiction to crude oil.

This addiction is the result of a faulty system of beliefs that disregards the environment, its

inhabitants, and the consequences of our actions. A change in this universal mentality is

imperative if the Achuar are to survive this threat; in order to do so, pandemic social

responsibility is essential.

The Role of Society and the Individual in the Emergence of Mores

William Graham Sumner, a well known sociologist and anthropologist, claims that our
notion of what is ‘right’ stems from our basic instinct to survive. That is, human beings
formed groups in order to meet the task of survival, and from living in groups they ob-
served best practices and developed the most practical way of doing things. From these
practices emerged traditions and notions of the right thing to do. For example, for each
group of people there is a right way of catching game, a right way of treating guests, and a
right way of dressing up. Sumner refers to these notions of ‘right’ and ‘true’ as ‘folkways’.
Sumner states further that mores come from folkways, with the added element of societal
welfare embodied in them. In order to preserve society and its accepted norms and prac-
tices, the individual, consciously or unconsciously, defends and upholds society’s notions
of what is right. At the same time, the group as a whole develops social rules and sanc-
tions, which may be implicit or explicit, in order to preserve the group practices and to
control the behavior of the individual for the purpose of maintaining order in society.
Thus, customs emerge out of repeated practices, while from the individual observance of
group practices emerge habits. This becomes the culture of a particular group or society.
Mores become the compelling reason to do what ought to be done, because it is the right
thing to do to preserve and protect society. Mores exert social pressure on the individual to
conform to society’s expectations in terms of character and behavior — that is, to come as
close as possible to the ideal man or woman.
The Role of Society and the Individual in the Emergence of Mores
William Graham Sumner, a well known sociologist and anthropologist, claims that our
notion of what is ‘right’ stems from our basic instinct to survive. That is, human beings
formed groups in order to meet the task of survival, and from living in groups they ob-
served best practices and developed the most practical way of doing things. From these
practices emerged traditions and notions of the right thing to do. For example, for each
group of people there is a right way of catching game, a right way of treating guests, and a
right way of dressing up. Sumner refers to these notions of ‘right’ and ‘true’ as ‘folkways’.
Sumner states further that mores come from folkways, with the added element of societal
welfare embodied in them. In order to preserve society and its accepted norms and prac-
tices, the individual, consciously or unconsciously, defends and upholds society’s notions
of what is right. At the same time, the group as a whole develops social rules and sanc-
tions, which may be implicit or explicit, in order to preserve the group practices and to
control the behavior of the individual for the purpose of maintaining order in society.
Thus, customs emerge out of repeated practices, while from the individual observance of
group practices emerge habits. This becomes the culture of a particular group or society.
Mores become the compelling reason to do what ought to be done, because it is the right
thing to do to preserve and protect society. Mores exert social pressure on the individual to
conform to society’s expectations in terms of character and behavior — that is, to come as
close as possible to the ideal man or woman.

ctivity 1
Read William Sumner’s “The
Case for Ethical Relativism” in
Philosophy: The Basic Is-
sues, pp. 496-511, and then
answer the questions below
based on what you understood
from the reading.
1. How do you develop your
notion of ‘what is the right thing
to do’ in society?
2. What is the connection
between your choices as an
individual and that of your
society?

Activity 1:
1. Read William Sumner’s “The Case for Ethical Relativism” in Philosophy: The Basic Is-

sues, pp. 496-511, and then answer the questions below based on what you understood

from the reading.

2. How do you develop your notion of ‘what is the right thing to do’ in society?

3. What is the connection between your choices as an individual and that of your society?

4. To what extent do the mores of your society shape your notion of “good/bad” or

“right/wrong”?

5. Do mores change? How? Cite an example

Activity 2

Watch the 40-minute HBO documentary “Saving Face” at http://www.alluc.to/documen-

taries/watch-saving-face-2012-online/448019.html. After watching the documentary about

acid attacks on women in Pakistan, answer the following questions:

1. Explain these incidents of acid attack on women in terms of the mores of their culture.

2. Do you think women should be freed from this bondage? Do you agree with Zakia’s

pursuit of justice? Explain your answer.

3. Is it your obligation as a moral being to enlighten and empower women and other

marginalized sectors from their own culture by educating them about their rights in order

that they could assert and enjoy freedom in their own culture? Why/Why not?

