LEARNING

MODULE I
IN
ETHICS

College Department

1|Page
 ERRATA
Typo errors on the spelling and some
addition/omission of words made by the typist
had been discovered after this booklet/module
has been released.

Should you have any question, doubt,

confusion; or if you need clarification on any
section/article /item, please feel free to see the
Registrar’s Office.

Thank you.

DR. MERCURIO G. VILLANUEVA

Granby President

Module 1- Ethics

What is ethics?

2|Page
 - It is defined as the science of the morality of human acts.

Human Acts are actions performed by human, knowingly and freely. It

is also called intentional or deliberate actions or voluntarily.
Acts of Man it is involuntary and instinctive and unintentional.

- Derived from the Greek word ethos meaning characteristic way of living.
- In Latin word mos, mores meaning tradition and customs.
- Ethics is morality.
-
Morality is the quality of human acts by which they are determined as
good, bad, or indifferent.

- Ethics is an Art.
1. It is the breath of life
It pulsates with the desire for growth and development.
2. It is a master plan.
It indicates where man must go and what he/she ought to do in order to
live well.

Importance of Ethics
1. It is an indispensable knowledge.
2. Moral integrity is the only true measure of what man ought to be.
3. Morality is the foundation of every human society.

Module 1- Moral and Non- moral Standards

Characteristics:

3|Page
 1. Concerned of the serious consequence to human welfare.
2. Moral standards take priority over the other standards including self.
3. Their soundness depends on the adequacy of the reasons that justify them.

Moral Standards versus Non-moral Standards

It is important to note that different societies have different moral beliefs and that our
beliefs are deeply influenced by our own culture and context. For this reason, some values do
have moral implications, while others don’t. Let us consider, for example, the wearing of
hijab. For sure, in traditional Muslim communities, the wearing of hijab is the most
appropriate act that women have to do in terms of dressing up. In fact, for some Muslims,
showing parts of the woman’s body, such as the face and legs, is despicable. However, in
many parts of the world, especially in Western societies, most people don’t mind if women
barely cover their bodies. As a matter of fact, the Hollywood canon of beauty glorifies a sexy
and slim body and the wearing of extremely daring dress. The point here is that people in the
West may have pitied the Muslim women who wear hijab, while some Muslims may find
women who dress up daringly despicable.

Now, the danger here is that one culture may impose its own cultural standard on
others, which may result in a clash in cultural values and beliefs. When this happens, as we
may already know, violence and crime may ensue, such as religious violence and ethnic
cleansing.

How can we address this cultural conundrum?

This is where the importance of understanding the difference between moral standards
(that is, of what is a moral issue) and non-moral ones (that is, of what is a non-moral
issue―thus, a matter of taste) comes in. This issue may be too obvious and insignificant for
some people, but understanding the difference between the two may have far-reaching
implications. For one, once we have distinguished moral standards from non-moral ones, of
course, through the aid of the principles and theories in ethics, we will be able to identify
fundamental ethical values that may guide our actions. Indeed, once we know that particular
values and beliefs are non-moral, we will be able to avoid running the risk of falling into the
pit of cultural reductionism (that is, taking complex cultural issues as simple and homogenous
4|Page
ones) and the unnecessary imposition of one’s own cultural standard on others. The point
here is that if such standards are non-moral (that is, a matter of taste), then we don’t have the
right to impose them on others. But if such standards are moral ones, such as not killing or
harming people, then we may have the right to force others to act accordingly. In this way,
we may be able to find a common moral ground, such as agreeing not to steal, lie, cheat, kill,
harm, and deceive our fellow human beings.

Now, what are moral standards, and how do they differ from non-moral ones?

Moral Standards and their Characteristics

Moral standards are norms that individuals or groups have about the kinds of actions
believed to be morally right or wrong, as well as the values placed on what we believed to be
morally good or morally bad. Moral standards normally promote “the good”, that is, the
welfare and well-being of humans as well as animals and the environment. Moral standards,
therefore, prescribe what humans ought to do in terms of rights and obligations.

