GE-8 Ethics |Module 2 |Moral Standards, | Moral Reasoning

Reminder: Please be reminded that the distribution of modules in this subject is through the
CEAS office, made to be available for copying only maybe by a xerographic copier. This shall be
available only on the first (1st) and third (3rd) Monday of the month during the entire period of
the semester.
(For BSEE, BSCS and BCAEd exclusive use)

I.Warm-up:
For 2-5 minutes ponder on these questions: (you may write on a sheet of paper)
1. Do you feel that you should always be moral? Why or why not?
2. Do you think that humans in general should be moral? Why or why
not?

II.Introduction:

Moral Standards
Moral standards are those concerned with or relating to human behavior,
especially the distinction between good and bad behavior. Moral standards involve
the rules people have about the kinds of actions they believe are morally right and
wrong. As well as the values they place on the kinds of objects they believe morally
good and morally bad.

To speak ways of acting which, in themselves, are worthy of being chosen,

even before we know it and even without recognizing it, raises a good question.
“Why is it some actions are worthy or unworthy of being chosen, and what is it
which gives them the quality and which accounts for the characteristics?” this
question is often called the question of objectivity norm or standard of morality.

III.Input
1. Norms are purely internal.
Many people today reject any moral norms or standards which would be
based on the existence of values outside of us and they argue that the only
valid norms are purely internal: “be true to yourself”, “do what you feel is right”,
“follow your conscience.” But at best these so-called internal norms beg the
question: To which self am I to be true? Not only do we change, but we
ourselves are divided, vacillating in respect to almost every important decision;
within each of us there are competing selves clamoring for attention, and it is
possible that the self which I am at the moment is not the self which I ought to
be. It is also possible that "what I feel is right" might actually not be right at all.
It is even possible that my conscience, in a given case, might be the product of
self-deception, or might be a hypocritical facade for selfishness. These internal
norms, such as conscience, make sense only if they are based on something
outside of us as individuals, which can rightfully lay total claim to us. To vote
for a particular candidate, for example, based on one's conscience which is an
internal norm, could also be grounded on something external or outside of us
by asking questions, such as, is the candidate maka-Diyos, maka-tao and
maka-kalikasan? Is his record clean as a public servant? Was he involved in
any acts of graft and corruption?

2. Norms based on current opinions and customs.

There are some who use the norm that current opinions and customs
determine the acceptable mode of acting or at least rationalize along these
lines. This is reflected in the not uncommonly heard phrase “everybody is
doing it”. But right is still right no matter how many people are wrong. Many
 attempts at persuasive arguments relative to “planned parenthood” and
contraceptive birth control run along this line. Most people today hold that
contraception is morally allowable; therefore, it is. In other words, there are
people who would point of fact base morality or majority opinion.

3. Norm of expediency.
Other people regulate their actions in accordance with what is useful at
them at the moment rather than what is objectively right or wrong. This is the
norm of expediency. A good number of people today guide their actions by
expediency rather than by morality. Not infrequently in modern times rulers of
nation have abandoned the ship of states to the winds and currents of
expediency, with results always confusing, frequently dangerous and
sometimes disastrous.

4. Norm of "preference.
" There are still others who act in accordance with what is desirable, what
one "prefers" doing rather than what is right or wrong. Such is the man who
has bad teeth but will not go to the dentist; he has no doubts about what he
ought to do, but to visit a dentist may be unpleasant. Or take the case of an
assistant tax •collector who knows that he should in certain particular
circumstances express disapproval of an immoral procedure or refuse to
cooperate in an immoral operation done by other tax -collectors but would find
this unpleasant and so compromises his principles.

5. Situation Ethics.
To the question *What must I do to act rightly and well?" there is one
answer which we hear more often than any other in our day: "I must always do
what I feel is right for me. I must not impose my views of right and wrong on
you, and you must not impose your views on me. For after all. who is to say
who is right?" This view is defended theoretically under the heading of situation
ethics, and there it is often given a theological cover, “there are no objective
conduct for human activity”. I must always act in what I perceive tri a loving
way, by letting the situation in all its uniqueness, speak to me”. Behind the
rhetoric above love there seems to lurk the suspicion that the general norms
or standards of action are abstract and cannot really so justice to the unique
character of each situation.

6. Evaluation.
Morality is not a matter of current opinions or actions of the majority; it is
not a matter of what is useful at the moment, of a spirit of altruism, of
expediency, of feeling. It is not a matter of social usefulness or sentiment. That
is right which is in conformity with human nature and right reason or
commanded by God; that is wrong which runs contrary to human nature, right
reason, or God's command. Rape, murder, and adultery are wrong not
because of statistics or popularity or public apathy or expediency or opinion
polls, but because they run counter to right reason and God's will. Basically, it
is a question of principle versus expediency. Morality is intrinsic, objective and
unchanging. That is right which is in conformity with the divine will. It is
expressed in our life through a properly formed conscience.