LESSON 3
 Freedom and Morality
The concept of freedom, as well as the application of freedom to individual rights,

has been widely used in different levels of analysis in Philippine society as a whole.

Freedom as a concept that pertains to the moral realm is examined in this section. An

important question that must be brought to light is: What is freedom and how is it exercised

in the realm of morals? John Paul Sartre, an existentialist philosopher, assumes the idea of

radical freedom by claiming that “man is condemned to be free”. Sartre conceives of “man”

as an uncon-strained free moral agent in the sense that he always has a choice in every

aspect of his life. Even if somebody points a gun at his head, he still has a choice whether

to follow the wishes of his captors. Sartre claims that “Man is nothing else but that which he

makes of himself.” “Man” is never compelled or determined; he is totally free and therefore,

totally responsible for all the things that he does. When you exercise freedom in making

your choices, you are taking control and assuming full responsibility for those choices.

However, there is one important caveat: you are free but this freedom is not absolute. You

cannot do anything that you please without taking into consideration the norms of your

society. Mores are there to serve as a form of social control to limit, govern, or regulate

your behavior in order to maintain order in your soci-ety. For example, you cannot just go

about killing people you consider as obnoxious. You are perhaps familiar with the saying

‘your freedom ends where my freedom begins’. Within the given parameters of our

environment, including the economic, political and social environment, we assume

freedom. Our discussion will come to nothing if we assume otherwise — i.e. that human

beings are not free and their choices are always deter-mined by factors or forces in their

environment. This deterministic view is tantamount to saying that human beings are like
robots or machines whose actions and functions can be predicted like cause and effect

given the parameters of the variables in his/her environment. Nor can we embrace fully the

extreme view of radical freedom without taking into consideration the norms of our society.

Freedom of the human person in the moral sense of the word assumes that one is a free

moral agent. Moral, in this sense, refers to the freedom to make one's choice in accordance

with one’s own moral discernment of what is good and bad, and one is taking full

responsibility for one’s own actions and is using his/her rational and empathetic capacity as

a moral being. Aside from our reason and critical thinking, we also have the ability to

empathize or to feel what other beings feel and to situate ourselves in their shoes.

Free Will describes our capacity to make choices that are genuinely our own. With free will

comes moral responsibility – our ownership of our good and bad deeds.

That ownership indicates that if we make a choice that is good, we deserve the

resulting rewards. If in turn we make a choice that is bad, we probably deserve those

consequences as well. In the case of a really bad choice, such as committing murder, we

may have to accept severe punishment.

The link between free will and responsibility has both theological and philosophical roots.

Within theology, for example, the claim that humans are ‘made in the image of God’ (a

central tenet of major religions like Judaism, Christianity and Islam) is not that they are the

physical image of their creator.

Rather, the claim is made that humans are made in the ‘moral image’ of God – which is to

say that they are endowed with the ‘divine’ capacity to exercise free will of course, the

experience of free will is not limited to those who hold a religious belief. Philosophers also

argue that it would be unjust to blame someone for a choice over which they have no

control. Determinism is the belief that all choices are determined by an unbroken chain of

cause and effect. Those who believe in ‘determinism’ oppose free will, arguing that that the

belief that we are the authors of our own actions is a delusion. While scientific evidence has

found that there is brain activity prior to the sensation of having made a choice, is unable to

the resolve the question of which account is correct. Should that gap close – and free will

be proven to be an illusion, then the basis for ascribing guilt to those who act unethically

(including criminals) will also be destroyed. How could we justify punishing a person who

claims that they had no choice but to do evil?

Kant's Morality of Law and Morality of Freedom

Kant's comments on moral philosophy prior to the Groundwork of the Metaphysics of

Morals of1785 include two striking claims. The first is the substantive claim

that freedom is the source of all value-that it is intrinsically valuable, and that other valuable

thingsmust not merely be compatible with freedom but actually derive their value from the

value of freedom. Kant made this claim in the lectures on ethics that he gave in the early

1780s: Freedom is, on the one hand, that faculty which gives unlimited usefulness to all the

other faculties. It is the highest order of life, which serves as the foundation of all

perfections and is their necessary condition. All animals have the faculty of using their

powers according to will. But this will is not free. It is necessitated through the incitement of

stimuli, and the actions of animals involve a but a necessity as. If the will ofall beings were
so bound to sensuous impulse, the world would possess no value. The inherent value of

the world, the summon bound, is freedom in accordance with a will which is not

necessitated to action. Freedom is thus the inner value of the world. Translated by Infield

(1930)

Activity 3

Read Benedict, R. (1934). Anthropology and the abnormal. Journal of General Psychology,

10(1), 59-82 and answer the questions below.

