Self- Learning Module on GEC 8- ETHICS

President Ramon Magsaysay State University

Iba, Zambales
1st Semester A.Y. 2020-2021

Prepared by

VENZEIL DECENA RPm, LPT

Instructor 1
Republic of the Philippines
President Ramon Magsaysay State University
(Formerly Ramon Magsaysay Technological University)
Iba, Zambales, Philippines
Tel/Fax No.: (047) 811-1683
College/Department
Course Code GEC 8
Course Title Ethics
Place of the Course in
General Education
the Program
Semester and
First Semester, A.Y. 2020-2021
Academic Year

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TOPIC PAGE
Chapter I
3
THE ETHICAL DIMESION OF HUMAN EXISTENCE
Activity 1 11
Assessment 1 13
Reflection and Valuing 15
Suggested Readings and References 16
Chapter II
17
UTILITARIANISM
Activity 2 23
Assessment 2 24
Reflection and Valuing 25
Suggested Readings and References 26
Chapter III
27
NATURAL WORLD
Activity 3 34
Exercise 3 35
Reflection and Valuing 36
Suggested Readings and References 36

Date Developed: August 2020 Document No.

GEC 8 - ETHICS Date Revised: -
Issued by: PRMSU
Page 2 of 37
Developed by: VENZEIL F DECENA, RPm, LPT Revision # 00
Republic of the Philippines
President Ramon Magsaysay State University
(formerly Ramon Magsaysay Technological University)
Iba. Zambales, Philippines
Tel/Fax no. (047) 811-1683

College/ Department
Course Code GEC 8
Course Title Ethics
Place of the Course in the General Education
Program
Semester and Academic Year 1st Semester A.Y. 2020-2021

Chapter I
THE ETHICAL DIMESION OF HUMAN EXISTENCE

Intended Learning Outcomes

1. Identify the ethical aspect of human life and the scope of ethical thinking;
2. Define and explain the terms that are relevant to ethical thinking; and
3. Evaluate the difficulties that are involved in maintaining certain commonly-held
notions on ethics.

Introduction

In August 2007, newspapers reported what seemed to be yet another sad incident of
fraternity violence. Cris Anthony Mendez, a twenty-year-old student of the University of the
Philippines (UP), was rushed to the hospital in the early morning hours, unconscious, with
large bruises on his chest, back and legs. He passed away that morning, and the subsequent
autopsy report strongly suggests that his physical injuries were most probably result of
hazing. What exactly happened remains an open question, as none of those who were with
him that night came forward to shed light on what had transpired. Needless to say, none of
them came forward to assume responsibility for the death of Cris.

Even as the leaders of the Sigma Rho fraternity publicly denounced the death of Cris,
those members who had been with him that night vanished, avoiding and refusing to
cooperate with legal authorities. Meanwhile, UP students and the general public clamored for
justice. In a move that surprised the student body, the UP Chancellor called on all fraternities
to justify their continued existence. Meanwhile the case of the tragic death of Cris Anthony
Mendez was left unresolved. It remains that way up to this day.

No one knows just what exactly happened. No charges have been filed, no definitive
testimony has been forthcoming. But there is more to this for us than just a criminal mystery.
Pondering on the death of Cris, we may find ourselves asking questions such as ‘What is the
value of one’s life?” “What exactly were the wrongs done to Cris by his so-called fraternity

Date Developed: August 2020 Document No.

GEC 8 - ETHICS Date Revised: -
Issued by: PRMSU
Page 3 of 37
Developed by: VENZEIL F DECENA, RPm, LPT Revision # 00
brothers?” or perhaps “is there any good in fraternities?” These questions that concern good
and bad, or right or wrong - and these questions concerning value are the kind of questions
that we deal in ethics.

LESSON 1: Value

Definition of Ethics
- The good things that we should do and the bad things that we should avoid; the
right ways in which we could or should act and the wrong ways of acting. It is
about what is acceptable and unacceptable in human behavior. It may involve
obligations that we are expected to fulfill, prohibitions that we are required to
respect, or ideals that we are encouraged to meet.

Clarifications and Terminologies

1. Recognize that there are instances when we make value judgements that are not
considered to be part of ethics.

Kinds of Valuations
a. Aesthetics – derived from the Greek word “aesthesis” (“sense” or “feeling”)
and refers to the judgements of personal approval or disapproval that we
make about what we see, hear, smell, or taste.
e.g.
For instance, I could say that a new movie I had just seen was a good
one because I enjoyed it or a song I heard on the radio was a bad one
because it had an unpleasant tone.

b. Etiquette – certain approval or disapproval of actions which can be relatively

more trivial in nature. It is concerned with right and wrong actions, but those
considered not quite grave enough to belong to the discussion on ethics.
e.g.
For instance, I may think that it is right to knock politely on
someone’s door, while it is wrong to barge into someone’s office. Perhaps I
may approve of a child who knows how to ask for something properly by
saying please, and otherwise, disapprove of a woman that I see picking her
nose in public.

c. Technical Valuation – derive from the Greek word “techne” the English
words techniques and technical which are often used to refer to a proper way
(or right way) of doing things but may not necessarily be an ethical.
e.g.
Learning how to bake, for instance I am told that the right thing to do
would be mix the dry ingredients first, such as flour or sugar before bringing
in any liquids, like milk or cream: this is the right thing to do in baking but
does not belong in the discussion of ethics.
2. Ethics and Morals

Date Developed: August 2020 Document No.

GEC 8 - ETHICS Date Revised: -
Issued by: PRMSU
Page 4 of 37
Developed by: VENZEIL F DECENA, RPm, LPT Revision # 00
 Morals – used to refer specific beliefs or attitudes that people have or to
describe acts that people perform.
 Ethics- the discipline of studying and understanding ideal human behavior
and ideal ways of thinking

3. Descriptive and Normative

 Descriptive Ethics – reports how people, particularly groups, make their
moral valuations without making any judgement either for or against these
valuations.
 Normative Ethics – often done in philosophy or moral theology, engages
questions “What could or should be the right way of acting? In other words, a
normative discussion prescribes what we ought to maintain as our standards
or bases for moral valuations.

4. Issue Decision Judgement and Dilemma

 Moral issue – used to refer to those particular situations that are often the
source of considerable ad inclusive debates (thus we would often hear topics
such as capital punishment and euthanasia as moral issue)
 Moral Decision – when one is faced in a situation and confronted by the
choice of what act to perform.
e.g. For instance, I choose not to take something I did not pay for.
 Moral Judgment – when one is an observer who makes an assessment on the
actions or behavior.
e.g. For instance, a friend of mine stole from a store and I find it wrong to do
so.
 Moral Dilemma – Going beyond the matter of choosing right over wrong, or
good over bad, and considering instead the more complicated situation
wherein one is torn between choosing one of two goods or choosing between
the lesser of two evils; When an individual can choose only one from a
number of possible actions and there are compelling ethical reasons for the
various choices.
e.g. A mother may be conflicted between wanting to feed her hungry child,
but then recognizing that it would be wrong for her to steal.

Reasoning
Why do we suppose that a certain way of acting is right and its opposite is wrong? The
study of ethics in interested in questions like these: Why do we decide to consider this way of
acting as acceptable while that way of acting is unacceptable? To put it in another way, what
reasons do we give to decide or to judge that a certain way of acting is either right or wrong?
A person’s fear of punishment or desire for reward can provide him a reason for acting
in a certain way. It is common to hear someone say “I did not cheat on the exam because I
was afraid that I might get caught”. The promise of rewards and the fear of punishment can
certainly motivate us to act, but are not in themselves determinants of the rightness or
wrongness of a certain way of acting or of the good or bad in particular pursuit. Is it possible
to find better reasons for finding a certain way of acting either acceptable or unacceptable?

