MARJORIE T.

GARCIA

BSA 2D

COMPILATION OF ACTIVITES IN ETHICS

CHAPTER 3

LESSON 1: ARISTOTLE’S VIRTUE THEORY

ACTIVITY

JENNA

Jenny is a loving mother of 6 who tries to make ends meet by offering her
services for laundry, cleaning houses, taking care of kids or old folks and just basically
accepting any job she can. The husband on the other hand, is a carpenter who recently
had an accident. While recovering, he is selling all sorts of items. One day, Jenna
found out that she is pregnant again with twins. They cannot afford another mouth to
feed, let alone two. Despite neighbours telling her to have an abortion, she decided to
continue with her pregnancy because for her, she cannot entertain the idea of killing
her unborn children. However, as soon as they were born, she gave them up for
adoption to a childless couple.

Do you think Jenna is a morally good person?

Yes, Jenna is morally a good person because despite how hard the situation
she was in, she did not entertain the idea of killing her innocent unborn children. It also
shows how responsible of a person, a wife and a mother Jenna is. Giving up her
children for adoption can’t be considered morally wrong since she only wants what’s
best for her children.

If you were in her situation, what would you have done?

If I were Jenna, I would still do the same thing she did. I would not entertain the
idea of abortion because the unborn children are innocent and as a mother, I would
take responsibility of taking care of them. On the part where she gave up her children
for adoption, I think I would still do the same if I don’t really have a choice and I know
that it’s for their own good.
Do you agree with her decision?

Yes, I agree with her decision because she only did what she think would be
best for her children and that is to give them up for adoption to a childless couple who
is more capable of providing their basic needs.

DISCUSSION

What makes a person morally good?

A person is morally good if he is committed to preserving and enhancing in an

appropriate order of importance all the various “goods” (individual aspects of the
“good”) over which he or she has influence. This includes pursuing one’s own moral
goodness as well as the well-being of others. A person can be considered morally
good when he can cultivates understanding of the various “goods” of life (by education)
and the capacity to reason clearly about those “goods” and about the conditions
necessary for their preservation and enhancement.

DEEPENING

1) What do you think are the top three (3) most important virtues that man should

possess? Why?

 Prudence- It disposes practical reason to discern our true good in every

circumstance and to choose the right means of achieving it; the prudent man
looks where he is going. It also guides the judgement of our conscience.
 Justice- It regulates the relationships with others. It is a cardinal virtue, which is
to say that it is "pivotal", because it regulates all such relationships, and is
sometimes deemed the most important of the cardinal virtues.
 Benevolence- It indicates a charitable disposition to do good in regard to others,
and to act with genuinely compassionate and kind considerations of their needs
and desires. It is embraced as a vitally important ethical virtue in most human
societies, religions, philosophies and cultures.

2) What are some of the habits that you have? Cite atleast three (3). Do you think that
they lead you into becoming a virtuous person?
 MY HABITS EXPLANATION
Helpful I think these habits can lead me into
becoming a virtuous person If I could
achieve the mean and learn through my
experiences while doing this habits since
according to Aristotle, virtue is a skill, a
way of living, and that’s something that
can only be learned through experience.
Generous Yes, having the right amount of being
generous can lead me into becoming a
virtuous person.
Responsible Yes, being responsible can lead me into
becoming a virtuous person. I should just
achieve the right amount of it.

3) What is the most important virtue do you think should be exercised and
developed by the following professions? (Short answers only):

1) Accountant- Discreet- an accountant should be judicious in one's conduct or

speech, especially with regard to respecting privacy or maintaining silence about
something of a delicate nature

2) Nurse- Caring- a nurse should give love and attention to patients and things that
matter to them.

3) Lawyer- Integrity- a lawyer should connotes positive and virtuous attributes such
as, honesty, truthfulness, straightforwardness, and forth rightfulness.

4) Engineer- Creativity- Examining the complex role that motivation plays in

creativity foregrounds the role of intrinsic motivation in paradigmatic cases of
creative achievement.

5) Doctor- Compassion- a doctor should be empathetic to the pain and suffering of

her patients, which is vital to the patients’ well-being. Compassionate care makes
patients more comfortable when they’re in pain, feeling ill or suffering from mental
or emotional stress. By demonstrating compassion, you provide your patients with
the support and confidence they need to prepare for a lengthy recovery, face a
frightening surgical procedure or fight a devastating disease.

