ETHICS 1: Ethics and Moral Reasoning in Everyday Life

Prof. Franz Joseph Yoshiy II | Unit 1

UNIT 1  Virtue
February 21, 2024  Morality

Socrates’ question Focus on Ethics

“How should one live?” The broader system
 There is a demand imposed upon
 “one”  no particular person, general question
 Reflective  answer is not necessarily 1. Obligations
immediate  Instances of where one makes a promise
 No right or wrong answer  Or, following one’s duty
 Performing one’s job in relation to one’s
“zoe”  existence position, role, or relationship
 Kant: performing one’s duty out of
Socrates’ Question one’s free will (autonomy), not because
Our initiation to ethics of social pressure
 Very general  Nevertheless, duties are already
 Not immediate not about what shall I do, it’s a premised upon whatever I have already
manner of life, what is the “good life” promised, a job I have taken, a position I
 Non-committal  not about what life morally am already in.
ought I to live, Socrates’ question does not
propose any moral claims. Conflict: telling lie for safety

“There is only one kind of question to be asked about

what to do, of which Socrates’ is a vert general example, 2. Outcomes
and moral considerations are one kind of consideration  “it will be for the best”
that bear on answering it”  But what best? 🡪 usually measured by the
degree to which people get what they want,
What are the moral considerations? are made happy, or come similar
 Greek: ethos  disposition or custom consideration
 Roman: mores  Position held by utilitarianism

Ethics  from ethos Conflict: high grades but cheated

 Evolved from different traditions

Ethos vs Mores or Ethics vs Morals 3. Virtues

 Ethics  emphasis on individual character “an ethically admirable disposition of character”
 Moral  social expectation  Virtue  the disposition of character to choose
Morality should be understood as a particular or reject actions because they are of a certain
development of the ethical, one that has a special ethically relevant king
significance in modern Western culture. It peculiarly  Virtues are always more than mere skills, since
emphasizes certain ethical notions rather than others, they involve characteristic patterns of desire and
developing in particular a special notion of motivation
obligation, and it has some peculiar presuppositions.  One’s virtue affects the way one deliberates
 Virtues can also be misused (e.g., courage)
Ethics is broader, morality is just part of ethics along  Wrong if you are courageous to do
with other notions that fall to understanding of what crimes
is ethical.  Honesty  if you hurt other people’s
feelings by telling the truth
Ethical considerations
 Obligation/duties Examples: justice, honesty, generosity, temperance, etc.
 Outcomes
 Ethically relevant Even the virtues should be guided by another virtue 
prudence.
  Will it count as an ethical consideration if you
Non-Ethical Considerations consider the interests and the needs only of your
The Case of Egoisms family or of your community of the nation?
a. The case of vulgar egoism  Yes it does!
Relate merely to the comfort, excitement, self-esteem,  However, morality interests itself beyond
power, or other advantage of the agent
If we try to simplify matters…
“what am I to do?” or “what shall I do”
b. The case of “ethical egoism” All ethical and non-ethical considerations we have just
 Claims that each person ought to pursue his or discussed, in one way or another, contributes to
her own self-interest. answering these questions:
 Yet, there is a hint of ethical consideration to  “I shall do…” or “I am going to do…”
this: by leaving open the various ethical  The very expression of our intentions is the
considerations and on how acting on them conclusion of our ethical deliberation.
relates to self-interest.  In some cases, we may say we are going to do
this, but turn out not doing it anyway.
Example: helping an orphan because you don’t want to  The point of ethics is to bridge disconnects
feel guilty about it, helping someone because it boosts between our thoughts and actions, to provide
your self-image  still ethical because of outcome even consistency between what we intend to do and
if the intention is not genuine what we actually do
 This is part of moral deliberation that we
However vague it may initially be, we have a conception encounter everyday as a human being.
of the ethical that understandably relates to us and our
actions the demands, needs, claims, desires, and “What should I do”
generally, the lives of other people, and it is helpful to Justifying our actions
preserve this conception in what we are prepared to call  “should”  points to our reasons for doing this
an ethical consideration. and not that
 So in this sort of case, what I think I
The Counterethical have most reason to do, taking all things
Malevolence  evil for the sake of evil together, is the thing I very much desire
 Malevolence, the most familiar motive of this to do, and if I should is taken to refer
kind, is often associated with the agent’s to what I have most reason to do, this
pleasure, and that is usually believed to be its is what I should do.”
natural state; but there exist a pure and selfless  “should” is the strongest reason for us to do
malevolence as well, a malice transcending even something
the agent’s need to be around to enjoy the harm  Despite all the choices either we consider
it wills. outcomes, considerations, etc., in electing to do
something, there is always a “should”
Example: enjoying bad outcomes without any motive
How should one live?
Most of the dilemmas arise when we confuse right from How has one most reason to live?
wrong, and we try to justify it. It is a general question about what to do, because it asks
how to live, and it is also in a sense a timeless question,
READ: The 5 Laws of Human Stupidity since it invites me to think about my life from no
particular point in it.
February 23, 2024
Malevolence vs Egoism “Answering a practical question at a particular time, in a
A malevolent person does not benefit himself and others, particular situation, I shall be particularly concerned
just pure evil. An egoist gains a benefit by hurting with what I want then. Socrates’ questions I ask at no
others. particular time – or, rather, the time when I no doubt ask
it has no particular relation to the question. So I am
4. Morality bound by the question itself to take a more general,
Concern for the universal constituency indeed no longer term, perspective on life.”
  What is the strongest reason I have for living Do doctors cure for the sake of themselves? Don’t they
this way regardless of the conditions that we cure for the sake and good of their patients?
have
 We do not have a reason to exist  you can Do horsemen train for the sake of themselves? Don’t
choose to live your life in spite of they train for the sake and good of their horses?

