Chapter The Ethical Dimension

1
of
Human Existence

Learning Objectives:

After reading this chapter, you should be able to:

1. Identify the ethical aspect of human life and the scope of
ethical thinking;
2. Define and explain the terms that are relevant to ethical
thinking; and
3. Evaluate the difficulties that are onvolved in maintining
certain commonlu-heldnotions on ethics.
What is Ethics?
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
comes from the Greek term “ethos” which means custom. 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 Terminologies

Recognizing the notions of good and bad, and right and wrong, are
the primary concern of ethics. In order to start, it would be useful to
clarify the following points.

Aesthetics
Is derived from the Greek word aisthesis (sense or feeling) and refers
to the judgements of personal approval or disapproval that we make about
what we see, hear, smell, or taste.

Etiquette
Which is concerned with right and wrong actions, but those which
might be considered not quite grave enough to belong to a discussion of
ethics.

Technical
Derived from the Greek word techne often translated as
“craftsmanship”, “craft”, or “art”. May coined to English technique. It is
often used to refer to a proper way of doing things. Example.
Right/correct way of dribbling in basketball; of pitching in softball; of
blocking in volleyball.

Ethics and Morals

Morals may be used to refer to specific beliefs or attitudes that people

have or to describe acts that people perform. It is sometimes said that an
individual’s personal conduct is referred to as his morals and if he falls
short of behaving properly, his act can be described as immoral.
 Ethics can be spoken of as the discipline of studying and
understanding ideal human behavior and ideal ways of thinking. This is
because ethics is an intellectual discipline belonging to philosophy.

Descriptive and 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. Descriptive study is often the work of the social
scientist (historian – studying different moral standards over time, or a
sociologist or an anthropologist – which studies different moral
standards across cultures)
A normative study of ethics on the other hand is often done in
philosophy or moral theology, engages question about the right way of
acting. Right way of behaving is more of etiquette than normative ethics.
In other words, a normative ethics prescribes what human has to
maintain as standards or bases for moral valuation. Descriptively, filial
piety and obedience are pervasive, widespread characteristics of Chinese
culture; and normatively, studying Confucian ethics enjoins humanity to
obey one’s parents and to show filial piety.

Issue, Decision, Judgement and Dilemma

A situation that calls for moral valuation is called 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.
When one is placed in a situation and is confronted by the choice of
what act to perform, she is called to make it 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 the behavior of
someone, she is making a moral judgement. For instance, a friend of mine
chooses to steal from a store and I make an assessment that it is wrong.
Going beyond the matter of choosing right over wrong, or good over
evil or in a situation that is more complicated wherein one is torn between
choosing one of two goods or choosing between the lesser of two evils,
then this is referred to as moral dilemma. A girl for instance is in moral
dilemma when she is being asked to choose between the life of the fetus
inside her womb, or losing her career. That, if she allow the fetus inside
her womb to go thru the 9-month time for eventual birth, she will lose her
career; and if she will have the fetus aborted, she would have a
flourishing career.
 Morality is proper only to humanity because if morality is also
possible outside humanity, then, dogs and other non-humans also are to
face moral issues like adultery, concubine, abortion, etc.

The Norms of Morality

Divine Right Theory

Conscience, is man’s rational participation in the Eternal Law of God.
Eternal Law of God “is the ultimate norm of morality,” known by man
and that, his knowledge should free him from doing an act contrary to this
ultimate norm.

Moral theory
Moral theory is a systematic attempt at establishing the validity of
maintaining certain moral principles. Insofar as a theory is a system of
thought or of ideas, it can also be referred to as a framework. Framework
or a mindset; a structure through which we can evaluate our reasons for
valuing a certain decision or judgment. To learn more, you should know
different ethical frameworks that have come down from the history of
philosophy, or shall we say development of thoughts in philosophy.

SOURCES OF AUTHORITY

Several common ways of thinking about ethics are based on the idea
that the standards of valuation are imposed by a higher authority that
commands our obedience.

Law
St. Thomas Aquinas defines law as “an ordinance of reason for the
common good, made by him who has care of the community, and
promulgated. Law is an ordinance of reason because it must be
reasonable or based in reason and not merely in the will of the legislator.
It is supposed that law is one’s guide to ethical behavior. 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.

