VALUE

Objectives

01 Define ethics;

02 Enumerate kinds of valuation; and

03 Discuss clarifications and terminology.

Value

Ethics generally speaking, is about matters such as the good thing that we should pursue and
the bad thing that we should avoid; the right ways in which we could or should act and the wrong ways
of acting. It is about what is acceptable and unacceptable in human behavior.

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

CLARIFICATIONS AND TERMINOLOGY

Similarly, we have a sense or approval or disapproval concerning certain actions which can be
considered relatively more trivial in nature. Thus, for instance, I may think that it is "right" to knock
politely on someone's door, while it is "wrong to barge into one's office. Perhaps I may approve of a
child who knows how to ask for something properly by saying, "please" and otherwise, disapprove of a
woman that I see picking her nose in public. These and other similar examples belong to the category of
etiquette, which is concerned with right and wrong actions, but those which might be considered not
quite grave enough to belong to a discussion on ethics.

To clarify this point, we can differentiate how may be displeased seeing a healthy young man
refuse to offer his seat on the bus to an elderly lady, but my indignation and shock would be much
greater if I were to see a man deliberately push another one out of a moving bus.

We can also consider how a notion of right and wrong actions can easily appear in a context that
is not a matter of ethics. This could also be when learning how to bake, for instance. I am told that the
right thing to do would be to mix the dry ingredients first, such as flour or sugar before bringing in any
liquids, like milk or cream, this is the right thing to do in baking, but not one that belongs to a discussion
of ethics. This could also be when learning how to play basketball. am instructed that it is against the
rules to walk more than two steps without dribbling the ball; again, obeying this rule to not travel is
something that makes sense only in the context of the game and is not an ethical prohibition.

We derive from the Greek word techne the English words "technique" and "technical" which are
often used to refer to a proper way (or right way) of doing things, but a technical valuation (or right and
wrong technique of doing things) may not necessarily be an ethical one as these examples show.

Recognizing the characteristics of aesthetic and technical valuation allows us to have a rough
guide as to what belongs to a discussion of ethics. They involve valuations that we make in a sphere of
human actions, characterized by certain gravity and concern the human well-being or human life itself.
Therefore, matters that concern life and death such as war, capital punishment, or abortion and matters
that concern human well-being such as poverty, inequality, or sexual identity are often included in
discussions of ethics. However, this general description is only a starting point and will require further
elaboration.

One complication that can be noted is that the distinction between what belongs to ethics and
what does not is not always so clearly defined. At times, the question of what is grave or trivial is
debatable, and sometimes some of the most heated discussions in ethics could be on the fundamental
question of whether a certain sphere of human activities belongs to this discussion. Are clothes always
just a matter of taste or would provocative clothing call for some kind of moral judgment? Can we say
that a man who verbally abuses his girlfriend is simply showing bad manners or does this behavior
deserve stronger moral condemnation?

ETHICS AND MORALS

Our second point of clarification is on the use of the words 'ethics' and "morals." This discussion
of ethics and morals would include cognates such as ethical, unethical, immoral, amoral, morality, and
so on. As we proceed, we should be careful particularly on the use of the word “not" when applied to
the words "moral" or "ethical" as this can be ambiguous. One might say that cooking is not ethical, that
is, the act of cooking does not belong to a discussion of ethics; on the other hand, one might say that
lying is not ethical, but the meaning here is that the act of lying would be an unethical act.

Let us consider those two words further. The term 'morals" may be used to refer to specific
beliefs or attitudes that people have or to describe acts that people perform. Thus, it is sometimes said
that an individual's personal conduct is referred to as his morals, and if he falls short of behaving
properly, this can be described as immoral. However, we also have terms such as moral judgment or
"moral reasoning. which suggest a more rational aspect. The term ethics can be spoken of as the
discipline of studying and understanding ideal human behavior and ideal ways of thinking. Thus, ethics is
acknowledged as an intellectual discipline belonging to philosophy. However, acceptable and
unacceptable behaviors are also generally described as ethical and unethical, respectively. In addition,
with regard to the acceptable and unacceptable ways of behaving in a given field, we have the term
professional ethics (e.g., legal ethics for the proper comportment of law people in the legal profession;
medical ethics for doctors and nurses; and media ethics for writers and reporters).

