1

Republic of the Philippines

CAPIZ STATE UNIVERSITY
PONTEVEDRACAMPUS
Bailan, Pontevedra, Capiz Certificate No. AJA18-0166

College of Education, Arts & Sciences (COEAS)

TEACHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT

I . Module Title: Module I – WHAT IS ETHICS?

II. Course Title: ETHICS

III. Course Number: GE 107

IV. Course Description: This course deals with principles of ethical behavior in the modern society at the level
of person, society, and in interaction with the environment and other shared resources.

V. Total Learning Time: 3 hrs.

VI. Pre-requisites: None

VII. Overview: In this module, the students will focus on the meaning, scope and theories and principles of
Ethics so that they will have a grasp of the course for their enlightenment and understanding.

VIII. Most Essential Learning Outcomes: At the end of the lesson, the students must have:
■ discussed what ethics are and why they are important;
■ examined the main ethical theories and principles; and
■ started to apply ethical decision making to their own future practice.

IX. Indicative Content:

I. WHAT IS ETHICS?
A. Definition of Ethics
B. Nature of Ethics
C. Source of Ethics
C.1. Moral Realism
C.2. Moral Relativism
D. The Methods of Ethics
D.1. The Physical and biological method
D.2. The historical or genetic method
D.3. The psychological method
D.4. The metaphysical method
E. Theories of Ethics
E.1. Teleological (Consequentialist Theories)
* Ethical Egoism
* Utilitarianism
* Care Ethics
E.2. Deontological (Nonconsequentialist Theories)
*Act nonconsequentialists
*Rule nonconsequentialists

X. Pre-assessment (optional)

XI. Discussion
Module 1: WHAT IS ETHICS?

I. Learning Objectives:
At the end of the lesson, the students must have:
■ discussed what ethics are and why they are important;
■ examined the main ethical theories and principles; and
■ started to apply ethical decision making to their own future practice.
 2

II. Content
A. Definition of Ethics

■ The word ethics comes from the Greek ethos which means customs or habits. Ethics is also often
called moral philosophy. The word moral is from the Latin mores which also means customs or habits. Thus,
ethics means the science of customs or habits of society.

While morals or morality refers to customs, ethics extend to mean habitual conduct or character.
Morality deals with our reasoning and ethics with our doing. Ethics can also mean ‘the science of rightness and
wrongness of character and conduct.’ It is the study of what is right or good in human conduct or character.

■ Ethics is also the ‘science of the highest good. It is the science of morality. It is the science of the
supreme ideal of human life.

■ Ethics is a process of reflection (Berglund, 2007). Its aim is to challenge our thoughts and actions
(Hugman, 2005).

■ Ethics looks at how we “behave and function within society” (Thompson et al, 2006)

■ Ethics is the field of study that is concerned with questions of value, i.e., judgments about what
human behavior is "good" or "bad" in any given situation.

■ Ethics are very personal. It is about how you live your life in relation to others. It is about the choices
you make and why. They are the standards, values, morals, principles, etc., which are used to base one’s
decisions or actions on; often there is no clear "right" or "wrong" answer. For example, how would you decide
which person should live or die?

B. The Nature of Ethics

■ Ethics is a normative science as it seeks to determine norms, ideals or standards, in this case, of
human conduct and character.
■ It is not a natural or positive science but a regulative science. It is not a practical science nor does it
teach us how to live amoral life, rather, it merely ascertains the moral ideal.
■ Ethics is not an art. Art consists in the acquisition of a skill but morality consists in an attitude of the
will when there is no overt action.
■ Ethics is a science because it aims at systematic explanation of rightness and wrongness.

C. Source of Ethics
■ In moral realism, ethical principles are thought to have objective foundations; that is, they are not
based on subjective human reasoning.

■ In moral relativism (also known as situational ethics), ethical issues are thought to be subjective.

D. The Methods of Ethics

D.1. The Physical and biological method
■ Morality is traced to the conduct of savages and ultimately to the conduct of animals which
seek pleasure and avoid pain.

D.2. The historical or genetic method

■ Morality is thought to evolve from the crude customs of primitive people.

D.3. The psychological method

■ Morality is deemed to be a phenomenon of human consciousness.

D.4. The metaphysical method

■ Morality is deemed to be a revelation of the divine and is linked with spirituality and
religion.
 3

The true method of ethics is both empirical and transcendental. It is both scientific and metaphysical. Ethics
accurately observes the moral phenomena, classifies them according to their similarities and differences and
explains them. Just as other sciences systematize judgments of commonsense relating to facts, so ethics
systematizes judgments of common sense relating to moral value, though supplemented by the metaphysical
method.

E. Theories of Ethics
E.1. Teleological (Consequentialist Theories)
■ The rightness or wrongness of any act is judged in relation to its consequences.
■ Only concerned with results.
■ The same act may be good or bad in different circumstances.
■ The aim is to produce the greatest good for the greatest number

ETHICAL EGOISM
Egoism is a teleological theory of ethics that sets as its goal the benefit, pleasure, or greatest good of the
oneself alone. It is contrasted with altruism, which is not strictly self-interested, but includes in its goal the
interests of others as well.

There are at least three different ways in which the theory of egoism can be presented:  

1. Psychological Egoism-- This is the claim that humans by nature are motivated only by self-interest. Any
act, no matter how altruistic it might seem, is actually motivated by some selfish desire of the agent (e.g., desire
for reward, avoidance of guilt, personal happiness). This is a descriptive claim about human nature. Since the
claim is universal--all acts are motivated by self- interest--it could be proven false by a single counterexample.

