Philo 173 - 2 - 11

Ethics: Theory and Practice
Leonardo C. de Castro
with Earl Stanley Fronda &
Napoleon M. Mabaquiao, Jr.
University of the Philippines

OPEN UNIVERSITY
Ethics: Theory and Practice
By Leonardo D. de Castro with Earl Stanley Fronda
and Napoleon M. Mabaquiao, Jr.
Copyright © 2003 by Leonardo D. de Castro with Earl Stanley Fronda,

Napoleon M. Mabaquiao, Jr. and the UP Open University
Apart from any fair use for the purpose of research or private study,
criticism or review, this publication may be reproduced, stored
or transmitted, in any form or by any means
ONLY WITH THE PERMISSION
of the authors and the UP Open University.
Published in the Philippines by the UP Open University

Office of Academic Support and and Instructional Services
Rm 304, National Computer Center
CP Garcia Avenue, Diliman, Quezon City 1101
Telephone (632) 426-1515
Email oasis@upou.net
ISBN 971-767-155-9
Layout by Cecilia G. Santiago
The development and preparation of this module was made possible by a grant
from Metrobank Foundation, Inc.
Printed in the Philippines

ABOUT THE AUTHOR
LEONARDO D. DE CASTRO
Professor and Chair of the Department of

Philosophy, University of the Philippines.
He has a Ph.D. (Philosophy) from University

College Swansea in the United Kingdom.
He is a member of various local and international

associations, with extensive involvement in
organizational and educational work to promote
bioethics sensitivity. A member of the UNESCO’s
International Bioethics Committee, he is also a member of the UNESCO’s
International association of Bioethics.
Prof. de Castro’s Teknolohiya at Pagkatao was the recipient of a National Book

Award, a Gawad Transelor, and a third award by the National Academy of Science
and Technology.
He is married to Elizabeth Armas Gonzales, who also hails from Zambales, and
with whom he has two daughters, Leniza and Llenel.
Table of Contents
Module 1 Introduction to the Study of Ethics, 3

Objectives,3
What is Ethics About?, 4
Descriptive Versus Normative Ethics, 7
Ethics and Morals, 8
Topics of Ethical Inquiry, 11
Ethics and Human Conduct, 12
Ethics of Actions versus Ethics of Character, 14
Summary, 15
Module 2 Utilitarianism, 17
Objectives, 17
Inherent Versus Instrumental Value, 17
Consequentialism, 19
Pleasure Utilitarianism, 19
Act Versus Rule Utilitarianism, 20
Hedonistic Utilitarianism: Mill’s Proof, 21
Other Ultimate Ends, 22
Calculating Happiness: A Problematic Exercise, 25
Summary, 30
Module 3 Duty and Categorical Imperative, 31

Objectives, 32
Kantian Versus Utilitarian Ethical Theory, 32
The Concept of Duty, 33
The Categorical Imperative: A First Formulation, 35
Categorical Versus Hypothetical Imperative, 37
The Categorical Imperative: A Second Formulation, 38
Man as an End in Himself, 38
Autonomy of the Will, 41
Freedom, 42
Summary, 44
Module 4 Aristotle and Excellence of Character, 47

Objectives, 47
Of Right Acts and Good Men, 48
A Utilitarian Evaluation, 49
A Kantian Evaluation, 50
Virtue and the Good Person, 51
The Good: That at which all Things Aim, 53
Happiness as an Absolute Good, 54
Happiness as a Final Self-Sufficient End, 55
Happiness and the “Function” of the Human Being, 56
Happiness as a Virtuous Activity, 57
Pleasure and Happiness, 60
How the Virtue is Acquired, 63
Virtue as Dispositions, 64
The Doctrine of the Mean, 65
Intellectual Virtues, 66
Virtue of Character, 69
Justice, 77
Summary, 73
Module 5 Freedom, Determinism, and Moral Responsibility, 75

Objectives, 75
Freedom to Act, 76
Freedom to Choose, 77
Two Components of Human Agency, 78
Determinism, 80
Feeling Free: The Absence of Impediments, 82
Freedom as the Capacity to Originate Autonomous Decisions, 83
Man as a Slave to His Motives, 85
Freedom and Responsibility, 86
Event Causation versus Agent Causation, 87
The Autonomous Person?, 90
Compatiblism, 91
Determined, but Free and Morally Responsible, 96
Summary, 101
Module 6 Punishment, 103

Objectives, 103
Elements of punishment, 104
Theories of punishment, 106
Punishment as retribution, 107
Retribution versus revenge, 110
Retribution and the seventy of punishment, 113
Some problems with the retribution theory, 116
Punishment as deterrent, 117
The Evaluation of Punishment, 120
Some criticisms of the deterrence theory, 123
Punishment as Reform, 126
Summary, 128
Module 7 Keeping Secrets: Issues of Privacy and Confidentiality, 127
Objectives, 127
Public and Private Knowledge, 128
Breaking secrets as lack of respect for other’s privacy, 130
Breaking secrets as a violation of a contract, 130
Implicit agreements: the Secrets of the confessional, 131
Breaking secrets as a violation of trust, 132
Protected secrets, 134
Confidentiality and privileged communication, 135
Dilemmas in journalistic practice, 137
Keeping secrets in medical practice, 138
Summary, 140
Module 8 The Value of Life: Contraception, Abortion and Euthanasia, 141

Objectives, 141
The Value of Life, 143
Contraception, 144
Criticizing the natural law position, 146
Contraception and population, 149
Abortion, 151
Abortion pill, 152
Fertilization or Conception as the Beginning of Human Life, 154
Other Criteria for the Beginning of Life: The Fourteenth day, 156
Personhood, 158
Non-biological criteria of personhood, 160
Abortion: The Stark Reality, 161
Euthanasia, 164
Unbearable burdens, autonomous decisions, 165
Means of euthanasia, 167
Deciding by proxy, 168
Summary, 171
Module 9 Ethics and Business, 173

Objectives, 173
The Necessity of Applying Ethics to Business, 174
Objections to the Application of Business Ethics, 175
Applying Ethics to Business: The Environmental Context, 183
Summary, 186
References, 188
Module 1
Introduction to the
Study of Ethics
O rdinarily, people have notions about right

and wrong acts, or good or bad persons, or
things that need to be honored or things that need
Objectives
to be condemned. Our elders taught us these no- After working on this mod-
tions early on in life. Back then, we knew that ule, you should be able to:
something was good if it coincided with what our
parents wanted. We were rewarded for our good 1. Discuss the concerns of
deeds, and punished for our bad ones. This sys- ethics; and
tem of reward and punishment gave birth to our 2. Enumerate the different
concepts of good and bad and also our concepts approaches to the study
of duties and obligations. Through the years, of ethics.
through constant reinforcement, these notions
have become like second skin to us. Yes, we act
upon these duties and obligations or act in accordance with our notions
of right and wrong, but we hardly examine, let alone reflect upon and
criticize them.
Stepping back form one’s notion of good and bad, of right and wrong, or
of duty and obligation and examining these concepts are concerns of the
discipline known as ethics. This module defines the important facets of
ethics and introduces you to its relevant concerns. It will walk you through
the complexities of ethical decisions and issues involved in making these
decisions.
4 Philo 173 Ethics: Theory and Practice
What is Ethics About?

We sometimes hear people talking about business ethics, legal ethics, nurs-
ing ethics, environmental ethics, nuclear ethics, biomedical ethics, or sexual
ethics. The use of “ethics” in these contexts connotes that there are cor-
rect or incorrect practices related to these concerns. For example, busi-
ness, legal, and nursing ethics deal with conduct appropriate to each area
of professional practice. Environmental ethics covers acceptable or unac-
ceptable actions pertaining to the environment. Nuclear ethics deals with
the appropriateness of the use, handling, and distribution of nuclear weap-
ons. Biomedical ethics is concerned with the rightness or wrongness of
medical and healthcare procedures or practices. Sexual ethics pertains to
the propriety or impropriety of conduct attendant to sexual relationships.
Although they have different nuances, these studies are related to one
another and share particular features. By identifying their shared fea-
tures, we will find some clues that will help us tell what fact and value
are. These two concepts are integral to the study of ethics.
There are two senses of rightness or wrongness that we can deduce when
we talk about business ethics, legal ethics, nursing ethics, environmental
ethics, nuclear ethics, biomedical ethics, and sexual ethics. Let us take the
case of biomedical ethics. One way of looking at the correctness of a par-
ticular medical procedure is in terms of acceptable medical practices. In
this instance, we judge the correctness of a medical procedure based on
observations made in the course of medical research and experimenta-
tion. A medical procedure is deemed appropriate if research and experi-
mentation has proven this to be so. Put more emphatically, we know that
a medical procedure is right if it achieves its end of healing or curing an
illness. In this instance, we base our judgment on the rightness or wrong-
ness of a medical procedure based on its effectiveness. Any disagreements
to the validity of a particular procedure may be settled by further obser-
vation, research, and experimentation. The question of the rightness or
wrongness of a certain medical practice, therefore, is a question of fact
because we are dealing with empirical data derived from research and
experimentation.
There is another way we can approach the question of the rightness and
wrongness of a medical procedure. In this instance, we refer to the end or
the result that a treatment procedure seeks to bring about. We refer to the
desirability of that end or goal. In this example, the sense of rightness is
primarily anchored on values and, only incidentally, on facts.
Take note that questions concerning values cannot be settled merely by

asking what the facts are or in this case, what empirical research and
experimentation have shown. To answer questions of rightness and
wrongness, one has to go beyond what is and consider what ought to be.
UP Open University
Unit I Module 1 5
As an example, let us take the case of a patient with a severe heart ail-
ment who was required by his doctors to be fitted with a heart-lung ma-
chine to survive the ravages of his disease. Our dilemma is to decide
whether it is right or wrong to prolong his life using the heart-lung ma-
chine. We may approach the question of rightness or wrongness by look-
ing into the aim of the procedure, which is to prolong life. Let us suppose
that the patient is suffering intensely because of his ailment. Under such
conditions, a patient may actually prefer to die if he feels that he has
already accomplished what he has hope to do in this world. If he is also
quite old and weak he may think suffering unnecessary because he has
lived a full life already. If this patient feels so, then we cannot approach
the question of the rightness or wrongness of the medical procedure in
terms of the effectiveness of the medical procedure in achieving the end of
prolonging life. That intended end is itself still in question. In this case, we
cannot determine the answer by merely finding out what the facts are.
Our examination thus requires us to deal with values.
Admittedly, it is also useful to determine facts. If it can be shown that the

machine can prolong the patient’s life for a significant period, we may
conclude that it is right for him to be connected to the life-saving appara-
tus. This is, if the patient deems that the lease on life that the machine will
afford him is worth suffering for.
We can see in the example that the rightness or wrongness of an action

refers only to empirical or in this case medical issues when it is concerned
solely with medical facts. When the question already deals with values it
is concerned with ethical issues.
Thus, we can distinguish ethics by looking into what it is not. This should
prove useful as we try other means to clarify what ethics is all about.
UP Open University
SAQ 1-1
Our first SAQ will deal with fact or value. Get your pencil or pen
and answer the following exercise. Here is what you will do. On
the blank provided, write F if the concern is a matter of fact or V is
it is a matter of value.
1. Erap stole from the state coffers.

2. The Marcoses have $13 Billion in Swiss banks.
3. Muro-ami fishing destroys coral reefs.
4. A fetus is a person.
5. Euthanasia should be legalized.
6. Abortion is right.
7. Infanticide is wrong.
8. Cheating is necessarily wrong.
9. Premarital sex is wrong.
10. Pedro killed Maria.
ASAQ 1-1
How did you find your first SAQ? It is actually very easy. I’ll share
with you a helpful tip so you can answer this type of quiz effortlessly
next time. To identify matter-of-value statements you may have to
watch out for: (1) imperative indicators like the words should, ought,
must; and (2) value terms like right, wrong, bad, good, acceptable,
unacceptable.
F 1. Erap stole from the state coffers.

V 2. Cheating is necessarily wrong.
V 3. Abortion is right.
F 4. A fetus is a person.
V 5. Euthanasia should be legalized.
F 6. Muro-ami fishing destroys coral reefs.
V 7. Infanticide is wrong.
F 8. The Marcoses have $13 Billion is Swiss banks.
V 9. Premarital sex is wrong.
F 10. Pedro killed Maria.
Let’s see how well you did. If you got a score of 9-10, then you did
excellent. If you got a score of 6-8, you did well, but if you scored 5
and below, then you may have to go over our discussion once more.
UP Open University
Unit I Module 1 7
Descriptive versus Normative Ethics

Let us examine the following questions: (1) Is capital punishment wrong?
(2) Is abortion contrary to the teachings of the Catholic Church? (3) What
is the meaning of the words “duty” and “obligation?”
We can use these questions to illustrate the difference between “ethics”

and “morals.” Although these two words often used interchangeably,
philosophers think that we should be very clear about what we mean
when we use one or the other. Hence, they think it necessary to distin-
guish the two terms.
The three questions we have enumerated all deal with ethics. In that sense,
each one is an ethical question. Each one relates to what is, and is not the
right thing to do. However, a different type of answer is required for each
question.
The first question—Is capital punishment wrong?—calls for judgment

regarding the rightness or wrongness of an activity or practice. It asks us
how, for example, we look at the practice of capital punishment. In ask-
ing for a judgment, it does not assume one particular ethical viewpoint. It
does not ask what a particular philosopher has to say about the issue nor
does it as what stance or position a particular school of thought prescribes
for the issue. In this case, different people may give different answers
depending on their particular point of view.
The second question—Is abortion contrary to the teachings of the Catho-

lic Church?—asks us to view the issue from a particular ethical perspec-
tive because it is asking whether abortion is contrary to the teachings of
the Catholic Church. This question asks for the description rather than an
evaluation of a particular position. Simply put, it is actually asking us to
describe the position of the Catholic Church on abortion. The individual
who will answer the question is not called to make a judgment. Instead,
he is expected to discuss the teachings of the Catholic Church on the
issue. The focus is on a question of fact and not on a question of value.
Questions of the second type deals with descriptive ethics, which in turn,
deals with describing the opinions of ordinary people, philosophers, or
groups or institutions. In doing descriptive ethics, one deals with infor-
mation rather than with judgments.
In the meantime, questions that are akin to the first type of question, deal
with normative ethics. Although we may not be aware of it, normative
ethics is what we usually engage with when we study morals. Here, the
objective is to judge whether a particular act or practice is right or wrong
and to justify it.
UP Open University
Sometimes, we are led to confusion when we fail to distinguish normative

from descriptive ethics. We may think that an individual is making a nor-
mative ethical judgment when he is only relating an opinion or appropri-
ating the position of the Church he belongs to. For example, when a per-
son says that abortion is wrong he may merely be echoing the position of
the Catholic Church, while at the same time not actually sharing that
position.
Ethics and Morals

The third question, which asks for the meaning of the words “duty” and
“obligation,” calls for an answer that is different from those required by
the first two questions. Its concern is with the meanings of certain terms.
In this particular example, the aim is to clarify the meaning of the words
“duty” and “obligation.” Questions of this type seek to analyze certain
notions and concepts without asking for particular normative judgments.
For example, we may try to understand concepts such as duty and obli-
gation without judging what one’s duties and obligations actually are.
Unlike the first question, the third question does not directly ask for a
moral judgment. And unlike the second question, it does not call for a
description of a particular ethical position.
To refer to questions of the third type, analytical philosophers have cho-

sen to use the word “ethics” exclusively. The reason is that ethics in this
sense of logical and analytic study resembles other philosophical inquiries
more than either normative or descriptive ethics. However, there are those
who prefer to use the word “metaethics” to refer to the study that deals
with questions of the third type. The use of this word gives an accent to
the differences between this kind of study and ethics of either the descrip-
tive or normative kind.
Whatever word we use, one effect is to contrast ethics with “morals.” We

can use morals specifically to refer to studies of normative judgments. On
the basis of this choice of terminology, specific judgments concerning the
rightness or wrongness of abortion, euthanasia, or capital punishment
belongs to the province of morals. In contrast, clarifications of the con-
cepts of responsibility and punishment belong to either ethics or metaethics.
The main point here is not so much to strictly adhere to the use of the
words “ethics” and “morals” but to be able to distinguish different activi-
ties that people usually refer to when using them. For instance, in talking
about abortion, one ought to distinguish the activity of making a moral
judgment and justifying it from the activity of clarifying what is meant
when somebody says that abortion is right or wrong. In the former, one
UP Open University
Unit I Module 1 9
seeks a moral judgment; and in the latter, one seeks an analysis and clari-
fication.
So we see that three types of questions listed above correspond to three levels
of ethics discourse:
1. Normative ethics (morals) seeks to discover or formulate “correct” moral

judgments.
2. Descriptive ethics merely studies accounts of judgments formulated by

“authorities.”
3. Ethics (in the narrow sense preferred by many philosophers) or metaethics

aims to analyze and clarify concepts.
Whether we adopt the above distinctions or not, we have to realize that the
terminology used is not really the essential part. In fact, we may use other
terms of interchange terms used by others. For now, all we want to do is to
distinguish the different levels of study so that we may not confuse them
with one another. We also want to remember that the three levels of study
are related to one another. For example, in trying to reach a judgment con-
cerning the rightness or wrongness of capital punishment (an activity of
normative ethics) it would be very useful to gather information on the ideas
expressed by various authorities concerning the subject (gathered as part of
the study we call descriptive ethics). It would also be helpful to have a clear
understanding of the concept of punishment (as may be arrived at with the
help of metaethical study).
UP Open University
SAQ 1-2
Are you ready for another test? Let us see if you have grasped the
concepts we have just discussed. State whether the following be-
longs to the realm of descriptive, normative, or metaethics. Write
the letter of the correct answer:
A. descriptive
B. normative
C. metaethics
1. Many anthropologists in the past had said that val-

ues are relative to culture.
2. Anthropological studies have shown that there are

no universal values.
3. Abortion is murder, therefore, it is wrong.
4. Some philosophers seek to define ‘good.’
5. The Bible should be the basis of moral instruction.
6. Some philosophers seek to analyze how the word ‘im-

moral’ is used.
7. Pleasurable consequences ought to be the sine qua non

of good actions.
8. Actions, if they are to be good, must be based on uni-

versal maxims.
9. God’s commands ought to be obeyed.
10. There ought to be universal values, even if there are

none apparent at present.
UP Open University
Unit I Module 1 11
ASAQ 1-2
See how you fared in this SAQ. But before that, here’s a brief over-
view. Statements of normative ethics have imperative indicators,
like ought, should, must; or value terms, like good, right, bad,
wrong—all appearing without quotations in the sentences. On the
other hand, metaethics is about analyzing words and/or concepts.
D 1. Many anthropologists in the past had said that values

are relative to culture.
D 2. Anthropological studies have shown that there are no
universal values.
N 3. Abortion is murder, therefore, it is wrong.
M 4. Some philosophers seek to define “good.”
N 5. The Bible should be the basis of moral instruction.
M 6. Some philosophers seek to analyze how the word “im-
moral” is used.
N 7. Pleasurable consequences ought to be the sine qua non
of good actions.
N 8. Actions, if they are to be good, must be based on uni-
versal maxims.
N 9. God’s commands ought to be obeyed.
N 10. There ought to be universal values, even if there are
none apparent at present.
Defining “Ethics”
It would not be enough to define ethics to explain what it means. Philoso-
phers who have written on ethics disagree about the scope and limits of
this study. Also, there is danger in providing a simple and easy to under-
stand definition because in doing so, once cannot avoid excluding aspects
of the study that many would consider essential. Conversely, a broad
definition that attempts to account for everything that is important is also
likely to incorporate matters that belong more properly to another study.
However, the existence of these difficulties should not prevent us from
attempting to formulate a generally acceptable definition of ethics. For
our purposes, we shall avoid a straightforward definition. Instead, we
will provide a survey of specific topics and issues that are generally ac-
knowledged to be matters of ethics. We shall take an inductive rather
than a deductive approach to the study. What we shall try to do is to
identify specific and particular concerns that obviously belong to the study
of ethics. We shall also try to clarify their nature and character. It will be
UP Open University
presumed that a meaningful study of ethics is possible even if its scope

and limits were initially not formally defined. With this in mind, the lack
of a generally acceptable formal definition should not paralyze us.
Topics of Ethical Inquiry

In general, ethics deals with concepts of good and bad. Going by ordinary
discourse, we know that it has to do with rights, duties, and obligations.
When we talk about good and bad, or right and wrong, concepts such as
praise and blame also arise. Then there are problems of freedom, respon-
sibility, equality, and justice.
We do not have to give a definition of ethics that will necessarily cover all
of these terms or concepts. However, we cannot deny that they seem natu-
rally to come to our attention when we talk about ethics. Hence we will
consider it a task of ethics at least to clarify the meanings of these terms.
This is not to say that the list is totally unproblematic. One of the problems
we are faced with is the variability of meanings associated with these key
ethical terms.
While we can all agree that ethics deal with concepts of good and bad,
there are uses of the words good and bad that do not indicate an ethical
judgment. To illustrate, we can talk about a good book, a good tennis
racket, a good pair of shoes, and a good concert. In these examples, the
word good is not being used to convey an ethical judgment. The fact that
the items mentioned are good for some purposes does not mean that they
are good for ethical reasons.
UP Open University
Unit I Module 1 13
SAQ 1-3
Fill in the blanks and then read the next paragraph for the an-
swers.
The main concern of the study of ethics is (1) ___________. The

way of studying ethics aiming to describe moral values and prac-
tices of people is (2) _________; while the way of studying ethics
aiming to prescribe values is (3) _________. The study of ethics
aiming to analyze ethical concepts is (4) ________. Ethical theo-
ries are said to be act-oriented if they seek to determine the (5)
________________ of things. And character oriented if they seek
ways of (6) ___________. A prescriptive approach to ethics aims
to (7) ____________. A normative study of ethics aims to search,
justify, and find ways to search for (8) ______________. A
metaethical approach to ethics aims to (9) ________ terms and
concepts in ethical discourse. The study dealing with moral values
is (10) ______________.
ASAQ 1-3
The main concern of the study of ethics is (1) moral values. The
way of studying ethics aiming to describe moral values and prac-
tices of people is (2) descriptive; while the way of studying ethics
aiming to prescribe values is (3) normative. The study of ethics aim-
ing to analyze ethical concepts is (4) metaethics. Ethical theories
are said to be act-oriented if they seek to determine the (5) good-
ness or rightness of things. And character oriented if they seek ways
of (6) building character. A prespective approach to ethics aims to
(7) prescribe values. A normative study of ethics aims to search,
justify, and find ways to search for (8) standards of goodness or
rightness. A metaethical approach to ethics aims to (9) analyze terms
and concepts in ethical discourse. The study dealing with moral
values is (10) ethics.
UP Open University
Ethics and Human Conduct

To further clarify the limits and scope of ethics as a study, we can point
out that ethics deals only with human conduct. We do not attribute ethics
or morality to animals or to inanimate objects. It does not make sense for
us, for example, to blame a dog for a moral wrongdoing and to put it in
jail as a way of inflicting punishment and gaining justice. It is true that
we can sometimes blame a dog for biting an innocent child. But blaming a
dog is not different from blaming heavy rains for flooding in the streets
for the in convenience they cause us. We do not mean it in a moral or
ethical sense. A person might feel that she has a very good cat and tell
friends about the many good things that her cat can do. She might also
talk about a neighbor’s bad dog that barks a lot in the middle of the night
and blame it for keeping people awake. However, the use of the evalua-
tive terms in such cases does not convey a moral or ethical judgment.
A partial explanation is found in our hesitation to use the word “action”

to refer to what an animal might do. We reserve the word “action” for
human beings. Only human beings can act. Only human beings can act.
Only human beings can be moral agents. We will discuss this further in
the module on freedom and determinism. Thus, only human beings can
do morally good or bad deeds, therefore, only human beings belong to
moral communities.
Ethics of Actions versus Ethics of Character

So far, we have only referred to ethical qualities of human actions. Suc-
ceeding modules will expound on these and deal with ethical theories
focusing on the qualities that these actions must have. We can see this
particularly in the next module on Utilitarianism and the one on the con-
cept of duty and categorical imperative.
In addition, we are going to take up Aristotelian ethics as an example of

a theory that focuses on virtuous character.
The difference between these two approaches is very significant. The point
of studying ethics for the utilitarians and Kantians is to know the right
thing to do in particular situations. For Aristotelians, the point is to un-
derstand, change, and improve persons.
UP Open University
Unit I Module 1 15
Summary
By way of review, let me reiterate the following points. The study of ethics
is essentially concerned with moral values and only incidentally with facts.
The study of ethics could be descriptive or normative. Descriptive ethics
seeks only to describe moral values and practices of people. Normative
ethics, on the other hand seeks to prescribe values for people. The aim of
normative ethics is to search for standards of goodness or rightness, jus-
tify these standards, and find ways to reach them. There is, however,
another concern of ethics, which analyzes the terms and concepts used in
ethical discourse. This is metaethics.
Some ethical theories are act-oriented; meaning, they seek after ways of
determining the goodness or rightness of actions, while others are charac-
ter-oriented; meaning, they seek after ways of building character.
UP Open University
UP Open University
Module 2
Utilitarianism
Actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happi-

ness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness.
J.S. Mill
A perennial concern of ethics is to search for

what is ultimately good. Utilitarianism is an
ethical theory that articulates and equates the ul-
Objectives
timate good to pleasure. For utilitarians, an ac- After working on this mod-
tion is good only if it will fulfill a person’s funda- ule, you should be able to:
mental need of happiness and satisfaction. What
follows is a discussion of what utilitarianism is 1. State the defining char-
all about and how utilitarians distinguish good acteristics of Utilitarian-
actions from bad ones. ism;
2. Identify and differentiate
the versions of Utilitari-
Inherent Versus Instrumental anism;
3. Enumerate the consider-
Value ations that figure in cal-
culating the rightness of
If we ask a student why he goes to the school an act; and,
library every afternoon he might say that he does 4. Gauge the rightness of
so because he wants to study well. If we ask why acts in an instance
he wants to study well his answer could be that where moral choice has
he wants to get good grades. Probing deeper, he to be made.
might say he wants to get good grades because
he wants to qualify to medical school. Most likely, he wants to qualify to

medical school because he wants to become a doctor. He wants to become
a doctor because he wants to earn a lot of money. He wants to earn a lot
of money because he wants to buy a lot of things. And he wants to buy a
lot of things because those things will make him happy.
Based on the student’s answers, we can say that most of the things that
he values are instrumental. They are things that are valuable for him be-
cause they serve as instruments for other things that he considers desir-
able. Going to the school library is valuable because it enables him to study
well. Studying well is valuable because he gets good grades as a result.
Getting good grades has value in that it helps him qualify to medical school.
We can say the same of the other things that he wants.
If we ask the student why he wants to be happy, we are likely to get a

different kind of answer. How might he respond?
The student might say that he wants to be happy because he does not
want to be sad and you might echo the same sentiment if asked the same
question. He might further say he wants to be happy because he enjoys
being happy. At this point there is hardly anything different that the stu-
dent can say. He can only go around in circles because happiness is not
value as a means to another thing. It is something that people want for its
own sake. It has inherent value. Its value is
not merely instrumental.
For many people, only happiness has inher-

ent value. There is no other thing that some
people value for its own sake as happiness
is valued. The well-known British philoso-
pher John Stuart Mill points out that people
who seek money, value it only for the hap-
piness that it can bring. The same thing can
be said about a big house or a luxurious car.
A big house does not have value in itself.
Neither does a luxurious car. They only be-
come valuable to a person so long as they J.S. Mill
can give him happiness. If we extend the
process of reasoning, we could be led to
think that happiness is what people generally desire. It is the ultimate end
that human beings ordinarily seek with their actions.
If something has instrumental value, its value depends on what it serves

to achieve. For example, if I do a in order to achieve x, the value of a
depends on whether it brings about x or not. In general, actions performed
for a particular end derive their value from that end.
UP Open University
Unit I Module 2 19
To determine whether a is valuable or not, one has to examine its conse-

quences and see how well they promote that end. For this reason, utili-
tarianism is a consequentialist theory of morality. According to this theory,
the rightness of actions is determined by their outcomes.
Consequentialism
John Stuart Mill’s exposition of the foundations of utilitarianism clearly
shows its consequentialist character. Here is what Mill (1987) says about
the nature of actions:
All action is for the sake of some end, and rules of action, it
seems natural to suppose, must take their whole character and
color from the end to which they are subvervient. When we
engage in a pursuit, a clear and precise conception of what we
are pursuing would seem to be the first thing we need, instead
of the last we are to look forward to.
The view that “all action is for the sake of some end” can be contrasted
with the view that actions may sometimes be judged good or bad on the
basis of their being of one or another type. For instance, giving up one’s
life for a loved one may be considered right mainly because of its being of
a particular type of action. To illustrate clearly, the rightness of an act of
sacrifice comes from its characteristics as a sacrifice. The rightness of an
act in this instance does not result from its desirable consequences but for
being an act of sacrifice for the sake of another. From the perspective of
utilitarianism, one has to go by the tendency of an act to increase or decrease
happiness in order to determine its moral value. It is the presence of one
tendency or the other that constitutes the proof or disproof of the act’s value.
Pleasure Utilitarianism
If the moral worth of human actions is to be determined by examining
their consequences, there should be a criterion for judging such results.
To judge the value of an action on the basis of its tendency to promote a
certain kind of consequence, we have to know the results we are looking
for. This brand of utilitarianism is called by G.E. Moore s ideal utilitarian-
ism or preference utilitarianism. Moore’s brand of utilitarianism is differ-
ent from Mill’s in that Mill and his like-minded utilitarians, only have one
criterion in the determining the value of an action, that is: the ultimate
end of human actions is pleasure or happiness and this serves as the basis
for determining the moral worth of that action. Mill’s brand of utilitarian-
ism is called pleasure or hedonistic utilitarianism.
UP Open University
Moore agrees with Mill that the value of actions can be found in their
consequences; however, he rejects the idea that the anticipation of a happy
or pleasurable outcome is the only thing that could possibly drive men to
action. He points out that men value ends other than pleasure. His ex-
amples are personal affection and the appreciation of what is beautiful in
Art or Nature.
Preference utilitarianism seeks to maximize the satisfaction of preferences.

For this brand of utilitarianism, action is right only insofar as it leads to
the satisfaction of the greatest amount of preferences. Preference utilitari-
anism differs from pleasure utilitarianism by recognizing that not all hu-
man preferences can lead to pleasure or happiness. If an act leads to un-
pleasant consequences, it may still be considered right provided that it
leads to the satisfaction of preferences. An act that leads to pleasant con-
sequences is right only insofar as that result constitutes the satisfaction of
a preference. An act cannot be considered right based on the pleasant-
ness of the consequences.
Act Versus Rule Utilitarianism

Up to this point, our discussion of utilitarianism has emphasized on the
effects of particular actions in particular circumstances. We can call this
version act utilitarianism. In act utilitarianism, the rightness or wrong-
ness of a person doing a under circumstances c depends on the conse-
quences of one doing a under circumstances c.
In contrast to Act utilitarianism is rule utilitarianism. Rule utilitarianism

hold that to judge the rightness of doing act a, under circumstances c, one
would have to consider the consequences of everyone’s doing a as a rule
whenever circumstances of the c kind arise. In making moral judgments,
the rule utilitarian would ask “If it were a rule that act a ought to be done,
given circumstance c, what would the probable consequences be?”
Suppose a man finds himself in circumstances where he is alone in a gro-

cery pretty sure that no one is watching him. He knows for a fact that
there is no security camera installed and he is confident that he could get
away with shoplifting. An act utilitarian would perhaps wonder “If I
were to shoplift at this moment when nobody is watching, what would
the consequences be?” A rule utilitarian would, on the other hand, will
ask “If everyone would shoplift when nobody was watching and they
could get away without being discovered, what would be the likely con-
sequences?”
UP Open University
Unit I Module 2 21
To repeat, act utilitarianism weighs the consequences of doing something

in a given situation alone. In contrast, rule utilitarianism weighs the likely
consequences that will result from actions generally done by people when-
ever they find themselves in particular situations. To give a more concrete
example, an act utilitarian would consider the consequences of killing
another person in a given situation; a rule utilitarian, on the other hand,
would have to consider the consequences of killing being permissible in
general in similar situations.
Hedonistic Utilitarianism: Mill’s Proof

John Stuart Mill proves that validity of hedonistic utilitarianism by exam-
ining the ends that people actually desire. Insofar as “questions about
ends are…questions [about] what things are desirable,” Mill (1987) says
they “may be the subject of a direct appeal to the faculties which judge
fact.” This is how he explains his proof:
The only proof capable of being given that an object is visible is

that people actually see it. The only proof that a sound is au-
dible is that people hear it: and so of the other sources of expe-
rience. In like manner, I apprehend, the sole evidence it is pos-
sible to produce that anything is desirable, is that actually de-
sire it.
It is true that the proof that something

Think about this... is visible is that the object can actu-
ally be seen. Or to put it more explic-
itly, if I see something, then it must be
1. Does your ability to see
visible. Similarly, the proof that some-
something prove that it is
thing is audible rests in its being hear.
visible?
If I hear something, then it must be
2. Does your ability to hear
audible. However, we cannot use this
something prove that it is
type of analogy with desirability. The
audible?
proof that something is desirable lies
3. Is there a similar relationship
in more than one actually desiring a
between that which you de-
particular object. I might desire some-
sire and its desirability?
thing and yet be the first to admit that
4. Can you desire something
it is not worth desiring and therefore
that is not really desirable?
not desirable. If I desire to do some-
Give an example.
thing wrong, my having the desire to
do it does not necessarily mean that it
is desirable. Desirability means something more than the capability to be
desired.
UP Open University
Other Ultimate Ends

One of the primary objections to hedonistic utilitarianism lies in the obser-
vation that human beings have ultimate aims other than the promotion of
pleasure and the avoidance of pain. Here is how A.J. Ayer (1954) formu-
lates his objection:
Not all human action is purposive; and of those actions which

are purposive it is not true that they are always such as the
agent thinks will bring him the most happiness. For the most
part people aim at particular objects; they set out to accom-
plish certain tasks, to indulge their emotions, to satisfy their
physical needs, to fulfill their obligations, to outwit their neigh-
bors, to gratify their friends. These, and many others, are their
ends, and while they are engaged in pursuing them they do
not look beyond them. It may be that the achievement of these
ends will actually give them pleasure, but this does not imply
that they have had this pleasure in view all along. It is, indeed,
possible to pursue an object, say, that of gratifying a friend,
not even immediately for its own sake, but solely for the sake
of the pleasure that one expects oneself to derive from its at-
tainment; but this is a sophisticated attitude, which even in the
case of purely selfish action furnishes the exception rather than
the rule.
Think about this...

