VIRTUE ETHICS

Virtue Ethics is a moral philosophy that teaches that an action is right if it is an action that a virtuous
person would perform in the same situations. Virtue Ethics concentrates in the character of the
agent. The agent or the actor must primarily ask himself, “What kind of person should I be?” Virtue
Ethics is more interested in what makes a person good, not with what makes an act right. It focuses
on the person making an act.

In Virtue Ethics, being a good moral person is more than doing what is right, you cannot be morally
good while at the same time performing immoral actions. An individual may be actively participating
in church activities, giving relief goods to calamity victims, however, if he is doing such an action to
gain public image in his plans for the coming election, then we cannot consider his act to be morally
good or praiseworthy. Judging an act to be morally good or bad requires us to examine the character
and motives of the agent or actor performing the act.

Virtue ethics focuses on what characters are virtuous or vicious. The virtuous person is not simply
the one who does the right act but, the person who consistently does right acts for the right motives.

Virtue ethics defines a moral person as someone who develops the virtues and unfailingly displays
them over time. The ancient Greeks list four “cardinal virtues” – wisdom, courage, moderation, and
justice. The Christian teaching recommends these virtues –faith, hope, charity, and love. Other
virtues related to ‘humanity’ –grace, mercy, forgiveness, honor, restraint, reasonableness, and
solidarity.

ARISTOTLE

Aristotelian Ethics is mainly derived from his philosophical treatise Nicomachean Ethics (named after
his son Nicomachus who is said to have edited his work after his death).

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

For Aristotle, the ultimate end of human life is happiness (eudaimonia–well- being). No person tries
to be happy for a further goal; being a eudaemon is the ultimate end, all other goals –fame, money,
health –are sought because they lead to happiness.

“…for we always choose happiness as an end-in-itself and never for the sake of something
else. Honor, pleasure, intelligence, and all virtue we choose partly for themselves… –we choose
them partly for the sake of happiness, because we assume that it is through them that we will
be happy.” (Aristotle)

To achieve happiness, Aristotle believes that human beings should live a life in accordance with
reason. This is the only faculty of humans which makes us distinct from plants and animals. Nutrition
and growth are something man share with plants as well as animals, likewise, the sense of perception
and sensibility is something humans have in common with animals. Only humans have the unique
capacity to reason and act based on reason.

“All humans seek happiness…True happiness is tied to the purpose or end (telos) of human life.
The essence of human beings (that which separates or distinguishes them as a species –from
plants and animals) is Reason. Reason employed in achieving happiness leads to moral virtues
(e.g., courage, temperance, justice and prudence) and intellectual virtues (e.g., science, art,
practical wisdom, theoretical wisdom).” (Aristotle)

Therefore, if happiness lies on fulfilling one’s nature and function, the key to human happiness is
cultivating and enhancing man’s rational faculty, making it prevail over the lower faculties of desire
and passion.

Aristotle’s Virtue. “Happiness consists in the activity of the soul in conformity with virtue.” He
believes that to live well, one must develop virtues. Therefore, to understand happiness, one must
investigate the nature of virtue.
Aristotle categorizes virtue into two kinds:

a. Intellectual Virtue, which is developed through teaching that enables humans to think
rationally. According to Aristotle, intellectual virtues include scientific knowledge (episteme),
artistic or technical knowledge (techne), intuitive reason (nous), practical wisdom (phronesis),
and philosophic wisdom (Sophia).
• Scientific knowledge is a knowledge of what is necessary and universal.
• Artistic or technical knowledge is a knowledge of how to make things, or how to develop
a craft.
• Intuitive reason is the process that establishes the first principles of knowledge.
• Practical wisdom is the capacity to act in accordance with the good of humanity
• Philosophic wisdom is the combination of intuitive reason and scientific knowledge.
b. Moral Virtue, which is formed by habit that enables us to handle our desires and emotions
rationally. It can be acquired through practice and habitual action. This includes courage,
temperance, self-discipline, moderation, modesty, humility, generosity, friendliness,
truthfulness, honesty, fortitude, prudence, and justice.

Among the intellectual virtues, only practical wisdom cannot be taught, as it is learned through
experience. Aristotle also believes that moral virtues can be fully developed when combined with
practical wisdom.

Aristotle also made a distinction between virtues and moral action:

• Virtues emanates from continuous, repeated practice of right action, which makes virtue as a
state of character, thus, it is internally located. It demands that the right act flow effortlessly
from the personality as its characteristic trait.
• Moral action is an external exercise or an overt act. Doing the right thing, to the right person,
at the right time, in the right manner, and to the right extent.

From this distinction, we can see that an agent can do a right act without necessarily being virtuous,
and it is also possible that a virtuous person can do an immoral deed without compromising his
virtuous nature.

The Golden Mean. Moral virtues follow from man’s nature as rational beings – they are the
characteristic traits deeply rooted from one’s personality that enables man to act according to
reason. Acting in accordance with reason is done when we choose to and act in a way that neither
goes excess or defect. Excess and defect indicates vice. Virtue cannot be found in the vice of excess
or in the vice of deficiency, but it lies in the middle ground. Therefore, moral virtue is the Golden
Mean between the two less desirable extremes.’

Happiness and its opposite play a role in the determination of the golden mean, given that we tend
to do actions that bring pleasure or delight and avoid actions which gives pain or agony. Aristotle
mentions four basic moral virtues: courage, temperance, justice and prudence. Courage is the golden
mean between cowardice (deficiency) and tactless rashness (excess). The coward has too little
bravery, the reckless individual has too much, and the courageous shows the proper amount of
bravery.

Temperance is the mean between gluttony (excess) and extreme frugality (deficiency). Anything in
excess or overindulgence and denying oneself of bodily pleasures make an individual less happy, while
practicing temperance makes one virtuous and fulfilled.

Justice is the virtue of giving others right what they deserve, neither more nor less. Prudence or
wisdom is the moral virtue that helps us to know what is just and reasonable in many circumstances,
enabling us to keep away from excess and defect.
THOMAS AQUINAS (1225-1274)

In his ethical prowess, Aquinas depends heavily on Aristotle. He believes that all actions are directed
towards ends and that happiness is the final end, and to achieve happiness, we must fulfill our
purpose. This is present in his notion of the “summum bonum” (highest good). His teachings were a
blend of Aristotle and Christianity which is evident in his views of right and wrong and how one comes
to know the difference between the two.

“Law” according to Aquinas, is an ordinance of reason for the common good, promulgated by
someone who has care of the community. Aquinas’ laws can also be understood in terms of ‘rules and
measures’ for people’s conduct and as “rational patterns or forms”. Thus, obedience to the law is
viewed as participating in or being in conformity with the pattern or form.

Four types of Law according to Aquinas:

• Eternal Law refers to the rational plan of God by which all creation is ordered. As God is the
supreme ruler of everything, the rational pattern or form of the universe that exists in His
mind is the law that directs everything in the universe to its appointed end. Thus, everything
in the universe is subject.
• Natural law is an aspect of eternal law which is accessible to human reason. Since mankind is
part of the eternal order, there is a portion of the eternal law that relates specifically to
human conduct. This is the moral law, the law or order to which people are subject by their
nature ordering them to do good or evil.
• Human law refers to positive laws. A more exact and forceful provisions of human law is
helpful for natural law to be adhered to. Human law expresses out what the natural law
prescribes through a precise and positive rule of behavior. Moral virtues are also reinforced by
and cultivated through human laws. This includes the civil and criminal laws, only those
formulated in the light of practical reason and moral laws. Human laws that are against natural
laws are not real laws, and people are not obliged to obey those unjust laws.
• The Divine Law serves to compliment the other types of law. This is the law of revelation,
disclosed through sacred text or Scriptures and the Church which is also directed towards
man’s eternal end. The divine law is more focused on how man can be inwardly holy and
eventually attain salvation.

Natural Law

Aquinas’ philosophy of Natural Law is based on two fundamental authorities: the Bible, and Aristotle.
He rejected Plato’s (his mentor) idea of the physical world as being shadowy and unimportant.
Instead, he followed Aristotle who claimed that the world is real and important. In his work Summa
Theologica, Aquinas described natural law as a moral code existing within the purpose of nature,
created by God. This law is knowable by reason. Our practical reason naturally comprehends that
good is to be promoted and evil is to be avoided.

By virtue of a faculty of moral insight or conscience (synderesis), man have a natural inclination to
some specific goods. There are three sets of inclinations according to Aquinas: a) to survive, b) to
reproduce and educate offspring, and 3) to know the truth about God and to live peacefully in society.
These prescriptions are rationally obvious precepts and simply stand to reason

Morality of Human Actions.

Human actions are evaluated through their special features along with their conformity to the natural
law. Aquinas mentioned at least three aspects through which the morality of an act can be
determined:

• The Species of an action refers to its kind. It is also called the object of the action. Aquinas
asserts that for an action to be moral, it must be good or at least not bad in species.
• The Accidents refer to the circumstances surrounding the action. The context in which the
action takes place is considered because an act might be flawed through its circumstances.
 Example, while Christians are bound to profess one’s belief in God, there are certain
situations in which it is inappropriate or even offensive and distasteful to do so.
• The End refers to the agent’s intention. An act might be unjust through its intention. A bad
intention can spoil a good act, on the other hand, a good intention, no matter how good it
might be, cannot redeem a bad act (e.g., Robin hood stealing for the poor).