Ethics can only provide certain scenarios to address SAME WITH RULERS! Aren’t rulers supposed to rule,
situations. But Socrates’ asked how you would live your not for the sake of themselves, but for their
life not considering the past and the consequences. constituents?

Socrates’ questions lead us to ethical and nonethical Important Lesson #1

consideration that contributes to their meaning. Neither the law nor tradition is immune from moral
criticism.
Central Question on Moral Philosophy  The law does not have the final word on what is
THREE CENTRAL QUESTIONS OF MORAL right and wrong
PHILOSOPHY:  You can presume it, but that presumption can
1. Why should one be moral (authoritative) always be questioned
2. Whose interest other than his own should the  Be a servant leader
agent favorable consider in action (distributive)
3. Of which interest should favorable account be Should I be moral (or just) because…
taken? (substantive question)  It is good in itself
 It is good and its consequences are good as well
Each question is being responded to by the  Its consequences are good
considerations: obligation, outcome, virtue.

A. Authoritative question
“Why should I be moral”
 Asks us what the strongest reason is to be
moral.
Book II: The Ring of Gyges
BOOK: The Republic of Plato According to Glaucon, he will restore Thrasymachus
 Politeia  Polis (city state) argument: advantage of the stronger
 Plato was endorsing a type of philosophical  Mas mabuti ang buhay ng taong di sumusunod
monarchy sa katarungan dahil hipokrito ang taong
sumusunod sa katarungan dahil napipilitan lang
The Republic of Plato siya
Main Problem: an inquiry into the nature of justice; OR
There was a giant with a ring, kinuha niya yung ring,
What is justice? paano ito sinuot?
One of Socrates’ opponents – Thrasymachus (who is a
sophists) -- believes that justice is the “advantage of the Important lesson #2
stronger” i.e. of the ruler or sovereign Justice is a very important moral good.
 Any moral theory that treats justice as irrelevant
Thrasymachus’ argument is deeply suspect
 “advantage of the stronger” – he who emerges as  People in power can get away with lots of things
the stronger, defines what justice is. that the rest of us can’t. That does not justify
what they do.
If a country, for example, an oligarch emerges as the
stronger, then his/her law will favor and protect THREE TYPES OF GOOD
oligarchies. And thus, to obey the ruler’s laws is to be Should I be moral (or just) because….
just.  It is good in itself
 However, rulers tend to protect their self-  It is good in itself and its consequences are good
interest! as well  position of Socrates
 Its consequences are good
Socrates’ rebuttal
Given the chance and opportunity, you will live the life at some good. Hence, the good has been rightly defined
of unjust person – Glaucon as ‘that at which all things aim’”

Important lesson #3 Critical Thinking

Might doesn’t make right. It facilitates judgement because it relies on criteria, is
 People in power can get away with lots of things self-correcting, and is sensitive to context
that the rest of us can’t. That doesn’t justify
what they do. “In a community of inquiry, there is a pooling of
experiences in which each is as ready and willing to
learn from each other’s experience as from his or her
B. Distributive Question own. There is also a commitment to reasonableness –
Whose interests other that mine should I favorably that is, to rationality tempered by judgement.
consider in action?
Inquiry leads them to deliberate with regard to concepts,
Why should we consider the interests of other people? evidence, jurisdictions, reasons, and definition and other
 Why can’t I simply consider myself in my matters directly involved in or complementary to the
actions? experimental aspect of scientific inquiry.
 Why bother considering other people?

