Liceo de Masbate, Inc.

Quezon St., Masbate City

Ethics w/ Peace Educations
Atty. Francis Djan B. Quidato, JD

LESSON 7: Natural Law

One idea that has appeared time and again in the history of thinking about ethics
is the supposition that what we are called to do must be rooted somehow in the kind of
beings that we are, and are supposed to become. We expect a cat to act like a cat, and a
plant to grow and bloom and bear fruit, simply because that is the kind of being it is;
that is its nature. So, maybe similarly, the answer to the question of what is right for us
to do is somehow inscribed already in our very nature as human beings, if we could
only understand it properly.
The general idea has been interpreted in many different, even contradictory,
ways through. Natural law has been referred to as the operational tendencies of the
human nature - the chemical, biological, physiological, psychological, and rational
properties of man as an organism. Here, we will pay closer attention instead to just one
of them, the natural law theory as can be found in the ethical though of Aquinas. St.
Thomas Aquinas says that “the natural law is nothing else than the rational creature’s
participation of the eternal law” and “provides the possibilities and potentialities which
the human person can use to make human life truly human”.

After studying this module, you should be able to:

1. To get a brief background of The Angelic Doctor
2. To learn The Natural Law
3. Distinguish Natural Law from the Eternal Law, Divine Law and Human Law,
and
4. Apply the precepts of Natural Law to contemporary moral issues

1.0 St. Thomas Aquinas – The Angelic Doctor

St. Thomas Aquinas is also known as Doctor Angelicus or “Angelic Doctor”
because of his chastity that remained with him until he died. Angels are pure and being
a Doctor of the Church, he was called as such. He was born on 1224 at Roccasecca, near
Aquino, in Sicily where he got his surname. He died on March 7, 1274 at Fossanova,
Italy; and was canonized as saint on July 18, 1323. He was an Italian Dominican
theologian and one of the leading Scholars of the Medieval Period. He developed his
own conclusions based on Aristotelian logic, notably in the study of Metaphysics (the
study of the existence of God) that personality, creation, and Providence. As a
theologian he was responsible for the masterpieces namley, the “Summa Theologica” –
a compendium, of church teachings for the laity and the “Summa Contra Gentiles”
(Summary against the Gentiles) which is a guidebook for missionaries who might
debate Moslems and Jews in the East. As a poet, he wrote some of the most gravely
beautiful eucharistic hymns for church services.

2.0 The Natural Law: Summa Theologiae 1-2, Question 94, Article 2
Since however, good has the nature of an end, and evil, the nature of a contrary,
hence it is that all those things to which man has a natural inclination are naturally
apprehended by reason as being good, and consequently as objects of pursuit, and
their contraries as evil, and object of avoidance. Wherefore according to the order of
natural inclinations, is the order of the precepts of the natural law. Because in man
there is first of all an inclination to good in accordance with the nature which he has
in common with all substances inasmuch as every substance seeks the preservation of
its own being, according to its nature: and by reason of this inclination, whatever is a
means of preserving human life, and of warding off its obstacles, belongs to the
natural law.
Secondly, there is in man an inclination to things that pertain to him more
specially, according to that nature which he has in common with other animals: and in
virtue of this inclination, those things are said to belong to the natural law, "which
nature has taught to all animals“… such as sexual intercourse, education of offspring
and so forth. Thirdly, there is in man an inclination to good, according to the nature of
his reason, which nature is proper to him: thus man has a natural inclination to know
the truth about God, and to live in society: and in this respect, whatever pertains to this
inclination belongs to the natural law; for instance, to shun ignorance, to avoid
offending those among whom one has to live, and other such things regarding the
above inclination.
What then is Natural Law: Do Good and Avoid Evil. Man is born intrinsically
good and being molded in the image and likeness of God this law is natural to every
human being. St. Thomas Aquinas based his doctrine on the aforementioned law being
a prelate himself. Based on his theory, the Natural Law is a reflection of the Eternal Law
(in God). In order to explain the existence of the Eternal Law, he gave a definition of all
laws: Law is an ordinance of reason promulgated by the one in charge of the society.
Laws are dictated by reason and it is the reason or intellect of the ruler that propels
the creation of laws. The purpose of law is for a well-ordered function of community
under the sovereign’s care. (This political theory of St. Thomas Aquinas believed that
rulers rule for the sake of the governed. By well-being, we mean the good and
betterment of his subjects.) With his idea that God rules the world with his reason,
Aquinas concludes that God has an idea on how to govern the world. This Idea, in God,
for the governance of things is the eternal law.
The Natural Law, which is an extension of the Eternal Law applies to human
beings, requires greater precision because of the fact that we have reason and free will.
It is the nature of humans to act freely (by being free from outside intervention and
coercion) by synchronizing our acts and ends. Human beings must exercise our
natural reason to discover what is best for us in order to achieve the end to which
their nature inclines. Natural Law tells us that it is natural for humans to achieve
their ends through reason and free will. In other words, the Natural Law is humans'
participation in the Eternal Law, through reason and will that helped them discern
good from evil thereby giving them a happy contented life.

