MODULE 2

Ethical Theories and Frameworks

I. Learning Objectives:

By the end of the module, the students will be able to:

1. Explain how different ethical theories lead to varying conclusions in moral
dilemmas.
2. Apply Utilitarianism, Deontology, and Virtue Ethics through practical decision-
making.
3. Apply ethical theories to contemporary issues in the Philippines.

II. Introduction

Ethical theories and frameworks provide structured approaches to evaluating right

and wrong, helping individuals and societies make moral decisions. Different ethical
theories offer varying perspectives on what constitutes ethical behavior, emphasizing
consequences, duties, virtues, or personal beliefs.

This discussion will explore key ethical theories and frameworks, including:

1. Utilitarianism – A consequentialist theory that evaluates actions based on their

outcomes, focusing on maximizing overall happiness or utility.
2. Deontology – A duty-based approach emphasizing adherence to moral rules
and principles regardless of consequences.
3. Virtue Ethics – A character-based ethical framework that prioritizes virtues
and moral character in ethical decision-making.

Each of these theories provides a unique lens through which ethical dilemmas
can be analyzed, influencing decision-making in personal, professional, and societal
contexts.

III. Learning Activities

A. Engage
List down the duties and responsibilities (at least 3) of the following:
___________________________________________
___________________________________________
___________________________________________

__________________________________________
__________________________________________
__________________________________________
https://peopleimages.com/image/ID-2572028-study-
classroom-and-students-with-education-learning-and-
knowledge

__________________________________________
__________________________________________
__________________________________________

https://www.istockphoto.com/photos/doctor

B. Explore. Read the scenario and answer the following questions.

Scenario:
A hospital has limited resources and must decide whether to allocate a life-saving
treatment to a young scientist working on cancer research or to an elderly patient
with a terminal illness.

1. Who should be saved? Explain

2. What virtues would guide the doctor’s duty in this situation? Explain

C. Explain
Topic 1: Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism 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. This means that pleasure is good and that the goodness of an action
is determined by its usefulness. Its root word is “utility”, which refers to the
usefulness of the consequences of one’s action and behavior.
When we argue that wiretapping is permissible because doing so results in
better public safety, then we are arguing in a utilitarian way. It is utilitarian because
we argue that some individual rights can be sacrificed for the sake of the greater
happiness of the many.
Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) and John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) are the two
foremost utilitarian thinkers. Their system of ethics emphasizes the consequences of
actions. This means that the goodness or the badness of an action is based on
whether it is useful in contributing to a specific purpose for the greatest number of
people. Utilitarianism is consequentialist. This means that 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. While this is the case, not all consequentialist theories are
utilitarian.
For Bentham and Mill, utility refers to a way of understanding the results of
people’s actions. Specifically, they are interested on whether these actions contribute
or not to the total amount of resulting happiness in the world. The utilitarian value
pleasure and happiness; this means that the usefulness of actions is based on its
promotion of happiness. Bentham and Mill understand happiness as the experience
of pleasure for the greatest number of persons, even at the expense of some
individual’s rights.

The Principle of Utility

In the book An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation (1789),
Jeremy Bentham begins by arguing 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 ought to be done and not;
they fasten our choices to their throne.
The principle of utility is about our subjection to these sovereign masters:
pleasure and pain. This principle refers to the motivation of our actions as guided by
our avoidance of pain and our desire for pleasure. It is like saying that in our
everyday actions, we do what is pleasurable and we do not do what is painful. On
the other hand, the principles also refer to pleasure as 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.
Having identified the tendency for pleasure and the avoidance of pain as the
principle of utility, Bentham equates happiness with pleasure.
Mill supports Bentham’s principle of utility. He reiterates moral good as
happiness and, consequently, happiness as pleasure. Mill clarifies that what makes
people happy is intended pleasure and what makes us happy is the privation of
pleasure. The things that produce happiness and pleasure are good; whereas, those
that produce unhappiness and pain are bad.
Mill argues that we act and do things because we find them pleasurable and
we avoid doing things because they are painful. If we find our actions pleasurable,
Mill explains, it is because they are inherently pleasurable in themselves or they
eventually lead to the promotion of pleasure and the avoidance of pain. Bentham
and Mill characterized moral value as utility and understood it as whatever produced
happiness or pleasure and the avoidance of pain. The next step is to understand the
nature of pleasure and pain to identify a criterion for distinguishing pleasures and to
calculate the resultant pleasure or pain.
What Bentham identified as the natural moral preferability of pleasure, Mill
refers to as a theory of life. If we consider, for example, what moral agents do and
how they assess their actions, then it is hard to deny the pursuit for happiness and
the avoidance of pain. For Bentham and Mill, the pursuit for pleasure and the
avoidance of pain are not only important principles--- they are in fact the only
principle in assessing an action’s morality. Why is it justifiable to wiretap private
conversations in instances of treason, rebellion, espionage, and sedition? Why is it
noble to build schools and hospitals? Why is it good to improve the quality of life and
the like? There is no answer than the principle of utility, that is, to increase
happiness and decrease pain.