Therefore, various thinkers and writers posit a distinction between the terms "moral" and
'ethics" and they may have good reasons for doing so, but there is no consensus as to how to make that
distinction. Ordinary conversation presents a much less rigid distinction between these terms, and in
this book, we will lean in that direction as we do not need to occupy ourselves here with the question of
how different thinkers and writers construe that distinction. So, in this lesson, we will be using the terms
"ethical" and "moral" (likewise, "ethics and 'morality") interchangeably.

DESCRIPTIVE AND NORMATIVE

Our third point of clarification is to distinguish between a descriptive and a normative study of
ethics.

A descriptive study of ethics reports how people, particularly groups, make their moral
valuations without making any judgment either for or against these valuations. This kind of study is
often the work of the social scientist: either a historian studying different moral standards over time) or
a sociologist or an anthropologist (studying different moral standards across cultures).

A normative study of ethics, as is often done in philosophy or moral theology, engages the
question: What could or should be considered as the right way of acting?

In other words, a normative discussion prescribes what we ought to maintain as our standards
or bases for moral valuation. When engaging in a discussion of ethics, it is always advisable to recognize
whether one is concerned with a descriptive view (e.g. noting how filial piety and obedience are
pervasive characteristics of Chinese culture) or with a normative perspective (e.g., studying how
Confucian ethics enjoins us to obey our parents and to show filial piety).

We need to go further. A philosophical discussion of ethics goes beyond recognizing the

ISSUE, DECISION, JUDGMENT, AND DILEMMA

As the final point of clarification, it may be helpful to distinguish a situation that calls for moral
valuation. It can be called a moral issue. For instance, imagine a situation wherein a person cannot
afford a certain item, but then the possibility presents itself for her to steal it. This is a matter of ethics
(and not just law) insofar as it involves the question of respect for one's property. We should add that
"issue is also often used to refer to those particular situations that are often the source of considerable
and inconclusive debate (thus, we would often hear topics such as capital punishment and euthanasia as
moral "issues").

When one is placed in a situation and confronted by the choice of what act to perform, she is
called to make a moral decision. For instance, I choose not to take something I did not pay for. When a
person is an observer who makes an assessment on the actions or behavior of someone, she is making a
moral judgment. For instance, a friend of mine chooses to steal from a store, and make an assessment
that it is wrong.

Finally, going beyond the matter of choosing right over wrong, or good over bad, and
considering instead the more complicated situation wherein one is torn between choosing one of two
goods or choosing between the lesser of two evils: this is referred to as a moral dilemma, we have a
moral dilemma when an individual can choose only one from a number of possible actions, and there
are compelling ethical reasons for the various choices. A mother may be conflicted between wanting to
feed her hungry child, but then recognizing that it would be wrong for her to steal is an example of a
moral dilemma.

REASONING

Why do we suppose that a certain way of acting is right and its opposite wrong? The study of
ethics is interested in questions like these: Why do we decide to consider this way of acting as
acceptable while that way of acting, its opposite, is unacceptable? To put it in another way, what
reasons do we give to decide or to judge that a certain way of acting is either right or wrong?
 There are different frameworks that can make us reflect on the principles that we maintain and
thus, the decisions and judgments we make. By studying these, we can reconsider, clarify, modify, and
ultimately strengthen our principles, thereby informing better both our moral judgments and moral
decisions.

Highlight Summary

• Ethics generally speaking, is about matters such as the good thing that we should pursue and the bad
thing that we should avoid; the right ways in which we could or should act and the wrong ways of acting.

• Technique which is often used to refer to a proper way (or right way) of doing things.

• Morals may be used to refer to specific beliefs or attitudes that people have or to describe acts that
people perform.

• A descriptive study of ethics reports how people, particularly groups, make their moral valuations
without making any judgment either for or against these valuations.

• A normative study of ethics, as is often done in philosophy or moral theology.

• Moral decision is when one is placed in a situation and confronted by the choice of what act to
perform • Moral judgment is when a person is an observer who makes an assessment on the actions or
behavior of someone

• Moral dilemma is when one is torn between choosing one of two goods or choosing between the
lesser of two evils.

• Moral decision is when one is placed in a situation and confronted by the choice of what act to
perform

SOURCES OF AUTHORITY

Objectives

01 Discuss the authority of law;

02 Know the authority of one’s religion; and

03 Enumerate the authority of one’s own culture.

LAW

It is supposed that law is one's guide to ethical behavior. In the Philippines, Filipinos are constrained to
obey the laws of the land as stated in the country's criminal and civil code. Making this even more
particular, in Cebu, residents are constrained to follow any provincial laws or city ordinances. One can
easily imagine this becoming even more localized to the barangay or village level, where local or
municipal layers of obligation are there for residents to follow.
 The term positive law refers to the different rules and regulations that are posited or put forward by an
authority figure that require compliance.