Date Developed: August 2020 Document No.

GEC 8 - ETHICS Date Revised: -
Issued by: PRMSU
Page 5 of 37
Developed by: VENZEIL F DECENA, RPm, LPT Revision # 00
Going beyond whatever motivations or incentive is present in an instance of cheating
(or not doing so), our thinking may take on a level of abstraction, that is “Cheating is wrong”
by recognizing proper reasons for not acting in this way. Beyond rewards and punishments, it
is possible for our moral valuations, decisions and judgment to be based on a principle or a
moral framework.

Principle
- Rationally established grounds by which one justifies and maintains her moral
decisions and judgement.

Moral Theory/Framework
- A systematic attempt to establish the validity of maintaining certain moral
principles. It is a structure which can evaluate our reasons for valuing a certain
decision or judgement. This can make us reflect on the principles that we maintain
and thus, the decisions and judgments we make. By studying these, we can
reconsider, clarify, modify, and ultimately strengthen our principles, thereby
informing better both our moral judgments and moral decisions.

LESSON 2: Sources of Authority

Several common ways of thinking about ethics are based on the idea that the
standards of valuations are imposed by a higher authority that commands our obedience. In
the following section we will explore three of such ideas: law, religion and culture.

AUTHORITY OF THE LAW

 It is a system of rules that are created and enforced through social and governmental
institutions to regulate behavior. It has been defined as the science of Justice or the
Art of Justice. Law is a system that regulates and ensures that individuals or a
community adhere to the will of the state. Furthermore, the law is enforced by way of
a systems of sanctions administered through persons and institutions, which all help
in compelling us to obey. Provides us with an objective standard that is obligatory
and applicable to all.
 One point to be raised is the prohibitive nature of the law. The law does not tell us
what we should do; it works by constraining us from performing acts that we should
not do. To put it slightly differently, the law cannot tell us what to pursue, only what
to avoid. Would we be satisfied thinking about ethics solely from the negative
perspective of that which we should not do, disregarding the important aspect of a
good which we could and should do, even if the law does not require us to do so?
 To make this point concrete, recall the story of a toddler who had been run over by a
couple of vehicles. While there were many passers-by who witnessed what had
happened for quite a long while, no one did anything to help. The child later died in
the hospital. The law does not oblige people to help others in need, so none of these
passers –by were guilty of breaking any law. However, many people reacting to this

Date Developed: August 2020 Document No.

GEC 8 - ETHICS Date Revised: -
Issued by: PRMSU
Page 6 of 37
Developed by: VENZEIL F DECENA, RPm, LPT Revision # 00
sad news report share a sense that those passers-by were somewhat ethically culpable
in their negligence. In view, of all this, perhaps one should think of ethics in a way
that does not simply identify it with obedience of the law.

AUTHORITY OF THE RELIGION

“Love the Lord, Your God, therefore and always heed his charge: his statutes,
decrees, and commandments.” Deuteronomy 1:11
(New American Bible)

Divine Command Theory

 The divinity called God, Allah, or Supreme Being commands and one is obliged to
obey her Creator. There are persons and texts that one believes are linked to the
Divine. By listening to this figures and reading these writings, an individual discovers
how the Divine wants her to act. Further, someone maintaining more radical form of
this theory might go beyond this instruments of Divine Revelation and claim that God
“spoke” to her directly to instruct her what to do.
 We are presented with a more or less clear code of prohibitions and many of
these prohibitions given by religion – “Thou shall not kill, “Thou shall not steal”,
Thou shall not commit adultery” - seem to intuitively coincide with our sense of
what ethics should rightly demand.
 Religion is not simply prohibitive but it also provides us ideals to pursue.
 Provides us with not just a set of commands but also Supreme Authority that can
inspire and compel our obedience in a way that nothing else can.

 On the practical level, we realize the presence of a multiplicity of religions. Each

faith demands differently from its adherents, which would apparently result in
conflicting ethical standards.

 On conceptual level, we can see a further problem where one requires the believer to
clarify her understanding of the connection between ethics and the Divine.

 We maintain that generally speaking it is a good thing for a person of faith to abide
by the teachings of her particular religion. But the divine command theory demands
more than this as it requires us to identify the entire sense of right and wrong with
what religion dictates. The conceptual problem we have seen and the practical
difficulties of simply basing ethics on the divine command theory are reasons enough
to wonder whether we have to set this thinking aside. Now let us clarify one point:
Our calling into question of the divine command theory is not calling to question of
one’s belief in God; it is not intended to be a challenge to one’s faith. Instead, it is an
invitation to consider whether there may be more creative and less problematic ways
of seeing the connection between faith and ethics, rather than simply equating what is
ethical with whatever one takes to be commanded by God.

AUTHORITY OF CULTURE

Date Developed: August 2020 Document No.

GEC 8 - ETHICS Date Revised: -
Issued by: PRMSU
Page 7 of 37
Developed by: VENZEIL F DECENA, RPm, LPT Revision # 00
Culture is the integrated pattern of human knowledge belief and behavior that depends upon
the capacity for learning and transmitting knowledge to succeeding generations.

Cultural Relativism – From the reality of diversity, it is possible for someone to jump to the
further claim that sheer variety at work in the different ways of valuation means there is no
single universal standard for such valuations, and that this holds true as well in the realm of
ethics. Therefore, what is ethically acceptable or unacceptable is relative to, or that is to say,
dependent on one’s culture.

1. Cultural relativism seems to conform to what we experience which is the reality of the
differences in how cultures make their ethical valuations.
2. By taking one’s culture as standard, we are provided a basis for our valuations.
3. It teaches us to be tolerant of others from different cultures, as we realize that we are in
no position to judge whether the ethical thought or practice of another culture is
acceptable or unacceptable. In turn our own cultural moral codes is neither superior or
inferior to any other, but they would provide us the standards that are appropriate and
applicable to us.

James Rachels’ Criticism

1. The argument of criticism is premised on the reality of difference. Different cultures

have moral codes. We cannot say that any moral code is the right one. But the
disagreement may mean that the question of who is right or wrong is not immediately
evident, but it does not mean that there is no correct resolution to the disagreement.
2. We realize that we are in no position to render any kind of judgement on the practices
of another culture. This seems to be a generous and an open minded way of
respecting others but what if the practice seems to call for a comment. Such as when a
particular African tribe thought it is advantageous and therefore right for them to
wipeout a neighboring people through a terrible practice of genocide? Are we in no
position to judge if this is wrong? Would we be satisfied with concluding that we
cannot judge another culture?
3. We realize that we are in no position to render any kind of judgement on the practices
of even our own culture. If our culture was the basis of determining what is right or
wrong, we would be unable to say that something within our cultural practice was
problematic, precisely because we take our culture to be the standard for making such
judgments.
4. We can maintain it only by following presumption of our culture as a single clearly
defined substance or as something fixed and already determined. Now, it is always
possible to fid examples of a certain culture having unique practice or way of life and
to distinguish it from other culture’s practices, but it is also becoming increasingly
difficult to determine what exactly defines one’s culture.

*Positive Points

Date Developed: August 2020 Document No.

GEC 8 - ETHICS Date Revised: -
Issued by: PRMSU
Page 8 of 37
Developed by: VENZEIL F DECENA, RPm, LPT Revision # 00
Promotes sense of humility, that is, urging us not to imagine that our own culture is
superior to another. Such humility, however, should go hand in hand with a capacity for a
rational, critical discernment that is truly appreciative of human values.

