ETHICS

Submitted by:

Beltran, Erica

Bernal, Eunice Maybelle

Cabag, Jorge Russel

Capacio, Allyza

Carias, Julchen

Maligaya, Jessica Mae

Parao, Loidelie Eloisa

Reformo, Princess Cyra

Paliwag, Joshua

2BSA-2

Submitted to:

Mr. Norvin Tamisin

MORAL STANDARD

Moral standards are norms that individuals or groups have about the kinds of actions
believed to be morally right or wrong, as well as the values placed on what we believed to be
morally good or morally bad. Moral standards normally promote “the good”, that is, the welfare
and well-being of humans as well as animals and the environment. Moral standards, therefore,
prescribe what humans ought to do in terms of rights and obligations.

According to some scholars, moral standards are the sum of combined norms and values.
In other words, norms plus values equal moral standards. On the one hand, norms are understood
as general rules about our actions or behaviors. For example, we may say “We are always under
the obligation to fulfill our promises” or “It is always believed that killing innocent people is
absolutely wrong”. On the other hand, values are understood as enduring beliefs or statements
about what is good and desirable or not. For example, we may say “Helping the poor is good” or
“Cheating during exams is bad”.

According to many scholars, moral standards have the following characteristics, namely:

1. Moral standards deal with matters we think can seriously injure or benefit humans,
animals, and the environment, such as child abuse, rape, and murder;

2. Oral standards are not established or changed by the decisions of authoritative

individuals or bodies. Indeed, moral standards rest on the adequacy of the reasons that
are taken to support and justify them. For sure, we don’t need a law to back up our
moral conviction that killing innocent people is absolutely wrong;

3. Moral standards are overriding, that is, they take precedence over other standards and
considerations, especially of self-interest;

4. Moral standards are based on impartial considerations. Hence, moral standards are
fair and just;

5. Moral standards are associated with special emotions (such as guilt and shame) and
vocabulary (such as right, wrong, good, and bad).

NON-MORAL STANDARDS

Non-moral standards refer to standards by which we judge what is good or bad and right
or wrong in a non-moral way. Examples of non-moral standards are standards of etiquette by
which we judge manners as good or bad, standards we call the law by which we judge something
as legal or illegal, and standards of aesthetics by which we judge art as good or rubbish. Hence,
we should not confuse morality with etiquette, law, aesthetics or even with religion.

Technically, religious rules, some traditions, and legal statutes (i.e. laws and ordinances)
are non-moral principles, though they can be ethically relevant depending on some factors and
contexts.
 As we can see, non-moral standards are matters of taste or preference. Hence, a
scrupulous observance of these types of standards does not make one a moral person. Violation
of said standards also does not pose any threat to human well-being.

Finally, as a way of distinguishing moral standards from non-moral ones, if a moral

standard says “Do not harm innocent people” or “Don’t steal”, a non-moral standard says “Don’t
text while driving” or “Don’t talk while the mouth is full”.

MORAL DILEMMA

First of all, let us define the term dilemma before we discuss the nature and dynamics of
moral dilemmas.

A dilemma is a situation where a person is forced to choose between two or more

conflicting options, neither of which is acceptable. As we can see, the key here is that the person
has choices to make that will all have results she does not want. For example, a town mayor
faces a dilemma about how to protect and preserve a virgin forest and at the same time allow
miners and loggers for economic development in the town.

It must be noted, however, that if a person is in a difficult situation but is not forced to
choose between two or more options, then that person is not in a dilemma. The least that we can
say is that that person is just experiencing a problematic or distressful situation. Thus, the most
logical thing to do for that person is to look for alternatives or solutions to address the problem.

When dilemmas involve human actions which have moral implications, they are called
ethical or moral dilemmas.

Moral dilemmas, therefore, are situations where persons, who are called “moral agents”
in ethics, are forced to choose between two or more conflicting options, neither of which
resolves the situation in a morally acceptable manner. Consider the following example:

According to Karen Allen, there are three conditions that must be present for situations to
be considered moral dilemmas.