6) Carpenter- Patience- a carpenter needs patience in order to deal with how hard
his work.

7) Teacher- Patience- a teacher needs patience in order to deal with different types
of students she encounter everyday.

LESSON 1 : VIRTUE ETHICS FORUM QUESTIONS

1) What do you think are the top three (3) most important virtues that a college
student should possess? Explain each briefly.
• Responsibility- A college student should possess the virtue of
responsibility because studying is the most crucial period in the life of a person
especially when we start going to college. It is not just about attending classes
in a course and working hard to attain an appropriate level of mastery of a
subject under the guidance of an instructor. It is our responsibility to acquire
and learn the real meaning and value of hard work for better grades, discipline,
punctuality, teamwork, unity, and more, and strive to become a successful and
good human being.

• Ambition- It is imperative for us students to have and pursue goals in

order to become successful. When these goals are based in reality, we have
the framework for developing goals towards higher and higher achievements
that are fulfilling and meaningful. Once I achieve today’s goals, I set my bar
higher for tomorrow’s goals. As I continually push myself to be the best that I
can be, I increase my enjoyment of life, both in terms of the process of
accomplishing the goals which is to finish and submit my requirements on time
and in terms of enjoying the fruits of my completed goals.

• Wisdom- One of the virtue that a college student should possess is

wisdom because we should understand the concept of personal gaining of
knowledge, understanding, experience, discretion, and intuitive understanding,
along with the capacity to apply these qualities well towards finding solutions to
problems that we encounter in our college life as well as in our daily lives. We
 must possess this virtue since it is the judicious and purposeful application of
knowledge that is valued in our society.

2) How is a person's character formed according to Aristotle?

According to Aristotle, a person’s character develops over time as one acquires

habits from parents and community, first through reward and punishment. He claims
that one is partly responsible for one’s character, but he thereby raises the question
whether one freely chooses one’s character. A person of good character does choose
freely, however, and is able to frame complex situations accurately. The full
development of character requires rational reflection.

LESSON 2: ST. THOMAS AQUINAS AND NATURAL LAW THEORY

ACTIVITY

Natural or Unnatural?

In October 2016, newspapers reported that Pantaleon Alvarez, Speaker of the

House of Representatives, was intending to draft a bill which would amend the
country’s Family Code, thereby allowing for the legalization of same-sex unions. This
would result in the possibility of two men together or two women together being
identified as a couple with rights guaranteed and protected by the law. However, as
one newspaper report revealed, even before anything could be formally proposed,
other fellow legislators had already expressed to the media their refusal to support any
such initiative. The reasons given in the news article vary, ranging from the opinion
that seeing two men kiss is unsightly, to the statement that there is something
“irregular” about belonging to the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender (LGBT)
community, and to the judgment that two people of the same sex being together is
unnatural.

Do you agree with reasons? Why or Why Not?

Yes, I agree with the reasons because it really is unsightly and unnatural. God
created a man for a woman and a woman for a man and the proposed legislation
violated the natural law of marriage between man and woman. Man sometimes
forgives, but nature never forgives so we should stop violating the nature.

DISCUSSION

What makes something/someone “natural”?

Something natural describes something that comes from nature, rather than
being man-made and functioning or occurring in a normal way. While someone natural
it is applied to a person with regards to his abilities, it means that the person have an
innate gift or talent for a particular task or activity.

DEEPENING

1) Are there other ways that the word “natural” is used to justify a particular way of
behaving?

I think the word “natural” cannot be used to justify a particular way of behaving.
For, example an act of a person stealing is considered natural by himself, should he
be justified for his act of stealing just because it is natural for him?

2) Can you think of human laws that violate the natural law? Cite atleast two and
explain why and how they violate the natural law.

 Implementing death penalty of criminals. It violates the natural law in a

way that It ends the rights of these people to live and not giving them a
chance to reflect with their mistakes and feel the regret of doing such an
act.
 Legalizing abortion- It violates the natural law because it kill beings that
would have a future like ours if they lived. They are killing an innocent
being and they destroy a potential human life.

3) Can “self-defense” in a homicide case be justified under the natural law?