Virtues. Aquinas asserts that all actions are directed towards an end and that happiness is the
ultimate end. He believes that happiness is not equated with pleasure, material possessions, honor,
or any sensual pleasures but consists in actions in accordance with virtue. Aquinas defines virtue as
“a good faculty-habit”. Habits are firm dispositions (hard to eradicate) qualities that set us to act in
a particular manner. There are two habits as differentiated by Aquinas:

• Acquired habits - The autonomous will of a person is essential here because they involve a
consistent deliberate effort to do an act time and again and regardless of obstructions.
• Infused habits - They are directly instilled by God in our faculties. These are divine gifts which
elevate the actions of those who receive them. Infused virtues are categorized into two kinds:
1) Moral virtue, and 2) Theological virtue. The object of moral virtues is not God Himself, but
the actions that are less virtuous and inferior to the final end. The following the Aquinas’ four
basic moral virtues –prudence, fortitude, temperance, and justice.

Theological Virtues. These virtues are concerned directly with God. They provide us with true
knowledge and desire of God and of His Will. Some of these virtues are a) faith, 2) hope, and 3) love.
Faith makes us recognize and believe in the true God, hope makes us wish to be with Him, and love
makes us desire and adore Him.

Christian virtues are not applications of the golden mean between extremes because we ought to
exercise these virtues according to what God demands of us and according to our capacity as
individuals. However, Aquinas treats theological virtues in terms of vices and sins which respectively
conflicts with them. The virtue of faith is opposed by the sins of unbelief, heresy, and apostasy; the
virtue of hope, the sins of despair and presumption; and the virtue of love, the sins of hatred, envy,
discord, and sedition.

KANT (GOODWILL; CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE) IMMANUEL KANT AND RIGHTS THEORY

• Immanuel Kant – (1724-1804) is a German thinker regarded by many as the most significant
philosopher in the modern era. His major contributions to Ethics can be found in his two works:
The Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals and The Critique of Practical Reason.
• Kant’s ethics is based primarily on an a priori foundation. His ethical theory uses reason alone.
He rejects ethical judgments that are based on feelings (De Guzman, 2018). Genuine morality
is based on the moral law, which is valid for all people because it is grounded completely on
rational exercise. Kant’s test for the rational consistency of a moral principle is the categorical
imperative. (Mariano, 2016)
• Only the goodwill is absolutely good. Goodwill is good, not because of its effect, but is good
in itself. Goodwill is good because it is done out of duty (Mariano, 2016). Kant’s theory of
moral judgment emphasizes the ethical relevance of goodwill and acting from a sense of duty.
(De Guzman, 2018).
• Kant regards man as a rational being acting on a principle/maxim. This maxim is rightly called
the Categorical Imperative.

Kant’s 3 Ethical Propositions (Mariano, 2016)

• An act must be done from duty in order for it to have an inner moral worth.
• An act done from sense of duty derives its moral worth, not from the purpose, which is to be
attained by it, but from the maxim by which it is determined.
• Duty is the necessity of acting from respect for the law.

Kant’s Categorical Imperative (Mariano, 2016)

 • The supreme principle of the moral law is the categorical imperative Versus hypothetical
imperatives, which can either be imperative of skill or imperative of prudence.

Kant’s Formulations of the Categorical Imperative (Mariano, 2016)

• Act only on that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a
universal law. (Principle of Universality).
• Act as to treat humanity, whether in your own person or in that of any other person or in that
of any other, in every case as an end in itself, not as means only. (Principle of Humanity as
End-in-Itself).
• Act so that your will is what makes universal law. (Principle of Autonomy).

Kantian Ethics. Kant’s ethical theory on moral judgments is based on reason alone. He recognized
reason as the foundation, goodwill as the source, and duty as the motivation of what obliges the
human person. For Kant, the highest good, which is intrinsically valuable, is a moral good. The only
thing that is good in itself is what he called good will. “Will” refers to intention or motive. A person
has a good will if he/she does what is right and does so with the correct motive. To do a morally
acceptable action just to benefit another is acting from a wrong motive.

According to Kant, the only correct motive is duty. One should do what is right because it is his/her
duty to do so, because it is right. Doing what is right because it leads to pleasure, prestige, avoidance
of guilt, is acting from the wrong motive. Thus, having a goodwill should not be seen as a means to
some other good.

Kant also recognizes the autonomy of the will because reason makes individuals autonomous human
beings. Human rationality gives the individual ability to determine the good, and he is morally
required to do good accordingly. The individual performs the moral “ought” in accordance to the
inner laws of the will. All good emanates from the moral ought, which is an authoritative principle
that dictates human action. Moral “ought” is the supreme and fundamental moral principle governing
the goodness of an action.

Kant’s Moral Duty. Kant views good will as be good in itself and something that it is not dependent
on anything outside. This theory is an example of a deontological moral theory which believes that
the rightness or wrongness of actions does not depend on their consequences but on whether they
fulfill their duty. According to Kant, we pursue good life because we have a duty to fulfill the moral
law within.

The Categorical Imperative. Kant believed that there was a supreme principle of morality, and he
referred to it as the Categorical Imperative (CI). Kant’s ethics of duty is grounded on the CI because
the CI determines what our moral duties are.

An imperative is a command, like “Pay your taxes! “Don’t kill animals!”. To be categorical is
unconditional, for example, “Do not cheat on your examinations.” Even if you want to cheat and
doing so would serve your interests, you may not cheat.

How does CI works? Here is the moral standards presented by Kant:

1.“Act only upon that maxim by which you can at the same time, will that it should become a
universal law.” -Human being must act as if the principles of his actions are universal in nature.

2.“Act that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or that of another, always as an end
and never as a means.” -The individual must always treat other individuals as an end itself.

Justifications:

• Universality means that a moral act is unconditional in nature –any act must be morally
justifiable in all places at all times, universality means that when put in the same situation,
and any individual would act in the same manner.
 • The idea that the human being is an end in itself emanates from the fact that each person has
dignity and that each human person is inviolable.

Whenever we decide to act, we must ask ourselves the following questions:

• Can I rationally will everyone to act as I propose to act?

• Does my action respect the goals of human beings rather than merely using them for my own
purposes?

Now, if our answers to both of the questions is NO, then, we must Not perform the action.

Rights Theory

Kant examined the idea of human rights within politics in such a way that it “is only a legitimate
government that guarantees our natural right to freedom, and from this freedom we derive other
rights”. From this basis it can be assumed that Kant looks at the development, creation and
implementation of rights as primarily dependent on the state and how the government within the
state functions. Furthermore, Kant stresses that a society can only function politically in relation to
the state if fundamental rights, laws and entitlements are given and enhanced by the state. As Kant
teaches, these “righteous laws” are founded upon 3 rational principles:

1.The liberty of every member of the society as a man.

2.The equality of every member of the society with every other, as a subject.

3.The independence of every member of the society as a citizen. An interesting aspect of these
principles is that they are not given by the state but are fundamental in the creation and acceptance
of a state by the people of the state. In this sense Kant believes that these principles are necessary
above all, not only for the founding of “righteous laws”, but for the state to function in the first
place. This is so because without the acceptance of the people a state would not exist therefore
rights are necessary within states to keep the support of the people of the state.

The first principle under which “righteous laws” are founded is based upon the idea of the “liberty”
of individuals. The liberty of individuals is important because the state or commonwealth is not
allowed to dictate the lives of individuals. If it did it would take on the role of a “paternal
government”. Kant therefore contends that the liberty of individuals can only occur within a patriotic
government because there will be room for the rights of individuals which are also fitted to the scope
of the government.

The equality of every member of the society towards each other is the second rational principle
under which rights are created. Equality for each member within the necessarily legal…” society
under the guidance of the ruler of the state is important for there to be a common basis for everyone
within the state. The ruler is exempted from this equality because as the founder of the
commonwealth or state he alone has the duty to make sure the idea of equality through laws is
fulfilled. Everyone needs to have the same rights within the state so that laws can be evaluated and
applied in the same and “equal” manner for everyone. Equality therefore is the basis from which
rights for every human being originate.

The last rational principle which Kant uses to explain the emergence of rights within a commonwealth
is that of independence of every member as a citizen. Rights develop from this principle because it
is up to the individual to act independently if a right or law should be practiced. If a member of
society cannot act in an independent way without the guidance of the commonwealth, there would
be no need for rights. The leader or ruler would be able to determine everything for the member of
society, and this member would not see the need to question or want to practice his rights because
the commonwealth appears to be “right” in how it directs the citizens. Independence causes the
formation of rights within the political context. This way the leader or government also has more
“power” to grant rights to individuals which correspond with the nature of the state. Under these
three principles it is clear how rights and “righteous laws” develop in a natural way. Furthermore,
the role of freedom within a state and commonwealth is emphasized because it is the foundation
from which, under Kant’s theory, all rights emerge.

