MODULE 4: ETHICS AND MORAL PERSONHOOD

PREPARED BY: ZACARIAS G. DAMO, JR.

A. INTRODUCTION AND LEARNING OUTCOMES:

In module 3, we began discussing moral dilemmas and moral relativism. In the present module
(module 4) we shall first continue to elaborate on moral dilemma and moral relativism in view of
understanding what ethics is all about, especially in relation to our need to engage in ethical affairs;
second, we will discuss moral personhood.

Learning Outcomes. In this lesson, the student must have:

1. Discussed Ethics as a philosophical study of morality.

2. Explained the dynamics of moral personhood.

B. LEARNING INPUTS:
1. The Need for Ethics

We first take note, on the one hand, that moral dilemmas alert us of the need to think seriously
about certain actions that we choose. In a situation of moral dilemma, we ask ourselves important
questions such as: What action will I take, especially that no matter what I do, I would be doing
something wrong? Or, if I explore more, are there alternatives aside from the choices I have now? If so,
what are these? Will these be better options, or will these make the situation worse? Which action has
the least undesirable consequences?

A closer look at moral relativism, on the other hand, leads us to question if it is indeed
permissible to tolerate individual morality and societal/cultural morality. We cannot but scrutinize moral
relativism because of its dangerous consequences. Consider again, for instance, our example on
individual moral relativism in module 3: If I have my individual moral standard to kill anyone who
offends me, and I won’t be blamed for doing so on the ground or reason that no one should question my
personal morality, and if all people also have the same individual moral standard on said permissibility
of killing everyone who offends anyone, what would happen in society? To say the least, somebody may
just kill anybody, or anybody may just kill somebody—then every person would be always suspicious of
others because he/she fears for his/her life, 24/7.

You see, moral dilemmas and moral relativism cannot but make us critically think about the kind of
morality or the set of moral standards we adhere to. And even if no moral dilemma nor serious case of
moral relativism is involved, it is expected that, by virtue of our being rational, we should always
critically assess or evaluate our moral standards for the sake of improving these in order to live a better
moral life.
 2. Definition of Ethics

When we think critically of our moral standards, we do the philosophical discipline called ethics.
Accordingly, ethics is defined as follows: “Ethics is a study of morality. It looks into the soundness,
reasonabless and appropriateness of the moral standards a person or a society espouses.”
(Mabacquiao and Evangelista, 2020: 3).

Ethics is an on-going discipline. It keeps on investigating moral standards. “As we come to know
more about the nature of things and as we face emerging realities brought about by technological
developments, we need to continuously re-examine our ethical beliefs…” (Mabacquiao and Evangelista,
2020:37).

In other words, when we engage in ethics, there are at least three things we do: using sound reason
alone, (1) we always evaluate our morality (or moral standards); in evaluating morality, there are
instances when (2) we try to resolve moral dilemmas and (3) we have to be critically on guard against
the dangers of moral relativism.

3. How Ethics Rationally Resolves Moral Dilemmas

At this point, we are now ready to discuss how ethics operates when we deal with moral dilemmas
through the use of reason alone.

Remember that the situation of the wife with a dying husband has been repeatedly discussed to let
you reason out when faced with a moral dilemma. Let us consider this example again in order to show
how reason is at work, and then elaborate on the principles that could guide reason in dealing with
moral dilemmas.

If you recall well, the wife has two options; we briefly state again the options and examine the possible
reasons behind said options:

Option 1:

--sell the house and car

--let five children stop schooling and help in raising funds for the management of husband’s
condition for the remaining six months.