Self-defense is defined as the right to prevent suffering force or violence

through the use of a sufficient level of counteracting force or violence. It's a universally
accepted principle that a person may protect themselves from harm under appropriate
circumstances, even when that behavior would normally constitute a crime. Self-
defense only justifies the use of force when it is used in response to an immediate
threat. The threat can be verbal, as long as it puts the intended victim in an immediate
fear of physical harm. Offensive words without an accompanying threat of immediate
physical harm, however, do not justify the use of force in self-defense.

4) Are there current scientific developments – for example, in biology – that challenge
the understanding of nature presented by Aquinas? Cite atleast two and give a short
discussion.

The natural sciences tell us nothing as to whether the universe is created. All
this, thus far, is a series of assertions, with perhaps the strangest being that there is a
philosophical sense of creation, open, in principle, to the investigation of reason alone.
Various contemporary debates in the West about the relationship between
developments in the natural sciences, especially evolutionary biology and cosmology,
and creation often employ a concept of creation, or better a “creationism,” that is based
on a literalistic reading of Genesis. Too often, “creation” is identified with what are
sometimes referred to as accounts of the “six days of creation.” Analyses of the “six
days” are essentially commentaries on the biblical text and not really a theology of
creation. Thomas Aquinas noted that what is essential in the biblical account is the
“fact of creation,” not the manner or order of formation of the world.

5) Is it possible to maintain the natural law without believing in God who is the source

of it?

I think it is still possible to maintain natural law theory without believing in the
divine source since natural law is universal and it refers to moral principles common
to most or all human cultures while believing in the divine source is not universally
known though it may be universally binding. There are individuals who do not believe
in the existence of the divine source but they can still maintain the natural law theory.
There are also individuals who claims that they believe in the divine source but cannot
maintain and know what natural law theory really means.
LESSON 2: NATURAL LAW THEORY FORUM QUESTIONS

1) Can you distinguish (in your own terms) “natural" from "normal"?

Natural means that when it is applied to a person with regards to his abilities, it
means that the person have an innate gift or talent for a particular task or activity.
When it is applied to our surroundings it means that it is caused by nature and are not
made or caused by humankind such us our natural resources. On the other hand,
Normal means usual or typical. It has something to do with the conformance of some
norm which is the standard or rule by which something is evaluated, and by which it is
judged to be good or bad and right or wrong. There are things that are certainly not
normal, but it’s perfectly natural and has every right to exist.

2) Is it possible to maintain a natural law theory without believing in the divine source?
Why or why not?

I think it is still possible to maintain natural law theory without believing in the
divine source since natural law is universal and it refers to moral principles common
to most or all human cultures while believing in the divine source is not universally
known though it may be universally binding. There are individuals who do not
believe in the existence of the divine source but they can still maintain the natural
law theory. There are also individuals who claims that they believe in the divine
source but cannot maintain and know what natural law theory really means.

LESSON 3: IMMANUEL KANT AND DEONTOLOGICAL ETHICS

ACTIVITY

THE HONEST TAXI DRIVER

What if he took the suit case and sold its contents? What would be your reaction?

I think I would get disappointed by his action because it’s not right to get
something we don’t own from someone just for our benefits.

DISCUSSION

1) If you were Reggie, what would you have done?

 If I were Reggie, I would still return the suitcase just like he did because it is the
right thing to do. We can’t claim something we don’t own.

2) Will you be willing to return the suitcase without the promise of a reward?

Yes, I would still be willing to return the suitcase even without a promise of a
reward because I believe that we should help someone without asking for something
in return and that is the essence of giving and helping.

3) What is understanding on the concept of “DUTY”?

Duty is the obligation to do certain types of actions. They appear to be the

strongest normative statements in the language of morals. They are commitment or
expectation to perform some action in general or if certain circumstances arise. A duty
may arise from a system of ethics or morality, especially in an honor culture. Many
duties are created by law, sometimes including a codified punishment or liability for
non-performance. Performing one's duty may require some sacrifice of self-interest.

DEEPENING

1) Test the universalizability of the following principles. State Yes, if universalizable,

No if not. Explain your answer briefly:

1) Give alms to the poor. Yes, because it is a universal and necessary maxim and the
action connects to a good reason.

2) Stealing only when it is for survival. No, because it is not universal and necessary
maxim and the action can’t be justified by the reason.

3) Always do what makes you happy. No, because there are some things that makes
us happy but gives negative effect to others. We might be happy for doing such action
but there are some consequences that we might face in doing so.