1. Explain Benedict’s concept of the “normal/abnormal” and relate it with Sumner’s dis-

ussion of the mores of society.

2. Explain and analyze the normal practices or norms in the cultures of the tribes de-

scribed by Benedict in terms of the discussion about mores and social sanctions to

maintain, preserve, and protect the welfare of one’s society.

3. Compare the norms described by Benedict to our own standard of what is

“normal/abnormal” in our culture. How will you justify these ‘abnormal’ practices?

LESSON 4

Necessary Conditions for Morality:

Freedom and Obligation
 According to John Mothers head, there are two necessary conditions for morality to

occur: freedom and obligation. As explained above, freedom is assumed when one is

making choices and is the agent taking full responsibility for planning his/her life, and in the

process, planning and budgeting his/her actions for some future goal. This is in accordance

with the individual’s moral and rational capacity to know and discern what is right and

wrong. This condition of freedom can be seen as limiting or constraining the realm of

morals for human beings. Animals do not have the capacity to look forward and consciously

plan for the future. Even when ants hoard their food for the rainy days, this action is based

on instinct. Only human beings are capable of planning for their future, planning their life,

and setting their goals as a result of these plans. The assumption of freedom entails

another assumption, which is obligation. In its moral sense, obligation is construed as a

one’s duty to him/herself to exercise freedom as a rational moral being. In other words, it is

seen as his/her duty to him/herself to do this budgeting and planning for the future because

the future is yet to be and the only way to make it better is by being obliged to do so. In

other words, you are not free to be unfree. In making moral decisions and choices, it is

within the capacity of the human person as an active and free moral agent to exercise

his/her freedom of choice as his/her obligation to him/herself. Our discussion of freedom

entails this basic presupposition: That the human person is free in the exercise of making

choices in the realm of morality — that is, in making choices with regard to determining

what is the right thing to do in situations and circumstances in his/her own life. This can be

summarized in our Filipino saying, “Buntot mo, hila mo!” It is taking full responsibility for

your actions and being obliged to do so. When was the last time you blamed other people

for a mistake that you made? There is a tendency for people to blame others for their
choice of a course of action. For example, a couple who freely choose to marry each other

out of love could, when the marriage sours, blame each other for their predicament and end

up saying he/she was forced or coerced by the other into the marriage. However, it is one’s

obligation to oneself to exercise one’s capacity for deliberation and reflection by thinking

about the consequences before making a decision. In other words, this is an exercise of

one’s rationality to the fullest without for-getting one’s humanity and his/her capacity for

empathy.

Activity 4

A. Read Mothers head’s Ethics: Modern Conception of the Principles of Right, Chapter 2

(pp. 21-36), “The Problem of the Scope of Morality” and answer the study questions be-low.
1. When does a value become a moral value? Is money a value? Can money become a

moral value? Why/Why not? Can you think of other examples?

2. Why do we have this tendency to render moral judgements on others so easily? Ex-plain

your answer.

3. Is your practical choice always in consonance with your intellectual choice? Why/Why

not?

4. Think of an example of a morally significant act that you have done in the past which you

consider as an exercise of your freedom.

5. Explain how, in your exercise of this freedom, you also considered society’s role in

limiting your behaviour.

3. And then explain how your exercise of this freedom is a moral obligation on your part

LESSON 5

Value and Choices

 This section explains the reason behind the claim that only human beings are moral.

The nature of our value experiences is explained, including the difference between a value

and a moral value as well as the distinction between moral decisions and moral judgments

and between intellectual and practical choices. Values are basic and fundamental beliefs

that guide or motivate attitudes or actions. They help us to determine what is important to

us. ... Values are essential to ethics. Ethics is concerned with human actions, and the

choice of those actions. Ethics evaluates those actions, and the values that underlie them.