POSSIBLE REASONS FOR JUSTIFYING OPTION 1

1. Even if husband gave consent, the wife could reason out that it is wrong to take life
deliberately. So, give him the best treatment which can be afforded by the family and wait for
him to die in due time.
2. Address the problem at the moment. What the husband needs is care, and let him be
attended to in the best possible way the family is capable of. The family will just cross the
bridge when they get there, i.e. they shall face the struggle of starting anew when husband
dies after 6 months.
3. Don’t “play God”; let the husband die naturally.
 Option 2:

--Apply euthanasia to husband

--use the sales of the house and car to start a business, so the children could still go to school

POSSIBLE REASONS JUSTIFYING OPTION 2

1. Husband gave consent; it is even his dying wish, so it is easier to decide that euthanasia be
administered to him.
2. It is advantageous to the husband as euthanasia will stop his agony. Why prolong his agony if
there is a way to end it now?
3. Husband has already seen what life is, and enjoyed most of it. The children deserve to
continue with a decent life which is more possible if the remaining resources will be used for
the children’s welfare.
4. The welfare of five children weighs more than the welfare of a father who is going to die
anyway.

In evaluating the aforementioned reasons justifying the options, we may observe the following:

Reasons for option 1 may be understood in at least two ways. First, the reasoning behind could
be more about “bahala na” or “come what may” type of decision making. Just maintain the husband’s
management program, and face the consequence later, so to say, even if such future is so unplanned
and uncertain. Second, it justifies option 1 by adhering to the natural flow of things and events. That we
ought not to “play God” in the context of the dying husband means that we should not interfere in the
natural course of living and dying. This kind of reasoning, of course, is fallacious or erroneous, logically
speaking. We shall elaborate why it is so in the ethical frameworks in the next modules.

Option 2 is more open to scientific matters that could guide reason. Its adherence to euthanasia
is justified by medical science which serves as basis that the husband has only six months to live. Due to
this, the wife reasons out that the husband will more likely die anyway, which is why his agony should
not the prolonged. Aside from being advantageous to the husband, choosing euthanasia is even more
favorable to the children whose future shall be more secure if the remaining resources would be used
for their well-being and studies. Option 2, in other words, stands out to be based more on facts and
sound reason. Accordingly, it also turns out as the more sure or viable course of action.

Technically speaking, option 2 adheres more to the value approach theory which is a reasonable
way of dealing with moral dilemmas. This theory suggests that, based on facts and reason alone, we
choose the alternative which offers the greater good or lesser evil.

Note Well:
Michael Davis suggests the following 7 step moral reasoning model (which, to my
mind, is substantially similar to the value approach theory, only that it spells-out more
details):
i-gather the facts
 ii-determine ethical issues
iii-determine the principles pertinent to the case
iv-determine the alternatives
v-compare alternatives with principles
vi-weigh the consequences
vii-decide

If we follow the principle of the value approach theory, we see that option 2 ends the suffering
of the husband and addresses the needs of the wife and five children to have a decent life and better
future. This choice obviously results in greater good and lesser evil numerically speaking to say the least.
Option 1, on the other hand, prolongs the husband’s suffering and jeopardizes the wife’s and children’s
opportunity to have a decent life and a more secure future. This, sad to say, is a choice that results in
greater evil or lesser good for the other six family members.

Of course, possible reasons may not be limited to the ones I suggested above. No matter, the
point is that the action which has the best reason as justification ought to be chosen. If you do so, you
engage in ethics very well.

Modules 5, 6 and 7 will elaborate more on ethical frameworks that offer sound rational
foundations for justifying certain actions as morally good. Studying these frameworks shall broaden our
know-how in ethics.

Note well on MIRACLES, PRAYER and FAITH in GOD before we proceed further:

Some may suggest (as a number of you, dear students, have pointed out in your answers in
module 2, quiz 5), that the wife should just let the husband continue to live for the remaining six
months, and hope for a miracle from God. The wife and the children just need to pray fervently.