*Weak Points

It basically renders us incapable of discerning about what values we may wish to

maintain as we are forced to simply accept whatever culture gives us. It keeps us from
exploring whether there are values that are shared between cultures; keeps us from comparing
and judging- either positively or negatively – the valuations that are made by different
cultures.

Reflection
Returning to the case of Cris:
Can one claim that fraternities have their own culture that deserves respect? What would be
the strong and weak points of this claim?

LESSON 3: Senses of The Self

It is sometimes thought that one should not rely on any external authority to tell
oneself what the standards of moral valuation are, but should instead turn inwards. In this
section we will look into three theories about ethics that center on the self.

SUBJECTIVISM
- Recognize that the individual thinking person (the subject) is at the heart of all moral
valuation. She is the one who is confronted with the situation and is burdened with
the need to make a decision or judgement.
- The individual is the sole determinant of what is morally good or bad, right or wrong.
 “No one can tell me what is right or wrong”
 “No one knows my situation better than myself”
 “I am entitled to my own opinion”
 “It is good, if I say it is good”

PSYCHOLOGICAL EGOISM
“Human beings are naturally self-centered, so all our actions are always already
motivated by self-interest”. The theory describes the underlying dynamic behind all human
actions. As a descriptive theory, it does not direct one to act in any particular way. Instead, it
points out that there is already an underlying basis for how one’s act. The ego or self has its
desires and interests, and all our actions are geared toward satisfying these interests.

Strong Points
1. Simplicity – when an idea is marked by simplicity, it has unique appeal to it; a theory
that conveniently identifies a single basis that will somehow account for all actions is
a good example of this.

Date Developed: August 2020 Document No.

GEC 8 - ETHICS Date Revised: -
Issued by: PRMSU
Page 9 of 37
Developed by: VENZEIL F DECENA, RPm, LPT Revision # 00
2. Plausibility- It is plausible that self-interest is behind a person’s actions. It is clearly
the motivation behind many of the actions one perform which are obviously self-
serving; it could very well also be the motivation behind an individual’s seemingly
other-directed actions.
3. Irrefutable – there is no way to try to answer it without being confronted by the
challenge that, whatever one might say, there is the self-serving motive at the root of
everything.
Thus, if we cannot refute it, shall we consider it as true? And “Do we accept the
consequences of this theory?”

ETHICAL EGOISM
- It does not suppose all actions are already inevitably self-serving. Instead, ethical
egoism prescribes that we should make our own ends, our own interests, as the single
overriding concern. We may act in a way that is beneficial to others, but we should do
that only if it ultimately benefits us.
- It is not just some pleasant pursuit of one’s own desires, but the imposition of a will
to power that is potentially destructive of both the self and the others. One can take on
this view, if one wishes, but it is also possible to wonder whether there is a way of
recognizing our being in the world with others, of thinking of our own wellbeing
concomitantly with the wellbeing of others.

Reflection
Returning to the case of Cris:
Do you think it is acceptable that those responsible for the death of Cris got away
with murder? Do you think it is right for someone to look after his/her own welfare over
any other concern such as justice?

SUMMARY
In this chapter, we have established the scope and the rationale for a discussion of
ethics. We explored various domains of valuation in order to distinguish what makes a
particularly grave type of valuation a moral or ethical one. We clarified some of the terms that
will be used in the study of ethics. We have also explored a number of problematic ways of
thinking of ethics: some give a too simplistic answer to the question of our grounds or
foundations for moral valuations, while others seem to dismiss the possibility of ethics
altogether.

Date Developed: August 2020 Document No.

GEC 8 - ETHICS Date Revised: -
Issued by: PRMSU
Page 10 of 37
Developed by: VENZEIL F DECENA, RPm, LPT Revision # 00
Republic of the Philippines
President Ramon Magsaysay State University
(formerly Ramon Magsaysay Technological University)
Iba. Zambales, Philippines
Tel/Fax no. (047) 811-1683

Chapter 1
THE ETHICAL DIMESION OF HUMAN EXISTENCE

ACTIVITY NO. 1

Name: _________________________________ Date: _______________

Course: ________________________________ Grade: ________

Answer as briefly as possible and direct to the point.

Art and Offense

In 2011, the Cultural Center of the Philippines (CCP) mounted an exhibit that
included Mideo Cruz’s “Politeismo”: an installation comprised of an amalgam of
many images including a statue of Jesus wearing Mickey Mouse ears, a crucifix
adorned with a bright red phallus, and a picture of the face of Jesus with a wooden ash
tray with penis tacked on the middle. Apparently conceived as a piece to promote
critical thought and perhaps debate on idolatry, it was seen by many in this
predominantly Catholic country to be a deliberate insult to their faith. Given the
public outcry and the strong denouncement from various religious and secular leaders,
the exhibit was abruptly closed. In addition to being threatened and having his work
vandalized, Cruz was charged with obscenity. However, he (as well as the
administrators of the CCP) was acquitted of these charges by the courts in 2013).
A case such as this allows us to consider questions on aesthetics, such as “Is it
the point of the work of art to be appealing or to be thought-provoking?” It also
allows us to consider political questions, such as “Who gets to decide which artists
and which projects may or may not receive funding from the state?” Our concern here
is ethical, and perhaps we can recognize that a number of highly significant ethical
questions can be raised: Does the artist have an ethical obligation to the sensibilities
of his audience? Or does he have a moral obligation only to be faithful to his vision
and his art? What constitutes offense, and at what point is offense severe enough as to
require control or to justify retribution? Does a religious majority have a monopoly on
the understanding of what is right or wrong? Does an artist have absolute freedom of
expression, or are there proper restriction to this right?
What do you think?

Date Developed: August 2020 Document No.

GEC 8 - ETHICS Date Revised: -
Issued by: PRMSU
Page 11 of 37
Developed by: VENZEIL F DECENA, RPm, LPT Revision # 00
I. Imagine a scenario in which an image of someone who is the object of
religious devotion (such as Jesus Christ or Mary, the Mother of Jesus) is
placed side by side with a phallic image?
1. Is this an ethical issue? Why or why not?

2. Does the question of rightness or wrongness of this depends on which

religion you belong to? Explain your answer.

II. Look for another example of an artistic creation – a painting, poem, or

song – that is a source of either actual or potential conflict between the
expression of the artist and sensibility that finds this offensive. Present the
significant details and the reasons that the conflicting sides might have on
this issue.

III. Look for and list down other sources wherein we find a dialogue between
ethics and the various domains of aesthetic, culture and religion.

Date Developed: August 2020 Document No.

GEC 8 - ETHICS Date Revised: -
Issued by: PRMSU
Page 12 of 37
Developed by: VENZEIL F DECENA, RPm, LPT Revision # 00
ASSESSMENT

Name: _________________________________ Date: _______________

Course: ________________________________ Grade: ________
Answer as briefly as possible and direct to the point.

1. Identify a list of: (a) obligations we are expected to fulfill, (b) prohibitions we are
required to respect, and (c) ideals we are encouraged to meet. Discuss whether they
are ethical in nature or not.

2. Are clothes a matter of pure aesthetic taste, or does it make sense for clothes to
become a subject in a discussion of ethics? Why? How about other forms of
adornment, such as tattoos and piercings?

3. Look for a newspaper article that tackles an ethical issue. Consider the following
questions:
a. What makes this a matter of ethics?

b. What is your own ethical judgment on this case?

c. What are your reasons for this judgment?

Date Developed: August 2020 Document No.

GEC 8 - ETHICS Date Revised: -
Issued by: PRMSU
Page 13 of 37
Developed by: VENZEIL F DECENA, RPm, LPT Revision # 00
4. Brainstorm and come up with a list of common Filipino values. Consider the
strengths and weaknesses of these?