It will be difficult to find an action that the psychological egoist will acknowledge as purely altruistic,
however. There is almost always some benefit to ourselves in any action we choose. For example, if I helped my
friend out of trouble, I may feel happy afterwards. But is that happiness the motive for my action or just a result
of it? Perhaps the psychological egoist fails to distinguish the beneficial consequences of an action from the self-
interested motivation. After all, why would it make me happy to see my friend out of trouble if I didn't already
have some prior concern for my friend's best interest? Wouldn't that be altruism?  

Psychological egoism is the empirical doctrine that the determining motive of every voluntary action is a
desire for one's own welfare. On this view, even though all actions are regarded as self-interested actions, the
egoist readily points out that people usually try to conceal the determining motives for their actions because
such concealment is usually in their self-interest. The distinction between psychological egoism and ethical
egoism reflects the contrast of "is" verses "ought," "fact" verses "value," or "descriptive" verses "prescriptive."

Psychological egoism is a descriptive theory resulting from observations from human behavior. It can only
be a true empirical theory if there are no exceptions. In science, a purported law only needs one disconfirming
instance to disprove it.

Psychological egoism makes no claim as to how one should act. That all persons seek their self-interest on
this theory is a purported fact, and this belief is viewed by the psychological egoist as non-moral and verifiable.

2. Ethical Egoism- is the normative or prescriptive doctrine that each individual should seek as an end
only that individual's own welfare. The idea here is that an individual's own welfare is the only thing that is
ultimately valuable for that individual. Ethical egoisms claims that all persons seek their own self-interest.

It differs from Psychological Egoism which is a theory of human nature concerned with how people do
behave. Ethical Egoism by contrast is a normative theory (a theory about how we ought to behave). It argues
we have no duty except to do what is best for ourselves. There is only one ultimate principle of conduct – the
principle of self-interest. All duties and obligations are subject to self-interest. This is the claim that individuals
should always to act in their own best interest.

If ethical egoism is true, that appears to imply that psychological egoism is false: there would be no point to
saying that we ought to do what we must do by nature. But if altruism is possible, why should it be avoided?
Some writers suggest we all should focus our resources on satisfying our own interests, rather than those of
others. Society will then be more efficient and this will better serve the interests of all. By referring to the
 4

interests of all, however, this approach reveals itself to be a version of utilitarianism, and not genuine egoism. It
is merely a theory about how best to achieve the greatest good for the greatest number.

An alternative formulation of ethical egoism states that I ought to act in my own self-interest--even if this
conflicts with the values and interests of others--simply because that is what I value most. It is not clear how an
altruist could argue with such an individualistic ethical egoist, but it is also not clear that such an egoist should
choose to argue with the altruist. Since the individualistic egoist believes that whatever serves his own interests
is (morally) right, he will want everyone else to be altruistic. Otherwise they would not serve the egoist's
interests! It seems that anyone who truly believed in individualistic ethical egoism could not promote the theory
without inconsistency. Indeed, the self-interest of the egoist is best served by publicly claiming to be an altruist
and thereby keeping everyone's good favor. 

Important:
Ethical Egoism does not say that you should avoid actions that help others. It could be that by helping
others you help yourself. ‘You scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours’. Or your interests coincide with the
interests of others and by helping yourself you inadvertently help others. The important point is that in such
cases the benefit to others is not what makes the action right.

Selfishness not foolishness. It is also important to realize it doesn’t endorse the idea that we ought
always to do what we want to. Short term pleasures may be harmful in the long run. It doesn’t lead to a
debauched hedonistic lifestyle. It says that a person really ought to do what really is in his/her own best
advantage over the long run – It endorses selfishness not foolishness.

Two arguments in support of Ethical Egoism:

1. Each of us is intimately familiar with our own individual needs and wants but we cannot know the
desires and needs of other people.
- The policy of looking out for others is an offensive intrusion into other people’s privacy.
- Making other people the object of one’s ‘charity’ is degrading to them it robs them of their dignity
and self-respect.

2. The second argument was put forward by Ayn Rand. She argues the ethics of altruism is a totally
destructive idea both in terms of society and individuals taken in by it. Altruism leads to a denial of the value of
the individual. ‘If a man accepts the ethics of altruism…his first concern is not how to live his life but how to
sacrifice it’. Rand is arguing along these lines. A person has only one life to live. If we value the individual –
that is, if the individual has moral worth – then we must agree that this life is of supreme importance. If you are
willing to sacrifice for the good of others (altruism) you are not truly valuing the human individual.

Two Arguments against Ethical Egoism according to James Rachels:

1. Ehical Egoism cannot provide solutions for conflicts of interest. We need moral rules because our
interests sometimes come into conflict.
2. Ethical Egoism advocates that each of us divides the world into two categories of people – ourselves
and the rest – and we regard the interests of the first group as more important than the interests of the second
group. But what is the difference between myself and others that justifies placing myself in this special
category.
Am I more intelligent?
Do I enjoy my life more?
Are my achievements greater?
What makes me so special?