1. Think of the ends that you aim for when you go
about your daily activities. Can you identify
those ends?
2. Are you usually aware of what those ends are
as you do various things?
UP Open University
Unit I Module 2 23
Mill (1987) replies to Ayer’s objection by saying that things like money,
power, and fame only appear to be desired for their own sake. Pleasure is
already part of them:
What was once desired as an instrument for the attainment of

happiness, has come to be desired for its own sake. In being
desired for its own sake it is, however, desired as part of hap-
piness.... The desire of it is not a different thing from the desire
of happiness…. They are some of the elements of which the
desire of happiness is made up.
Think about this...

1. Do you agree with Mill? Do you associate all
the things that you desire with pleasure?
2. Can you name one desirable thing that does not
bring pleasure?
UP Open University
The contention, therefore, is that it is not true that there are ultimate ends
other than happiness. Those ends that seem to be different from happi-
ness were previously perceived as actually means to happiness and, by
some kind of process, have come to be part of it. Thus the desire for money,
power, and fame is not distinct from the desire for happiness.
In the end, the conflict boils down to an empirical-psychological dispute

that need not be resolved here. The point is merely to expose the difficulty
and to emphasize that our perceptions do vary and that their implica-
tions are crucial to the understanding of hedonistic utilitarianism.
SAQ 2-1
Answer the following, then read the next paragraph where you
will find the right answers.
Actions or moral rules are (1) ______________ when they bring

about the least amount of happiness; (2) ____________ when they
promote the greatest amount of discomfort; and (3) ____________
when they frustrate one’s preferences. Moral theories, such as utili-
tarianism, are (4) ___________ because the value of acts or moral
rules are determined by their consequences. Only (5)
_____________ is valued inherently by utilitarian. When Juliet
makes a judgment on the basis of the consequences of a particular
act she is an (6) _______________ utilitarian. And when Romeo
passes judgment on the basis of the consequences of rules he is a
(7) _________ utilitarian. How good or bad an act is depends on
its (8) _________. An act or moral rule to be most good must result
in (9) _________ consequences. Utilitarianism is said to be a
consequentialist moral theory because the value of actions or moral
rules lies on their (10) ___________.
UP Open University
Unit I Module 2 25
ASAQ 2-1
Let’s see how well you did. Check your answers against this an-
swer key and see whether you have remembered correctly the things
we have discussed thus far.
Actions or moral rules are (1) wrong or bad when they bring about
the least amount of happiness; (2) wrong or bad when they pro-
mote the greatest amount of discomfort; and (3) wrong or bad when
they frustrate one’s preferences. Moral theories, such as utilitari-
anism, are (4) consequentialist because the value of acts (or moral
rules) are determined by their consequences. Only (5) pleasure or
happiness is valued inherently by utilitarians. When Juliet makes a
judgment on the basis of consequences of a particular act she is an
(6) act utilitarian. And when Romeo passes judgment on the basis
of the consequences of rules he is a (7) rule utilitarian. How good or
bad an act is depends on its (8) consequences. An act or moral rule
to be most good must result in (9) pleasant consequences. Utilitari-
anism is said to be a consequentialist moral theory because the
value of actions or moral rules lies on their (10) consequences.
Calculating Happiness: A Problematic Exercise

Many questions have been raised in connection with the business of cal-
culating the amount of happiness. One criticism holds that the calcula-
tion of good that results from the consequences of a particular act is an
impossible task. The far-reaching consequences of our actions are too dif-
ficult to anticipate given our fallible and mistake-prone minds. If they are
foreseeable at all, relevant consequences can be too many, too far-reach-
ing, and too complicated.
We may recall those early twentieth century physicists who first split the
atom. Did it ever occur to them in their worst nightmare that, years later,
their feat would annihilate hundreds of thousands of people in Hiroshima
and Nagasaki? So if matters were to be that complicated, when and how
are we to determine the moral worth of what we do now? To what extent
should the calculations be carried out? What would be the limits? Utili-
tarianism advocates greatest happiness for the greatest number of people.
But the pursuit of maximizing pleasure is not consistent all the time with
the maximizing the number of its beneficiaries. Imagine a restaurant giv-
ing an extra piece of pie to a person who can consume four slices and four
UP Open University
people with money enough only

for four slices of pie. Suppose we Think about this...
rate eating one piece of pie equiva-
lent to ten units of pleasure. If the
1. How can one person tell that
maximum units of pleasure were
his suffering is greater than
to be pursued then, only one per-
another person’s suffering?
son should eat all pieces so one
2. How can you tell whether
more piece would be earned and
one person’s happiness is
the total units of pleasure would
greater than that of an-
add up to fifty. If maximum ben-
other?
eficiaries were to be pursued then,
only one person should eat all
pieces so one more piece would be earned and the total units of pleasure
would add up to fifty. If maximum beneficiaries were to be pursued then
all four persons should be given a piece each, but then they will not earn
an extra piece making the total units of pleasure add only up to forty. Is it
preferable to have the maximum total amount of pleasure with only a
few benefiting or is it better to have more beneficiaries but with a lesser
total amount of pleasure?
There are also difficulties involved in making basic comparisons of happi-

ness and suffering. It might be easy enough for an individual to compare
his own pleasures and say that one is greater than another. For instance,
he can determine that going to a concert gives more satisfaction than
being scratched on the back. But calculating the happiness of a number of
persons requires a refined system of measurement that can compare one’s
happiness with that of another. The pleasure that one gets from having a
particular experience is not always the same as the pleasure another per-
son gets when he or she has the same experience. Interpersonal evalua-
tions are extremely subjective and very difficult to make.
We have learned that for utilitarians the rightness of an act (or rule) de-
pends on the amount of happiness it can bring as opposed to unhappi-
ness. Happiness can come in the form of delightful bodily sensation, intel-
lectual satisfaction, emotional fulfillment, and the like.
To determine rightness, one may have to (1) note all probable consequences,
(2) delineate pleasant consequences from unpleasant ones, (3) determine
the degree of pleasantness and/or unpleasantness, (4) sum up the amount
of pleasure and/or displeasure, and (5) estimate the number of probable
beneficiaries. Since there is no single standard methodology for calculat-
ing happiness there can be variations in the calculations different people
can make.
UP Open University
Unit I Module 2 27
The following hypothetical case study illustrates how complicated the

calculation can be. Let us take the example of a devoutly Catholic mar-
ried couple: Romeo and Juliet.
Romeo and Juliet earn money enough to give them, their two children
and an elderly parent a rather modest lifestyle. They can hardly save money
after paying all their food, lodging, children’s education, and daily bills.
Thinking that they can not afford to support one more baby, they choose
to practice birth control. They narrow their choices to either condom and/
or diaphragm or the Church-approved rhythm method. A utilitarian way
of calculating the better choice may be as follows.
Grant that Romeo and Juliet have drawn a list of probable consequences
or PC , should they use, on one hand, condom and/or diaphragm, which
we will abbreviate as C/D or on the other, Rhythm Method or RM? Grant
further that the consequences they had listed could be categorized, for
the purpose of simplifying the list-into: (1) pregnancy prevention, (2) copu-
lation frequency, (3) cost, and (4) comfort. Please take note that the couple
could have more considerations other than our list because the illustrative
calculation we have drawn up is simplistic.
For every PC, there are assigned points for degree of happiness (DH) for
Condom/Diaphragm use and for the Rhythm Method. But could happi-
ness really be quantified? Let us try it. Anway, it is not so absurd to think
of differing degrees of happiness such as unhappy, quite happy, happy,
very happy, and superlatively happy. With this in mind, we can allow
the couple to arbitrarily assign points to these degrees of happiness: -3, 3,
5, 8, 10 respectively.
Romeo and Juliet want to prevent pregnancy yet still enjoy their sex life.
In terms of pregnancy prevention both C/D and RM could be effective,
making them both superlatively happy, so the degrees of happiness re-
sulting from the use of C/D (DH-CD) and from RM (DH-RM) would in
both cases be 10.
In pursuit of sexual enjoyment, Romeo and Juliet can copulate as often as

they wish without Juliet becoming pregnant if they use C/D. This would
make them superlatively happy, so the DH-C/D would be 10. But if they
use RM they would be forced to abstain from sex for a certain number of
days when Juliet is ovulating. This would presumably lessen the frequency
of their copulation. Interestingly, ovulation is the period when women’s,
or in this instance, Juliet’s libido is at its peak. With the rhythm method,
Juliet is not allowed to copulate during this period less she gets pregnant.
This would probably take away some degree of enjoyment from her be-
cause she will be suppressing her natural sexual urges. So the DH-RM
UP Open University
would comparatively bring her less happiness, say 7, in our degree of

happiness scale.
In terms of cost, C/D probably will not be too much strain on their bud-
get, if at all. But since they still have to pay for these, that should deduct
Think about this...

1. Do we make inter-subjective calculations of happiness
or suffering in real life?
2. Are such calculations pertinent to the moral decisions
that we make?
some happiness from them but not too much. Thus the DH-CD on this
matter would be -2. On the other hand RM would cost them no money
but they would not save much either, so the DH-RM would be 2.
Since Rome and Juliet are Roman Catholics, the effects of birth control
methods on their conscience would have to be considered too. The Church
approves only the RM and disapproves of other methods such as C/D.
They would probably feel uncomfortable with C/D, but since they are
Jesuit-trained and detest the Opus Dei, they would probably be not su-
perlatively uncomfortable, so on this matter the DH-C/D would be -5.
Jesuits, by the way, are relatively more liberal with issues such as contra-
ception than the conservative Opus Dei. If Romeo and Juliet use the RM
they would not be uncomfortable but they would feel practicing it is not
that virtuous an act either. So perhaps the DH-RM for this would be 5.
Table 2-1. Condom/Diaphragm Versus Rhythm Method
PC DH-C/D DH-RM
Prevention of pregnancy 10 10
Copulation Frequency 10 7
Cost -2 2
Comfort -5 5
Total 13 24
UP Open University
Unit I Module 2 29
If they add up all their happiness points (see Table 2-1), they would get 13
points if they use C/D and 24 points if they use RM. It turns out they would
be happier with RM than with C/D. So RM is the right choice for them.
I hope you are not getting dizzy from this knotty calculations and I hope
it was not too difficult for you. This case study illustrates the complicated
nature of the calculations that may be required to maximize happiness in
some situations. For some people, this would be enough reason to reject
utilitarianism. However, there are those who think this is just one of the
things that we would have put up with if we want a practical basis for
determining moral worth.
ACTIVITY 2-1
Calculate the goodness of a decision from a utilitarian perspective
based on the story I outlined below. To make this activity more en-
gaging and significant, I suggest that you watch the movie Saving
Private Ryan so that you can get a better picture of the situation.
In the movie Saving Private Ryan, the Chief of Staff of the United
States Armed Forces, in an apparent act of compassion, orders that a
certain Private James Francis Ryan be pulled out from the battlefield.
Ryan’s mother had four sons who all served at the battlefronts in
World War I. All but one had fallen. The only surviving of the four-
James, the youngest-had just parachuted behind enemy lines some
three days before. The orders are handed down to the field com-
manders in Normandy, France who promptly sent a squad of eight
riflemen led by a captain on a mission to bring back Ryan safe and
sound. They did not know at that time where he was. But they knew
they would likely move across German-infested areas, and would
have to fight their way through. Casualties would probably be inevi-
table. All these to save one man. Calculate the goodness of the deci-
sion to send a platoon on an extremely dangerous mission to save a
single soldier who is just a lowly private at that.
UP Open University
COMMENTS ON ACTIVITY 2-1

To deal with this given issue you may have to follow the rule-of-
thumb mentioned above. When you analyze this, approach this
matter in foresight; that is, situate yourself at the moment the deci-
sion to send out a platoon to look for and save Ryan was made.
Also, look into the possible happiness-generating and sorrow-gen-
erating consequences of this action. Or, you (if you have seen the
movie) may approach it in hindsight; that is, after everything else
had happened-imagine the scene at the beginning and at the end
of the movie where Ryan is shown visiting half a century later the
grave of the captain who got killed saving him. List down the ben-
efits and the cost of saving Pvt. Ryan and decide whether it was,
from the utilitarian perspective, worth it.
Summary
Utilitariansm can be summed up thus: Actions or moral rules are right
when they bring about utmost utility. The term ‘utility’ refers to pleasure
or happiness, as Mill saw it to be and ideal satisfaction as Moore charac-
terized it. These two things are valued for their own sake. Furthermore,
utilitarianism is said to be a consequentialist theory of morality because
the value of actions or moral rules, as the case maybe, lies not in them-
selves but in their consequences. Under the consequentialist theory are
act and rule utilitarianism. Act utilitarianism is a version of utilitarianism
that subscribes to the idea that the value to be measured, hence the conse-
quences to be considered, should be those of particular actions. On the
other hand, rule utilitarianism has it that the value to be measured, hence
the consequences to be considered, should be those of general moral rules
underlying the actions in question and not particular actions themselves.
UP Open University
Module 3
Duty and the Categorical
Imperative
It is impossible to conceive of anything anywhere in the world

or even anywhere out of it that can without qualification be called
good, except a Good Will…. Even an impartial sane witness can
never take pleasure in the uninterrupted well-being of a person
who shows no trace of a pure and good will. Consequently the
good will seems to be the indispensable condition even of being
worthy of happiness.
Immanuel Kant
I mmanuel Kant, a native of Konigsbë, Prussia (now Kaliningrad, Rus

sia), is considered one of the greatest philosophers of the western world.
Kant’s career as a philosopher can be described as productive and prolific
as Kant made valuable contributions to various areas in philosophy.
Among the areas he dealt with was ethics. In this module, we will explore
Kant’s contributions to the study of ethics by examining his thoughts on what
differentiates a good action from a bad one. We will also look into how Kant
saw the concept of good as inextricably linked with the concept of duty.
Kantian Versus Utilitarian Ethical Theory

The epigraph at the start of the module presents a
sharp contrast between Prussian philosopher
Immanuel Kant’s own ethical thinking and the
utilitarian ethical theory. If you will recall, for he-
donistic utilitarians, happiness or pleasure is the
only thing that is inherently good. In contrast,
Immanuel Kant thinks that only good will can
be considered good “without qualification.”
There is another basic difference between Kant’s

and the utilitarian’s theories. To determine
whether an act is right or wrong, utilitarians Immanuel Kant
would have us consider the consequences of our
actions. For Kant, what we have to examine is
the will with which the act is invested. Kant (1938) emphasizes the abso-
lute character of a goodwill as such:
The good will is good not because of what it

Objectives causes or accomplishes, not because of its use-
fulness in the attainment of some set purpose,
After studying this module, but alone because of the willing (emphasis
you should be able to: added), that is to say, of itself. Considered by
itself, without any comparison, it is to be val-
1. Discuss what Kant con- ued far more highly than all that might be ac-
siders to be inherently complished through it in favor of some incli-
good or bad; nation or of the sum of all inclinations.
2. Differentiate acts done
out of duty from those According to Kant (1938), it is not morally impor-
done in accord with tant that the will successfully bring about our de-
duty; sired consequences:
3. State the formulations of
the categorical impera- Even though by some special disfavor of for-
tive; tune or because of the meager provision of a
4. Differentiate categorical stepmotherly nature this will were entirely
from hypothetical im- lacking in ability to carry out its intentions; if
perative, and perfect per- with the greatest of efforts nothing were to be
fect from imperfect duty accomplished by it, and nothing were to re-
and main except only the good will (not, to be sure,
5. Apply Kantian prin- as a pious wish but as an exertion of every
ciples instances where means in our power), it would still sparkle like
moral choices have to be a jewel by itself, like something that has its full
made. value in itself. Its usefulness or fruitfulness can
neither add nor detract from its worth.
UP Open University
Unit I Module 3 33
Its goodness should not be measured in terms of the state of affairs that it
promotes or enhances nor should it be judged by the good or bad out-
comes it will bring. Instead, the goodness of an action should be judged
according to the act of willing or the intent of the action.
The Concept of Duty

What then is a good will? And how do we know that an act is invested
with a good will? The answers can be found in the concept of duty. We
can only understand the concept of good will when we compare and
contrast it with the concept of duty. Duty, it is said,
…includes the notion of a good will with certain subjective

restrictions and hindrances. However, far from hiding and
obscuring it, these rather serve to bring it out by contrast and
make it shine forth all the brighter.
The contrast that our quote is referring to arises as we examine different

types of subjective restrictions and hindrances accompanying the perfor-
mance of one’s duty. For Kant, a good will is manifested in acting out of
duty or from a sense of duty, which should be distinguished from acting
in accord with duty.
To do something in accord with duty is simply to do that which one has a

duty to do. Thus, one does not necessarily invest this action with good
will by acting in accord with duty, i.e., by doing that which one has a
duty to do. On the other hand, to do something out of duty, or from a
sense of duty, is to do that which one has a duty to do in a pertinently
qualified manner. Again, what do we mean by this? Simply put, this means
that to do something from a sense of duty entails investing the action with
good will.
More specifically then, when does not act out of duty? We begin to under-
stand what it means to act out of duty by identifying actions that cannot
be said to be done out of duty due to several subjective disqualifications,
namely, those that are recognized obviously as contrary to duty, and those
that conform to duty, but to which men have no direct inclination, being
impelled instead by some other inclination. In other words, it cannot be
said that something is done out of duty if it is done for the purpose of
achieving something other than itself or put more simply, if the person
does it in order to get something that he wants or he does it because he
was motivated by personal reasons.
UP Open University
Kant explains the second disqualification above (1938) by making the fol-
lowing analogy:
It is indeed a matter of duty that a merchant should not take

advantage of an inexperienced customer and where business
is flourishing no merchant will do so, but he will rather main-
tain a fixed common price for all. One is therefore served hon-
estly. But that is not nearly reason enough to believe that the
merchant has been acting out of duty or principles of honesty.
It was to his advantage to act so.
Based on the previous example, we have seen what it takes for an act to
be done out of duty compared to an act that is only done in accord with
duty. Let us frame this more explicitly. For an act to be done out of duty it
must conform to duty; the agent must do it because it is a duty; and lastly,
the agent must do it only because it is a duty; he must not be driven by
fear or inclination.
These conditions are clarified by Kant’s own examples of “acting from a

sense of duty.” Kant (1938) sheds light on this by giving us an example
concerning suicide:
…when adversities and hopeless grief have wholly destroyed

the desire for living; when the unfortunate person, stout of
soul and angered by his fate rather than dejected or despon-
dent, nevertheless loves his life not because of inclination or
fear, but as a matter of duty, then his maxim has a moral con-
tent.
Kant yet gives another example, now done in the context of charitable
acts:
…let us assume…that the mind of…a philanthropist is be-

clouded by a private grief which destroys all his interest in the
fate of others; that he still has the ability to alleviate the suffer-
ing of others, but that the strange need does not move him
because he is sufficiently occupied with his own. If now, when
there is no inclination to urge him to it, he nevertheless rouses
himself from this deadly indifference and performs the act with-
out any inclination, solely out of duty, then the action for the
very first time has genuine moral value. Let us assume further
still that nature has allotted very little power of sympathy to a
certain person, he is cold by temperament and indifferent to
the suffering of others, perhaps because he himself possesses
the special gift of patience and their power of endurance in
respect to his own suffering and presupposes or even demands
UP Open University
Unit I Module 3 35
the same in others. While such a person, who certainly is not

its poorest product, has not been fashioned by nature into a
philanthropist, will he not still find within himself a source
which will afford him a far higher value than that of a friendly
temperament can be? Assuredly! This is the very point at which
that value of character begins to show which is moral and in-
comparably highest, namely, to do good, not from inclination,
but from duty.
The examples we have given clearly illustrate that what are said to be
cases of acting out of duty are cases of doing (1) what accords with duty,
(2) for the reason that it is a duty, and (3) only for the reason that it is a
duty. Kant also makes a distinction of two duties: perfect duty and imper-
fect duty. A perfect duty does not admit exception, such that when a
person has this kind of duty to do, he must always do it whenever the
opportunity arises. Imperfect duty on the other hand, admits some excep-
tion, such that when a person has this kind of duty to do an act, it may
sometimes be permissible for him to avoid doing it.
The Categorical Imperative:

A First Formulation
How do we know that one acts from duty rather than from inclination?
To lead us to the answer, let us contrast this with a consequentialist per-
spective. The moral worth of an action is not to be found in its conse-
quences:
Since…action fro duty must eliminate entirely the influence of

the inclinations and thus every object of the will, there is noth-
ing left to determine the will, except objectively the law and
subjectively pure respect for this practical law, that is to say,
the maxim to obey such a law, even at the expense of all my
inclinations.
Doing something out of duty means that the person is not acting out of his
inclinations; rather he is acting in accordance to what the law says. What
then is this law? How can we understand law aside from the results that it
ought to accomplish? These questions bring us to the concept of universal
lawfulness which Kant explains to us in the following manner:
Since I have deprived the will of every stimulus which it might

receive from the results of a law, so there is nothing left to
serve as principle for the will except the universal lawfulness
of actions in general.
UP Open University
This concept is further expressed in the first formulation of the Categori-

cal Imperative. “Act only on that maxim which will enable you at the
same time to will that it will be a universal law.”
To understand this more easily, we can break down this Categorical Im-
perative into two components. First, a moral agent must act on the basis
of a maxim. Maxim, for your enlightenment, is the principle adopted by
an individual as a subjective standard for action in accordance with his
faculty of desire. It is the principle by which the individual acts. Second,
the moral agent must be able to will that his maxim should become a
universal law. In other words, he must be able to will that it apply to all.
In order to explain the idea of willing one’s action to become a universal

law, Kant (1938) takes a look at the concept of making promises:
If I am sorely pressed, may I make a promise with the intention

not to keep it? … in order to take the shortest and yet surest
way toward an answer to this problem, whether or not a de-
ceitful promise is in accordance with duty, I ask myself: Would
I indeed be satisfied to have my maxim (to extricate myself
from an embarrassing situation by a false promise) considered
a universal law? Would I be able to say to myself: Everybody
has the right to make a false promise if he finds himself in a
difficulty from which he can escape in no other way? In that
manner I soon realize that I may will the lie, but never a uni-
versal law to lie. For according to such a law there really would
be no promise at all, because it would be vain to make a pre-
tense of my will in respect of my future actions to those who
have no faith in my pretensions or who, if they were rash
enough to do so, would repay me in my own coin. Therefore
my maxim would destroy itself as soon as it got to be a univer-
sal law.
Think about this...

1. Have you ever had to make a promise that you
did not intend to keep in order to save yourself
from a compromising situation?
2. Can you recall why you did that?
3. Did you consider it justified?
4. Do you think you can desire people to make a
false promise if it were the only way for them to
get out of a difficulty?
UP Open University
Unit I Module 3 37
Occasionally, we fine ourselves in com-

promising situations that we can only es- Think about this...
cape from if we make a promise that we
do not intend to keep. According to
1. What would happen if ev-
Kant, it is possible to conceive to make a
eryone thought they had a
false promise if there is no other way out
right to make false promises?
of a compromising situation. But this
2. Would people still be credible
maxim—that one should make a false
when they make promises?
promise if there is no other way to get
3. If a friend asks for P500 and
out from a compromising situation—can-
promises to pay you back,
not be seen as universal or is not
would you feel confident that
universalizable. In other words, it can-
he will do that if you knew
not be applied to all. For Kant, it is not
people had a right to make
conceivable that everyone should have
false promises under certain
the right to make a false promise if that
conditions.
were the only way to get out of a diffi-
cult predicament.
For Kant, the concept of promising is not logically compatible with the
maxim that says, everyone should have a right to make a false promise.
We cannot will that everyone should have a right to make promises that
they do not intend to keep because that would be contrary to the meaning
of a promise.
To promise is to give an assurance that what is being promised will be

done. If, for example, I promise to return to a certain place, I am giving an
assurance that I will return. If I do not actually intend to return despite
making the promise to return, then I am not really giving an assurance.
Thus, when I make that false promise, I am giving an assurance but I am
not actually giving an assurance because in effect, what I am giving is a
false assurance. Herein lies the contradiction.
Categorical Versus Hypothetical Imperatives

An imperative is a command of reason. A command of reason is an objec-
tive principle that is obligatory for the will. Imperatives can either be hy-
pothetical or categorical. An imperative that is hypothetical commands
an action that is meant to be a means to an end. In a hypothetical impera-
tive, the action commanded is good for some purpose. Thus, the com-
mand is conditional upon that purpose. A categorical imperative com-
mands an action that is good in itself. In a categorical imperative, the
action commanded is objectively necessary. It is commanded without re-
gard for any purpose or any end other than itself.
UP Open University
For Kant (1938), it is the categorical imperative that is the imperative of

morality. This is what he says:
There is an imperative which commands a certain conduct di-

rectly and which is not based on the condition of attaining any
other purpose by it. This imperative is CATEGORICAL. It has
nothing to do with the matter of the action or with that which
results from it, but with the form and the principle from which
itself proceeds; and its essential good consists of the state of
mind irrespective of what may result from it. This imperative
may be called the IMPERATIVE OF MORALITY.
The Categorical Imperative:

A Second Formulation
Kant (1938) says, “Act as if the maxim of your action by your will were to
become a UNIVERSAL LAW OF NATURE.” With this, we come face to
face with Kant’s second formulation of the Categorical Imperative. It dif-
fers from the first formulation in that it now speaks of a “universal law of
nature” instead of merely a universal law. To help us understand this, let
us read what Kant (1938) says about suicide:
A person who is wearied with life because of a series of misfor-

tunes that has reduced him to despair still possesses sufficient
reason to be able to ask himself, whether it may not be con-
trary to his duty to himself to take his life. Now he asks him-
self, whether the maxim of his action could possibly be a uni-
versal law of nature. But this maxim reads: Out of love of self I
make it my principle to shorten my life if its continuation threat-
ens more evil than it promises comfort. But he will still ask,
whether his principle of self-love is capable of being a univer-
sal law of nature. Then he will soon see that a nature, whose
law it would be to destroy life by the very feeling which is
meant to stimulate the promotion of life, would contradict it-
self and therefore not persist as nature. Accordingly the maxim
cannot possibly function as a universal law of nature, and it
consequently completely refutes the supreme principle of all duty.
Here, the proposed action is suicide, which is to be based on the following

premise: I ought to shorten my life if its continuation will bring about
more evil than comfort. To Kant, this premise cannot be conceived to be a
universal law of nature. There is a contradiction involved in this thought
because while the proposed action supposedly comes from love of self, it
actually gives rise to the destruction of that same self.
UP Open University
Unit I Module 3 39
Man as an End in Himself

One of the vital components of Kantian ethics is the conception of man as
an end in himself. The things that we desire, according to Kant, have
conditional value. Their value depends on whether or not we have the
desire, and whether there are felt needs relating to them. They are merely
instruments or means to support further ends. However, a person has to
be conceived differently. Because he is a rational being, he cannot or should
not be employed as a mere means. His existence is an end in itself. It does
not have to be justified in terms of another end. A person cannot serve as
a means only since ‘that would make it impossible to find anything of
absolute value anywhere” (Kant 1938). These ideas give rise to another
formulation of the categorical imperative: “Act so that in your own per-
son as well as in the person of every other you are treating mankind also
as an end, never merely as a means.”
Kant, again relates this formulation of the categorical imperative suicide.