Four Theses of Utilitarianism

1. Consequentialism: The rightness of actions is determined solely by their
consequences.
2. Hedonism: Utility is the degree to which an act produces pleasure.
Hedonism is the thesis that pleasure or happiness is the good that we seek
and that we should seek.
3. Maximalism: A right action produces the greatest good consequences and
the least bad.
4. Universalism: The consequences to be considered are those of everyone
affected, and everyone equally.

Principle of the Greatest Number

Equating happiness with pleasure does not aim to describe the utilitarian
moral agent
alone and independently from others. This is 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 consequences of our actions.
Utilitarianism can lead to selfish acts. It is neither about our pleasure nor
happiness alone; it cannot be all about us. If we are the only ones satisfied by our
actions, it does not constitute a moral good. If we are the only ones who are made
happy by our actions, then we cannot be morally good. In this sense, utilitarianism is
not dismissive of sacrifices that procure more happiness for others.
Therefore, it is necessary for us to consider everyone’s happiness, including
our own, as the standard by which to evaluate what is moral. Also, it implies that
utilitarianism is not at all separate from liberal social practices that aim to improve
the quality of life for all persons. Utilitarianism is interested with everyone’s
happiness, in fact, the greatest happiness of the greatest number.

Justice and Moral Rights

Mill understands justice as a respect for rights directed toward society’s
pursuit for the greatest happiness of the greatest number. For him, rights are a valid
claim on society and are justified by utility.
Mills expounds that the above-mentioned rights referred are related to the
interests that serve general happiness. The right to due process, the right to free
speech or religion, and others are justified because they contribute to the general
good. This means that 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. Extending this concept to animals, they have rights because of the effect of such
principles on the sum total of happiness that follows as a consequence of instituting
and protecting their interests. It is not accidental, therefore, that utilitarians are also
the staunchest defenders of animal rights. A right is justifiable in utilitarian principles
in as much as they produce an overall happiness that is greater than the
unhappiness resulting from their implementation.
Utilitarians 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. All of these rights are predicated on the person’s right to life.
In this context, our participation in government and social interactions can be
explained by the principle of utility and be clarified by Mill’s consequentialism. Mill
further associates utilitarianism with the possession of legal and moral rights. We are
treated justly when our legal and moral rights are respected. Mill enumerates
different kinds of goods that he characterized as rights and are protected by law. Mill
understands that legal rights are neither inviolable nor natural, but rights are subject
to some exceptions.
Mill creates a distinction between legal rights and their justification. He points
out that when legal rights are not morally justified in accordance to the greatest
happiness principle, then these rights need neither be observed, nor be respected.
This is like saying that the law is not morally justified and, in this case, even
objectionable.