3.0 Neoplatonic Good

God creates. This does not only mean that He brings about beings, but it also
means that He cares for, and thus governs, the activity of the universe and of every
creature in it. This central belief of the Christian faith, while inspired by divine
revelation, has been shaped and defined by an idea that had first been put forward
more than a thousand years before Aquinas in the work of the ancient Greek
Philosopher Plato. He is credited with giving the subsequent history of philosophy one
of its most compelling and enduring ideas: the notion of supreme and transcendent
good.
In his work The Republic, it is often supposed that Plato is trying to envision the
ideal society. But that plan is only part of a more fundamental concern that animates the
text, which is to provide an objective basis and also standard for the striving to be
moral. In other words, it can be said that Plato was trying to answer questions such as.
“why should I bother trying to be good?” and “why cannot ‘good’ be just whatever I
say it is?” His answer, placed in the mouth of the main character Socrates, is that the
good is real and something that one can pretend to make up or ignore.
The good is not only taken to be real, but is even more real than anything else.
The sun, as we know, through its light allows for the possibility of seeing, and thus, of
knowing. And because of both its light and its warmth, the sub also allows for the
growth of plants, and from this follows the nutrition of animals, and thus, in short, the
possibility of beings. In a vague and yet grand statement put forward here in the text,
we are told that good is like the sun in all that it does, but even more so.
Through Neoplatonists like Plotinus, the Platonic ide of the good would continue
from Classical Greek era well into the Christian Middle Ages, inspiring later thinkers
and allowing it to be thought anew in a more personal as a creative loving God. From
this good, all beings come forth, and their motion in the universe is set to ultimately
return to and rest in the Good once again.

4.0 Aristotelian Being and Becoming

In Aristotle’s exploration of how to discuss beings, he proposes a concept in four
parts which provides a way of understanding any particular being under consideration.
Any being, according to Aristotle, can be said to have four causes.
Aristotle sought to explain the World as logical, as a result of causes and purposes,
The "Four Causes" are his answers to the question Why: "We do not have knowledge of
a thing until we have grasped its why, that is to say, its cause." "Cause" is the traditional
translation of the Greek aitia (αἰτία), which has a technical sense better translated as
"explanation".