He says that the person who is contemplating suicide should ask himself
if his act can co-exist with the idea of mankind as an end-in-itself: Kant
(1938) says,
If he destroys himself in order to escape from a burdensome

situation he uses a person merely as a means to maintain a
tolerable condition up to the end of his life. However, man is
not a thing and therefore not something that may be used as a
means only, but in all his actions he must always be consid-
ered as end-in-itself. Consequently I can make no disposition
of the man in my own person to mutilate, destroy, or kill him.
Likewise, Kant (1938) says that when a person makes a false promise or
what he calls lying promise to another person, he also uses that other
person merely as a means:
The person who intends to make a lying promise to others must

realize at once that he is about to use some other person as a
mere means, without the latter at the same time containing the
end in himself. For the person whom I am about to use for my
purposes by such a promise cannot possibly agree with my
conduct toward him, and thus himself contain the end of this
action.
The person to whom the lying promise is made is being used merely as a
means because he does not know the end of the action. If he does not
know what the end is, he cannot possibly agree with it. He is merely an
instrument or a means to achieve it. In other words, he does not play an
active role in what is going on.
UP Open University
SAQ 3-1
Fill in the blanks and then read the next paragraph for the an-
swers.
An act that conforms to duty out of sheer love of doing that act is
(1) _________. But performing an act because of a sense of duty
and the will to do it is (2) ________. The (3) ____________ is a
command of reason to perform an act for its own sake is; while (4)
_____________ is a command of reason to perform an act as a
means to some other good. A duty that admits to some exception
is (5) ___________; while a duty that may be set aside sometimes
is (6) _______. The governing principle behind an act committed
deliberately is called (7) __________. An act is deemed good if it is
(8) ___________ and done (9) ________. An act that sooner or
later undermines the very condition upon which it is committed is
(10) _____________.
ASAQ 3-1
See how many correct answers you got.
An act that conforms to duty out of sheer love of doing that act is
(1) in accord with duty. But performing an act because of a sense of
duty and the will to do it is (2) out of duty. The (3) Categorical Im-
perative is a command of reason to perform an act for its own sake;
while (4) hypothetical imperative is a command of reason to per-
form an act as a means to some other good. A duty that admits to
no exception is (5) prefer duty; while a duty that may be set aside
sometimes is (6) imperfect duty. The governing principle behind an
act committed deliberately is called (7) maxim. An act is deemed
good if it is (8) universalizable and done (9) out of duty. An act that
sooner or later undermines the very condition upon which it is
committed is (10) wrong or non-universalizable.
UP Open University
Unit I Module 3 41
Autonomy of the Will

Aside from having a practical significance, man’s being conceived as an
end in himself has important theoretical implications. For if the subject of
all ends is each rational being, then it follows, as Kant (1938) put it, that
the will of every rational being is a universally legislative will:” …the will
is not simply subjected to the law, but subjected in such way that it must
be looked upon also as giving itself the law, and for that reason really be
looked upon also as giving itself the law, and for that reason really subject
to the law [of which it can regard itself the author].” Moreover, “if there
is a categorical imperative (a law for the will over every rational being),
then it can only command that everything be done from the maxim of a
will that could also have itself as universal lawgiver as its object. For then
alone the practical principle and the imperative which it obeys are un-
conditional because they simply cannot be based on any interest.”
The conception of man as an end in himself further entails the autonomy

of the will. Ordinarily, the idea of man as subject to law suggests a coer-
cive relationship. This is because when a person is subject to law, he or
she is being obliged to act in a certain way by someone or something else.
Behind the subject who has to obey the law is an authority who gives
commands. Coercion prevails because the subject obeys what the author-
ity commands. The authority, interestingly, is understood to be different
from the subject.
But although it is true that man is bound by his duties to laws, the law
must be viewed as the person’s own commands because his will, in so far
as he is a rational being, is a universally legislative will. The response of
the rational being to law is not characterized by fear or inclination but
solely by respect for the law. The relationship, therefore is not coercive
since:
Man is subject only to his own and yet to universal legislation,

and…he is obligated to act only in accordance with his own
will which, however, in view of the end of nature is a univer-
sally legislating will.
Thus the pertinent principle of the will is this “to undertake no act ac-
cording to any other maxim than one can also count as universal law,
and therefore to act so that the will can consider itself at the same time as
legislating universally by means of its maxims” (Kant 1938).
The absence of a coercive relationship between the law and the rational
person also guarantees the notion of personal dignity. For since it is one’s
own will that legislates universally by its maxims, it is also the real object
of respect. And, according to Kant, “the dignity of mankind consists in
UP Open University
this very capacity of making universal laws, though with the condition
that it is itself subject to this same legislation.”
Autonomy, then, is that characteristic feature of the will by

which it legislates for its own self. In the end, Kant regards it
as the sole principle of morality since the principle of morality
must be a categorical imperative and the categorical impera-
tive commands nothing more nor less than this very autonomy.
Freedom
The will, according to Kant, is a way of relating causally to rational be-
ings. If so, then freedom would be the property enabling a causal relation-
ship to take place in a manner that is not determined by external causes.
In contrast, physical necessity is the property by which the causal rela-
tionships of all non-rational beings are determined by external causes.
By looking at the will as a kind of causality, Kant (1938) also accepts that
it is subject to laws “in accordance with which, because of something that
we call cause, something else, namely the result, must be posited.” How-
ever, the law that governs the will as causality is not a physical law. The
will cannot be governed by physical necessity since the latter involves a
determination of effects by foreign causes. But since the will can only be
beholden to itself it must also be a law to itself. Hence freedom of the will
cannot be anything but autonomy. Here, autonomy must be understood
as the property of the will to be a law to itself which, in turn, is an affir-
mation of the principle to act only in accordance with a maxim which
may be willed to become a universal law. In so far as we are referring to
rational beings, therefore, there is no distinction between a free will and a
will subject to moral laws.
UP Open University
Unit I Module 3 43
ACTIVITY 3-1
Calculate the goodness of an act from the Kantian perspective.
In the movie Gone With the Wind Scarlett O’Hara was a daughter
of a wealthy plantation owner whose estate was ruined as a result
of the civil war. For the first time in her life, she went through
starvation and depravation. When she was able to get back to their
plantation she saw nothing but devastation. While she knelt on
the soil that brought her family great fame, wealth and honor she
vowed: “As God is my witness, I shall never go hungry again!”
and she found a way not to go hungry again. There was a mer-
chant in town who was not so charming a gentleman but was not
lacking in material possessions. She befriended him, and one time
while they were seated on his wagon she said “Can I put my hands
in your pocket?” She eventually succeeded in marrying him. And
she shared his good. State the maxim of Scarlett’s act and deter-
mine whether or not such an act passes the Kantian standard of a
good act.

In the case of Scarlett O’Hara the maxim should make mention of
her poverty and hunger and her inducing—manipulating, if you
will—a relatively well-off person into marriage to pull herself out
of her misfortune. After you have formulated the maxim, you may
ask some questions such as: Is this maxim universalizable, or will
it be, sooner or later, self-defeating? If the maxim is carried out,
will it not use a person as a mere means to an end?
UP Open University
Summary
An act is good if it is invested with good will; its maxim is universalizable;
and in performing this act, mankind is treated as ends rather than means.
An act is invested with good will, if its done out of duty. An act is done
out of duty when it conforms to duty, that is, the person is dutifully bound
to do the act in question; it is done because it is a duty, that is, the person
does the act because it is his duty to do so; and it is done only because it is
a duty, that is, the person does the act to willfully fulfill his duty only, and
not because he loves to do the act or is coerced to do it. If a person does an
act he is dutifully bound to do, but performs it not willfully but only by
chance; or performs it out of maniacal fetish and not out of a sense of
duty; or performs it because a gun is pointed at his nape, the act is done
only accord with duty.
Kant distinguishes between two duties: perfect duty and imperfect duty.
A perfect duty is one which admits no exception, such that when a per-
son has this kind of duty, he must always do it whenever the opportunity
arises. Imperfect duty is one which admits some exception, such that when
a person has this kind of duty, it may sometimes be permissible for him to
avoid doing it.
Kant also gives two types of imperatives: hypothetical imperative and

categorical imperative. Hypothetical imperative involves a command of
reason to perform an act for the sake of some other—perhaps higher—
good. On the other hand, categorical imperative is a command of reason
to perform an act for its own sake as it is intrinsically good. Kant says in
his first formulation of the categorical imperative: “Act only on that maxim
which will enable you at the same time to will that it be a universal law.”
Every act is thought to have a corresponding maxim or a general policy.
For example, a person who wants to pass a test but does not know the
answers to the questions cheats. The maxim behind such act may be
framed as such: If only to pass a test one may cheat.
For an act to be right, its maxim must be universalizable or it can apply to

everyone. One test for universalizability of a maxim is that the act at-
tached to the maxim must never defeat its purpose, even in the long run.
The maxim in our previous example is non-universalizable because if ev-
eryone else acts according to that maxim, sooner or later, there will be a
backlash against the testing system. What kind of backlash can it create?
Well, the opportunity for cheating would be eliminated, or nobody would
have faith in the results of tests that the business of testing would be
scrapped altogether.
UP Open University
Unit I Module 3 45
Regarding the second formulation of the categorical imperative, Kant says:

“Act so that in your own person as well as in the person of every other,
you are treating mankind also as an end never merely as a means.” Man-
kind is composed of individuals who are rational. They are persons and
not things. They possess absolute worth and therefore, must not be merely
seen as objects to be used.
UP Open University
UP Open University
Module 4
Aristotle and Excellence
of Character
It is thought that every activity, artistic or scientific, in fact

every deliberate action or pursuit, has for its object the attain-
ment of some good. We may therefore assent to the view which
has been expressed that “the good” is “that at which all things
aim” (emphasis added).
Aristotle
I n the previous modules, our discussions revolved around two different

perspectives in ethics: the utilitarian perspective and the Kantian per-
spective. In this module, we will be tackling yet another perspective, this
time, Aristotle’s perspective.
Aristotle’s approach to ethics is an example of a

character-oriented approach. Why is this so? Most Objectives
moral theories are preoccupied with trying to
determine the goodness of actions; however, After studying on this mod-
Aristotle claims that people should not judge ac- ule, you should be able to:
tions alone but also judge characters. As it is, char-
acter is inextricably linked with the goodness or 1. Discuss the Aristotelian
badness of certain actions. We will tackle this and concept of happiness;
the virtue that Aristotle declares is ultimately 2. Tell how goodness is de-
worth pursuing in this module. termined;
3. Identify the types of vir-
So far, we have looked into the goodness or bad- tues; and
ness of human acts using two different lenses: the 4. Differentiate phronesis
first one is using the Utilitarian perspective and from Sophia.
the second one using the Kantian perspective.
Before we go on with our discussion, let us go over what we have dis-

cussed thus far by looking at a case study, which we will use to review the
two ethical paradigms we have just learned. This will give you the oppor-
tunity to gain a better perspective of the two competing philosophical
theories. This will also be a fitting prelude to the next topic we will be
discussing: Aristotle’s view on the excellence of character.
Of Right Acts and Good Men

Let us look at the case of a young but accomplished physician whom we
will call Doctor D. Our good doctor was in love with his fiancée Ms. W
and wanted to marry her; however, this idea did not sit well with the
father of Ms. W. As a result, Ms. W, who was thoroughly devoted to her
father, decided to forego marriage with Dr. D without her father’s pre-
cious consent.
One day an unusual illness struck her father. Among the many doctors in
the city, Dr. D was the only one who had the expertise required to treat
his case because the patient’s suspected condition fell under his field of
training and specialization. Ever the dutiful doctor, he readily agreed to
perform a medical examination notwithdstanding the hatred that he ini-
tially felt for the old man.
Dr. D did what he thought necessary to bring about the patient’s recov-
ery. He carefully examined the patient and summoned all his skills in the
process. The test results led him to believe that the patient was afflicted
with disease D1. He prescribed the treatment procedure T1 which in-
cluded the administration of medicine M1. According to medical knowl-
edge available at that time, M1 would effectively control D1.
Think about this...

1. What do you think of Dr. D’s act of prescribing
M1?
2. Did he do something wrong? Was it wrong for
him to have prescribed M1 as part of the treat-
ment procedure?
3. What factors would be important for a utilitar-
ian to consider in making a judgment of What
Doctor D did?
UP Open University
Module 4 49
Unfortunately, it turned out that Dr. Dr actually failed to diagnose cor-

rectly Ms. W’s father real condition. Apparently, what the old man had
was condition C not D1. Unfortunately, the medicine Ms. W’s father was
given was contraindicated for his condition. The drug had an extremely
bad side effect to him resulting in complications that could not be con-
trolled. After a few days, Ms. W’s father died.
It would have been extremely difficult for anybody else to have discov-
ered C. In fact, it was only discovered C. In fact, it was only discovered by
chance in this particular case after the patient died, and only because the
physicians were puzzled by the possible cause of his death. Had the con-
dition been detected earlier, a substitute drug without side effects would
have been prescribed.
A Utilitarian Evaluation
Looking at the case from a utilitarian standpoint, one would have to ex-
amine the consequences of the act in question. We would have to weigh
the amount of good that resulted from Dr. D’s act, carefully considering
the happiness or suffering of those affected by his act. Based on these
factors, we would probably judge his act wrong. How is this so? Well, let
us examine this in detail.
Ms. W’s father lost his life as a result of Dr. D’s actions. Dr. D’s mistaken
diagnosis and prescription cost the old man his life, depriving him of the
chance to enjoy a longer, possibly, happier life. With his death, Ms. W
would also have suffered pain and grief, but she is not only one who will
come out scathed in this situation. We can also add the sorrow and regret
that Dr. D himself would suffer because of his failure to treat his fiancée’s
father.
Think about this...

1. Go over our case study and determine what fac-
tors a Kantian would consider important in
judging the rightness or wrongness of Dr. D’s
actions.
2. From a Kantian perspective, how would you
frame the maxim that guided by Dr. D’s action?
3. Is that maxim universalizable?
4. Did Dr. D act from a sense of duty?
UP Open University
On the other hand, some benefits would have also been realized through
the elimination of an obstacle to the marriage of Doctor D with Ms. W.
However, we must also consider how those benefits could have been real-
ized had the patient been saved through the efforts of Dr. D.
Different people may have different calculations of the balance of happi-

ness and unhappiness resulting from the action of Dr. But we will not
concern ourselves with this for the moment. What we want to emphasize
is the fact that a utilitarian evaluation focuses on the action and its conse-
quences. A utilitarian perspective does not attempt to relate the action to
the character of Dr. D. We will say more about this point later.
A Kantian Evaluation
If we look at the example above from a Kantian perspective, we would
have to identify and examine the maxim upon which Dr. D’s action was
based. The maxim might go like this: “Even if you hate a person, you
ought to try to save his life when the opportunity arises.” Taking this
further, we speculate that Dr. D could probably have willed his maxim to
be a universal law.
We can also say that Dr. D took care of his duties in the given situation.
Although he was not able to foresee the results accurately, Dr. D acted
with sufficient diligence and care both in making a diagnosis and in de-
termining what he considered an appropriate prescription. He issued the
prescription under the guidance of the latest medical findings and opin-
ions, as expected of someone in the medical profession. He based his diag-
nosis and prescriptions on sound research and experimentation. Dr. D
did what every other competent physician would have done under such
circumstances. If we do not consider the actual results of his action, we
should be able to say that Dr. D did what was right.
Did Dr. D act out of a sense of duty? Again, we can say he did. The three
requirements are present. He did his duty. He did it because it was his
duty. He did it only because it was his duty to do it and not for any incli-
nation he has—that is, even if he actually hated Ms. W’s father before he
was afflicted with the disease. Still, there can be other opinions.
Think about this...

1. Are you happy with the judgment that a Kantian would make?
2. What factors can you identify that the utilitarian and Kantian
perspectives are not able to account for?
UP Open University
Module 4 51
There a number of things that do not seem to fit perfectly into the picture
especially with the Kantian analysis of Dr. D’s actions. It is rather unset-
tling to think that Dr. D is seen to have done the right thing even though
it resulted in an evil that should have been avoided—an innocent person’s
death. How can it be right for someone to do something that kills an inno-
cent person? The utilitarian analysis given above also gives us a few prob-
lems. Going solely by the consequences, we said that Dr. D did something
wrong. But, how can it be wrong for a doctor to prescribe what any other
competent physician would have prescribed? As we were told, other phy-
sicians would have been expected to do exactly the same thing given the
same information and medical know-how that was available at the time.
There are important considerations that
the Kantian and utilitarian perspectives
take into account; however, there appear Think about this...
to be other considerations that they do not
give much attention to, making us feel that
1. Is it all right to make a
they could be inadequate or misleading.
judgment concerning the
rightness or wrongness of
Part of the inadequacy may be seen in the
an action without know-
primary focus on actions. By focusing on
ing who did it?
actions, the Kantian and utilitarian analy-
2. What would you want to
ses draw attention away from the person
know about a person be-
doing the act or the moral agent. Focus-
fore you can make a moral
ing our analysis on the consequences alone
judgment about some-
or in terms of universal maxims alone
thing that he did?
gives the impression that the act is some-
thing totally distinct from the person who
performs it.
Virtue and the Good Person

When we examine human actions, we always have to bear in mind that
they are actions done by human beings. The moral acts cannot occur with-
out anyone doing these acts. Moral or immoral acts, whichever the case
maybe, cannot exist apart from the human beings that perform them.
There cannot be a murder without a murderer. A murder is not just a
case of somebody by getting murdered. A murder involves a particular
person being killed by another person. It is true that we can talk about
murder as a human action without anybody being actually murdered.
However, we cannot hope to make a comprehensive moral judgment of a
particular murder unless we look at it in relation to the person responsible
or the murderer himself.
UP Open University
Murders are committed by persons who have

Think about this... varying personal circumstances and motiva-
tions. A moral judgment that does not take
these things into account will be inadequate
1. Move to other side judg-
because we cannot just look at what a per-
ing the case of Dr. D,
son does in a single instance. We also have
would you consider it im-
to look into the character of the person be-
portant to know if he
cause human actions are not the only sub-
acted out of a sense of
jects of moral judgments. Moral character is
duty?
also an important facet of this.
2. Are the actual conse-
quences relevant?
It is very useful to consider the principle of
utility and the Kantian categorical impera-
tive in making moral judgments. In our example, it is important to know
if Dr. D acted out of a sense of duty. It is also relevant that the manner in
which Dr. D acted had consequences of a particular kind for those who
were affected. However, these are not the only factors that are relevant in
making a moral judgment. These factors do not touch on the person whose
action is concerned.
The judgment that an act performed by a person is right or wrong is not

being rendered on the act alone. An evaluation of that act should neces-
sarily involve an evaluation of the agent or the doer of the action. What is
said of one’s actions effectively applies to one’s self. Let us draw an anal-
ogy to make this point clearer. A judgment that my idea is a bright idea
reflects on me and a judgment that my suggestion is misguided similarly
says something about me. If it is said one’s act that it is wrong then the
judgment reflects in some way on the individual whose act it is.
It is what an individual does that makes him one type of person rather
than another. What he does reflects on his character and is a manifesta-
tion of his character. It is important that we speak not only of right and
wrong acts but also of good persons and of bad persons. We talk about
persons who are generous, benevolent, charitable, selfish, or prudent. In
other words, we also speak of character.
This brings us to the realm of virtues and vices. In this realm, we use a
language of evaluation different from that use in the moral assessment of
actions. To reiterate, it is not enough that we talk about acts being right or
wrong. While applied ethics has to be concerned with human actions, it
must also have something to say about persons.
Applied ethics deal with actions performed by particular persons at par-

ticular times under specific circumstances. In performing certain actions,
persons can be kind, loving, courageous, or conscientious. They can also
be unfair, arrogant, ungrateful, or vindictive. Moral judgments have to
UP Open University
Module 4 53
account for these virtues and vices. With this, it is not only what we do
that is important. It is also relevant that in doing something, we are not
being selfish, dishonest, untruthful or cowardly. There is value in consid-
ering the sympathetic thing to do and avoiding that which is cruel. In
talking about things as cruelty and sympathy, or about other virtues and
vices we are dealing with the character of the person who acts.
The Good: That at which all things aim

The epigraph we have quoted from Aristotle at the start of this module
makes it clear that that examination of the good should be situated within
the context of deliberate actions or pursuits and their ends.
When we have to explain why something is good, it seems natural for us

to turn to end or purpose that it is supposed to serve. For example, victory
is the end of a battle strategy. To determine whether a particular battle
strategy is good, one has to see if it is effective in bringing about victory.
Since the end is to win, we can say that the strategy is good if it is effective
in facilitating a win. Similarly, the purpose of medical art is good health.
Therefore, medical practice is good when it effectively promotes medical
well-being.
Additionally, the goodness of actions lies in the ends that they are sup-
posed to serve. We must ask of the ends what further ends they are sup-
posed to serve. Thus, we must not only know that a battle strategy effec-
tively brings about the victory as an end. We must also ask: What end
should victory serve? Does victory effectively bring about that end?
Think about this...

1. List five actions that you consider good.
2. Can you identify the ends that these actions
are supposed to serve?
3. Can you further identify the ends that those
ends are supposed to serve?
Since we have to keep asking of the ends whether they are effective in
bringing about further ends, there is danger of an infinite regress or an
endless series of questions. In other words, our asking might not stop. We
might keep asking for further ends. The solution to this dilemma lies in
the concept of an absolute good, that is, something that is sought for its
own sake. Aristotle (1958a) says:
UP Open University
Now if there is an end which as moral agents we seek for its

own sake, and which is the cause of our seeking all the other
ends—if we are not to go on choosing one act for the sake of
another, thus landing ourselves in an infinite progression with
the result that desire will be frustrated and ineffectual—it is
clear that this must be the good, that is the absolute good.
If there is an absolute good that we must all aim for, we certainly have to
know what it is:
May we not then argue from this that knowledge of the good
is a great advantage to us in the conduct of our lives? Are we
not more likely to hit the mark if we have a target? If this be
true, we must do our best to get at least a rough idea of what
the good really is, and which of the sciences, pure or applied,
is concerned with the business of achieving it.
Think about this...

1. What do you consider the absolute good that all our
actions aim for?
2. Can you guess what Aristotle considers the abso-
lute good?
Happiness as an Absolute Good

For Aristotle happiness is the abso-
lute good. But we have to explain
carefully what “happiness” means
Think about this...
to him. First of all, Aristotle clarifies
that happiness cannot be under- 1. According to utilitarians
stood to mean pleasure, honor, or like J.S. Mill, pleasure is the
wealth. Many people seem to think only thing that is good in
that happiness is corresponds to itself. Can we say that
pleasure. Aristotle says that these Aristotle is a kind of utili-
people happen to be “of the most tarian?
vulgar type” and are content to have 2. How does Aristotle’s view
a good time. They show a preference of happiness differ from
for the kind of life which is no dif- Mill’s?
ferent from that which animals lead.
UP Open University
Module 4 55
What about honor, can we identify honor with happiness? Honor is sought
in public life by refined men as well as by men of active disposition. For
Aristotle, happiness cannot truly consist of honor because the latter is
something that is conferred. One person’s having honor depends on the
recognition given by another. Since honor is something bestowed: “We
cannot but feel that the good is something personal and almost insepa-
rable from its possessor” (Aristotle 1958a).
Aristotle also rejects wealth because we seek it as a means to something

else. It is an alternative worse than either pleasure or honor because it is
not pursued for its own sake whereas the latter are.
Happiness as a Final and Self-Sufficient End

Aristotle tries to understand what is good by observing men’s deliberate ac-
tions or pursuits and their aims or ends. He observes that men engage in
many activities and it is obvious that not all ends may be considered as final:
Assuming that there is some one thing which alone is an end be-
yond which there are no further ends, we may call that the good
of which we are in search. If there more than one such final end,
the good will be that end which has the highest degree of finality.
An object pursue for its own sake possesses a higher degree of
finality than one pursued with an eye to something else. A corol-
lary to that is that a thing which is never chosen as a means to
some remoter object has a higher degree of finality than things
which are chosen both as ends in themselves and as means to such
ends. We may conclude, then, that something which is always
chosen for its own sake and never for the sake of something else is
without qualification a final end (1958a).
Happiness is a final end it is always chosen for its own sake and never for
the sake of something else. This is why it is different from other good
qualities such as pleasure, honor, wealth and intelligence, which are sought
for the sake of happiness. Another reason why happiness may be seen as
such a final end is that it is self-sufficient:
It is a generally accepted view that the final good is self-suffi-

cient. But “self-sufficient” is meant…one which, on its own
footing tends to make life desirable and lacking in nothing.
And we regard happiness as such a thing.
Happiness, then, the end to which all our conscious acts are
directed, is found to be something final and self-sufficient
(1958a).
UP Open University
Think about this...

1. Go back to the module on Mill’s utilitarianism. Com-
pare what Mill says about pleasure with what Aristotle
says about happiness? Do you see any differences?
2. Does Aristotle use happiness to refer to pleasure?
Happiness and the “Function”

of the Human Being
Consistent with Aristotle’s view about the functions of things, he says
that the concept of happiness pertinent to human beings has to be under-
stood in relation to what is seen as man’s function. In this regard, we
must distinguish one’s function as a man from his function as, say, a par-
ticular businessman, sportsman, driver, or some such particular human
being. We can determine the real function of man on the basis of what he
has the potential to do that is unique to him. It could not be that one’s
function as a man is merely to live because life is something shared by all
living things. Similarly, it could not be his function merely to enrich his
sensory experiences since sentience is something horses, cows, and other
animals also have. Man’s peculiar function as a man may be character-
ized as follows (Aristotle, 1958a):
First, it belongs to the rational part of man. Secondly, it finds

expression in actions.
Aristotle (1958a) clarifies that the “rational part may be either active or
passive: passive in so far as it follows the dictates of reason, active in so
far as it possesses and exercises the powers of reasoning.”
Reasoning power in action is relevant to ethical study since the exercise

of reasoning faculties is called for. Thus, Aristotle finds the active mode
of a significant part of the rational side of man. Rationality is not merely
a passive attribute but a function to be performed and its functionality is
manifested in the form of concrete acts. Insofar as ethics is concerned,
reason and action cannot be separated from each other. What, then, is
the function of man? This is what Aristotle (1958a) has to say:
UP Open University
Module 4 57
The function of a man is a certain form of life, namely an ac-

tivity of the soul exercised in combination with a rational prin-
ciple or reasonable ground of action. The function of a good
man is to exert such activity well. A function is performed well
when performed in accordance with the excellence proper to it.
A human being has to perform whatever it is that is one’s natural function.

To recognize man as having a certain natural function is to understand man
as having to perform that function. To make this point clearer, we have to
know what Aristotle says about happiness as a virtuous activity.
Happiness as a Virtuous Activity

Virtues are qualities that people need in order to attain happiness. Thus,
they have an instrumental character. They are a means to attain an end,
which is happiness. However, virtues are not plainly there to attain that
end. The exercise of virtues is itself a part of that happiness. As means,
they are not distinct from the end being served. This is why we cannot
categorize Aristotle’s ethics as consequentialist. Instead, it can be charac-
terized as teleological because it is concerned with the teleos or purpose of
actions. It is concerned with the good life that comes from living virtu-
ously:
What constitutes the good for man is a complete human life

lived at its best, and the exercise of the virtues is a necessary
and central part of such a life, not a mere preparatory exercise
to secure such a life. We thus cannot characterize the good for
man adequately without already having made reference to the
virtues. And within an Aristotelian framework the suggestion
therefore that there might be some means to achieve the good
for man without the exercise of the virtues makes no sense
(MacIntye, 1981).
In other words, living a life of virtue is not merely an instrument for bring-
ing about a desired end. It constitutes a part of that end. To act virtuously
is to live a happy life.
Aristotle’s definition of happiness manifests the idea of an integrated ap-

proach to reason and action. He defines happiness as “an expression of
the soul in considered actions.” Since happiness consists in virtuous activ-
ity and man is an emotional and a rational being at the same time, virtu-
ous activity must encompass his emotionality and rationality. It must be
manifested in the theoretical exercise of reason (e.g. philosophical specu-
lation), and the rational control of the emotions.
UP Open University
There are two intellectual virtues that correspond to the above. The intel-
lectual virtue called sophia or speculative wisdom corresponds to the in-
tellectual exercise of reason. Phronesis or practical wisdom corresponds to
the rational control of the emotions. We shall learn more about these be-
low.
The practicality of ethics is further emphasized because Aristotle thinks

of ethics and politics constituting a single inquiry. For him, they are not
mere exercises in theoretical curiosity. The joint inquiry is characterized
by the aim of promoting and maintaining human happiness. It is this
practical aim of promoting and maintaining human happiness. It is this
practical aim of promoting and maintaining happiness that makes them
different from other aspects of philosophy.
One who studies ethics and politics strives not only to understand a hu-
man being but also to change and improve him. According to Aristotle
(1958b), “We are not concerned to know what goodness essentially is, but
how we are to become good men.” The significance of the notion of hap-
piness as an activity is explained further as follows:
It makes a great difference whether we think of the highest

good as consisting in the possession or in the exercise of virtue.
It is possible for a disposition to goodness to exist in a man
without anything coming of it; he might be asleep or in some
other way have ceased to exercise his function of a man. But
that is not possible with the activity in our definition. For in
“doing well” the happy man will of necessity do. Just as at the
Olympic games it is not the best looking or the strongest men
present who are crowned with victory but competitors-the
successful competitors-so in the arena of human life the hon-
ors and rewards fall to those who show their good qualities in
action.
The virtuous person cannot just keep his virtue in his heart. He must exer-
cise it and show it in his actions in order to be truly virtuous.
UP Open University
Module 4 59
SAQ 4-1
Here’s an SAQ to check how much of the discussions you have
remembered. This is fairly easy, just fill in the blanks with what
you think is the appropriate word that would make the following
sentence coherent.
1. The concept of happiness that is pertinent to human beings

has to be understood in connection with what is taken to be
his _____________.
2. Virtues are __________ that people need in order to attain

_____________.
3. Virtuous activity must encompass a human being’s __________

and __________.
4. To act virtuously is to live a __________ life.
5. The intellectual virtue called ____________ or speculative wis-

dom corresponds to the intellectual exercise of reason.
6. _________ or practical wisdom corresponds to the rational

control of the emotions.
7. For Aristotle, ethics and __________ constitute a single inquiry.
UP Open University
ASAQ 4-1
Let us see how you did in the SAQ. The blanks had been filled in
for you. Please check your answer against this.
1. The concept of happiness that is pertinent to human beings

has to be understood in connection with what is taken to be
his function.
2. Virtues are qualities that people need in order to attain happi-

ness.
3. Virtuous activity must encompass a human being’s emotional-

ity and rationality.
4. To act virtuously is to live a happy life.
5. The intellectual virtue called sophia or speculative wisdom cor-

responds to the intellectual exercise of reason.
6. Phronesis or practical wisdom corresponds to the rational con-

trol of the emotions.
7. For Aristotle, ethics and politics constitute a single inquiry.
Pleasure and Happiness

We have seen that Aristotle does not define happiness purely in terms of
pleasure. However, he says that pleasure is an integral part of virtuous
activities. By engaging in virtuous activity, a human being experiences
pleasure. Pleasure, as Aristotle (1958a) defines it is:
…a psychological experience, and every man finds that pleas-

ant for which he has a liking ….For example, a horse is a source
of pleasure to a man who is fond of horses…. In the same way
just actions are a source of pleasure to a man who likes to see
justice done, and good actions in general to one who likes
goodness....[Hence] virtuous actions are a source of pleasure
in themselves.
UP Open University
Module 4 61
Allan (1952) reveals that, “this is almost a matter of definition for Aristotle
because, for him, the person who acts virtuously likes to do so. If he be-
haves justly, it is because he wants to see justice done. He does not have to
force himself to do it. On the contrary, it is a source of enjoyment: It is
maintained that Pleasure is an external sign and accompaniment of suc-
cessful activity, whether of the mind or the senses. It shows that the fac-
ulty is healthy and that it is being exercised under good conditions. It
should follow from this…that the virtuous activities, intellectual and moral,
are intrinsically pleasant to anyone who has succeeded in making them
habitual.” Thus, pleasure is not the end that virtuous life aims for. Plea-
sure comes an accompaniment to virtuous activity.
A virtuous person exercises virtue freely and willingly. He is disposed to

act, and to want to act virtuously. Virtuous activity is characterized not
only by correct actions but by the correct disposition and emotion. To
clarify this point, Urmson (1998) uses the following example:
Let us supposed that Brown is strong, healthy, extrovert, full

of self-confidence. He is at a meeting where a course of action
which he believes to be wrong is very popular with the major-
ity; he speaks out against the policy and has no difficulty in
doing so. Let us suppose that Smith, a shy, retiring, hesistant
person, is also at the meeting and also disapproves of the popu-
lar view. He can bring himself to speak out against it only by a
great and very disagreeable effort of will.
For Aristotle, Brown is a virtuous person because he “acts effortlessly and

as he wants to act, without any internal friction” (Urmson 1998). A virtu-
ous person has already been steeped in virtuous ways. On the other hand,
others might think that moral respect and admiration should go to Smith
because he had to put in effort to deal with his anxiety.
The virtuous person is not the one who deserves the utmost moral respect
but the person we should wish our child to be. Hence, parents have the
responsibility to train their children to behave properly without effort.
The training must be manifested in virtuous activity that comes spontane-
ously from a virtuous person.
UP Open University
SAQ 4-2
Let’s try our hand at another SAQ. See how you will do this time.
Fill in this blanks with the appropriate answer.
1. Pleasure is not the end that virtuous life aims for; it comes as
an ________ to virtuous activity.
2. A virtuous person is disposed to act, and to __________ virtu-

ously.
3. Virtuous activity is characterized not only by correct actions

but by the correct _________ and __________.
4. The virtuous person is not the one who deserves the utmost
moral respect but the ________________.
ASAQ 4-2
I hope you found this SAQ easy enough. Now check if you got all
the answers correctly.
1. Pleasure is not the end that virtuous life aims for; it comes as
an accompaniment to virtuous activity.
2. A virtuous person is disposed to act, and to want to act virtu-

ously.
3. Virtuous activity is characterized not only by correct actions

but the correct disposition and emotion.
4. The virtuous person is not the one who deserves the utmost
moral respect but the person we should wish our child to be.
UP Open University
Module 4 63
How the Virtue is Acquired

Of these [two kinds of virtue] the intellectual is in the main
indebted to teaching for its production and growth…. Moral
goodness, on the other hand, is the child of habit…
(Aristotle, 1958b).
Virtue should be acquired by proper training and through the formation

of habit. There are two things that an individual should develop the ca-
pacity for: (1) to discern what needs to be done, and (2) to want to act in
the proper way. In order to develop that capacity to want to act in the
proper way, the one concerned ought to act in the appropriate manner
first. To acquire the virtues, the individual must exercise them to begin
with. We know how things are with artists. To perfect their craft, the
practice continuously. Craftsmen learn to build by building. Musicians
learn to play instruments by playing instruments:
We become just by performing just actions, temperate by per-

forming temperate actions, brave by performing brave ac-
tions….
It is in the course of our dealings with our fellowmen that we

become just or unjust. It is our behavior in a crisis and our
habitual reactions to danger that make us brave or cowardly,
as it may be. So with our desires and passions. Some men are
made temperate and gentle, others profligate and passionate,
the former by conducting themselves in one way, the latter by
conducting themselves in another, in situations in which their
feelings are involved (Aristotle, 1958b).
With proper guidance, a child forms excellent character by doing the right
thing repeatedly until he develops correct dispositions and manifests vir-
tuous behavior spontaneously. Similarly, people acquire bad habits by
repeatedly doing the wrong things.
Think about this...

