“morals” may be used to refer to specific rather than attempt to theorize

beliefs or attitudes that people have or to about how they should operate.
describe acts that people perform.
SOURCES OF AUTHORITY
“ethics” can be spoken of as the discipline
of studying and understanding ideal - LAW - It is supposed the law is
human behavior and ideal ways of one’s guide to ethical behavior. In
thinking. the Philippines, Filipinos are
constrained to obey the laws of the
BRANCHES OF ETHICS land as stated in country’s criminal
and civil codes. The term positive
- Normative Ethics - The largest law refers to the different rules and
branch, it deals with how regulations that are posited or put
individuals can figure out the forward by an authority figure that
correct moral action that they require compliance.
should take. Philosophers such as
Socrates and John Stuart Mill are - RELIGION - human beings’ relation
included in this branch of ethics. to that which they regard as holy,
sacred, absolute, spiritual, divine,
- Meta-Ethics - This branch seeks to or worthy of especial reverence. It
understand the nature of ethical is also commonly regarded as
properties and judgments such as if consisting of the way people deal
truth values can be found and the with ultimate concerns about their
theory behind moral principles. lives and their fate after death.

The Presumed Connection between

- Applied Ethics - This is the study of
Morality and Religion
applying theories from
philosophers regarding ethics in
In 1987 the American Civil Liberties Union
everyday life. For example, this
(ACLU) sued Judge Roy Moore of Gadsden,
area of ethics asks questions such
Alabama, for displaying the Ten
as "Is it right to have an abortion?"
Commandments in his courtroom. Such a
and "Should you turn in your friend
display, it said, violates the separation of
at your workplace for taking home
church and state. The ACLU may not have
office supplies?
liked Moore, but Alabama voters did. I
2000, Moore successfully campaigned to
- Moral Ethics - This branch become chief Justice of the Alabama
questions how individuals develop Supreme Court, running on the premise to
their morality, why certain aspects “restore the moral foundation of law.”
of morality differ between cultures Thus the “Ten Commandments Judge
and why certain aspects of morality became the most powerful jurist in the
are generally universal. state of Alabama.