What's the Difference Between Ethics, Morals and Values?

Have you ever deemed someone’s behavior to be unethical? Have you ever questioned

their moral code or the values upon which they base their decisions? When our minds

wander to these places, the three terms -- ethics, morals and values -- tend to get a bit

murky. As a society, we tend to interchange the three. So, what’s the difference between

ethics, morals, and values? The difference is slight but it’s there. Understanding the

difference between the three will help you delve into your next novel with a greater

understanding of each character.

What is Important or Valuable?

For example, if someone’s value system is founded upon honesty, they would probably

make a proper judgment between cheating on a college entrance exam (wrong) and

studying hard to ace a college entrance exam (right).

Conversely, if someone valued achievement and success over honesty, that person may

opt to cheat on the exam in order to achieve the desired result. This relates to which value

is “worth more” to the individual. These fundamental beliefs are the barometer that go on to
guide a person’s decisions. Values don’t necessarily need to be “system wide” in a group of

people. Rather, they tend to be a personal, individual foundation that influences a particular

Morals

Next, we have morals, which are formed out of values. They’re the actual system of

beliefs that emerge out of a person’s core values. Morals are specific and context-driven

rules that govern a person’s behaviour. Because this system of beliefs is individually

tailored to a person’s life experience, it’s subject to opinion.

ETHICS 1 - Ethics and Moral Reasoning in Everyday Life 2.0 Values and Choices!

This section explains the reason behind the claim that only human beings are moral. The

nature of our value experiences is explained, including the difference between a value and

a moral value as well as the distinction between moral decisions and moral judgments and

between intellectual and practical choices.

Only humans are moral According to Mothers head, conduct refers to deliberate

human action. It is a result of the process of reflection based on the idea that the human

person is endowed with the capacity to think and plan his/her own life using his/her

rationality and to weigh the consequences of his/her actions. In general, we do not ascribe

morality to animals or to natural calamities like typhoons, earthquakes or tsunamis, for

example. Even if typhoon Yolanda claimed around 8,000 lives, it would be nonsensical to

declare that typhoon Yolanda was immoral. Animals are not capable of the act of

deliberation or reflection. If your cat or your dog eats your fried chicken, this is not an action

based on reflection and deliberation but on instinct — for example, the cat or dog does not

think about whether it would be depriving its master of food for dinner. Animal behaviour is

instinctive whereas human behaviour is a matter of conduct. While some animals have
been recognized to have the ability to solve simple problems and the ability to connect

events like cause and effect, they develop these through the process of conditioning, where

positive and negative reinforcement are used for the animal to learn the behaviour. An

example is Skinner’s pigeon which was conditioned or trained to peck five times for food to

be given. Another example is a chimpanzee, shown to have the capacity to solve simple

problems by using simple instruments or devices in order to reach his food, like using a

stick to get the food placed in an area not near enough for his bare hands or to use a stool

to reach and pull the string to turn on the light. Some philosophers have debated whether

some animals have the capacity to be moral because of stories where pet animals like

dogs have been recognized as heroes for saving lives. In the Philippines, we have our

version of a hero dog named ‘Kabang’ whose upper snout was badly damaged when she

went between her master’s daughter and a tricycle to protect her from being run over. Do

you think that what Kabang did is a moral act? Did it entail deliberation or was it based

purely on instinct and conditioning? As a compromise to these two opposing views, some

philosophers have agreed to call this pre-reflective morality in animals because animals are

not capable of the wide range of deliberation, reflection, concept construction, and rational

and critical thinking that humans are able to do. In other words, this is morality that occurs

prior to deliberation and reflection. According to Mothershead, only humans are moral in so

far as they are capable of deliberate human action

Amoral vs. Immoral

Be careful with the terminology in this category. Sometimes, the words “amoral” and

“immoral” are interchanged. However, they’re quite different. If someone is amoral, they
have no sense of right and wrong. They don’t have the foundation that comes with a sound

set of values. Meanwhile, if someone if immoral, you can be sure they know right from

wrong. They’re just choosing to do the wrong thing son’s behaviour.