5. Imagine that you are a legislator. Wat rules or laws that currently prohibit certain acts
or practices would you want to amend or repel? Also, are there certain acts or
practices currently permitted by the law that you would want to prohibit? Think of
this on the level of your school, your province and the nation.

6. Comment on this statement: “What I believe must be true If I feel very strongly about
it”.

7. Is looking after the benefit of your own family over all other aspects considered as
another form of egoism? Discuss.

Date Developed: August 2020 Document No.

GEC 8 - ETHICS Date Revised: -
Issued by: PRMSU
Page 14 of 37
Developed by: VENZEIL F DECENA, RPm, LPT Revision # 00
REFLECTION/VALUING

In this chapter,

I learned that… (Knowledge)

I felt that… (Values/Attitude)

I developed… (Skill)

Date Developed: August 2020 Document No.

GEC 8 - ETHICS Date Revised: -
Issued by: PRMSU
Page 15 of 37
Developed by: VENZEIL F DECENA, RPm, LPT Revision # 00
Suggested Readings
Frankfurt Harry. “Freedom of the Will and the Concept of a Person. “The Importance
of What We Care About: Philosophical Essays. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1988.pp 11-25

Nagel, Thomas “The Fragmentation of Value. “Moral Questions. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press, 1979, pp. 128-41

Rachels, James “Can ethics Provide Answers? “The Hastings Center Report, Vol.10,
No. 3, June 1980, pp.32-40.

Reyes, Ramon Castillo. “The Relation between Ethics and Religious Belief.” The
Moral Dimension: Essays in Honor of Ramon Castillo Reyes, edited by Nemesio S. Que, Jr.,
Oscar G. Bulaong, Jr., and Michael Ner E. Mariano, Queson City: Office of Research and
Publications, Ateneo de Manila University, 2003, pp.107-112.

References/Additional Resources:

Bulaong O.G. et. al., 2018, “Ethics: Foundations of Moral Valuations” distributed by
Rex Bookstore, Inc.

Date Developed: August 2020 Document No.

GEC 8 - ETHICS Date Revised: -
Issued by: PRMSU
Page 16 of 37
Developed by: VENZEIL F DECENA, RPm, LPT Revision # 00
Republic of the Philippines
President Ramon Magsaysay State University
(formerly Ramon Magsaysay Technological University)
Iba. Zambales, Philippines
Tel/Fax no. (047) 811-1683

College/ Department
Course Code GEC 8
Course Title Ethics
Place of the Course in the General Education
Program
Semester and Academic Year 1st Semester 2020-2021.

Chapter II
UTILITARIANISM

Intended Learning Outcomes

1. Discuss the basic principle of utilitarian ethics
2. Distinguish between two utilitarian models: the quantitative model of Jeremy
Bentham and the qualitative model of John Stuart Mill
3. Apply utilitarianism in understanding and evaluating local and international scenarios

Introduction
On January 25, 2015, the 8th Special Action Force (SAF) conducted a police
operation at Tukanalipao, Mamasapao in Maguindanao. Also known as Oplan Exodus, it was
intended to serve an arrest warrant for Zulkifli Bin Hir or Marwan, a Malaysian terrorist and
bomb maker who had a 5-million-dollar bounty on his head. This mission eventually led to a
clash between the Philippine National Police’s (PNP) SAF, on one hand, and the Bangsamoro
Islamic Freedom Fighters (BIFF) and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) on the other.
Although the police operation was successful because of the death of Marwan, the firefight
that ensued claimed sixty-seven lives including forty-four SAF troopers, eighteen MILF
Fighters and five civilians. However, the relatively high number of SAF members killed in
this operation caught attention of many including Philippine media and the legislature.

In one of the Congress investigations that followed this tragic mission, then Senate
President Franklin Drilon and Senator Francis Escudero debated the public hearing of an
audio recording of an alleged conversation that attempted to cover up the massacre of the
PNP-SAF commandos. Drilon questioned the admissibility of these recordings as evidence
under the Anti-Wire Tapping Law whereas Escudero cited Section 4 of the Anti-Wire
Tapping Act (RA 4200) and explained that any communication or spoken word or the
existence, contents, substance, purport, or meaning of the same or any part thereof or any
information therein contained, obtained and secured by any person in any violation of the

Date Developed: August 2020 Document No.

GEC 8 - ETHICS Date Revised: -
Issued by: PRMSU
Page 17 of 37
Developed by: VENZEIL F DECENA, RPm, LPT Revision # 00
preceding sections of this Act shall not be admissible in evidence in any judicial, quasi-
judicial, legislative or administrative hearing or investigation. “Seator Grace Poe, previous
chairperson of the senate committee on public order and dangerous drugs argued otherwise,
“Sinabi na ni Senaator Drilon na ito daw ay illegal, na hindi daw pwede, na ako daw ay
pwedeng maging liable kung ito daw ay ipapakinig sa senado, ako naman, ano ba naman
itong mga batas na ito?... Ang mga batas na to ay para malaman natin ang katotohanan at
magkaroon tayo ng hustisya. Itong anti-wiretapping or mga recording na ganito, kung hindi
pwedeng lalabs sa publiko, pwede naming gawing basehan sa executive session.”

Senator Poe response leads us to ask: Can the government infringe individual rights If
it is morally permissible for the government to infringe individual rights, when can the
government do so? Does it become legitimate to sacrifice individual rights when considering
the greatest benefit for the greatest number of people.

The case exposes the aftermath of the Mamasapano incident and the Senate
investigations. The senate inquiry proceedings raised questions on the possibility of
wiretapping and the intrusion of one’s right to privacy. While the 1987 Philippine
Constitution does protect one’s right to private communication, it did provide some
exemptions to its inviolability. These exemptions included a lawful order of the court and/or
issues concerning public safety and order. RA 4200 (Anti-Wire Tapping Law and RA 9372
(or the Human Security Act of 2007) both provided exemptions on the inviolability of the
right to privacy in instances of treason, espionage, rebellion and sedition. While this is a
certainty a legal issue, can it also contribute a moral concern? By raising the distinction
between moral and legal issues and concerns, do you think that these two are different? To
simplify things, let us put aside the question of law and let us assume that you were ask to
decide whether wiretapping is morally permissible or not? On what instances is wiretapping
morally permissible and on what instance it is not morally permissible.

LESSON 1: The Principle of Utility

UTILITARIANISM
- It is an ethical theory that argues for the goodness of pleasure and the determination
of right behavior based on the usefulness of the action’s consequences.
- It claims that one’s actions and behavior are good inasmuch as they are directed
toward the experience of the greatest pleasure over pain for the greatest number of
person.
- Its root word is “utility” which refers to the usefulness of the consequences of one’s
actions.
- It is consequentialist – meaning the moral value of actions and decisions is based
solely or greatly on the usefulness of their consequences; it is the usefulness of results
that determines whether the action or behavior is good or bad.
- According to Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) and John Stuart Mill (1806-1873), utility
refers to understanding the results of people’s actions. Specifically, they are interested
on whether this actions contribute or not to the world. The utilitarian value pleasure

Date Developed: August 2020 Document No.

GEC 8 - ETHICS Date Revised: -
Issued by: PRMSU
Page 18 of 37
Developed by: VENZEIL F DECENA, RPm, LPT Revision # 00
and happiness; this means that the usefulness of actions is based on its promotion of
happiness.
o Happiness is the experience of pleasure for the greatest number of persons,
even at the expense of some individual rights.
o The pursuit for pleasure and pain are in fact the only principle in assessing
action’s morality
o The natural preferability of pleasure Mill refers to as theory of life.