- Descriptive Ethics - This branch is Moore was not through making his point,
more scientific in its approach and however. In the wee hours of July 31, 2001,
focuses on how human beings he had a granite monument to the ten
actually operate in the real world, Commandments installed in the Alabama
state judicial building. This monument they must be spokesmen for morality as
weighed over five thousand pounds, and well.
was anyone entering the building could not
miss it. Moore was sued again, but the It is not hard to see why people think this.
people were behind him: 77% of When viewed from a nonreligious
Americans thought that he should be perspective, the universe seems to be a
allowed to display his monument. Yet the cold, meaningless place, devoid of value
law did not agree. When Moore disobeyed and purpose. In his essay, A Free Man’s
a court order to remove it, the Alabama Worship, written in 1902, Bertrand Russell
Court of the Judiciary fired him, saying that expressed what he called the scientific
he had placed himself above the law. view of the world:
Moore, however, believed that he was
putting God above the law. That Man is the product of causes which
had no prevision of the end they were
Few people, at least in the United States, achieving; that his origin, his growth, his
would find this remarkable. Among hopes and fears, his loves and his beliefs,
western democracies, the U.S. is an are but the outcome of accidental
unusually religious country. Nine out of ten collocations of atoms; that no fire, no
Americans say they believe in a personal heroism, no intensity of thought and
God; in Denmark and Sweden, the figure is feeling, can preserve an individual life
only one in five. It is not unusual for priests beyond the grave; that all the labours of
and ministers to be treated as moral the ages, all the devotion, all the
experts. Most hospitals, for example, have inspiration, all the noonday brightness of
ethics committees, and these committees human genius, are destined to extinction in
usually include three types of members: the vast death of the solar system, and that
healthcare professionals to advise about the whole temple of Man’s achievement
technical matters, lawyers to handle legal must inevitable be buried beneath the
issues, and religious representatives to debris of a universe in ruins - all these
address the moral questions. When things, if not quite beyond dispute, are yet
newspapers want comments about the so nearly certain, that no philosophy which
ethical dimensions of a story, they call rejects them can hope to stand. Only
upon the clergy, and the clergy are happy within the scaffolding of these truths, only
to oblige. Priests and ministers are on the firm foundation of unyielding
assumed to be wise counselors who will despair, can the soul’s habitation
give sound moral advice when it is needed. henceforth be safely built.
Why are clergymen regarded this way? The
reason is not that they have proven to be From a religious perspective, however,
better or wiser than other people - as a things look very different. Judaism and
group, they seem to be neither better nor Christianity teach that the world was
worse than the rest of us. There is a deeper created by a loving, all-powerful God to
reason why they are regarded as having provide a home for us. We, in turn, were
special moral insight. In popular thinking, created in his image, to be his children.
morality and religion are inseparable: Thus, the world is not devoid of meaning
People commonly believe that morality and purpose. It is, instead, the arena in
can be understood only in the context of which God’s plans and purposes are
religion. So, because the clergymen are the realized. What could be more natural,
spokesmen for religion, it is assumed that then, than to think that morality is a part of
the religious view of the world, whereas Plato’s writings were in the form of
the atheist’s world has no place for values? dialogues, usually between Socrates and
one or more interlocutors. In one of these
The Divine Command Theory dialogues, the Euthyphro, there is a
discussion concerning whether right can be
In the major theistic traditions, including defined as that which the gods command.
Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, God is Socrates is skeptical and asks: Is conduct
conceived as a lawgiver who has laid down right because the gods command it, or do
rules that we are to obey. He does not the gods command it because it is right?
compel us to obey them. We were created This is one of the most famous questions in
as free agents, so we may choose to accept the history of philosophy. The British
or to reject his commandments. But if we philosopher Antony Flew suggests that one
are to live as we should live, we must good test of a person’s aptitude for
follow God’s laws. This conception has philosophy is to discover whether he can
been elaborated by some theologians into grasp its force and point.
a theory about the nature of right and
wrong known as the Divine Command The point is that if we accept the
Theory. Essentially, this theory says that theological conception of right and wrong,
morally right means commanded by God we are caught in a dilemma. Socrates
and morally wrong means forbidden by question asks us to clarify what we mean.
God. There are two things we might mean, and
both lead to trouble.
This theory has a number of attractive
features. It immediately solves the old First, we might mean that right conduct is
problem about the objectivity of ethics. right because God commands it. For
Ethics is not merely a matter of personal example, according to Exodus 20:16, God
feeling or social custom. Whether commands us to be truthful. On this
something is right or wrong is perfectly option, the reason we should be truthful is
objective: It is right if God commands it, simply that God requires it. Apart from the
wrong if God forbids it. Moreover, the divine command, truth telling is neither
Divine Command Theory suggests an good nor bad. It is God’s command that
answer to the perennial question of why makes truthfulness right.
anyone should bother with morality. Why