Topic 2: Deontology

Duty and Agency

Viewed objectively, duty means anything that ought to be done or omitted.
Subjectively, duty means the moral obligation of a person to respect the rights of
others. As a moral obligation, duty binds the will or it is laid on the will. Duty may
come in six kinds namely, natural, positive, affirmative, negative, perfect, and
imperfect. A natural duty is one imposed by the natural law such as the duty to
preserve human life. Positive duty is one which comes from positive law such as the
duty to hear mass on Sundays and to pay taxes. Affirmative duty refers to the moral
obligation to do an act. Negative duty refers to the moral obligation of a person to
avoid or omit something an example of which is “do not steal”. A perfect duty is one
which obliges one under strict justice such as the payment of a just wage. Lastly, an
imperfect duty is one which does not obligate a person from the standpoint of
justice, but from the standpoint of charity or other virtues. Giving donations during
calamities can be a perfect example (Babor, page 222).
The word deontology derives from the Greek words for duty (deon) and
science (or study) of (logos). In contemporary moral philosophy, deontology is one
of those kinds of normative theories regarding which choices are morally required,
forbidden, or permitted. In other words, deontology falls within the domain of moral
theories that guide and assess our choices of what we ought to do (deontic theories),
in contrast to those that guide and assess what kind of person we are and should be
(aretaic [virtue] theories). And within the domain of moral theories that assess our
choices, deontologists—those who subscribe to deontological theories of morality—
stand in opposition to consequentialists (Stanford).
Deontology is best known for the study of duty and obligation. The main
proponent is none other than Immanuel Kant, a German enlightenment philosopher
who wrote, Groundwork Towards a Metaphysics of Morals in 1785. In this work Kant
brings our attention to the fact that we, human beings, have the faculty called
rational will, which is the capacity to act according to principles that we determine
for ourselves. Rational will set humans different from animals. Furthermore,
rationality consists of the mental faculty to construct ideas and thoughts that are
beyond our immediate surroundings. This is the capacity for mental abstraction,
which arises from the operations of the faculty of reason. Thus, we have the ability
to stop and think about what we are doing. We can remove ourselves mentally from
the immediacy of our surroundings and reflect on our actions and how such actions
affect the world. We can imagine a different and a better world, and create mental
images of how we interact with other people in that world. Like an architect first
constructs her blueprint of a house in her mind. When the draft of that construction
is drawn, she can give instructions to masons and carpenters on how to build the
actual house, which becomes the second construction. The first construction
consists in how we imagine things and the second on implementation. Through the
capacity for imagination and reflection, we conceive of how we could affect, possibly
even change the world we live in.
On the other hand, the rational will refers to the faculty to intervene in the
world, to act in a manner that is consistent with our reason. Unlike animals, humans
have reason which intervenes between impulse and act. We have the ability to stop
and think about what we are doing to evaluate our actions according to principles.
Simply stated, we are not only reacting to our surroundings and internal impulses,
but are also conceiving of ways to act according to certain rational principles. In
many cases the rational will is victorious over bodily impulses. This triumph
clarifies the meaning of rational will, the capacity of a person to be the cause of her
actions based on reasons and not merely to mindlessly react to the environment and
base impulses. In philosophical discussions about human freedom this capacity is
called agency, which is the ability of the person to act based on her intentions and
mental states.
Going back to Felipe, the moment he discovered that the bag pack was left
behind, he reacted according to his rational will- to return the bag and its contents.
He determined that it was his duty to return it inasmuch as his rational will had
conceived such duty.
Hence, to act according to a duty is a specifically human experience. Animals,
if it is true that they do not possess the faculty of rational will, cannot conceive of
having duties. This is the starting point of deontology. We may claim that as long
as we have rationality, there will always be the tension between our base impulses
and our rational will.