If an individual acquires bravery by perform-
ing brave acts, should he not be brave already
from the beginning?
UP Open University
Although a virtuous person necessarily performs virtuous acts, it is pos-

sible for a person to perform virtuous acts before he becomes virtuous. To
be truly virtuous, a person must develop the proper disposition first. This
is what Aristotle (1958b) says:
A work of art is good or bad in itself—let it possess a certain

quality, and that is all we ask of it. But virtuous actions are not
done in a virtuous—a just or temperate way—merely because
they have the appropriate quality. The doer must be in a cer-
tain frame of mind when he does them.
There are actions that are considered just and temperate not because they
are performed by just and temperate men but merely because they coin-
cide with what just and temperate men would do. In order to be truly just
and temperate, one must not merely perform just and temperate acts but
perform just and temperate acts in the way of just and temperate persons.
Virtues as Dispositions
There are three conditions that Aristotle (1958b) says must characterize a
virtuous person’s frame of mind:
1. The agent must act in full consciousness of what he is doing.

2. He must “will” his action and will it for its own sake.
3. The act must proceed from a fixed and unchangeable disposition.
A virtue is a disposition or state of character rather than a feeling:
A man is not praised for being frightened or angry, nor is he

blamed just for being angry; it is for being angry in a particular
way (Aristotle, 1958b).
Feelings like fear and anger not willed. On the other hand, virtues can be
willed insofar as people decide to enter into the process of developing a
habit. Having learned that virtues are dispositions or states of character,
we will look into how these are to be characterized to complete our defi-
nition of virtue.
UP Open University
Module 4 65
The Doctrine of the Mean

How should a human being perform his functions as a human being well?
Here is what Aristotle (1958b) says:
The man who knows his business avoids both too much and
too little. It is the mean he seeks and adopts—not the mean of
the thing but the relative mean… Every form, then, of applied
knowledge, when it performs its function well, looks to the
mean and works to the standard set by that. It is because people
feel this that they apply the cliche, “You couldn’t add anything
to it or take anything from it” to an artistic masterpiece, the
implication being that too much and too little alike destroy
perfection, while the mean preserves it.
Perfection is the mean between the extremes of excess and deficiency. To

the extent that virtuous behavior approximates perfection, it should be
similarly interpreted. Because it deals with feelings and actions, it can be
qualified by excess, deficiency, and a mean. For example, we can have too
much or too little of fear, boldness, desire, anger, and pity. That would be
wrong. Between too much and too little, we can have them in the appro-
priate amount and that is what we should strive for. Here, then, is
Aristotle’s (1958b) definition of virtue:
Virtue [is]…a disposition of the soul in which, when it has to

choose among actions and feelings, it observes the mean rela-
tive to us, this being determined by such a rule or principle as
would take shape in the mind of a man of sense or practical
wisdom.
The virtuous man has a disposition to choose the mean to every possible
action or feeling. For instance, according to Aristotle, malice, shameless-
ness, and envy are evil in any amount. This is also true of actions such as
adultery, theft, or murder:
When a man commits adultery there is no point in asking

whether it is with the right woman or at the right time or in
the right way, for to do anything like that is simply wrong
(Aristotle, 1958b).
We should also see that the mean is not an arithmetical point. We cannot
provide fixed and absolute rules for determining what to do in specific
circumstances. The mean is to be understood in relation to agents and
particular circumstances in which they have to make decisions. We can-
not rely on specific rules. In this regard, MacIntyre (1981) observes that
the routine application of rules has no central role in Aristotle’s analysis:
UP Open University
The exercise of such judgment is not a routinizable application

of rules. Hence perhaps the most obvious and astonishing ab-
sence from Aristotle’s thought for any modern reader: there is
relatively little mention of rules anywhere in the Ethics.
What is to count as the mean varies according to the actual circumstances:

“What it is to fall into a vice cannot be adequately specified indepen-
dently circumstances: the very same action which would in one situation
be liberality could in another be prodigality and in the third meanness”
(MacIntyre 1981).
Since there are no clear and explicit rules for determining where the mean
lies, one must turn to practical wisdom. One cannot be a virtuous man
merely by being law or rule abiding.
Intellectual Virtues
A person arrives at the mean through the use of phronesis or practical
wisdom. Practical wisdom is what one uses to make decisions on practi-
cal questions of conduct. There are two important components of practi-
cal wisdom: an understanding of the end of human action, which is hap-
piness and an evaluation of appropriate means to bring about the end.
One who has practical wisdom should have the ability to choose the ap-
propriate means of arriving at the desired end. But, an evil person can
also have the same capacity. A crooked person is clever enough to deter-
mine the best way to seal a car or to use government money for his per-
sonal purposes. However, that will not amount to wisdom. Thus, practi-
cal wisdom requires something more than the ability to choose appropri-
ate means of arriving at a desired end. He must also have sufficient un-
derstanding of that end.
By itself, sufficient understanding of the end is also not enough. Practical

wisdom consists of the combination of an understanding of the end of
human action and an evaluation of appropriate means to bring about the
end. We also have to remember that phronesis and virtue are linked to
each other. A person who has practical wisdom is a virtuous person and
a virtuous person has practical wisdom.
UP Open University
Module 4 67
Cleverness is the third component of phronesis. One who has practical

wisdom also has the ability to accomplish the means that could bring
about the desired end. This component of phronesis has also been called
“executive ability,” which is different from “planning ability.” However,
a bad person can also possess the ability to plan and the ability to execute,
therefore, the possession of these abilities alone does not amount to hav-
ing practical wisdom.
Thus, phronesis has to do with action and changing things. It is concerned

with what ought to be. On the other hand, sophia or theoretical wisdom
has to do with permanent truths such as metaphysical and mathematical
knowledge and the objects of the natural sciences. It is concerned with
what is, i.e., with what mean does not have the power to change.
Aristotle considers sophia the foremost of all the virtues. According to

him, the life of contemplation is the best and therefore the happiest that a
man could lead. Next to it comes a life of practical wisdom and moral
virtue.
SAQ 4-3
State whether the following are the concerns of sophia or phronesis.
1. Imagining a theory which would unify all the theo-

ries in all branches of science.
2. Determining how a scientist should conduct herself

in her search for knowledge.
3. Showing the rationality of the belief in the existence

of God.
4. Trying to know what to be amidst a promiscuous

society.
5. Seeking for the meaning of existence.
UP Open University
ASAQ 4-3
So how was the exercise? Was it easy enough for you or did you
find it difficult? Check your answers against the answers provided.
But before you do that allow me to remind you that sophia deals
with ethereal matters such as the search for the basis of being,
while phronesis deals with mundane matters such as the concern
of what and how one should be.
sophia 1. Imagining a theory which would unify all the theo-

ries in all branches of science.
phronesis 2. Determining how a scientist should conduct her-

self in her search for knowledge.
sophia 3. Showing the rationality of the belief in the exist-

ence of God.
phronesis 4. Trying to know what to be amidst a promiscuous

society.
sophia 5. Seeking for the meaning of existence.
UP Open University
Module 4 69
Virtues of Character
Let us now consider some examples of
virtues discussed by Aristotle. Aristotle
explains the virtue of courage or brav-
Think about this...
ery by referring to the feelings inspired
by danger: fear and confidence. Cour- 1. Give an example of a situa-
age is a mean with respect to each of these tion when a person exceeds
two feelings separately. Fear is something in giving money.
that can be experienced in excess, defi- 2. Give an example of a situa-
ciency, or moderation. The person who tion when a person falls
has an excess of fear lacks courage. If he short in getting money that
lacks fear, then he is foolhardy but not is his due.
courageous. To be courageous, he has to
have fear in moderation.
The same thing may be said about the relationship between courage and
confidence. Thus courage, as a mean, lies between the excess and the
deficiency of both fear and confidence.
Temperance is the virtue that lies at the mean between excess and defi-
ciency of pleasures and pains. The excess is referred to as intemperance. It
is often associated with extreme indulgence in the pleasures of food, drink,
and sex. An intemperate person is disposed to have too much of these
things. Temperance lies as a mean between over-indulgence and insensi-
tivity towards the pleasures mentioned.
Aristotle (1958b) explains the virtue of liberality in terms of the giving and
acquisition of money. Prodigality refers to the excess while meanness re-
fers to the deficiency: “The prodigal man and the mean man exceed and
fall short in opposite ways. The prodigal exceeds in giving and falls short
in getting money, whereas the mean man exceeds in getting and falls
short in giving it away.”
UP Open University
SAQ 4-4
State the mean of the following contrasting characteristics by writ-
ing the following words next to the appropriate items below: tem-
perate, gracious, efficient, careful, modest, calculating, tactful, just,
demure, reasonable.
1. intolerant/permissive
2. timid/reckless
3. ascetic/indulgent
4. sloth/frenzied
5. indecisive/impulsive
6. pacifist/combative
7. prude/nymph
8. condescending/acerbic
9. bigoted/having not convictions
10. self-flagellating/self-exulting
ASAQ 4-4
1. intolerant/permissive gracious
2. timid/reckless careful
3. ascetic/indulgent temperate
4. sloth/frenzied efficient
5. indecisive/impulsive calculating
6. pacifist/combative just
7. prude/nymph demure
8. condescending/acerbic tactful
9. bigoted/having not convictions reasonable
10. self-flagellating/self-exulting modest
UP Open University
Module 4 71
Justice
Aristotle discusses the virtue of justice quite extensively. According to him,
there are two ways in which justice can be understood: in terms of what
is lawful or in terms of what is fair and equal. Corresponding to these two
ways are two dispositions that injustice can consist of. These are the disposi-
tion to do what is unlawful, or the disposition to propagate unfairness.
In the first sense, justice is a virtue that pertains to man’s social relation-
ships with his neighbors. Allan’s (1952) example provides a partial expla-
nation of this: “An act of cowardice, which from the agent’s own point of
view is a fault, may be viewed as an act of injustice in so far as he aban-
dons others to danger.” In the second sense, justice is distributive or reme-
dial. Distributive justice consists in the state’s proportionate disposition of
goods among its citizens. Wealth, honor and opportunities must be prop-
erly distributed. Hence, it is a matter of justice that tax burdens should be
proportionately shared.
The concern of remedial justice is the correction of unfairness. In this re-

gard, there are two types of transactions that Aristotle identifies: formal
or contractual and involuntary. Buying and selling are examples of for-
mal and contractual transactions. On the other hand, burglary, adultery,
poisoning, murder, and kidnapping are example of involuntary transac-
tions. These particular examples arise because of deception and force.
Remedial justice seeks to restore the way in which goods have been dis-
tributed if that has been distorted intentionally or unintentionally through
transactions such as those mentioned above. For example, it comes into
the picture when a debtor has to be made to pay his debts and a burglar
has to compensate his victims.
Justice is a mean like the other virtues, but it is a mean in a different sense.
It is a mean between acting unjustly and being treated unjustly. Thus, it is
a mean between extremes in disposition that pertain to different persons:
one who acts unjustly and another who allows himself to be treated un-
justly. Since acting unjustly and being treated unjustly are not disposi-
tions of the same person, justice appears to be a mean between states of
affairs. For example, it can be a mean which lies between a situation
wherein one individual has too much and a situation wherein another
individual has too much. This is the reason why Urmson (1988) has ar-
gued that justice should not be classified among the virtues:
UP Open University
Distributive and rectificatory justice, both of which can be

manifested only by someone who is acting in a judicial or quasi-
judicial capacity, simply are not excellences of character [vir-
tues] at all, nor are they manifestations of a single excellence of
character. There is no special emotion that a judge ought to
feel and exhibit to a right degree. Rather, he has to operate the
principles of justice correctly, and to this end he has to be im-
partial, without fear or favour, even-tempered and, of course,
clear-headed; in a word, he needs to be a man of generally good
character, and not to display some special trait of character.
Regardless of this criticism, Aristotle’s contribution to our understanding

of ethics in practice has been an enduring legacy. He put forward a view
of right and wrong that takes into account the fullness of human charac-
ter and not merely some specific dimensions of human actions.
SAQ 4-5
Fill in the blanks with the correct answers.
The reason why we pursue all the good things in life is to achieve
(1) ________. Happiness is the highest good because it is (2)
__________________ and (3) _____________. The three elements
of happiness according to Aristotle’s analysis is (4) _____________,
(5) ____________ and (6) _____________. The door to happiness
is (7) ______________. Virtue as a personal characteristic could
be (8) _____________ or (9) _____________. A person of virtue
acts (10) _________, (11) ___________ and (12) __________. A
person can become virtuous if he (13) _____________. Wisdom
that deals with practical matters such as with the question of how
to conduct one’s self in a situation is (14) _____________. The wis-
dom that deals with permanent truths is (15) ___________.
UP Open University
Module 4 73
ASAQ 4-5
See if your answers mach the answers here. Good luck!
The reasons why we pursue all the good things in life is to achieve
(1) happiness. Happiness is the highest good because it is (2) chosen
for its own sake and (3) self-sufficient. The three elements of happi-
ness according to Aristotle’s analysis is (4) virtue, (5) phronesis, and
(6) sophia. The door to happiness is (7) virtue. Virtue as a personal
characteristic could be (8) intellectual or (9) moral. A person of vir-
tue acts (10) correctly, (11) freely, and (12) willingly. A person can
become virtuous if he (13) keeps on doing virtuous acts. Wisdom
that deals with practical matters such as with the question of how
to conduct one’s self in a situation is (14) phronesis. The wisdom
that deals with permanent truths is (15) sophia.
Summary
Happiness is an expression of the soul and is the highest good attainable
in actions. It is so because happiness is in fact chosen for its own sake and
is self-sufficient; that is, on its own, it makes life desirable and seemingly
complete. Happiness is the reason why people pursue wealth, honor, and
all the other good things in life. Aristotle’s analysis of happiness reveals
three elements: virtue, practical wisdom or phronesis, and speculative wis-
dom or sophia. The door to happiness is virtue. It is a state of character,
which enables its possessor to attain happiness. Virtue makes one a good
person and gives the person the capacity to perform well. Virtue could be
an intellectual characteristic, or it could be a moral one. A person of vir-
tue acts correctly, freely, and willingly. A virtuous act is one that is appro-
priate to the situation in which it is carried out, and is done with the
correct disposition and emotion; that is, with the right understanding,
willingness, and gladness. To be a virtuous person one must keep on do-
ing virtuous acts until it becomes part of one’s disposition or until it be-
comes second nature to the person.
UP Open University
Phronesis is the type of wisdom needed to decide correctly on practical

matters of morality to enable one to arrive at the mean. Sophia, on the
other hand, is theoretical wisdom concerned with permanent truths and
is thought to be foremost of all wisdom. Excercising sophia entails deep
contemplation because presumably, permanent truths are highly ab-
stracted. A life of contemplation is the happiest—therefore, the best—
that a person could lead. A life of practical wisdom and moral virtue
comes next.
UP Open University
Module 5
Freedom, Determinism,
and Moral Responsibility
T he whole idea of ethics and morality can only

be meaningful if human beings are capable
of acting freely and voluntarily. If people could
Objectives
not freely choose what to do, or act freely on the After studying this module,
basis of their choices, it would not make sense to you will be able to:
say that what they do is morally good or bad. As
morally responsible individuals, human beings 1. Discuss the relationship
have to be able to choose what to do and to act between moral conse-
on the basis of a choice. Without a choice, it would quence and a person’s
also be difficult to justify passing judgment on free choice;
their character. 2. Discuss the relationship
between moral conse-
A world people by individuals who cannot freely quence and circum-
decide what to do is like a world populated by stances beyond the
robots. Robots do not think for themselves nor do actor’s control; and
they make decisions freely. And if they do not 3. Judge the liability and
make decisions freely, they cannot act freely. To degree of liability of a
act freely is to be able to do something on the ba- person who does an act
sis of what one freely decides to do. The actions of moral consequences.
of robots cannot be categorized as morally right
or wrong nor can we ascribe moral blame to them
because whatever they do is not something for which they can be held
responsible. They cannot be blamed for wrongdoing or praised for virtu-
ous activity.
But it is different with human beings because of their supposed free agency.
This module deals with the notion of freedom in relation to human ac-
tions and choices. It also discusses a human being’s moral responsibility
for his actions in a world governed by laws on hereditary and environ-
mental factors.
Freedom to Act
Let us start our discussion using the following example. A jail warden
was charged with negligence after he failed to prevent the escape of some
prisoners. He came up with n alibi, which went like this. He was escort-
ing the prisoners back from the courtroom when one of them threatened
to shoot if they were not released. This inmate happened to have a gun
that was secretly given to him by an accomplice while the hearing was
going on. The warden was taking all the precautions in accordance with
their operations manual but he was not ready for the gun. The prisoner
threatened to kill him if he did not unlock their handcuffs. Since there
was no one else around in that secluded part of the road the lone warden
could not call for help. He saved his life by releasing the culprits. He tried
his best to convince the prisoners not to proceed with their escape but he
did not succeed. He waited for an opportunity to grab the gun but that
never came.
Assuming that the warden really took all the necessary precautions, it would
not be fair to hold him morally responsible for the escape. We cannot pin the
blame on him for what happened because we know that under the circum-
stances it was not within his power to ignore the threats posed by such hard-
ened criminals. He could not have done what a jail warden ordinarily would
have been expected to do because of the unexpected turn of events. He
did not have the freedom to act in the manner that he would have ordi-
narily done.
Think about this...

Can you remember situations when you were prevented from do-
ing what you would have wanted to do? Recall the things that made
you unable to do what you wanted.
Think of hindrances in the following situations to an individual’s

freedom to act:
a. I wanted to become a doctor but…

b. I would have wanted to see a movie last night but…
UP Open University
Module 5 77
In the given situation, the warden did not have the freedom to act in the
manner expected of an officer of the law. He did not have the means or
the opportunity to do what he would have wanted to do.
Freedom to Choose
The Tale of Mistaken Identities
Twelve soldiers were told that they were on a mission to track rebels who
had burned all the houses and killed all the men in a remote village. They
were brought to an area were the rebels were supposed to have some
children as hostages. When they got to the site, they were ordered to
fire on their “enemies” who all died as a result.
The following day, the soldiers learned through the newspapers that the
people they thought were “enemies” were actually innocent farmers sus-
pected of being sympathetic to the underground movement. They said
that they would have disobeyed orders had they known who the “en-
emies” really were.
The case you have just read illustrates an additional component of free-
dom. The soldiers were not given correct information about what they
were doing. Because of the lack of information, they could not freely choose
what to do. There was no opportunity for them to make up their minds in
the given situation because they were misled by the wrong information
they were fed. In many cases, a human being’s freedom to choose is ham-
pered by inadequate or misleading information.
Freedom of choice can also impeded by a lack of mental capacity, as in

the case of very young children who cannot fully understand and appre-
ciate how their actions relate to other people and other events. In the case
of such children, we hesitate to hold them responsible for the outcome of
their choices because they still lack the maturity to judge the moral signifi-
cance of their actions, and it is not through some fault or negligence of
their own that they still lack that kind of maturity.
In still other cases, the freedom of choice can be overtuned—or dimin-

ished, whichever the case may be—by compulsive forces or undue influ-
ence. We can cite the example of a teenager who is influenced by his
parents—by “persuasive arguments” or by pressure of parental example—
to engage in immoral or criminal behavior. We will discuss this point more
thoroughly later on.
UP Open University
Two Components of Human Agency

The freedom to choose and the freedom to act represent two distinct, but
related aspects of freedom. The first one involves the will, and corresponds
to choice. The other involves capability or power, and corresponds to ac-
tions. Choice and action are two crucial components of human agency.
Moral agents are actors and decision-

makers. By assuming both of these roles, Think about this...
they are able to function as persons. As
persons, they are distinct from and mor- 1. What sort of factors can
ally superior to members of other animal hinder the freedom of choice?
species. 2. Try to recall when you were
“forced” to make a wrong
The two roles are important for the as- decision based on inadequate
cription of moral responsibility. A person or misleading information.
is held morally responsible for his actions Did you feel responsible for
because he chooses to do them. With re- the moral implications of
spect to his actions, he is not only the your decision?
performer but also the decision-maker. 3. If a very drunk person lacks
the capacity to understand
People have to give reasons when they and judge the moral signifi-
have to offer excuses for wrong doings cance of his actions, can we
blamed on them. The accused might exempt him from responsibil-
claim that his freedom was impaired and ity for the moral implications
that therefore he was not fully respon- of decisions that he makes?
sible. He does not deserve the blame. The
strategy of a person seeking to avoid
blame would consist in showing that in the situation in question, his abil-
ity to function either as a performer or as a decision-maker was compro-
mised or impeded.
Questions about the ability or inability to choose or act freely require philo-
sophical as well as empirical investigation. They can be quite controver-
sial. Take the following example of a beleaguered Bengali father’s tragic
experience.
UP Open University
Module 5 79
Think about this...

1. Can you recall situation in the past when you (or
another person) had to offer excuses for an action
or event that was being blamed on you?
2. How was your (or the other person’s) ability to func-
tion as a performer or as a decision-maker impaired?
Burumchara, Bangladesh—Mubarra Khatum is too poor to own a radio,

so he had no warning last week that a cyclone would rip through this
small town, destroying his home and wiping out his family.
By the time he and his wife realized how high the tide had risen, they had
no way to escape except by climbing onto their roof. But as the water
surged, the roof gave way under their weight, dumping Mr. Khatum, his
wife, three sons into the current.
His wife, clutching their 18-month-old son, was quickly swept away. The
two other boys, 3 and 5, clung to Mr. Khatums neck.
“They were holding me so tightly I could not breath,” he said, chocking

back tears. “Finally, I had to remove their hands so I could live.”
“Oh God,” he wailed, “I killed my own sons, I killed my own sons.”
Mr. Khatum, a salt merchant, survived by wrapping his legs around a

coconut tree.
Source: Sun, 1991
UP Open University
Mr. Khatum’s sons would not have

Think about this... died if he had hung on to them while
wrapping his legs around a coconut
tree. They only died after he let go of
1. Do you think it is correct
them. But, when he did that, was he
to say that Mr. Khatum
not under the influence of factors so
killed his own sons?
compelling that he could not have done
2. Is it more correct to say
otherwise?
that he allowed his sons
to die?
Mr. Khatum definitely did not want his
3. Is it even better (and
children to die. He did his best to save
more correct) to say that
them under the circumstances. Hence,
Mr. Khatum was forced
it seems too strong to say that Mr.
to allow his sons to die?
Khatum killed his own sons. It seems
more appropriate to say that he allowed
his sons to die, considering that he tried very hard to hold on to them. It
seems even better to say that he was forced to allow his sons to die be-
cause the pressure on him to let go of his sons was so irresistible. The
possibility of dying is something that is so threatening that almost anyone
would do something he would not otherwise do if only to avoid it. Under
the pressure of the overwhelming conditions, Mr. Khatum could not have
chosen to do something else. He did not have the occasion to choose freely.
He could not be blamed for what happened.
Determinism
Freedom of choice is problematic in more ways than we have already
discussed. For instance, there is the view that supposedly voluntary ac-
tions might only appear to be voluntary. They could actually be com-
pletely determined by factors that are not within his control. The way
one’s character has evolved, one’s personal circumstances, various social
and environmental influences, any or all of these could determine what a
person does in a given situation.
Baron Holbach’s (1970) account of the nature and development of hu-

man will exemplifies a determinist position:
Man’s life is a line that nature commands him to describe upon

the surface of the earth, without his ever being able to swerve
from it, even for an instant. He is born without his consent; his
organization does in no wise depend upon himself; his ideas
come him involuntarily; his habits are in the power of those
who cause him to contract them; he is unceasingly modified by
causes, whether visible or concealed, over which he has no control,
which necessarily regulate his mode of existence, give the hue to his
UP Open University
Module 5 81
way of thinking, and determine his manner of acting. He is good or

bad, happy or miserable, wise or foolish, reasonable or irratio-
nal, without his will being for anything in these various states.
Nevertheless, in spite of the shackles by which he is bound, it is
pretended he is a free agent, or that indepedent of the causes by
which is moved, he determines his own will, and regulates his own
condition… (emphasis added).
We are ordinarily captivated by the idea that, as human beings, we have

the freedom of the will. However as Holbach (1970) says,
The will…is a modification of the brain, by which it is disposed

to action, or prepared to give play to the organs. This will is
necessarily determined by the qualities, good or bad, agreeable
or painful, of the object or the motive that acts upon his senses,
or of which the idea remains with him, and is resuscitated by
his memory. In consequence, he acts necessarily, his action is
the result of the impulse he receives either from the motive,
from the object, or from the idea which has modified his brain,
or disposed his will. When he does not act according to this
impulse, it is because there comes some new cause, some new
motive, some new idea, which modifies his brain in a different
manner, gives him a new impulse, determines his will in an-
other way, by which the action of the former impulse is sus-
pended: thus, the sight of an agreeable object, or its idea, de-
termines his will to set him in action to procure it; but if a new
object or a new idea more powerfully attracts him, it gives a
new direction to his will, annihilates the effect of the former,
and prevents the action by which it was to be procured. This is
the mode in which reflection, experience, reason, necessarily
arrests or suspends the action of man’s will: without this he
would of necessity have followed the anterior impulse which
carried him towards a then desirable object. In all this he al-
ways acts according to necessary laws from which he has no means
of emancipating himself (emphasis added).
A more technical account is given by B.F. Skinner (1973) in Beyond Free-

dom and Dignity:
In what we may call the pre-scientific view…a person’s be-

havior is at least to some extent his own achievement. He is
free to deliberate, decide, and act, possibly in original ways,
and he is given credit for his successes and blamed for his fail-
ures. In the scientific view…a person’s behavior is determined
by a genetic endowment traceable to the evolutionary history
of the species and by the environmental circumstances to which
UP Open University
as an individual he has been exposed. Neither view can be

proved, but it is in the nature of scientific inquiry that the evi-
dence should shift in favor of the second. As we learn more
about the effects of the environment, we have less reason to
attribute any part of human behavior to an autonomous con-
trolling agent.
It seems to follow from this that human beings do not act freely. If our
actions are always governed by these necessary laws, how can we be
truly free?
Think about this...

1. Is any person ever in a position to set himself free
from hereditary factors that have a bearing on his
character?
2. Can you recall instances in your own life when you
had to make a particular decision because of the in-
fluence of your friends, your parents, or somebody.
Feeling Free: The Absence of Impediments

Determinism has been very controversial. It runs counter to feelings of
freedom that we experience when we make decisions or when we do
whatever we decide to do. We experience this kind of feeling particularly
when we make decisions like when we choose food in the cafeteria, or
when we decide when to eat, what book to read, what compact disc to
play, and many other things. When we think of the options that are open
to us, we certainly have the feeling of freedom. How can we possibly not
be free?
Occasionally, we feel some of the impediments that get it our way. But,
we often feel that those impediments are possible to overcome. Even when
they are difficult we feel that we have the opportunity to get over them.
Sometimes, we feel pressures coming from other persons. For instance,

friends might try very hard to convince us to go with them to the movies.
Or our gang might want to us to go with them on a drinking spree. Our
parents might push us to go to medical school when our inclination is to
UP Open University
Module 5 83
be a journalist. In the face of all these conflicting pressures, we may, or

may not feel strong enough to withstand these. Although we might expe-
rience similar pressures these might not be enough for us to say or to
accept that we are not free. Even in the face of such pressures, we feel
that decisions ultimately rest on us. We experience the feeling of looking
at the options and making a choice that is truly ours.
Freedom as the Capacity to Originate

Autonomous Decisions
There are two conditions of freedom that are required if a person is to be
held morally responsible for his actions: the absence of impediments to
the execution of a chosen course of action, and the capacity of individuals
to originate autonomous decisions.
By his own experience, a person would be able to say whether there are
impediments to a chosen course of action. He could feel that he does not
enjoy freedom when there are steel bars that keep him inside his prison
cell, when his mother opposes his marriage to his chosen woman, or when
he does not have enough money to buy the car he wants to buy badly.
The steel bars, the mother’s opposition, and the lack of money are impedi-
ments to the enjoyment of freedom to walk away, to marry a chosen
woman, or to buy a favored car.
On the other hand, a person might feel free when he discovers that the
driver of a car he wants to steal has left its door open with the engine
running, or that the American Embassy has given him a visa to enable
him to take that long-cherished trip to the United States. In these situa-
tions, a person gets to enjoy the freedom to do chosen things because of
the removal of impediments that were present before.
A different test seems to be required of the capacity to originate autono-

mous decisions. When we do not feel any restraint, Holbach (1970) claims,
it does not necessarily follow that we are not bound by some kind of ne-
cessity that makes us unfree:
The partisans of the system of free agency appear ever to have a

confounded constraint with necessity. Man believes he acts as a
free agent, every time he does not see anything that places ob-
stacles to his actions; he does not perceive that the motive which
causes him to will, is always necessary and independent of him-
self. A prisoner loaded with chains is compelled to remain in prison;
but he is not a free agent in the desire to emancipate himself; his
chains prevent him from acting, but they do not prevent him
UP Open University
from willing; he would save himself if they would lose his fetters;
but he would not save himself as a free agent; fear or the idea of
punishment would be sufficient motives for his action.
Man may, therefore, cease to be restrained, without, for that rea-

son, becoming a free agent: in whatever manner he acts, he will
act necessarily, according to motives by which he shall be deter-
mined (emphasis added).
In effect, Holbach is saying that even when a person does not feel any
constraints, it does not follow that there are none affecting him. Some
constraints may not be felt at all. The constraints that are not felt include
one’s own motives.
Holbach (1970) uses the following analogy to show how one’s own mo-
tives render an agent unfree:
[Man] may be compared to a heavy body that finds itself ar-

rested in its descent by an obstacle whatever: take away this
obstacle, it will gravitate or continue to fall; but who shall say
this dense body is free to fall or not? Is not its descent the nec-
essary effect of its own specific gravity?
He also gives the classic case of Socrates as an illustration:
The virtuous Socrates submitted to the laws of his country,

although they were unjust; and though the doors of his jail
were left open to him, he would not save himself; but in this he
did not act as a free agent: the invisible chains of opinion, the
secret love of decorum, the inward respect for the laws, even
when they were iniquitous, the fear of tarnishing his glory,
kept him in his prison; they were motives sufficiently powerful
with this enthusiast for virtue, to induce him to await death
with tranquility; it was not in his power to save himself, be-
cause he could find no potential motive to bring him to depart,
even for an instant, from those principles to which his mind
was accustomed.
Although Socrates is portrayed as making a free decision in refusing to

escape from prison, Holbach argues that the Greek philosopher did not
act as a free agent because there was an invisible chain of motives that
determined what he was going to do. His own motives determined what
he was going to do and kept him unfree.
UP Open University
Module 5 85
Think about this...