Rights-Based Ethics. The concept of rights-based ethics is that there are some rights, both positive
and negative, that all humans have based only on the fact that they are human. These rights can be
natural, or conventional, that is, those created by humans and reflects society’s values. An example
of Rights Based ethics system includes our basic rights stipulated in Article III of the 1987 Philippine
Constitution.

This principle can be explained by citing the difference between what is and what ought. Moral rights
refer to what ought to be, while legal rights are the rights ‘written in books’. Moral rights represent
the natural law while legal rights embody the conventional positive law.

• Legal rights -All rights found within existing legal codes. These rights are recognized and
protected by the law. A legal right does not exist before a law is passed and approved and its
validity is limited by the jurisdiction set by the body who passed its legislation.
• Moral rights -These are rights that exist prior to and independently from their legal
counterparts. The existence and validity of a moral right is not deemed to be dependent upon
the actions of jurists and legislators.

UTILITARIANISM

• Greatest good for greatest number of people.

Jeremy Bentham's Principle of Utility

• Recognizes the fundamental role of pain and pleasure in human life, approves or disapproves
of an action on the basis of the amount of pain or pleasure brought about by the consequences,
equates good with pleasure and evil with pain, and asserts that pleasure and pain are capable
of quantification (and hence 'measure').

Bentham's Felicific Calculus

• In measuring pleasure and pain, Bentham introduces the following criteria: INTENSITY,
DURATION, CERTAINTY (or UNCERTAINTY), and its NEARNESS (or FAIRNESS)
• He also includes its "fecundity" (will more of the same follow?) and its "purity" (its pleasure
won't be followed by pain & vice versa)
• In considering actions that affect numbers of people, we must also account for its EXTENT.

John Stuart Mill's Principle of Utility

• It is not the quantity of pleasure, but the quality of happiness that is central to utilitarianism,
• the calculus is unreasonable - qualities cannot be quantified (there is a distinction between
'higher' and 'lower' pleasures), and
• utilitarianism refers to " The Greatest Happiness principle" - it seeks to promote the capability
of achieving happiness (higher pleasures) for the most amount of people (this is its "extent").

Three Types of Society

• Egalitarian - all are considered equal, regardless of gender, race, religion, or age. They're not
a class system in an egalitarian society but relatively equal access to income and wealth.
• Capitalist - are stratified into classes, hierarchies of power, and privileges related to the
ownership and control of various forms of capital.
• Socialist - typically controlled by the state or government. Socialism is based on the idea that
common or public ownership of resources and means of production leads to a more equal
society.
Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism comes from the Latin word “utilitas” which means ‘useful’ or usefulness’. Another one
is “utile bonum” which refers to ‘good use’. Utilitarianism is the “Theory of Usefulness”, the most
influential form of consequentialism. Consequentialism or consequentialist ethics proposes that
actions, rules, or policies should be ethically measured and evaluated by their consequences, not by
the intentions or motives of the agent.

Utilitarianism simply states that what is useful is good, that the moral value of actions is determined
by the utility of its consequences. The basic argument here is that the consequence of an act is what
make it either moral or immoral, which explains that those actions that bring favorable results are
moral while those actions that produce harmful effects are immoral.

Divisions of Utilitarianism

1.Hedonistic and non-hedonistic

2.Act and Rule –Utilitarian

Hedonistic Utilitarianism. Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill are British philosophers who mainly
proposed of this kind of utilitarianism. This form claims that pleasure is the only intrinsic good and
pain is the only intrinsic bad.

Utility, or the Greatest Happiness Principle holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend
to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. By happiness is
intended pleasure and the absence of pain, by unhappiness, pain, and the privation of pleasure.
Pleasure and freedom from pain, are the only things desirable as ends; and all desirable things are
desirable either for the pleasure inherent in themselves, or as means to the promotion of pleasure
and the prevention of pain.

For Bentham, there is no significant difference between the pleasures one receives from playing a
children’s game and the pleasure one receives from reading a book, but for Mill, there is. Bentham
comes up with a set of criteria to measure which among alternative pleasures ought to be preferred
and a guide for measuring the quantity of pleasures that actions may produce. He called this the
hedonistic calculus or the calculus of felicity.

The basic rule for hedonistic utilitarianism is that the action which produces the greatest amount of
pleasure is the morally correct action. Non-Hedonistic utilitarianism. This form rejects the view that
pleasure and pain are intrinsically good and bad, respectively. This rejection comes in two ways:

1. Pleasure is not the intrinsic good, but something else –exclusive non- hedonistic utilitarianism.
2. While pleasure is an intrinsic good, there are other intrinsic good as well – inclusive non-
hedonistic utilitarianism.

exclusive non-hedonistic utilitarianism

• Preference utilitarianism/satisfaction utilitarianism

• it claims that what should be maximized is the satisfaction of preferences (desires or interest),
not the experience of pleasure. There are other preferences that has nothing to do with
pleasure and pain.
• Thus, it contends that an action is morally good when it leads to the greatest satisfaction of
preferences for the greatest number persons.

inclusive non-hedonistic utilitarianism

• Pluralistic utilitarianism/ideal utilitarianism

• It believes that there is a plurality of intrinsic goods. Aside from pleasure, other intrinsic goods
include, among others, beauty, knowledge, power, and healthy social relationships like
friendship. These goods are desirable in themselves.
• Thus, an action is morally good if it maximizes any of these intrinsic goods.
The Principle of Utility

The main proponent of this principle is Jeremy Bentham, then followed by John Stuart Mill. This
principle states that an action is right insofar as it tends to produce the greatest happiness for the
greatest number.

This principle can be applied to either particular actions or general rules.

• Act Utilitarianism. The principle of utility is applied directly to every alternative act in a
situation of choice. The right act is defined as the one which brings the best results, or, the
least of bad results.

Criticism: Criticism against this view is on the difficulty of getting a full knowledge and certainty of
the consequences of people’s actions. It has been argued that it is possible to justify immoral acts,
like in this example from ‘Utilitarian Theories’, “suppose you could end a regional war by torturing
children whose fathers are enemy soldiers, thus revealing the hide outs of the fathers.”

• Rule Utilitarianism. The principle of utility is used to decide the validity of rules of conduct
(moral standards or principles). A moral rule such as keeping a promise is established by
evaluating the consequences of a world in which people broke promises at will, and a world
in which promises are binding. Moral and immoral are defined as following or breaking the
rules.

Criticism: It is possible to produce unjust rules. For example, “slavery in Greece might be right if it
led to an overall achievement of cultivated happiness at the expense of some mistreated individuals
(‘Utilitarian Theories’).

Justice and Fairness

No idea has been more consistently linked to ethics and morality than that of justice. But what does
justice mean? In additional terms, justice means giving each person what he or she deserves, or what
is his or her due. Thus, justice requires that a man get paid according to the work he has done. Or
burdens and benefits should be distributed equally among members of a group.

"Justice consists...in treating equals equal and unequal unequally, and in giving each person his due.'

"Although the terms justice and fairness are used almost interchangeably, we tend to reserve the
word justice for matters that are especially serious, although some authors more fundamental.'
(Velasquez, p. 106)

• DISTRIBUTIVE JUSTICE
Distributive justice is defined as perceived fairness of how rewards and costs are shared
by, or distributed across, group members and it involves the fair distribution of society's
benefits and burdens. When issues concerning the common good are at stake, distributive
justice comes into play. The principle of distributive justice simply states:

Individual who are similar in all respects relevant to the kind of treatment in question
should be given similar benefits and burdens, even if they are dissimilar in other irrelevant
respects; and individuals who are dissimilar in a relevant respect ought to be treated
dissimilarly, in proportion to their dissimilarity. When workers of the same job, for
instance, are paid different salaries, group members may feel that distributive justice has
not transpired.

This concept basically concerns the nature of a socially just allocation of goods in a society.
If incidental inequalities in outcome do not arise, then the principles of distributive justice
is said to exist in a society which includes the available quantities of goods, the process by
which goods are distributed, and the subsequent allocation of the goods to society
members.
Distributive justice is said to have occurred if rewards and costs are allocated according to the
designated distributive norms of the group. The following are the common types of distributive norms

1. Equity-members’ outcomes should be based upon their inputs. Therefore an individual who
has invested a large amount of input should receive more from the group than someone who
has contributed very little.
2. Equality-regardless of their inputs, all group members should be given an equal share of the
rewards/costs. Equality supports that someone who contributes 20% of the group’s resources
should receive as much as someone who contributes 60%.
3. Power-those with more authority, status, or control over the group should receive more than
those in lower-level positions.
4. Need-those in greatest needs should be provided with resources needed to meet those needs
regardless of their inputs.
5. Responsibility-group members who have the most should share their resources with those who
have less.

Theories of Distributive Justice

1. Justice as Equality: Egalitarianism

Egalitarianism is a set of closely related socio-economic-political theories that without exemption

promote the proposition that all society members ought to have exactly equal amount of
resources.

For egalitarians, no relevant differences among people can justify unequal treatment

All burdens and benefits should be distributed according to the following formula: "Every person
should be given exactly equal shares of a society’s or a group's benefits and burdens.”

Based on the proposition that all human beings are equal in some fundamental respect, and
therefore goods should be allocated to people in equal portions.

