LESSON 1

UTILITARIANISM

Objectives:
At the end of this lesson, you are expected to:
• analyze the concept of consequentialism; and
• explain Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill’s
Utilitarianism.

Introduction
Welcome to Lesson 1! This lesson introduces you to the basics the philosophy
introduced by Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, Utilitarianism. In this lesson, you
will also understand the concept of consequentialism. Moreover, you are given
activities to help you deepen your comprehension to the said topic. Enjoy this lesson
and keep reading!

dfjjkdss

Duterte places NCR, nearby areas back to MECQ beginning Tuesday, August 4,2020
Published August 2, 2020 11:41pm

President Rodrigo Duterte has placed Metro Manila and other high-risk areas back to a
modified enhanced community quarantine for 15 days effective Tuesday, August 4,
2020 amid the COVID-19 threat. In a briefing on Sunday night, Duterte said that the
National Capital Region and the provinces of Bulacan, Laguna, Cavite, and Rizal under
the MECQ until August 18. Duterte made the decision on Sunday night on the
recommendation of the Cabinet led by Health Secretary Francisco Duque III.
See the link below:
https://www.gmanetwork.com/news/news/nation/749553/duterte-places-ncr-
nearby-areas-back-to-mecq-beginning-monday-august-3-2020/story/

Page 1 of 26
Analysis

Refer to the activity above and answer the following:

1. Do you agree of the decision made by President Rodrigo R. Duterte? Why?

2. Are you satisfied with the actions / decisions of our government? Why?

3. How can you help our government during this pandemic?

Abstraction

What makes something good or bad, right or wrong?

For some people, it depends on the outcome of any decision. For example, does
it increase or decrease the amount of happiness in the world? This kind of thinking that
focuses on the outcomes is called consequentialism.
Page 2 of 26
Consequentialism is an ethical school of thought that says the best actions are
the ones who produce the best results. Although versions of consequentialism can be
traced back to the ancient world, the most famous version is relatively modern. And
it’s called utilitarianism.

The philosopher and jurist Jeremy John Stuart Mill, (born May 20, 1806,
Bentham (1748-1832) was born in London, England—died May 8, 1873,
Spitalfields, London, on 15 February 1748. Avignon, France), English philosopher,
He proved to be something of a child prodigy: economist, and exponent of Utilitarianism.
while still a toddler he was discovered sitting He was prominent as a publicist in the
at his father's desk reading a multi-volume reforming age of the 19th century, and
history of England, and he began to study remains of lasting interest as a logician and
Latin at the age of three. an ethical theorist.

The origin of Utilitarianism

The word ‘utilitarian’ appears to have coined by Jeremy Bentham. He used it
first in a letter dated 1781, and again in another letter of 1801, I which he wrote ‘a new
religion would be an odd sort of thing without a name’, and proposed a named
utilitarianism. However, John Stuart Mill seems to have been unaware that Bentham
coined the word, for he claims himself to have taken it over from John Galt’s Annal of
Parish (1821) where a character applies to a Benthamite views; and in the essay on
Segdwick’s Discourse to the University of Cambridge (1835) he feels it necessary to
explain it in terms of adherence to the Principle of Utility. The word ‘Utility’ was in
fairly common use as a technical term considerably earlier, and is to be found in the
writings of Hume.

What is Utilitarianism?
Jeremy Bentham believed that pleasure is good and pain is bad. Therefore, all
our actions should be designed to maximize pleasure and minimize pain.
Bentham thought that if we could calculate precisely how much pleasure and
pain an action would cause we could know, scientifically, the most ethical course of
action. By focusing on pleasure and pain in general, Bentham also removed selfishness
from the equation. J. Bentham believed that what is more relevant isn’t the pleasure and
pain but it’s the overall pleasure or pain that actions generate. Thus, we need to consider
the big picture.
One of Bentham’s students was John Stuart Mill. Mill agreed that we should try
the best outcomes but disagreed on Bentham on two points. First, he thought that there
Page 3 of 26
were things that matter more than pleasure or pain. Mill thought that the attainment of
some of highest goods in life required the experience of some suffering. Mastering a
skill, creating a business or raising a family are all good things, but there can be a fair
bit of pain involved. Instead of thinking about pleasure and pain, Mill believed that we
should focus on harms and benefits. Mill also suggested another important change to
Bentham’s theory. Bentham though that we weigh the goods and bads of every single
choice we make. Given the amount of decisions we make in a day that’s a pretty
exhausting suggestion. That’s why Mill suggested instead to work out the actions that
will lead to the best outcomes in the long run and turn those into rules. That’s why
Mill’s approach is known as rule utilitarianism.