The Principle of Utility

- Refers to our subjection to our sovereign masters: pleasure and pain
- Refers to the motivation of our actions as guided by our avoidance of pain and our
desire for pleasure.
- Refers to pleasure is only good if and only if, they produce more happiness than
unhappiness. This means that it is not enough to experience pleasure, but to also
inquire whether the things we do make us happier.

Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832)

- He argued that our actions are governed by two sovereign masters – which he calls
“pleasure and pain”. These masters are given to us by nature to help us determine
what is good or bad and what to be done and not; they fasten our choices to their
throne.
- He equates happiness with pleasure.
- He provided a framework for evaluating pleasure and pain commonly called Felicific
Calculus.
o Felicific calculus is a common currency framework that calculates the
pleasure that some actions can produce. In this framework, an action can be
evaluated on the basis of intensity or strength of pleasure; duration or length
of the experience of pleasure; certainty, uncertainty, or the likelihood that
pleasure will occur; propinquity, remoteness, or how soon there will be
pleasure.
o In measuring the tendency to choose these actions we need to consider two
more dimensions:
 Fecundity – chance it has of being followed by sensations of the
same kind, and purity of the chance it has not being followed by
sensations of the opposite kind.
 Lastly is consideration of the number of person who are affected by
pleasure or pain, another dimension called Extent should also be
considered.
o Felicific calculus allows the evaluation of all actions and their resultant
pleasure.
o This means that actions are evaluated on this single scale regardless of
preferences and values. In this sense pleasure and pain can only
quantitatively differ but not qualitatively differ from other experiences of
pleasure and pain.

Date Developed: August 2020 Document No.

GEC 8 - ETHICS Date Revised: -
Issued by: PRMSU
Page 19 of 37
Developed by: VENZEIL F DECENA, RPm, LPT Revision # 00
John Stuart Mill (1806-1873
- He reiterates moral good as happiness, and consequently happiness as pleasure.
- He clarifies that what makes people happy is intended pleasure and what makes us
unhappy is the privation of pleasure.
- He argues that we act and do things because we find them pleasurable and we avoid
doing things because they are painful.
- He dissents from Bentham’s single scale of pleasure. He thinks that the principle of
utility must distinguish pleasure qualitatively and not merely quantitatively.
- Utilitarianism cannot promote the kind of pleasures appropriate for pigs or to any
other animals. He thinks that there are higher intellectual and lower base pleasure.
- We are capable of searching and desiring higher intellectual pleasures more than pigs
are capable of.
- Contrary to Bentham, Mill argues that quality is more preferable than quantity. An
excessive quantity of what otherwise pleasurable might result in pain.
- In deciding over two comparable pleasures pleasure, it is important to experience
both and to discover which one is actually more preferred than the other.
- Actual choices of knowledgeable persons’ points that higher intellectual pleasures are
preferable than purely sensual appetites.

LESSON 2: Principle of The Greatest Number

Principle of the Greatest Number

 According to John Stuart Mill, equating happiness with pleasure does not aim to
describe the utilitarian moral agent and independently from others. This not only
about our individual pleasures, regardless of how high, intellectual, or in other
ways noble it is, but it is also about the pleasure of the greatest number affected
by the consequence of our actions.

Utilitarianism
 Utilitarianism cannot lead us to selfish acts
 It is not dismissive of sacrifices that procure more happiness for others.
 It is not at all separate from liberal social practices that aim to improve the quality
of life for all persons.
 Is interested with everyone’s happiness, in fact, the greatest happiness of the
greatest number
 Maximizes the total amount of pleasure over displeasure for the greatest number.
 J.S. Mill pushes for the moral irrelevance of motive in evaluating actions.
Interested with the best consequence for the highest number of people. It is not
interested in the motive of agent.
 Moral value cannot be discernable in the intention or motivation of the person
doing the act; it is based solely on the difference it makes on the world’s total
amount of pleasure and pain.

Date Developed: August 2020 Document No.

GEC 8 - ETHICS Date Revised: -
Issued by: PRMSU
Page 20 of 37
Developed by: VENZEIL F DECENA, RPm, LPT Revision # 00
LESSON 3: Justice and Moral Rights

John Stuart Mill understands JUSTICE as respect for rights directed toward society’s
pursuit for the greatest happiness of the greatest number. MORAL RIGHTS is a valid claim
on society and are justified by utility.

Utilitarianism on Justice and Moral Rights

 The society is made happier if its citizens are able to live their lives knowing that
their interests are protected and that society as a whole defends it.
 A right is justifiable on utilitarian principles inasmuch as they produce an overall
happiness that is greater than the unhappiness resulting from their implementation.
 Utilitarian argue that issues of justice carry a very strong emotional import because
the category of rights is directly associated with the individual’s most vital interests
 Mill associates utilitarianism with the possession of moral and legal rights. He
understands that legal rights are neither inviolable nor natural, but rights are subject
to some exceptions.
 He points out that when legal rights are not normally justified in accordance to the
greatest happiness principle, then these rights neither be observed, nor be respected.
This is like saying that there are instances when the law is not morally justified, and
in this case, even objectionable.
 It is commendable to endure legal punishments for acts of civil disobedience for the
sake of promoting a higher moral good.
 Mill points out that moral rights take precedence over legal rights
 Moral rights are only justifiable by considerations of greater overall happiness.
 What matters in what we do is the resultant happiness, then anything may be justified
for the sake of producing the greatest happiness of the greatest number of people.
 For Mill, justice can be interpreted in terms of moral rights because justice promotes
the greater social good.

Mill explains that the idea of justice supposed two things: a rule of conduct and a sentiment
which sanctions the rule. The first must be supposed common to all mankind, and intended
for their good. The other (sentiment) is a desire that punishment may be suffered by those
who infringe the rule. There is involved, in addition, the conception of some definite person
who suffers by the infringement; whose rights (to use the appropriated to the case) are
violated by it. And the sentiment of justice appears to me to be, the animal desire to repel or
retaliate a hurt or damage to oneself, or to those whom one sympathizes, widened so as to
include all persons, by the human capacity of enlarged sympathy, and the human conception
of intelligent self-interest. From the latter elements, the feeling derives its morality; from the
former, its peculiar impressiveness, ad energy of self-assertion.

SUMMARY
Bentham and Mill see moral good as pleasure, not merely self-gratification, but also
the greatest happiness principle or the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people.
We are compelled to do whatever increases pleasure and decreases pain to the most number

Date Developed: August 2020 Document No.

GEC 8 - ETHICS Date Revised: -
Issued by: PRMSU
Page 21 of 37
Developed by: VENZEIL F DECENA, RPm, LPT Revision # 00
of persons, counting each as one and none as more than one. In determining the greatest
happiness for the greatest number of people, there is no distinction between Bentham and
Mill. Bentham suggests his felicific calculus, a framework for quantifying moral valuation.
Mill provides criterion for comparative pleasures. He thinks that persons who experience two
different types of pleasures generally prefer higher intellectual pleasures to base sensual ones.

Mill provides an adequate discourse on rights despite it being mistakenly argued to be

the weakness of utilitarianism. He argues that rights are socially protected interests that are
justified by their contribution to the greatest happiness principle. However, he also claims that
in extreme circumstances, respect for individual rights can be overridden to promote better
welfare especially in circumstances of conflict valuation.

Date Developed: August 2020 Document No.