1. Do you recall any situations in the past when you felt that
you were being drawn to do something because of an over-
powering motivation? For example, have you ever felt that
you just had to go and see that movie right away even if
there was no more time for you to prepare for your exam
the following day?
2. If a human being were truly a slave of his motives, do you
think that it will make him free if those motives were to be
made known to him?
3. Do you think that the awareness of one’s motives can give
a person the capability to go against them or to decide which
among them he should pursue?
Man as a Slave to his Motives

There are occasions when, having been made aware of a very strong in-
clination that could have been pushing us to do something, we realize
that it will not be beneficial to us after all and that we should resist it. The
awareness of the inclination is itself a very powerful instrument that pre-
sents a person with other options. In that sense, the awareness makes him
free. However, this is not enough to convince determinists that there are
decisions that human beings can make freely.
According to the determinists, it does not mean that I am free if I am able

to fight off a very strong inclination. It only means that I have been taken
over by another inclination that emerged as the stronger one. In effect,
whatever “free choice” I make can be attributed to an inclination that
determines it. Consider the following story.
As a gift for her eighteenth birthday, a college student has been given
money as a present. The amount is enough for her to buy either a com-
puter or a karaoke set but not both. She carefully weights the benefits of
having either one or the other item.
If the college student buys a computer then she will have the opportunity
to work on her papers carefully and use the internet for research so that
she can get very good grades in her classes. If she buys a karaoke set then
she can practice her singing and improve her chances of becoming a very
good singer.
UP Open University
As she examines her options, she experiences the feeling of freedom. She
sees the future ahead of her. She feels that it is in her power to decide
what the future will be like given he available options.
How would a determinist look at this situation? A determinist could say

that as the student keeps her attention on the future, she temporarily
forgets about the past. However, the past is with her all the time. Even
when she decides what she wants in the future, she is determined by her
past.
If the student decides to buy a computer, it is probably because she has

been trained to be a serious student and to put her studies at the top of her
priorities. In other words, if she is motivated to do that, it is not because
she decided on her own what her motivations should be. The motivations
were with her already as a result of the experiences that she experienced
in the past.
If the student decides to buy a karaoke set, it is probably because she is

strongly motivated by a desire to be a good singer. She wants to be able to
practice regularly and improve some aspects of her singing. However, as
she turns her attention to the future and what she wants to make out of it,
her decision is actually governed by what has already happened in the
past. If so, what determines her choice is something that she cannot do
anything about anymore. It is already part of the past.
Freedom and Responsibility

What have we seen so far? Libertarians think of the human being as a free
agent, capable of making choices on his own. On the other hand, deter-
minists emphasize the causes and conditions that serve as constraints on
human actions that render them unfree.
For the libertarian, human beings make decisions on the basis of their
own desires and interests and, in the absence of particular insurmount-
able impediments, they can freely act on the basis of their choices. For this
reason, they can be held morally responsible for their actions. It makes
sense to blame them when they do wrong, or to praise them when they
do right. Moreover, they can justly be punished for their wrongdoing.
For determinists, whatever happens is subject to causal necessity. Human

actions and choices are like other events that are governed by laws of
nature and are capable of being explained in terms of their corresponding
causes and conditions. If that is the case, as A.J. Ayer (1954) says, holding
people responsible for what they do would seem to be irrational:
UP Open University
Module 5 87
Either it is an accident that I choose to act as I do or it is not. If

it is an accident, then it is merely a matter of chance that I did
not choose otherwise; and if it is merely a matter of chance
that I did not choose otherwise, it is surely irrational to hold
me responsible for choosing as I did. But if it is not an accident
that I choose to do one thing rather than another, then pre-
sumably there is some causal explanation of my choice: and in
that case we are led back to determinism.
This quotation leads us to think that we must try to clarify what causa-
tion means. What does it mean for an act or a choice to be caused?
Event Causation versus Agent Causation

Libertarians have tried to show that causation does not necessarily indi-
cate determinism. They base their arguments on a distinction between
even causation and agent causation. According to them, there is a mor-
ally significant difference between the way that events cause other events
to happen and the way that agents cause events to happen.
To support this distinction, we can look at the difference between the two
causes described below:
1. The rising of my arm took place because, while it was resting on top of
the table, a big dog suddenly stood up under it and pushed it up. In
the process, my arm rose with the table.
2. The rising of my arm took place because I wanted to call the waiter’s
attention.
In the first instance, the cause consists entirely of events. What we are
given is nothing more than an enumeration of events leading to the effect.
I could have given the same explanation for the rising of a book or some
other similar thing that could have been on top of the table when the
incident took place. The cause of the rising of my arm was simply a series
of events that took place. The events related to the rising of my arm in
such a way that the rising of my arm had also to take place.
What is described in no. 1 can count as an example of event causation.

Had something bad happened as a result, it would not have been proper
to blame me for it because I was not responsible for the events that un-
folded. With event causation we refer to causes that are themselves caused
by other events. It applies when there is a law-governed regularity that
may be observed such that when the cause occurs, the effect also occurs.
UP Open University
The second account involves the intercession of a human agent. It at-

tributes the rising of my arm to me as an agent. I was responsible for
raising my arm. In the second situation, it is proper to say that I raised by
arm on my own volition. It indicates agent causation. Contrast this to the
first situation where my arm simply rose.
Agent causation involves agents who are not moved by others, and hence
are not compelled to do what they do. According to those who raise the
distinction, there is no necessary connection between what an agent does
and its cause(s). A moral agent acts freely and is responsible for what he
does.
SAQ 5-1
Determine whether the following is a matter of event causation or
agent causation. If the matter is an even causation write EC on the
space provided after the item, or write AC if the item is a matter of
agent causation.
1. Seducing a rich man to have a taste of his wealth.
2. Falling off the bed while asleep.
3. Smiling to a visitor to give an appearance of plea-

sure.
4. A mango falling after being hit by strong winds.
5. Stoning a mango upon the orders of a conceiving

woman.
6. A prisoner crossing the river to escape from pursu-

ing policemen.
7. The prisoner getting washed three kilometers down-

stream by the swift current and into the police drag-
net.
8. Having consensual sexual intercourse.
9. Falling down the stairway of an unlit house.
10. Marrying for love.
UP Open University
Module 5 89
ASAQ 5-1
Let’s see how many correct answers you got! But before that, a
short reminder for you. If the mentioned cause of an event does
not involve human intention then it is a matter of event causation.
AC 1. Seducing a rich man to have a taste of his wealth.
EC 2. Falling off the bed while asleep.
AC 3. Smiling to a visitor to give an appearance of pleasure.
EC 4. A mango falling after being hit by strong winds.
AC 5. Stoning a mango upon the orders of a conceiving

woman.
AC 6. A prisoner crossing the river to escape from pursuing

policemen.
EC 7. The prisoner getting washed three kilometers down-

stream by the swift current and into the police dragnet.
AC 8. Having consensual sexual intercourse.
EC 9. Falling down the stairway of an unlit house.
AC 10. Marrying for love.
UP Open University
The Autonomous Person?

The freedom to initiate actions and resist inclinations has been explained
in terms of the existence of an autonomous person. Even if the world is
governed by natural laws, there is a feature of the moral agent that re-
mains independent and unbound.
In what follows, C. Arthur Campbell gives an account of purely self-origi-

nated activity unaffected by heredity and environment. Campbell (1938)
thinks of a moral agent who chooses to do A even when the tempting
option B appears to be compelling:
There seems to me to be one, and only one, function of the self

with respect to which the agent can even pretend to have an
assurance of that absolute self-origination which is here at
issue….[There are instances when] we all believe, rightly or
wrongly, that even although B continues to be in the line of
least resistance, even although, in other words, the situation
remains one with the characteristic marks of moral tempta-
tion, we can nevertheless align ourselves with A. We can do
so, we believe, because we have the power to introduce a new
energy, to make what we call an “effort of will,” whereby we
are able to act contrary to the felt balance of mere desire, and
to achieve the higher end despite the fact that it continues to
be in the line of greater resistance relatively to our desiring
nature. The self in practice believes that it has this power; and
believes, moreover, that the decision rests solely with its self,
here and now, whether this power be exerted or not…the agent
distinguishes sharply between the self which makes the deci-
sion, and the self which, as formed character, determines not
the decision but the situation within which the decision takes
place…. The act is felt to be a genuinely creative act, originated
by the self and ad hoc, and by the self alone.
Campbell is saying that, even if an agent’s decision at a particular mo-

ment is determined by an already formed character, that formed charac-
ter is a creation of the agent himself. Since he had a hand in the develop-
ment of that formed character, he shares the responsibility for decisions
made by it.
Here is another way of putting it. Even if an individual is a slave of his

motivations, he is nevertheless free because he had a role in the develop-
ment of those motivations. Those motivations are not entirely the creation
of others.
UP Open University
Module 5 91
Notwithstanding arguments such as those put forward by Campbell, de-

terminist are not convinced. They reply that autonomy is merely an illu-
sion. They hold that the feeling of freedom that an individual experiences
is based on ignorance of the subtle balance of genetic and environmental
forces that actually take over the decision-making process even when that
character is still being formed. Where the “autonomous” person is thought
to make a contribution to the formation of his character, the contribution
is itself a product of external factors bearing upon the individual.
Compatiblism
It is difficult to show what an individual does in a particular situation is
totally devoid of any compelling influences that render him unfree. The
reverse is equally difficult to establish—that whatever he does is the prod-
uct of determinative influences that are “external” to him or are not within
his control. We really do not have a watertight proof even if we may be
swayed one way or the other by the arguments.
However, the absence of unquestionable proof does not deter us from

proceeding on the basis of our beliefs. When we allocate moral responsi-
bility and impose punishment on people who are guilty of some form of
wrongdoing, we take for granted that people exercise moral choice. We
consider ourselves morally superior to non-human beings, mainly because
we presume that we enjoy freedom of the will while they do not. We
admire those among us who have outstanding achievements and con-
demn those who do wrong, as we do not usually doubt that they are truly
responsible for the actions that they perform. The evidence of libertarian
bias is to be found in contemporary moral thinking.
At the same time, the deterministic premises that underlie moral thought
are also pervasive. People may reject determinism but they cannot deny
the genetic and environmental influences that determine the behavior and
choices of human beings.
The deterministic presumptions are found in many of our practices. We

try very hard to modify the behavior and mold the character of children-
and even adults—when we feel that there is something that needs to be
corrected. Occasionally, we find the need to maneuver a friend (or an
enemy) into doing something that he would otherwise not want to do.
We send children to Sunday school and teach them lessons at home be-
cause we have a responsibility to shape their character. These examples
show that there is a deterministic presumption that runs alongside liber-
tarian moral thinking.
UP Open University
Regardless of the theoretical difficulties involved, we align ourselves some-

times with determinists and sometimes with libertarians. In practice, we
do not mind that the two apparently contradictory positions have fea-
tures that are integrated into common-sense moral thinking. We find it
difficult to discard either position because to do so would make us aban-
don moral considerations and common sense assumptions that are im-
portant for us.
An effort to reconcile libertarianism with determinism is found in a theo-

retical position called compatiblism. According to proponents of
compatibilism, freedom and determinism are actually consistent with each
other. Libertarianism and determinism may both the upheld without con-
tradiction or inconsistency.
One thing that can help is to clarify the notion of a free self that is built
into the strong position of libertarians and determinists alike.
Regardless of their differences, libertarians

and determinists hold on to the idea of a
Think about this... self that is free to the extent that it is ca-
pable of screening its own inclinations and
1. Is it possible for a person dispositions. It is autonomous if it is not
to be totally unaffected by bound by genetic and environmental con-
hereditary forces? straints. However, there is no one who can
2. Can a person ever exist be autonomous in this sense. There is no one
without having inherited who can be independent of genetic con-
anything? straints. If anyone can be anyone at all, he
3. Is it possible for a person must start from the genetic material that he
to be totally independent has no control over.
of his environment?
4. Can you imagine a person More and more, the effects of genes on hu-
who is able to resist every man character are being uncovered by ge-
possible influence of the netic research. For instance, evidence has
environment upon his ac- become available about links between spe-
tions and choices? cific genes and criminal behavior, sexual ag-
gression, intelligence quotient, and even ho-
mosexuality. There are many more genes that have been linked to various
aspects of a human being’s physical development. In turn, a person’s physi-
cal development determines what a person can or cannot do, thus limit-
ing his freedom to that extent.
UP Open University
Module 5 93
Think about this...

1. Do you agree that what a person inherits limits his
freedom to act and make choices?
2. Can you recall any instances when you felt like you
were doing something, or wanted to do something,
because that was what your father or mother would
also have done?
In order to downplay the effects of genetic factors on human behavior

and character, some people point out that it is not only nature that exer-
cises a deterministic influence. Nurture also plays a role. This means that
aside from what a person inherits, the upbringing also has a lot to do with
how a person’s character develops.
However, downplaying the role of the genes does not necessarily entail
the failure of determinism. It only means that factors other than heredity
also account for the molding of a person’s character. There are many
different factors that combine to shape a person’s self. What we should
strive to understand more fully is the nature of the relationship between
compelling factors and the self.
Anyone who exists comes with a degree of inherited material. That is a

fact of life. That is as unanvoidable as having parents. If anybody is to be
born at all, he must have such genetic material already.
We also cannot deny that such ge-

Think about this... netic material exists within oneself.
It is not external but internal to the
1. Do hereditary and envi- person. It lies within the individual
ronmental constraints ex- and is part of the individual and is
ist as “external” factors part of the individual even before he
that defeat an individual’s is born. Thus, the genetic influence is
freedom to act or to part of the self rather than something
choose? Are these con- outside it that acts on it as an exter-
straints coming from out- nal force. Genetic constraints cannot
side the self? be separated from the self because
2. Do you feel the character without such constraints, there
traits that you inherited would be no self at all to begin with.
from your parents as pres-
sures coming from outside
your self?
UP Open University
We can say the same thing as regards environmental constraints. Even

when an embryo is still in the womb, it is already being molded by its
environment. The self, even as an embryo, is already inseparable from its
surroundings. Without an environment, there would be no self. Hence,
the environment is in a very real sense, part of the self.
These observations show that is not totally correct to say that genetics
and environment are external constraints upon the self. Even if they can
be seen as constraints, they are not external to the individual. Being in-
separable from the self, these constraints are actually constitutive of it.
They define the identity of an individual and make it one self rather than
another. Take the following example of this 15-year-old girl.
A 15-year old girl and her 2 sisters were singly raised by their mother,
who has been a prostitute even before they were born. They live in a
community where prostitution proliferates. The 15-year-old and her sis-
ters have been out of school for a long time and all their lives, they were
exposed to the ways of prostitutes. Nobody ever explained to them that
prostitution was wrong.
Because their mother has not been earning much, they often do not have
enough money to buy important needs. It is only when a generous cus-
tomer pays her that the family is able to afford a few luxuries. Thus, they
awaited such events eagerly.
Now that the mother is getting old, the 15-year-old has also started to
work as a prostitute. She gradually drifted into that kind of work as she
felt the pressure of having to provide for her family.
In this story we see the kind of environment that pressures the girl to live
a life of prostitution. We can also see how her environment shaped her
life from the beginning. From her early childhood, the experience was
part of her life already. It was not just an external factor that presented
itself to her as an attractive option. It was her past that has also become
part of her identity. It constitutes part of her. She is who she is now be-
cause her environment molded her to become who she is.
To be sure, her environment could have been totally different. The girl
could have had the opportunity to study had she and her family received
the needed financial support. She could have lived with her aunt in a
different place. She could have been brought up in a home for abandoned
children run by nuns. If so, she would have had a radically different envi-
ronment. But then, she would also have been a different individual.
UP Open University
Module 5 95
The point is that it is not accurate to speak of that environment as some-

thing external to the person because it significantly constitutes her iden-
tity. It constitutes part of who she is because the environment plays an
active role in how a person will turn out to be. While the girl’s environ-
ment as she grew up could have been different, what is certain is that she
could not have grown up outside of any environment.
Think about this...

Can you imagine a person to exist independently of her
environment or genetic background?
Hence, it is not realistic to say that freedom lies in her ability to act totally
independent of any environment. This is absurd. What this means is that
if anyone can be considered free, she would have to be non-existent be-
cause she would have to be without any genetic or environmental deter-
minants. If you strip a person of all hereditary and environmental factors
that determine his or her behavior or personality, you would not have
any individual left. He would not exist.
Since it is impossible for any person to be totally rid of all environmental

or genetic determinants of behavior, our attempt to understand moral
responsibility must be based on a practicable notion of freedom. A practi-
cable notion of freedom cannot be an all-or-nothing thing. One cannot be
either simply free or simply unfree. If we say that a person is free, there
must be something specific that we have in mind that she is free to do.
Similarly, if we say that a person is unfree, there must be something spe-
cific that we have in mind that she is unfree to do. Otherwise, our asser-
tion of freedom or unfreedom would not make sense.
Moreover, if we say that a person is free in a given situation, there must be

some constraints or obstacles with respect to which she is free. She cannot
be just free. There must be something that she is free to do and some
constraints that could get in her way but are not present.
For example, a woman whose marriage is annulled after a long wait could
say that she is finally free. The context provides the details for her state-
ment. It could mean that she is free to walk away from her husband or
that she is free to marry another man. The obstacles to her being able to
do that had been removed by the annulment. Even if she is not very spe-
cific in making her announcement, we can get details from the context of
her utterance. She is not just free. There are specific things that she has
been given the freedom to do with the annulment of her marriage.
UP Open University
Think about this...

1. Name three things that are important to you that
you are free to do.
2. For each of the things you named in number 1, iden-
tify constraints that could have prevented you from
doing it.
Determined, but Free

and Morally Responsible
Clarifying the notion of freedom shows how a person could be deter-
mined and free at the same time. Every person is determined in the sense
that he could not be detached from his genetic and environmental con-
straints on his behavior. However, it is improper to say that he is unfree
on those grounds because those constraints are part of rather than exter-
nal to him. At the same time, we can say that he is free in relation to
particular actions that are not impeded by identifiable factors external to
him.
But what are the implications for moral responsibility? Does the admis-
sion that a person is a product of heredity and the environment mean
that there can be no moral responsibility? The answer is “no” but the
notion of responsibility also has to be clarified. Just as freedom is not an
all-or-nothing thing, moral responsibility also is not an all-or-nothing thing.
What do we mean by saying that moral responsibility is not an all-or-
nothing situation?
When a particular wrongdoing takes place, there is not just one indi-
vidual person who is responsible. There are usually a number of factors
that have to coincide to lead to the wrongdoing. In a given situation, the
participation of a criminal who is caught with a knife in his hand while
standing over a dead victim is likely to be the most visible (and thus, obvi-
ous) factor. But there are other factors that other people could have done
something about. Thus, there are usually a number of people who can be
said to be responsible in different ways.
UP Open University
Module 5 97
In a given situation, a person who is morally responsible is not necessarily

the one to blame for the wrongdoing. Many people try to avoid any as-
cription of responsibility because, for them, that would also be an admis-
sion of guilt and an admission that they ought to take the blame. It will
help to clarify the notion of responsibility if we take guilt and blame out of
the picture. Take the following case:
Big J was only two years old when his parents abandoned him. He was
left to fend for himself together with other streetchildren. He was exposed
to the elements and had neither shelter nor a regular source of food. Even-
tually, he became a pickpocket and a drug dependent. After he was caught
stealing, he was put in prison. In prison, Big J was exposed to violence
and sexual perversions. Since then, he has been in and out of prison a few
more times.
When Big J gets apprehended, people

would easily ascribe criminal his re-
sponsibility to him. He is the one that Think about this...
gets caught in the process of doing
something wrong. However, there 1. Name other factors that
are a number of other factors that could have “conspired” to
would have led to the commission bring about Big J’s crimes.
of the crime. For one thing, we can 2. Given the factors named
identify the inadequacy of govern- in number 1, suggest
ment support for social amelioration what could have been
projects. If we go back far enough done to avoid the crimes.
in time, we can point to the indis- 3. Who could have done
cretion of the parents who, notwith- those things?
standing their poverty, brought Big
J to the world.
In a society such as ours, we can identify many factors that could have
led to Big J’s crimes. The reality of drug pushers trying to take advantage
of street children cannot be discounted. The same goes for government
officials who are sleeping on their jobs. Our prison system that hardens
rather than softens criminals is also a present reality. All these are con-
tributory factors that different people could do something about. Gener-
ally, people would avoid having to be blamed for these factors. This is
why it would be more useful to focus on responsibility. But, responsibility
should not be tied up with blame and guilt.
To be responsible is to be in a position to do something to abort a wrong-

doing, no matter whose wrongdoing it might be. All the people who are
in a position to prevent crimes such as those committed by Big J are mor-
ally responsible. They are responsible only in that sense, and not in the
sense that they ought to be found guilty, blamed, and punished. As a
UP Open University
society, we should be able to do something to correct our mistakes and

minimize future wrongdoing. To be able to do this, we have to assume
responsibility. This is a notion of responsibility that we have to take on for
ourselves, rather than a notion of responsibility that arises from our being
guilty of, and being blamed for wrongdoing.
ACTIVITY 5-1
Read the following story and try to answer the questions at the
end of the story.
Bruto sits alone in his death row cell. He had been convicted of
sodomizing and strangling a ten-year-old boy. But his lawyer is
appealing the case. He argues that Bruto is a victim of bad genes
and his brutal environment.
Bruto was born out of wedlock. His mother was an alcoholic who
drank excessively while she was pregnant with him. While a tod-
dler, his mother lived with a man who beat him day in, day out,
sometimes banging his head against the wall until he lost his con-
sciousness. While he was about five or six, his mother drove him
out of their shack, and into the streets. He had to fend for himself
for a couple of years until a religious order took him into their
orphanage.
In the orphanage, the supervising chaplain fellated and sodomized

him regularly. This drove Bruto out of the streets once more. Some-
how, Bruto survived and grew up to be twenty-five. It was this
time when he committed the crime for which he was sentenced.
Though psychologists and psychiatrists who examined him con-

cluded he was not insane, he was definitely mentally retarted, with
an IQ of a six-year-old boy. Given these circumstances, his lawyer
argued that while he should be incarcerated to protect society from
him, he should not be punished, let alone executed because it was
not his fault that everything went terribly wrong for him. Even
before he was born, Bruto did not have an opportunity to grow up
normally. All that went his way was a bestial existence that robbed
him of the opportunity to be trained to live a proper life.
Should Bruto be held responsible for his dastardly act? Why? Why
not?
UP Open University
Module 5 99

There are neither absolutely right nor wrong answers to this. There
are only the well argued, poorly argued and unargued answers.
Your answer will be gauged by the cohesiveness of its inferences,
the factuality of the claims made, and the plausibility of the theo-
ries presented.
SAQ 5-2
Supply the answers to the following:
1. The two conditions under which blame or praise for an act

could be relevant are:
a.
b.
2. The two aspects of freedom are:
a.
b.
3. The two components of human agency are:
a.
b.
4. The freedom compatible with moral agency involves:
a.
b.
5. Determinists say that a person is not free because what one
voluntarily does may actually be determined by circumstances
beyond one’s control, such as, ________________.
6. A person’s autonomy, even in the absence of external impedi-
ments, is undermined by the fact that he is
_________________.
7. The two capacities of a person which encourage advocates of
human autonomy to stand by their position are:
__________________ and _______________.
8. The causing of an event by an impersonal event is called
_________________.
9. The causing of an event by human intention is called
______________.
10. The synthesis of the theories of freedom and determinism is
_______________.
UP Open University
SAQ 5-3
1. The two conditions under which blame or praise for an act
could be relevant are:
a.
b.
2. The two aspects of freedom are:

a.
b.
3. The two components of human agency are:

a.
b.
4. The freedom compatible with moral agency involves:

a.
b.
5. Determinists say that a person is not free because what one

voluntarily does may actually be determined by circumstances
beyond one’s control, such as, ______________.
6. A person’s autonomy, even in the absence of external impedi-

ments, is undermined by the fact that he is
_____________________.
7. The two capacities of a person which encourage advocates of

human autonomy to stand by their position are:
_________________ and _______________.
8. The causing of an event by an impersonal event is called

_____________.
9. The causing of an event by human intention is called

_________________.
10. The synthesis of the theories of freedom and determinism is

_____________.
UP Open University
Module 5 101
Summary
For libertarians, ethics and morality are closely tied with people’s capabil-
ity to freely choose their actions. Without this choice, it would not make
sense to judge people’s character and actions as morally good or bad.
People decide based on their desires and interests and without hurdles
coming in the way of these choices, people can freely act on the basis of
their choice. This freedom of choice allows us to hold ourselves morally
responsible for our actions.
Determinists believe otherwise. To them, the freedom of choice that we

think we enjoy is just an illusion. There is no such thing as a free choice on
account of the causes and conditions which actually render us unfree.
What do we mean by this? When we choose certain actions, our choices
are actually subject to genetic and environmental factors that take over
our decision-making. There is no escape from these factors since we are
born in it and live in it as well. These factors impinge on us and actually
tell on our decisions. Determinists, believe that people, since they cannot
really make their decisions freely, should not be held morally responsible
for their actions.
Compatiblism bridges the differences between the determinist and liber-

tarian views regarding judging the morality of actions. People who sub-
scribe to compatiblism believe that freedom and determinism are actually
consistent with each other. To them, we are both subject to the genetic
and envirometnal factors that affect our choices, but this does not mean
that our freedom of choice is constrained as determinists believe because
in actuality, these factors are actually part of us. These factors are built in
us or are not external to us. With this in mind, does this mean that we
cannot be held morally responsible for our actions? On the contrary, we
are still morally responsible for our actions; however, blame, incase of
wrong doing, cannot be placed solely on an individual. Instead, blame
should be ascribed to society who has the duty to correct our mistakes
and to minimize future wrongdoing. This is what responsibility is all about.
UP Open University
UP Open University
Module 6
Punishment
O ne of the ways our parents taught us right

from wrong was by punishing us. Per-
haps, we were scolded, made to stand in a cor-
Objectives
ner, or even spanked when we disobeyed their After studying this module,
commands. Like our parents, society has come you will be able to:
up with ways to punish those who have bro-
ken the rules it has come up with. Some say 1. Define punishment;
society does this as a way of delivering justice. 2. Enumerate the elements
Others are wont to say that it is a way of deter- that make up punish-
ring possible offenders from committing crimes ment;
in the future. 3. Distinguish punishment
from revenge;
Punishment meted out by society comes in a 4. Identify the major theo-
variety of ways and degrees of severity. For in- ries that help us to ex-
stance, the Mosaic law of the Hebrews and the plain when and why we
Qu’ran of the Muslims list in detail correspond- impose punishment; and
ing punishments for a variety of crimes, which 5. Differentiate fair from
can range from ostracism, stoning, and even unfair punishment.
death. In the Arab world, a crime such as mur-
der merits death be decapitation while robbery
will automatically get a robber’s hand to be cut off. Here in the Philip-
pines, people who commit rape and plunder are meted out death by le-
thal injection.
Behind these different forms of punishments are different theories that

prop up or substantiate society’s right to punish offenders. In this module
we will examine closely the concept of punishment and the three main
theories that help us explain when and why we make offenders suffer for
their wrongdoing.
Elements of Punishment
DENR exec draws life for

Mindanao town mayor’s murder
The Sandiganbayan has sentenced to life imprisonment a Department of

Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) executive for the murder of
an Agusan del Sur town mayor in 1990.
In a 36-page decision penned by Associate Justice Nicodemo Ferrer, the

Sandiganbayan’s Fourth Division also found Raul Zapatos, a DENR com-
munity environment and natural resources officer, guilty of frustrated
murder for wounding the mayor’s bodyguard during the Jan. 14, 1990
attack at the DENR checkpoint in Bayugan, Agusan del Sur.
Bayugan Mayor Leonardo Cortez was killed in the incident. His security
aide, Socrates Platero, was seriously wounded.
Zapatos was meted maximum 14 years in prison for the wounding of

Platero. He was also ordered to indemnify the heirs of Cortez and Platero
P50,000 and P25,000, respectively.
Court records showed that Zapatos fired upon Cortez and Platero, to-
gether with PO1 Michael Gatilo, with an M-16 rifle when the three, armed
with Armalite rifles, sought the accused at the DENR Strike Force check-
point at about 8 p.m. on Jan. 14, 1990.
Source: www.manilatimes.net
UP Open University
Module 6 105
Punishment is the infliction of some kind of suffering or loss by somebody

with authority on an offender for an offense committed. Looking at the
parts of this definition, we can identify the following elements that are
present in punishment:
Inflicted suffering or loss Form
l Offense
l Offender Context
l Authority
Inflicted suffering or loss is the means by which punishment is imposed.

To inflict suffering is to make life difficult, while the inflict loss is to take
something away from somebody. Punishment takes various forms like
lethal injection, imprisonment, lashing, fines, and travel restrictions. All
of these forms of punishment can bring about suffering or the loss of some-
thing valued.
To serve as punishment, the infliction of suffering or loss must take place

as part of an appropriate context that contains the other elements listed
earlier. The first of these elements is an identifiable offense. Punishment
cannot be imposed whimsically or capriciously. This mean that there must
be reason why it is being imposed and there must be an offense for which
the person being punished is held responsible.
An offense, on the other hand, is a violation of a law or rule of conduct. In

most cases, the laws or rules also indicate the corresponding punishment.
If there is an offense there must be an offender upon whom the punish-
ment is imposed. The punishment cannot be imposed on just anybody
who can be hurt or deprived. To complete the appropriate context, there
must also be an authority to administer the punishment. The authority is
bestowed the power to identify offenders, determine offenses, and imple-
ment the corresponding forms of punishment.
UP Open University
SAQ 6-1
Fill in the blanks with the correct answer.
Punishment may be defined as the infliction of (1) __________ or

(2) __________ by somebody with (3) ___________ on an offender
for an offense committed. The infliction of suffering or loss, in or-
der to constitute punishment, must take place in an appropriate
context, which contains the following elements: (4) _________,
(5) ___________, and (6) ___________.
ASAQ 6-1
Punishment may be defined as the infliction of (1) suffering or (2)
loss by somebody with (3) authority on an offender for an offense
committed. The infliction of suffering or loss, in order to constitute
punishment, must take place in appropriate context, which con-
tains the following elements: (4) offense, (5) offender, and (6) authority.
Theories of punishment
A theory of punishment provides justification for imposing punishment.
It also helps explain the type of suffering or loss that ought to be inflicted
for the different offenses committed by offenders. It serves as basis for
determining when and how punishment may be imposed.
Depending on the theory of punishment that we favor, we can have vary-

ing attitudes towards offenders. We can also have varying ideas as to the
fairness or unfairness of the specific forms of punishment that we impose.
UP Open University
Module 6 107
Kalinga governor spends Christmas in jail

By Mike Guimbatan Jr.
Tabuk, Kalinga-Governor Domingo Belac celebrated his Christmas in

jail, eating and sleeping with convicts not to cheer them up but as an
inmate serving his sentence for a crime committed in 1993 when he was
still municipal mayor of Pinuk-puk.
For punching a highway engineer supervising a road improvement project

causing road blocks during a town fiesta, the governor was sentenced in
1995 to a prison term of two years and one day to four years.
Belac voluntarily committed himself to jail last Dec. 7 and expected to

serve his sentence until Feb. 8 this year in preparation for his bid for re-
election. He expected this to be his last legal battle.
Source: www.manilatimes.net
Punishment as retribution
An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.
Exodus 21:24
The retributive theory of punishment is captured by this biblical verse

people often hear. The thought that this epigram puts across may be sum-
marized in the words of the German philosopher Immanuel Kant (1790):
“Punishment…must in all cases be imposed only because the individual
on whom it is inflicted has committed a Crime.”
Through this passage, Kant promotes the idea that punishment must be
imposed on an offender for the sole reason that punishment is deserved.
Given any offense, there is always a corresponding type and degree of
penalty that ought to be imposed. According to the retributive theory, the
only thing that matters in deciding what punishment to impose is justice.
All we have to think about is the suffering or loss that the offender in-
flicted and the corresponding suffering or loss that the offender must there-
fore bear. If an offender took away somebody else’s eye, that offender
must pay with his or her own eye. If an offender took away a life, that
offender must pay with his or her own life.
UP Open University
The effects resulting from the imposition of punishment are not impor-
tant. It is not imposed in order to bring peace to society. The objective is
not to reform the offender or to prevent others from committing the same
offense, Kant (1790) says,
Punishment can never be administered merely as a means for

promoting another Good, either with regard to the Criminal
himself or to Civil Society…. [The criminal] must first be found
guilty and punishable, before there can be any thought of draw-
ing from his punishment any benefit for himself or his fellow
citizens.
Even if the imposition of punishment could have the effect of reforming

the offender or preventing others from committing the crime, those are
not the intended objectives. Insofar as the retributive theory is concerned,
these benefits are unintended and are not the real reason for imposing,
punishment. They are also not the correct basis for evaluating the success
of a form of punishment that has been implemented.
SAQ 6-2
Fill in the blanks with the correct words.
A theory of punishment provides a (1) _________ for imposing

punishment. Immanuel Kant promotes the idea that punishment
must be imposed on an offender for the sole reason that it is (2)
___________. According to the retributive theory, all that matters
in considering punishment is (3) ____________.
UP Open University
Module 6 109
ASAQ 6-2
A theory of punishment provides a (1) justification for imposing
punishment. Immanuel Kant promotes the idea that punishment
must be imposed on an offender for the sole reason that it is (2)
deserved. According to the retributive theory, all that matters in
considering punishment is (3) justice.
SAQ 6-3
Tell whether the statement is true or false and then explain your
answer.
According to the retributive theory, punishment must be imposed

in order to bring peace to the community.
ASAQ 6-3
False. The retributive theory is first and foremost concerned with
punishing the offender punished with equal severity as the harm
he inflicted to his victim. And this is the just thing to do. Peace and
order might only be inadvertent results of this.
UP Open University
Retribution versus revenge