4) Treat everybody respectfully. Yes, just like what is stated in the Golden Rule: Do
unto others what you want others do unto you. It is similar with the saying that respect
begets respect.

5) Act only for as long as nobody is hurt by your action. Yes, because in every actions
that we make, we should take into consideration its effect and consequences to others.
2) Robin Hood’s tale has been romanticized in many stories that he is regarded as a
hero. A rogue stealing from the rich so he can give to the poor that is the stuff people
can easily champion.

a) How will it fare under the universalizability test?

Robin Hood's action can't pass under the universalizability test even though
his motives can be acceptable. The universalizability principle states that a person
must stand outside his personal maxims or his personal rule of action. Robin Hood's
action of stealing from the rich can't be justified just because he want to help the poor.
Stealing is still unethical and they go against the law of the society. Universalizability
principle also requires that the acceptable moral maxims should be the same for all so
even though those people are rich, Robin Hood must not steal from them. He should
try to put himself on the shoes of those rich people and ask himself if he wants his
wealth be stolen by someone. None of us wants to be a victim of stealing even though
the reason for doing so has a good intention for others. Stealing cannot be
universalized and as Kant argues, there should be no exception to the rule. What
applies to one must be applicable to all just like what is stated in the Golden Rule: “Do
unto others as we would want them do unto us”. We should fairly treat others the way
we want to be treated ourselves fairly.

b) Is it using people as means rather than as end?

Some people justify breaking rules because they say that their action or outcome
is not immoral, or that it achieves a greater good. Just like what Robin Hood did. Still,
his act of stealing is morally ambiguous, even when the end seems to justify the means
which is to help the poor. In Robin Hood's case, I think his motive is based on mere
means and not as an end. His act of stealing from the rich can't be morally acceptable
for the good of another which is the poor. He violates the rich people's inherent worth
as a rational being as what Kant’s belief that every human being has an inherent worth
that emanates from the sheer possession of rationality. Robin Hood's act of stealing
cannot be morally justified if it treats the rich only as a means, though it produces a
greater good for the poor.

c) Ultimately under the Kantian theory, is Robin Hood’s action morally good?
 Ultimately under the Kantian Theory, Robin Hood's act of stealing is morally
wrong, no matter how good the intentions. We should not look at the situation as a
whole, and should not take into account the overall damage and overall benefit caused
by the action. We should only look at the action itself, which normally, stealing is
considered a bad or morally wrong thing to do as it violates the rule of the society. As
what Kant belief that if it is right for one man to steal, it should be right for anyone to
steal, as the action should be considered alone, and the circumstances cannot change
how moral the action is. We should not treat people as a means to an end. We should
value life and treat everyone as an individual, and not just as a number. Kantian Theory
stress the importance of duty and good intentions : "Act only according to that maxim
which you can, at the same time, will to become a universal law". In other words, we
should only do what we would want everyone else to do. We should also be able to
differentiate morally bad actions such as robbing, killing from morally good actions
such as helping people, giving to charity, and these would not change, no matter the
intentions or circumstances.

LESSON 4: UTILITARIAN ETHICS

ACTIVITY AND DISCUSSION

1) What do you think are the ideal outcomes of the War on Drugs?

I think the only ideal outcome of the War on Drugs is that it reduces the number
of drug personalities in the country because that is the goal of the government.
They want our country to be free from the use of illegal drugs but because of this
they are violating the human rights.

2) Do you agree with how the War on Drugs is being implemented?

President Rodrigo Duterte’s war on drugs in the Philippines is morally and

legally unjustifiable. Resulting in egregious and large-scale violations of human rights,
it amounts to state-sanctioned murder. It is also counterproductive for countering the
threats and harms that the illegal drug trade and use pose to society — exacerbating
both problems while profoundly shredding the social fabric and rule of law in the
Philippines.
DEEPENING

CASE 1: JIM AND THE INDIGENOUS PEOPLE

1) What should Jim do? Explain how Bentham’s version addresses this
question.
Also, discuss how Mill’s version would suggest what would Jim do.