Ethical Egoism is an arbitrary doctrine. In deductive form, any moral doctrine that assigns greater importance to
interests of one group than to those of another is unacceptably arbitrary unless there is some difference between
the members of the groups that justifies treating them differently. Therefore, Ethical Egoism would have each
person assign greater importance to his or her own interests than to the interests of others. But there is no
general difference between oneself and others, to which each person can appeal, that justifies this difference in
treatment. Therefore, Ethical Egoism is unacceptably arbitrary and not a valid theory.

Finally, we should care about the interests of others for the same reason we care about our own
interests – because their needs and desires are the same as our own.
 5

Consider again – the starving people we could help to feed by giving up some of our luxuries. Why
should we care about them? Because there is no difference between us and them – we would go to any lengths
to feed ourselves if we were starving. Their needs are the same as ours. They are no less deserving than us – If
our needs should be met then so should theirs. This realization that we are equal to one another is the deepest
reason why our morality must include some recognition of the needs of others and why Ethical Egoism fails as a
moral theory.

Types of Ethical Egoism

1. Personal ethical egoism is the belief that a person should act from the motive of self-interest.
2. Individual ethical egoism is the prescriptive doctrine that all persons should serve my self-interest.
3. Universal ethical egoism is the universal doctrine that all persons should pursue their own interests
exclusively.

3. Minimalist Egoism-- When working with certain economic or sociological models, we may frequently
assume that people will act in such a way as to promote their own interests. This is not a normative claim and
usually not even a descriptive claim. Instead it is a minimalist assumption used for certain calculations. If we
assume only self-interest on the part of all agents, we can determine certain extreme-case (e.g., maximin)
outcomes for the model. Implicit in this assumption, although not always stated, is the idea that altruistic
behavior on the part of the agents, although not presupposed, would yield outcomes at least as good and
probably better.

UTILITARIANISM
Utilitarianism says that the result or the consequence of an act is the real measure of whether it is good
or bad. This theory emphasizes ends over means. Theories, like this one, that emphasize the results or
consequences are called teleological or consequentialists.

Jeremy Bentham’s Formulation of Utilitarianism

Man is under two great masters, pain and pleasure. The great good that we should seek is happiness. (a
hedonistic perspective). Those actions whose results increase happiness or diminish pain are good. They have
“utility.”

Jeremy Bentham’s Hedonistic Calculus:

In determining the quantity of happiness that might be produced by an action, we evaluate the
possible consequences by applying several values: intensity, duration, certainty or uncertainty,
propinquity or remoteness, fecundity, purity, and extent.

Four Theses of Utilitarianism:

1) Consequentialism: The rightness of actions is determined solely by their consequences.
2) Hedonism: Utility is the degree to which an act produces pleasure. Hedonism is the thesis that
pleasure or happiness is the good that we seek and that we should seek.
3. Maximalism: A right action produces the greatest good consequences and the least bad.
4. Universalism: The consequences to be considered are those of everyone affected, and everyone
equally.

Two Formulations of Utilitarian Theory:

1. Principle of Utility: The best action is that which produces the greatest happiness and/or reduces
pain.
2. Greatest Happiness: We ought to do that which produces the greatest happiness and least pain for
the greatest number of people.

Two Types of Utilitarianism

1. Rule: An action is right if and only if it conforms to a set of rules the general acceptance of which
would produce the greatest balance of pleasure over pain for the greatest number. (John Stuart Mill)

2. Act: An Action is right if and only if it produces the greatest balance of pleasure over pain for the
greatest number. (Jeremy Bentham)
 6

Application of Utilitarian Theory:

A) You attempt to help an elderly man across the street. He gets across safely.
Conclusion: the Act was a good act.

B) You attempt to help an elderly man across the street. You stumble as you go, he is knocked into the
path of a car, and is hurt.
Conclusion: The Act was a bad act.

Application of Utilitarian Theory Actual Cases:

 The decision at Coventry during WWII . The decision was made not to inform the town that they
would be bombed.

 The Ford Pinto Case: A defective vehicle would sometimes explode when hit. The model was not
recalled and repaired by Ford because they felt it was cheaper to pay the liability suits than to
recall and repair all the defective cars.

 If you can use eighty soldiers as a decoy in war, and thereby attack an enemy force and kill several
hundred enemy soldiers, that is a morally good choice even though the eighty might be lost.

 If lying or stealing will actually bring about more happiness and/or reduce pain, Act Utilitarianism
says we should lie and steal in those cases.

Criticisms of Bentham’s theory.

Bentham’s theory could mean that if 10 people would be happy watching a man being eaten by wild
dogs, it would be a morally good thing for the 10 men to kidnap someone (especially someone whose death
would not cause grief to many others) and throw the man into a cage of wild, hungry dogs.

John Stuart Mill’s Adjustments to Utilitarianism

Mill argues that we must consider the quality of the happiness, not merely the quantity. For example,
some might find happiness with a pitcher of beer and a pizza. Others may find happiness watching a fine
Shakespearean play. The quality of happiness is greater with the latter.

Mill’s Quality Arguments: It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be
Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. And if the fool, or the pig, are of a different opinion, it is because they
only know their own side of the question. The other party to the comparison knows both sides.”

As between his own happiness and that of others, utilitarianism requires him to be as strictly impartial
as a disinterested and benevolent spectator. In the golden rule of Jesus of Nazareth, we read the complete spirit
of the ethics of utility. ‘To do as you would be done by,’ and ‘to love your neighbor as yourself,’ constitute the
ideal perfection of utilitarian morality.”