1. The person or the agent of a moral action is obliged to make a decision about
which course of action is best. Here, the moral agent must choose the best option
and act accordingly.
2. Second, there must be different courses of action to choose from. Hence, as
already pointed out above, there must be two or more conflicting options to
choose from for moral dilemmas to occur.
3. Third, no matter what course of action is taken, some moral principles are always
compromised. This means that, according to Allen, there is no perfect solution to
the problem. And for this reason, according to Benjiemen Labastin, in moral
 dilemmas, the moral agent “seems fated to commit something wrong which
implies that she is bound to morally fail because in one way or another she will
fail to do something which she ought to do. In other words, by choosing one of
the possible moral requirements, the person also fails on others.”

6 Types of Moral Dilemmas

There are several categories of moral dilemmas within philosophical thought. They can seem
complex, but learning the basics of them can help identify them and mould a solution for them:

Epistemic moral dilemmas

‘Epistemic’ means to do with the knowledge of something. This is what this dilemma is
about. The situation involves two moral choices that conflict, but the individual has no idea
which choice is the most morally acceptable. They don’t know which is the most ethically
viable. They need more information and knowledge surrounding the two options before making
an informed decision.

Ontological moral dilemmas

‘Ontological’ means the nature of something or the relation between things. The options
in this dilemma are equal in their moral consequences. This means that neither of them
supersedes the other. They are fundamentally on the same ethical level. Therefore, the individual
cannot choose between the two.

Self-imposed moral dilemmas

A self-imposed dilemma is a situation that has been caused by the individual’s mistakes
or misconduct. The moral dilemma is self-inflicted. This can cause a number of complications
when attempting to make a decision.

World-imposed moral dilemmas

A world-imposed dilemma is a situation where events that we can’t control have created
an unavoidable moral conflict. An individual must resolve a moral dilemma, even though the
cause of it is beyond his/her control. For example, this could be in times of war or a financial
crash.

Obligation moral dilemmas

Obligation dilemmas are situations where we feel we are obliged to opt for more than one
choice. We feel we are obliged to carry out an action from a moral or legal standpoint. If there
were just one option that is obligatory, then the choice would be easy. However, if an individual
feels obliged to opt for several of the choices in front of them but can only choose one, which
one should they choose?
Prohibition moral dilemmas

Prohibition dilemmas are the opposite of obligation dilemmas. The choices that are
offered to us are all, on some level, morally reprehensible. They can all be considered as wrong,
but we must choose one. They could be illegal, or just plain immoral. An individual must choose
between what would normally be considered as prohibited.

These are examples of some of the types of moral dilemmas that may arise. Our actions will
affect not just ourselves, but many other people as well. So, we should thoroughly consider the
action before we carry it out. However, they are complex and problematic, and resolving them
may seem an impossible task.

LEVELS OF DILEMMA

Kohlberg's Stages of Moral Development

Heinz’s wife was dying from a particular type of cancer. Doctors said a new drug might
save her. The drug had been discovered by a local chemist, and the Heinz tried desperately to
buy some, but the chemist was charging ten times the money it cost to make the drug, and this
was much more than the Heinz could afford.

Heinz could only raise half the money, even after help from family and friends. He explained to
the chemist that his wife was dying and asked if he could have the drug cheaper or pay the rest of
the money later.

The chemist refused, saying that he had discovered the drug and was going to make money from
it. The husband was desperate to save his wife, so later that night he broke into the chemist’s and
stole the drug.

Level 1 - Pre-conventional morality

At the pre-conventional level (most nine-year-olds and younger, some over nine), we
don’t have a personal code of morality. Instead, our moral code is shaped by the standards of
adults and the consequences of following or breaking their rules.

Authority is outside the individual and reasoning is based on the physical consequences of
actions.

Level 2 - Conventional morality

At the conventional level (most adolescents and adults), we begin to internalize the moral
standards of valued adult role models.
Authority is internalized but not questioned, and reasoning is based on the norms of the group to
which the person belongs.

Level 3 - Post-conventional morality

Individual judgment is based on self-chosen principles, and moral reasoning is based on

individual rights and justice. According to Kohlberg this level of moral reasoning is as far as
most people get.

Only 10-15% are capable of the kind of abstract thinking necessary for stage 5 or 6 (post-
conventional morality). That is to say, most people take their moral views from those around
them and only a minority think through ethical principles for themselves.