4 MAJOR ETHICAL THEORIES OR FRAMEWORKS: MORAL AGENT

1. UTILITARIANISM -the one who eventually must think about her choices
2. NATORAL LAW ETHICS and make decisions on what she ought to do
3. KANTIAN DEONTOLOGY *We cannot simply assume that ethics is an activity that
4. VIRTUE ETHICS a purely rational creature engages in. Instead, the realm
-none of these is definite nor final of morality must be understood as a thoroughly human
REASON realm
-enables us to distinguish between human situations Ethical thought and decision-making
that have a genuinely moral character from those that -are done by an agent who is shaped and dictated upon
are non-moral (or amoral) by many factors within her and without
-it reminds us that the distinctions are not always easy Epimeleia hè auto
to identify nor explain -famous saying of Greeks
ETHICS -usually translates into English as "Know thyself."
-teaches us that moral valuation can happen in the level RAMON C. REYES
of the personal, the societal, and in the relation to the -A Filipino philosopher who wrote the essay,
physical environment "Man and Historical Action, succinctly explained that
-clearly concerned with the right way to act in relation "who one is" is a cross-point. By this he means that
to other human beings and toward self one's identity, who one is or who I am, is a product of
PERSONAL many forces and events that happened outside of one's
-can be understood to mean both the person in relation choosing
to herself, as well as her relation to other human beings 4 CROSS POINTS THAT REYES IDENTIFIED:
on an intimate or person-to-person basis 1. the physical
- serves to guide one through the potentially confusing 2. the interpersonal
thicket of an individual's interaction with her wider 3. the social
world of social roles, which can come into conflict with 4. the historical
one another or even with her own system of values *Who one is, firstly, is a function of physical events in
SOCIETAL the past and material factors in the present that one did
-the second level where moral valuation takes place not have a choice in.
-the society in this context means the immediate *An individual is also the product of an interpersonal
community the larger sphere, or the whole global cross-point of many events and factors outside of one's
village defined as the interconnection of the different choosing
nations of the world SOCIETAL
CULTURE -third cross-point for Reyes
- is a broad term: it may include the beliefs and -"who one is" is shaped by one's society. The term
practices a certain group of people considered valuable "society" here pertains to all the elements of the human
and can extend to such realms as art, laws, fields of groups as opposed to the natural environment-that one
knowledge, and customs of a community is a member of. "Culture" in its varied aspects is
*The latter part of the twentieth century gave birth to included here. Reyes argues that "who one is" is molded
an awareness among many people that "community" in large part by the kind of society and culture-which,
does not only refer to the human groups that one for the most part, one did not choose that one belongs
belongs to, but also refers to the non-human, natural to
world that serves as home and source of nurturance for -this cross-point interacts with the physical and the
all beings interpersonal factors that the individual and her people
*Applying rational deliberation to determine a person's are immersed into or engaged in
ethical responsibility to herself, society, and HISTORICAL
environment is the overall goal of a college course in -the fourth cross-point of Reyes, which is simply the
Ethics events that one's people has undergone
*one's people's history shapes "who one is right now
“When in Rome, do as Romans do” I. Pre-Conventional
-for such people, this saying by St. Ambrose applies to -It corresponds to how infants and young children
deciding on moral issues. This quote implies that one's think.
cultures is inescapable, that is, one has to look into the -its reasoning is centered on the consequences of one’s
standards of her society to resolve all her ethical actions.
questions with finality *Kolhberg used the term pre-conventional to refer to
James Rachels (1941-2003) the two stages of reasoning since at this age, a young
- American philosopher who provided a clear argument child basically thinks only in the terms of
against the validity of cultural relativism in the realm of pain(punishment) or pleasure(reward). Thus, her
ethics concentration is on herself and what she can feel,
- he defines cultural relativism as the position that instead of her society’s conventions on what is right or
claims that there is no such thing as objective truth in wrong.
the realm of morality Two Stages of Reasoning in Pre Conventional Level:
reductio ad absurdum argument • The first stage of reasoning centers around obedience
-it is an argument which first assumes that the claim in and the avoidance of punishment: to a young child’s
question is correct, in order to show the absurdity that mind, an action is “good” if it enables one to escape
will ensue if the claim is accepted as such. He uses this from punishment; “bad” if it leads to punishment.
argument to show what he thinks is the weakness of the • Later, a child enters the second stage of reasoning and
position learns to act according to what she thinks will serve her
Moral development self-interest; thus, what is “good” at this age is what the
-then is a prerequisite if the individual is to encounter child thinks can bring her pleasure.
ethical situations with a clear mind and with her values
properly placed with respect to each other. We shall II. Conventional
discuss moral development further but let us now focus -this is the second level of moral development. This is
on the relationship between one's religion and the the age in which older children, adolescents, and young
challenge of ethical decision-making. adults learn to conform to expectations of society.