not forget about ethics and just look out But this leads to trouble, for it represents
for oneself? If immorality is the violation of God’s commands as arbitrary. It means
God’s commandments, there is an easy that God could have given different
answer: On the day of final reckoning, you commands just as easily. He could have
will be held accountable. commanded us to be liars, and then lying,
not truthfulness, would be right. (You may
There are, however, serious problems for be tempted to reply: But God would never
the theory, Of course, atheists would not command us to lie. But why not? If he did
accept it, because they do not believe that endorse lying, God would not be
God exists. But there are difficulties even commanding us to do wrong, because his
for believers. The main problem was first command would make it right.) Remember
noted by Plato, the Greek Philosopher who that on this view, honesty was not right
lived 400 years before the birth of Jesus. before God commanded it. Therefore, he
could have had no more reason to
command it than its opposite; and so, from not really tell us, for we may still ask But
a moral point of view, his command is why does God command it? and the
arbitrary. answer to that question will provide the
underlying reason why truthfulness is a
Another problem is that, on this view, the good thing.
doctrine of the goodness of God is reduced
to nonsense. It is important to religious All this may be summarized in the following
believers that God is not only all-powerful argument:
and all-knowing, but he is also good; yet if
we accept the idea that good and bad are Suppose God commands us to do what is
defined by reference to God’s will, this right. Then either (a) the right actions are
notion is deprived of any meaning. What right because he commands them or (b) he
could it mean to say that God’s commands commands them because they are right.
are good? If X is good means X is
commanded by God, then God’s If we take option (a), the God’s commands
commands are good would mean only are, from a moral point of view, arbitrary;
God’s commands are commanded by God, moreover, the doctrine of the goodness of
an empty truism. In 1686, Leibniz observed God is rendered meaningless.
in his Discourse on Metaphysics: If we take option (b), then we will have
acknowledged a standard of right and
So, in saying that things are not good by wrong that is independent of God’s will.
any rule of goodness, but sheerly by the We will have, in effect, given up the
will of God, it seems to me that one theological conception of right and wrong.
destroys, without realizing it, all the love of
God and all his glory. For why praise him Therefore, we must either regard God’s
for what he has done if he would be equally commands as arbitrary, and give up the
praiseworthy in doing exactly the doctrine of the goodness of God, or admit
contrary? that there is a standard of right and wrong
that is independent of his will, and give up
Thus, if we choose the first of Socrates two the theological conception of right and
options, we seem to be stuck with wrong.
consequences that even the most religious
people would find unacceptable. From a religious point of view, it is
Unfortunately, however, this second unacceptable to regard God’s commands
option leads to a different problem, which as arbitrary or to give up the doctrine of
is equally troublesome. In taking this the goodness of God.
option, we have abandoned the
theological conception of right and wrong Therefore, even from a religious point of
- when we say that God commands us to be view, a standard of right and wrong that is
truthful because truthfulness is right, we independent of God’s will must be
are acknowledging a standard of right and accepted.
wrong that is independent of God’s will.
The rightness exists prior to and Many religious people believe that they
independent of God’s command, and it is must accept a theological conception of
the reason for the command. Thus, if we right and wrong because it would be
want to know why we should be truthful, impious no to do so. They feel, somehow,
the reply Because God commands it does that if they believe in God, they should say
that right and wrong are to be defined in Our problems are not the same as the
terms of his will. But this argument problems faced by the Jews and the early
suggests otherwise: It suggests that, on the Christians many centuries ago; thus, it is
contrary, the Divine Command Theory not surprising that the Scriptures might be
itself leads to impious results, so that a silent about moral issues that seem urgent
devout person should not accept it. And in to us. The Bible contains a number of
fact, some of the greatest theologians, general precepts, such the injunctions to
such as St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274), love one’s neighbor and to treat others as
rejected the theory for just this reason. one would wish to be treated oneself, that
Thinkers such as Aquinas connect morality might be thought relevant to a variety of
with religion in a different way. issues. But worthy as those precepts are,
Religion and moral issues they do not yield definite answers about
exactly what position one should take
concerning the rights of workers, the
Some religious people will find the extinction of species, the funding of
preceding discussion unsatisfying. It will medical research, and so on.
seem too abstract to have any bearing on
their actual moral lives. For them, the Another problem is that in many instances
connection between morality and religion the Scriptures and church tradition are
is an immediate, practical matter that ambiguous. Authorities disagree, leaving
centers on particular moral issues. It the believer in the awkward position of
doesn’t matter whether right and wrong having to choose which element of the
are defined in terms of God’s will or tradition to accept and which authority to
whether moral laws are laws of nature: believe. Read plainly, for example, the New
Whatever the merits of such theories, Testament condemns being rich, and there
there are still the moral teachings of one’s is a long tradition of self-denial and