GEC 8 - ETHICS Date Revised: -
Issued by: PRMSU
Page 22 of 37
Developed by: VENZEIL F DECENA, RPm, LPT Revision # 00
Republic of the Philippines
President Ramon Magsaysay State University
(formerly Ramon Magsaysay Technological University)
Iba. Zambales, Philippines
Tel/Fax no. (047) 811-1683

Chapter II
UTILITARIANISM

ACTIVITY NO. 2

Name: _________________________________ Date: _______________

Course: ________________________________ Grade: ________
Answer as briefly as possible and direct to the point.

In view of Bentham and Mill’s assertion of the greatest happiness of the greatest number, do
you think that animal rights and welfare should even be a concern in the Philippines where
millions of people below the poverty threshold are struggling to have decent lives? Is the
concern for animal rights and welfare a first world problem?

Date Developed: August 2020 Document No.

GEC 8 - ETHICS Date Revised: -
Issued by: PRMSU
Page 23 of 37
Developed by: VENZEIL F DECENA, RPm, LPT Revision # 00
ASSESSMENT

Name: _________________________________ Date:

_______________
Course: ________________________________ Grade: ________

Answer as briefly as possible and direct to the point.

1. Are all pleasures commensureable? Can they be evaluated on a single scale? Can
some goods like friendship, be balanced against other goods like money?

2. Mill revises utilitarianism by arguing for “higher” pleasures. Which pleasures are
higher?

3. Mill proposes that higher pleasures ae those preferred by the majority of people.
Do you agree that this is a good way of distinguishing etween higher and lower
pleasures? Can a well informed majority prefer higher pleasures?

4. Does utilitarianism questions individual rights? What if violation the civil rights
of minority increasess the sum total of pleasure of the majority?

5. Do you agree that happiness is the pursuit of pleasure and the avoidance of pain,
and that all actions are directed toward pleasure?

Date Developed: August 2020 Document No.

GEC 8 - ETHICS Date Revised: -
Issued by: PRMSU
Page 24 of 37
Developed by: VENZEIL F DECENA, RPm, LPT Revision # 00
6. Are all pleasures comparable, even objectionable pleasures? What if the majority
derives pleasure from being sexist ?

7. Is it justifiable to build a basketball court because there are basketball fans, than
to build a hospital because there are fewer sick people?

8. When is it justifiable to torture suspected criminals?

REFLECTION/VALUING
In this chapter,

I learned that… (Knowledge)

I felt that… (Values/Attitude)

Date Developed: August 2020 Document No.

GEC 8 - ETHICS Date Revised: -
Issued by: PRMSU
Page 25 of 37
Developed by: VENZEIL F DECENA, RPm, LPT Revision # 00
I developed… (Skill)

Suggested Readings
Albee, Ernest. A Histry of English Utilitarianism. New York: Macmillan, 1902.

Alican, Necip Fikri. Mill’s Principle of Utility: A Defense of John Stuart Mill’s
Notorious Proof. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 1994

Berger, Fred R. Happiness, Justice, and Freedom: The Moral and Political Philosophy
of John Stuart Mill. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984.

Crisp, Roger. Routledge Philosophy Guidebook to Mill on Utilitarianism. London:

Routledge, 2009.

Lyon’s David. Rights, Welfare and Mill’s Moral Theory. New York: Oxford
University Press, 1994.

Mill, John Stuart. Collected Works of John Stuart Mill. 33 Volumes, London:
Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1994.

Ryan Alan. The Philosophy of John Stuart Mil. London: Macmillan, 1987.

Semmel, Bernard. John Stuart Mill and the Pursuit of Virtue. New Haven: Yale
University Press, 1984.

Skorupski, John, editor. The Cambridge Companion to Mill. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press, 2001.

References/Additional Resources:

Bulaong O.G. et. al., 2018, “Ethics: Foundations of Moral Valuations” distributed by
Rex Bookstore, Inc.

Date Developed: August 2020 Document No.

GEC 8 - ETHICS Date Revised: -
Issued by: PRMSU
Page 26 of 37
Developed by: VENZEIL F DECENA, RPm, LPT Revision # 00
Republic of the Philippines
President Ramon Magsaysay State University
(formerly Ramon Magsaysay Technological University)
Iba. Zambales, Philippines
Tel/Fax no. (047) 811-1683

College/ Department
Course Code GEC 8
Course Title Ethics
Place of the Course in the General Education
Program
Semester and Academic Year 1st Semester 2020-2021

Chapter III
NATURAL LAW

Intended Learning Outcome

1. Recognize how Thomas Aquinas made use of ancient Greek concepts to provide a
rational grounding to an ethical theory based on the Christian faith;
2. Identify the natural law in distinction from, but also in relation to, the other types of
law mentioned by Aquinas eternal law, and divine law; and
3. Apply the precepts of the natural law to contemporary moral concerns.

Introduction
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 and two women together being identified as a couple with
rights guaranteed and protected by law. However, as one newspaper reported 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 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 Community (LGBT), and to the judgment that two
people of the same sex is unnatural.
We are used to hearing people justify something that is done by making the appeal to
what they maintain is “natural”, and therefore “acceptable”. Likewise, people would judge
something as unacceptable on the basis that it is supposedly “unnatural”. Thus, we are no
longer surprised when we hear people condemn and label many different things as
“unnatural”: maybe receiving blood transfusions, eating meat, or as our news report shows,
engaging in sexual relations that might consider deviant. We also realize that sometimes we
might find ourselves astonished or perplexed as to what different people might consider
“unnatural”.
Date Developed: August 2020 Document No.
GEC 8 - ETHICS Date Revised: -
Issued by: PRMSU
Page 27 of 37
Developed by: VENZEIL F DECENA, RPm, LPT Revision # 00
In order to proceed, it is therefore necessary to ask: “What do the words natural and
unnatural mean?” Sometimes, the word natural seems to be used to refer to some kind of
intuition that a person has, one which is so apparently true to him that it is unquestioned. For
example, a woman may claim that it is unnatural to eat any kind of insect and what this means
is that she personally finds herself averse to the idea of doing so. In other instances, the word
used to try to justify certain ways of behaving by seeing its likeliness somewhere in the
natural world. For example, a man might claim that it is okay for im to have more than one
sexual partner, since in pride of lions, the alpha male gets to mate with all the she-lions. In yet
other instances, the word natural is used as an appeal to something instinctual without it being
directed by reason. For example, a man may deem it all right if he were to urinate just
anywhere because he sees it as natural functions of human. Lastly, we also easily find people
using the word natural to refer to what seems common to them in a particular environment.
For instance, a Filipina may suppose that eating three full meals of rice and viand every day is
natural because everyone she knows behaves that way.
Given these varied meaning of the term natural, we need to find a more solid and
nuanced way to understand the term. In this chapter, we will explore how Thomas Aquinas
provided this, emphasizing the capacity for reason as what is essential in our human nature.
This understanding of human nature anchored on our capacity for reason will become the
basis of the natural law theory, a theory which will provide us a unique way of determining
the moral status of our actions.

LESSON 1. Thomas Aquinas

There have been various thinkers and systems of thought emerging throughout history
that could be said to present a natural law theory. Among them, the one we will be focusing
on is the medieval thinker Thomas Aquinas. It has o be recognized, however, that this natural
law theory is part of a larger discussion, which is his moral theory taken as a whole. This
moral theory, in turn, is part of a larger project, which is Aquinas’s vision of the Christian
faith.

THOMAS AQUINAS (1225-1274)

 Hailed as a doctor of the Roman Catholic Church. A Dominican friar who was the
preeminent intellectual figure of the scholastic period of Middle Ages,
contributing to the doctrine of the faith more than any other figure of his time. His
Summa Theologiae, his magnus opus, is a voluminous work that comprehensively
discusses many significant points in Christian theology. He was canonized in
1323.