According to some scholars, moral standards are the sum of combined norms and
values. In other words, norms plus values equal moral standards. On the one hand, norms are
understood as general rules about our actions or behaviors. For example, we may say “We are
always under the obligation to fulfil our promises” or “It is always believed that killing
innocent people is absolutely wrong”. On the other hand, values are understood as enduring
beliefs or statements about what is good and desirable or not. For example, we may say
“Helping the poor is good” or “Cheating during exams is bad”.

According to many scholars, moral standards have the following characteristics

namely;

1. Moral standards deal with matters we think can seriously injure or benefit
humans, animals and the environment, such as child abuse, rape, and murder.
2. Moral standards are not established or change by the decisions of authoritative
individuals or bodies. Indeed, moral standards rest on the adequacy of the reasons
that are taken to support and justify them. For sure, we don’t need a law to back
up our moral conviction that killing innocent people is absolutely wrong.

5|Page
 3. Moral standards are overriding, that is, they take precedence over standards and
considerations, especially of self-interest.
4. Moral standards are based on impartial considerations. Hence, moral standards are
fair and just.
5. Moral standards are associated with special emotions (such as guilt and shame)
and vocabulary (such as right, wrong, good, and bad).

Non-moral Standards

Non-moral standards refer to standards by which we judge what is good or bad and
right or wrong in a non-moral way. Examples of non-moral standards are standards of
etiquette by which we judge manners as good or bad, standards we call the law by which we
judge something as legal or illegal, and standards of aesthetics by which we judge art as good
or rubbish. Hence, we should not confuse morality with etiquette, law, and aesthetics or even
with religion.

As we can see, non-moral standards are matters of taste or preference. Hence, a

scrupulous observance of these types of standards does not make one a moral person.
Violation of said standards also does not pose any threat to human well-being.

Finally, as a way of distinguishing moral standards from non-moral ones, if a moral standard
says “Do not harm innocent people” or “Don’t steal”, a non-moral standard says “Don’t text
while driving” or “Don’t talk while the mouth is full”.

Module 1- Moral Dilemmas

A moral dilemma is a conflict in which you have to choose between two or more
actions and have moral reasons for choosing each action.

6|Page
 Moral dilemmas are situations in which the decision-maker must consider two or
more moral values or duties but can only honor one of them; thus, the individual will
violate at least one important moral concern, regardless of the decision.

In a real dilemma, the choice is between a wrong and another, roughly equal wrong.
The latter are situations in which the decision-maker has a moral duty to act in one way but
is tempted or pressured to act in another way. In a false dilemma, the choice is actually
between a right and a wrong.

A moral dilemma is a situation in which the decision-maker has to give priority to

one moral value over another (Brinkmann, 2005; Maclagan, 2003; Toffler, 1986). Such
dilemmas “arise when, faced with a difficult situation (e.g. fair treatment for some versus
job security for others), two or more such values conflict in the perception of a decision-
maker, or when one is assessing another’s moral choice” (Maclagan,  2003, p. 22). A person
who faces a dilemma must decide which moral duty to prioritize; “whichever action is
taken … will offend an important moral value” (Maclagan, 2003, p. 23).

What is a Moral Dilemma?

A moral dilemma is a situation where:

1. You are presented with two or more actions, all of which you have the ability to
perform.
2. There are moral reasons for you to choose each of the actions.
3. You cannot perform all of the actions and have to choose which action, or actions
when there are three or more choices, to perform.

A moral dilemma can occur because of a prior personal mistake. This is called a self-
inflicted dilemma. A classic example is the Bible story about King Herod. On Herod’s
birthday, his stepdaughter Salome danced so well that he promised to give her whatever she
wanted. Salome consulted her mother about what she should wish for, and she decided to
ask for the head of John the Baptist on a platter. The king now had a choice between
honoring the promise to his stepdaughter and honoring the life of John the Baptist. The king
had inadvertently designed a moral trap for himself—a dilemma in which, whatever he
decided, he would be acting immorally.