It is quite easy to confuse retribution with revenge. Retribution and re-
venge tend to get mixed up because they both involve the infliction of
suffering or loss deliberately upon an offer for an offense that the latter
has committed. But retribution can be distinguished from revenge in the
following ways:
First, revenge is usually something personal. On the other hand, retribu-

tion is institutional. Retribution takes its significance from the rules and
values of an institution, like those of the society that we are part of.
Second, revenge is usually exacted by somebody, in behalf of a friend or

relative who might have been harmed by the offender. In contrast, retri-
bution is exacted by society in general, or by its authorized representa-
tives.
Third, retribution is imposed for a wrongdoing while revenge is done in

response to an injury or harm (in the eyes of the avenger) which may not
actually be wrong. For example, a criminal might want to exact revenge
on a judge who, in the just and legitimate exercise of a duty, imposed a
long prison sentence on him.
Fourth, a theory of retribution sets an objective limit to the amount of

punishment—the punishment imposed must be proportionate to the of-
fense. On the other hand, the only limit to revenge is the satisfaction of
the avenger’s sentiments.
Fifth, retribution is meant to be applicable to all. It recognizes a mandate

for inflicting uniform punishment in similar cases. By contrast, revenge is
not meant to be universally applicable. The sentiments of an avenger only
pertain to the case at hand.
Finally, in retribution, the aim is to implement justice. The satisfaction of

the punishing agent is only incidental. However, revenge directly aims to
satisfy the avenger. The differences between retribution and revenge are
summarized in the table below:
UP Open University
Module 6 111
Table 6-1. Retribution versus Revenge
RETRIBUTION REVENGE
Authority-base Personal
Imposed by society Exacted by friends or relatives
Always a response to wrongdoing or May be a response to justified harm

injustice (for example, to a sentence of impris-
onment imposed legitimately by a
judge)
Aims to implement justice Aims to satisfy avenger
Form of punishment must be propor- No limit to inflicted suffering except

tionate to offense satisfaction of avenger’s sentiments
Objective and applicable to all in simi- Applicable only to case at hand

lar circumstances
SAQ 6-4
1. Retribution is often confused with _____________.
2. While the concept of punishment as retribution is based on

authority, revenge is based on __________ motivations.
3. Whereas retributive punishment is imposed by society through

its institutions, revenge is exacted by ____________________.
4. Retribution seeks to implement justice but retribution seeks to

___________.
UP Open University
ASAQ 6-4
1. Retribution is often confused with revenge.
2. While the concept of punishment as retribution is based on

authority, revenge is based on authority, revenge is based on
personal motivations.
3. Whereas retributive punishment is imposed by society through

its institutions, revenge is exacted by the aggrieved party, or his
relatives and friends.
4. Retribution seeks to implement justice but retribution seeks to

satisfy the avenger.
UP Open University
Module 6 113
Retribution and the severity of punishment
Florida teen gets life sentence

Judge rejects pleas for leniency,
New trial for boy convicted for first-degree murder
March 9, 2001
Web posted at: 12:48 p.m. EST (1748 GMT)
FORT LAUDERDALE, Florida (CNN)—A Florida judge sentenced 14-year-

old Lionel Tate to life in prison on Friday for killing a 6-year-old girl when he
was 12.
Judge Joel Lazarus rejected pleas for a new trial or reduced sentence, citing
testimony about the severity of the beating inflicted on Tiffany Eunick that he
said precluded doubt about what happened.
“The jury has spoken loudly and unanimously,” Lazarus said. “And I am
convinced they were correct.”
Defense attorney Jim Lewis said after the sentencing that the defense team
intends to appeal the decision and to seek a clemency ruling from Gov. Jeb
Bush.
In January, a jury convicted Lionel of killing Tiffany while the 166-pound boy
was practicing professional wrestling moves on the 48-pound girl. Tiffany’s
death and the beating that killed her, the jury ruled, constituted child abuse.
Lazarus said it was beyond question that Lionel knew what he was doing on
the day Tiffany died.
“The evidence of guilt was overwhelming,” he said, dismissing defense ar-

guments that Tiffany’s death was an accident, especially given the consider-
able size difference between the two. “Lionel Tate’s guilt is clear, obvious and
undisputed.”
The Broward Country judge said his court had no jurisdiction to rule on
defense contentions that a Florida law mandating that Lionel be tried as an
adult—and sentence to life in prison on conviction—was wrong. “These are
legislative decisions that should be addressed with the legislature, and not
judicial decisions,” the judge said.”
Lazarus also rejected arguments that the sentence was cruel and unusual
punishment, that neither Lionel nor his mother understood what was before
them when they rejected a plea bargain and that a psychiatrist’s remarks
may have prejudiced the case against him.
Source: cnn.com
UP Open University
The concept of punishment-as-deserved includes the idea that its form

and degree of severity must be based only on the form and degree of
severity of the offense. No other factors can be allowed to lessen the pen-
alty. Honderich (1971) declares,
[The offender] must not be given a lesser penalty than he de-

serves for his action even if it is true, as sometimes it is thought
to be, that some lesser penalty will reform him or benefit others
while the penalty he deserves will make recidivism likely.
The importance of this consideration is emphasized when we see how the

other side of the requirement looks:
A sane man who has obeyed the law must not be made to
suffer, even if this would have the good effect, for example, of
keeping him from committing offenses he otherwise is thought
likely to commit (Honderich 1971).
In the same manner, the penalty should not be made more severe just
because we want the punishment to serve as a warning to others:
Given that every man must be treated exactly as he deserves,

an offender’s penalty must not be increased over what he de-
serves even if it is believed that a more severe penalty is needed
as an example to deter others from the same offense.
The point being made is that it would

be unfair to a guilty party, even if he
is truly guilty, that he should be made
Think about this...
to suffer a penalty that is greater than
he deserves because it would serve the 1. What punishment may
purpose of deterring others from com- be proportionate to
mitting the same or similar offenses. stealing?
To do so would be unfair because it 2. Should we steal from a
would involve the use of the person person who has been
being punished as a mere instrument caught stealing?
to attain the desired ends. On the other 3. Some philosophers have
hand, it would also be unfair to soci- suggested that castra-
ety to lessen the penalty because a tion is a proportionate
lesser form of suffering would be punishment for a rapist.
enough to prevent the guilty party 4. Should a rapist be raped
from committing the same offense in in return?
the future.
UP Open University
Module 6 115
The governing principle to decide the degree of punishment to be im-

posed for a particular crime or offense is proportionality. The severity of
punishment must be proportionate to the severity of the offense for which
the offender is being punished. However, it is not always easy to deter-
mine when the form or amount of suffering or loss is proportionate to a
given offense. The task may be easy enough if we talk about a murderer
as deserving capital punishment. The offender must pay for life taken
with one’s own life. However, the form and degree of punishment that
can correspond to a particular crime or offense is not always clear.
SAQ 6-5
1. According to the retributive theory, the form and degree of

severity of punishment must be based only on the
______________ and ______________ of the offense.
2. It would be ________________ to a guilty party, even if he is

truly guilty, that he should be made to suffer a penalty that is
greater than he deserves.
3. To impose a greater penalty for the purpose of frightening other

criminals would involve the use of the person being punished
as a ___________ to attain the desired ends.
5. The governing principle to decide the degree of punishment to

be imposed for a particular crime or offense is
_______________.
UP Open University
ASAQ 6-5
How did you do? See how many correct answers you got by check-
ing your own answers against the answer key below.
1. According to the retributive theory, the form and degree of

severity of punishment must be based only on the form and
degree of severity of the offense.
2. It would be unfair to a guilty party, even if he is truly guilty,

that he should be made to suffer a penalty that is greater than
he deserves.
3. To impose a greater penalty for the purpose of frightening other

criminals would involve the use of the person being punished
as a mere instrument to attain the desired ends.
4. The governing principle to decide the degree of punishment to

be imposed for a particular crime or offense is proportionality.
If we look at forms of punishment that are being implemented around the

world, we can see that what is considered proportionate to a particular
kind of wrongdoing varies from country to country. The forms of punish-
ment usually conform to the cultural beliefs and traditions that relate to
crime and punishment. There is not just one form of punishment that is
proportionate to every kind of wrongdoing that might be committed.
Some problems with the retributive theory

The most obvious problem that crops up with the retributive theory is
that it does not consider the consequences of the different types of pun-
ishment that authorities impose. For instance, there are serious difficulties
that arise from the effects of punishment on close relatives, especially de-
pendents. If the offender is a breadwinner and he is put in prison, the
punishment is bound to have an effect not only on him but also on his
family and on those who are dependent on him in some way even though
they themselves are not guilty. Hence, critics say that there are at least
some cases when the application of punishment in the retributive sense
results in injustices to people. Those forms of injustice cannot be corrected
UP Open University
Module 6 117
because, to begin with, the retributive

theory of punishment does not allow for Think about this...
the consideration of the consequences that
may come as an effect of the imposition of
1. If persons prove to crimi-
punishment.
nally violent behavior are
incarcerated in order to
Habitual criminals and persons with im-
prevent them from com-
paired mental capacity pose another kind
mitting crimes, can we
of problem for the retributive theory. Ha-
say that they are being
bitual criminals are a problem because if
punished?
we know that they are likely to repeat their
2. If we do not consider this
offense then we have to do something
as punishment, how
about it. The most rational thing to do
should be consider re-
would be to confine them in order to pre-
straints imposed on per-
vent repetition of the offense. However, we
sons with limited mental
can only punish violators for what they
capacity who have a ten-
have already done, not for what they
dency to harm other
might do. To confine them would be to im-
people?
pose a deterrent rather than to impose a
retributive punishment for what has al-
ready been committed.
Persons with violent tendencies but who have an impaired mental capac-
ity pose a problem for the same reason. Even if they have not committed
wrongdoing, there is fear that they could easily become violent or de-
structive. Hence, it is sometimes necessary to apply some kind of restraint
on them. However, the restraint will constitute a kind of punishment that
will have no crime or offense to correspond to.
These difficulties lead us to think that while there are some points going
in favor of the retributive theory of punishment, it cannot fully account
for some aspects of accepted wisdom concerning the imposition of pun-
ishment and restraints.
Punishment as deterrent
The retributive theory can be contrasted with the deterrence theory of
punishment. The retributive theory turns its attention to the past as it
examines the nature and gravity of the offense together with the corre-
sponding penalty. On the other hand, the deterrence theory is future-
oriented. As Plato back in 360 B.C. observed in the Laws, it turns its atten-
tion on the results and intended consequences of the imposition of pun-
ishment:
UP Open University
Not that he is punished because he did wrong, for that which

is done can never be undone, but in order that in future times,
he, and those who see him corrected, may utterly hate injus-
tice, or at any rate abate much of their evil-doing.
There are a number of biblical references to deterrence. The following

passage taken from Deuteronomy, 21: 18-21 is only one example:
If a man has a stubborn and unruly son who will not listen to
his father or mother, and will not obey them even though they
chastise him, his father and mother shall have him apprehended
and brought out to the elders at the gate of his home city, where
they shall say to those city elders, “This son of ours is a stub-
born and unruly fellow who will not listen to us; he is a glutton
and a drunkard.” Then all his fellow citizens shall stone him to
death. Thus shall you purge the evil from your midst, and all
Israel, on hearing of it, shall fear (emphasis added).
We can see here that the idea of striking fear in the hearts of people is a
very important consideration. Because of its emphasis on the future, the
deterrence theory rejects the idea that punishment is something that has
value in itself. Instead, the value of punishment lies in its results. Punish-
ment has value because it prevents crime and promotes a safe and secure
environment. Bentham (1838) says,
General prevention ought to be the chief end of punishment. If

we could consider an offense which has been committed as an
isolated fact, the like of which would never recur, punishment
would be useless. It would be only adding one evil to another.
But when we consider that an unpunished crime leaves the
path of crime open, not only to the same delinquent but also to
all those who may have the same motives and opportunities
for entering upon it, we perceive that punishment inflicted on
the individual becomes a source of security to all. That punish-
ment which considered in itself appeared base and repugnant
to all generous sentiments is elevated to the first rank of ben-
efits when it is regarded not as an act of wrath or vengeance
against a guilty or unfortunate individual who has given way
to mischievous inclinations, but as an indispensable sacrifice
to the common safety.
UP Open University
Module 6 119
According to this view, punishment cannot be good in itself because it

inflicts suffering or loss. To impose punishment is to add one evil to an-
other. However, it is capable of bringing about the good in its conse-
quences—i.e., in the prevention of further evil. With this, we see the affili-
ation of the deterrence theory with utilitarianism. It is both consequentialist
result-oriented and hedonistic pleasure-oriented. It sees the suffering that
is inflicted as an evil that can only be justified by the greater evils that they
prevent. If punishment is a good at all, it is only instrumentally so. It is
good as an instrument that reduces evil by, for example, preventing crimi-
nality and providing a more secure and safe environment.
SAQ 6-6
1. While the retributive theory focuses on the past, the deterrence

theory of punishment is ______________-oriented.
2. Because the deterrence theory focuses on the future, it consid-

ers the __________ brought about by the imposition of pun-
ishment.
3. According to the deterrence theory, punishment is basically

evil because it involves the infliction of _________________.
UP Open University
ASAQ 6-6
1. While the retributive theory focuses on the past, the deterrence

theory of punishment is future-oriented.
2. Because the deterrence theory focuses on the future, it consid-

ers the consequences brought about by the imposition of pun-
ishment.
3. According to the deterrence theory, punishment is basically

evil because it involves the infliction of suffering or pain.
The Evaluation of Punishment

There are three questions worth asking if we want to determine whether
punishment is appropriate in a given situation:
1. Does it actually deter?
2. Does it really prevent greater distress and deprivation in general than

it imposes on the offender?
3. Are there no alternative forms of punishment that would impose less

distress and deprivation on the offender while preventing a greater
amount of these experiences overall?
The first question is the most basic insofar as the deterrence theory is con-
cerned. There is no point in imposing punishment if it cannot actually
deter. If we impose fines for traffic violations in the future. Are we able to
bring down the number of traffic violations? If not, then we ought to look
at other forms of punishment and see which of them is capable of deter-
ring drivers from violating traffic rules.
The second question deals with proportionality. The fact that punishment
deters is not enough to guarantee its appropriateness. What do we mean
by this? Let us give an example. Cutting a person’s arms may effectively
prevent him from picking pockets in the future but the resulting injury
seems to be greater than that which it is meant to prevent. It goes beyond
what is necessary to achieve the intended purpose of the punishment.
UP Open University
Module 6 121
There is a need to choose the kind and degree of penalty that will not
exceed the suffering that it wants to stop. If the suffering caused by the
punishment exceeds that which it is supposed to prevent then it actually
results in greater evil. It can no longer be seen as appropriate.
The third question follows up on the second. It directs us to look for alter-
native forms of punishment that can bring about the least suffering or
evil. The evil that the punishment consists in should lead to the happiest
and safest outcome for all. This is why it is necessary to look for the kind
of punishment that will bring about the least amount of suffering to the
offender while serving the purpose of deterrence.
Emerging from our previous discussion are two main criteria for deter-
mining how much punishment to imposed. The first criterion is effective-
ness and the second is the contribution to the general happiness. The pun-
ishment imposed must be sufficient to deter, but just enough to serve the
purpose of deterrence without resulting in even greater harm.
Manero surrenders, without conditions

By Allen Estabillo and John Paul Jubelag
Mindanao News Bureau
GENERAL SANTOS CITY escaped convict Norberto Manero surrendered

yesterday, 16 days after bolting the Sarangani Provincial Jail.
Manero, who with his two brother and four others, was convicted in the
killing of Italian missionary Fr. Tullio Favali, turned himself in to Presiden-
tial Assistant for Southeastern Mindanao Jesus Dureza.
Renato Corona, chief of staff of President Arroyo, said Manero’s escape

could prolong any jail sentence he might receive in connection with other
abduction and murder cases.
“I can only say he only made his life more difficult because he committed
an entirely new crime,” Corona said. “He shouldn’t have escaped. He
should have gone to the courts.”
The convict’s lawyer and chief negotiator, Rogelio Garcia, accused Dureza
of breaching a pact that would have kept the surrender a secret until
Manera talks with President Arroyo today.
UP Open University
SAQ 6-7
What are the three questions we should ask to determine the ap-
propriateness of punishment in a particular situation?
1.
2.
3.
ASAQ 6-7
The three questions are: (1) Does it actually deter? (2) Does it re-
ally prevent greater distress and deprivation in general than it
imposes on the offender? (3) Are there no alternative forms of pun-
ishment that would impose less distress and deprivation on the
offender while preventing a greater amount of these experiences
overall?
SAQ 6-8
The two criteria for determining how much punishment to im-

pose are (1) __________ and (2) __________________.
UP Open University
Module 6 123
ASAQ 6-8
The two criteria for determining how much punishment to im-
pose are effectiveness and contribution to the general good.
Some criticism of the deterrence theory

The most common criticism of the de-
terrence theory of punishment claims Think about this...
that it could justify the imposition of
excessive penalties. In our desire to
Using criteria no. 2, what do
attain the objective of deterring crimi-
you think would be effective
nality, for instance, we might want
punishment for (a) drivers
to impose the severest penalties avail-
who ignore the red light at
able. We might wish to cut off the
traffic intersections and (b)
tongue of a liar, confiscate the vehicle
people who snatch cell
of a person who does not slow down
phones from students.
at intersections, or amputate the arms
of a person who throws rubbish on
the street from a moving vehicle. According to critics, such penalties might
deter but they are excessively harsh. They are excessive because lesser
penalties can prove effective too.
The reply to this criticism is found in our previous discussion concerning

the criteria to determine punishment. Such criticism of the theory is un-
founded because the theory of deterrence has clear criteria that calls for
the least severe but effective penalty.
According to another objection, the theory justifies “punishing” even those

who are innocent. Even if a man did not truly commit a crime, punishing
him can be justified if most people believe that he is guilty because that
will also achieve a deterrent effect. In order to serve as a deterrent, the
punishment can be imposed on anybody that most people believe to be
guilty. As a matter of fact, it will be better, for purposes of deterrence, to
punish those who are popularly believed to be guilty than those who are
actually guilty. For example, if the authorities want to appear determined
to stem a rebellion, they might feel it just to put people in prison who can
be symbols of rebellion because they are well known, even if they have
nothing to do with the rebellion at all. If so, the deterrence theory can be
used to justify punishment that is patently unjust.
UP Open University
A third objection, related to the second, holds that punishing a person for
the sole purpose of deterring people in general from doing wrong is equiva-
lent to treating him as a mere instrument and not as an end in himself
Kant (1965) says,
His innate personality protects him against such treatment, even

though he may indeed be condemned to lose his civil personal-
ity. He must first be found deserving of punishment before any
consideration is given to the utility of this punishment for him-
self or for his fellow citizens.
By being punished to serve the purpose of deterrence, a person
is treated merely as an instrument. He serves merely as a means
and is not given due respect as a person. This criticism is par-
ticularly effective when we consider the deterrent effect not
only on the person himself who is being punished but on the
population in general. If a person is being made to suffer in
order for him to learn from his mistake and to prevent him
from committing a similar offense in the future, the idea of
being a mere means does not arise. However, a different pic-
ture emerges when the punishment is meant to deter others.
For instance, it might be enough to give a young child a stern
warning in order to prevent him from stealing again. How-
ever, the warning might not serve the purpose of deterring
other people from committing the same offense. If so, then the
young child would have to be given a more severe punish-
ment. However, a more severe punishment would no longer
be directly related to the offense committed. In effect, the au-
thorities would merely be using the opportunity to teach a les-
son to the population in general, at the expense of the person
being punished.
UP Open University
Module 6 125
SAQ 6-9
1. The most common criticism of the deterrence theory of pun-

ishment claims that it could justify the imposition of
_________________ penalties.
2. Another criticism of the deterrence theory holds that it can

justify the imposition of punishment on those who are
___________________.
3. Kant said that it is unfair to punish an offender for the pur-

pose of deterring other people because that would involve us-
ing him as a __________________ rather than as an end.
ASAQ 6-9
See if you got all correct answers.
1. The most common criticism of the deterrence theory of pun-

ishment claims that it could justify the imposition of excessive
penalties.
2. Another criticism of the deterrence theory holds that it can justify

the imposition of punishment on those who are innocent.
3. Kant said that it is unfair to punish an offender for the pur-

pose of deterring other people because that would involve us-
ing him as a means rather than as an end.
UP Open University
Punishment as Reform
In addition to retribution and deterrence, punishment can serve the pur-
pose of reform. Like the deterrence theory, the reform theory of punishment
aims to prevent the repetition of an offense and to reduce violations of the
law. However, while the deterrence theory seeks to prevent wrongdoing by
putting legal obstacles in its way, the reform theory aims to prevent offenses
by reforming the offender.
A strong basis for the reformist attitude towards punishment comes from the
idea that an individual is not the only one responsible for his actions. Re-
sponsibility for wrongdoing is assumed by the individual jointly with society
just as we have discussed in the previous module. Hence, punishment must
also be correspondingly shared. This means that we have to reconsider
our usual notions of blame and punishment.
The reformist theory of punishment would have us focus on the relation-

ship that the individual has with his social, cultural, and physical envi-
ronment. If somebody commits wrongdoing, there is something that is
wrong with that relationship. The relationship must be the target of inter-
vention by the authorities. If an individual does something wrong, it is be-
cause there is something wrong about the social set-up in which he operates.
If there is something wrong with the social set-up then we have to do some-
thing about it. The reformist theory of punishment is based on the idea that
society accepts joint responsibility for wrongdoing committed by individu-
als. Individual persons do not just commit wrongdoing by themselves. Indi-
vidual wrongdoing is the result of many factors to which society is respon-
sible for many of them.
To punish someone is to make him assume responsibility for wrongdoing.

However, a wrongdoing is the offshoot of factors including those that
society could have done something about. The least that society can do in
the face of wrongdoing is to help to reform an offender. If a young of-
fender gets convicted for stealing cell phones, the government partly ac-
knowledges responsibility by deciding to put the individual, for example,
under probation. Punishment will then serve to help modify the
individual’s behavior and mend his character. Thus, the reformist theory
is basically consequentialist. It aims to bring about desirable results. It
does not regard punishment merely as something deserved because of the
offense committed.
UP Open University
Module 6 127
A criticism of the reform theory holds that it puts excessive emphasis on

the welfare of the offender while neglecting the grievances of victims. In
its desire to make up for society’s shortcomings in providing the needs of
the poor and underprivileged sectors of a community, it appears to give
little importance to redressing the just grievances of those who were
wronged. If this is true, it fails to adequately address the question of justice.
SAQ 6-10
1. While the deterrence theory seeks to prevent wrongdoing by

putting legal obstacles in its way, the reform theory aims to
prevent offenses by ___________ the offender.
2. The reform theory of punishment is based on the idea that re-

sponsibility for wrongdoing is assumed by the individual jointly
with __________________.
3. The reform theory is criticized for putting excessive emphasis

on the welfare of the _____________ while neglecting the
_______________ of victims.
UP Open University
ASAQ 6-10
1. While the deterrence theory seeks to prevent wrongdoing by

putting legal obstacles in its way, the reform theory aims to
prevent offenses by reforming the offender.
2. The reform theory of punishment is based on the idea that re-

sponsibility for wrongdoing is assumed by the individual jointly
with society.
3. The reform theory is criticized for putting excessive emphasis

on the welfare of the offender while neglecting the grievances
of victims.
Summary
Our discussion of the theories of punishment shows how varying out-
looks could have their own strengths but also their own weaknesses. Any
claim that one of them best captures correct moral thinking must be treated
with caution. There is no single theory that is capable of accommodating
all the moral sentiments that are important to society. For example, the
retributive theory does not care to consider the fact that the imposition of
any punishment meted out will have consequences that cannot be ig-
nored. It takes the view that particular cases of punishment can be iso-
lated from their social and cultural environment.
At the same time, the deterrence and the reform theories of punishment
give little importance to the inherent right of offended parties to seek re-
dress for their grievances. Yet, the redress of such grievances is a basic
tenet of justice. This is particularly pronounced in the case of the reform
theory.
These observations should convince us that there is some virtue in a plu-

ralist concept of punishment that accommodates retributivist, deterrent
and reformist components. We cannot afford to look at our moral world
using a single lens provided by just one of the theories identified.
UP Open University
Module 7
Keeping Secrets: Issues
of Privacy and Confidentiality
A ll of us keep secrets. Most of the time we

think of keeping secrets as some kind of
game, perhaps like hide-and-seek, where a per-
Objectives
son tries to hide information from another un- After studying this module,
til it is discovered. When the secret is discov- you will be able to:
ered and the game ends, players are either
happy because the outcome turns out to be a 1. Differentiate public mat-
pleasant surprise or unhappy because the re- ters from private mat-
sult turns out to be an unwelcome event. How- ters;
ever, there is much more to secrets than sur- 2. Discuss why people’s
prises. desire to keep private
matters secret should be
When we keep secrets about ourselves, we respected;
draw a line between what is public and what 3. Describe different situa-
is private information. We delineate that which tions when it is impor-
we are willing to allow others to see and know tant to keep secrets; and
(public) from those we would rather keep to 4. Describe situations when
ourselves and to a few others (private). This the value of keeping se-
module deals with ethical issues that arise crets may be superseded
when we entrust secrets to other persons. Here, by other important con-
we will also touch on the concepts of privacy siderations.
and confidentiality.
Public and Private Knowledge

We may have various reasons for wanting to keep private matters secret.
We might want to keep matters strictly to ourselves if we think that di-
vulging them to others would prove embarrassing, incrimininating, or
harmful in some sort of way to us. For example, a ten-year old child would
be embarrassed if his friends find out he wets his bed at night. Such infor-
mation would be damaging to him in such a way that his friends might
tease him, which in turn, might result in the loss of his self-esteem. And
knowing how children take to teasing, he might be gripped by anxiety
and might spend sleepless nights as a result. These socially and psycho-
logically harmful effects can be attributed to the intrusion into one’s pri-
vacy that lies in the disclosure of a secret. Intrusion into privacy takes
place when a secret is disclosed without the permission or consent of the
person concerned. It is akin to forcibly opening a door that someone would
rather keep closed. Some examples of intrusion to privacy are reading a
letter meant for somebody else, reading another person’s diary, listening
secretly to a telephone conversation, or secretly observing what another
person is doing inside a bedroom or bathroom. These examples illustrate
how intrusion into privacy can take place.
We keep secrets because we might not want to let others know about our
faults or weaknesses. This is because knowledge about our fears, faults, or
weaknesses could encourage and enable others to take advantage of us.
The knowledge that one is afraid of spiders can lead to ridicule, cruel
tricks, or some other needless harm. Fear itself can be bad enough—mak-
ing the fear known to others could add to the harm and even make it
worse.
The examples that we have given show why the unwarranted disclosure
of secrets—disclosure without the permission of the parties concerned—
can be wrong. They can lead to harm that people want to avoid. They can
bring about unpleasant feelings and undesirable experiences. In other
words, they can be wrong because of the bad results that they give rise to.
We ought to avoid the unwarranted disclosure of secrets because we ought
to avoid the consequences arising from such a practice.
UP Open University
Module 7 129
SAQ 7-1
When we keep secrets about ourselves, we make a distinction be-

tween what we regard as (1) ___________ information and what
we regard as (2) ___________ information. (3) ____________
matters are those that we are willing to allow others to see and
know while (4) ____________ matters are those that we would
rather confine to a limited few. We try to keep matters strictly to
ourselves when we think that their being known by others could
be (5) ______________, (6) _____________, or harmful in some
sort of way. Intrusion into privacy takes place when a secret is
disclosed without the (7) ____________ of the person concerned.
ASAQ 7-1
See if your answers are correct by checking your answers against
the answer key.
When we keep secrets about ourselves, we make a distinction be-

tween what we regard as (1) public information and what we re-
gard as (2) private information. (3) Public matters are those that we
are willing to allow others to see and know while (4) private mat-
ters are those that we would rather confine to a limited few. We
try to keep matters strictly to ourselves when we think that their
being known by others could be (5) embarrassing, (6) incriminating,
or harmful in some sort of way. Intrusion into privacy takes place
when a secret is disclosed without the (7) permission or consent of
the person concerned.
UP Open University
Breaking secrets as lack of respect

for others’ privacy
The resulting harm is only one of the reasons by breaking secrets is wrong.
When a secret is disclosed without the permission or consent of the per-
son concerned, there are two things that could be happening that are
ethically notable. There could be a violation of a contract or an intrusion
into one’s privacy. In this sense, respecting secrets is good while disclos-
ing secrets without permission is bad regardless of their consequence.
Breaking secrets as a violation of a contract

A contract may be violated when one party breaks an agreement between
two or more parties to keep a secret. To give you an example, a company
might want to limit the disclosure of information on a formula or an in-
gredient to it selects only a few employees who can have this valued in-
formation. To protect its interests, it asks this special group of employees
to sign an agreement to keep the information to themselves. Thus, these
employees are given information on condition that they will not leak out
the information to others. They are placed under a contractual obligation
to keep a secret, which is also considered an ethical obligation.
Formal contractual obligations clearly express the responsibilities of con-

tracting parties together with sanctions for given those who fail to com-
ply. A penalty or sanction is a kind of punishment for not keeping one’s
part of the agreement.
SAQ 7-2
When a secret is disclosed without the permission or consent of

the person concerned, the two ethically notable: things that could
be happening are (1) _______________ and (2)
________________. When the ethical obligation to keep a secret is
expressed in a formal contract it takes the form of a (3)
__________________. It is usually a characteristic of formal con-
tractual obligations that the (4) _______________ of contracting
parties are clearly expressed together with the (5) _______________
to be imposed on those who fail to comply.
UP Open University
Module 7 131
ASAQ 7-2
Let’s see how many correct answers you got.
When a secret is disclosed without the permission or consent of

the person concerned, the two things that could be happening
that are ethically notable are (1) a violation of a contract and (2) an
intrusion into one’s privacy. When the ethical obligation to keep a
secret is expressed in a formal contract it takes the form of a (3)
contractual obligation. It is usually a characteristic of a formal con-
tractual obligations that the (4) responsibilities of contracting par-
ties are clearly expressed together with the (5) sanctions to be im-
posed on those who fail to comply.
Implicit agreements: the secrets

of the confessional
Not all agreements are expressed in a written contract. An example that
comes to mind is the obligation of a priest to honor the secrecy of the
confessional box. Despite the absence of a formal agreement between him
and the person going to confession, this can still be seen as a contractual
obligation. What binds a priest to keep confessions secret is a professional
responsibility defined by authorities and governed by Church rules. But
this is not enough guarantee that secrecy will be kept because there will
always be gossipy priests who might choose to air the confessions of the
faithful. Unfortunately, persons whose confessions are revealed by a scan-
dalmonger priest may not, on their own, be able to run after the priest.
However, there are applicable penalties based on a professional obliga-
tion. Although there is no one-on-one agreement between arising from
the priest’s commitment to keep secrets as contained in his priestly vows.
Disclosure of confessional secrets is wrong because it breaks rules that

apply to the priestly profession. Furthermore, he breaks the commitment
that he implicitly made when he entered the priesthood. But this is not all.
There are other reasons why it is wrong for a priest to violate the secrecy
of the confessional. The disclosure of such secrets could result in personal
or institutional harm, and this constitutes a violation of trust.
Depending on the secrets confided, making their known to others could

embarrass an individual, taint his reputation, subject him to public ridi-
cule, among others. The unwarranted disclosure can also taint the sanc-
tify confessional because the knowledge that secrets are now well guarded
UP Open University
might keep the faithful from going to confession. Furthermore, it might

tarnish the Church’s reputation as an institution. The perception that
priests cannot be trusted might inspire negative beliefs and attitudes against
the Church.
Breaking secrets as a violation of trust

The unwarranted disclosure of secrets is also because it constitutes a vio-
lation of trust. Trust the feeling of security that a person can be relied on
to keep a secret, to keep a promise, to avoid harmful behavior to others or,
in general, to do good. People with integrity can usually be relied on.
People have integrity when they can keep secrets, when they do not break
their promises, when they do not do other people harm, and whey they
strive to do what is good to others in general. In other words, they are
trustworthy. People who do not maintain their integrity lose their
trustworthness.
Being trustworthy is good in itself. This means that one’s being

trusthworthy does not have to bring about desirable results in order to be
considered valuable. It is true that when a person can be trusted others
will probably react in such a way as to bring about good results. How-
ever, we should not think of trustworthy behavior in terms of beneficial
results alone. Regardless of the results, being trustworthy is good in itself.
Just as being trustworthy is good in itself, the violation of trust is wrong in

itself. Thus, the unwarranted disclosure of other people’s secrets is wrong
in itself. This means that the unwarranted disclosure of secrets does not
have to bring about bad results in order to be wrong. It is wrong even
when it does not harm the feelings or damage the reputation of anybody.
It is wrong in the same way that breaking a promise is wrong or that not
returning borrowed things is wrong. Breaking a promise is wrong not
only because it makes persons unhappy but because it is wrong in itself
for people not to keep their promises. Breaking a promise is wrong be-
cause of the kind of act that it constitutes: it is a breach of trust.
We can say the same thing of the act (or practice) of not returning bor-
rowed items. There is a reason that makes it wrong other than the unhap-
piness it brings to the owner of the item that is not returned. It is wrong
because it is also a violation of trust.
UP Open University
Module 7 133
Think about this...