religion about particular issues. The charitable giving that affirms this teaching.
teachings of the Scriptures and the church But there is also an obscure Old Testament
are regarded as authoritative, determining figure named Jabez who asked God to
the moral positions one must take. To enlarge my territories (I Chronicles 4:10),
mention only one example, many and God did. A recent book urging
Christians think that they have no choice Christians to adopt Jabez as their model
but to oppose abortion because it is became a best-seller.
condemned both by the church and (they Cultural Relativism holds that the norms of
assume) by the Scriptures. a culture reign supreme within the bounds
of the culture itself.
Are there, in fact, distinctively religious
positions on major moral issues, which How is culture defined?
believer are bound to accept? If so, are
those positions different from the views What if someone told you their culture was
that other people might reach simply by the internet? Would that make sense to
trying to reason out the best thing to do? you? Culture is the beliefs, behaviors,
The rhetoric of the pulpit suggests that the objects, and other characteristics shared
answer to both questions is yes. But there by groups of people. Given this, someone
are several reasons to think otherwise. could very well say that they are influenced
In the first place, it is often difficult to find by internet culture, rather than an
specific moral guidance in the Scriptures. ethnicity or a society! Culture could be
based on shared ethnicity, gender, ETHICAL SUBJECTIVISM:
customs, values, or even objects. Can you
think of any cultural objects? Some - The basic thought of Ethical
cultures place significant value in things Subjectivism is the idea that our
such as ceremonial artifacts, jewelry, or moral opinions are based on our
even clothing. feelings and nothing more. On this
view, there is no such thing as
- Cultural relativism refers to not “objective” right and wrong.
judging a culture to our own - Subjectivism teaches that there are
standards of what is right or wrong, no objective moral truths out there.
strange or normal. Instead, we - There are no objective moral facts.
should try to understand cultural Therefore 'murder is wrong' can't
practices of other groups in its own be objectively true.
cultural context. - Many forms of subjectivism go a bit
further and teach that moral
- Anthropologists say that when we statements describe how the
think about different cultures and speaker feels about a particular
societies, we should think about ethical issue.
their customs in a way that helps us - Moral statements are just factual
make sense of how their cultural statements about the attitude the
practices fits with their overall speaker holds on a particular issue.
cultural context. For example, - So, if I say, "Lying is wrong", all I'm
having several wives perhaps doing is telling you that I
makes economic sense among disapprove of telling lies.
herders who move around - Some forms of subjectivism
frequently. Through such an generalise this idea to come up
understanding, polygamy makes with:
cultural sense. - Moral statements are just factual
statements about the attitude
SENSES OF THE SELF normal human beings hold on a
particular issue.
- SUBJECTIVISM - The starting point - And this may ultimately lead us to
of subjectivism is the recognition this conclusion about moral truths:
that the individual thinking person - Moral judgements are dependent
(the subject) is at the heart of all on the feelings and attitudes of the
moral valuations. She is the one persons who think about such
who is confronted with the things.
situation and is burdened with the
need to make a decision or Good points of subjectivism
judgment. From this point,
subjectivism leaps to the more - Reflects the subjective elements of
radical claim that the individual is morality.
the sole determinant of what is - it reflects the close relationship
morally good or bad, right or between morality and people's
wrong. feelings and opinions - indeed it can
cope with the contradictory moral
 views we often find ourselves only about what we feel about
wrestling with moral issues.
- Reflects the evaluative elements of - If the simplest form of subjectivism
moral statements. is true, then when a person who
- moral statements in everyday life genuinely approves of telling lies
make judgements ("lying is says "telling lies is good" that moral
wrong"), factual statements ("cats statement is unarguably true. It
have fur") don’t. would only be untrue if the speaker
- Shows that moral judgements didn't approve of telling lies.
communicate dis/approval. - So under this theory it seems that
- it reflects the communication of all the speaker has to do to prove
approval and disapproval that that lying is good is to show lots of
seems to go along with the evidence that they do indeed
everyday making of moral approve of lying - perhaps that they
statements. tell lots of lies and feel good about
- May clarify what people are it, indeed are surprised if anyone
arguing about. criticizes them for being a liar, and
- subjectivism may enable people that they often praise other people
disagreeing over the rightness or for telling lies.
wrongness of some issue to see - Most people would find this way of
that the real dispute is not about approaching ethics somewhat
objective truth but about their own unhelpful and wouldn't think it
preferences. reflected the way in which most
- Reflects the persuasive intentions people talk about ethical issues.
behind ethical discussions. - Moral statements seem more than
- subjectivism may also enable statements about feelings.
people engaging in moral argument - By and large if a person says
to realise that they are not arguing something is wrong, we usually get
about objective truths but trying to the message that they disapprove
persuade their opponent to adopt of that something, but most of us
their point of view probably think that the other
- I disapprove but surely ethics is person is doing more than just
about more than feeling. telling us about their feelings.