How does rule utilitarianism work?

When you’re thinking about how to manage staff expense, you would think
about what policy is going to achieve the best outcomes for the business in the long run
and apply those in every case instead of trying to deal with every issue on a case-by-
case basis.

Application

Evaluation: I Can Do It!

Watch the movie UNTHINKABLE 2010 or read the plot summary and answer the
following questions.

Guide Questions:
1. What is the movie all about?

Page 4 of 26
2. If you were Brody, would you do the same strategy of persuading Yusef to reveal
the bomb’s location?

3. How does the philosophy of utilitarianism portrayed in this movie?

4. What have you learned from this movie that you will apply in your life?

5. What have you learned from this lesson that you will apply in your life?

Congratulations! You have successfully completed the activities and tasks in

Lesson 1. Should there be questions and clarifications in some part of the lesson, kindly
message your instructor.

If you do not have any questions or clarifications, you are now prepared to move
on to Lesson 2. Enjoy and keep working! GOD Bless.

Page 5 of 26
LESSON 2

DEONTOLOGY

Objectives:
At the end of this lesson, you are expected to:
• explain Immanuel Kant’s Deontology and rational
will; and
• decide which course of action is best through a case
analysis.

Introduction
Welcome to Lesson 2! This lesson introduces you to Immanuel Kant’s
Deontology and rational will. Knowing these theories can help you better understand
yourself and help you guide in your morality. Enjoy this lesson and keep learning!

Make at least 10 examples of right and wrong actions as a student. Put your examples
in the table provided.

Right actions Wrong actions

Example: Example:
As a student, I should not cheat. As a student, I should destroy the
school property.
dfjjkdss

Page 6 of 26
Application

Consider the questions below:

1. Why you should always consider your good and bad actions?

2. How can you say an action is moral?

3. In Emmanuel Kant’s Principle of Humanity, why he said that every human being
has a supreme worth and profound dignity?

Abstraction

“There is nothing in the world- indeed nothing even beyond it- can possibly
be conceived which could be called good without qualification except a
GOOD WILL.” -Immanuel Kant

Historical Origin of Deontology (Duty Ethics)

The historical origin of this particular moral theory can be traced back to the
early beginning of human civilization, at a time when the word of the chief, or the king
was given unconditionally and without invitation to appeal on the basis of
consequences”.
Here, the commands of the ones in authority and power are something that are
taken and obeyed without any further question or objection. Once the commands and
orders are given and handed out from above, everyone below (subordinate) is expected
to follow unconditionally. Obedience is something absolute or categorical.

Page 7 of 26
Consequently, one is not expected to pose any question but asked to take the
command as it is given. Hence the word of the king or the chieftain is law. This kind of
theory is called Deontological (from the Greek word “dein” or “deon” meaning to be
obliged or simply “duty”). In this kind of philosophy, an act or conduct is considered
good or right, thus justified morally, not by showing that it has good and beneficial
consequences (contrary to utilitarianism of John Sturt Mill, module 2 lesson 2) or
effects but by virtue of its being an action that emanates from a sense of duty or moral
obligation.

The Good Will: The Heart of Kantian Ethics

Kant claims that what makes an act right/good and wrong/bad does not depend
on its results or consequences, since all these are simply beyond one’s control. Thus,
the consequences of the actions are entirely out of our hands.
Hence for Kant, morality as the sole and exclusive domain of rational beings
should be something of which one should have total control. If one is indeed fully
accountable of his action and conduct, then chance or luck should be taken out of the
equation.
This, Kant believes, can only be achieved by appealing to some universal
rational ethical principle- an ethical principle that is in the form of a “maxim” that
guides human actions at all times and in all situations.
Kant writes “Nothing can be called good without qualification except a good
will.” Having a good will, or rather in good will means doing an act with the right
intentions or motives, in accordance with right maxim or principles, doing one’s duty
or obligation for its own sake (Duty for duty’s sake) rather than for personal gain or
self-interest. (Ethics for today’s Inquiring Filipinos; pg.138)
Nonetheless, the worth of an action lies on the inner motive rather than the
external effects that one can drive from the act. This is the heart of Kant’s ethics- doing
the good because it is good, nothing more nothing less.