Activity 5

Watch the movie ‘Hachiko’ starring Richard Gere at ttp://www.youtube.com.

1. Do you think the dog Hachiko has the capacity to make moral decisions and choices?

If Yes Why/Why not?

LESSON 6

Value Experience: Values and Moral Values

In the process going through our everyday lives, we cannot help but choose and consider

the options available to us. The range of choices is so wide and varied. It ranges from the

most trivial to the most difficult choices and decisions that we have to make in our life.

When we are in the process of choosing among the alternatives in a given situation, even

in the most trivial things like choosing our outfit for the day, or what to eat, or what hair-style

to adopt, the process of value experience comes into play. Mothers head adds that this is

the side-taking part of our experience. This valuation process happens when we make

choices and indicate our preferences, for example, when we like or dislike, approve or

disapprove, favor or disfavor. Values are the result of this process of value experience

where you set which priorities to pursue. They may also be considered as imperatives that

you have set your mind to do. According to Mothers head, “All values are priorities with

respect to some aspect of human experience. This is usually expressed by saying that

values are imperatives; they make a claim upon us, whether we admit the claim or not.” We

do this valuation process when we set priorities among the choices or alternatives avail-

able to us. For example, choosing to buy smartphones over something else reflects the

value placed on being socially connected. Now when does a value become a moral value?

The priorities that we attach to values are limited in its scope of importance or significance

in our life. For example, money is a value and as a student you might save money in order

to buy something that you value more, like a new mobile phone. Once you have that new

mobile phone, you will be fulfilled until the next object of value that you would consider

worth saving up for. In other words, money is a value because it is a means to an end,

which could be another value more important than money and for which you are willing to

give up your money. Your textbooks are of value throughout the school year that you are
using them. But once the school year is over, you would normally discard them to make

way for a new set of textbooks in your shelf for the next school year. The value of looking at

a beautiful face is often appreciated by many. When a beautiful person passes by,

everybody would look at that person and perhaps appreciate beauty when they see it. But

that is all there is to it. This is because beauty is just a value can beauty become a moral

value? Can money become a moral value? Can chastity and purity become a moral value?

Mothers head argues that a value can become a moral value if it becomes an unlimited

priority in its scope of relevance in our life. This is to say that one is willing to give up other

values in order to promote what s/he considers as a moral value. Thus, a moral value takes

precedence and priority over other values. In other words, you are willing to give up other

values just to promote this moral value. Moreover, the priority claimed by this moral value is

unlimited because it could influence your decisions in other aspects of your life and you are

willing to set other values aside for it. For example, those who value chastity and purity are

willing to forego love in order to remain chaste and pure. Money could also become a moral

value for some people who set aside other values, like family ties or friendship, for the sake

of money. This could be the reason why we sometimes hear negative labels like ‘Mukhang

pera yan’, ‘Walang kaikaibigan o kamag-anak, lahat pera-pera lang ang katapat’, ‘Diyos

niya ang pera!’ Still others may consider beauty as a moral value when they are willing to

take risks to their health, like having surgical enhancements in order to achieve beauty.

Values and moral value may change over time. As one matures and grows older, there are

values and moral value that one outgrows and a new set takes over. These changes could

be brought about by changing circumstances or by unforeseen events. For example, after

the aftermath of Typhoon Yolanda, people in the affected areas may have re-examined

their priorities as they faced the reality of losing their loved ones.

Activity 6

Make a list of things that you value (they could be material or non-material). Arrange them

according to their degree of importance in your life. Consider the topmost three of these

things that you value.

1. Do you also consider them as a moral value? Please explain why they are so or why

they are not your moral values?

2. And then consider the bottom part of your list of values and explain why they should

belong there using your valuation process.

LESSON 7

Moral Judgments and Moral Decisions

 According to Mother shead, “Making moral judgments is budgeting actions”.

Furthermore, for him, “[a] moral decision is the most important class of moral judgments”

because it “has reference to the judger’s own future action.” Our moral decisions reflect our

choices as to what should be included or excluded in our life. This is what freedom entails

— to make these choice Mothers head also states that “not all moral judgments are

decisions” as “many of our moral judgments have reference to other people or groups of

people.” We often render moral judgments on what others should or ought to do. Here, we

are like spectators, where the process of budgeting or planning extends to other people or

groups, and goes beyond our personal life and endeavors. This activity could extend

outside of our personal space, to our neighbors, to celebrities we do not know personally,

to other ethnic groups and even to people outside our country of origin. It has been said

that Filipinos are prone to making moral judgments even on people they barely know.