Bad points of subjectivism How can we blame people if moral truths

are always subjective?
- The problem with subjectivism is
that it seems to imply that moral - If moral statements have no
statements are less significant than objective truth, then how can we
most people think they are - this blame people for behaving in a way
may of course be true without that 'is wrong', i.e. if "murder is
rendering moral statements wrong" has no objective truth, then
insignificant. how can we justify punishing
- "If I approve of something, it must people for murder?
be good." - One answer is that we can justify
- Subjectivism seems to tell us that punishment for murder on the
moral statements give information basis of the objective truth that
 most normal people in society describe a basic fact about human
disapprove of murder. If we do this, nature.
we should not pretend that our
justification is based on anything Arguments In Support of Ethical Egoism
other than the majority view.
- Scottish political economist and
philosopher Adam Smith (1723 -
PSYCHOLOGICAL EGOISM- “Human beings 1790).
are naturally self-centered, so all our - Scottish political economist and
action are always already motivated by philosopher Adam Smith (1723 -
self-interest.” This theory that describes 1790). Hulton Archive/Getty
the underlying dynamic behind all human Images
actions. As a descriptive theory, it does not
direct one to act in any particular way. Everyone pursuing his own self-interest is
Instead, it points out that there is already the best way to promote the general good.
an underlying basis for how one acts. The This argument was made famous by
ego or self has its desires and interest, and Bernard Mandeville (1670-1733) in his
all our actions are geared toward satisfying poem "The Fable of the Bees" and by Adam
these interests. Smith (1723-1790) in his pioneering work
on economics, "The Wealth of Nations."
Ethical egoism In a famous passage, Smith wrote that
when individuals single-mindedly pursue
- Ethical egoism differs from “the gratification of their own vain and
psychological egoism in that it does insatiable desires” they unintentionally, as
not suppose all our actions are if “led by an invisible hand,” benefit society
already inevitably self-serving. as a whole. This happy result comes about
Instead, ethical egoism prescribes because people generally are the best
that we should make our own ends, judges of what is in their own interest, and
our own interest, as the single they are much more motivated to work
overriding concern. We may act in hard to benefit themselves than to achieve
a way that is beneficial to others, any other goal.
but we should do that only if it
ultimately benefits us. An obvious objection to this argument,
- Ethical egoism is the view that though, is that it doesn’t really support
people ought to pursue their own ethical egoism. It assumes that what really
self-interest, and no one has any matters is the well-being of society as a
obligation to promote anyone whole, the general good. It then claims
else’s interests. It is thus a that the best way to achieve this end is for
normative or prescriptive theory: it everyone to look out for themselves. But if
is concerned with how people it could be proved that this attitude did
ought to behave. In this respect, not, in fact, promote the general good,
ethical egoism is quite different then those who advance this argument
from psychological egoism, the would presumably stop advocating
theory that all our actions are egoism.
ultimately self-interested.
Psychological egoism is a purely
descriptive theory that purports to
0). Hulton Archive/Getty Images Sacrificing your own interests for the good
of others denies the fundamental value of
Everyone pursuing his own self-interest is your own life to yourself.
the best way to promote the general good.
This argument was made famous by Ayn Rand's Objectivism
Bernard Mandeville (1670-1733) in his
poem "The Fable of the Bees" and by Adam This seems to be the sort of argument put
Smith (1723-1790) in his pioneering work forward by Ayn Rand, the leading exponent
on economics, "The Wealth of Nations." of “objectivism” and the author of "The
Prisoner's Dilemma Fountainhead" and "Atlas Shrugged." Her
complaint is that the Judeo-Christian moral
Another objection is that what the tradition, which includes—or has fed
argument states is not always true. into—modern liberalism and socialism,
Consider the prisoner’s dilemma, for pushes an ethic of altruism. Altruism
instance. This is a hypothetical situation means putting the interests of others
described in game theory. You and a before your own.
comrade, (call him X) are being held in
prison. You are both asked to confess. The This is something people are routinely
terms of the deal you are offered are as praised for doing, encouraged to do, and in
follows: some circumstances even required to do,
such as when you pay taxes to support the
If you confess and X doesn’t, you get six needy. According to Rand, no one has any
months, and he gets 10 years. right to expect or demand that I make any
sacrifices for the sake of anyone other than
If X confesses and you don’t, he gets six myself.
months, and you get 10 years.
Russian-born American author and
If you both confess, you both get five years. philosopher Ayn Rand, smiles and stands
outdoors with her arms folded, in front of
If neither of you confesses, you both get the Grand Central building, midtown
two years. Manhattan, New York City.
Regardless of what X does, the best thing
for you to do is confess. Because if he More Objections to Ethical Egoism
doesn’t confess, you’ll get a light sentence;
and if he does confess, you’ll at least avoid Ethical egoism is not a very popular moral
getting extra prison time. But the same philosophy. This is because it goes against
reasoning holds for X as well. According to certain basic assumptions that most
ethical egoism, you should both pursue people have regarding what ethics
your rational self-interest. But then the involves. Two objections seem especially
outcome is not the best one possible. You powerful.
both get five years, whereas if both of you
had put your self-interest on hold, you’d Ethical egoism has no solutions to offer
each only get two years. when a problem arises involving conflicts
of interest. Many ethical issues are of this
The point of this is simple. It isn’t always in sort. For example, a company wants to
your best interest to pursue your own self- empty waste into a river; the people living
interest without concern for others. downstream object. Ethical egoism advises
that both parties actively pursue what they ascertained. Thus one is asking not
want. It doesn’t suggest any sort of only “What do we know?” but also
resolution or common-sense compromise. “ What do we need to know?” in
Ethical egoism goes against the principle of order to make an intelligent ethical
impartiality. A basic assumption made by decision
many moral philosophers—and many
other people, for that matter—is that we 2.DETERMINE THE ETHICAL ISSUES
should not discriminate against people on
arbitrary grounds such as race, religion, - The ethical issues are stated in
sex, sexual orientation or ethnic origin. But terms of competing interests or
ethical egoism holds that we should not goods. It’s these conflicting
even try to be impartial. Rather, we should interests that actually make for an
distinguish between ourselves and ethical dilemma.
everyone else, and give ourselves
preferential treatment. 3.WHAT ETHICAL PRINCIPLES HAVE A
BEARING ON THE CASE
To many, this seems to contradict the very
essence of morality. The golden rule— - It is critical to identify these
versions of which appear in Confucianism, principles, and in some cases, to
Buddhism, Judaism, Christianity, and determine whether some
Islam—says we should treat others as we principles are to be weighted more
would like to be treated. One of the heavily than others.
greatest moral philosophers of modern
times, Immanuel Kant (1724-1804), argued 4. LIST THE ALTERNATIVES
that the fundamental principle of morality
(the “categorical imperative,” in his jargon) - Part of the creative thinking
is that we should not make exceptions of involved in resolving an ethical
ourselves. According to Kant, we shouldn’t dilemma involves coming up with
perform an action if we cannot honestly various alternative courses of
wish that everyone would behave in a action.
similar way in the same circumstances.
5. COMPARE THE ALTERNATIVES WITH
MODEL FOR ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING THE PRINCIPLES