*Many people who consider themselves "religious" This second level is divided into two stages:
assume that it is the teachings of their own religion that The third and fourth stages of moral development.
define what is truly "right" or "wrong," "good" or "bad." • The third stage is when one begins to act according to
Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism what the larger group she belongs to expects of her.
-four of the largest religious groups in the world at The individual here assumes that what will benefit her
present, based on population best is when the other members of her group approve
*For followers of a particular religion, the ultimate of her actions.
meaning of their existence, as well as the existence of • The fourth stage is achieved when a person realizes
the whole of reality, is found in the beliefs of that that following the dictates of her society is not just good
religion. Therefore, the question of morality for many for herself but more importantly, it is necessary for the
religious followers is reduced to following the teachings existence of society itself. The individual in this stage
of their own religion. values most the laws, rules, and regulations of her
*The responsible moral agent then is one who does not society, and thus her moral reasoning is shaped by
blindly follow externally-imposed rules but one who has dutifulness to the external standards set by society.
a well-developed feel for making informed moral
decisions. The following section discusses this need for Is Kohlberg's theory an ethical theory ?
developing one's feel for morality. No
LAWRENCE KOHLBERG The point of Kohlberg’s theory is not to ascertain what
-American moral psychologist who theorized that moral defines the goodness of an act, therefore it is NOT an
development happens in six stages, which he divided ETHICAL THEORY. Instead, it is a PSYCHOLOGICAL
into three levels THEORY that attempts to describe the stages of a
Three Levels of Moral Development person’s growth in moral thinking.
The MORALLY MATURE Individual for Kolhberg, must seen in people who are not anymore dictated by the
outgrow both (1) the pre-conventional level, whose logic of reward and punishment, or pain and pleasure.
pleasure-and-pain logic locks one into self-centered Simply following rules even if, theoretically, they are the
kind of thinking, an egoism, as well as (2) the correct ones, does not necessarily qualify as morally
conventional, which at first glance looks like the mature behavior. One must make free use of her own
sensible approach to morality. The second level might, power of reasoning in cases of moral choice and not
de facto, be the way that many (if not most) adults think remain a creature of blind obedience to either pain and
about morality, that it is simply a question of following pleasure or to the demands of the group, if one aspires
the right rules. to moral maturity
Emotions or feelings have long been derided by purely
III. Post-Conventional rationalistic perspectives as having no place in a
-for Kolhberg, this is the third and highest stage of properly executed moral decision. This prejudice,
moral development. however, needs to be re-examined thoroughly.
In this stage, the morally responsible agent recognizes Although some emotions or feelings can derail one from
that what is good or right is not reducible to following a clear minded decision in an ethical situation, it is also
the rules of one’s group. Instead, it is a question of not possible that human choice can be purged of all
understanding personally what one ought to do and feelings, the moral agent, after all, is neither robot nor
deciding, using one’s free will, to act accordingly. computer.
This Level represents the individual’s realization that the
ethical principles she has rationally arrives at take Aristotle precisely points out that moral virtue goes
precedence over even the rules or conventions that her beyond the mere act of intellectually identifying the
society dictates. right thing to do. Instead, it is the
An agent has attained full moral development if she acts Ones beyond the character by which the agent is able to
according to her well-thought-ought rational principles. manage her emotions or feelings. Note that Aristotle
does not say, “Remove all feelings.” Instead, he sees
• In fifth stage, the moral agent sees the value of the that cultivating one’s character lies in learning to
social contract, namely, agreements that rational agents manage one’s feelings
have arrived at whether explicitly or implicitly in order MORAL PROBLEMS
to serve what can be considered true common good are • The first step that we ought to take if there is a
what one ought to honor and follow. potential ethical issue is to determine our level of
This notion of common good is post-conventional in the involvement in the case at hand.
sense that the moral agent binds herself to what this • The second step is to make sure of the facts.
theoretical community of rational agents has identified • The third step is to identify all the people who may
as morally desirable, whether the agent herself will potentially be affected by the implications of a moral
benefit from doing so or not. situation or by our concrete choice of action. These
• The sixth and highest stage of moral development that people are called the stakeholders in the particular
exists even beyond the fifth stage of the social contract case.
is choosing to perform actions based on universal
ethical principles that one has determined by herself. After establishing the facts and identifying the
One realizes that all the conventions (laws rules, and stakeholders and their concerns in the matter, we must
regulations) of society are only correct if they are based now identify the ethical issue at hand. There are several
on these universal ethical principles; they must be types of ethical problems or issues:
followed only if they reflect universal ethical principles. A. The first one is a situation in which we need to
clarify whether a certain action is morally right or