Obligation and not Inclination

The only act that is worthy to be called moral is an act that is done not out of
inclination but one that is done out of duty. Doing one’s duty is doing something that
one is not inclined or willing to do, but that he/she does because he/she recognizes that
he/she ought to do it; an obligation exist and he/she must fulfill it.
For Kant, to be a good person, one should not be motivated by any other reason
except what emanates from this sense of moral obligation. Only and only then that one
can truly sat that he is acting morally and deserves to be called a moral person.

Pure Reason as the Justification of Morality

In Kant’s philosophy the court of appeal where morality can be justified is
nothing else but the court of reason. Kant calls it pure practical reason. He believes that
as rational being, each of us has innate capacity to reason and eventually has that power
to arrive at the right way of conduct.

Page 8 of 26
To justify morality, is to show that it is in accordance with reason. And to justify
ethical principle or rule is to show that it is in agreement with the principles of reason.
The principle of reason for Kant’s morality is characterized as a system of categorical
imperatives (command unconditionally or which are absolute). They are absolute in
the sense that they accept no qualifications or condition whatsoever. It means that
morality applies to everyone regardless to personal interest and inclination and in all
situations.
Moreover, morality for Kant should not be contingent on the unstable personal
and social diversities. He wants it to be grounded on something that is certain. Since
moral certainty cannot be found in the ever-changing, transitory, and diverse realm of
concrete realities of everyday human experience in the empirical world, Kant concludes
that it must be found in the outside of it.
The ultimate basis of morality must then be purely rational, one that is grounded
on an a priori (a term applied to knowledge considered to be true without being based
on previous experience or observation. In this sense, a priori describes knowledge that
requires no evidence. A priori comes from Latin and literally translates as “from the
previous” or “from the one before.) this means that the basis of what is right or wrong
should not be people’s actual behavior in the real world, in the way they actual behave.
Moral judgement should not be derived from experience or observation of people’s
actual behavior (that can be subjected to purely empirical analysis). An a priori ethical
knowledge for Kant is something that is independent from experience.

Categorical Imperative: the Universalizability Principle

According to Kant, anytime we do a certain voluntarily, we operate under some
kind of maxim, rule or directive. A maxim is one which is guiding reason or principle
for acting under a particular situation. As free and rational beings, we act on the basis
of self-generated rules and laws or conduct (and this primarily makes human unique
moral beings).
More specifically, a maxim is a personal and subjective guiding principle on
which we act or behave as contrary to an objective and external principle or rule upon
which we should act.
The categorical imperative tells us that it is morally wrong to act on a maxim
that we could not to be a universal law. What has to be universalized is not the act per
se but the maxim of the act. The main point here is the very motive of the action.

Kant’s Principle of Humanity

Every human being has a supreme worth and profound dignity since he is a
rational being. This means that because of the ability to think one can decide what
particular goals to pursue and generally what one wants to with his life. One’s essential
dignity or end as a self-directed and conscious being.
Thus, as a self-conscious and self-determining being, the person as an end can
never be subjected to any form of manipulation and exploitation as of he is just any
other object that can be used to serve some other ends rather than as an end in himself.
Likewise, everyone should be treated with utmost respect. Persons are not instrument
or tools that are to be used to further one’s interest. We cannot use people to achieve
our own goal and happiness. As we have said, by virtue of their rationality, people can
Page 9 of 26
decide for themselves. They can direct their own actions and thus determine their own
destiny.

Application

Case Analysis

Instruction: BRIEFLY AND CONCISELY discuss your points in the cases below.
Maximum of five (5) sentences only.

Case No. 1: The Fetus: No Right?

Some people would say that the fetus does not have any right because of the
absence of autonomy and rationality. Do think this is correct following Kant’s
ethical philosophy? Defend your answer.

Case No. 2: Truth or Consequence?

Suppose a woman relative is fleeing from her abusive husband and comes to your
house begging for help. Since she is your relative and you know how muck she has
suffered from the brutality of her husband, you allow her to take refuge in your
home. Then the husband comes knocking at your door and asks if her wife is in the
house. What are you going to do? Should you lie or tell the truth? What do you
think Kant would say on this?