Principle for entire societies and for members within groups or organizations. e.g. family, work
groups with strong feeling of solidarity such as Japanese firms.

Equality, ideas of U.S. Declaration of Independence

Driving force behind emancipation of staves, elimination of racial, sexual, property requirements
on voting and holding office, institution of public education.

Critique:

no equality in human beings. Human beings differ in abilities, intelligence, virtues, needs, desires
and other physical and mental characteristics.

critique: egalitarians ignore some characteristics that should be taken into account in distributing
goods: need, ability, and effort.

In defense, two kinds of equality:

a. Political equality: equal participation in, and treatment system

b. Economic equality: equality income, wealth and opportunity.

Criticism applies to economic equality, not to political equality

But economic equality defensible if suitably limited. Every person has right to minimum standard
of living (that varies from society to another)

2. Justice Based on Contribution: Capitalist Justice

Capitalist distributive justice is when people, businesses, and corporations perform based on their
individual self-interest for their own benefit. The principal role of the government is to allow a
free and fair market system, as well as to protect persons, businesses, and corporations from
taking the benefits of their actions appropriated by others.

Capitalist Justice: “Benefits should be distributed according to the value of the contribution the
individual makes to a society, or task, a group, or an exchange."

How the value of the contributions is measured.

a. By work effort
The harder one works, the greater the share of benefits.

b. By productivity

The greater the quantity of a person's contributed product, the more person should receive. Major
problem here is that ignores people's needs. (e.g. disadvantaged groups).

Also, problem of objective measure on the value of a person’s product. Especially in fields such
as science, art, entertainment, athletics, etc.

3. Justice Based on Needs and Abilities: Socialism

Socialist distributive justice a system where the government or a central authority controls
the production of goods and services.
Basis of socialist principle:
a. People realized their potential by exercising their abilities in productive work, and being a
value, this should be distributed in such a way that a person can be as productive as possible.
Thus, distribute work according to ability.
b. Benefits of work should be used to promote human happiness and well-being by distributing
them to meet basis needs and using what is left to meet non-basic needs.
Dictum "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" represents the
socialist view on distribution

"Work burdens should be distributed according to people's abilities, and benefits should
be distributed according to people's needs."

Critique:
a. Under socialist principle there would be no relation between amount of effort of worker
and amount of remuneration worker receives. Consequently, no incentive for worker to
work harder knowing he will receive the same.
Deeper objection: unrealistic to model society on familial relationships, human nature
being self-centered and competitive
Socialist response: self-centeredness, competitiveness, results of modern inculcation.
b. If social principle were enforced, freedom would be obliterated.
Sacrifice of freedom even greater when a central government agency decides what task to
be match with person's ability and what goods to be allocated to each person's needs.
Socialist principle substitute paternalism for freedom.
4. Justice as Freedom: Libertarianism
Robert Nozick:
"From each according to what he chooses to do, to each according to what he makes for
himself (perhaps with contracted aid of others) and what others choose to do for him and
choose to give him of what they've been given previously (under this maxim) and haven’t yet
expended or transferred."
Simply, "From each as they choose, to each as they are chosen.
Therefore, wrong to tax one person to provide benefits for the needs of others.

Critique:
a. Main difficulty with libertarianism is enshrining value of freedom from coercion at the
expense of other rights and values without giving any explanation why this should be done.
 What about freedom from hunger, freedom from ignorance?
To secure these rights, society may impose pattern of distribution
b. Libertarian principles will generate unjust treatment of the disadvantaged.
o People, through no fault of their own, should not be providing for their need of survival.
o Each person's life is of value, even if this means coercing others to give their surplus to
the person.

5. Justice as Fairness: John Rawls

Rawls is an American political philosopher who rejected the theory of utilitarianism and offers
a number of arguments against such a theory. He argues that utilitarian thinking cannot
absolutely exclude systems such as slavery or racial segregation as there is nothing in the
moral theory to dismiss them from consideration.

Rawls maintains that slavery is wrong under all situations, regardless of any utility
calculations, for it does not respect the fundamental rights and liberties of all persons. Slavery
is wrong not because it is unproductive or inefficient, but because it is unjust, for it does not
consider individual rights inviolable.

Rawls’ Theory of Justice (Rawls’ Two Principles)

a. First Principle of Social Justice- “The Liberty Principle”- concerns political institutions
➢ Each person has the same and indefeasible claim to a fully adequate scheme of equal
basic liberties, which scheme is compatible with the same scheme of liberties for all.
This means that everybody has the same basic liberties which can never be taken away.
It provides for basic and universal respect for individuals as a minimum standard for all
just institutions.

b. Second Principle of Social Justice- “The Difference Principle”- concerns social and economic
institutions
➢ Social and economic inequalities are to satisfy two conditions: (1) first, they are to
be to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged member of society; and (2) second,
they are to be attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair
equality of opportunity. While focused on equality, the principle recognizes that a
society could not avoid inequalities among its people. In real world, inequalities result
from things such as inherited characteristics, social class, personal motivation, and
even luck.

Principle 1 takes priority over Principle 2 if they come into conflict. Within Principle 2, 2b
takes priority over 2a.

➢ Principle 1: principle of equal liberty: each citizen’s liberties must be protected from
invasion by others and must be equal to those of others”.

➢ Basic liberties: right to vote, freedom of special and conscience, civil liberties,
freedom to hold personal property, freedom from arbitrary arrest. (E.g. contracts must
be free of fraud and must be honored.
Employees must render services justify contracted with employer.

➢ Principles 2a: different principles. A productive society will incorporate inequalities,

but takes steps to improve the position of the neediest members of society.
 ➢ The more productive a society is the more benefits it will be able to provide for the
least advantaged members, the sick and disabled. (E.g. to maximize benefits for the
least advantages, business institutions should be efficient in their use of resources.
Price fixing, pollution, unjust.)

➢ Principle 2b: principle of fair equality of opportunity: everyone should be given an

equal opportunity to quality for the more privileged positions in society’s institutions.

➢ E.g. job qualifications should not only be related to requirements of the job but also
each person must have access to training and education needed to qualify for the job.
Remuneration would depend on person’s efforts, abilities and contribution.

➢ Rawls’ theory provides not only with a set of principles of justice but also a general
method for evaluating the adequacy of any moral principle in a fair way.

➢ The method consists of determining what principles a group of rational self-

interested persons would choose to live by if they knew they would live in a society
governed by those principles, but they did not yet know what each of them would turn
out to be tike in that society.

➢ a principle is a morality justified principle of justice if, and only if, the principle
would be acceptable to a group of rational self-interested person who know they will
live in a society governed by the principles they accept, but who do not know what sex,
race, abilities, religion, interests, social position, income, or other particular
characteristics each of them will possess in that future society.

➢ Situation of such an imaginary group of rational persons: original position, and their
ignorance of particulars about themselves, veil of ignorance.

o Original position: “an imaginary meeting of rational self interested persons who must
choose the principles of justice by which their society will be governed.;

o Veil of ignorance: The requirement that persons in the original position must not know
particulars such as their sex, religion, race, income, etc.;

➢ Rawls claim that parties to the original position would in fact choose these principles of
justice: principle of equal liberty, difference principle, and principle of fair equality of
opportunity.

Critique:

a. Original position, not an adequate method for choosing moral principles, the mere fact the
a set of principles is choosing by hypothetical parties not necessarily a justification of these
principles
b. Parties in original position would not choose Rawls’ principles but would choose
utilitarianism.
c. Rawls’ principles are mistaken because opposed to some of our basic convictions of what
justice is.

Rawls’ defenders:
a. Theory preserves basic values freedom, equality of opportunity, concern for disadvantaged.
b. Theory fits easily with basic economic institutions of Western societies: does not reject
market system, work incentives, or inequalities consequent of division of tabor
c. Theory incorporates both communitarian and individualistic strains.
d. Theory takes into account criteria of need, ability, effort and contribution.
e. There is moral justification that original position provides: parties choose impartial
principles that takes into account equal interests of everyone.

II. RETRIBUTIVE JUSTICE

It concerns the just imposition of punishments and penalties on those who do wrong. This
related to procedural justice, referring to fair decision procedures, practices, agreements. It
concerns with the fairness when blaming or punishing persons for doing wrong.

Conditions:
a. Knowledge
b. Certitude that the person actually did wrong
c. Punishment: consistent and proportionate to the wrong, “if the purpose of punishments is
to deter others from committing the same wrong or to prevent the wrongdoer from repeating
the wrong, then punishment should not be greater than what is consistently necessary to
achieve these aims”

Question: is death penalty just?

III. COMPENSATORY JUSTICE

It concerns with the just way of compensating someone for a past justice or what he/she lost
when wronged by others.
➢ Concerns the fairness when restoring to a person what the person lost when he or she was
wronged by someone else.
➢ No hard and fast rules for determining how much compensation wrongdoer owes to victim.

➢ In general, compensation should leave the victim as well as he or she would have been if
the wrongdoer had not injured him or her.
➢ Some losses hard to measure, e.g. reputation
➢ Some losses cannot be restored: loss of life, sight.