Criticisms of Utilitarianism.
If I am to bring the greatest happiness to the greatest number, not putting my own happiness above
others, that may lead to a dilemma. I live in a neighborhood where 83% of my neighbors use drugs. I could
make them most happy by helping supply them with cheap drugs, but I feel uncomfortable doing that. What
should a utilitarian do?

Bernard Williams criticizes the implied “doctrine of negative responsibility” in Utilitarianism. For
example, a thug breaks into my home and holds six people hostage, telling us he will kill all of us. “However,”
the thug says, “if you will kill two of your family, I will let you and the other three live.” With Utilitarianism,
the good thing to do is to kill two members of my family.

Utilitarianism plays fast and loose with God’s commandments. If lying, stealing, or killing could lead
to an increase of happiness for the greatest number, we are told we should lie, steal or kill. Isn’t that a rejection
of God’s commands?
 7

Mill’s Answer to the “Godless Theory” Criticism:

What is the nature of God? Does God make arbitrary rules just to see if we will obey? Does God make
rules that He knows will lead to our happiness? If the latter statement is true, doesn’t it make sense God would
want us to use our God-given reason to look at the situation?

“If it be a true belief that God desires, above all things, the happiness of his creatures, and that this was
his purpose in their creation, utility is not a godless doctrine, but more profoundly religious than any
other. . . . .whatever God has though fit to reveal on the subject of morals must fulfill the requirements of utility
in a supreme degree.”

A Second Criticism of Utilitarianism.

If one must decide the probable outcome of an act before knowing whether it is good or bad, how can
children learn to evaluate acts, since they know so little of what consequences might arise from their actions?

Mill’s “Rule” on Utilitarianism.

Mankind must by this time have acquired positive beliefs as to the effects of some actions on their
happiness; and the beliefs which have thus come down are the rules of morality for the multitude, and for the
philosopher until he has succeeded in finding better.” Mill concludes, however, that we should always seek
improvements.

Rights and Utilitarianism

Many philosophers hold that we have certain rights, either from God, nature, or from a social contract.
Can the idea of rights be made compatible with Utilitarianism? If ignoring rights brings about more happiness to
the greatest number, should we ignore so-called rights? Mill’s rule-based view in On Liberty: having a right to
liberty will bring the greatest happiness.

CARE ETHICS

Lawrence Kohlberg identifies three stages of moral development:

1. Pre-conventional – moral reasoning is tied to feelings of pleasure and avoidance of pain
2. Conventional –specific cultural norms dominate moral reasoning
3. Post-conventional – more abstract ethical principles are involved

An important question is whether the differences are the result of nature or nurture.

Kohlberg’s Stages of Moral Development

1. Preconventional Level - childhood to middle school

Stage 1: Heteronymous Morality - Ethics of Punishment and Obedience
Good is simply based on rules and avoiding punishment without considering whether the rules
themselves are good. Rules themselves are good.

Stage 2: Instrumental purpose - Ethics of market exchange

Good is what is good for the individual, or what you can trade for by doing favors in the moment.

2. Conventional Level - adolescence and adulthood (many never go past this level)
Stage 3: Interpersonal conformity—Ethics of peer opinion
Good is what the peer group approves of.

Stage 4: Social system orientation—Ethics of law and order

Good conforms to social rules, laws and customs—similar to stage 3, but broader customs.

3. Post-conventional Level
Stage 5: Social contract orientation
Good is what conforms to procedures regulating agreement and disagreement

Stage 6: Ethics of self-chosen universal principles

Good is consistent with personally identified and chosen moral principles.
 8

Carol Gilligan: Moral development from a gender perspective

Research focuses on a systematic comparison of moral development for females and males.
Her work indicates that the moral reasoning of girls and boys is different:
1. Girls tend to use a care and responsibility perspective
2. Boys tend to use a justice perspective.

 As we have listened for centuries to the voices of men and the theories of development that their
men and the theories of development that their experience informs, so we have come more recently
experience informs, so we have come more recently to notice not only the silence of women but to
notice not only the silence of women but the difficulty in hearing what they say when they speak.
Yet in the different voice of women lies the truth of an ethic of care, the tie between relationship
and an ethic of care, the tie between relationship and responsibility, and the origins of aggression
in the responsibility, and the origins of aggression in the failure of connection.

 The failure to see the different reality of women's lives and to hear the differences in their voices
stems in part from the assumption that there is a single mode of social experience and
interpretation.

What is Care Ethics?

A family of beliefs about the way values should be manifested in character and in behavior manifested
in character and in behavior.

Unified by shared concerns and commitments and by the rejection of the traditional philosophical view
that ethics can be adequately represented by rules and principles can be adequately represented by rules and
principles.

In her work with women, she came to the conclusion that she was hearing a different voice from the
traditional ethical theory “male” voice theory

When women are presented with cases of moral conflict, they focus on the details of the people
involved in the situation and their personal relationship

What does this means?

There is an attempt to, as much as is possible, satisfy the interests of everyone concerned and cause the
least amount of harm of everyone concerned.

This means there is preparation for compromise and a willingness to find points of agreement, to be
flexible in their demands, and to take novel approaches to find resolutions that demands, and to take novel
approaches to find resolutions that are acceptable.