Aristotle argued that there are four kinds of answers to "Why" questions (Physics
II:3, and Metaphysics V:2). Cause results in change.
Matter: a material cause is determined by the matter that composes the changing
things. For a table, that matter might be wood; for a statue, it might be bronze or
marble.
Form: a formal cause is due to the arrangement, shape, or appearance of the thing
changing. Numerical relationships are of this nature: I and II form III.
Agency or Efficiency: an efficient cause consists of things apart from the thing being
changed, which interact so as to be an agency of the change. For example, the
efficient cause of a table is a carpenter acting on wood. In the natural world, the
efficient cause of a child is a father.
End or Purpose: a final cause is that for the sake of which a thing is changing. A
seed's end is an adult plant. A sailboat's purpose is sailing. A ball at the top of a
ramp will finally come to rest at the bottom.
For example, the cause or explanation of a table is that it is solid and grained
because it is made of wood (material), it does not collapse because of its design with
four legs of equal length (formal), it occurs as it does because a carpenter made it from
wood (agency, or efficiency), and it has particular dimensions because of is intended to
support objects (purpose).
In English, the addition of the suffix "-al" turns a noun into an adjective. For example,
the tropics are tropical. In Aristotelian Greek, the two forms are both nouns. To
understand Aristotle's system, look for the original noun. Thus, "ideal" means
"pertaining to ideas" rather than "perfect", "material" means "pertaining to matter"
rather than "stuff", "formal" means "pertaining to form" rather than "proper", and "final"
means "pertaining to ends" rather than the end itself.
Causes account for both artificial (constructed) and natural (living) things. In modern
Biology, we understand "natural" as "pertaining to nature" rather than "non-artificial".
Thus "Natural Selection" is differential survival & reproduction as it occurs in Nature,
in contrast to "Artificial Selection", for example by pigeon breeders. Natural Selection
can be understood as an efficient cause, by which organic evolution occurs. Both
worldviews use similar vocabularies, with contrasted implications. Especially in
evolutionary biology, we avoid explanations of phenomena expressed in terms of end
results or purposefulness. The habit can be a hard one to break.
For example, a textbook statement such as "Reptiles have dermal scales in order to
prevent desiccation on land" tacitly assumes a formal cause, that Nature arranges things
functionally, and a final cause, that scales exist for osmoregulation. In fact, we know as
matters of historical fact that the evolution of scales long preceded the origin of
terrestrial animal life, that modern amphibian classes lost their ancestral scales (which
assists in dermal respiration), and that reptilian scales are of multiple origin and
function.

ACTIVITY 1:
Research on St. Thomas Acquinas’ work “Summa Theologica” and give the definitions
of the following according to St. Thomas:
1. What is the Law?
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
2. What is Eternal Law?
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
3. What is Divine Law?
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
4. What is Human Law?
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________

ACTIVITY 2
Can one maintain a natural law Theory while not necessarily maintaining the Christian
faith?
 LESSON 8: Deontology
This module tackles deontology of Immanuel Kant. It shows how Kant establish
his ethical system using pure reason. This pure reason brings us to the idea of
imperatives. There are two kinds of imperatives, hypothetical and categorical
imperatives. The emphasis of this module is on categorical imperative that has three
formulations: universalizability, autonomy and kingdom of ends. There are ethical
problems you are going to resolve. You are task to resolve them using the test of
universalizability.

After studying this module, you should be able to:

1. Discuss Kant's ethical system based on pure reason
2. Learn about Kant’s Categorical Imperative
3. Evaluate actions using the universalizability test

1.0 Deontology

Deontology is an ethical system that bases morality on independent moral rules or

duties. The term came from the Greek word deon which means ‘duty’, implying the
foundational nature of man’s duties or obligations. This system equates behaving
morally with adherence to duties or moral rules, and acting immorally with failure to
obey them. Also called non consequentialism, the system’s principles are submitted as
obligatory, regardless of the consequences that actions might produce.

Deontology is guided by a individuals own personal sense of morality. It is

concerned with what people do not with the consequences of their actions. Rules as to
which action are obligatory, permissible in various situations are generally considered
to be duty-based ethics.
2.0 Moral Conviction
 Immanuel Kant was a German philosopher that believed in the dignity of human
reason, duty, goodwill and the ends of human actions. But first, let us begin with duty –
it simply means that it is anything that has to be done or omitted. Others believe that it
is a moral obligation one has to do but within the framework of human freedom. There
are four kinds of duty namely:

1. Natural Duty – These are moral duty of citizens to obey the laws of their state
and God in relation to the Eternal Law. Examples are the duty to worship God or
the duty to value human life
2. Positive Duty – An obligation to do an act, on the part of the person on whom it
is imposed. Examples are the duty to hear mass, pay taxes and tuition fees.
3. Affirmative Duty – these are things that adhere to moral obligation. Examples
are the inherent law of doing good and avoiding evil, helping the poor, aid the
needy and the likes.
4. Negative Duty – Moral obligation to avoid or refrain from doing something.
Examples are prohibitions of “no smoking”, “no littering” or “loitering” as well
as legal decisions.

Kant’s philosophy revolved around the dignity of Human Reason. Man has gift or
reason and free will and the master of his destiny. Man is the only creature who can
create his own destiny and is the end not the means of God’s creation. Man having a
free will should never exploit his fellow men that slavery, bribery and any form of
human exploitation degrades men into beasts which is morally wrong. God created
all things as means and Man is an end being an instrument of God’s Divine Plan. Man’s
primary duty is to make sure that God’s Divine Plan of being like Him is
implemented but in accordance with his free will.