Congratulations! You have successfully completed the activities and tasks in

Lesson 2. Should there be questions and clarifications in some part of the lesson, kindly
message your instructor.

If you do not have any questions or clarifications, you are now prepared to move
on to Lesson 3. Enjoy and keep working! GOD Bless.

Page 10 of 26
LESSON 3
JUSTICE
Objectives
At the end of this lesson, you are expected to:
• explain John Stuart Mill’s Theory on Justice; and
• explain justice.

Introduction
Welcome to Lesson 3! This lesson discusses more on how you, as 21st century
learner makes your own decision. Visualizing the future leaders of this country who
prioritize the value of life as they consider the essence of true happiness for human
decision is always have consequences to face at the end of the day. In this lesson, you
are expected to enjoy while unraveling the beauty of justice and fairness in obtaining
common good. Most vital about this lesson is that you will appreciate the importance
of life amidst the havoc that you will encounter. Enjoy this lesson and keep learning!

1. What is your obligation to others as a person in a free society?

2. Is it sometimes wrong to tell the truth?

3. Do individual rights and the common good conflict?

Page 11 of 26
Analysis

Consider the questions below:

1. Why we should always do whatever will produce the greatest amount of happiness
and whatever is necessary to prevent the greatest amount of unhappiness?

2. Should you always try to maximize happiness? Why?

3. Should you always do whatever is necessary to minimize unhappiness? Why?

Page 12 of 26
Abstraction

John Stuart Mill

The ethical theory of John Stuart Mill

(1806-1873) is most extensively articulated in
his classical text Utilitarianism (1861). Its goal
is to justify the utilitarian principle as the
foundation of morals. This principle says actions
are right in proportion as they tend to promote
overall human happiness. So, Mill focuses on
consequences of actions and not on rights nor
ethical sentiments.

Utility and Justice

In the final chapter of Utilitarianism, Mill turns to the sentiment of justice.
Actions that are perceived as unjust provoke outrage. The spontaneity of this feeling
and its intensity makes it impossible for it to be ignored by the theory of morals. Mill
considers two possible interpretations of the source of the sentiment of justice: first of
all, that we are equipped with a sense of justice which is an independent source of moral
judgment; second, that there is a general and independent principle of justice. Both
interpretations are irreconcilable with Mill’s position, and thus it is no wonder that he
takes this issue to be of exceptional importance. He names the integration of justice the
only real difficulty for utilitarian theory (CW 10, 259).

Mill splits this problem of integration into three tasks: The first consists in
explaining the intensity and spontaneity of the sentiment of justice. The second task is
to make plausible that the various types of judgments about justice can be traced back
to a systematic core; and the third task consists in showing that the principle of utility
constructs this core.

In a nutshell, Mill explains the sentiment of justice as the sublimation of the

impulse to take revenge for perceived mortifications of all kinds. Mill sees vengeance
as “an animal desire” (CW 10, 250) that operates in the service of self-preservation. If
it is known that one will not accept interventions in spheres of influence and interest,
the probability of such interventions dwindles. The preparedness to take revenge tends
to deter aggression in the first place. Thus, a reputation for vindictiveness – at first
Page 13 of 26
glance an irrational trait – arguably has survival value. This helps to explain why the
sentiment is so widespread and vehement.

Our sentiment of justice, for Mill, is based on a refinement and sublimation of

this animal desire. Humans are capable of empathizing such that the pleasure of others
can instill one’s own pleasure, and the mere sight of suffering can cause own suffering.
The hurting of another person or even an animal may therefore produce a very similar
affect as the hurting of one’s own person. Mill considers the extension of the animal
impulse of vengeance on those with whom we have sympathy as “natural” (CW 10,
248), because the social feelings are for him natural. This natural extension of the
impulse of revenge with the help of the social feelings represents a step in the direction
of cultivating and refining human motivation. People begin to feel outrage when the
interests of the members of their tribe are being violated or when shared social rules are
being disregarded.

Gradually, sympathy becomes more inclusive. Humans discover that co-

operation with people outside the tribe is advantageous. The “human capacity of
enlarged sympathy” follows suit (CW 10, 248).