Ethic of Care vs. Ethic of justice

 Women – ethic of care
 Men – ethic of justice
 She does not consider this a perfect correlation between the genders
 Ideally, moral agents should employ both approaches in moral decision making
 There is room for both and a need for both and Gilligan recognizes this

What this means:

 Rules are inappropriate and unnecessary where certain human relationships are concerned
 Care ethics denies that abstract principles can capture everything relevant to making moral
decisions
 We can’t just slap a rule onto every situation
 We must instead have an understanding of the complexities of the particular situation in which a
moral problem has occurred
 We need a deep and detailed understanding of the people, their interests and feelings. And only
with this is it possible to sensitively respond to their problem
 9

Intelligence and Empathy

 This requires intelligence – grasp relationships and details about the people, circumstances, and the
problem
 We must also use empathy to understand the concerns and feelings of the people involved (must
identify with them)
 We must realize what they consider to be at stake, ascertain their worries and concerns
 The point is not to find out who is wrong and right, but to find a way out of the conflict that takes
into account the concerns and feelings of all those involved.

Inappropriate and Mistaken

 Traditional values placed emphasis on disinterestedness, detachment, and dispassionate objective
judging. Gilligan says this is inappropriate and mistaken
 Why? - Because it excludes the very values that are most relevant to moral situations and most
important to the people involved
 This means we must make an effort to develop individuals who respond appropriately to moral
situations (recognize importance of personal relationships, respect others and accept responsibility)

Difficulties:

 Gilligan’s claims about the differences between the moral reasoning of women and men do not stand up to the
reasoning of women and men do not stand up to the challenge of more recent data challenge of more recent data

 However, these claims are not crucial to care ethics. It is enough to demonstrate the importance of values that
enough to demonstrate the importance of values that belong to the ethic of care by showing how they play
belong to the ethic of care by showing how they play a role in the moral life of individuals and society.

 Care ethics can be seen as a part of the traditional enterprise of philosophical ethics (act so as to promote
enterprise of philosophical ethics (act so as to promote the good of others)

 If this is so, then care ethics is a part of the traditional enterprise of ethics (it does not necessarily stand as an
enterprise of ethics (it does not necessarily stand as an alternative to a moral theory).

E.2. Deontological (Nonconsequentialist Theories)

■ The rightness or wrongness of any act depends on whether the person has followed his/her
duty regardless of the consequences.
■ More concerned with motive than results. Actions are good or bad in advance of their
performance.
■ The belief that people’s actions are to be guided by moral laws, and that these moral laws
are universal (Immanuel Kant’s moral theory).
■ Cited as a basis for the most laws.

DEONTOLOGY
 A duty-based ethic -- called deontology
 focuses on the act and not its consequence.
 Rules can be expressed in 2 ways –
Negatively: or Positively:
“Do not lie” “tell the truth”
“Do not steal” “keep your promises”

 Derived from the Greek word “deon” meaning “duty”

 Deontology is a category of normative ethical theories that encompasses any theory which is
primarily concerned with adherence to certain rules or duties.
 Consequences do NOT matter!
 Intention is relevant. “I am acting a certain way only if I act for the right reason”.

Basic Assumptions:
 No matter how morally good their consequences, some choices are morally forbidden.
 What makes a choice right is its conformity with a moral norm.
 The Right is said to have priority over the Good.
 10

o If an act is not in accord with the Right, it may not be undertaken, no matter the Good that
it might produce.

 Deontological theories hold that actions that are morally right are those in accordance with certain
rules, duties, rights, or maxims.
 Actions can be morally good, required, permitted or forbidden.

What is a Maxim?
 A maxim is a principle that underlies or informs an act or set of actions.
 Several acts may satisfy the underlying maxim or principle.
Famine Example:
Maxim: “Try to reduce the risk or severity of world hunger.”
Actions: Give money, Volunteer, Start an Organization

How Does Deontology differ from Virtue Ethics?

 Act Guidance vs. Character Guidance
 Deontology and Consequentialism provide act guidance; that is, they tell us what sorts of
actions we should take rather then what sort of people we ought to become (Character Guidance).

The Competition:
CONSEQUENTIALISM THEORIES
• Hold that an action’s rightness or wrongness depends on the consequence it causes (e.g happiness,
pain, etc.)

DEONTOLOGICAL THEORIES
•Hold that an action’s rightness or wrongness depends on its conformity to a certain moral norm
regardless of the consequence, i.e. “Right vs. Good”
 
Examples of Deontological Theories:
 Divine Command Theory
 “The Golden Rule”
 Natural law & Natural right theories
 Kantian Ethics (categorical imperative)

Divine Command Theory

 It’s the idea that we have a duty to obey God, and therefore a duty to do or not do whatever God has
commanded us to do or not do.
 It is a moral theory, and moral theology, but, strictly speaking, it is not a normative moral
philosophy. WHY NOT? (Hint: Consider what it takes for moral philosophy to be normative.)
 Philosophy is defined as the systematic inquiry into the nature of things (such as norms), based on
logical reasoning or rationality.
 Following commands does not require reason (blind faith).
 Divine Command Theory has been variously categorized as moral prescriptivism, as moral theology,
and as deontological ethics.

“The Golden Rule”

 Also known as the ethic of reciprocity, this famous cross-cultural maxim states: “Do to
others as you want them to do to you.”
 May seem like a useful maxim at first, but it has limitations:
•Depends on the mental state (personality, mental health, emotional health,
compassion, etc.) of the moral agent rather than the person being acted upon.