At first glance, this seems to make a lot of sense. We recognize that there are many acts that we
immediately consider unethical (e.g, murder or theft), which we also know are forbidden by law.
Furthermore, the law is enforced by way of a system of sanctions administered through persons and
institutions, which all help in compelling us to obey. Taking the law to be the basis of ethics has the
benefit of providing us with an objective standard that is obligatory and applicable to all. So, we would
not be surprised if we were to hear someone say, "Ethics? It is simple. Just follow whatever the law
says.“

However, there are some problems with this. Of course, we do maintain that, generally speaking, one
should obey the law. However, the idea that we are examining here is a more controversial one: the
more radical claim that one can look to the law itself in order to determine what is right or wrong. But
the question is: can one simply identify ethics with the law?

One point to be raised is the prohibitive nature of law. The law does not tell us what we should do; it
works by constraining us from performing acts that we should not do. To put it slightly differently, the
law cannot tell us what to pursue, only what to avoid. Would we be satisfied thinking about ethics solely
from the negative perspective of that which we may not do, disregarding the important aspect of a good
which we could and maybe even should do, even if it were not required of us by the law?

In line with this, we might find that there are certain ways of acting which are not forbidden by the law,
but are ethically questionable to us. For instance, a company that pads its profits by refusing to give its
employees benefits may do so within the parameters of the law. The company can do so by refusing to
hire people on a permanent basis, but offering them six-month contracts. Constrained to work under
this contractual system, the employees are thus deprived not only of benefits, but also of job security.
Here, no law is violated, yet one can wonder whether there is something ethically questionable to this
business practice. The fact that one can make such a negative value judgment of the practice where
there is no violation of the law is already a hint that one can look to. Something beyond the law when
making our ethical valuations.

RELIGION

“Love the Lord, Your God, therefore, and always heed his charge: his statutes, decrees, and
commandments.” (New American Bible) This verse is the first line of Chapter 11 of the book of
Deuteronomy. It expresses a claim that many people of a religious sensibility find appealing and
immediately valid: the idea that one is obliged to obey her God in all things. As a foundation for ethical
values, this is referred to as the Divine Command theory. The divinity called God, Allah, or Supreme
Being commands and one is obliged to obey her Creator.

There are persons and texts that one believes are linked to the Divine. By listening to these figures and
reading these writings, an individual discovers how the Divine wants her to act. Further, someone
maintaining a more radical form of this theory might go beyond these instruments of divine revelation
and claim that God "spoke" to her directly to instruct her what to do.

At first glance, this seems to make a lot of sense. Many of us had been brought up with one form of
religious upbringing or another, so it is very possible that there is a strong inclination in us to refer to our
religious background to back up our moral valuations. We are presented with a more-or-less clear code
of prohibitions and many of these prohibitions given by religion. Thou shall not kill, thou shall not steal
and "Thou shall not commit adultery"-seem to intuitively coincide with our sense of what ethics should
rightly demand. In addition, there is an advance here over the law because religion is not simply
prohibitive, but it also provides ideals to pursue. For instance, one may be called to forgive those who
against him or be charitable to those who have less. Further, taking religion as basis of ethical has the
advantage of providing us with not only a set of commands but also a Supreme Authority that can
inspire and compel our obedience in a way that nothing else can. The Divine can command absolute
obedience on one's part as the implications to her involve her ultimate destiny. Thus, we would not be
surprised if we were to hear someone say, "Ethics? It is simple. Just follow whatever your religion says.

However, there are some problems with this. First, on the practical level, we realize the presence of a
multiplicity of religions. Each faith demands differently from its adhere which would apparently result in
conflicting ethical standards. For instance, religions have prohibitions concerning what food may be
consumed, while others do not share the same constraints. Are we then compelled to judge others
negatively given the different morality? Are we called upon to convert them toward our own faith? How
about the problem of realizing that not everyone is devout or maintains a religious faith? Would we be
compelled to admit then that if religion is the basis of morality, some people would simply have no
moral code? Differences, however, are not confined to being problematic or varying religious traditions.