As soon as humans begin to think about which parts of the moral code of a
society are justified and which parts are not, they inevitably begin to consider
consequences. This often occurs in non-systematic, prejudiced or distorted ways.
Across historical periods of times, the correct ideas of intrinsic good and moral
rightness will gradually gain more influence. Judgments about justice approximate
progressively the requirements of utilitarianism: The rules upon which the judgments
about justice rest will be assessed in light of their tendency to promote happiness. To
summarize: Our sentiment of justice receives its intensity from the “animal desire to
repel or retaliate a hurt or damage to oneself”, and its morality from the “human
capacity of enlarged sympathy” and intelligent self-interest (CW 10, 250).

According to Mill, when we see a social practice or a type of action as unjust,

we see that the moral rights of persons were harmed. The thought of moral rights is the
systematic core of our judgments of justice. Rights breed perfect obligations, says Mill.
Moral rights are concerned with the basic conditions of a good life. They protect an
“extraordinarily important and impressive kind of utility.” (CW 10, 250-251). Mill
subsumes this important and impressive kind of utility under the term security, “the
most vital of all interests” (CW 10, 251). It comprises such things as protection from
aggression or starvation, the possibility to shape one’s own life unmolested by others
and enforcement of contracts. Thus, the requirements of justice “stand higher in the
scale of social utility” (CW 259). To have a moral right means to have something that
society is morally required to guard either through the compulsion of law, education or
the pressure of public opinion (CW 10, 250). Because everyone has an interest in the
security of these conditions, it is desirable that the members of society reciprocally
guarantee each other “to join in making safe for us the very groundwork of our
existence” (CW 10, 251). In so far as moral rights secure the basis of our existence,
they serve our natural interest in self-preservation – this is the reason why their harm
calls forth such intense emotional reactions. The interplay of social feelings and moral
education explains, in turn, why we are not only upset by injustices when we personally
suffer, but also when the elemental rights of others are harmed. This motivates us to
sanction the suffering of others as unjust. Moral rights thus form the “most sacred and
Page 14 of 26
binding part of all morality” (CW 10, 255). But they do not exhaust the moral realm.
There are imperfect obligations which have no correlative right (CW 10, 247).

The thesis that moral rights form the systematic core of our judgments of justice
is by no means unique to utilitarianism. Many people take it to be evident that
individuals have absolute, inalienable rights; but they doubt that these rights can be
grounded in the principle of utility. Intuitionists may claim that we recognize moral
rights spontaneously, that we have intuitive knowledge of them. In order to reject such
a view, Mill points out that our judgments of justice do not form a systematic order. If
we had a sense of justice that would allow us to recognize what is just, similar to how
touch reveals forms or sight reveals color, then we would expect that our corresponding
judgments would exhibit a high degree of reliability, definitude and unanimity. But
experience teaches us that our judgments regarding just punishments, just tax laws or
just remuneration for waged labor are anything but unanimous. The intuitionists must
therefore mobilize a first principle that is independent of experience and that secures
the unity and consistency of our theory of justice. So far they have not succeeded. Mill
sees no suggestion that is plausible or which has been met with general acceptance.

Application

1. Suppose you are driving through a narrow tunnel and a worker falls onto the road
in front of you. There is not enough time for you to stop. If you keep going straight,
you will hit the worker and kill him, but if you swerve left into oncoming traffic,
you will collide with a school bus and kill at least five children. What’s the right
thing to do?

2. Suppose we have to choose between building a new sports stadium and building a
new hospital. Should we build the stadium if there are many more sports fans than
sick people? What about the sick people? Aren’t we sacrificing their interests?

Congratulations! You have successfully completed Lesson 3. Should there be

questions and clarifications in some part of the lesson, kindly message your instructor.

If you do not have any questions or clarifications, you are now prepared to move
on to the Lesson 4. Enjoy and keep working! GOD Bless.
Page 15 of 26
LESSON 4

NATURAL LAW

Objectives:
At the end of this lesson, you are expected to:
• explain the concepts of Natural Law; and
• distinguish the Orders of Law introduced by St.
Thomas Aquinas.

Introduction
Welcome to Lesson 4! This lesson introduces you to the Natural Law coined by
St. Thomas Aquinas. In this lesson, you will get to know the orders of laws and how
these connect to you and to God. You will also be able to know and understand why is
there a need to have a law. Enjoy this lesson and keep learning!