1. Is it right to keep the matter a secret?
2. Is a priest still bound by the vow of secrecy?
3. Will it constitute a violation of trust if he reports
the matter to the police?
SAQ 7-3
The agreement to keep secrets is (1) ________________ when there

is no formal contract to cover it. A priest’s disclosure of secrets
confided in him in the confessional is wrong because it beaks rules
that apply to people of his (2) _______________. The disclosure of
secrets of the confessional constitutes a violation of (3)
______________. A person who has (4) _____________ is one who
can be trusted.
ASAQ 7-3
Check your answers against the answer key.
The agreement to keep secrets is (1) implicit when there is no for-

mal contract to cover it. A priest’s disclosure of secrets confided in
him in the confessional is wrong because it breaks rules that apply
to people of his (2) profession. The disclosure of secrets of the con-
fessional constitutes a violation of (3) trust. A person who has (4)
integrity is one who can be trusted.
UP Open University
A priest has an obligation to disclose the secret to others if it is reasonable

to suspect that the non-disclosure of the secret will put others in danger
or harm. The criminal might not be punished and thus commit further
crimes. In this particular instance, the harm is something that the priest
himself can foresee. It is within his power to prevent (or help prevent) the
foreseeable harm from taking place. The priest has knowledge of infor-
mation that can prevent harm from taking place if disclosed to proper
authorities. There are no other individuals who are likely, or are in a situ-
ation to do something to prevent the harm without the priest’s disclosure
of the secret. The priest is strategically placed to do something because of
the moral authority that he exercises and his privileged access to truth in
the confessional.
The reasons above contribute to the dilemma that the priest finds himself
in. Taken together, these reasons point to exceptional situations when the
sanctity of secrets should and can be violated. Some harms arising from
the non-disclosure of secrets could be so severe that it would be better to
disclose the secret even in the absence of permission.
Protected secrets
While there are many secrets that
we should take seriously, there are Think about this...
also secrets that we should not care
so much about. For example, there
1. Can you identify other dilem-
are secrets that we keep in order to
mas regarding secrets similar
create a pleasant surprise for a
to the one described in the
friend. A father working as an
case of the priest?
overseas contract worker, for in-
2. When can we say that an ob-
stance, might keep his homecom-
ligation to keep a secret is
ing a secret in order to surprise his
overridden by an obligation
family. A group of employees might
to prevent harm from hap-
decide to stage a surprise party for
pening? Give examples.
their boss, keeping this a secret to
him all the while. If these secrets
were discovered, we will not likely be confronted by a moral dilemma. In
the first place, the discovery of the secret might not have resulted from a
violation of trust. The secret could have been discovered by accident.
There are various kinds of secrets that are so important that laws have
been passed to protect persons who might be under pressure to disclose
them. Societies consider it important to protect these types of secret even
thought it may be more beneficial for people to learn about these. Journal-
ists, for example, do not have an obligation to disclose the sources of news
items that they write. You probably have seen this in newspapers where
UP Open University
Module 7 135
they describe their sources as “reliable sources.” The remain anonymous

and hidden from public scrutiny.
Concerning the practice of journalism in the Philippines, this is what the

Code of Ethics says:
Discretion should be observed concerning sources of informa-

tion. Professional secrecy should be observed in matters revealed
in confidence; and this privilege may always be invoked to the
furthest limits of the law.
The specific commitment on the part of the individual journalist is ex-

pressed as follows:
I shall not violate confidential information on material given

me in the exercise of my calling.
It is important to keep secret the identities of some news sources because

they may be harmed especially when their stories implicate other per-
sons. For example, the sourse of a report might be the witness to a crime.
Revealing the identity of such a source could endanger his life and lead to
undesirable pressures.
Confidentiality and privileged communication

The refusal of journalists to reveal their sources is rooted in the principle
of confidentiality. Confidentiality refers to the condition of secrecy that
governs communication between professionals and their “clients.” In the
confessional, priests are also professionals whose communication with
the faithful is governed by the principle of confidentiality and the condi-
tion of secrecy. In the particular, the sources of stories may be seen as the
clients. Journalists are governed by the principle of confidentiality insofar
as their communication with clients is concerned.
The principle of confidentiality does not cover all communications, how-

ever. There are communications between professionals and their clients
that may be divulged to the public without causing any harm and violat-
ing trust. Confidentiality specifically covers “privileged” communication.
Privileged communication pertains to information acquired in connec-

tion with the professional’s responsibilities and obligations. Priests acquire
information about persons who go to the confessional only because of
their professional responsibilities to those concerned. The faithful would
UP Open University
not ordinarily divulge their sins to priests in other circumstances. In the

context of the confessional then, privileged communication is informa-
tion that priests obtain for a particular reason. As a rule, it is wrong to use
that information for other purposes, and especially not in a way that can
be used against the person providing the information.
SAQ 7-4
One of the reasons why it is important to keep the identities of

some news sources secret is that it might lead persons who are
implicated to (1) ___________ those sources. The refusal of jour-
nalists to reveal the sources of their stories is rooted in the prin-
ciple of (2) __________. Confidentiality refers to the condition of
secrecy that governs communication between (3) _____________
and their (4) ____________. Confidentiality specifically covers (5)
______________ communication. Privileged communication per-
tains to information acquired in the course of a (6) ____________
relationship.
ASAQ 7-4
One of the reasons why it is important to keep the identities of

some news sources secret is that it might lead persons who are
implicated to (1) harm those sources. The refusal of journalists to
reveal the sources of their stories is rooted in the principle of (2)
confidentiality. Confidentiality refers to the condition of secrecy that
governs communication between (3) professionals and their (4) cli-
ents. Confidentiality specifically covers (5) privileged communica-
tion. Privileged communication pertains to information acquired
in the course of a (6) professional relationship.
UP Open University
Module 7 137
Dilemmas in journalistic practice

In journalism, we can call to mind as an example stories about people
who have been running away from authorities. Journalists have occa-
sionally interviewed fugitive criminals and members of armed gangs in
secret places. The success of such interviews (and later on, stories) de-
pends upon the secrecy that surrounds them. Had the journalists divulged
the secret circumstances to authorities, the interviews would have been
endangered and they might not take place at all. Moreover, the reporters
would have done something constituting a violation of trust. By disclos-
ing the sources and circumstances of those stories, the journalists would
have gone against a professional responsibility as well as a commitment—
directly or implicitly made—to the persons who were parties to the se-
crets.
However, it does not seem obvious

that journalists truly have an obliga-
Think about this... tion to keep secrets in such situations.
A problem arises because of the harm
1. What would you do if you that may arise if journalists were to
were the journalist con- allow lawbreakers to retain the op-
cerned and your source portunity to continue breaking the
admits to murder? law. By failing to provide assistance
2. Would you play hero and to the police, journalists may be ig-
ensure that the criminal is noring any law-abiding citizen’s re-
arrested? sponsibility to provide assistance to
3. Would you feel guilty the government insofar as its support
about not keeping a promise? for the law were concerned.
4. Is there an ethical obliga-
tion to keep a promise made Thus, we see the same type of di-
under such circumstances? lemma that arises in the case of a
priest who hears about a secret in the
confessional. On the one hand, journalists have an obligation to keep a
promise made to the source of a story. They have a commitment made
explicitly or implicitly, to keep a secret. On the other hand, they may be in
a peculiar position where they are the only ones in a position to prevent
harm that is likely to happen. They may be uniquely situated to solve a
crime or bring about the apprehension of a criminal. There may be no
better (or no other) opportunity to prevent such harms.
UP Open University
Keeping secrets in medical practice

In medical practice, the same dilemmas also arise. These dilemmas do not
necessarily have to do with criminals. Many involve law-abiding citizens
who would not ordinarily have wanted to cause other people harm.
As this the priesthood and journalism, medical practice is a profession

bound by a commitment to keep secrets. The relationship between a doc-
tor (or another healthcare giver) and a patient is bound by the principle of
confidentiality. Patients would not want it if doctors were to freely tell
other people about their medical condition. It would be wrong for a doc-
tor to gossip about his patient’s erectile dysfunction, breast tumor, or psy-
chiatric problem. The information will likely result to embarrassment and
is potentially damaging. For the same reasons as those that apply in the
confessional, information concerning a patient is governed by the prin-
ciple of confidentiality.
First, there are harms that may result. Aside from being embarrassing, the
information could drive away friends or suitors, expose the patient to
ridicule, or result in the loss of a job.
Second, we may speak of an implicit agreement being violated. We give

doctors a kind of privileged access to the secrets of our bodies that we
sometimes would even refuse our spouses or parents information. We do
this subject to certain conditions. We allow doctors to intrude into our
privacy on the condition that this will be exclusive to them. We do this on
the assumption that the intrusion is necessary to enable the doctor to take
care of our health.
Information that is discovered in this manner is privileged. As noted above,

privileged information is information acquired in the course of a confi-
dential relationship. What this means is that it is meant for limited circu-
lation. This is the substance of an implicit agreement entered into by the
doctor and the patient when the latter approaches a doctor for consulta-
tion and treatment. If doctors were to use the information for purposes
other than those implied in the treatment of their patient’s illnesses, they
would be going against an agreement that is entered into when the con-
sultation takes place.
Third, the disclosure constitutes a violation of trust. Regardless of whether

there is an agreement or not, the unwarranted disclosure of a secret with-
out the patient’s permission is wrong in itself. It is wrong because of the
kind of act that it constitutes.
UP Open University
Module 7 139
Unfortunately, there are many situa-

tions when keeping secrets of a medi- Think about this...
cal nature could result in a lot of harm
to other people. For example, it could 1. If you were a doctor, how
be harmful to other people if a pro- would you warn the wife
miscuous or a sexually active AIDS of a person who has just
patient’s condition were to be kept a been discovered to have
secret. Persons who have AIDS and AIDS?
who decidedly remain sexually active 2. Should you go to her di-
could infect, and cause the death of rectly?
other persons with whom they have 3. What would you have to
sexual contact. Would it still be cor- do if he were a prostitute?
rect to say that they have a right to
confidentiality if a physician discov-
ered their condition?
There are factors that would suggest that they no longer retain the right
to their secret. One factor is the seriousness of the possible consequence.
Death is a consequence as serious as any consequence can be. There is
also the factor of irreversibility. At this time, there is still no known cure
for AIDS. This does not mean that physicians have the right to announce
the names of all persons who have AIDS publicly. There are ways of warn-
ing people about the presence of AIDS-infected individuals and at the
same time respect the rights of those who are ill and protect the healthy
from serious harm.
SAQ 7-5
As in the practice of journalism, the relationship between a doctor

and a patient is bound by the principle of (1) ________________.
A confidential relationship governs information that is privileged,
which means that it is intended for (2) ______________ circula-
tion.
UP Open University
ASAQ 7-5
As in the practice of journalism, the relationship between a doctor

and a patient is bound by the principle of (1) confidentiality. A con-
fidential relationship governs information that is privileged, which
means that it is intended for (2) limited circulation.
Summary
When we allow doctors access to our bodies, we do not have the intention
to make public what we consider to be private. The intrusion into our
privacy is limited to the extent to which it is useful for our desire ends and
not for any other ends that the doctor or other individuals may want to
use it. Thus, we open ourselves to doctors with the expectation that any
secrets discovered in the process will only be used for our benefit. In such
situations, we are only stretching the boundaries of our private selves for
the specific purpose of getting medical care.
The same thing is true when we go to the confessional and reveal our
secrets to the priest, when we approach a lawyer, when a student sees a
guidance counselor, or even when we confide a secret to a friend. In these
situations, there is no intention to make public what is considered private.
There is only a limited disclosure for a particular purpose.
However, there are circumstances when special factors may override these
important considerations. It is important to be aware of such factors so
that we can perform a balancing act. On the whole, ethics—as well as
life—appears to be a huge balancing act.
UP Open University
Module 8
The Value of Life:
Contraception, Abortion,
and Euthanasia
A mong the controversial issues hounding

the world today are issues about contra-
ception, abortion, and euthanasia. These issues
Objectives
strike a sensitive chord among people, and at After studying this module,
times, these issues even rend some sectors of you will be able to:
society apart. For instance, in the United States,
arguments on abortion get impassioned that 1. Discuss ethical issues
sometimes, numerous lives and properties are that arise concerning
lost in the process. We see “pro-choice” activ- practices that involve the
ists going out in the streets and demanding for taking of human life;
the right to choose to decide the fate of their 2. Argue in favor of or
fetuses. On the other side of the fence are against the practice of
“prolife” activists who can be heated by their contraception, abortion,
beliefs that they storm clinics and harm doc- and euthanasia; and
tors suspected of performing abortion. 3. Identify situations where
ethical questions about
In the Philippines, contraception is one of the the above practices arise.
thornier issues we face. Government is thrust
in a quandary in the face of an ever-increasing
population and dwindling resources. Yes, the government recognizes the
need to curb the country’s growing population but it can do little owing
to the stiff opposition of the very influential Catholic Church to all artifi-
cial methods of contraception.
Euthanasia is another issue that faces the world, particularly Western

countries where doctors have been openly involved in assisting termi-
nally ill patients to die. Among the controversial figures involved in eu-
thanasia is Dr. Jack Kevorkian who has assisted numerous patients to
end their suffering. More and more, westerners are asking themselves
whether it is right for the ill to decide when to terminate his or her own
life.
Why do people invest so much strong feelings in such issues? Some say it
is because it involves a crucial aspect central to all human beings: Life
specifically the taking of it. In this module we will be tackling all these
issues and more. We will be dealing with issues of life and death in the
context of such practices as contraception, abortion, and euthanasia.
Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
Human life is the basis of all goods, and is the necessary source and
condition of every human activity and of all society. Most people regard
life as something sacred and hold that no one may dispose of it at will,
but believers see in life something greater, namely, a gift of God’s love,
which they are called upon to preserve and make fruitful. And it is this
latter consideration that gives rise to the following consequences:
1. No one can make an attempt on the life of an innocent person without

opposing God’s love for that person, without violating a fundamental
right, and therefore without committing a crime of the utmost gravity.
2. Everyone has the duty to lead his or her life in accordance with God’s
plan. That life is entrusted to the individual as a good that must bear
fruit already here on earth, but that finds its full perfection only in
eternal life.
3. Intentionally causing one’s own death, or suicide, is therefore equally

as wrong as murder; such an action on the part of a person is to be
considered as a rejection of God’s sovereignty and loving plan. Fur-
thermore, suicide is also often a refusal of love for self, the denial of a
natural instinct to live, a flight from the duties of justice and charity
owed to one’s neighbor, to various communities or to the whole of
society although, as is generally recognized, at times there are psy-
chological factors present that can diminish responsibility or even
completely remove it.
UP Open University
Module 8 143
The Value of Life

People generally think of death as something negative. We do whatever
we can to prevent death and hold it off as long as possible. We grieve
Society also puts much significance on life. One of the standards that
society uses for determining the achievements of a country or community
is the life expectancy of its population. The longer the people are capable
of living, the better off that country or community is thought to be.
The negative value that we attach to death is matched by our positive

valuation of life. As much as we fear dying, we also enjoy living. We
derive pleasure from many of the things that we can do because we are
alive. We enjoy the experiences that life makes possible. We value life and
many of the things we do attest to the importance that we give to it. The
enjoyment of life is one of the reasons why we fear and fight death. Hav-
ing experienced what life can bring, we fight any threats to it that come
our way. We reject death because it signals the end of life and our experi-
ences. For most of us, life is the single most important thing. Many of us
will sacrifice almost anything to keep ourselves or a loved one alive in the
face of threatening illness. Those who believe in the power of creation
count life as the most important gift from God. And whether we believe
in God or not, we believe that life is inherently valuable, that is, life is
valuable for its own sake.
Ironically, it is also because of the positive value attached to life that some
people come to embrace death and see it urgently through euthanasia.
Not being satisfied with what life has brought them at a crucial stage in
their existence, they desire to end it before things get worse or before their
experiences become unbearable. The seeming contradiction is one of the
reasons why it is important to look at the issues involved with an objec-
tive eye and examine the arguments in favor of, or against practices that
have prevailed in various societies.
SAQ 8-1
We put a high value on life because (1) ________________ and

because life makes possible (2) __________________. It is ironic
that precisely because of the high value that people give to life,
they sometimes seek to end it urgently, as in (3) ________________.
UP Open University
ASAQ 8-1
Check if you got the correct answer.
We put high value on life because (1) life is inherently valuable or life
is valuable for its own sake and because life makes possible (2) expe-
riences that we value. It is ironic that precisely because of the high
value that people give to life, they sometimes seek to end it ur-
gently, as in (3) euthanasia.
Contraception
Increase and multiply.
Genesis 1:27-28
No man or woman among you shall be childless.

Deuteronomy 7:13
The very high regard that people invest in the value of life is one of the
main reasons why the practice of contraception is frowned upon by some
segments of society, particularly the Catholic Church. Contraception re-
fers to the practice of preventing conception when couples engage in sexual
intercourse. Couples who want to avoid having a child practice different
methods of contraception. Before the development of modern means of
contraception, women who wanted intercourse but did not want to have
children engaged in rigorous physical activity after sexual contact, washed
their vagina to remove semen, put barriers in the cervical opening, or took
potions that were believed to be abortificacient to prevent themselves from
becoming pregnant.
An opposition to the practice of contraception is based on the idea that

natural law determines how things ought to be in nature. A version of
this natural law recognizes two main functions of sexual intercourse. One
function is to procreate or to have children. The other function is to unite
a couple in conjugal partnership. According to this theory, the two func-
tions should not be separated. Sexual intercourse cannot be done with
just one of the functions present. Adeva (1990) makes this point:
Human sexuality can only be lived and expressed licitly and

worthily within the context of love in marriage and by main-
taining its essential orientation to life.
UP Open University
Module 8 145
According to this position, sexual intercourse cannot be done merely for

the purpose of enhancing marital relationship through the sharing of a
pleasurable experience. To put it simply, sexual intercourse is not done
for pleasure but for the purpose of procreation. Hence, its performance
must not be accompanied by a device that makes it impossible for preg-
nancy to occur. The use of such a device would not be compatible with
maintaining the sexual act’s “essential orientation to life.”
If the objection of the natural law is valid, it would be wrong for a couple
to use intrauterine device, foam, jelly, condom, or other similar devices
that aim to prevent pregnancy. These devices supposedly separate the
two main functions of sexual intercourse, the unitive function and the
procreative function, by allowing the conjugal union to take place while
closing the possibility of a resulting pregnancy.
The natural law position draws a distinction between the rhythm method
and the other methods, mentioned above. The rhythm method works by
monitoring the woman’s menstrual cycle and the length of the intervals
between periods, keeping track of the woman’s fertile days. Sexual absti-
nence is prescribed when the woman is fertile. The couple is only allowed
to engage in intercourse only during days when the woman is infertile.
The argument is that because pregnancy is avoided by abstaining from
sexual contact, there is not attempt at sexual union that rules out procre-
ation altogether. If the couple engages in sexual intercourse when a woman
is infertile, no artificial device is introduced that is intended to separate
the unitive function from the procreative function. It is an outcome of the
natural state of things, so the argument goes, that pregnancy cannot occur.
Hence, the rhythm method is also referred to as a natural means of con-

traception. According to the natural law, the use of the rhythm method is
morally acceptable only because it makes use of our knowledge of how
things naturally are in order to avoid pregnancy. There is no effort to put
artificial things or devices to impede the natural process of reproduction.
Since there is no pregnancy that can occur during the days when a woman
is infertile, there is no pregnancy that is being prevented from occurring.
UP Open University
SAQ 8-2
According to what is referred to above as the natural law position,

sexual intimacy has the following two functions: to (1)
_______________ and to (2) ____________________. According
to the same view, the two functions should not be (3)
__________________. The position also holds the rhythm method
of contraception is morally acceptable because (4)
_________________.
ASAQ 8-2
See if you got the correct answer.
According to what is referred to above as the natural law position,

sexual intimacy has the following two functions: to (1) procreate or
to have children and to (2) unite a couple in conjugal partnership. Ac-
cording to the same view, the two functions should not be (3) sepa-
rated. The position also holds that the rhythm method of contra-
ception is morally acceptable because (4) it makes no effort to put
artificial things or devices to impede the natural process of reproduc-
tion.
Criticizing the natural law position

The natural law is criticized as not being entirely honest in saying that the
rhythm method does not separate the unitive function from the procre-
ative function of sexual intercourse. By having sexual intercourse only
when the woman is infertile, the couple intentionally uses their knowl-
edge of the reproductive process in order to engage in carnal union that
could not result in pregnancy. There is a kind of dishonesty involved be-
cause it cannot be denied that a couple that practices the rhythm method
deliberately uses it in order to get rid of the possibility of procreation. The
interesting thing is, this is intended and deliberately planned by fully
knowledgeable men and women.
UP Open University
Module 8 147
It might be true that there is no realizable pregnancy that they are seeking
to prevent during the period of infertility. However, it is not necessarily
the direct prevention of a pregnancy that is ruled out by a natural law
position. What it wishes to rule out is the separation of the two functions
of sexual intercourse from each other. The basis of a natural law position
is idea that there are natural functions for things that exist in nature. It is
the responsibility of human beings to act in accordance with such func-
tions. Insofar as sexual intercourse is concerned there are two such func-
tions, the procreative and the unitive. To use the rhythm method is to
pursue only one of those functions and thus, to do something that is mor-
ally wrong. But, what if it is not really wrong to separate the two func-
tions from each other?
It it is acceptable for the two functions to be separated, then it would not

be wrong to engage in sexual intercourse solely for the sake of the unitive
function. It would not be wrong to forego the possibility of having chil-
dren while enhancing the loving relationship between husband and wife.
Still, this explanation will have implications that cannot be completely. If

it would not be wrong to engage in sexual intercourse solely for the sake
of unitive function, it would also not be wrong to directly prevent a preg-
nancy by using other means of contraception. It would not be wrong to
use condom or another artificial impediment to pregnancy. In other words,
if one tries to defend the rhythm method by saying that the separation of
the unitive and the procreative functions is acceptable he would have to
find another way of explaining why the other means of contraception are
not morally acceptable.
To this, it can be said in reply that it is not really the separation of the two
functions that is wrong but the use of artificial rather than natural means. In-
deed, the distinction between natural and artificial means is often invoked
by Catholic and other Christian thinkers to clarify their positions on vari-
ous philosophical issues. However, this reply will have to assume the bur-
den of explaining what it means for a form of contraception to be either
natural or artificial. The criteria for this distinction are very interesting
but are not always obvious. These will have to be the subject of further
study.
UP Open University
SAQ 8-3
Critics say that there is a kind of dishonesty behind the natural

law position on contraception because a couple that practices the
rhythm method (1) ______________ uses it in order to remove the
possibility of procreation from the sexual contact. If it is not wrong
to engage in sexual intercourse solely for the sake of the unitive
function, it would not be (2) ________________ to directly pre-
vent a pregnancy by using other means of contraception.
ASAQ 8-3
Critics say that there is a kind of dishonesty behind the natural

law position on contraception because a couple that practices the
rhythm method (1) deliberately uses it in order to remove the possi-
bility of procreation from the sexual contact. If it would not be
wrong to engage in sexual intercourse solely for the sake of the
unitive function, it would not be (2) wrong to directly prevent a
pregnancy by using other means of contraception.
UP Open University
Module 8 149
Contraception and population
A choice to plan population growth
THE National Statistics Office an-

POPULATION nounced recently that the Philippine
GROWTH population has surpassed the 75 mil-
lion mark with figures representing an
increase of 1.7 million people yearly.
The latest count reveals that there are
now 76.4 million Filipinos which means
that there are 225 Filipinos per square
kilometer of our land.
GIVING MORE
AND BETTER
EDUCATION
Population pressure is not new, but the
sheer size of the additions to the popu-
Not only do educated women have fewer lation can prove to be a problem even if
children; they also care for them better.
some assume that human numbers will
stabilize at some point and births will
balance deaths as they do in more developed countries. The issue is
expected to draw forth both a fresh threat to the sanctity of family life in
a predominantly Catholic country, and bring pressure to control popula-
tion growth through natural and unnatural methods. Warnings about the
dangers of a booming birth rate have sent a strong signal to government
and the church to allow couples the choice of planning their families.
Source: Manila Bulletin, 7 May 2001
One reason why many people find it difficult to accept prohibitions against
“non-natural” methods of contraception is that they consider these nec-
essary for family planning. Many find the rate of growth of Philippine
population alarming. They observe that the huge size of the population
leads to economic and social problems at the national and the family level.
At the national level, observers point out that if the economy grows, for
instance, at the rate of 2 percent per annum and the population grows at
the rate of 2.3 percent per annum, then there is no real economic growth
per capita. The increase in the number of people effectively cancels out
any growth in economic production. If so, then the government cannot
hope to be effective in bringing down poverty levels. It is going to be very
difficult to improve the living conditions in the country.
UP Open University
According to the 2001 announce-

ment of the National Census and Sta-
tistics Office, the Philippine popula-
tion increases by 1.7 million people
yearly. There are now 76.4 million
Filipinos, which translates to 225 Fili-
pinos per square kilometer of land.
The Population Commission says that
at the rate we are going, there will be
20 million people living in Manila in
20 years. These 20 million Filipinos
will each have lesser resources for
themselves if our economic growth
falls below the rate of population
growth. At the same time, the size of
the population also constitutes a
strong factor that makes it difficult for the economy to growth. With a
bigger population, more financial resources have to be put into basic so-
cial services and taken away from productive investments in other areas.
At the family level, we have seen or heard the effects of having too many
children, especially among very poor families. Children are not able to go
to school and mothers get tied down doing nothing but household chores.
This is a story that gets repeated over and over again. Women get abused
by their husbands and children get abused by their fathers. Problems are
so plentiful that some people say the promotion of contraception is not
enough—abortion must also be an option.
In the following sections we will take up a number of issues relating to the

practice of abortion. The issues that we will discuss are limited to two
types:
1. when human life truly begins, and

2. the interests and rights of women.
UP Open University
Module 8 151
SAQ 8-4
One reason why many people find it difficult to accept prohibi-

tions against “non-natural” methods of contraception is that they
consider these necessary for (1) ___________. Because there are so
many problems that are associated with uncontrolled population
growth some people say the promotion of contraception is not
enough. (2) _____________ must also be an option.
ASAQ 8-4
Check your answers below.
One reason why many people find it difficult to accept prohibi-

tions against “non-natural” methods of contraception is that they
consider these necessary for (1) family planning. Because there are
so many problems that are associated with uncontrolled popula-
tion growth some people say the promotion of contraception is
not enough. (2) Abortion must also be an option.
Abortion
Abortion has always been a controversial topic. People take sides on the
issue and usually become very emotional about the positions that they
take. The emotionally charged atmosphere surrounding public debates is
very well illustrated in the clashes that have occasionally taken place be-
tween “pro-life” and “pro-choice” supporters. In a few instances, espe-
cially in the United States, there have been rioting. Some activists have
also gone as far as burning abortion clinics and threatening or killing doc-
tors performing abortion.
UP Open University
The high-level emotions are usually characteristic of debates that have to

do with the value given to human life. Because we value life very highly
we tend to have very strong feelings about practices that have to do with
the taking of life. However, it is unfortunate that sometimes the very high
regard that people have for life also leads them to take life in their own
hands. Thus, we hear of pro-life activists taking the life of doctors per-
forming abortions.
The lesson that we should learn from the emergence of such situations is
that we need to be very rational in considering these issues. We have to
carefully examine the facts and the circumstances surrounding the acts
that might be in question. We also have to understand the important con-
cepts involved.
Abortion pill
The possible entry of RU-486 (Mifepristone) into the country has recently
resulted in an increased level of debate concerning abortion. Also called
“abortion pill” or “morning after pill,” RU-486 has been accompanied by
controversy wherever it has been introduced. It was initially developed
about 12 years years ago in the desire to find an effective but safe and
manageable means of preventing pregnancy. It was allowed entry to the
United States very recently and now, it is being probed to see if it can be
introduced in the Philippines. But there are also determined efforts to
strike it down as quickly as possible.
Abortion pill users face

excommunication
Women who take the abortion drug RU-486 and similar pills will be con-
sidered automatically excommunicated from the Catholic Church, the
Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) said yesterday.
Msgr. Pedro Quitorio, spokesman for the influential group, said RU-486,
whose use was recently legalized in the United States, and other pills
which induce abortions are barred under Church regulations.
“Ipso factor excommunication. The excommunication does not have to

be announced anymore. It is automatic for those who take the pill,”
Quitorio said.
Source: Philippine Star, 5 October 2000
UP Open University
Module 8 153
Local debate, as reported by newspapers, has focused on whether RU-