3.0 Duty and Agency

Immanuel Kant is in search of the supreme principle of morality. He sees that

previous moral theories could not give exact answers to moral problems. Kant believes
that morality is constant. It is similar to simple arithmetic that 1 + 1 = 2. Even we
interchange the position of the numbers it brings the same answer. When we say that
an action is good, it is good no matter what the situation is.

“Since my aim here is directed properly to moral philosophy, I

limit the question proposed to this: is it not of the utmost necessity to work out for
once a pure moral philosophy,
completely cleansed of everything that may be only empirical and that
belongs to anthropology? [...] Everyone must grant that a law, if it is to hold
morally, that is, as a ground of an
 obligation, must carry with it absolute necessity [...] [...] that, for
example, the command “thou shalt not lie” does not hold
only for human beings, as if other rational beings did not have to heed it, […]
the ground of obligation here must not be
sought in the nature of the human being or in the
circumstances of the world in which he is placed, but a priori

According to Immanuel Kant to determine what is good we need to use reason. He

simply in the concepts of pure reason [...]” (4:389) understands that reason is a unique
faculty of a person that sets her a -part from animals. Persons use their reason, which
gives us the capacity to act accordingly to the principles that we determine ourselves.

IMPERATIVES

Reason determines what is good. We use our reason to determine what we ought-to-
do. It is a self-ordained task. However, we must be able to distinguish that there are
things that we ought to-do morally and there are non-moral. According to Kant, most of
the time, whether or not we ought to do something that is not really a moral choice-
instead, it is contingent on our desires.

Let us take the desire for money. Many of us desire to have money and there is
nothing bad about it. To have money we ought to have job or business. Same as when
student desires to have a good grade, you ought to study hard. These are examples that
Kant calls as hypothetical imperatives. It is putting conditions. Hypothetical
imperatives are command you should follow if you want something. It is putting
premium in options. You may do it if you want to and you may not do it if you don’t
want it.

Hypothetical imperative is not a concern in ethics. Kant argues that we cannot view
morality through hypothetical imperative. Rather, we should view morality through
categorical imperative.

What is categorical imperative? It is a command you must follow regardless of your

desires and moral obligations are derived from pure reason. It does not matter whether
you want to be moral or not. The moral law is binding on all of us. Right and wrong is
totally knowable by using your intellect.

4.0 Kant’s Philosophy of Good Will

Contrary to the Aristotelian and Thomistic philosophies that mentioned Moral Law
came from God and was made undisputed by Man through his conscience for
conscience came from Him. Kant believed that reason made all laws and makes
everyone obey all laws at the same time this is called the “Autonomy of reason”.
Reason is endowed in men that laws are created because there is reason for it and that is
to reach a reasonable end. Man is the only being capable of grasping the truth,
according to Kant it can only be seen through sense experience (sensation felt by the
senses). We can only grasp the tangible and phenomenon never the noumenon
(unexplainable events). Man cannot know the very essence of the thing itself for man
cannot know everything. Man will never know what is right from wrong since there is
no certainty in this world.

So, what is Good Will then, Kant means to act out of a sense of moral obligation or
"duty". The German Scholar believed that the Eternal Law “do good and avoid evil”
is inherent in man, meaning that there is goodness in every man that no matter how
evil they are, the tendency to do good or wanting something good is innate in man.
The will is his ability to pursue his good with help of human reason but then again, the
goodness or badness of an act lies in the purpose why had he done it. Not all good acts
are good in itself such as a politician doling out goods to typhoon victims or an
adversary delivering a eulogy to a fallen opponent. Good Will is the reason why he
made such action and the ends he wanted to achieve upon doing it.

5.0 Kant’s Categorical Imperative

This philosophy of Immanuel Kant is a derivation of The Golden Rule mentioned in

the Chinese Classics “Do not do unto to others what you do not want others to do unto
you”. In his case he “Act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at
the same time will that it become a universal law”. To sum it up that is a command or
an imperative. There are two kinds of imperatives hypothetical and categorical, let us
differentiate. The former are commands that are dependent on the goals to be fulfilled.
These are commands that apply only in particular circumstances, for particular people
who happen to have these desires, these goals. Examples are brushing your teeth to
avoid bad breath, go to school to fulfill your scholastic needs and the likes. Categorical
Imperatives are commands that are universal and impartial. It encompasses every
reasonable being regardless of their origin, culture or social standing and at the same
time they have to perform these in respect for the dignity of everyone which devoid of
their bias or inclinations. Universal Love is an example of Categorical Imperative,
World Peace is another.