“To one who has faith, no explanation is

necessary. To one without faith, no
explanation is possible.”

What does this quote mean to you?

Page 16 of 26
Analysis

Consider the questions below:

1. According to St. Thomas Aquinas, what is man’s goal that would adore God?

2. How do holy scriptures like the Bible, Quran, Torah, and others concern man in his
relationship with God?

3. Why is there a need to have law according to St. Thomas Aquinas?

Abstraction

St. Thomas Aquinas

In the 13th Century, Aristotle's works were 'rediscovered' in the West and
translated into Latin. These translations of 'The Philosopher' (as Aquinas called him)
became an integral part of some of Aquinas' most important writings.

Page 17 of 26
"The ultimate beatitude of man
consists in the use of his highest
function, which is the operation of
his intellect...Hence...the blessed
see the essence of God."
(Summa Theologica)

• Reconstructed the classical natural law theory

• Borrowed the Aristotle’s telos (goal) and replaced it with another telos.
• “…man has goals in life to pursue.”
• The central idea is that the grace of God was held not to conflict with or
abolish man’s nature, but to perfect it.
• Modified Aristotle’s teleological perspective so that man’s end was not
only to live socially and seek knowledge, but to live in a Christian
community in which one would come to know, and presumable adore,
God.
• Suggested that man’s goal is not solely to lead a social life, political life,
and to seek knowledge, but also to live in a Christian community, in which
one would adore God.
• Said that human beings were endowed with reasons in order to participate
in the moral enterprise designed by God.

Orders of Law Identified by St. Thomas Aquinas

1. Eternal Law. The whole universe is governed by divine providence or divine
reason, which is the ultimate order imposed by the Creator.
All around us, it is about the world / universe being created by God. It is the
Law of God for man. Eternal law is written law by God.
Example: Does the sea one day decide to cross the shore? Never!
Does the leaves one day stop producing oxygen? Never!

2. Natural Law. Humans are special creatures (with moral values) and have a
special relationship with God as they are able to participate in the divine wisdom
as they are gifted with reason (man uses reasoning).

Natural Law: We judge what is good and bad. It is about feeling.

Natural Law can be universally understood through human reasons.
Human being must differentiate what right and wrong, and then took a decision.

Page 18 of 26
Natural Law means moral law. Any law that is good is moral. Any moral law is
good. It is inherent in human nature that is ethically binding law such as killing
someone is wrong.

3. Divine Law. It is the law that is properly revealed by God to man. Such law
emanates from the supreme law. They are contained in the Bible, Quran, and
other holy scriptures.
The best example of Divine Law is the Ten Commandments.
Divine Law most directly concerns man in his relationship with God and
achieving paradise (heaven). It lays down how man is to act in relation to God.

4. Human Law. It is a set of law that enables man to make a deduction from the
general precepts of natural law in order to conveniently deal with particular
matter.
For example, it is a natural law precept that crimes must be punished with a
severity that corresponds with the seriousness of a crime, but it is necessary to
specify the actual punishment that, shall we say, a thief will receive under a
particular legal system, and the use of reason to provide a punishment of, shall
we say, two years is the use of reason called ‘human law’.
This might also be called ‘positive’ law, as it is the actual law posited by legal
institutions.
Human Law means a law regulating the behavior of man for man.

The Need to have Law according to Aquinas

According to Aquinas, people are sometimes virtuous and sometimes be in
certain moods of their lives. To him, people are always in a particular mood of life. The
same people we meet later, have a different way of thinking. The code of conduct must
be fixed and disciple.
However, he stressed out that the Human Law cannot be a counsel of perfection.
Aquinas says that Human law can be a counsel of sanction.

According to Aquinas, a law only obliges in conscience. He did not say “do not
follow the law” but he rather says, “the law may be immoral/cruel on one side, but
finally this will disrupt the whole legal system if not following the human law. The law
might be cruel or immoral but one must follow the law.” Hence, we need natural law
together with human law in order for a legal system to work well in a society.
He says, that the mere fact that a law is unjust, does not provide someone with
an absolute license to disobey and challenge it.
Aquinas invites us to look at it from a more general point of view as a project
of law in which disobedience might create an enthusiasm amongst people to disobey
and escape the grip of the law for their own selfish motives.