Autonomy
Kant claims that the property of the rational will is autonomy, which is the
opposite of heteronomy. Autonomy refers to self-law and (or self-legislating) and
heteronomy means other law. Consider the trivial example of brushing one’s own
teeth, which is not yet a moral dilemma but is sufficient to explain the difference
between autonomy and heteronomy. As far as we can tell, children do not like to
brush their teeth, but parents know that children should, to maintain oral hygiene.
In that regard, parents are the ones that legislate the principle that children should
brush their teeth before they go to bed and impose such a principle by using threats
or incentives. Decades later, these children would soon realize that proper hygiene is
a must and brushing is an imposed activity before going to bed. Putting all these
together, it also refers to the willing of the adopted principle into reality. Are they
autonomous? Yes, certainly.
According to Kant, the will is thus not only subject to the law, but it is also
subject to the law in such a way that it gives the law to itself (self-legislating), and
primarily just in this way that the will can be considered the author of the law under
which it is subject. Imagine a policeman who apprehends a suspected criminal by
forcing him on the ground and putting handcuffs on his wrists. Incidentally, subject
comes from the Latin words sub (under) and jacere (to throw). When combined,
the two words refer to that which is thrown or brought under something. The will
must comply with the law, which is the authority figure.
On one hand, heteronomy is the simple legislation and imposition of a law by
an external authority. Their parents are the authority figures, and the law is
imposed externally by rewards or punishments. In other words, autonomy belongs
to the grown up and already rational individuals, who have adopted such a law
about brushing their teeth. They regularly impose such a law on themselves out of
the enactment of the will to follow the law. The distinguishing point here is the
locus of the authorship of the law. In any given scenario where a person complies
with the law, we ask where the author is, whether it is external or internal. If the
author of the law is external, the will is subjected to an external authority, thus
heteronomous will. In contrast, if the author was, he will itself, imposing the law
unto itself, then we describe the will as autonomous.
Kant claims that there is a difference between rational will and animal impulse.
He reiterated that; the choice that can be determined by pure reason is called free
choice. That which is determinable only by inclination (sensible impulse, stimulus)
would be animal choice. Human choice, in contrast, is a choice that may indeed be
affected but not determined by impulses, and is therefore in itself not pure, but can
nevertheless be determined to do actions from pure will.
Thus, there is a difference between what determines a choice or decision,
whether is caused by a sensible impulse of by pure reason. Bodily instincts and
desires, such as the urge to eat, drink, sleep, or have sexual intercourse, comprise
the set of human compulsions for survival and the propagation of the species. Kant
calls this set of actions that are caused by sensible impulse animal choice or
arbitrium brutum.
On the other hand, there is a choice or action that is determined by pure
reason. Free choice, argues that freedom resides in his capacity of reason to
intervene, to “mediate” within arbitrium brutum. This mental capacity is what makes
the intervention possible between stimulus and reaction. With the faculty of reason,
a person can break the immediacy of stimulus and reaction by stopping to deliberate
and assess possible alternative actions.
What does it mean for a human to be affected but is not determined by
sensible impulse? It implies that we are indeed basically animals, but we cannot be
reduced to mere animality. This is where the correlative conjunction not only” but
also” is useful. When we claim, “The human person is not only an animal, but is
also rational, “we admit to two possible causes of our actions: sensible impulses and
the faculty of reason. Human freedom resides in that distinction.
Autonomy is a property of the will only during instances when the action is
determined pure reason. When the action is determined by sensible impulses,
despite the source of those impulses being nevertheless internal, it is considered
heteronomous. We can thus make the conclusion that heteronomy of the will
occurs when any foreign impulse, whether it is external or sensible is what compels
a person to act. In contrast, autonomy is the property of the will in those instances
when pure reason is the cause of the action.

Universalizability
To figure out how the faculty of reason can be the cause of an autonomous
action, we need to learn a method or a specific procedure that will demonstrate
autonomy of the will.
A substantive moral theory immediately promulgates the specific actions that
comprise that theory. As such, it identifies the particular duties in a straightforward
manner that the adherents of the theory must follow. The set of Ten
Commandments of the Judeo-Christian tradition is an unambiguous example of a
substantive moral theory. The specific laws are articulated mostly in the form of a
straightforward moral command: “Honor your father and mother,” You shall not kill,”
and so forth.
In contrast, a formal moral theory does not supply the rules or command
straightaway. It does not tell you what you may or may not do. Instead, a formal
theory provides us the “form” or “framework of the moral theory. To provide the
“form” or “framework” of a moral theory is to supply a procedure and the criteria for
determining, on one’s own, the rules and moral commands. Metaphorically, we can
think of a cookbook as akin to a formal moral theory. In using a cookbook, we are
given instructions on how to cook certain dishes, but we are not given the actual
food themselves, which would be “substantive “. In a recipe for example, anyone
could add a slight variation to the ingredients and sequence of steps. To be exact, a
formal moral theory will not give us a list of rules or commands. Instead, it will give
us a set of instructions on how to make a list of duties or moral commands.
Kant wrote in 1785, the Grundlegung ur Metaphysik der Sitten, which
embodies a formal theory in what he calls the categorical imperative, which provides
a procedural way of identifying the rightness or wrongness of an action.
Furthermore, he mentioned, act only according to such a maxim, by which you can
at once will that it become a universal law.
There are four key elements in this formulation of the categorical imperative,
namely action, maxim, will, and universal law. Kant states that we must formulate
an action as a maim, which he defines as a “subjective principle of action “. We
have many maxims in our daily lives, and we live according to them. A maxim that
is universalizable is a personal rule, adopted and complied by everyone, thus
imagining a maxim as a law which everyone is ought to follow.
The test for universalizability makes possible that self-legislation, for the result
of the categorical imperative, is nothing other than the capacity to distinguish
between permissible and impermissible moral acts. Any rational will can then begin
the work of producing a list of duties, what a rational and autonomous will believes
to be right and wrong actions.