Natural Law and Natural Right Theories

 Humans have reasoning and the Laws of Nature are discernable by human reason.
 Humans are morally obligated to use reasoning to discern what the laws are and then to act
in conformity with them.
 Humans have a natural drive to eat, drink, sleep and procreate. These actions are in accord
with a natural law for species to survive and procreate.
 11

• Thus activities in conformity with such a law are morally good. Activities that work
against that law are morally wrong.
• As an example, consider that to eat too much or too little and place life in jeopardy
is morally wrong.

Imperatives
An imperative is a command to act. It is prescriptive.

There are two kinds of imperatives:

1. HYPOTHETICAL imperatives
 Commands that are not absolute, but conditional, and premised on one’s desires.
 The form of a hypothetical imperative is:
• “If you want Y, you ought to X.” (Y = goal/consequence/end; X = means)
• Example: “If you want to pass this test, you ought to study.”

2. CATEGORICAL (definite) imperatives

 Absolute and unconditional moral commands
 The form of a categorical imperative is:
• “You ought to X.” (X = END-IN-ITSELF, without regards to MEANS or other
ENDS)
• Example: “You ought to study [because you are a student].”
 It is implied here that the rule or maxim is that students are supposed to study… the end.

AGENT-CENTERED VS. PATIENT-CENTERED DEONTOLOGY

Agent-Centered Deontology
 Theories focused on the duties of the moral agent (the person acting) rather than the rights of the
person being acted upon (patient-centered theories).

 This allows for agent-relative reasons for actions and duties.

 Agent-Relative Duties: An Act is Relative to the Individual Duties of the Agent (ex. Duties to family,
Personal Morality, Self-Interest).

An agent-relative obligation is an obligation for a particular agent to take or refrain from

taking some action. Since it is agent-relative, the obligation does not necessarily give anyone else a
reason to support that action.

Example:  Each parent is commonly thought to have such special obligations to his/her child,
obligations not shared by anyone else. Likewise, an agent-relative permission is a permission for some
agent to do some act even though others may not be permitted to aid that agent in the doing of his
permitted action. Therefore, each parent is commonly thought to be permitted (at the least) to save his
own child even at the cost of not saving two other children to whom he has no special relation.

 Agent-Neutral Duties: The Act is the Same for Every Agent (ex. duty to follow the law, duty to not
kill innocents).

Agent-Centered Deontology
At the heart of agent-centered theories is the idea of agency. The idea is that morality is intensely
personal, in the sense that we are each charged to keep our own moral house in order.

 Our categorical obligations are not to focus on how our actions cause or enable other agents to do evil; the
focus of our categorical obligations is to keep our own agency free of moral contamination.

 In other words, we only answer for our own actions, not anyone else’s, nor for the how others act in response
to our actions.
 Example: Refusing to lie even it will cause 20 more lies, while lying just this once might prevent
others from having to do so.
 12

Agent-centered theories can be divided into those that—

1) focus on the mental state of the agent; and
2) those that focus on the nature of the agent's actions

Agent-Centered Theories: Mental States

One Type of Agent-Centered Theory:
 An action is wrong or right because of the intentions that motivated it.
 Ex. Doctrine of Double Effect (longstanding Catholic theory)
–We should not “set ourselves at evil.”
 We are categorically forbidden for intending to cause evils (such as killing innocents), even
to prevent other evils. However, it is acceptable to cause evils unintentionally, even if we
foresee them as effects of our actions.
 The focus here is on belief, risk, and cause. These are not the same as intent.

Doctrine of Double Effect: Example

A doctor who believed that abortion was wrong, even in order to save the mother’s life, might
nevertheless consistently believe that it would be permissible to perform a hysterectomy on a pregnant woman
with cancer. In carrying out the hysterectomy, the doctor would aim to save the women’s life while merely
foreseeing the death of the fetus.

 Here, the doctor knows that the baby will die, but this is an effect of the procedure, not his intention.
It is implied that if he could perform the procedure without killing the baby, he would. In contrast, performing
an abortion, even under the same circumstances, would involve intending to kill the fetus as a means to saving
the mother.

Agent-Centered Theories: Actions

 Assumes that all action originates with a will or volition.
 Will + Action = Agency
 The focus here is on labeling actions as right or wrong. Then you must determine if there was agency
in committing the act (will + action or direct cause).
Ex. Murder– The death has to occur, you were the cause, and you meant to do it.

If you were to hold baby's head under water until it drowns, that is murder; however, seeing a baby lying face
down in a puddle and doing nothing to save it when one could do so easily is merely a failure to prevent its
death.

Our categorical obligations are usually negative in content: We are not to kill the baby. We may have an
obligation to save it, but this will not be an agent-relative obligation, unless we have some special relationship to
the baby.

PROBLEM!!!– This sounds like an incredibly unpleasant approach to many; it also reminds many of egoism
and offers reliance on self-interest.