Bentham’s idea of Quantitative hedonistic utilitarianism is concerned with

aggregate utility maximization or maximizing the overall happiness of everyone.
It’s about the greatest good of the greatest number of people. According to his
calculus whoever is receiving more pleasure than pain, by all means should
continue the act, even if it is immoral. So in Jim’s case, he should choose to
shoot one of the prisoners in order to save the lives of the other prisoners
because he should consider the number of people who will benefit from his
action Even. According to the idea of quantitative utilitarianism, every action
results in some amount of “pleasure” and some amount of “pain” for an
individual. The act of Jim shooting one of the prisoners results pain to the one
who will be shot but results a great amount of pleasure to the other prisoners
since they are given another chance to live. He should choose the action that
produces the higher value of pleasure. The action that has the greater net total
value of pleasure is the morally good choice.

On the other hand, Mill’s version would suggest that Jim should refuse on
shooting one of the prisoners since it is considered as an immoral act. It will
look like he sacrificed the lives of the prisoners but according to Mill, quality is
more preferable than quantity and excessive quantity of what is otherwise
pleasurable might result in pain. He should not consider the number of people
receiving more pleasure than pain, by all means he should not continue the act,
because it is immoral and might result to greater pain for himself.

2) If you were Jim, what would you do?

If we were Jim, we would choose to shoot one of the prisoners in order to

save the lives of the other prisoners because I should also consider the number
of people who will benefit from our action just like the idea of Bentham in
Quantitative Hedonistic Utilitarianism. Since the criteria in the hedonistic
calculus are expressed in terms of pleasure, they equally apply to pain also
which is somehow the case of Jim. So, if we talk about actions that produces
pain, the action that results to lesser is the one we will be choosing.

CASE 2: THE TERRORIST

1) Would you torture the terrorist so that he would say where the bomb is, in
order to save thousands of lives? Why? Or Why not?

So, if you torture him, he still won't say where the bomb is, but the police has
his family as well.

No, because torturing is very ineffective which often leads to unreliable

results. The terrorist can just lie and answer my questions for me to stop
torturing him. This would also favor him since it would buy him more time to
wait for the detonation of the bomb. Also, torture is against human rights
because it is cruel, inhumane, and degrading. If I cause him harm, it might also
anger him more which would cause him to distrust us more. Instead of torturing
him, I would just try to convince him that his sentence would be lowered and
his family would be protected if he cooperates. This might make him feel safer
and more comfortable with the thought of cooperating with us. If he still doesn't
tell us the location of the bomb, we would just look for other ways of persuading
him into telling us without harming anyone in the process.

3) Would you torture the terrorist's 10-year old son in front of him, to make him
reveal the location of the bomb?

No, because the terrorist's crime is his alone and his son did nothing to aid
his father. Also, even if the son did help his father commit the crime, he still
shouldn't be tortured because at his young age, his mind is not fully developed
yet, and most of his actions are deeply influenced by those close to him.
Additionally, hurting someone just to pry information should never be an option
even for those of authority because as human beings, our topmost priority
should be to care for others instead of causing harm. If I tortured a 10-year old
boy, then I would be no different from the terrorist. Instead, I would talk to the
boy and ask him to convince his father to tell us the location of the bomb so we
 could save not only the civilians, but also the terrorist and his family. The
terrorist might not listen to me because I am a nSobody to him, but his family
would surely have a different impact on him. Lastly, even if the terrorist would
not tell the location of the bomb after talking to his family, we could find other
means of making him talk, such as asking for his demands and looking for a
compromise. Either way, I would not torture an innocent 10-year old boy just
because it seems like the easiest choice to choose.

LESSON 5: JUSTICE

ACTIVITY AND DISCUSSION

1) How exactly should the pizza be divided among the four friends?
In order to be fair, everyone must have a fair distribution of the benefits
and burdens. Each person involved get what they should deserve to receive.
So the pizza should be divided according to their distribution. The greater
one’s contributions, the greater should be his/her share in the distribution.
2) What should be the basis for the division and distribution?

The basis for the division and distribution should be according to each
person’s contribution.

3) Who among the four should decide on how the pizza should be divided?
I think among the four friends, Luci should be the one to decide how the
pizza should be divided. But since they are friends, I think they won’t
think of dividing the pizza as to how how great or small their contribution
is.

4) What is Justice for you?

Justice is the moral principle of just conduct. A just person is one who
typically “does what is morally right” and is disposed to “giving everyone his or her
due”. It consists in what is lawful and fair, with fairness involving equitable distributions
and the correction of what is inequitable. It is considered as the most fundamental of
all virtues for ordering interpersonal relations and establishing and maintaining a stable
political society.