THE CONTEXT OF THE CHRISTIAN STORY

 Aquinas elaborated and maintained in all his works the promise right at the center of
Christian faith: that we are created by God in order to ultimately return to Him.
 His magnus opus, Summa Theologiae follows the trajectory of this story; the three
parts are

Date Developed: August 2020 Document No.

GEC 8 - ETHICS Date Revised: -
Issued by: PRMSU
Page 28 of 37
Developed by: VENZEIL F DECENA, RPm, LPT Revision # 00
1. Aquinas speaks of God, and although we acknowledge that our limited
human intellect cannot fully grasp Him, we nevertheless are able to say
something concerning His goodness, His might, and His creative power.
2. It deals with man or the dynamic of human life. Salvation in only
possible through the presence of God’s grace.
3. It focuses on Jesus as our Savior.

THE CONTEXT OF AQUINAS’ ETHICS

 Explore Aquinas’s discussion of other matters, such as, how;
o In our pursuit of happiness, we direct our actions toward specific
ends. Our emotions— “the passions”—are involved in this process
and therefore require the proper order if they are to properly
contribute to a good life.
o Actions are related to certain dispositions (“habits”) in a dynamic
way since our actions both arise from our habits and at the same time
reinforce them
o Develop either good or bad habits with a good disposition leading us
toward making immoral choices.
o Christian life, therefore, is about developing the capacities given to
us by God, into a disposition of virtue inclined toward the good.
 Aquinas also puts forward that there is within us a conscience that directs our
moral thinking. For Aquinas there is a sense of right and wrong in us that we
are obliged to obey. However, he also adds that this must be informed,
guided and ultimately grounded in an objective bass of morality.
 So we are called to heed the voice of conscience and enjoined to develop and
maintain a life virtue. However, these both require content, so we need
something more. We need a basis for our conscience to be properly informed,
and we need a clearer guidepost on whether certain decisions we make leads
us toward virtue or vice. Being told that one should heed conscience or that
one should try to be virtuous, does very little to guide people as to what
specifically should be done in a given situation. There is a need for clearer
basis of ethics, a ground that will more concretely direct us sense of what is
right and wrong, this would be the natural law.
 We can recall how the ethical approach called divine command theory urges
a person toward unthinking obedience to religious precepts. Given the
problems of he simplistic approach to ethics, we can contrast how the moral
theory of Aquinas requires judicious use of reason. In doing so, one’s sense
of right and wrong would be grounded on something stable: human nature
itself.

LESSON 2. The Greek Heritage

NEOPLATONIC GOOD

Date Developed: August 2020 Document No.

GEC 8 - ETHICS Date Revised: -
Issued by: PRMSU
Page 29 of 37
Developed by: VENZEIL F DECENA, RPm, LPT Revision # 00
 The central belief of Christian faith—God creates does not only means the
He brings about beings, but also means that He cares for, thus governs, the
activity of the universe and of every creature.
 Plato a Greek philosopher who was credited the notion of the idea of a
supreme and absolutely transcendent good has shaped and defined the
Christian Doctrine of Aquinas while inspired by divine revelation.
 It is the idea of the good—a good which is prior to all being and is even the
cause of all being.
 In his work The Republic, it is often supposed that Plato is trying to envision
the ideal society. But that plan is only part of a more fundamental concern
that animates the text, which is to provide an objective basis and standard for
striving to be moral. In other words, it can be said that Plato was trying to
answer questions such as “Why should I bother trying to be good?” and
“Why cannot be “good” be whatever I say it is?” His answer was that the
good is real and not something that one can pretend to make up or ignore.
 Neoplatonists are scholars who decipher the wealth of ideas of Plato.

ARISTOTELIAN BEING AND BECOMING

BEING
 Aristotle proposes four concepts which provide a way of understanding any
particular being under consideration or can be said to have four causes.
o Material cause- We recognize that any being we can see around is
corporeal, possessed of a certain materiality or physical “stuff”.
-A being is individuated- it becomes unique, individual being hat it is-
because it is made up of the particular stuff.
o Formal cause- The “shape” that makes a being a particular kind.
-We also realize that this material takes on a particular shape: so a bird is
different from a cat, which is different from a man.
o Efficient cause- Something which brings about the presence of another
being.
-One can also realize that this being does not simply pop up from
nothing, but comes from another being which is prior to it. Parents beget
a child. A mango tree used to be a seed that itself came from an older
tree.
o Final cause- It has an apparent end o goal.
-A seed to become a tree or a child to become an adult.

BECOMING
Aristotle also discussed the process of becoming or the possibility of change that
takes place in a being. A new pair of principles is introduced by him which we can refer to as
potency and act. A being may carry within itself certain potentials, but these requires the
being to actualized. A puppy is not yet a full grown dog. These potencies are latent to the
puppy and are actualized as the puppy grow and achieve what it is supposed to be. The
process of becoming – or change – can thus be explained in this way. Understanding beings,

Date Developed: August 2020 Document No.

GEC 8 - ETHICS Date Revised: -
Issued by: PRMSU
Page 30 of 37
Developed by: VENZEIL F DECENA, RPm, LPT Revision # 00
ow they are and how they become or what they could be, is significant Aristotelian
contribution to the picture which was given by Aquinas.

SYNTHESIS
The idea of transcendent good prior to all being resurfaces in Aquinas in the form of
good and loving God, who Himself is the fullness of being good and of goodness; as Aquinas
puts it, God is that which essentially is and is essentially good. So we recognize that all beings
are only possible as participating in the first being, which is God Himself. God’s act, like
emanation of light, is the creation of beings.
In so far as God is that from which all beings come, it is ossible for us to speak of
Him as the first efficient cause. In so far as God is that toward which all beings seek to return,
it is possible for us to speak of him as the final cause. We see here the beginning of the
synthesis by noting how the Neoplatonic movement from and back toward the transcendent is
fused with the Aristotelian notion of causes.
It must be noted though, that this is not some mechanistic unthinking process. It is
God’s will and love that are the cause of all things; to every existing thing, God wills some
good. Creation therefore is the activity of the outpouring overflowing of God’s goodness.
Since each being n this way participates in God’s goodness, each being is in.
However, while beings are good because they are created by God, the goodness
possessed by beings are imperfect. “For Aquinas, only God in the fullness of His being and
goodness is perfect; all other beings are participating in this goodness, and are good to that
extent, but are imperfect since they are limited in their participation. But once again, God did
not create us to simply be imperfect and to stay that way as He leaves us alone. Instead God,
in His infinite wisdom, directs how we are to arrive at our perfection. The notion of divine
providence refers to how beings are properly ordered and even guided toward their proper
end; end which is for them to reach their highest good, is to return to the divine goodness
itself.
God communicates to each being his perfection and goodness. Every creature then
strives to its own perfection; thus the divine goodness is the end of all actions. All things
come from God and are created by Him in order to return to Him.
We now need to recall that beings are created by God in a particular way. It is not
accidental how beings emerge into existence; each being is created as a determinate
substance, as a particular combination of form and matter. This applies to all beings,
including man. The particular form determines the materiality which makes a being a certain
kind of being’ the unique way that we have been created can be called our nature.
This nature as participation in God’s goodness, is both good and imperfect at the
same time. Coming from God, it is good, but in its limitations, t has yet to be perfected. This
perfection means fulfilling our nature the best we can, thus realizing what God had intended
for us to be. We accomplish by fulfilling or actualizing the potencies that are already present
in our nature.
While all beings are created by God in order to return to Him, the way the human
being is directed toward God is unique. Given that we are beings with a capacity for reason,
our way of reaching God is by knowing and loving Him. It is of key importance then that the
presence of a capacity to reason is the prime characteristic of the kind of beings we are and
how the capacity for reason is the very tool which God had placed in our human nature as the
way toward our perfection ad return to Him.