Religion
In religion, we have divine command theory the foundation of all
adherents ethical values. God, Allah, Supreme Being commands, so
people must have to follow as obliged. Source of authority is God, Allah,
Supreme Being thru the Holy Scripture (Bible).
In religion, we have divine command theory the foundation of all
adherents ethical values. God, Allah, Supreme Being commands, so
people must have to follow as obliged. Source of authority is God, Allah,
Supreme Being thru the Holy Scripture (Bible).
Obviously, most of us having brought up with our religion refers
religion and our religious background to back up our moral valuations.
Those moral imperatives prescribed by our religion are the bases of our
moral valuations (moral values).
For Christians, imperatives are all from the Bible– so called code
of prohibitions particularly that in the Mosaic Law, The Ten
Commandments. Unlike positive law (human law) religious precepts
particularly that of Christians prescribes not merely prohibitive, but also
provides ideals to pursue. We have law on forgiveness, and we all are
called to forgive those who sinned against him or be charitable to those
who have less.
Taking religion as basis of ethics 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. This is because we believed that God
can command absolute obedience.
Is something is right only because God commanded it? Or
something is right in itself and that is why God commanded it.
Are we to do good because we are told to do because they are good
and those telling us to do will be happy for us and we’ll be loved? Or we
should do even if we are not being told to do because we know they are
good?
In the mind of Socrates, unless man is ignorant about what is good
does he need to be told. But, Socrates did not give answer to his question.
He did not say anything about his position over the issue at hand.
In this dialogue between Euthyphro and Socrates in Plato’s book
entitled the Republic, Socrates posited problem about Euthyphro’s belief
in the divine particularly on what Euthyphro said that, “the holy (referring
to the righteous ones who religiously followed prescriptions from the
gods) is what all the gods love, and that the opposite, the unholy (those
who were not following the commands of the gods), the gods hate.”
Socrates asked, Is the holy (righteous ones) loved by the gods because it
is holy? Or is it holy because it is loved by the gods?
Philosophically, good is independent of religious tenets. There are
good intrinsically, as there are also evil intrinsically. Independent of
peoples’ assessment, good is good as it is good in itself not because the
gods, or people said it is good. So that when it is good, “no more why’s”.

Culture
Is from the Latin cultura (cultivation, education, development,
veneration) is a system of historically developing supra-biological
programs of human life.
 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.
What is ethically acceptable to one culture, may not be acceptable to
others. What a particular says as moral values, may not be moral values
to others. Therefore, what is ethically acceptable or unacceptable is
relative to, or dependent on one’s culture. This position is referred to as
cultural relativism.

There are cultural relativism arguments:

a. Reality of difference – that, different cultures have different
moral codes, so there should be no one authorized to say other
codes are wrong. Does this means that we cannot say that any one
moral right or wrong answers in party’s or individuals’
disagreements?
The problem is that when we just allow it as such then, there will
be no resolutions in disagreements. What if one side is in the correct
position?
b. The argument of respect. By respect, we are in no position to
render any kind of judgment on the practices of another culture.
Here, the problem is, what if there really are practices that are
life-curtailing or practices which are not life preserving? Like the
practices of the cannibals? The head-hunting practices that are still being
practiced in the Cordilleras? What about the practices in the Middle
Eastern country allowing so much repression on women to the point of
violence? The practice of genocide wiping out a neighbouring people by
a particular African tribe? Are we by reason of respect their culture has
no position to judge this as wrong?
c. Loyalty to ones own culture argument. Or the “we are not in
the position to judge as wrong our own culture.” Because this is our basis
of determining right and wrong, and as such the standard for making
judgment about something’s wrong.
The problem is, what if arranged marriage is within our tradition?
Are we just to say blindly?
d. Culture as something fixed and determined. If culture is fixed
and determined, of different practices of people in a particular country
say Boholano in Bohol, or a son of a Manilenio married to a Cebuano,
which culture he may fixed himself?
 SENSES OF THE SELF

It is sometimes thought that oneshould not rely on any external

authority to tell oneself what the standards of moral valuation are, but
should instead turn inwards. In this section, we will look into three
theories about ethics that center on the self: subjectivism. Pauchological
egoism, and ethical egoism.