Page 19 of 26
Application

ESSAY: Briefly and concisely explain the following:

1. Distinguish the types of laws identified by St. Thomas Aquinas.

2. If law serves the common good, does that mean that the good of some individuals
can be sacrificed for the good of others

Congratulations! You have successfully completed Lesson 4. Should there be

questions and clarifications in some part of the lesson, kindly message your instructor.

If you do not have any questions or clarifications, you are now prepared to move
on to Lesson 5. Enjoy and keep working! GOD Bless.

Page 20 of 26
LESSON 5

THE GOLDEN RULE

Objectives:
At the end of this lesson, you are expected to:
• define and explain the concepts of Golden Rule;
• distinguish the relatives of Golden Rule;
• scrutinize the backbone of philosophy behind the
Golden Rule; and
• reflect one’s life in relation to Golden Rule.

Introduction
Welcome to Lesson 4! This lesson introduces you to the Golden Rule. In this
lesson, you are expected to distinguish the Golden Rule introduced by Confucius and
Jesus Christ. Enjoy this lesson and keep learning!

Reflect Yourself!

In the box provided, list down five reasons why you need to do good to others
and list down five reasons why you should not do bad to others.
Reasons I need to do good… Reasons I should not do
bad…

Page 21 of 26
Analysis

Directions: Read the quote and write down your answers on the space provided.
“I have something that I call my Golden Rule. It goes something like this:
‘Do unto others twenty-five percent better than you expect them to do unto
you.’” The twenty-five percent is for error. ― Linus Pauling

1. Is the quote morally good? Why?

2. Why does Linus Pauling has to allocate a margin for error?

Abstraction

Defining Golden Rule

“What you do not wish for yourself, “Do to others whatever you would like them
do not do to others” - Confucius to do to you.” – Jesus Christ (Matthew 7:12, NLT)
Page 22 of 26
The Golden Rule guides people to choose for others what they would choose
for themselves. The Golden Rule is often described as ‘putting yourself in someone
else's shoes.’ (Baumrin 2004). The viewpoint held in the Golden Rule is noted in all
the major world religions and cultures, suggesting that this may be an important moral
truth (Cunningham 1998). The Golden Rule underlies acts of kindness, caring, and
altruism that go above and beyond “business as usual” or “usual care” (Huang, 2005).

Types and Relatives of the Golden Rule

1. The Silver Rule - “Do not do unto others as you would not want done to you.”
2. The Platinum Rule - “Treat others the way they want to be treated.”
3. The Rule of Love – “Love others as you do yourself (or better).”
4. Role-Taking – “Put yourself in other’s shoes in order to know how to treat them
ethically.”
5. Empathy – “Feel and care about the suffering of others.”
6. Kant’s Categorical Imperative
“Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that
it should become a universal law.” In other words, “Only follow ethical rules
that you think should be universal.” Philosophers consider Kant’s Imperative
more philosophically air-tight than the golden rule. Some present it as
supporting the golden rule while others would claim the opposite.
7. The Actual Biblical Passage - "Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that
men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the
prophets." - Matthew 7:12
Conservative Christians taught the deep meaning of the passage is not how the
majority in society look it as a sugar-coated golden rule.

A. Expounding the Rule: (Philosophical Perspective)

The Golden Rule is a moral principle which denotes that you should treat others
the same way you would like to be treated yourself. For example, the Golden Rule
suggests that if you would like people to treat you with respect, then you should make
sure to treat them with respect too.
The Golden Rule is an important philosophical principle, which has been
formulated in various ways by many different groups throughout history, and which
can be used to guide your actions in a variety of situations. As such, in the following
article you will learn more about the golden rule, see how it can be refined, and
understand how you can implement it in practice.

Page 23 of 26
Main Forms of the Golden Rule
The golden rule can be formulated in three main ways:
1. Positive/Directive. This states that you should treat others the same way you
would want to be treated yourself. This suggests, for example, that if you want
people to treat you with respect, then you should treat them with respect. This
abides the Golden Rule of Jesus Christ.
2. Negative/Prohibitive. It states that you should not treat others in ways you
would not want to be treated yourself. This suggests, for example, that if you
don’t want people to say mean things to you, then you shouldn’t say mean things
to them. This abides the Golden Rule of Confucius.
3. Empathic/Responsive. This states that when you wish something upon others,
you also wish it upon yourself. This suggests, for example, that if wish ill toward
someone else, then you are also wishing ill toward yourself.