DEEPENING

1) Make a comparison of the pros and cons among the three kinds of distributive
justice:
Category Egalitarian Capitalism Socialism
PROS Its interpretation Capitalism ensures Needs-based
of this equal that distributions justice reduces the
status as are sensitive to the disparity in wealth,
requiring effort or not only in different
substantive contributions that areas but also in all
equality, i.e., that people make to the societal ranks and
each individual social surplus. The classes.
be placed in the idea is that some
same social or people deserve
economic certain shares or
conditions. outcomes because
of their previous
actions. Hence,
distributions are
proportionate to
contributions.
Equality of The reward is Corrects the market
opportunity could based on equity distribution of
be fully satisfied and reciprocity, income and wealth
in a society in incentivizing by giving resources
which wealth performance and to those who are
passed along by inspiring worst off
inheritance from cooperation. economically. It
generation to Recognition comes maintains that
generation from income is
 fundamentally accomplishment in subsumed under
determines mutually beneficial the general principle
everyone's exchange and fair of controlling
competitive competition. inequalities to
prospects. Equality is maximize the living
subordinate to standard of the least
productivity to advantaged group
maximize the
common good of
the organizational
entity.
CONS Equality cannot People's ability to The problem of
be ensured; it is contribute is a socialist justice is of
impossible to result of pre- determining
distinguish existing institutional
between aspects inequalities. Those structures in which
of people’s lives who are better off benefits received
resulting from can contribute adequately repay
inheritance or more because they the benefits
choice. have more conferred, and
resources or they these structures are
have a better subject only to the
education. Thus, constraint that the
perpetuating liberty should not be
injustices and unnecessarily
inequalities. infringed.
Egalitarian Capitalist interests Socialism bridles
principles-- and the rich will economic freedom
political and have vastly more by prohibiting or
economic— influence over the limiting capitalist
restricts freedom. political process activities such as
than other citizens, setting up a private
a condition which firm, hiring wage
 violates the workers, and
requirement of keeping, investing,
equal political or spending profits.
liberties.
It undermines The requirement of The weakness of
productivity. If the the equal worth of this approach is that
state redistributes political and people that work
income or other personal liberties hard all their lives
resources, then implies that will have to give
there is less extreme money to the
incentive to be inequalities of government to
productive. wealth are unjust distribute to the poor
because they or disabled. Some
provide a would say this is not
fundamentally fair because an
unequal base to individual will reap
different groups of the benefits of
people for the another person’s
exercise of their efforts.
political and
democratic
liberties.
A commitment to Workers are This enables
distributive inappropriately individuals involved
equality would subject to the will of in decision-making
lead to a “level capitalists in the (government) the
down” the shaping of the power to make
allocations of terms on which decisions on where
those who have they work (both in the distribution
more for no real the spheres of goes, which is
benefit. The exchange and susceptible to the
distribution is, in production and risk of greed and
fact equal, but is it
 preferable? Is it within the political injustice, as the
more just? process). case often is.

2) It has been said that knowledge is power. Do you think that this is consistent
with Rawl’s idea of veil of ignorance? Is the original position a good standard
for choosing what is fair?
According to Francis Bacon, “the more one knows, the more one will be
able to control events.” Knowledge establishes a potent personality within a
human person. It is the familiarity and awareness of something or someone
such as facts about certain concerns, the ability to solve such conflicts wisely
and with logic. That is the ideal definition of knowledge, what most of the
population know but knowledge is a broad term with different depiction depends
on one’s perception. The veil of ignorance is still a good suggestion to govern
how the world should work but knowledge is about knowing the purpose of
one’s life. It will remain unchanged. Approaching tough issues through a veil of
ignorance and applying these principles can help us decide more fairly how the
rules of society should be constructed. It is somehow helpful to prevent bias
judgment towards a certain issue but the individual discovery of oneself is a
private matter. Fairness is what the world is searching for. It needs equality and
impartial treatment particularly to those who need it most. The concept of the
original position an applicable standard.
3) What criminal justice system do you think is appropriate in the Philippines?
Retribution? Restorative?
In the Philippines, crime is everywhere and it is present in various forms
and that remains a serious issue because of the growing threat spread by
people with bad intentions and deeds, also because of the country being
infested with a tremendous amount of dangerous and mischievous criminals all
over the country. Restorative Justice would be more appropriate in the
Philippines, it is a theory of justice that emphasizes repairing the harm caused
by criminal behavior. The cycle of Restorative Justice considers the causes and
also the consequences of crime. It aims to address the needs of all parties
equally and fair and emphasizes the value of all in society to join in the
restorative process. It gives the victims the chance to meet or communicate
 with their offenders to explain the real impact of the crime and empowers
victims by giving them a voice to their selves. Chances to admit their deeds and
chance to change for them to become a better person instead of giving and
implementing punishments immediately. Moreover, Restorative Justice focuses
on the principle of balancing and representing the needs of the victim, the
offender, and society. To function effectively, Restorative Justice must listen to
the diversity of the voices and acknowledge the words spoken from experience.
Such as the poor, the oppressed, the illiterate-most of them are denied justice.
Who else would be fighting for them? Therefore, the Restorative Justice system
fight for the innocent ones. Explain your side.
4) On your way to school, you get a bumpy ride from the potholes in the road and
then you get stuck in the traffic. Along the side road, you see a lot of homeless
people, beggars and vendors setting up their mobile stores. Then you start to
wonder where the people’s taxes are going?