Three Conditions:
a. The action inflicted was wrong and negligent. E.g. I fail to exercise due care in driving and
injured someone.
b. The action was the real cause of the injury. E.g. banker defrauds a customer vs. banker
loans a person money and borrower uses to cheat others.
c. The act was voluntarily inflicted. E.g. burn the house of the person one hates
The most fundamental principle of justice is one first defined by Aristotle:

Equals should be treated equally and unequals unequally; This principle can also be expressed
thus- Individuals should be treated the same, unless they differ in ways that are relevant to
the situation in which they are involved, for example, if John and Jane do the same work, and
there are no relevant differences between them or the work they are doing, then in justice
they should be paid the same wages. If John is paid more because he is a man, then, Jane has
not been served.
There are, however, some differences that can be justifiable criteria for treating people
differently. The Church, for instance, advocates what it calls a preferential option for the
poor. This preference is premised on the fact that the poor are from the very beginning already
unequal; relative to the wealthy. Because of this social disparity, there are opportunities for
human development that are out of their reach. In dealing with them, then, there is a need
to equalize; things first before can be served. In other words, there is room here not just for
justice, but justice and fairness. Justice and fairness, then, is a central part of ethics and
should be given due consideration in our moral lives,

Globalization is the word used to describe the growing interdependence of the world's
economies, cultures, and populations, brought about by cross-border trade in goods and
services, technology, and flows of investment, people, and information. Countries have built
economic partnerships to facilitate these movements over many centuries.

But the term gained popularity after the Cold War in the early 1990s, as these cooperative
arrangements shaped modern everyday life. The wide-ranging effects of globalization are
complex and potitically charged. As with major technological advances, globalization benefits
society as a whole, while harming certain groups. Understanding the relative costs and
benefits can pave the way for alleviating problems white sustaining the wider payoffs (PIIE,
2019).

I. GLOBALIZATION

Globalization can be defined as the continuing world-wide economic integration, recently

facilitated by emerging information technologies, that has also affected the environment,
culture, and political of different groups of people. ;Globalization is just a phenomenon and
not just a passing trend. It is the international system that replaced the cold war system.
Globalization is the integration of capital, technology and information across national borders,
in a way that is creating a single global market and, to some degree, a global village.’ - On
Thomas Friedman’s Lexus and the Olive Tree

For Friedman, the challenge of globalization for everyone is how to come up with a creative
response to the conflict between the Lexus and the Olive Tree:

- Lexus (referring to the luxury tine of Toyota), representing the drive for prosperity and
development,, brought about by globalization

- Olive tree, representing the identity and traditions,, brought by the ancient forces of culture,
geography, tradition, and community. It is the world-wide integration of government policies,
cultures, social movements, and financial markets through trade and the exchange of ideas.
Globalization emphasizes the increasing trans-border or transnational relations, which are
occurring in the contemporary world.

In other words, whereas individuals usually have most of their interactions and affiliations in
the past with others who share the same territorial space, there is massive mushrooming of
interactions and affiliations across these territories today because of globalization brought
about by the escalation of global relations.

Globalization has renovated the globe from a collection of separate communities interacting
infrequently into a virtually one multi-faceted community. Politically, economically, and
culturally therefore, communities across the world now function in what is fundamentally a
shared space although divided into artificial political condominiums called nation-states.
 Transnational relations made possible by globalizing forces and processes have opened up new
forms of social bonds and responsibilities.

In a globalized era, peoples and communities across the world have become culturally
connected, the distinction between the global and the local has become progressively blurred
and actions and events in one locality carry with it the potential to breed transnational and
transgenerational impacts. It is precisely for these reasons that moral reflection about our
responsibilities and obligations in a globalized age has become an imperative.

Issues in Globalization

Globalization is deeply controversial, however, proponents of globalization argue that it allows

poor countries and their citizens to develop economically and raise their standards of living,
while opponents of globalization claim that the creation of an unfettered international free
market has benefited multinational corporations in the western world at the expense of local
enterprises, local cultures, and common people. Resistance globalization has therefore taken
shape both at a popular and at a governmental level as people and governments try to manage
the flow of capital, labor, goods, and ideas that constitute the current wave of
globalization.

• Protectionism- a.k.a. economic nationalism- belief that international institutions (e.g., WTO,
IMF, WB) adversely affect national interest, makes the country subservient to multinational
corporations
• Anti-globalist- accuse international institutions for being undemocratic; ignoring
environmental issues, promoting unjust labor practices (e.g., child labor, workplace safety),
increasing inequality and further impoverishing the poor.
• There is much talk about free trade. We must remember that every free trade agreement is a
negotiated document. It involves all kind of bargaining about different products and tariffs.
For example, for the North America Free Trade Agreement, NAFTA, the results were uneven.
US corn producers benefited, while textile workers have not. Mexican farmers were
devastated by US corn imports, and their textile workers lost out. Part of the reason is textile
products from China and US subsidies for agriculture. It is estimated that the growth in Mexico
and Latin America has benefited the upper 30% but the bottom gained little.

Ethical Challenges of Globalization

While the aforementioned deals with the economic aspect of globalization, current neo-
political globalization, when dealing with ethical implications, also has adverse effects.

a. It concentrates wealth in the hands of the few, leaving majority in the condition of poverty.
Globalization has actually caused radical inequality, a deepening of exclusions brought about
by inequalities that present the world to be a fragmented space where some benefit at the
expense of others. Critics describe globalization as a process driven by progressive capitalist
countries to perpetuate their economic and political domination.

b. From the consequentialist standpoint, the moral argument against globalization is that it
fails to maximize happiness for the greatest number of people.

c. From a deontological standpoint, globalization is condemnable on the account that

exploited populations are treated as means to an end and not as an end in themselves.
d. States are in effect increasingly losing their sovereignty and seen as morally condemnable
intrusiveness of international economic organizations, characterized by lack of accountability
to the people openly affected by the policies of monetary organizations and tendency to
impose agonizing conditions on indebted governments.

e. Problem of handling the global environment in order to prevent a global ecological collapse,
a scene that threatens humanity with the threat of annihilation.

Search for Universal Values

There are quite a number of moral questions and problem arising from globalization, that is,
from global interdependence and interconnection. To address these ethical problems, social
scientists and philosophers suggest that the time has come for the world to develop a
global ethic, that is, a set of universally accepted principles that could provide the foundation
for regulating global interactions.

A set of shared ethical values and standards is central for the cohesion of society and for global
justice and peace. A shared set of moral values and principles will make for peace and harmony
at the global level. However, it seems improbable to ascertain normative principles that will
be persuasive across cultures. In spite of these ethical variations across various cultures, it is
still very much possible that basic and fundamental values hold for every society. Developing
universally accepted principles, ex. Global ethics for administering transnational interactions,
is possible, for instance, through the process of intercultural dialogue.

II. PLURALISM in general

It is a philosophical theory that there is more than one basic substance or principle, whether
it be the constitution of the universe, of the mind and body, the sources of truth, or the basis
of morality.

• Can mean any of several things:

- The bare fact that there are many sets of beliefs and practices
- The attitude that recognized above, but on top of that maintains an openness to the
differences and a desire for engagement and understanding across this diversity
- The current era: contact between multifarious, cultural, political, religious persuasions

a. Moral Pluralism

Also known as ethical pluralism and value pluralism, it is the idea that there can be conflicting
moral views that are each worthy of respect. It thus implies that there are some values which
may be equally correct and fundamental, and yet in conflict with each other. Moreover, moral
pluralism proposes that in many cases, such incompatible values may be incommensurable, in
the sense that there is no objective ordering of them in terms of importance.

b. Against Moral Pluralism

Although at first glance, it seems to be flawless and attractive, moral pluralism is definitely
not immune to valid criticisms when philosophically analyzed. For one thing, it fails to
stipulate what to do when two or more of its values or theories indicate inconsistent practical
imperatives.
Not only is it ethically irresponsible, it is also morally impotent. It gives us no moral standard,
and offers us no moral power. Moral pluralism leaves us either concluding that (1) there is no
real solution to ethical dilemmas or (2) all possible answers are acceptable as long as they
have underlying fundamental values. The second implied conclusion is very much moral
relativism.

Some thus explain that the popularity or pluralism and relativism in the globalized age are
accompanied by substantial moral collapse today. Pluralism in belief and pluralism in morals
in today’s time go together and the outcome is disastrous.

“Moral pluralism can never control or even rival our natural sloth and greed. The terrorist
groups have morality which is determined by their political goals. If you believe in your cause
as the most important thing on earth, you will bomb, maim, and kill in order to achieve your
goal. And the casualties? These are regrettable but inevitable. Many ancient religions included
the idea of human sacrifice: if these still existed, would this practice be tolerated? Certainly
not.” (McGrath, n.d.)

Thus we can identify negative social consequences of moral pluralism. Superficially, it has
certain plausibility to a liberal-minded public; yet, on closer scrutiny, it has its darker side.

Religious ethics concerns belief and practices of what is good or bad, right or wrong,
virtuous or vicious, from a religious point of view. A Christian ethic, for instance, may be based
on radical teachings of the religious leader Jesus Christ about loving one’s neighbor, being a
Good Samaritan, loving one’s enemies, being guided by the Father’s Will, and the like. For
some, the religious response is what is really needed concerning the challenges posed by
globalization and other contemporary issues.