Patient-Centered Deontology
These theories are rights-based rather than duty-based; some versions claim to be agent-neutral in the
reasons/obligations they give moral agents.
 These ideas are focused on people’s rights as a reason to act or not to act. Within this framework,
you have the right against being used only as means for producing consequences (either good or bad) without
your consent.
 This is not to be confused with more discrete rights --the right against being killed, or being killed
intentionally.
 It is a right against being used by another for the user's or others' benefit.
 More specifically, this version of patient-centered deontological theories prohibits using another's
body, labor, and talent without the latter's consent for any reason.
 Ex. Fat Man Trolley Problem
 13

Good Points of Duty-based Ethics:

 Emphasizes the value of every human being
 Duty-based ethical systems tend to focus on giving equal respect to all human beings.  Provides
more ‘certainty’ in individual situations
 Duty-based ethics don't suffer from this problem because they are concerned with the action itself–
not a lot of gray area.
 It does deal with intentions and motives.
 You have to do the right action, but you also have to act with the right intention.

Bad Points of Duty-based Ethics:

 Absolutist—
 Duty-based ethics sets absolute rules.
 The only way of dealing with cases that don't seem to fit is to build a list of exceptions to
the rule.
 Allows acts that make the world a “less good” place—
 Because duty-based ethics isn’t interested in the results it can lead to courses of action that
produce a reduction in the overall happiness of the world. Ex. If you could kill someone you
knew to be a murderer, a utilitarian would say “go for it” because it will prevent further death.
Yet… a deontologist would likely maintain that killing is wrong and would, therefore, allow
any future deaths since foreseeing or risking those deaths does not make you responsible.
 Hard to reconcile conflicting duties-- Ex. When you have a duty not to kill but you have a duty to
rescue a family member.

KANTHIAN ETHICS
“The German Enlightenment philosopher, Immanuel Kant, is regarded as among the greatest and most
influential of Western philosophers, and undeniably as one of the most difficult to read and understand.” -
Kantian Ethics and the Basics of Duty – page 143 Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) Good Will Acts solely out of
Reverence for Moral Law

A woman was near death from an unusual type of cancer. There was one drug that the doctors thought
might save her. It was a form of radium that a druggist in the same town had recently discovered. The drug was
expensive to make, but the druggist was charging ten times what the drug cost him to make. He paid $200 for
the radium and charged $2,000 for a small dose of the drug. The sick woman's husband went to everyone he
knew to borrow the money, but he could only get together about $ 1,000. He told the druggist that his wife was
dying and asked him to sell it cheaper or let him pay later. But the druggist said: "No, I discovered the drug and
I'm going to make money from it." So the husband got desperate and broke into the man's store to steal the
drug- for his wife. Should the husband have done that?

How would Kant respond to this scenario? Is it okay to steal to save a life if the person is a loved one?

Reason & Morality:

1. Reason is not only the judge, but also the source, of right and wrong. RATIONALITY is what
allows humans to be moral beings.
2. Moral objectives exist and can be discerned through reason.
3. When properly used (rationally guided), will is good.
4. Moral principles that meet the demands of reason are always valid for everyone.

Moral Truth &Ethical Duty:

1. Moral truth stands by itself; it is autonomous and self-contained.
2. Ethical duty should not be based on the opinions of any individual, group, tradition, faith, cultural
norm or even God’s will. They should be based on reason.
3. Ethical duties are the same for all.
4. Being good is a matter of reverence for duty.

1. Perfect Duties
 Kant also calls these strict or inflexible duties. These are duties, such as the duty not to commit
suicide and the duty not to make a false promise, which have no exceptions.
 These are never okay to break.
 14

2. Imperfect Duties
 Kant also calls these the laxer duties. These are duties, such as the duty to help people in need
(beneficence), which do have exceptions. They are still duties, but you have some choice about how to
fulfill them.
 Ex. You don’t have to give all your money to every charity; your inclinations can enter into which
charities you choose to give to.

Kant Rejects Utilitarianism:

 A utilitarian would say that it’s okay to use a person as a means to an end if the end is good.
 Ex. Trolley problem– It’s okay to push the fat man over the edge to stop the train from
killing five others.

 Kant would say that we should respect autonomy and the dignity of persons. Therefore, a person
cannot be used as a means to an end without their consent.
 Example: The Trolley problem– It’s not okay to push the fat man over the edge because you
are using his body as a means. Kant would say that this is stripping him of his humanity and treating
him as a mere thing or reducing him to a number.

Kant’s direct swipes…

 At Utilitarianism:
A good will is not good because of what it effects or accomplishes…it is good in the willing
alone…”
 At Aristotelian Virtues: “Intelligence, courage, resolution, determination…are good in many
respects, but they can be bad or hurtful when the will is not good…” (see Adolph Hitler)

Kant’s Contrasting Strategy:

 Morality seems to consist of various law-like principles, obligations, that limit our freedom.
 “I ought…” (duty) versus I want…” (desire)

 The “Morally Good Will” (person of good character, integrity)

 recognizes the moral law as his own self-imposed limitations on individual freedom for the sake of
all
 Human beings have moral dignity because of this power of reason to regulate their behavior
 Unlike mere animals, we don’t just “have desires” or impulses and act on them, we also have the
power to reason and AUTONOMY (the capacity for self-governance).
 Morality is an expression of that autonomy; it is “self- governance.”

CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVES
By definition – it is an UNCONDITIONAL requirement to always comply. Kant didn’t believe one
should lie to protect others; this would break the CI against lying.

Moral Law
 CI1 – Formula of Universal Law:
“Act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law”
Translation: 1. Can I universalize my act without contradiction?

Kant’s 4 illustrations:
 Do not harm the self (suicide)
 Do not harm or deceive others (lying)
 Do what is good for the self (develop your talents)
 Do what is good for others (beneficence)

 CI2 – Formula of the End in Itself:

“Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other,
never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end.”