Moral Dilemmas

7|Page
 1. Something morally right Bad outcome
2. Something morally wrong Good or Better outcome

Example: Moral Dilemma (Heinz Dilemma)

A woman was near death from a unique kind of cancer. There is a drug that might
save her. The drug costs $4, 000 per dosage. The sick woman’s husband, Heinz, went to
every he knew to borrow the money and tried every legal means, but he could only get
together about $2, 000. He asked the doctor scientist who discovered the drug for a discount
or that he let him pay later. But the doctor scientist refused.

Should Heinz break into the laboratory to steal the drug for his wife? Why or Why not?

Moral Stages by Lawrence Kohlberg (1927-1987)

Kohlberg proposed that moral reasoning, which he thought to be the basis for ethical
behavior, develops through stages.

1. Pre-conventional
2. Conventional
3. Post-conventional

Level 1 - Pre-conventional

Reasoners judge the morality of an action by its direct consequences.

Stage 1: Obedience and Punishment

Individuals focus on the direct consequences that their actions will have for
themselves.

Stage 2: Individualism, Instrumentalism, and Exchange

- One’s own best interest.

Back to the Example: (Heinz Dilemma)

8|Page
Level 1(Pre-Conventional)

Stage 1(Obedience)

Heinz should not steal the medicine, because otherwise he will be put in prison.

Stage 2 (self- interest) - one’s own best interest.

Heinz should steal the medicine, because he will be much happier if he saves his
wife, even if he will have to serve a prison sentence.

Level 2- Conventional

The people who reason in a conventional way judge the morality of actions by
comparing these actions to social rules and expectations

Stage 3: Interpersonal Concordance (Good boy/girl)

- Individuals seek approval from other people.

Stage 4: Law and Order

Individuals think it is important to obey the law and conventions of society.

Back to the Example: (Heinz Dilemma)

Level 2 (Conventional)

Stage 3 (Conformity)

Heinz should steal the medicine, because his wife expects it.

Stage 4 (Law and Order)

Heinz should not steal the medicine, because the law prohibits stealing.

Level 3- Post Conventional

(Most people do not reach this level of moral reasoning)

9|Page
Stage 5: Human Rights

- People have certain principled to which they attach more value than laws, such as
human rights.
- An action is wrong if it violates certain ethical principles.
- Laws that do not promote general social welfare should change,

Stage 6: Universal Ethical Principles (Principled Conscience)

- Moral reasoning is based on the use of abstract reasoning using universal principles.

Back to the Example: (Heinz Dilemma)

Level 3 (Post Conventional)

Stage 5 (Human Rights)

Heinz should steal the medicine because saving his wife is more important than
obeying the law.

Stage 6 (Universal Human Ethics)

Heinz should steal the medicine, because saving a human life is a more fundamental
value than respecting the property of another person.

False Moral Dilemma

False moral dilemmas are instances in which it is clear what ought to be done but in
which there is temptation or pressure to act in another way. In business ethics, the
distinction between true and false dilemmas has also been described as the distinction
between dilemmas and temptations (Brinkmann, 2005, p. 183; Kidder, 1995, p. 7).

10 | P a g e
 For instance, lawyers and accountants can be tempted to prioritize self-interest over
their clients’ interests. The knowledge gap between the professionals and the clients is such
that the risk that clients will detect such choices is minimal. The professionals may claim
that they are facing moral dilemmas when, for example, opportunities arise to overcharge
clients. In the vocabulary of this book, the most appropriate term for such a situation
is false dilemma. This situation may resemble a real dilemma in that the decision-maker
must decide between two options that are both undesirable in some way, as cheating the
client feels wrong, but so does turning down a chance to earn extra money. However, the
former feeling has a moral component that is lacking in the latter. Thus, conflict-of-interest
situations are generally false moral dilemmas with only superficial similarities to real
dilemmas.

Activity 1

Answer the following base on your own opinion.

1. What is ethics?
11 | P a g e
 2. What is moral dilemma?

3. Give the importance of ethics in human life?

Extended activity

Write a scenario (based on own experience) wherein we can see the difference of
human acts and acts of man.

12 | P a g e
13 | P a g e