6.0 Universalizability
 The formulation of universalizability principle focuses on two important terms,
maxim and universal law. Maxim refers to rule or principle of action while universal
law refers to something that must always be done in similar situation. Let us read
Kant’s work on his demonstration of universalizability principle:

Another man finds himself urged by need to borrow money. He well knows that he
will not be able to repay it but sees also nothing will be lent him unless he promises
firmly to repay it within a determinate time. He would like to make such a promise, but
he still has enough conscience to ask himself, is it not forbidden and contrary to duty to
help oneself out of need in such a way? Supposing that he still decided to do so, his
maxim of action would go as follows: when I believe myself to be in need of money I
shall borrow money and promise to repay it, even though I know that this will never
happen. [...] [...] Now this principle of self-love or personal advantage is perhaps quite
consistent with my whole future welfare, but the question now is whether it is right. I
therefore turn the demand of self-love into a universal law and put the question as
follows: how would it be if my maxim became a universal law? I then see at once that it
could never hold as a universal law of nature and be consistent with itself, but must
necessarily contradict itself. [...] [...] For, the universality of a law that everyone, when
he believes himself to be in need, could promise whatever he pleases with the
intention of not keeping it would make the promise and the end one might have in it
itself impossible, since no one would believe what was promised him but would
laugh at all such expressions as vain pretenses (4:422).

This could be simplified through what others call as universality test:

0. identify the action to be tested
1. formulate the maxim (personal rule: “When I ..., I shall ...”)
2. test for universalizability: imagine the maxim as a universal law, is there a
self-contradiction?
3. conclude by articulating the duty

What we do here is we start with zero (0). It is where we identify the action to be tested.
In one (1) we formulate the maxim and it always have the template: “When I…, I
shall…”. Two (2) is where we imagine that it is universal law and test if there is a self-
contradiction. Lastly, Three (3) conclude by articulating duty. To clarify it further let us
take an example of Kant, which we read earlier. We will try to simplify using the
universalizability test.
1. borrow money without intending to pay [false promises]
2. “When I need money, I shall borrow it from someone without intending to
pay it back.”
3. Suppose everyone were obligated to follow this maxim, as if it were a
universal law: Everyone ought to borrow money without intending to pay,
when they need money. No one will lend money, “who are you fooling, you
 ought not pay it back”, money-lending loses its meaning, self-contradictory
What then is the resulting duty?
4. Therefore, do not borrow money without intending to pay.

REMINDERS
1. Consistency from step 0 to 3.
2. Kant provides a maxim that has a specific formulation: When [situation], I shall [action].
3. Universalized maxim is not imagined as done by everyone, but an obligation for everyone.
4. Test involves not consequences, but internal validity of the universalized maxim.

ACTIVITY 1

You are going to perform universalizability test of the following:

1. stealing someone’s valuables
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
2. lying about breaking another’s property
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________

ACTIVITY 2
Analyze it using Kant's Universalizability Test.

National Telecommunication Commission(NTC), a government regulatory office,

handed ABS-CBN company a cease and desist order stopping its broadcast. It is due to
the company's expired franchise. The company's franchise expired May 4, 2020. Many
people are saddened. ABS-CBN's top official contested the stoppage of their broadcast.
They would argue that it is wrong to hand down the order of stoppage because it will
greatly affect their eleven thousand employees (11,000). Arguments could go as far as
saying that the stoppage will be against the interest of the Filipino because of the
pandemic we are experiencing. They would even claim that it clear violation of press
freedom.

Let us analyze this. Is it unethical for NTC to issue stoppage of ABS-CBN because of
their expired franchise to operate? or it is unethical for NTC to issue stoppage of
ABSCBN because of their expired franchise but it is pandemic and greatly affects 11,000
employees?
 LESSON 9: Virtue Ethics

Virtue Ethics is the ethical framework that is concerned with understanding the
good as a matter of developing the virtuous character of a person. It focuses on the
formation of one’s character brought about by determining and doing virtuous acts.
After studying this module, you should be able to:
1. Discuss the basic principles of virtue ethics;
2. Distinguish virtuous acts from non-virtuous acts; and
3. Apply Aristotle’s ethics in understanding the Filipino Character.