Topic 3: Virtue Ethics

Virtue ethics is a philosophy developed by Aristotle and other ancient Greeks.

It is the quest to understand and live a life of moral character. This character-based
approach to morality assumes that we acquire virtue through practice. By practicing
being honest, brave, just, generous, and so on, a person develops an honorable and
moral character. According to Aristotle, by honing virtuous habits, people will likely
make the right choice when faced with ethical challenges.
To illustrate the difference among three key moral philosophies, ethicists Mark
White and Robert Arp refer to the film The Dark Knight where Batman has the
opportunity to kill the Joker. Utilitarian’s, White and Arp suggest, would endorse
killing the Joker. By taking this one life, Batman could save multitudes. Deontologists,
on the other hand, would reject killing the Joker simply because it’s wrong to kill.
But a virtue ethicist “would highlight the character of the person who kills the Joker?
Does Batman want to be the kind of person who takes his enemies’ lives?” No, in
fact, he doesn’t.
So, virtue ethics helps us understand what it means to be a virtuous human
being. And, it gives us a guide for living life without giving us specific rules for
resolving ethical dilemmas.
Virtue ethics is the ethical framework that is concerned with understanding
the good as a matter of developing the virtuous character of a person. Ancient
Greek philosophers Plato, and
Aristotle are known authorities on the study of ethics. Aristotle came up with
comprehensive and programmatic study of virtue ethics in his book entitled
Nicomachean Ethics.
Aristotle conceives of ethical theory as a field distinct from the theoretical
sciences. We study ethics in order to improve our lives, and therefore its principal
concern is the nature of human well-being. Aristotle follows Socrates and Plato in
taking the virtues to be central to a well-lived life. (Stanford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy)
Both Plato and Aristotle affirm rationality as the highest faculty of a person
and having such characteristic enables a person to realize the very purpose of her
existence.