LET ME MAKE A POINT CLEAR: I am not questioning the belief in miracles, or the power of
prayer that can move God to intervene in the husband’s case. But hoping for miracles is a matter of
faith, not a matter of reason. Remember again that ethics investigates on the reasonability of moral
standards through the use of reason alone. This means that matters of faith or theological/religious
matters that are beyond reason, or cannot be established rationally, should not be considered as factors
in the process of purely rational decision making. This is so because our course on ethics is philosophical,
not theological. Accordingly, we use reason alone in dealing with moral issues. This is the parameter of
ethics, which is why faith or miracles per se should not be included. In ethics, we play by rules of reason.
The case is like in mathematics where we play by mathematical rules. In math, 1 + 1 + 1 = 3. The answer
cannot be 1. Just imagine if your math teacher lets you solve 1 + 1 + 1, and your answer is 1, with the
reason that God can miraculously make 1 as the answer. Would you pass your math quiz?

Let me illustrate further why ethics (because it uses reason alone) cannot consider miracle as a
factor in ethical decision making. To do so, let me take the case of Covid-19. There are many who have
been praying, and still continue to pray, that God would do a miracle and stop the pandemic. But the
pandemic is almost a year now, and no miracle has happened yet. A believer in God would say that it is
God’s call, and no one can question him if He decides to end it soon or not. That may be so. But the
 point is, we can never know the mind and will of God, which is why if we leave our decision making to
his intervention, we end up guessing and might be waiting indefinitely. But if we use reason, we realize
that there are many effective matters we can do, like wearing of face masks and face shields, observing
physical distancing and working hard to discover an effective vaccine.

To reiterate a point, ethics is about the use of reason, of rationality to investigate on the
soundness of the basis or ground of the moral standard that governs our actions; in solving moral
dilemmas, we choose actions that are most rational and feasible, and not because such actions depend
on hopes for miracles that are beyond our control.

4. How Ethics Critically Evaluates Moral Relativism

We have defined moral relativism in module 3. To refresh our memory, moral relativism may be
understood as a perspective which says, “that’s according to you, this is according to me, and no one is
wrong”. If we scrutinize it, there are many instances when relativism cannot be accepted like in a case
where 2+2=5 cannot be true just because you say it is true.

In relation to culture and society, there are aspects of relativism that can be tolerated, such as
non-moral matters, examples of which are manner of eating, way of dressing, etc. Ethics, however,
questions the dangers of relativism when it comes to grave moral concerns. To point out an example of
the danger of cultural/societal moral relativism, let us take the case of the Nazi Germans or Nazis. The
Nazis killed millions of innocent, non-combatant or civilian Jews during World War II. Even common
sense would tell us that there must be something wrong in said genocide, or mass killings of a
racial/political group. To kill millions of Jews just because the Nazis believed that they have to be killed is
certainly not right. Or, if we remember the example on individual moral relativism, it is very dangerous
to claim that I can just simply kill anyone who offends me. This sort of morality is clearly not right.

Also, reason recognizes that there are still universal values as basis of universal moral standards
such as the sacredness of life. Even if we belong to different religions and cultures, we generally agree
that life has to be given utmost value which is why murder could not be allowed. There are other
universal values that we hold dear like justice and truth. Because of these universal values, we also
adhere to universal moral standards. Many of these are incorporated in our international and local laws.

The point is that sound reason tells us that moral relativism cannot be simply accepted
especially in its extreme form of permitting the murder of millions. As human beings, no matter how
diversified we are culturally and religiously speaking, we still have common grounds—we still adhere to
some universal moral standards about valuable matters such as life, justice and truth.

5. Moral Personhood

Moral persons are either moral agents (doers of moral acts) or moral patients (receivers of moral
acts) or both (as in the case of human beings who may be both moral agents and moral patients). As will
be explained as we go on, animals and the environment are moral persons specifically categorized as
moral patients.

A. Moral Agency

We, human beings are moral agents by virtue of being rational and free. Being so, we are
accountable of our actions. Let us elaborate on these concepts:
 5.1. Rational and Free

We, humans, are rational beings, that is we have intelligence by which we can understand and
distinguish right/good actions from wrong/bad actions.

Being rational we consequently have freedom. We can freely choose right/good actions and avoid
wrong/bad actions (and vice-versa). Be that as it may, we do understand, too that we ought to do the
good/right and avoid the bad/wrong.