1. GATHER THE FACTS - Frequently - At this point, the task is one of

ethical dilemmas can be resolved eliminating alternatives according
simply by clarifying the facts of the to the moral principles that have a
case in question. In those cases that bearing on the case.
prove to be more difficult,
gathering the facts is the essential
first step prior to any ethical 6, WEIGH THE CONSEQUENCES
analysis and reflection on the case.
- If the principles do not yield a clear
- In analyzing a case, we want to decision, then consideration of the
know the available facts at hand as consequences of the remaining
well as any facts currently not available alternatives is in order
known but that need to be
 PRE-CONVENTIONAL LEVEL
7. MAKE A DECISION
• (pre-conventional because
- Deliberations cannot go on forever. individuals do not yet speak as
At some point, a decision must be members of society, instead they
made. Realize that one common see morality as something external
element in ethical dilemmas is that to themselves)
there are no easy and painless
solutions to them.

STAGES OF MORAL DEVELOPMENT

Lawrence Kohlberg

• American psychologist and

educator known for his
theory of moral
development.
• youngest of four children of
Alfred Kohlberg, a
successful silk merchant of
Jewish ancestry, and
Charlotte Albrecht
Kohlberg, a Protestant and
a skilled amateur chemist

CONVENTIONAL LEVEL

- (it speaks on isolated individuals

rather than as members of the
society. It sees individual
exchanging favors, but there is still
no identification with the values of
the family/community)

- Everyone goes through each stage

in the same order, but not
everyone goes through all the
stages.
- A person at one stage can
understand the reasoning of any
stage below him but cannot
understand more than one stage
above.
 to make the choice ethically
impossible.
• Personal Friendships
• Societal Dilemmas

POST-CONVENTIONAL LEVEL

(moral decisions are generated from the

rights, values or principles that are or that .
could be agreeable to all individuals
composing or creating a society designed
to have fair and beneficial practices)

ETHICAL DILEMMA

also known as a moral dilemmas, are

situations in which there is a choice to be
made between two options, neither of
which resolves the situation in an ethically
acceptable fashion. In such cases, societal
and personal ethical guidelines can provide
no satisfactory outcome for the chooser.

• assume that the chooser will abide

by societal norms, such as codes of
law or religious teachings, in order