Subjectivism
The recognition that the individual thinking person(the subject) is at
the heart of all moral valuations. That, the individual is the sole
determinant of what is morally good, or bad, right, or wrong. The
personal assertion of “no one can tell me what is right and wrong”,“no
one knows my situation better than myself”, “it is good if I say that it is
good.”
At first glance, we may say, there’s nothing wrong with such
personal statements, just a sense of independence. There may be no
problem, but, if something wrong happens and you’ll ask for help, will it
be right for you when you hear people just say, “good for you.”

Psychological Egoism
It is a thesis that we are deep down motivated by what we perceive to
be in our own self-interest. Usually selfishness motivated. It would go
like this: “Human beings are naturally self-centered, so all our actions are
always already motivated by self interest.”
This is the stance taken by psychological egoism, which is a theory
that describes the underlying dynamic behind all human actions. It does
not direct one to act in any particular way. Instead, it points out that there
is already an underlying basis for how one acts. The ego or self has its
desires and interests, and all our actions are geared toward satisfying
these interests.

Ethical Egoism
Unlike psychological egoism, ethical egoism is about “what is
beneficial to me”, own interests and desires have to be satisfied. Ethical
egoism differs from psychological egoism in that it does not suppose all
our actions are already inevitably self serving. Instead, ethical egoism
prescribes that we should make our own ends, our own interests, as the
single overriding concern. We may act in a way that is beneficial to
others, but we should do that only if it ultimately benefits us.
 The Myth of Gyges
Plato’s Republic (359c-360d)

Now, that those who practice justice several trials of the ring, and always
do so involuntarily and because they with the same result - when he turned
have not power to be unjust will best the collet inwards he became invisible,
appear if we imagine something of this when outwards he reappeared.
kind: having given both to the just and Whereupon he contrived to be chosen
the unjust power to do what they will, let one of the messengers who were sent to
us watch and see wether desire will lead the court; whereas soon as he arrived he
them; then we shall discover in the very seduced the queen, and with her help
act the just and unjust man to be conspired against the king and slew him,
proceeding along the same road, and took the kingdom. Suppose now that
following their interest, which all there are two magic rings, and the just
natures deem to be their good, and are put one of them and the unjust the other;
only diverted into the path of justice by no man can be imagined to be of such an
the force of law. The liberty which we iron nature the he would stand fast in
are supposing may be most completely justice. No man would keep his hands
given to them in the form of such a off what was not his own when he could
power is said to have been possessed by safely take what he liked out of the
Gyges, the ancestor of Croesus the market, or go into houses and lie with
Lydian. According to the tradition, anyone at his pleasure, or kill or release
Gyges was a shepherd in the service of from prison whom he would, and in all
the king of Lydia; there was a great respects be like a God among men. Then
storm, and an earthquake made an the actions of the just would be as the
opening in the earth at the place where actions of the unjust; they would both
he was feeding his flock. Amazed at the come at last to the same point. And this
sight, he descended into the opening, we may truly affirm to be a great proof
where, among other marvels, he beheld that a man is just, not willingly or
a hallow brazen horse, having doors, at because he thinks that justice is any
which he stooping and looking in saw a good to him individually, but of
dead body of stature, as appeared to him, necessity, for wherever any one thinks
more than human, and having nothing that he can safely be unjust, there he is
on but a gold ring; this he took from the unjust. For all men believe in their
finger of the dead and reascended. Now hearts that injustice is far more
the sheperds met together, according to profitable to the individual than justice,
custom, that they might send their and he who argues as I have been
monthly report about flocks to the king; supposing, will say that they are right. If
into their assembly he came having the you could imagine any one obtaining
ring on his finger, and as he was sitting this power of becoming invisible, and
among them he chanced to turn the never doing any wrong or touching what
collet of the ring inside his hand, when was another’s, he would be thought by
instantly he became invisible to the rest the lookers-on to be a most wretched
of the company and they began to speak idiot, although they would praise him to
of him as if he were no longer present. one another’s faces, and keep up
He was astonished at this, and again appearances with one another from a
touching the ring he turn the collet fear that they too might suffer injustice.
outwards and reappeared; he made