Religion and Ethics

Ethics- may be defined as a system of moral principles which affect how people make decisions
and lead their lives. Ethics is concerned with what is good and right for persons and society.

Religion- is defined as “people’s beliefs and opinions concerning the existence, nature, and
worship of a deity or deities, and divine involvement in the universe and human life. Religion
denotes the belief in or the worship of a god and the worship or service to God or the
supernatural. The term supernatural means “whatever transcends the powers of nature or
human agency”. The term religion is sometimes used interchangeably with faith, creed, belief
system, or conviction.

Religion is also viewed as an organized collection of belief, cultural systems, and worldviews
that relate humanity to an order of existence. Many religions possess Holy Scriptures,
narratives, or sacred accounts that aim to explain the origin and meaning of life and the
universe.

Some submit that the difference between religion and ethics is about the disparity between
revelation and reason. In some measure religion is based on the idea that God reveals insights
about life and its meaning. These divine insights are compiled in texts such as the Bible, Torah,
Koran, etc., and introduced as revelation.

From strictly humanistic perspective, ethics is based on the tenets of reason. That is, anything
that is not rationally provable cannot be deemed justifiable. This definition of ethics, however,
does not necessarily exclude religion or a belief in God, for it is also a common belief that
human reason, designed also for ethical discernment, is a gift from a natural God. Indeed,
many ethicists emphasize the relationship, not the difference, between ethics and religion.

Religion’s Role in Ethics

Religion is necessary for the continued survival of morality as an integral part of human life,
especially, in a globalized world.

“Morality cannot survive, in the long run, if its ties to religion are cut.” (Glenn C. Graber)

“The attempts to found a morality apart from religion are like the attempts of children who,
wishing to transplant a flower that please them, pluck it from the roots that seem to them
unpleasing and superfluous, and stick it rootless into the ground. Without religion, there can
be no real, sincere morality, just as without roots there can be no real flower. (Leo Tolstoy)

Cut-flowers thesis implies that those who believe that morality is a valuable human institution,
and those who wish to avoid moral disaster, should therefore make every effort to preserve
its connection with the true religion and the sound religious belief that forms its roots. As
morality is currently in a withering stage in this globalized era, its decline can be identified
with the exorbitant secularization of many things.

Basil Willey calls for urgent action to reunite religion and ethics. The outcome of de-
Christianization during the last three or four centuries “is what we see around us in the world
today- the moral and spiritual nihilism of the modern world, particularly of the totalitarian
creeds”.

“The chaotic and bewildered state of the modern world is due to man’s loss of faith, his
abandonment of god and religion. I agree with this statement (cut-flower thesis), along with
the ruin of the religious vision there went the ruin of moral principles and indeed all values.”
(W.T. Stace)

All these statements call attention to the prediction of the cut flowers thesis which suggests
that morality cannot survive without religion. Some words of caution are need though: the
cut-flowers thesis does not say that a consequence of abandoning religion leads immediately
to murder, rape, robbery, drunkenness, sexual promiscuity, and the like. Nor does it say that
the morality per se will soon cease to exist if it ties to religion are cut. However, it does argue
that to have a real ground or reason for moral action, one must admit a religious or theological
foundation.

THEISTIC ETHICS

Religions fundamentally endorse theism and theistic ethics or God based morality. Theistic
ethics believes that a supernatural being called God is the foundation of morality. God is
viewed as the true source of moral laws, and as the only plausible cause of moral obligations
which possess overriding and binding character.

The theory holds that the truth of moral judgments depends on God’s will. In theism, “X is
moral” means “God wants us or a particular agent to do X”. As to how we can know God’s will,
proponents admit sources like revelation (Holy Scriptures), divinely guided by human reason,
and God’s laws written in man’s heart (conscience). The theory views ethics as necessarily
linked to true religion and unlike other ethical theories, theism considers faith in and
obedience to God as necessary part o being truly moral.
1. Theistic Ethics Can Justify Moral Values

While other ethical views can just postulate good moral principles, only a theistic view can
justify them.

a. Unless morality is grounded on the unchangeable nature of a morally perfect being, there
is no basis for believing in moral substitute.
b. If everything is relative, then there is no good reason why anyone ought to abstain from
doing anything he wishes to do.
c. Only in theism are all persons held morally accountable for their actions in the real sense.
d. Only the ethics rooted in Moral Law-Giver can be truly prescriptive in any objective sense
of the word.

2. Theistic Ethics Can Explain Moral Accountability

Theists believe that all people have this moral experience of feeling morally obligated and
that this sense of moral responsibility is connected to God. This idea is consistent with the
meaning of religion itself—religion being a compound of the Latin re and ligare meaning to
bind back. The bond involves the feeling of being morally obligated to live up to some moral
laws that press down on everyone which express God’s will and nature.

Morality is believed to be something above and beyond the ordinary facts of men’s behavior,
and yet quite definitely real, a real law, which none of us made, but which we find pressing
on us. when we admit moral law, we also affirm a moral lawgiver, for otherwise, it looks
impossible to think of a moral law that has moral force on our behavior.

Theists believe that Someone made the moral law so that moral rule is not just a disembodied
principle but a rule of Somebody. It accounts for the moral force of the moral law on our
behavior, whenever we break ethical rules, we offend Someone who himself created the law.
Furthermore, theistic ethics maintained that man’s life does not end at the grave and that all
persons are truly held accountable for all their actions. Its belief in an afterlife entails that
evil and wrong will be expelled; righteousness and virtue will surely be vindicated.

3. Theistic Ethics Has no Real Accountability in non-Theism

With reference to theism, we can reasonably say that there is no real moral accountability for
one’s actions in non-theistic ideologies. In naturalism or secularism, human life just finds its
end in grave. Absent in non- theism is the so-called life after death of theism where the final
reward and punishment- those which accounts for the ultimate justice- will be given. In this
aspect, theism is extensively plausible and better than its non-theistic counterparts.

The absence of moral accountability in the philosophy of secularism reduces virtues, like those
of compassion and self-sacrifice, to hollow abstractions. Secularism fails to match theism in
supplying this necessary element for a sound moral foundation

4. The Euthyphro Dilemma

The most common attack against moral theism is this famous philosophical argument. In
Plato’s writing, the ancient Greek philosopher Socrates asked an insightful question:

“Is a good thing good because God desires it? Or does God desire it
because it is already good?”
 If theists go with the latter view, which says God desires moral things because they are already
good, then good and bad are independent of God’s will- and thus moral theism is incorrect.
On the other hand, if theists answer that moral acts are good just because God desires them,
then cruelty, torture, and maltreatment would be good if God desires them.

LESSON: MILLENIALS AND FILLENNIALS

• In recent years, the proverbial generation gap has become more visible in the Philippines due
to changing mores, styles, and spending habits. A generation is a group of people born around
the same time and raised around the same place. People in this “birth cohort” exhibit similar
characteristics, preferences, and values over their lifetimes.
• Marga Manlapig finds out more about the differences among the Silent Generation, Baby
Boomers, Generation X, Millennials, Generation Z, and the young leaders known .as Generation
T "You just don't understand!"
• Over the years, these words have been the battlecry (or the broken-hearted wail) of young
people against the strictures and policies imposed by their elders. It is a cry usually followed
up with a bracing statement that invariably begins with "When I was your age, we did things
differently!"

Millenials: Ethical Challenges and Responses

• The term 'Millennials' generally refers to the generation of people born between the early
1980s and 1990s, according to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary. Some people also include
children born in the early 2000s.
• The Millennial Generation is also known as Generation Y, because it comes after Generation X
— those people between the early 1960s and the 1980s. The publication Ad Age was one of the
first to coin the term "Generation Y," in an editorial in August 1993. But the term didn't age
well, and "Millennials" has largely overtaken it. But the terms basically mean the same thing
(livescience.com).