Happiness and Ultimate Purpose

According to Aristotle, an act a person does is directed toward a particular
purpose, aim or what the Greeks called telos. A person’s action manifests a good
that one aspires for. Every pursuit of a person hopes to achieve a good. A person
pursues a career, aiming for the good, that is, to provide a better future for one’s
family. Therefore, the good is considered to be the telos or purpose for which all
acts seek to achieve. According to Aristotle, older individuals would agree that the
highest purpose and the ultimate good of man is happiness, or for the Greeks,
eudaimonia. One can therefore say that happiness seems to fit the first criterion of
being the final end of a human being. But one should remember that if one
accumulates wealth, for example, one would want to have not just richness but also
power and other desirable things as well, such as honor and pleasures.
How does a person arrive at her highest good? If an individual’s action can
achieve the highest good, then one must investigate how she functions which
enables her to achieve her ultimate purpose. If one performs the function well, then
one is capable of arriving at happiness. Furthermore, what defines human beings is
one’s function or activity of reason. This definitely, makes one different from the
rest of beings.
What defines a person therefore is his or her function or activity of reason.
One’s action to be considered as truly human must be an act that is always in
accordance to the dictates of reason. A dancer, for example, becomes different
from a chef because of her function to dance while the chef is to cook. A good
individual therefore stands closer to meeting the conditions of happiness because
her actions are of a higher purpose. The local saying “madaling maging tao,
mahirap magpakatao” can be understood in the light of Aristotle’s thoughts on the
function of a good person. Any human being can perform the activity of reason;
thus, being human is achievable. However, a good human being strives hard in
doing an activity in an excellent way. Therefore, the task of being human becomes
more difficult because doing such activity well take more effort on the part of the
person.
Virtue as Excellence
Achieving the highest purpose of a human person concerns the ability to
function according to reason and to perform an activity well or excellently. This
excellent way of doing things is called virtue or arête by the Greeks. According to
Aristotle, virtue is something that one strives for in time. One does not become an
excellent person overnight. This means that being virtuous cannot be accomplished
by a single act. It is commendable if a minor participant in a crime becomes a
whistle-blower, exposing all the grave acts that were committed by his cohorts. But
one should be careful in judgment of calling immediately that individual as being a
“person of virtue “. Being an excellent individual works on doing well in her day-to-
day existence.
According to Aristotle excellence is an activity of the human soul and
therefore, one needs to understand the very structure of a person’s soul which must
be directed by her rational activity in an excellent way. The human soul is divided
into two parts according to Aristotle: the irrational element and the rational faculty.
The irrational element consists of the vegetative and appetitive aspects. The
vegetative aspect functions as giving nutrition and providing the activity of physical
growth in a person. As an irrational element, this part of man is not in the realm
where virtue is exercised because, as the term suggests, it cannot be dictated by
reason. The vegetative aspect of the soul follows the natural processes involved in
the physical activities and growth of a person. Whereas, the appetitive aspect works
as a desiring in itself is an impulse that naturally runs counter to reason and most of
the time refuses to go along with reason. Thus, this aspect belongs to the irrational
part of the soul. Sexual impulse, for example, is so strong in a person that one
tends to ignore reasonable demands to control such impulse. However, unlike the
vegetative aspect, the desiring faculty of man can be subjected to reason.
In contrast, the rational faculty of man exercises excellence in him. Once can
rightly or wrongly apply the use of reason in this part. This faculty is further divided
into two aspects: moral, which concerns the act of doing, and intellectual, which,
concerns the act of knowing. These two aspects are basically where the function of
reason is exercised.
One rational aspect where a person can attain excellence is in the intellectual
faculty of the soul. This excellence is attained through teaching. Through time, one
learns from the vast experiences in life where she gains knowledge on these things.
One learns and gains wisdom by being taught or by learning. Intellectual excellence
can be philosophic and practical. Philosophic wisdom deals with attaining knowledge
about the fundamental principles and truths that govern the universe. It helps one
understand in general the meaning of life. Practical wisdom, on the other hand, is
an excellence in knowing the right conduct in carrying out a particular act. In other
words, one can attain a wisdom that can provide us with a guide on how to behave
in our daily lives.
In carrying out a morally virtuous life, one needs the intellectual guide of
practical wisdom in steering the self toward the right choices and actions. Knowing
the good is different from determining and acting on what is good. But a morally
good person has to achieve the intellectual virtue of practical wisdom to perform the
task of being moral. For Socrates, moral goodness is already within the realm of
intellectual excellence. Knowing the good implies the ability to perform morally
virtuous acts. For Aristotle, however, having intellectual excellence does not
necessarily mean that one already has the capacity of doing the good. Knowing the
good that needs to be done is different from doing the good that one needs to
accomplish.
Therefore, rational faculty of a person tells us that she is capable of achieving
two kinds of virtue: moral and intellectual. Moral virtue is also attained by habit. A
morally virtuous man for Aristotle is someone who habitually determines the good
and does the right actions. Moral virtue is acquired through habit. Being morally
good is a process of getting used to doing the proper act. The saying “practice
makes perfect “can be applied to this aspect of a person. Therefore, for Aristotle, a
person is not initially good by nature. A moral person habitually chooses the good
and consistently does good deeds. It is in this constant act of choosing and doing
the good that a person is able to form her character. It is through one’s character
that others know a person. Character then becomes the identification mark of the
person. The Filipino term pag-uugali precisely reflects the meaning of moral
character. Once can have mabuting pag-uugali (good character) or masamang pag-
uugali (bad character).
Going back to the example given in the introduction, one can surmise that if
we rely on the above-mentioned study, children tend to mimic the violence they
watch on television and such habit could develop into a character that can tolerate
behaviors that are hostile in nature.