Perhaps this is also true of people in other countries. In general, people have a propensity

to make moral judgments on other people. In fact, it could sometimes become a pastime or

a habit for some, taking the form of giving unsolicited advice. These judgments could have

a wide range of application and could extend into the indeterminable future. When we claim

for example, as a moral judgment, that no one should be allowed to punish an innocent

person, this judgment has a wide and far reaching application beyond our lifetimes, and in

effect, to plan and budget our life, including mapping out plans for the future.

Acitivity 7.

Cite statements that possess universal appeal and are upheld as moral values.
 LESSON 8

Intellectual Choice and Practical Choice

 In our actions as free moral agents and the exercise of moral reasoning, there tends

to be what Grassian has labelled as “the confusion between what one ought to do and what

one would be inclined to do”. We can adapt an objective point of view and ask ourselves,

“What do I ought to do given this situation?” With this question in mind, we could very well

examine and analyze the situation as objectively as possible with the use of our intellectual

and rational capacity, in order to come up with an intellectual choice. This is the process of

giving normative answers as rational moral beings. Normative answers are answers about

what we ought to do from a moral system that we uphold and its moral principles. These

normative or prescriptive answers would also take into consideration the behavior that is

expected of us by society. For example, when you are being asked to resolve a moral

dilemma, you can try to give your intellectual choice as a normative answer. Here you are

using your imagination because you are not, as it were, facing that actual moral situation

described in the dilemma. In this case, the answers that you are inclined to give are

prescriptive in this imaginary and hypothetical situation. On the other hand, the question

“What would I be inclined to do, given this situation” has to do with the practical choice

when faced with the actual situation. There seems to be a difference between making

moral decisions in actual situations where you are involved and the normative answers that

you give when you are confronted only with a hypothetical situation. These practical

choices when confronted with the actual situation have to do more with the psychological

aspect of the person actually embroiled in the moral situation or dilemma, according to

Grassian. He adds that “[o]ur quest, however, is not the psycho-logical one of what an

individual would as a matter of fact be inclined to do in a given situation but, rather, the

normative one of what he morally ought to do. The mere fact that an individual might be
inclined to act in a particular way does not show that that is the way he should act.” For

example, psychological and emotional stress and lack of time to deliberate during an actual

moral situation may affect a person’s moral decision in that situation. A person may be so

engulfed by emotions that s/he may sometimes fail to make the right choice. Or the stress

could make the person's practical choice inconsistent with her/his intellectual choice. This is

the root of the confusion, Grassian claims. The business of philosophy is the examination

of what one ought to do — i.e., one's intellectual choices. It is hoped that given the luxury of

time to reflect on moral problems and situations, when the time comes for one to confront

actual problems and situations, one would make the correct choices based on what one

ought to do

Activity 8.

In the recent past, can you recall any conflict between your intellectual choice and

your practical choice? Which did you uphold? Discuss your reasons for making that

particular choice.

Conclusion

To sum up, mores come from our folkways which are the source of our notion of what is

right, but with the added element of societal welfare in order to protect, preserve and

maintain society. In the study of morality, which is the subject matter of ethics, there are

two points of view to consider: first, the point of view of society, together with its cus-toms,

social rules and sanctions; and second, the point of view of the individual or the human

being as a free moral agent. According to Mothers head, there are two necessary

conditions for morality to occur: freedom and obligation. Freedom is assumed when one is
making his/her choices and is the agent who is taking full responsibility for planning his/her

life, and in the process, planning and budgeting his/her actions for some future outlook or

goal. This is in accordance with his/her moral and rational capacity for knowing and

discerning what is right and wrong. Together with the assumption of freedom is obligation.

In its moral sense, obligation is construed as one’s duty to oneself to exercise this freedom

as a rational moral being. In other words, it is seen as a person’s duty to him/herself to do

this budgeting and planning for the future. Thus, according to Mothers head, only humans

are moral in so far as they are capable of deliberate human action