Moral Reasoning

Moral reasoning is the study of how people think about right and wrong
and how they acquire and apply moral rules. It is a subdiscipline of moral
psychology that overlaps with moral philosophy, and is the foundation
of descriptive ethics.
 Why do we suppose that a certain way of acting is right and its opposite
wrong? The study of ethics is interested in questions like these: Why do we
decide to consider this way of acting as acceptable while that way of acting,
its opposite, is unacceptable? To put it in another way, what reasons do we
give to decide or to judge that a certain way of acting is either right or wrong?
A person's fear of punishment or desire for reward can provide him a reason
for acting in a certain way. It is common to hear someone say: "l did not cheat
on the exam because I was afraid that I might get caught," or "l looked after
my father in the hospital because I wanted to get a higher allowance." In a
certain sense, fear of punishment and desire for reward can be spoken of as
giving someone a "reason “for acting in a certain way. But the question then
would be: Is this reason good enough? That is to say, this way of thinking
seems to be a shallow way of understanding reason because it does not show
any true understanding of why cheating on an exam is wrong or why looking
after a member of my family is in itself a good thing. The promise of rewards
and the fear of punishments can certainly motivate us to act, but are not in
themselves a determinant of the rightness or wrongness of a certain way of
acting or of the good or the bad in a particular pursuit. Is it possible to find
better reasons for finding a certain way of acting either acceptable or
unacceptable?

I am in a situation wherein I could obtain a higher grade for myself by

cheating. I make the decision not to do so. Or I know that my friend was in a
position to get a better grade for herself by cheating. She refuses to do so; I
then make the judgment of praising her for this. In making this kind of moral
decision or moral judgment, the question can be asked: Why?
Asking the question "why" might bring us to no more than a superficial
discussion of rewards and punishments, as seen above, but it could also bring
us to another level of thinking. Perhaps one can rise above the particulars of
a specific situation, going beyond whatever motivation or incentive is present
in this instance of cheating (or not doing so). In other words, our thinking may
take on a level of abstraction, that is, detaching itself from the particular
situation and arriving at a statement like, "Cheating is wrong," by recognizing
proper reasons for not acting in this way. Beyond rewards and punishments,
it is possible for our moral valuation—our decisions and judgments—to be
based on a principle. Thus, one may conclude that cheating is wrong based
on a sense of fair play or a respect for the importance and validity of testing.
From this, we can define principles as rationally established grounds by which
one justifies and maintains her moral decisions and judgement.

But why do we maintain one particular principle rather than another? Why
should I maintain that I should care for fair play and that cheating is, therefore,
wrong? In case of fraternity hazing, why is it wrong to cause another person
physical injury or to take another's life? We can maintain principles, but we can
also ask what good reasons for doing so. Such reasons may differ. so, for
example, what makes the death of fraternity neophyte such a tragedy? One
person may say that life is sacred and God-given. Another person may declare
that human life has a priceless dignity. Still another may put forward the idea
that taking another's life does not contribute to human happiness but to human
misery instead. How exactly do we arrive at any of these claims? This is where
we turn to theory. A moral theory is a systematic attempt to establish the
validity of maintaining certain moral principles. Insofar as a theory is a system
of thought or of ideas, it can also be referred to as a framework. We can use
this term, "framework," as a theory of interconnected ideas, and at the same
time, a structure through which we can evaluate our reasons for valuing a
certain decision or judgment.
 There are different frameworks that can make us reflect on the principles
that we maintain and thus, the decisions and judgments we make. reconsider,
clarify, modify, and ultimately strengthen our principles, thereby informing
better both our moral judgements and moral decisions.

As we move along with our semester, we will explore different ethical

frameworks that have come down from the history of philosophy. This is not
exhaustive list, and many worthwhile theories and thinkers have been set
aside, but the choice had been made to discuss more deeply and at greater
length just a few of the more significant and influential thinkers and ideas that
have contributed to ethical discernment.

In The Apology of Socrates written by Plato, Socrates makes the claim that
it is the greatest good of a person to spend time thinking about and discussing
with others these questions on goodness and virtue. Hopefully, as we pursue
these topics, you will come to agree with Socrates that this effort is indeed a
good thing, we will be returning to Plato later in this chapter, as he guided us
though some further difficulties.

IV. Readings

1. Buenaflor, Lionel, et.al, UNRAVELING THE ABSOLUTE MORAL

PRINCIPLE: Ethics for Filipino Students, Books Atbp., Corp. Manila.
2018
2. Evangelista, Francis Julius and Mabaquiao, Napoleon Jr., ETHICS:
Theories and Applications, Anvil Publishing, Inc. Manila. 2020
3. Pasco, Marc Oliver, et.al. ETHICS, C & E Publishing House,
Inc.Manila.2020
4. Rachels, James and Rachels, Stuart. THE ELEMENTS OF MORAL
PHILOSOPHY. McGraw Hill Publishing. New York. 2010
5. Reynaldo A. Padilla, ETHICS, A Textbook for the New General
Education Curriculum, Books atbp, Publishing Corp. Manila 2019
6. Bulaong, Calano, et.al, ETHICS, Foundation of Moral Valuation, Rex
Book Store. Manila. 2018

____FREDDIE R. COLLADA____
Instructor 1