Date Developed: August 2020 Document No.

GEC 8 - ETHICS Date Revised: -
Issued by: PRMSU
Page 31 of 37
Developed by: VENZEIL F DECENA, RPm, LPT Revision # 00
This applies not only to an individual human being, but also to all humankind. But we
should not forget how the whole community of being, which is the universe itself, is directed
towards its return to God. This is not, as mentioned earlier, an unthinking process, but is the
very work of divine reason itself or God’s will. We can think, then, of the whole work of
creation as divine reason governing a community towards its end. Under the governance of
the Divine, beings are directed as to how their acts are to lead them to their end, which is to
return to Him.

LESSON 3. The Essence and Varieties of Law

ESSENCE
 As a rational being we have free will. Through our capacity for reason, we are
able to judge between possibilities and to choose to direct our actions in one way
or the other. Our actions are directed toward attaining ends or goods that we
desire.
 There are many possible desirable ends or goods, and we act such ways as to
pursue them. However, just because we think that a certain end is good and is
therefore desirable does not necessarily mean it is indeed good. That is why
reason is an important of the process. Acts are rightly directed toward their ends
by reason.
 COMMON GOOD- Considering what is good for the community as well as our
own good.
 LAW- The determination of the proper measure of our acts.

VARIETIES OF LAW

 ETERNAL LAW- refers to what God wills for creation, how each participant in it is
intended to return to Him.
 NATURAL LAW- refers to the natural inclination to its proper act and end.
 HUMAN LAW- refers to all instances wherein human beings construct and enforce
laws in the communities.
 DIVINE LAW-refers specifically to the instances where we have precepts or
instructions that come from divine revelation.

NATURAL LAW

IN COMMON WITH OTHER BEINGS

 In Aquinas view, we have to consider how we human beings are both unique and at
the same time participating in the community of the rest of creation.
o desire to preserves one’s own being
IN COMMON WITH OTHER ANIMALS
 In Aquinas view, we human beings has a desire to do with sexual intercourse and the
care of one’s offspring.
UNIQUELY HUMAN
 We have a natural inclination to know the truth about God and to live in the society.

Date Developed: August 2020 Document No.

GEC 8 - ETHICS Date Revised: -
Issued by: PRMSU
Page 32 of 37
Developed by: VENZEIL F DECENA, RPm, LPT Revision # 00
 Presented three inclinations as bases for moral valuation;
o Preserving the self is good
o Sexual inclination and the sexual act is part of human nature
o Being rational is what proper to man
 Aquinas tells us that there is priority among the powers of the soul, with the
intellectual directing and commanding our sensitive and nutritive capacities.

SUMMARY

In this chapter we have seen how the natural law theory is instrumental to ethics that
is rooted in the Christian faith. In elaborating this, we explored how Aquinas had synthesized
concepts of the Ancient Greeks to put forward an intellectual ground that can overcome the
imitations of simplistic divine command theory. Instead we provided an objective basis for
ethics: our own natural inclinations. Since these ae given by God, they provide us the path
toward our Perfection. Our natural inclinations as enumerated by Aquinas include the desire
to preserve our being, the sexual act and its fecundity, and our use of reason.

Date Developed: August 2020 Document No.

GEC 8 - ETHICS Date Revised: -
Issued by: PRMSU
Page 33 of 37
Developed by: VENZEIL F DECENA, RPm, LPT Revision # 00
Republic of the Philippines
President Ramon Magsaysay State University
(formerly Ramon Magsaysay Technological University)
Iba. Zambales, Philippines
Tel/Fax no. (047) 811-1683

Chapter III
NATURAL LAW

ACTIVITY NO 3

Name: _________________________________ Date: _______________

Course: ________________________________ Grade: ________
Answer as briefly as possible and direct to the point.

Post truth
We find the lines blurred between fact and fiction, between news report and advertisements.
We are accustomed to hearing and reading fake news. We are inundated by figures and
statistics that we can barely comprehend, much less confirm. We are told to consider
alternative facts and to not take seriously everything we might hear our political leaders say.
We read and revel in and then repost the most hyperbolic and hysterical statements without
asking ourselves whether we or anyone should reasonably maintain this. We are now in the
post-truth era.

This label of post truth means that we are more and more becoming habituated to disregard or
at least to devalue the truth. It is a tendency to think of truth as insignificant in view of other
concerns. This is a significant question in view of media ethics, as practitioner in that field –
“news reporters, writers, investigative journalists and advertisers – ought to ask the question
as to what extent the integrity of their work might be compromised in view of other interests,
such as popularity, profit, higher viewership, or stronger sales. Yet this issue is not limited to
people working in media. It should be recognized as relevant by anyone who makes use of
social media, caught up in statements and exchanges of dubious worth. It should be
considered by anyone who wants to take seriously Aquinas’ claim that reason and a concern
for truth are what makes us human.

In view of Aquinas assertion that reason is what makes us uniquely human and that being
reasonable opens up both an epistemic concern for truth and also social concern of being in
relation with others, provide an assessment on the value or disvalue of post truth such as fake
news or alternative facts.

Date Developed: August 2020 Document No.

GEC 8 - ETHICS Date Revised: -
Issued by: PRMSU
Page 34 of 37
Developed by: VENZEIL F DECENA, RPm, LPT Revision # 00
ASSESSMENT

Name: _________________________________ Date: _______________

Course: ________________________________ Grade: ________
Answer as briefly as possible and direct to the point.

1. Are there other ways that the word natural is used to justify a particular way of
behaving? How do these approaches compare to the theory of Aquinas?

2. Can you think of human laws that are proper extensions of the natural law? Explain
how this is so. Can you think of other human law that violates the natural law?
Explain how this is so.

Date Developed: August 2020 Document No.

GEC 8 - ETHICS Date Revised: -
Issued by: PRMSU
Page 35 of 37
Developed by: VENZEIL F DECENA, RPm, LPT Revision # 00
3. Are there other forms of harm – short of killing another person – that may be taken as
a violation of the natural inclination to preserve one’s being? Justify your answer.

4. Are there current scientific developments – for example, in biology – that challenge
the understanding of nature presented by Aquinas?

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

REFLECTION/VALUING
In this chapter,

I learned that… (Knowledge)

Date Developed: August 2020 Document No.

GEC 8 - ETHICS Date Revised: -
Issued by: PRMSU
Page 36 of 37
Developed by: VENZEIL F DECENA, RPm, LPT Revision # 00
I felt that… (Values/Attitude)

I developed… (Skill)

Suggested Readings
Davies, Bryan and Eleonore Stump, editors. The Oxford Handbook of Aquinas.
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014.

MacDonald, Scott and Eleonore Stump, eitors, Aquinas’s Moral Theory: Essays in
Honor of Normann Kretzmann. Ithaca: Cornell UniversityPress, 1999.

Mclnery, Ralph. Ethica Thomistica: The Moral Philosophy of Thomas Aquinas.

Revised, Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1997.

Pope, Stephen J., editor. The Ethcs of Aquinas. Washington, D.C.,: Georgetown University
Press 2002.

References/Additional Resources:

Bulaong O.G. et. al., 2018, “Ethics: Foundations of Moral Valuations” distributed by
Rex Bookstore, Inc.

Date Developed: August 2020 Document No.

GEC 8 - ETHICS Date Revised: -
Issued by: PRMSU
Page 37 of 37
Developed by: VENZEIL F DECENA, RPm, LPT Revision # 00