Consider Kant’s 4 illustrations, from the perspective of the “agent” (i.e., the person undertaking the
action) rather than action:
 15

 Do not harm the self (suicide)

 Do not harm or deceive others (lying)
 Do what is good for the self (develop your talents)
 Do what is good for others (beneficence)

 CI3 - “The Kingdom of Ends”

- Reason is both the source of moral law (legislator) and subject of the law (citizen).
 Accordingly: “Act always as if you were, through your maxims, a lawmaking member of the moral
community, bound to obey the laws you impose upon yourself and others”.
Translation: Can this act become a binding moral law for all of us (…including you)?

OBSERVATIONS ABOUT CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVES (CIs)

 CI’s derive their authority from within – from the rational impulse to obey the dictates of Reason itself (as an
expression of my autonomy)
 CI’s command absolutely, unconditionally, “no ifs, ands or buts” (no strings attached)
 CI’s are universal, unconditional, NOT subject to variation or change
 Duty and the institution of morality are like this (Must comply- no alibi)
 “Do this, whether you want to or not, whether you can be made to or not, whether anyone will notice, reward,
praise, or blame you (or not).”

Kantian Ethics
Strengths
 Realm of duty, free from utility (Woo-hoo! No math involved!)
 Respect for persons
 Golden rule – do unto others, expressed in rational terms
 Reason-based Weaknesses

Weaknesses
 Hyper-rationality and lack of emotion
 The irrelevance of inclination (no such thing as extenuating circumstances)
 Overly formal and universal  i.e., most of our duties are in social roles
 Inflexibility

Other Problems:
1. How does Kant account for heroism?
 Is it our duty to go “beyond the call of duty?”
 It can’t be our duty to do more than our duty.
 Aristotle would see heroism as a VIRTUE rather than an obligation.
2. Wouldn’t celibacy be immoral?
 Couldn’t will it to be a universal law (…not for long, anyway)
3. Which person is more moral? a) A pirate who returns a wallet b) A priest who returns a wallet
 Kant would say to the pirate – He does so unwillingly, but out of obligation
 Aristotle would say to the Priest – He does so out of intent to do good.

Recap of the Categorical Imperative (CI) formula procedure:

CI1 = formula of “universal law”: Make it law… without any loopholes

CI2 = “respect for person’s principle”: People as ends not means
CI3 = “Kingdom of Ends”: You are bound to obey the laws you make… for the Good of the
community.

 Kant portrays the first two as derivations from the third, which attempts to portray the moral
situation of a free, rational individual within a democratic society.
 The “essence of morality” is the motive (good will) behind the act to produce a “…systematic
union of rational beings under common objective law.”
 16

III. References:

Dellomos, C. et al (2019) ETHICS, Jimczyville Publications, Malabon City.

Sinha, J. (2009). A Manual of Ethics. Kolkata: New CentralBook Agency (P) Ltd.

Thiroux, J.P. & Krasemann, K.W. (2018), Ethics: Theory and Practice (Eleventh Edition), Pearson
Education South Asia Pte, Ltd.

https://www.slideshare.net/t0nywilliams/ethical-egoism-9065560

https://www.slideshare.net/lawrenceandre/ethical-egoism

https://www.slideshare.net/sayansarkar2010/utilitarianism

IV. Student’s Learning Activity:

Directions: Having read and analyzed the contents of Module 1, write a Reflection Paper on the following
topic:
Why do we need to study Ethics? What role does it play in your future career as a teacher?

Please submit your output thru google classroom on or before____________. Refer to the Rubric below as your
guide in making your reflection. The said rubric will be utilized in the “grading” of your output. The perfect score
for this activity is 20 points.

Criteria Above Expectations Meet Expectations Approaching Below Expectations

(10 points) (7 points) Expectations (3 points)
(5 points)
Content The reflection The reflection The reflection The reflection does
demonstrates mastery demonstrates demonstrates limited not demonstrate
of core content in comprehension of comprehension of comprehension of
reading/video and core content in content in reading/video content in
offers thoughtful reading/video and and/or offers superficial reading/video and/or
response/s to the offers complete response/s to the given offers irrelevant
given question/s. response/s to the question/s. response/s to the
given question/s. given question/s
Reflective The refection explains The refection explains The refection attempts to The refection does not
Thinking the student’s own the student’s thinking demonstrate thinking address the student’s
thinking and learning about his/her own about learning but is thinking and/or
processes, as well as learning processes. vague and/or unclear learning.
implications for future about the personal
learning. learning process.
Analysis The refection is an in- The reflection is an The reflection attempts The refection does not
depth analysis of the analysis of the to analyse the learning move beyond a
learning experience, learning experience experience but the value description of the
and the enhancement and the value of the of the learning to the learning experience.
of the student’s derived learning to student or others is
appreciation for the self or others. vague and/or unclear.
discipline.
Making The refection The refection The refection attempts to The refection does not
Connections articulates multiple articulates articulate connections articulate any
connections between connections between between his/her learning connection to other
his/her learning his/her learning experience and content learning experiences.
experiences and experience and from other courses, past
content from other content from other learning experiences, or
courses, past learning, courses, past learning personal goals, but the
life experiences experiences, and/or connection is vague
and/or future goals. future goals. and/or unclear.