Moral Virtue and Mesotes

Practical wisdom involves learning from experiences. Knowing the right thing
to do when one is confronted by a choice is not easy. In attaining practical wisdom,
one may initially make mistakes on how reason is applied to a particular moral
choice or action. But, through these mistakes one will be able to sustain practical
wisdom to help steer another’s ability to know morally right choices and actions. In
other words, one is able to mature and grow in his or her capacity of knowing what
to do and living a morally upright life.
This is why when it comes to life choices, one can seek the advice of elders in
the community, those who gained rich life experiences and practical wisdom,
because they would be able to assist someone’s moral deliberation. Parents can
advise their children to behave in front of family members and relatives. Senior
members of the community like priests, counselors, and leaders may also guide the
young members on how relationships with others are fostered.
Bro. Armin Luistro, with his practical wisdom and experience, has observed
the possible effect of television violence on the young so he issued guidelines on
television viewing for children. He says that good values instilled on children are
“sometimes removed from the consciousness of young people “because of television
violence. As the former Secretary of the Department of Education, he possibly
learned so much about the consequence of such situation on the young. As
maintained by Aristotle, it is the middle, intermediate, or mesotes for the Greeks
that is aimed at by a morally virtuous person.
Based on Aristotle, a morally virtuous person is concerned with achieving her
appropriate action in a manner that is neither excessive nor deficient. In other
words, virtue is the middle or the intermediary point in between extremes. One has
to function in a state that her personality manifests the right number of feelings,
passions, and ability for a particular act. Generally, feelings and passions are
neutral which means that, in themselves, they are neither morally right nor wrong.
When one shows a feeling of anger, we cannot immediately construe it as morally
wrong act. But the rightness or wrongness of feelings, passions, and abilities lies in
the degree of their application in a given situation. It is right to get angry at an
offensive remark but it is not right to get angry at everyone just because you were
offended by someone. One can be excessive in the manner by which she manifests
these feelings, passions, and abilities. But one can also be deficient in the way she
expresses these. But one can also be deficient in the way she expresses these.
Amorally virtuous person targets the mesotes. For Aristotle, the task of
targeting the mean is always difficult because every situation is different from one
another. Thus, the mesotes is constantly moving depending on the circumstance
where she is in. The mean is not the same for all individuals. As pointed out by
Aristotle, the mean is simply an arithmetical proportion. Therefore, the task of being
moral involves seriously looking into and understanding a situation and assessing
properly every particular detail relevant to the determination of the mean. Mesotes
determines whether the act applied is not excessive or deficient.
In relation to the news article, the government and its agencies responsible
for protecting and assisting the young on their personal development should act in
view of the middle measure. The government could have dismissed the issue or
could have banned television shows portraying violence. But such extremes censure
the citizen’s freedom of expression and artistic independence, which can result in
another issue. Wisely, the government acted on the side of the middle measure by
going through a series of consultations to address the issue of television violence-
implementing the rules and guidelines for viewing safety, dedicating 15% of
television airtime for child-friendly shows, and enforcing a television violence rating
code that took into account the “sensibilities of children “. It seems that the
government acted in a manner that is not deficient and excessive.
Aristotle’s discussion ultimately leads to defining what exactly moral virtue is-
“a state of character concerned with choice, lying in a mean, that is, the mean
relative to us, this being determined by a rational principle, and by that principle by
which the man of practical wisdom would determine it.”
Moral virtue is firstly the condition arrived at by a person who has a character
identified out of her habitual exercise of particular actions. One’s character is seen
as a growth in terms of the continuous preference for the good. Secondly, in moral
virtue, the action done that normally manifests feelings and passions is chosen
because it is the middle. The middle does not fall short or is excessive of the proper
proportion by which these feelings or passions should be expressed. Aristotle adds
that the middle is relative to us. This does not imply that mesotes totally depends
on what the person identifies as the middle. Such case would signify that Aristotle
adheres to relativism. But Aristotle’s middle is not relative to the person but to the
situation and the circumstance that one is in. This means that in choosing the
middle, one is looking at the situation and not at oneself in identifying the proper
way that feelings and passions should be dispensed.
The rational faculty that serves as a guide for the proper identification of the
middle is practical wisdom. The virtuous person learns from her experiences and
therefore develops the capacity to know the proper way of carrying out her feelings,
passions, and actions. The rational faculties of this person, specifically practical
wisdom, aid in making a virtuous person develop this habit of doing the good. A
moral person in this sense is also someone who is wise. Habits for Aristotle are
products of the constant application of reason in the person’s actions. One sees
Aristotle’s attempt to establish a union between the person’s moral action and
knowledge that enables him to achieve man’s function.
Aristotle clarifies further that not all feelings, passions, and actions have a
middle point. When a mean is sought, it is in the context of being able to identify
the good act in a given situation. However, when what is involved is seen as a bad
feeling, passion, or action, the middle is non-existent because there is no good
(mesotes) in something that is already considered a bad act. When one murders
someone, there is nothing excessive or deficient in the act: murder is still murder.
Further, there is no intermediary for Aristotle in the act because there is no proper
way that such act can be committed.
In the study mentioned wherein children are beginning to consider violence
as “a way to solve problems “, it seems apparent that they would like to think that
there is somehow a “good “in an unjust act since it can become a problem-solver. If
violence becomes a tool by which difficult situations are addressed, then it can be
construed by children of bearing some positive value. Aristotle’s view is contrary to
this. As an act, violence, in itself, is bad. A person cannot employ violence as if it
were a virtue or a middle measure in between vices of being “deficient” in violence
or being “excessive “of the same act. There is something terribly wrong in such
demonstration. Aristotle also provides examples of particular virtues and the
corresponding excesses and deficiencies of these. The table below shows some of
the virtues and vices:

Excess Middle Deficiency

Impulsiveness Self-control Indecisiveness
Recklessness Courage Cowardice
Prodigality Liberality Meanness

In the table, Aristotle identifies the virtue of courage as the middle, in

between the vices of being coward and reckless. Cowardice is a deficiency in terms
of feelings and passions. This means that one lacks the capacity to muster enough
bravery of carrying herself appropriately in a given situation. Recklessness, on the
other hand, is an excess in terms of one’s feelings and passions. In this regard, one
acts with a surplus of guts that she overdoes an act in such rashness and without
any deliberation. The virtue of having courage is being able to act daringly enough
but able to weigh up possible implications of such act that she proceeds with caution.
It is only through the middle that a person is able to manifest her feelings,
passions, and actions virtuously. For Aristotle, being superfluous with regard to
manifesting a virtue is no longer an ethical act because one has gone beyond the
middle. Being overly courageous (or “super courageous”) for instance does not
make someone more virtuous because precisely in this condition, she has gone
beyond the middle and therefore has “moved out” from the state that is virtuous.
Therefore, one can always be excessive in her action but an act that is virtuous
cannot go beyond the middle. Filipinos have the penchant of using superlatives
words like “over”, “super”, “to the max”, and “sobra” in describing a particular act
that they normally identify as virtuous. Perhaps, Aristotle’s view on virtue is
prescribing a clearer way by which Filipinos can better understand it.

D. Elaborate
Answer the following questions in not less than 5 sentences. (15pts each)
1. What is the principle of the greatest good for the greatest number? In which
instances do you see such manifestation in local setting?
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
2.What Filipino maxims manifest universalizability? Choose one and explain how it
can be useful in understanding our culture as we face the current challenges in our
society.
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________

E. Evaluate
Read an article/s about the famous British Serial Killer Robert John Maudsley
which inspired the award-winning film Hannibal Lecter, then, answer the questions
below:
a.) Write a brief profile of Robert John Maudsley.
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________

b.) How did his early life lead to deep psychological scars?
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________

c.) In a documentary, many psychologists said that unlike other crimes, his
crimes were only committed in prison as a way to avenge other victims.
What can you say about this? Discuss this in the concepts of :
1) Utilitarianism; 2) Deontology; 3) Virtue Ethics
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________

d.) In response to the call of establishing a society that manifests moral virtues
among its citizens, what can you contribute? Discuss your answers.
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
References:
1. Alexander, L, & Moore, M. “Deontological Ethics”, Nov. 21, 2007, Stanford.libraby.sydney.edu.au Accessed
August 4, 2020

2. Babor, Eddie R. Ethics: The Philosophical Discipline of Action. Rex Bookstore, 2006

3. Bulaong, Oscar G. Jr., Calano, Mark Joseph T., et.al. Ethics Foundations of Moral Valuation.Rex Bookstore,
2018

4. Montemayor, F. Ethics: The Philosophy of Life. National Bookstore, 2006

5. Combes, LM., et al. Doing Ethics: Introduction to Moral Philosophy. Mindshapers Co., 2015

6.Tara Quisimundo. “DEPED Releases Rules or Law Shielding Kids from TV Violence.” Philippine Daily Inquirer,
17 July 2012,

7.http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/230377/deped-releases-rules-or-law-shielding-kids-from-tv-violence.Accessed
August 3, 2020

8.Cline, Austin. " Deontology and Ethics" accessed July 24, 2021, https://www.learnreligions.com

9.https://sdgs.un.org/goals/goal17