Positive and Negative Characteristics of Millennials

• Millennials have been characterized in a number of different ways. On the negative side,
they've been described as lazy, narcissistic and prone to jump from job to job. The 2008 book
"Trophy Kids" by Ron Alsop discusses how many young people have been rewarded for minimal
accomplishments such as mere participation in competitive sports, and have unrealistic
expectations of working life.
• A story in Time magazine said polls show that Millennials "want flexible work schedules, more
'me time' on the job, and nearly nonstop feedback and career advice from managers.
• Another Time story in May 2013, entitled "The Me Me Me Generation," begins: "They're
narcissistic. They're lazy. They're coddled. They're even a bit delusional. Those aren't just
unfounded negative stereotypes about 80 million Americans born roughly between 1980 and
2000.
• They're backed up by a decade of sociological research." The article also points out that
Millennials may be simply adapting quickly to a world undergoing rapid technological change.
• A 2012 study found millennials to be "more civically and politically disengaged, more focused
on materialistic values, and less concerned about helping the larger community.
• The trend is more of an emphasis on extrinsic values such as money, fame, and image, and
less emphasis on intrinsic values such as self-acceptance, group affiliation and community."
The study was based on an analysis of two large databases of 9 million high school seniors or
entering college students.
• They have also been described in positive ways. They are generally regarded as being more
open-minded, and more supportive of gay rights and equal rights for minorities. Other
 positives adjectives to describe them include confident, self-expressive, liberal, upbeat and
receptive to new ideas and ways of living

The Filipino Millennial (Fillennials)

• You may have seen the word millennial in social media or heard it on TV. You're puzzled,
clueless as to what this word means. In the Philippines, Filipino millennials or "Fillennials" is
now a thing. Let us tell you who "millennials" are, what do they do, and why they are called
as such.
• In the Philippines, millennials make up one-third of the total population. They're the ones
politicians talk to. The ones marketers try to entice and persuade. The ones companies want
to hire. They are a force to be reckoned with. Millennials in the Philippines are described as
those who are social media-dependent and also, the "selfie" generation. Many things describe
what a millennial is.
• According to The Week, millennials are usually spendthrifts. Millennials in the Philippines are
known to usually spend for luxury goods which leave their bank accounts shaken—the reason
why they are also described as "broke." Millennials are also described as narcissist, making
them known as the "Me, Me, Me Generation." However, there are also good attitudes which
millennials possess: being politically and socially-engaged. Compared to other generations,
millennials have their say about issues and are more involved with politics.
• When it comes to entertainment, millennials in the Philippines are usually seen spending time
online, watching YouTube videos. Millennials usually have the latest apps, watch the latest TV
series, and are into the latest hits. According to a Philippine Star article, millennials in the
Philippines do usually read newspapers. Instead, they have Google for information or Waze for
road directions.
• Another set of description that best fits millennials are upbeat, lazy, narcissistic, materialistic,
self-expressive, fun-loving and liberal. They also have a short attention span. But if you talk
to them about the things that interest them for example, tattoos, trivia, gaming, movies and
the likes, they're really one to talk.
• They're also known to be career-shifters, jumping from one field to another, seeing making
career as "self-discovery" According to Mr. Jos Ortega, of Havas Media Ortega, millennials are
characterized in different identities. "Who they are on Facebook may not necessarily be who
they are in real life, on Instagram, or on Twitter," said Ortega
• Diversity is what makes a millennial and they have different versions of themselves depending
on what they want to show to the world
• The defining and guiding values of members of the millennial generation include optimism,
confidence, high self- esteem, diversity, civic duty, ethical consumption, achievement,
morality, change, multi-view and a global perspective
• They are more open in accepting all kinds of people no matter what the color of their skin is,
how they dress, or what their religion is. Millennials are more accepting whatever differences
people may have.
• Millennials are the most confident, open- minded, expressive and optimistic generation ever
born. Their desire for recognition gives way to so many of them extending a helping hand
during emergencies and Just look at the number of pictures posted during the aftermath of
"Yolanda," of these kids packing goods, venturing to typhoon-stricken places, and all sorts of
relief efforts (lifestyle.inquirer.net/).
• They are growing up in a world that is creaking under the strain of our lifestyles, and they are
daily made aware of the fragile environment. So, it is no surprise that they are emerging as
ethical consumers who want to change the world (Codrington, 2008).
• The common notion that millennials all over the world share the same youth culture might be
somewhat applicable in the case of the Philippines.
• Philippines has a unique history which influences and shapes the attitudes, beliefs,
preferences, and value systems of the Filipino millennials.
 • In this ever changing world, it may be true that Filipino millennials generally experience life
in a similar way that the millennials of other countries do, since various global events have
been taking place. Nonetheless, Filipino millennials still differ from other millennials in a
sense that their personalities are still affected and shaped by Philippine culture and society.
• Filipino millennials as the same with the general notion of millennials, also embody traits such
as being optimistic, career driven, socially active and civic-oriented. As it is the millennial
generation which is exposed to issues such as globalization, terrorism, migration and other
national, international, transnational issues of the world, they are perceived to be the most
active and reactive among all generations as of this date.
• Despite of the common stereotypes attached to Filipino millennials which are primarily based
from how they conduct themselves, there is still a huge potential that this generation will be
able to contribute to the general welfare of mankind.

GENERATION GAP

• The concept of the generation gap— that all-encompassing phrase used to describe the conflict
between older people and the youth. It has served as the gist of films, popular music, and
television shows, as well as a starting point of discussion for many sociopolitical issues. It is a
concept that has been played for both laughs and copious amounts of tears, but all of that is
the tip of an iceberg of conflicting yet correlated issues and points of view regarding anything
and everything.
• However, it is most notable that this conflict, so to speak, between generations has become
more noticeable in recent years. Sociologists, psychologists, and cultural scholars have noted
the increasing disparity among Baby Boomers, Generation X, and the so-called Millennials with
regard to fashion, finances, and general morality
• Contrast this with millennials in the workplace. Everyone who graduates from college is highly
driven and ambitious. Regardless of their generation, every fresh grad jumps into the job-pool
with high hopes for immediate advancement. Millennials, however, have taken this optimism
and turned the knobs up to 11. Likewise, due to having grown up in a completely wired
environment where they can get answers at the touch of a button (a click of the mouse, as it
were), they want instant appreciation, quick growth, and easy advancement up the corporate
ladder. This is not an attitude that endears them to their elders, of course, but one
commendable when you realize that they're thinking about their future.
• In between Generation X and the Millennials, however, Philippine Tatler has noted a niche
group: Generation T. These are people between the ages of 25 and 40 who are filled with
potential: a whole new generation of influencers, creative visionaries, and upcoming leaders
who are making names for themselves and are changing the very face of the nation. A bright
mix of youth, idealism, and a wisdom beyond their years
• Generation T is redefining what it means to lead and to affect change in society

FILLENNIAL MORALITY

• Children now love luxury. They have bad manners, contempt for authority, disrespect their
elders, and love talking instead of exercise." These were the words of the Greek philosopher
Socrates in a tirade against Athenian youth during his time, but many older adults in this
modern age would use the very same words when railing against the youth.
• Millennials are perceived by their elders as having a rather tenuous grip on morality. While
they are more open-minded with regard to issues regarding sexual identity, pre-marital
relations, and the concept of having and raising children out of wedlock, they are also seen
as a little too sensitive when it comes to reacting to socio-civic issues
• The use of social media through which to air their views has been considered by many as a
coward's way out: many people air scathing opinions online instead of in public, protected, as
they are, by a sense of virtual anonymity
• According to Jos Ortega, chairman and CEO of digital media agency Havos Media Ortega, the
last thing a millennial wants to hear is to be told that he or she will be unable to do something.
 "To them, that is violating the very being of what they stand for," he explained during a
discussion on the millennial market with the Philippine Association of National Advertisers
(PANA). "Life for millennials is a journey of self-discovery“
• But this drive towards self-discovery is not without consequences. Older generations see them
as willful and disrespectful to others; highly interactive online but completely lacking in
interpersonal skills in the real world; overly dependent on technology; narcissistic and overly
materialistic; even fatalistic as many millennials do not seem to have a solid foundation for
their future or even a sense of where to go next
• Exposure to other ways of thinking thanks to being connected to the world online has also
made many millennials drift away from traditional religion, with some veering into becoming
agnostics and others into all-out atheists. Ironically, many Baby boomers who once shunned
organized religion find themselves seeking spiritual solace in the faith they left behind as they
grow older. Even Generation X cynics have found new life, so to speak, in their respective
churches: a sort of refuge and backlash against the wanton behavior they see proliferating
among the young
• There are various aspects of the generation gap that can be opened for discussion. Corporate
and financial issues, particularly those involving the balance of power in the workplace or
proper investing, are one; changing values are another
• In the end, it is up to all of us to coexist in mutual respect and some modicum of
understanding. Perhaps the one question we need to answer is "Why can't we all just get
along?"

Loosening Values of Fillennials

• Millennials are growing up differently from how the previous generations, For one thing, the
computer is the new nanny and it trains millennials to be self-centered and selfish.
• Rentoy also called the millennials as the multi-tasking generation that suffers from the
inability to focus during lectures, classes, conversations studying and writing. The level of
information may be going up but their level of knowledge is going down.
• He added that today's generation has to contend with religious indifference, divorce,
alcoholism, softness (can't deal with life's difficulties), drug addiction and moral relativism
• Instead of looking up to their parents as role models, their heroes and standards of excellence
are celebrities, rock stars, athletes, and influencers
• Rentoy also reported a severe loosening of moral values among adult Filipinos, such that young
people don't seem to know what's right and wrong. As a consequence, about half of them do
not see anything wrong with casual sex, premarital sex, sex with a prostitute, getting drunk,
gambling, hazing, abortion, and suicide (McCann-Erickson Youth Studies of 2000 and 2005)
• Teen pregnancies are on the rise with 6000 cases in Tarlac in 2014; 26,606 cases in Metro
Manila and 28,605 cases in Cavite-Laguna-Batangas-Rizal