Experience teaches us that sometimes even within one and the same faith, difference can be a real
problem. For instance, we can easily imagine a number of Christians agreeing that they should read and
find their inspiration from the Bible; but we could also easily imagine them disagreeing on which
particular lines they need to focus on. Which of the passages from the sacred Scriptures are they
supposed to follow? All of them or only some? If so, which ones? Which pastor am I supposed to obey ifI
find them debating over how to interpret the scriptures, not to mention ethical issues? The problem of
difference thus remains.

Second, on what may be called a more conceptual level, we can see a further problem where one
requires the believer to clarity her understanding of the connection between ethics and the Divine. This
problem was first elucidated in the history of thought by Plato in his dialogue titled Euthyphro.

Euthyphro

Plato

EUTHYPHRO: But l would certainly say that the holy is what all the gods love, and that the opposite,
what all the gods hate, is unholy.

SOCRATES: Well, Euthyphro, should we examine this in turn to see if it is true? Or should we let it go,
accept it from ourselves or anyone else without more ado, and agree that a thing is so if only someone
says it is? Or should we examine what a person means when he says something?

EUTHYPHRO: Of course. I believe, though, that this time what I say is true.

SOCRATES: Perhaps we shall learn better, my friend. For consider: is the holy loved by the gods because
it is holy? Or is it holy because it is loved by the gods?
In the exchange between Socrates and Euthyphro, the question is raised as to how one is supposed to
define "holiness." Euthyphro puts forward the idea that what is holy is loved by the gods. Socrates calls
this into question by asking for the following clarification: Is it holy only because it is loved by the gods,
or is it holy in itself and that is why it is loved by the gods? The relevance of these questions to our
discussion becomes clear if rephrased this way: Is it the case that something is right only because God
commanded it, or is it the case that something is right in itself and that is why God commanded it?

 It is a good thing for a person of faith to abide by the teachings of her particular religion. But the divine
command theory demands more than this as it requires us to identity the entire sense of right and
wrong with what religion dictates. The conceptual problem we have seen and the practical difficulties of
simply basing ethics on the divine command are reasons enough for us to wonder whether we have to
set this way of thinking aside. Now, let us clarify this point: Our calling into question of the divine
command theory is not a calling into question of one's belief in God; it is not intended to be a challenge
to one's faith. Instead, it is an invitation to consider whether there may be more creative and less
problematic ways of seeing the connection between faith and ethics, rather than simply equating what
is ethical with whatever one takes to be commanded by God.

Later, we shall see one way that we can have a more subtle and yet powerful presentation of how one's
faith may contribute to ethical thought when we look at the Natural Law theory of Thomas Aquinas.

CULTURE Our exposure to different societies and their cultures makes us aware that there are ways of
thinking and valuing that are different from our own, that there is in fact a wide diversity of how
different people believe it is proper to act. There are aesthetic differences (Japanese art vs. Indian art),
religious differences (Buddhism vs. Christianity), and etiquette differences (conflicting behaviors
regarding dining practices). In these bases, it may become easy to conclude that this is the case in ethics
as well. There are also various examples that Seem to bear these out: nudity can be more taboo in one
culture than in another. Another example would be how relations between men and women can show a
wide variety across different cultures, ranging from greater liberality and equality on one hand, to
greater inequality and a relation of dominance versus submission on the other.

From the reality of diversity, it is possible for someone to jump to the further claim that the sheer
variety at work in the different ways of valuation means there is no single universal standard for such
valuations, and that this holds true as well in the realm of ethics. Therefore, what is ethically acceptable
or unacceptable is relative to, or that is to say, dependent on one's culture. This position is referred to as
cultural relativism.

There is something appealing to this way of thinking because cultural relativism seems to conform to
what we experience, which is the reality of the differences in how cultures make their ethical valuations.
Second, by taking one's culture as the standard, we are provided a basis for our valuations. Third, this
teaches us to be tolerant of others from different cultures, as we realize that we are in no position to
judge whether the ethical thought or practice of another culture Is acceptable or unacceptable. In turn,
our own culture's moral code is neither superior to nor inferior to any other, but they would provide us
the standards that are appropriate and applicable to us. S0, we would not be surprised if we were to
hear someone say, "Ethics? it is Simple. Just follow whatever your culture says."

This discussion would not be complete if we were to ignore the topic of Filipino values. Early in our
upbringing, we were taught about certain valuable rants that we say are characteristics of Filipinos, such
as respect for the elderly close family ties, a sense of hospitality, and also of solidarity with others at
times of distress. We proudly say that we value these qualities of Filipinos. These are indeed laudable
qualities, but could we simply identify ethics with the positive valuation that we make of these qualities?
We will be discussing this and related questions more thoroughly in the last chapter.