Because human beings are relational beings, and we are

given by the capacity to recognize other human beings.

Being-with-others
Ontological condition of human beings as…
 Gabriel Marcel: “Esse est co-esse.” [To exist is
to coexist.]
 “For existence to be truly human it must have a
center outside itself. For life to be human, it
must answer the question, what am I living
for?”
 Hannah Arendt: Human condition of plurality.
(inter homines esse)

In other words…
“I have my own life, yet I am not alone. I am free but I
have responsibilities.”

“Mayroong ako dahil mayroong ikaw, siya, sila.”

 Whenever we act, there would someone or
something that would be affected.

C. Substantive Question
Which interests are good ones or constitute the most
important goods?
 In our moral decision making, we will encounter
some that will make us choose which interest are
the good ones

What are goods anyway?

 Whose intentions are better or more important
than one over the other

Aristotle: “Every art and every investigation, and

similarly every action and pursuit, is considered to aim
February 28, 2024 Two types of Ethical Statements
THE NATURE OF ETHICS Normative (a.k.a. Evaluate)
- States a positive or negative regard for an action.
Definition of Ethics or Moral philosophy - Express a person’s belief (or standard) of what is
Asks the basic questions: right or wrong, good or bad.
 About the good life, - Rape is morally wrong
 About what is better and worse, - Capital punishment should be implemented
 About whether there is any objective right and Descriptive (a.k.a. Empirical)
wrong and how we know it if there is. - States factual beliefs or experientially based
information from other disciplines
Approaches to the Study of Ethics - Often time, factual matters are relevant to our
1. Normative- concerns with first-order questions moral evaluation.
- Rape is committed by having carnal knowledge
Attempts to state and defend the most basic principle of a woman under any following…
governing these matters – how one should act, how one - Capital punishment decreases the rate of
should live, and what kind of person to be. It determines homicide
where an action is right or wrong.
Korsgaard in “The authority of Norms”
Likewise, it concerns itself with whether there is a single “Ethical standards are normative. They do not merely
ultimate principle from which all other moral principles describe a way in which we in fact reguate our conduct.
can be derived. They make claims on us; they comman, oblige,
recommend, or guide”
2. Metaethics- concerns with second-order questions
 What is right or wrong exactly when ascribed to
certain action?
 Can we really define right, wrong, good, and bad
adequately?
 What kind of property is wrongness when
ascribed to killing?
Unlike normative ethics which takes a certain position
on the substantive content of morality, metaethics
inquiries into the nature of morality itself

Metaethical inquiry asks questions about the meaning of

ethical terms and judgements.

3. Applied ethics
The attempt to apply the general principles of normative
ethics to particular difficult or complex cases
 How does ethics or ethical theories respond to
various issues concerning the cutting of trees,
carbon emissions? (Environmental ethics)
Two approaches:
 Eclectic approach- given a single scenario or
issue, how will the various ethical system
resolve the issue
o The most efficient system prioritized
 Loyalty to a movement- given a single ethical
system, how will it resolve various ethical
dilemmas/issues thrown at it?
o The loyalty to the system is prioritized.
March 1, 2024 (Lecture 3)  Submitting to other people (Masochism or
Moral Reasoning and Psychology submissive) (Sadism/dominance)  negative
 Emotionally tied to each other but remain
How do we know what is good from evil? independent (love)  positive
- Are human beings by nature good or evil?
- Human being are bad in nature because they are Summary:
interested in their selves Condition affects the character, which forms the
- Xuu Zi The unlimited desires of human person’s moral reasoning.
beings make them always want to get everything  What kind of conditions affect the character?
they want but resources are limited  recurve o Filipino context
human desired by teaching human goodness
Erich Fromm’s thesis statement
 “The human being is able to know what is good
and to act accordingly on the strength of his
natural potentialities and of his reasons”
 “The choice between life and death is indeed the
basic alternative of ethics.”
Rational “reactive” – biological hate: Natural reaction
when our life or freedom is in danger

Irrational “character-conditioned”: comes from person’s

character, lingers within a hostile person. Finds relied in
expressing this lingering hate – in expressing this urge to
destroy

Ethics is concerned with the problem of irrational hate,

the passion to destroy life
 The hate is rooted in a person’s character
 The destructiveness is inherent to all human
beings
 What causes this type of hate

Nature of hostility and destructiveness

In understanding human destructiveness, the formula is
simple: there is an inverse proportion between life-
furthering forces and life-destroying ones

Conditions matter
 “we have shown that man is not necessarily evil
but becomes evil only if the proper conditions
for his growth and developing are lacking. That
evil has no independent existence of it own, it is
the absence of goof, the result of the failure to
realize life
 Therefore, the failure to achieve maturity and
integration of the whole personality is a moral
failure in the sense of humanistic ethics