REMINDER ! morally wrong. This is where the different ethical
One does not have to agree completely with Kohlberg’s theories or frameworks can serve. Why is murder said
theory of moral development to see its overall value. to be an unethical or immoral act? How will
This theory helps, at the very least, point out the utilitarianism explain the moral significance of this
differences in moral reasoning: the more mature kind is
action? How about the natural law theory? Deontology? These ethical theories or frameworks may serve as
Virtue ethics? guideposts, given that they are the best attempts to
understand morality that the history of human thought
b. The second type involves determining whether a has to offer. As guideposts, they can shed light on many
particular action in question can be identified with a important considerations, though of course not all, in
generally accepted ethical or unethical action. one’s quest to answer the twin questions of “What
ought I to do?” and “Why ought I to do so?”
c. The third type points to the presence of an ethical Individually, they can clarify many important aspects of
dilemma. Dilemmas are ethical situations in which there morality.
are competing values that seem to have equal
worth.The problem can be concerned either with a UTILITARIANISM
choice between two competing moral goods or -pays tribute to the value of impartiality, arguing that an
between two evils. act is good if it will bring about the greatest good for the
greatest number of those affected by the action, and
• The final step, of course, is for the individual to make each one of those affected should be counted as one,
her ethical conclusion or decision, wheter in judging each equal to each. Utilitarianism thus puts every single
what ought to be done in a given case or in coming up stakeholder at par with everyone else, with no one
with a concrete action she must actually perform. being worth more than any other. Whether president or
Real ethical decisions are often very difficult enough to common citizen, rich or poor, man or woman, young or
make and for so many different reasons. Not all the old, everyone has as much worth as anyone else.
facts in a given case may be available to the agent for Utilitarianism, arguably, puts more value on the notion
her consideration. Some facts may eventually turn out of “common good” compared to any of the other
to be misleading, or not true at all, and so the agent’s ethical frameworks we have covered.
vigilance and meticulousness in establishing the facts
will always be tested in any given ethical situation. NATURAL LAW THEORY
Puts more emphasis on the supposed objective,
A moral Individual is always a human being whose universal nature of what is to be considered morally
intellect remains finite and whose passions remain good, basing its reasoning on the theorized existence of
dynamic, and who is always placed in situations that are a “human nature.” This theory has the advantage of
unique. There are no automatic moral decisions; both objectivity and a kind of intuitiveness. The latter
therefore, such a phrase is patently paradoxical. One pertains to the assumption that whatever is right is
must continue to manage her reason and passions to what feels right, that is, in the innermost recesses of
respond in the best way possible to the kaleidoscope of one’s being or of one’s conscience (and not just in some
moral situations that she finds herself in. shallow emotional level) because what is good is
imprinted in our very being in the form of natural
inclinations.
THE VALUE OF STUDYING ETHICAL THEORIES OR
FRAMEWORKS KANTIAN DEONTOLOGY
-puts the premium on rational will, freed from all other
What then is the role of ethical theories or frameworks considerations, as the only human capacity that can
in the continuing cultivation of one’s capacity for moral determine one’s moral duty. Kant focuses on one’s
choice? Given the remark at the beginning of this autonomy as constitutive of what one can consider as
chapter that none of the ethical frameworks we have moral law that is free from all other ends and
studied is final and complete, how then should one inclinations—including pain and pleasure as well as
make use of them for the development of her faculty conformity to the rules of the group. This shows Kant’s
for moral valuation? disdain for these rules as being authorities external to
one’s own capacity for rational will
John Stuart Mill
-proponent of utilitarianism
UTILITARIANISM
-though seemingly a hedonistic theory given its
emphasis on maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain,
elevates the human element above the animalistic
above the merely selfish.
*Greatest happiness for Bentham then means quantity,
but not just for oneself since the other half of his maxim
refers to the greatest number that points to the extent
or number of people affected by this happiness

Thomas Aquinas's natural law theory states as its first

natural inclination the innate tendency that all human
beings share with all other existing things; namely, the
natural propensity to maintain oneself in one's
existence

Kant's deontology celebrates the rational faculty of the

moral agent, which sets it above merely sentient beings.
Kant's principle of universalizability challenges the
moral agent to think beyond her own predilections and
desires, and to instead consider what everyone ought to
do

Aristotle's virtue ethics teaches one to cultivate her own

intellect as well as her character to achieve eudaimonia
in her lifetime. For Aristotle, one's ethical or moral
responsibility to herself is one of self-cultivation.
Aristotle is quite forgiving when it comes to individual
actions, knowing full well the difficulty of "hitting the
mark" in a given moral situation

If the person's life In the end is one big mistake, then

the person has not become eudaimon or a "happy"
(that is, "flourishing") person. Life for Aristotle is all
about learning from one's own experiences so that one
becomes better as a person