Tempting as this idea is, there are problems. In a classic exposition of this topic by James Rachels, he
presents some of these difficulties. The first three points in the following paragraphs are a brief
restatement of some of his criticisms of cultural relativism; these are followed by an additional fourth
point of criticism based on more recent and more contextualized observations.

First, the argument of cultural relativism is premised on the reality of difference. Because different
cultures have different moral codes, we cannot say that any one moral Code is the right one. But is it a
case of the presence of disagreement means there are no right or wrong answers? Isn't it a common
experience to be confronted by a disagreement between persons and then to have the conflict clarified
later as to who is right or wrong? In Other words, disagreement may mean that the question of who is
right or wrong is not immediately evident, but it does not necessarily mean that there is no one correct
resolution.

Second, under cultural relativism, we realize that we are in no position to render any Kind of judgment
on the practices of another culture. This seems to be a generous and an open-minded way of respecting
others. But what if the practice seems to call for comment? What if a particular African tribe thought it is
advantageous and therefore right for them to wipe out a neighboring people through a terrible practice
of genocide? What if some Middle Eastern country was highly repressive toward women reaching to the
point of violence? What about the traditional practice of headhunting that is still maintained by certain
societies in the Cordilleras? Are we in no position to judge any of this as wrong? Would we be satisfied
with concluding that we cannot judge another culture? But this is one of the implications of cultural
relativism.

Third, under cultural relativism, we realize that we are in no position to render Judgment on the
practices of even our own culture. If our culture was the basis for determining right and wrong, we
would be unable to say that something within our cultural practice was problematic, precisely because
we take our culture to be the standard for making such judgments. If we came from a particular society
wherein there is a tradition of arranged marriage, we would simply have to accept that this is how we do
things. But what if we are not satisfied by this conclusion? We may be proud and glad about identifying
certain traits, values, and practices of our culture, but we may not necessarily laud or wish to conform to
all of them. It is possible that we may not be satisfied with the thought of not being able to call our own
culture into question.

Fourth, perhaps the most evident contemporary difficulty with cultural relativism is that we can
maintain it only by following the presumption of culture as a single, clearly- defined substance or as
something fixed and already determined. Now, it is always possible to find examples of a certain culture
having a unique practice or way of life and to distinguish it from other cultures' practices, but it is also
becoming increasingly difficult to determine what exactly defines one's culture.

Is my culture "Filipino? What if I identify more with a smaller subset within this group, if, for example, I
am lgorot? Is this then my culture? Why not go further and define my culture as being Kankana-ey
rather than Ibaloi? is this then my culture? The point here precisely is the question: What am I supposed
to take as "my culture"?

We can think of many other examples that reflect the same problem. Let us say that my father is from
Pampanga and my mother is from Leyte, and I was brought up in Metro Manila: What is my culture? On
one hand, let us say that my father is American and my mother is Filipina, and I was brought up in San
Diego, California, but l am currently studying in a university in the Philippines: What am l supposed to
take as "my culture”?

In an increasingly globalized world, the notion of a static and well-defined culture gives way to greater
flexibility and integration. One result of this is to call into question an idea like cultural relativism, which
only makes sense if one could imagine a clear-cut notion of what can be defined as my culture.

We can conclude this criticism of cultural relativism by pointing out how it is a problem in our study of
ethics because it tends to deprive us of our use of critical thought. On the positive side, cultural
relativism promotes a sense of humility, that is, urging us not to imagine that our own culture is superior
to another. Such humility, however, should go hand in hand with a capacity for a rational, critical
discernment that is truly appreciative of human values. Unfortunately, what happens in cultural
relativism is that it basically renders us incapable of discerning about the values we may wish to
maintain as we are forced to simply accept whatever our culture gives us.

It keeps us from exploring whether there are values that are shared between cultures; it keeps us from
comparing and judging-either positively or negatively-the valuations that are made by different cultures.
As previously mentioned, this presumes that we can determine culture in the first place, which becomes
increasingly questionable in a transcultural world.

Highlight Summary

• Positive law refers to the different rules and regulations that are posited or put forward by an
authority figure that require compliance.

• Divine Command theory foundation for ethical values.

• Cultural Relativism ethically acceptable or unacceptable is relative to, or that is to say, dependent on
one's culture