One of the needs of human beings is relatedness. They

address this need by:
March 5, 2024 (Lecture 4) Core Meaning of our Values
Indigenous and Cultural Sources of Moral Valuation "Using the Filipino language, one sees hiya, utang na
loob, and pakikisama merely as surface values, readily
Aim: to show how the various indigenous and apparent attributes appreciated and exhibited by many
cultural values affect our moral reasoning Filipinos.In addition, these three are recognized as a
triad whose legs emanate from a single trunk, the actual
Sikolohiyang Filipino core value of the Filipino personality. This core value
- Refers to the psychology based from the has been identified as kapwa." (Enriquez 2016)
experience, throught, and point of view of being
a Filipino Filipino Values
- Resources:  Surface Value
a) Filipino language (wika) and culture o Hiya  propriety/dignity
(kultura) o Utang na loob  gratitude/solidarity
b) Consciousness (kamalayam)- learned o Pakikisama  companionship/ esteem
experience  Pivotal Value
c) Thought (isip)- knowledge and o Pakikiramdam  shared inner
understanding perception
d) Character (diwa- attitude and behavior  Core value
e) Self or one’s inner core (kalooban) o Kapwa  shared identity
Personality vs Pagkatao
Filipino personality  to treat the Filipino as if it were
Kung walang kapwa (o pakikipagkapwa), wala ring
an object of investigation
Pilipino, wala rin ang pagkatao mo!
Personality persona  mask that we can take of
depending on certain circumstance
A masamang tao in our sense
 Walang pakikisama
Pagkataong Pilipino Filipino “personhood”
 Walng hiya
Asserts the shared humanity and the kapwa psychology
of the Filipino.  Walang utang na loob/ingrate
 Walang pakiramdam o manhid
Language as Resource
Language is a rich repository of the values which is In the Philippine value system, kapwa is the very
important in understanding Filipino consciousness. foundation of human values.
 It is more important to recognize that in the
language lie many pieces the Filipino culture Pakikiramdam (empathize)
puzzle - It is the pivotal value of shared inner perception.
- One “seeks to clarify an ambiguous and
 The token use of Filipino concepts and the local
therefore critical situation to arrive at an
language has led to the identification of some
appropriate response.”
supposedly Filipino national values
Pakikiramdam: How?
 E.g. hiya, pakikisama, utang na loob, amor
- Pakikiramdam is necessarily tied to the Filipino
proprio, bayanihan
surface values. THUS:
 May pagbabantang “sige lang”  Filipino
- Pakikiramdam is used to avoid causing
sarcasm
kahihiyan (shame) to one's self and others.
Thus..
- A person who knows how to get along with
 In order of understand the essence of Filipino others (makisama), knows "how to sense cues"
moral values, one has to go back to the Filipino (magaling makiramdam)
language itself - Utang na loob vanishes if there is no
 Using your language, in itself, is a part of your pakikiramdam. (Pakikiramdam entails having
ethos- anon negotiable "sense of kalooban and time" or pagkukusang-
 Hannah Arendt: there is no substitute for the loob)
mother tongue
Moral Aspect of Hiya
  Hiya as propriety or dignity.
 Tagalog saying: Nahiya sa tao; sa Diyos ay
hindi. (used to refer to a woman who committed
suicide in order to avoid hiya/shame).
o "nahiya" vs. "nakakahiya"
o "Nakakahiya sa tao; sa Diyos ay hindi."
(social aspect)
 "Nahiya sa tao; sa Diyos ay hindi." (moral
aspect)
 Language expresses a moral injunction in a
certain way. (meta-ethical analysis)
 Some words carry a moral signification, others
do not

Utang na loob naman!

Wrong: Mercantilist interpretation: contractual relation,
give and take, trade-off
Right: De Mesa's interpretation (1987) : utang na loob
as a commitment to "human solidarity" - a PLEA in the
name of our common humanity or loob.
- Utang na loob → "a value which moves to
recognize, respect, promote, and, at times,
defend the basic dignity of each person." (Ibid.)

Pakikisama vs. Pakikipagkapwa

-Pakikisama as "smooth interpersonal relations"
(Lynch 1961, 1973).
Connotation: "conformity"
Makisama = to conform, to be docile
 Enriquez: not pakikisama, but pakikipagkapwa!
 Pakikisama is just one form of
pakikipagkapuwa, but not the other way around!
 Pakikipagkapwa: {pakikisama, pakikibagay,
 pakikitungo, pakikiisa} pakikipagpalagayang-
loob