Questions:

a) Is the government justified in taking people’s money?

When people talk about taxation, political issues arise such as “taxation
is theft” and that the government is the only one who benefits from the taxes
paid by people. According to distributive justice, everyone must have a fair
distribution of the benefits and burdens in society, so the government cannot
be justified in taking people’s money if they are the only ones who benefit from
it. Opposition to higher rates of taxation, or even existing levels of taxation is
often made on grounds that such taxes are unfair burdens.
Some people argue that taxation of income is unfair because it violates
individual rights. They invoke an entitlement argument that presumes that the
appropriate baseline of property rights is pretax income. Others take issue with
specific policies that are supported by taxation, such as welfare provisions, and
argue that welfare reform is necessary because tax burdens are only legitimate
when they satisfy some form of reciprocity thesis. For a government to be
justified in taking people’s money, it should be beneficial to everyone and
ensure that everyone's basic needs are met. This can be seen as a response
to fundamental human rights. These rights imply universal secured access to
basic goods such as food, water, housing, and schooling. Also, if the
 government is committed to ending poverty and improving the lives of their
poorest citizens, they need to explore ways to redesign taxation and transfers
so that the poor especially the extremely poor do not end up paying more than
their fair share without reaping the benefits.
b) Who should carry the burden of taxation?
The person who is legally responsible for paying the tax may not be the
one who bears the burden of the tax. The incidence of a tax depends upon the
law of supply and demand, not the laws of Congress. The buyers and sellers
carry the burden of taxes because taxes decrease both supply and demand in
the market in which the buyers have to pay a higher price and sellers receive
a lower price for their product. Sometimes the government tries to divide the
burden of the tax, such as the federal government does with the payroll tax,
requiring both employer and employee to pay the tax. After all, employers have
to pay payroll tax, then they can simply pay their workers less to compensate
for their share of the tax.
On the other hand, laborers can decide not to work for less than what
they want to earn plus the burden of the payroll tax. Only if either demand or
supply was either completely elastic or inelastic will the tax burden fall entirely
on either the buyer or the seller. Between these two extremes who carry the
burden taxes, tax incidence varies continuously from a perfectly inelastic
supply or perfectly elastic demand, where the sellers assume the entire burden
of the tax to the perfectly elastic supply of perfectly inelastic demand where the
buyers bear the entire burden. The tax burden will fall more on the buyer if
demand is inelastic or supply is elastic but will fall more on the seller if demand
is elastic or supply is inelastic.
c) Who should benefit from taxation?
First, we as students who attend public schools benefit from 47% of the
tax collected. When children receive adequate educations in well-funded
school systems, the quality of life is improved and so does the community and
country. If you or your children attend a college or university, you benefit from
the percentage of taxes collected. In turn, college graduates qualify for better
jobs and are less likely to be unemployed in a recessed or depressed economy.
Taxes also pay for public safety for your neighborhood. Percentage of tax for
fund police and other law-enforcement units. Twenty percent of tax help
families through the work of the Department of Health. Finally, your county or
local municipality has a share of the gross receipt’s taxes collected and
distributed to local and county governments