B. Expounding the Rule (Biblical and Doctrinal Perspective)

“So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this
sums up the Law and the Prophets.” - Matthew 7:12
Jesus’s Golden Rule cannot be domesticated and downsized to the equivalent
of an insurance aphorism or a fortune-cookie slogan. That’s not to say that many
haven’t tried. Here’s how the Golden Rule is usually quoted: “Whatever you wish others
would do for you, do also for them.”
But that’s not what Jesus said. That version removes God entirely from the
picture, making Jesus’s teaching a godless rule for good people. The real Golden Rule
goes deeper and stretches higher. It’s a God-centered rule for grace-filled people.
Jesus’s actual teaching requires greater effort, provides deeper motivation, and is
intended specifically for Jesus’s followers (see Matthew 5:1–2).

Is God in the Golden Rule?

Here’s what Jesus actually said: “So whatever you wish that others would do
to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets” - Matthew 7:12

God bookends the Golden Rule. He is the first word (“so”) and the final word
(“for this is the Law and the Prophets”). The word so indicates that Jesus’s teaching is
his conclusion from what he’s said previously. The entire Sermon on the Mount might
be in view. But it may be that Jesus is thinking more specifically of what he has just
said, in Matthew 7:7–11. There he tells his followers that God is their loving Father and
always gives good things to those who ask. Therefore, because God is so generous to
us, we’re to be lavishly generous to others. The Golden Rule is glorious overflow.
Jesus’s second reason for living out his command is this: “for this is the Law
and the Prophets.” In other words, obey it, because God himself said it — and always
has. The Golden Rule sums up and fulfills God’s commands found throughout the Old
Testament (most pointedly in Leviticus 19:18).

Page 24 of 26
Greatness of the Golden Rule
Many world religions have taught a negative version of the Golden Rule, saying
essentially, “Don’t do to others what you don’t want them to do to you.” The problem
with that kind of teaching is that it can be obeyed by simply doing nothing. Jesus’s
command is much more demanding. It requires action, creativity, and ongoing love
toward the people in our lives.

Three Things Jesus Didn’t Say

To see the demand and delight of Jesus’s teaching, consider three things he does
not say.
1. Jesus does not say, “Whatever others have done for you, do also for them.” He
doesn’t limit our good deeds that way. The measure of our service to others is
not their actual service to us, but what we’d like that service to be. “Whatever
you wish that others would do to you, do also to them.” There’s an invitation,
limited only by our own desire and imagination. One of the distinctive marks of
Jesus’s followers is that they regularly go above and beyond what others expect.

2. Jesus does not say, “If there are a few things you wish others would do to you,
do these also to them.” He doesn’t limit our good deeds that way. Instead, he
says, “Whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them.” The
word “whatever” (literally, “everything whatsoever”) is very broad. It may
include cutting a neighbor’s grass when he’s out of town, having a lonely friend
over for dinner, writing a note to express appreciation, and so much more. The
upper limit is our desire and imagination.

3. Jesus does not say, “Whatever you wish your best friends, and fellow
Christians, and people who like you would do to you, do also to them.” He
doesn’t limit our good deeds that way. He says, “Whatever you wish that others
would do to you, do also to them.” Others encompasses anyone in our lives. It
includes the grumpy neighbor, the kid in your class no one likes, the spouse or
child you’re struggling to understand, even the people who don’t love you back.

Page 25 of 26
Application

EVALUATION: Compare and Contrast.

Directions: Explain your answers by writing EXACLTLY 5
sentences only for each question.

Scenario: Lee Fong showed respect to his co-employees because he

wants to be respected as well.
1. Using the philosophical view of Golden Rule, why is the scenario above considered
as morally good?

2. Using the Biblical-Doctrinal view of Golden Rule, why is the scenario above not
morally good?

Congratulations! You have successfully completed the activities and tasks for
Lesson 5. This is the final Lesson in Module 1. Should there be questions and
clarifications in some part of the lesson, kindly message your instructor.

If you do not have any questions or clarifications, you are now prepared to move
on to Module 3. Enjoy and keep working! GOD Bless.

Page 26 of 26