1.0 Virtue Ethics

Virtue Ethics as a moral system, places emphasis on developing good habits of

character, like kindness and generosity, and avoiding bad character traits, or vices, such
as greed or hatred. Virtue-based theories give importance to moral education which
molds individuals to habitually act in a virtuous manner. Focusing on the character of
the agent, virtue ethics describes right actions as those chosen and performed by a
suitably virtuous person

Virtue ethics is a broad term for theories that emphasize the role of character and
virtue in moral philosophy rather than either doing one’s duty or acting in order to
bring about good consequences. A virtue ethicist is likely to give you this kind of moral
advice: “Act as a virtuous person would act in your situation.”

2.0 Socrates and Plato's Moral Philosophy

Since Plato wrote down and essentially adhered to Socrates' philosophy, it is

practical for us to treat their ethical theories jointly here. In the dialogue "Gorgias"
written by Plato, Socrates indicates that pleasure and pain fail to provide an objective
standard for determining moral from immoral since they do not exist apart from one
another, while good and evil do. In Euthypro, Socrates asks Euthypro whether
something is good because the gods love it, or whether the gods love it because it is
good. Socrates' point is that what is good has a certain independence from the whims of
the gods' determination of the rightness of our actions and mores.

Central to Plato's Philosophy is his Theory of Forms - The objectively existing

immaterial entities that are the proper object of knowledge. Everything in the material
world is what it is by virtue of its resemblance to, or participation in, this universal form
or Idea. For Plato, those who comprehend the Good will always do good actions. Bad
actions are performed out of not knowing the Good. To know the Good, nonetheless,
requires an austere and intellectually meticulous way of life.

3.0 Aristotle’s Ethics

Aristotle believed that virtue (arête) is a trait of mind or character that helps us
achieve a good life guided by reason. Virtues may be intellectual and moral. The first
deals with qualities of mind and character that promote critical thinking, and the
pursuit of truth. Moral virtues talks about behaving in the right manner that
differentiate need from avarice that lead to vice. Aristotle mentioned that anything that
is passion, a faculty or a state (trait) of character is part of the soul (the mind) that
regulates vice and virtue. Virtues are part of the soul, they must be in union with the
following:

1. Passions: By ‘passions’ we mean our bodily needs and stimuli (examples are the need
for food, drink, sex, etc.), our emotions, and any feelings that accompany either pleasure
or pain. We must keep in mind though that these cannot be virtues per se because. a.
passions cannot exactly define a goodness or character of a person.
b. We can never choose our passions because it is inherent in person, however virtues
are related to the choices we make. we cannot will what we want for passions come to
man it is only his decision in relation to that passion that create virtues.
c. Virtues center only on our responses; they are not desires that actually motivate us.

2. Faculties: are stimuli that we get from our senses. They are not actually virtues but
these perceptions can guide us in the creation of virtues.

3. Virtues must be states of character. Aristotle defines it as ‘the things in virtue of

which
we stand well or badly with reference to the passions’. Character is formed, by means of
a person’s decisions in relation to what they feel, how they think, how they react, the
choices they make, as well as their reaction based in a given situation. For example
someone is short-tempered often to feel angry at the slightest provocation; quick-witted
people can think and decide in an instant and so on. Character traits last much longer
and change less easily than many ‘states of mind’, such as moods and desires. But as
what everybody believes character changes as well.

Three general descriptions, which are interrelated, can be used to depict aristotle’s
ethics.
1. Self Realizationism
2. Eudaimonistic
3. Aretaic
 Act Oriented Ethics (Applied Ethics)
 Virtue Ethics

A ‘Telos’ is an end or purpose. Aristotle believes that the essence or essential nature
of beings, including humans, lay not at their cause (or beginning) but at their end
(‘telos’)

Happiness And Virtues

 Aristotle believes that the ultimate human goal is self-realization. This entails
achieving one’s natural purpose by functioning or living consistently with human
nature. Accomplishing it, produces happiness; whereas inability to realize it leads to
sadness, frustration, and ultimately to poor life. It therefore behooves us to act in
accordance with our nature so as to be content and complete.