Reasons Why Fillennials are Broke

• Millennials, those who were born between 1980 and late 1990's, make up about % of the
country's overall population today. With a median age of 23 years, the population in the
Philippines is considered among the youngest in the world. Since many Filipinos are relatively
young and belong to the so-called Millennial generation, the country is in the best position to
reap the demographic advantage of millennials: a more productive (and income generating)
workforce
• Although the millennials, also known as Generation Y, are considered an exceptional
generation, the economic and social climate of today has not spared them from financial
problems. The paycheck to paycheck lifestyle has never been more apparent than the current
lifestyle led by this group of young people. This can be attributed to the following common
reasons (Adrian, 2017)
1. Lacks financial literacy. Contrary to what most millennials think, they aren't as
financially savvy as they perceive themselves to be. According to a data
 presented by The Global Filipino investor, The Philippines is one of the 30 least
financially literate countries in the world, with only 0.7% of the population
investing in stocks, bonds, mutual funds, and government securities.
2. Financially vulnerable. According to the survey done by Manulife, despite being
cautious with spending, four out of 10 Filipino investors carry debt, majority of
which are below 35years] old. The research was conducted on middle class to
affluent investors who are 25 years old and above. Most of them are also primary
decision makers in their household and in their business. Despite having a strong
grasp of real life financial discipline, many of them are burdened with high levels
of personal debts, not including mortgages. According to the survey, 41% of
Filipino investors carry debts, 7% of which are burdened with P25,000 and above
worth of debt, while the rest are indebted between P5,000 and P24,999. When
a person is unprepared for any unexpected and emergency financial situations,
he or she is obviously financially vulnerable.
3. Burdened with more financial responsibilities. While millennials may be generally
pictured as affluent young professionals by many - an image highly influenced by
the western culture, it is far from the truth in the Philippines. The country is
overpopulated by young adults, who are neither affluent nor the stereotypical
millennial, generalizing them as such is a mistake. Not all Filipinos who fall under
that age group or generation fits its description. They're usually the breadwinners
of their family and even supporting their parents financially, or financing the
education of their siblings. Although in upscale cities like Metro Manila,
millennials can be seen flocking hipster cafes and living in high rise
condominiums, they don't necessarily present the majority of the millennials in
the Philippines
4. Stagnant income. The findings of the National Youth Assessment Study 2015 are
also instructive. The study, sponsored by the National Youth Commission, profiles
the needs, attitudes, and economic state of Filipino youth aged 15-30 years old.
Seven out of 10 respondents reported that their household income on average is
less than P10,000, while 18.8% of households are recipients of 4Ps, which means
they are indigents. Close to half (42.5%) of surveyed youth are hoping for a job
within the next five years. Among those who are employed, 26.2% indicated that
their occupation poses some form of hazard to their health.

How to overcome them

• The good news is the solutions to financial dilemmas aren't really age dependent. Whether
you're a millennial or not, getting around your finances is quite universal. It will only depend
on how persistent you are in pursuing the following:
1. Be thrifty but not cheapskate. Another way to boost one's income is to cut your expenses
to ramp up your savings. Though you don't really have any control of your salary most
of the time, how much you save is completely within your hands. According to LA Times,
millennials have already become less interested in traditional status symbols like
wearing name brands, and even cars! They tend to be thriftier in their purchasing
decisions than what we think. Instead, they embrace old school frugality by fully
adopting the motto of our generation of grandparents: "Use it up, wear it out, make it
do, or do without!".
2. Side hustle. If you want to get ahead financially, you need to start playing to win,
instead of playing not to lose. Start boning up on how to earn extra income, with the
wide availability of online based jobs and even ride hailing services such as Uber and
Grab, there's never a shortage of earning opportunities. You can also venture in stocks
and other legit investment products to create a channel for passive income. You can
start out small and eventually grow your profile.
 3. Bargain for a raise. Though a single raise can only boost your salary by so much, when
properly managed, that few hundred or thousand pesos can result in hundreds of
thousands in savings during your entire working life.
4. Educate yourself or better yet, find a mentor. It's never too late to learn, especially
financial management. With the abundance of information online, self- education about
personal finance is easy. However, if you want to take it seriously and put it into
practice, it helps to have a mentor or at least an advisor who will guide and carry you
throughout the process. A family member or a friend would be an ideal mentor, but if
you don't know anyone close to you who could teach you a thing or two about personal
finance, you can always approach insurance and wealth management companies for
starters.

Globalization has provoked significant changes in the idea of "morality," particularly through the
enforcement of cultural relativism and the market-driven ethics of capitalism. These developments
challenge traditional ethical frameworks in several ways:

1. Globalization has brought diverse cultures into closer contact, which has led to the idea that
moral values are not universal but instead are shaped by cultural context. Traditional ethical
systems, often grounded in religious or cultural absolutes, are undermined by the realization
that what is considered moral in one society may be viewed as immoral in another. As cultures
interact, there is a growing recognition that moral norms are not fixed, and each culture's
ethical standards should be respected, even if they conflict with others. This challenges
traditional beliefs in universal moral principles and creates a more fragmented view of
morality.
2. The rise of global capitalism has shifted the focus of morality from communal values to
individualistic, market-oriented thinking. Economic globalization has led to a focus on
consumerism, profit maximization, and competition, often at the expense of social and
environmental considerations. Traditional ethical systems that emphasized community
welfare, cooperation, and altruism are being displaced by the pursuit of self-interest,
economic success, and market efficiency. This shift leads to the erosion of moral concerns
about inequality, exploitation, and environmental degradation, as economic growth and profit
become the dominant moral measures.
3. In many societies, globalization has contributed to a decline in the influence of traditional
religious moralities. As secularism spreads and individuals are exposed to a wider range of
beliefs and philosophies, traditional religious ethical frameworks are being questioned or
replaced by more secular or relativistic views. This decline in religious morality has led to a
more pluralistic approach to ethics, where various moral perspectives are seen as equally
valid, further weakening the influence of traditional, often absolutist, ethical systems.

These ideas enforced by globalization challenge the foundations of traditional ethical systems by
promoting relativism, individualism, and secularism, leading to a more fragmented and market-
driven understanding of morality.

The concept of the "good life" is central to ethical theory, and it is understood differently across
various philosophical traditions. Here’s a comparison of how Virtue Ethics, Kantian Ethics, and
Utilitarian Ethics approach the idea of the "good life":

1. Virtue Ethics (Aristotle)

In Virtue Ethics, the "good life" is about flourishing or eudaimonia—living a life of virtue, reason,
and self-actualization. Eudaimonia is achieved by developing and practicing virtues such as
courage, temperance, wisdom, and justice. The "good life" is seen as a life of moral and
intellectual excellence, where a person realizes their full potential.

Virtue Ethics emphasizes the cultivation of good character and habits. It focuses not just on
actions but on the kind of person one becomes. The virtuous person acts from a stable disposition
formed by virtuous habits.
A key idea in Virtue Ethics is the Golden Mean, which is finding balance and moderation in actions
and emotions. For instance, courage is the mean between cowardice and recklessness.

Unlike other ethical theories, Virtue Ethics does not prescribe a specific set of rules or focus on
outcomes. Instead, it highlights the development of moral character and living in accordance with
human nature.

2. Kantian Ethics (Immanuel Kant)

In Kantian Ethics, the "good life" is defined by moral duty and rationality. A person leads a good
life when they act in accordance with the Categorical Imperative, which demands that we act
only in ways that we could will to become a universal law. In other words, moral actions must
respect the inherent dignity of every person, treating them as ends in themselves, not merely as
means to an end.

Kant believes that human beings are rational agents and that the "good life" involves living
according to the principles of reason. Actions must be motivated by duty, not by inclination or
self-interest. The moral worth of an action is determined by whether it is done out of a sense of
duty, not by the consequences it brings.

Kantian ethics is deontological, meaning that it focuses on adherence to moral rules and duties.
The moral worth of an action does not depend on its outcomes but on whether it conforms to a
universal moral law that respects human dignity.

Unlike Virtue Ethics, which focuses on developing character, and Utilitarianism, which emphasizes
outcomes, Kantian Ethics insists on the absolute nature of moral duties—there are rules we must
follow regardless of the consequences. The emphasis is on the intentions behind actions, not their
effects.

3. Utilitarian Ethics (Jeremy Bentham, John Stuart Mill)

For Utilitarianism, the "good life" is one that maximizes happiness or pleasure and minimizes
suffering or pain. The core principle is the Greatest Happiness Principle, which holds that actions
are right to the degree that they promote happiness for the greatest number of people.

The focus in Utilitarianism is on the outcomes of actions, specifically the amount of pleasure or
happiness they produce. The "good life" is the life that maximizes net positive pleasure or
happiness across society.

Utilitarianism is a consequentialist theory, meaning that the moral value of an action is

determined solely by its consequences. A morally right action is one that produces the greatest
good for the greatest number, often measured by a "hedonistic calculus" of pleasure versus pain.

Unlike Kantian Ethics, which focuses on duties and intentions, or Virtue Ethics, which is concerned
with character and virtue, Utilitarianism is pragmatic and outcome-oriented. The "good life" is
about maximizing well-being for all, regardless of the specific character or intent of individuals
involved.

In conclusion, while Virtue Ethics focuses on becoming a good person through the development
of virtues, Kantian Ethics emphasizes the importance of acting out of moral duty according to
universal principles, and Utilitarianism is concerned with achieving the greatest happiness by
considering the consequences of actions. Each framework offers a distinct path to the "good life,"
based on personal character, moral duties, or the promotion of happiness for all.