5.2. Moral Agency and Moral Accountability

We can rationally choose what moral act to do, and put such chosen act into concrete action.
This human capacity is called moral agency. Since we understand and freely execute our actions, we may
be praised or commended when we do the good/right thing. Also, we can be blamed if we do what is
wrong/bad, especially if we know it is wrong/bad but still do it anyway. In other words, we are
accountable for many of our moral actions.

5.3. Must have Moral Will/Courage

At this point, it should be clear already that it is not enough for us to understand the difference
between good/right and bad/wrong actions. We must choose and do the good/right over the
bad/wrong. To do so, we have to develop the will and courage to do what is good/right.

B. Moral Patients

Moral patients are moral persons who are called patients because they are receivers of moral
acts. This means that they have the right to be treated morally by virtue of their being sentient or
relational. Sentience pertains to one’s capacity to feel pain or pleasure. Relationality refers to our duty
to take care of beings who or which are significantly connected to us morally speaking. Accordingly, we
ought to take care of fellow humans who have not yet developed rationality, such as infants, or those
who have lost rationality or their capability to be moral agents, like comatose or mentally handicapped
humans.

Animals and the environment are also moral patients. Animals are sentient or they feel pain.
Accordingly, they ought not to be unduly hurt. The environment may not be sentient, but we are related
to it, especially in regard to our duty to take care of it.

6. Making Moral Decisions and Emotions

As moral agents, we have the duty to rationally evaluate our moral standards, especially when
we make crucial moral decisions. In doing so, we must be careful not to let our reasons be clouded by
emotions, specifically when emotions go against what is reasonable. The actions that are influenced by
such emotions may turn out to be morally questionable.

Take for instance one item in quiz 5 of module 2. The situation is that amidst the pandemic’s
grave threat, your friend insists in holding a party and demands your presence. Reason tells you that you
ought not to go as you would be violating health protocols. Also, it is clear that such health protocols
prohibit gatherings because lives would be put at risk. But if you say you would go, take the risk, bahala
na lang later because your friend’s feelings matter to you, and you pity him if he gets so sad because of
your absence, your action is then based on emotions. Because of your feelings towards your friend, you
would ignore the rational and appropriate way to act. Beware of your emotions. Don’t let these cloud
reason, especially in situations where lives are at stake.

7. Development of Moral Character

As moral persons, we are always challenged to develop moral character. We must be virtuous or
excellent in practicing morality, so to say. To do so, we have to hone our reasoning power at least so
that we can evaluate moral standards and solve moral dilemmas better. In connection, we also have to
develop moral will and courage to be able to actualize or concretize right/good actions, and avoid doing
wrong/bad actions. In the process of doing so, we make it a habit to do the good/right until we become
excellent in being moral.

The next modules will equip us with better rational frameworks to understand and deal with
morality better. We call these as ethical frameworks. We shall focus on three of these, namely:
consequentialist ethics, deontological ethics and virtue ethics.

C. ASSESSMENT:
We often say, “Nasa Diyos ang awa, nasa tao ang gawa”. Do you agree that when you use reason alone to
evaluate moral actions, you in fact could be “doing your best” or “maaring ginagawa mo ang lahat ng
makakaya mo”, while leaving the rest to God (ipinapaubaya mo na sa Diyos ang hindi mo na makakayang
gawin at pag-isipan)? Why? (Explain your answer in not more than 3 sentences).

D.REFERENCES:
Bulaong, Oscar Jr. G., et al. 2018. Ethics: Foundations of Moral Valuation. Quezon City: Rex Printing
Company, Inc.

Ethical Dilemma. https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/knowledge/other/ethical-dilemma/

Mabaquiao, Napoleon Jr. M. and Francis Julius N. Evangelista. 2020. Ethics: Theories and Applications.
Mandaluyong City: Anvil Publishing, Inc.

Rachels, James. 2003. The Elements of Moral Philosophy. Boston: McGraw Hill.