Aristotle identifies three natures of man: the vegetable or physical, animal or

emotional, and rational or mental. As previously explained, the thing that distinguishes
humans from all other creatures is the rational nature or the ability to reason. Rational
development is thus deemed the most important, as it is uniquely human. Accordingly,
living in accordance with reason is viewed as vital in self-realization or developing
one’s potential.

Ethics, for Aristotle, is the inquiry into the human good. This is to say that the
purpose of studying ethics is to make ourselves good, though Aristotle assumes that we
already want to become good. This human good is ‘eudaimonia’ or happiness.

Aristotle observed that wise persons seek an end that is self-sufficient, final, and
attainable over one’s life. This end is happiness which all human beings want. Aristotle
also considers happiness as the summum bonum – the greatest good of all human life.
He adds that it is the only intrinsic good, that is, the good that is pursued for its own
sake. While all other things, such as pleasure, wealth, and honor are merely means to an
end, happiness is man’s ultimate goal as it is an end in itself.

Virtue as Habit

Aristotle's idea of happiness should also be understood in the sense of human

flourishing. This flourishing is attained by the habitual practice of moral and
intellectual excellences or 'virtues’. Aristotle said your Character is developed through
HABITUATION. Moral virtue is an expression of character, formed by habits reflecting
repeated choices. Moral virtue is the golden mean between the two less desirables
extreme.
Aristotle’s Telos Philosophy

Aristotle widely known as the ancient Greek father of western philosophy,

believed that there is purpose in life, and he called that purpose as telos. The word
might be interchanges with ‘purpose,’ ‘intent,’ ‘end,’ or ‘goal,’. Aristotle for his part,
termed it as the inherent purpose of each thing. He refers it as the ultimate reason for
each thing being the way it is, regardless as to whether it was man-made or created by
nature.
Man-made objects

Take for example a coffee mug. A simple definition is that it is metal, plastic or ceramic
handled object that can carry hot liquid; but the mug reveals other purpose. You can’t
use your coffee mug to contain petrol or book cover. Describing the color, texture or
height of the object might be useful; but doing so would miss the most important thing
about it, it’s very reason for existing – it’s telos. The coffee mug was created by humans
to drink of coffee with, and every human artifact is made for a specific purpose—chairs
for sitting, cars for driving, television shows for entertaining.

Natural Objects

What about natural objects? Do they have inherent purposes? Can we make a definition
of them sans any reference to religious beliefs? Aristotle said that the telos of a plant or
animal is also ‘what it was made for’ that we can be observe. For example, the trees’
purpose is to grow, develop branches, produce fruit, nuts, or flowers, provide shade,
and reproduce. The telos of a tree is something that can make use of its full potential –
the very purpose why it was created. Some observers include the telos of a tree is it’s
eventually decaying and death, and perhaps that is part of it, but Aristotle could
disagree by saying that the telos of a thing is that which it does when it fulfills its full
potential.

Humans

Humans according to Aristotle, has happiness as the telos for human beings. The
Greeks
termed it as or eudemonia that also means something more like “fulfillment.” By what
Fulfillment is he speaking of? Man of all beings has the potential for excellence, or
“virtues” in English translations of Aristotle. Aristotle defined “virtue” as referring to
artistic, scientific, athletic, or any other kind of excellence. When man performed a chore
such as painting a masterpiece, winning an athletic event or aspiring for scholastic
honors happiness can be achieved once one aims for perfection.

4.0 Aristotle’s definition of Happiness

"Happiness depends on ourselves." More than anybody else, Aristotle enshrines happiness
as a central purpose of human life and a goal in itself. As a result, he devotes more time in
pursuing happiness than any other topic to think about in the modern era. Living during the
same period as Mencius, but on the other side of the world, he draws some similar conclusions.
Aristotle was convinced that in order to attain a completely happy life requires the fulfillment
of a broad range of conditions, including physical as well as mental well-being. Essentially,
Aristotle argues that virtue is achieved by maintaining the Mean, which is the balance of the
mind to a state of equilibrium.

ACTIVITY 1
How can you become a person possessing virtue in your particular field of study? Give
a particular concrete example.