486 can truly be considered an abortion pill or not. On the one hand there
are religious leaders, or political leaders guided by religious convictions
who are convinced that RU-486 kills innocent human life. According to
the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines (CBCP), women who
take the abortion drug RU-486 and similar pills will be considered auto-
matically excommunicated from the Catholic Church. The announcement
was made recently by Msgr. Pedro Quitorio, CBCP spokesman, who also
pointed out that abortions are barred under Church regulations. Msgr.
Quitorio warned women of ipso factor excommunication, which means
that it does not have to be announced anymore.
On the other hand, then Health Secretary Alberto Romualdez said it was
still possible for RU-486 to enter the country if it passed all standards and
regulations of the Bureau of Food and Drugs (BFAD). He expressed the
belief that RU-486 or Mifepristone cannot really cause abortion. In sup-
port, the head of BFAD said he was likely to approve the entry into the
country of the drug. He described the pill as “safe,” and not an
abortificacient. According to him, the drug merely prevents the implanta-
tion of the fertilized egg. These debates have called attention once again
to the relevance of discussions concerning the point when human life
truly begins.
SAQ 8-5
According to the CBCP, women who take the abortion drug RU-
486 and similar pills will be considered automatically (1)
_________________ from the Catholic Church. This is based on
the view that RU-486 has the effect of (2) _________________ the
innocent. According to critics of the CBCP’s position, RU-486 does
not have the effect of killing. It merely prevents the (3)
_____________________ of the fertilized egg.
UP Open University
ASAQ 8-5
See if your answers are correct.
According to the CBCP, women who take the abortion drug RU-
486 and similar pills will be considered automatically (1) excom-
municated from the Catholic Church. This is based on the view
that RU-486 has the effect of (2) killing to the innocent. According
to critics of the CBCPs position, RU-486 does not have the effect of
killing. It merely prevents the (3) implantation of the fertilized egg.
Fertilization or conception
as the beginning of human life
According to a classic Christian position, human life begins at the point of
fertilization. This position holds that at the point of fertilization the com-
plete genetic make-up of the new individual is already formed. Once the
sperm unites with the egg, an entity with all the genes that define an
individual begin to exist. These genes are unique to that individual and
are the same ones that he will have for the rest of his life. Moreover, these
are the same genes that will distinguish him from another individual.
Because the genes that define an individual exists from the moment of
fertilization, then it is at the moment of fertilization that the individual
beings to exist as a distinct human being. And, if that individual already
begins to exist as a distinct human being at the point of fertilization, any
pill or procedure that leads to miscarriage must be seen to lead to the loss
of life of a human being. If that pill or procedure is introduced deliber-
ately, then there is a deliberate taking of human life. Based on this logic,
we can say that taking RU-486 constitutes the abortion of a distinct hu-
man life. RU-486 takes effect when fertilization has already taken place.
However, others would disagree with this. Critics point out the distinc-
tion between fertilization and conception. According to them, life does
not really begin with fertilization because if the fertilized egg does not get
implanted or if it does not stick to the walls of the woman’s uterus, then
the woman does not get pregnant. Even though fertilization may be tak-
ing place, there is yet no conception. Fertilization, they claim, is different
from conception. If the fertilized egg does not get implanted, conception
does not take place because no one gets conceived.
UP Open University
Module 8 155
Critics also point that the loss of fertilized eggs is a normal occurrence
that we usually ignore. It happens in the course of nature, without any-
one having to induce it. Millions of fertilized eggs get flushed out of the
human body precisely because they fail to implant in the uterus. This
phenomenon goes unnoticed and people do not ordinarily care about the
loss of that kind of life nor do they cry over the failure of fertilized eggs to
implant. They do not grieve over the “death” of fertilized eggs and there
seems to be no reason why they should.
SAQ 8-6
Some people believe that human life beings at the point of fertili-
zation because the (1) __________________ that defines an
individual’s identity exists from the moment of fertilization. Ac-
cording to critics of the position, fertilization is not real beginning
of human life because if the fertilized egg does not get implanted
in the walls of the woman’s uterus then the woman does not get
(2) ____________________. Proponents of the view that human
life begins at conception say that if the fertilized egg does not get
implanted, there is no conception because there is nobody that
gets (3) _________________.
ASAQ 8-6
Check you answers against the answer key.
Some people believe that human life begins at the point of fertili-
zation because the (1) collection of genes that defines an individual’s
identity exists from the moment of fertilization. According to crit-
ics of the position, fertilization is not the real beginning of human
life because if the fertilized egg does not get implanted in the walls
of the woman’s uterus then the woman does not get (2) pregnant.
Proponents of the view that human life begins at conception say
that if the fertilized egg does not get implanted, there is no concep-
tion because there is nobody that gets (3) conceived.
UP Open University
Other criteria for the beginning of life:

the fourteenth day
There are thinkers who are simply not
swayed by either of the position we have
just discussed. Some believe that a crite-
Think about this...
rion for the beginning of human life must
take into account the factors that make a 1. What qualities do you have
life truly human. For them, it is not enough as a human being that make
to show that at some point in time there is you different from a cat or
new life. It is necessary to show that that dog that are not necessarily
life is already human. In effect they dis- special?
tinguish life from peculiarly human life. 2. What qualities do you have
as a person that make you
According to one such position, human not only different from, but
life begins only on the fourteenth day of superior to a cat or a dog in a
the life of the embryo. It is based on the morally relevant way?
observation that twinning can still take
place until the fourteenth day. Up to that stage, it is possible for a single
embryo to split into two and become identical twins. However, a human
being is essentially indivisible. It is not possible for one human beings to
become two human beings. It goes against our concept of human beings
that one of them can become two. Hence, it is not possible for an embryo
to be a human being before it reaches the fourteenth day of gestation. We
can see the structure of the argument as follows:
Premise 1: It is not possible for one human being to become two hu-
man beings.
Premise 2: It is possible for a human embryo to become two human

embryos up to the fourteenth day of its life.
Conclusion: The human embryo up to fourteenth day of its life is not a

human being.
The Human Fertilization and Embryology Authority in the United King-

dom floated this argument when it arrived at certain policy recommen-
dations concerning abortion, fetal research, and other medical practices.
UP Open University
Module 8 157
Complementary to their argument

is the position that human life starts Think about this...
when the primitive streak beings to
appear. According to this view, it 1. What do you think taking a
is mental activity that characterizes position on abortion that also
peculiarly human life. We are hu- considers infanticide morally
man beings because we have minds. acceptable under certain situ-
However, minds are intimately con- ations?
nected with brains. If there is no 2. Do you think this is an en-
brain then there is no mind and no lightened rational view or a
mental activity can take place. patently absurd view? State
Without a mental activity, there is your reasons.
no human being. The question then
is, when does an embryo being to
have a brain?
The earliest point when a brain can be said to be present is when the
primitive streak appears. The primitive streak is the earliest known mani-
festation of what later develops into a brain. Hence, the point at which
the primitive streak appears is the earliest point at which a human being
can be said to exist. Since the primitive streak appears on approximately
the fourteenth day, human life can be said to manifest only on that day.
SAQ 8-7
Fill in the blank with the correct answer.
P1: It is not possible for one human being to become two human
beings.
P2: It is possible for a human embryo to become two human

embryos up to the fourteenth day of its life.
Therefore, (1) _____________________________________. The

above argument is complemented by the view that it is (2)
__________________________ that characterizes peculiarly hu-
man life.
UP Open University
ASAQ 8-7
Fill in the blank with the correct answer.
P1: It is not possible for one human being to become two human
beings.
P2: It is possible for a human embryo to become two human em-

bryos up to the fourteenth day of its life.
There, (1) the human embryo up to the fourteenth day of its life is not a
human being. The above argument is complemented by the view
that it is (2) mental activity that characterizes peculiarly human
life.
Personhood
Philosophers sometimes prefer to use the
word “person” rather than “human be-
ing” to refer to beings like us. They make
Think about this...
the distinction in order to emphasize that
1. Do you agree that if contra-
being human merely refers to member-
ception is made safe and
ship to the human species. To say that
available to all there will be
an individual is a human being is merely
less abortions?
to distinguish her from members of the
2. Do you agree that the evil
canine species or members of the feline
(assuming that it is indeed an
species. To say that we are human be-
evil) of abortion justifies the
ings is to say that we are different from
evil (if it is truly an evil) of
animals but not necessarily superior in a
contraception?
way that is morally significant.
3. If the pro-abortion culture is
especially strong where the
According to these philosophers, persons
Church’s teaching on contra-
are not merely individuals who belong to
ception is rejected, does it fol-
another species. They are special beings
low that abortion cannot be
who have special qualities that make them
lessened by promoting a cul-
not only different but morally valuable.
ture of contraception?
Those special qualities are the reasons
why we think of human lives as worthy
of respect and protection. So what does this have to do with abortion?
The implication of the above position is that if abortion is wrong, it is so
UP Open University
Module 8 159
because it involves the taking of a life of a person. In other words, some-

one who argues against abortion in a particular instance has to show that
the individual whose life is being taken has the special qualities that make
her a person and not merely a human being.
What then, must those qualities be that make an individual a person and
not merely a human being?
SAQ 8-8
Philosophers sometimes distinguish persons from human beings

because to say that we are human beings is to say that we are
different from other beings but not necessarily that we are supe-
rior to them in a way that is (1) __________________ significant.
As distinguished from “mere” human beings, persons possess spe-
cial qualities that constitute the basis for thinking of human lives
as worthy of (2) _______________________.
ASAQ 8-8
Philosophers sometimes distinguish persons from human beings

because to say that we are human beings is to say that we are
different from other beings but not necessarily that we are supe-
rior to them in a way that is (1) morally significant. As distinguished
from “mere” human beings, persons possess special qualities that
constitute the basis for thinking of human lives as worthy of (2)
respect and protection.
UP Open University
Mary Anne Warren is one of those who have proposed criteria to deter-
mine personhood. In Warren’s (1996) often-cited article, she gives the fol-
lowing five traits:
1. Consciousness
2. The developed capacity to reason
3. Self-motivated activity
4. The capacity to communicate an indefinite variety of things
5. The presence of a self-concept
According to Warren, it is not wrong to have an abortion during preg-

nancy because the fetus certainly does not have the traits enumerated
above at any given time during that period. Thinkers like Joseph Fletcher
(1973) and Michael Tooley (1972) share Warren’s conclusion. They define
personhood in terms of qualities or traits that human beings must possess
in order to be persons. What we can notice about their philosophical po-
sitions is that they start by identifying features that put human beings
above other living beings. However, they end up using those very quali-
ties as criteria to rule out the personhood of some human beings. Thus,
Warren’s criteria would rule out the personhood and the corresponding
right to life of many infants who are born with severe handicaps such as
those associated with spina bifida or similar other inborn illnesses.
The implications of these positions can actually be worse. Criticizing

Warren, Robert Card has pointed out that Warren’s position in favor of
abortion also works in favor of killing infants. If it is right to take a life that
has no consciousness, or a developed capacity to reason, or self-motivated
activity, or a capacity to communicate an indefinite variety of things, or
self-concept, or self-consciousness, then there are numerous infants that
we would be morally permitted to kill. Warren argues that her position
does not necessarily allow infanticide but Fletcher and Tooley admit that
their criteria of personhood will make the killing of infants morally per-
missible.
Non-biological criteria of personhood

Despite the countless efforts to find empirical criteria to determine
personhood, in the end, empirical investigation has to give way to moral
judgment. Indeed, “humanhood” is an empirical category. To the extent
that it denotes membership to the human species, we have to use a scien-
tific criteria of classification. However, those scientific criteria alone will
not be enough to determine personhood.
UP Open University
Module 8 161
“Personhood” is not an empirical category. If personhood is indicated by

qualities that make human beings superior to other beings in a way that is
morally significant then it obviously expresses an evaluation. More im-
portantly, the recognition of personhood expresses respect for, and com-
mitment to the protection of the life concerned. It is up to persons them-
selves to indicate how far they are committed to the respect of life. Are
we, as a society, committed to the respect of life at the earliest moment
that it beings to appear? In the end it is up to us, individually and collec-
tively, to express our commitments and make them count.
Abortion: the stark reality

If there is one factor that must be
taken very seriously in favor of Think about this...
abortion, it is the stark reality that
in the Philippines, thousands of
1. Can you suggest practical
abortions are being performed ev-
ways of minimizing the ex-
eryday. Notwithstanding the fact
tent to which abortion has
that ours is a predominantly Catho-
been practiced in the Philip-
lic country and that that Catholic
pines?
Church has aggressively cam-
2. Is is realistic to strictly enforce
paigned against the practice, in-
the law and punish women
duced abortion has been a fact of
who submit themselves to
Philippine life.
abortion?
3. What could be the implica-
According to one authoritative
tion of adopting a liberal
study, 20 to 30 women out of every
policy that aggressively pro-
1,000 undergo induced abortion in
motes the use of contracep-
the Philippines every year (Perez,
tion?
1997). This means that 320,000 to
480,000 induced abortions are per-
formed annually. The medium level estimate of 25 induced abortions out
of every 1,000 is lower than figures reported in Vietnam and predomi-
nantly Catholic Latin American countries but higher than those of non-
Catholic Japan, Bangladesh, and India. However we look at it, 400,000 a
year is a huge number of lives lost to abortion.
The point is that if 400,000 abortions are being performed every year,
then there are about as many women’s lives that are put under great risk
for infections and other life-threatening complications because they not
have access to safe abortion. Perez (1997) says,
UP Open University
Because performing an induced abortion is punishable by law

and having one may be viewed as morally wrong, public dis-
cussion and awareness of the existence of abortion are mini-
mal, and the subject tends to remain shrouded in silence—ig-
nored, concealed, or denied. Only privately, within their fami-
lies and in discussion with friends, confidantes and doctors,
do women acknowledge that they—and perhaps their own
mothers or daughters—have had (or know someone who has
had) an unwanted pregnancy that was resolved by an induced
abortion.
According to one view, the situation is oppressive to women not only

because they are exposed to great danger—and many of them do lose
their lives—but also because the conditions that lead to their pregnancy
are not within their control. Many pregnancies arise because women are
unable to assert their right to control what happens to their bodies in the
face of marital rape or because they do not have access to effective contra-
ception.
Thus, some people point that if we want to minimize abortion, we must

aggressively promote the use of safe and effective contraceptives. Contra-
ceptives can be a utilitarian solution to minimize suffering and dangers to
life. However, this proposal is met by religious objections Johannes Paulus
II or Pope John Paul II (1995) says,
It is frequently asserted that contraception, if made safe and

available to all, is the most effective remedy against abortion.
The Catholic Church is then accused of actually promoting
abortion, because she obstinately continues to teach the moral
unlawfulness of contraception. When looked at carefully, this
objection is clearly unfounded. It may be that many people use
contraception with a view to excluding the subsequent temp-
tation of abortion. But the negative values inherent in the “con-
traceptive mentality”—which is very different from respon-
sible parenthood, lived in respect for the full truth of the conju-
gal act—are such that they in fact strengthen this temptation
when an unwanted life is conceived. Indeed, the pro-abortion
culture is especially strong precisely where the Church’s teach-
ing on contraception is rejected.
UP Open University
Module 8 163
The following are stories that narrate experiences of women who have
undergone abortion. These narrations illustrate, in a limited way, the dif-
ficulties that women go through when they decide to terminate their un-
wanted pregnancy. Even as we recognize the value of life and the evils
associated with its termination, we must also be able to understand (though
this is not necessarily considered as morally justified) the pressures that
force women to seek abortion notwithstanding the attendant risks to the
procedure.
TWO TALES OF ABORTION
The hilot asked me to lie down and bend my knees. She put oil on her
hands and massaged my abdomen for about 30 minutes. While she was
massaging she made me breathe deeply to help her feel the lump that
would have to be brought out. The pain was unbearable. I [felt] like faint-
ing… After that session, the hilot told me to come back as soon as any
bleeding occurred. I went through this session for three consecutive days.
On the third day, I aborted (Marcelo, 1991).
Abortion was induced by the insertion of a rubber catheter; removed the

following day, after which curettage was done. Erlinda complained of
abdominal pain. She was refused treatment at two local hospitals, and
traveled another 3-4 hours to reach Manila. By this time, the infection
was septic and extensive. Despite surgery and measures to resuscitate
her, Erlinda died 15 hours after the operation, five days after the abortion
(Tadiar, 1993).
The concerns presently expressed by some people about prohibitions

against abortion in the Philippines are the same concerns that led other
countries to adopt liberal attitudes towards abortion. The Soviet Union
was among the first take this path as it passed a decree early as 1920
recognizing the legality of abortions performed by a physician in a state
hospital. This was to avoid the risks women who went to unskilled abor-
tionists had to take. Many other countries have since promulgated laws
permitting abortion. We must note that the premise governing such poli-
cies is utilitarian. In so many instances, the risk of harm attendant to preg-
nancy are greater than the risk of harm arising from its termination.
Obviously, the premise puts a lot of emphasis on the interests of women.

In some countries, the reference is to the right of women to privacy. Ac-
cording to this view, women have a right to determine what happens to
their bodies. That right is so great that it cannot be overridden even by the
interests of their fetuses. In reply, the following Christian position has
been offered by Adeva (1990):
UP Open University
The emancipation of woman is good and commendable inso-

far as it acknowledges in theory, and makes it possible in prac-
tice, that woman should develop all her intellectual political,
artistic, social, occupational, and other faculties, in equality of
opportunity with man. In other words, there must be no dis-
criminations founded on sex. In this sense the emancipation of
woman demands that she be permitted fully to develop her
maternal vocation, without ever being coerced into contracep-
tion, abortion, or infanticide.
This reply gives prominence to the evil of contraception, abortion, and

infanticide. Thus, it looks at women’s emancipation in terms of liberation
from these evils. On the other hand, many women’s groups give promi-
nence to the evil of women’s daily sufferings and focus on emancipation
from these experiences. The priorities are different.
It is not the aim of this module to present a single “correct” way of deal-
ing with the issues involved. We only hope to present competing perspec-
tives in a way that is fair to all.
Euthanasia
Rudy Linares, a twenty-three-year-old Chicago housepainter, [is] stand-

ing in a hospital ward, keeping nurses at bay with a gun while he discon-
nects the respirator that for eight months has kept his comatose infant
son Samuel alive. When Samuel is free of the respirator at last, Linares
cradles him in his arms until, half an hour later, the child dies. Then
Linares puts down the gun and, weeping, gives himself up. (Harrison and
Shryer, 1989 in Singer, 1994)
If abortion arises concerns about the value that we give to life at its begin-
ning, euthanasia usually raises concerns about the value that we give to
life when it is close to its end. Concerning abortion, one of the main ques-
tions that we ask is: when does life really begin? Concerning euthanasia,
one of the main questions that we have to settle is: When does human life
really end? When the subject of abortion comes up, some people choose to
speak of rights and ask: Do fetuses have a right to life? We can do that
same thing with euthanasia and ask: Do human beings have a right to
die? These are questions that we must deal with as we consider the ethi-
cal issues that are involved in the practice of euthanasia.
UP Open University
Module 8 165
Taken literally, “euthanasia” means good death. It is commonly used to

refer to ending human life when the experiences associated with that life
become unbearable. Euthanasia differs from suicide because the unbear-
able experiences referred to are those associated with illness or disease.
Moreover, the practice of euthanasia is usually limited to those where the
patient is already “dying.”
As we look at the characterization of euthanasia we gave above, we should

notice the many clarifications we have to make. These clarifications in-
volve philosophical issues that require understanding and a great deal of
moral sense. Some of the clarifications that are necessary relate to the
questions listed below.
1. How unbearable must life be for it to be able to justify euthanasia?

2. Whose unbearable experiences must they be?
3. Must they be experiences only of the patient?
4. Can the unbearable experiences of relatives be included in the effort
to justify euthanasia?
5. Must the patient already be dying?
6. What does it mean for a patient to be dying?
7. If at all, what means of taking life is morally acceptable? Under what
conditions would euthanasia be morally acceptable?
Unbearable burdens, autonomous decisions

The intolerability of suffering is one of the main reasons why euthanasia
is sometimes sought especially in some medical conditions where patients
go through a lot of pain. The conditions can be so excruciating that when
a certain threshold is reached the patient finds early death a more accept-
able alternative. But is this morally acceptable?
The Octogenarian
An eighty-year-old woman afflicted with liver cancer felt that she could
not bear the pain of her illness anymore. For several days, she begged
her husband to take her life. He loved her, and did not want to see her go.
However, her suffering also moved him. In a moment of “weaknesses,” he
put a pillow over her head until she suffocated to death. It took only a few
moments for her to be relieved of her burden.
UP Open University
In this case, the excruciating pain felt by the old woman compelled her to
beg her husband to end her life. The patient herself determined the point
when her painful life became unbearable. Nobody else did that for her.
Because of the intense and unbearable pain she felt, it is not difficult for us
to understand why she asked to be put to death. However, to say that we
understand her request is not to say necessarily that we find her request
morally acceptable. Even if we appreciate the turmoil that she must have
been going through, we hesitate to give our moral approval of what hap-
pened because we value life so much. There must be clear and convincing
considerations for that value to be overridden. Hence, in this section, we
speak of factors supporting one or the other side but we do not refer to
decisive arguments.
In the 80-year-old woman’s case, the unbearability of suffering is a factor
that supports her request for euthanasia. Another factor is the fact that
she directly and categorically asked to be put to death. In other words,
she made an autonomous decision. She made the decision herself and
conveyed it to her husband clearly and without any room for doubt.
SAQ 8-9
Supply the blanks with the correct answers.
When a patient’s suffering is (1) _____________________ it is not

difficulty for us to understand why she desires to cult her life short.
To say that we understand a patient’s wish to die is not to say
necessarily that we find it (2) _________________ acceptable.
ASAQ 8-9
See how many correct answers you got.
When a patient’s suffering is (1) unbearable, it is not difficult for us

to understand why she desires to cut her life short. To say that we
understand a patient’s wish to die is not to say necessarily that we
find it (2) morally acceptable.
UP Open University
Module 8 167
Means of euthanasia
What one finds bothersome about the octogenarian’s case is the means
employed by her husband to end her life. Suffocating another person by
putting a pillow to her face is something that comes very close to our idea
of a crime. In other words, it is something that we would not think of
doing for any other reason but to end the life of the other person. If you
ask why a person put a pillow over another’s face, there seems to be no
other plausible explanation other than he wanted the other person dead.
What other believable reason could one possibly give?
There are two critical factors in the description that count against the
means used. First, the participation of the husband was active. Second,
the participation was direct. The husband had active involvement in that
there was something that he took the initiative to do. He did not just sit
there and do nothing until his wife died of an infection or of some other
cause that could have been attributed to somebody else. He actually initi-
ated the action that cause her death.
Philosophers sometimes refer to such cases as active euthanasia. Eutha-

nasia s active when there is an active initiation of the cause of death. On
the other hand, euthanasia is passive when a disease is allowed to take its
course without the intervention of curative medication. An example is
when a patient is taken off a respirator.
The husband’s involvement was direct because what he did was intended
to kill the wife and not to achieve any other end. He did not put the pillow
to her face in order to make her enjoy the smell of cotton or to protect her
eyes from blinding light. The death was not merely an indirect conse-
quence of what he did.
Direct euthanasia may be contrasted with cases where the death results
from an action having another intended effect. For example, euthanasia
is indirect when heavy doses of medicine are given in order to deal with
pain even when the heavy dosage has the unintended effect of advancing
the death of the patient.
UP Open University
SAQ 8-10
In the octogenarian’s case, it is to be counted against the means

used that the husband’s participation was (1) _______________
and (2) __________________. Euthanasia is (3) ________________
when a disease is allowed to take its course without the interven-
tion of curative medication. Euthanasia is direct when death is the
(4) _________________ consequence of the action taken.
ASAQ 8-10
Let’s see how you did in the SAQ.
In the octogenarian’s case, it is to be counted against the means

used that the husband’s participation was (1) active and (2) direct
Euthanasia is (3) passive when a disease is allowed to take its course
without the intervention of curative medication. Euthanasia is di-
rect when death is the (4) intended consequence of the action taken.
Deciding by proxy
One of the most controversial and highly publicized cases of euthanasia
involved a young American named Karen Ann Quinlan. Karen fell into a
deep coma after taking an illegal drug. She was kept in a respirator for
months as her heart apparently continued to beat spontaneously. Her
parents realized that the long period of hospitalization did not do Karen
any good. The doctors did not entertain any hope that she would regain
consciousness and recover. However, the doctors could not remove her
from life support as they feared the possibility of being made legally ac-
countable for her “imminent” death. The parents went to court for per-
mission to have her removed from the respirator. After an initial setback
in the lower court, their request was eventually granted. Karen lived for
many more years in comatose before she finally died.
UP Open University
Module 8 169
Could somebody have established that Karen’s life was unbearable? Be-
cause she was comatose, she was not in a position to make a judgment for
herself. Somebody else would have had to make the judgment for her.
Life has such a high value for us that we also value having to make deci-
sions about it. One would not like it if somebody else were to say that her
life was not valuable enough. Neither would she like it if somebody were
to say that her life was no longer worth living. This is one of the reasons
why people do not like what the Nazis did to many of their prisoners
during Hitler’s time. The Nazis acted as though they had the right to
make judgments concerning the worth of other people’s lives. They de-
cided when other people’s lives were no longer worth living and killed
them.
Think about this...

1. Who would have been in a position to make a judg-
ment for Karen that her life was no longer worth liv-
ing?
2. Is it morally acceptable that somebody would make a
judgment for another person that that other person’s
life was no longer worth living?
For this reason, many people are very wary of decisions involving eutha-
nasia. They think that a person is never in a position to make a moral
judgment concerning the worth of lives other than their own. In order to
avoid such difficult situations, some countries have adopted policies and
laws that enable people to make life-ending decisions in advance. There
are documents called Advance Directives through which people can ex-
press what they wish done to them should emergencies arise. They may
use it to give instructions that they be spared from the use of respirators,
thus ensuring that their decisions are given weight even after their death.
For purposes of organ donation, organ donation cards are very handy
instruments that express one’s after-death directions.
UP Open University
In the absence of formal documents, proxies or substitute decision-mak-

ers can infer what patients would have wanted. Parents, husbands, wives,
children or other relatives can make inferences about the wishes of a co-
matose patient on the basis of previous conversations or verbally expressed
wishes. The important thing is for the family to make a decision on the
basis of the interests and previously expressed sentiments of patients and
not their own.
When deciding about life, we have to give priority to the wishes of those
whose lives are being decided upon. Here, it seems, lies the essence of life:
that it should be lived, as closely as possible, in accordance with the wishes
of the person whose life it is.
It’s Over, Debbie
A gynecology resident in a large, private hospital was requested by a

nurse to see a patient who was having difficulty getting rest. The patient
was a 20-year-old girl named Debbie. She was dying of ovarian cancer.
An alcoholic drip was being administered to Debbie in order to sedate

her. But as a result of it she could not stop vomiting. The resident saw
that Debbie was extremely thin already. She weighed no more than 80
pounds and looked much older than she actually was. She was receiving
intravenous sustenance and nasal oxygen.
The resident described what he saw as a “gallows scene, a cruel mock-

ery of her youth and unfulfilled potential.” He wrote later on that “the room
seemed filled with the patient’s desperate effort to survive.”
During the encounter, the patient managed to tell the resident: “Let’s get
this over with.”
The resident subsequently asked for 20 mg of morphine in a syringe. He

gave Debbie the chance to say goodbye before he put her to sleep. In a
few minutes Debbie got her rest. The middle-aged woman who had kept
her company in the room appeared relieved after the experience. It’s
over.
Source: Journal of the American Medical Association, 1988
UP Open University
Module 8 171
Summary
Central to the persisting debates on the morality or immorality of contra-
ception, euthanasia, and abortion is society’s view of life. Life is highly
valued by society; hence, anything that threatens to end or curtail it is met
with, often passionate and vociferous, objections.
For instance, contraception is frowned upon by some segemts of society

like the Catholic Church because contraception, particularly artificial con-
traception, is seen to interfere with the two main functions of the sexual
union: procreation and conjugal union. The use of contraception makes it
impossible for life to blossom thus infringing the martial act’s “essential
orientation to life.” To people who espouse this belief, the only acceptable
way to prevent pregnancy is through the rhythm method because it only
uses knowledge of the natural order of things. However, the rhythm
method is criticized to omit, like artificial contraception, the supposed
main functions of the sexual union. When a couple uses the rhythm
method, they are also deliberately leaving out the procreative function of
the sex act. Critics assert that this is no different from using artificial contra-
ceptives, which does so to consciously avoid procreation. In the end, the
argument really boils down to the use of artificial over natural methods.
Contraception is a very controversial issue especially in developing coun-

tries like the Philippines where the growth of the population outpaces the
growth of the economy. With the increasing population comes myriad
problems that threaten the security not only of the family unit but the
whole society as well. With this, comes the problem of abortion. Preg-
nancy, especially among the poor is seen as an additional economic bur-
den to the family; hence, women, especially those who have no access to
contraception, resort to abortion to stop their pregnancy.
Abortion has fanned conflicts among people who categorize abortion as

murder and those who claim that it is not. At the heart of this debate is
the question when life really begins? Does it begin at the time of fertiliza-
tion or does it begin much later on? Some people say that conception or
life actually beings after fertilization but then again there are those who
say that it begins two weeks after the egg gets fertilized. Another argu-
ment claims that it is more important to known when the fetus actually
becomes human. To them, the gauge of humanity rests in the appearance
of the primitive streak or the earliest manifestation of the brain, the organ
that allows humans to have consciousness, reason, self-motivation, the
ability to communicate, and self-concept. Some people are wont to say
that it is these traits that make individuals worthy of respect and protec-
tion. Any act intended to harm the fetus who has these very traits already
is committing a crime no less grave than murder.
UP Open University
Ironically, these very traits, some critics claim, can be used to rule out the
personhood of some individuals; thereby making it easier to abort fetuses
who lack any of these characteristics. Another issue involved in abortion
is the right of women to decide for themselves and their prerogative over
their own bodies.
Abortion involves the value that we give to life at its beginning. Opposite
this is euthanasia which involves the value that we give to life as it comes
to its end. Here, we ask the question when does life end and do we have
the right to end our life if we think it fraught with suffering? Euthanasia
is vaguely similar to suicide because it also calls for ending life when it has
become unbearable. But unlike suicide, euthanasia calls for the end of life
when suffering from an illness has become too excruciating and when the
person has decided that an extension to life is not wroth suffering for
anymore. Of course, it is the suffering person himself who has the right to
say when it is time to pull the so-called plug, but, in the absence of con-
sciousness, say when the person is a state of coma, family members can
also decide based on what the patient has expressed when he still had his
faculties intact.
UP Open University
Module 9
Ethics and Business
B usiness is a human activity concerned with

making and selling goods and services for
the sake of making profit. Business is a funda-
Objectives
mental component of human society for it is the After studying this module,
institution responsible for creating wealth. you will be able to:
There are three main forms of business; namely:
entrepreneurship, partnership, and corpora- 1. Discuss why business
tion. activities need moral
evaluation and why it is
Business is considered one of the most perva- meaningful to speak of
sive elements in society, for, in some way or the morality of business
another, we always find ourselves involved in behavior and practices;
its activities. Thomas White (1992) illustrates 2. Describe why the belief
this when he said: “We run into it daily—as that there is no need for
employees, employers, customers, or the audi- ethics in business has no
ence for commercials.” The effects of businesses basis;
in the various aspects of our lives and society 3. State in what sense busi-
are extensive. It affects our well-being and val- ness activities can be be-
ues. Business also has the power to influence nevolent; and
politics. Just the same corporations have the 4. Discuss the ethical role
capacity to effect environmental damages. The of corporations in envi-
pervasiveness of business and its widespread ronmental protection.
effects make it necessary to subject business
activities to a moral evaluation.
This module deals with the application of moral concepts to business ac-
tivities. More particularly, this module discusses the necessity of evaluat-
ing business behaviors and practices morally; the sense where business
acts performed can meaningfully be said to be morally good or bad; the
weaknesses of the various arguments that undermine the need for ethics
in business; and, the ethical role of corporations is environmental protec-
tion.
The Necessity of Applying Ethics to Business

From a moral point of view, human acts done in the context of business
are essentially the same with other human acts done in different contexts.
Business acts possess the same characteristics that make other acts subject
to moral evaluation. It is meaningful to speak of the morality of business
acts mainly because the moral standards of utility, moral rights, and jus-
tice apply to them. Furthermore, such acts have the potential (1) to gener-
ate benefits or injuries; (2) violate or respect moral rights; (3) justly or
unjustly distribute benefits like wages and burdens like work; and (4) con-
tribute to the environmental crisis such as air and water pollution and the
depletion of natural resources. It is also meaningful to speak of the moral-
ity of business acts because agents can be held morally responsible for
these acts because the acts can be done freely and knowingly.
SAQ 9-1
(1) ______________ is a human activity that is concerned with
the making and selling of goods and services for the sake of mak-
ing (2) ____________. There are three main forms of business;
namely: (3) _______________, (4) ________________, and (5)
___________________. The (6) _________________ of business
and its (7) ______________ make it necessary to subject business
activities to a moral evaluation. It is meaningful to speak of the
morality of business acts mainly because the (8)
__________________ apply to them, and such acts can lead to the
(9) ______________________. Business acts can be acts for which
their agents can be morally responsible for the simple reason that
such acts can be done (10) __________ and (11) _____________.
UP Open University
Module 9 175
ASAQ 9-1
(1) Business is a human activity that is concerned with the making
and selling of goods and services for the sake of making (2) profit.
There are three main forms of business; namely: (3) entrepreneur-
ship, (4) partnership, and (5) corporation. The (6) pervasiveness of
business and its (7) wide-ranging effects make it necessary to subject
business activities to a moral evaluation. It is meaningful to speak
of the morality of business acts mainly because the (8) moral stan-
dards of utility, moral rights, and justice apply to them, and such acts
can lead to the (9) destruction of nature. Business acts can be acts
for which their agents can be morally responsible for the simple
reason that such acts can be done (10) freely and (11) knowingly.
Activity 9-1
Come up with three examples of the benefits (or positive conse-
quences) of business and another three examples of its costs (or
negative consequences).
Objections to the Application

of Business Ethics
Despite the considerations we have previously discussed that state the
validity of applying ethics to business, and perhaps because of the nature
of business itself—which is to make or maximize profit—certain argu-
ments have been floated saying that it is not meaningful to talk about the
morality of business activities. These arguments can be seen as objections
to the application of moral concepts to business activities. In this section,
we will examine these arguments and look into their weaknesses.
UP Open University
We will call the first argument as The Invisible-Hand Argument. This

argument takes off from the theory of economist Adam Smith that states
that people pursuing their individual selfish interests in the market are
guided by an invisible hand. Without really intending it, their actions har-
monize to produce what is most beneficial to everyone. The argument
claims that moral principles do not need to guide business behaviors or
practices because the pursuit of profit will eventually bring about the com-
mon good. This is because greater profits are earned in producing goods
and services that are highly needed by society. For example, a particular
businessman puts up a water retail and delivery service in a community
where water is scarce and where residents are busy with their work. The
businessman is only after profit, but without meaning it, he is also doing
service to the community.
But this is true only if we assume that the needs businesses satisfy are
essential needs of man, like food and education. If we go by this, we fail to
account for the other needs of man like his need for products and services
that will satisfy his sensual, aggressive, egoistic, and extravagant desires.
To put it more concretely, these needs might translate into prohibited drugs,
prostitution, and weapons of destruction. Some businesses are profiting
from these kinds of needs, but it does not mean that these businesses are
bring about what is most beneficial to society. So the claim of this argu-
ment is not always true. As such, moral principles are still needed to guide
business behaviors.
The second argument can be called The Legal Argument. This argument
asserts that there is no need for moral principles to guide business behav-
iors because the law, specifically the laws of government, is sufficient to
do this job. So long as businesses do not violate the laws of the govern-
ment, then there is nothing morally wrong with their practices. However,
this argument is criticized for falsely equating law with morality, or for
falsely assuming that following the law will necessarily bring about mor-
ally desirable behaviors. We must remember that what is legal is not nec-
essarily ethical. For a time, slavery and apartheid were legal, but it does
not mean that these practices were ethical. Let us consider the following
case.
UP Open University
Module 9 177
The Exploding Gas Tank
The entry of European subcompact cars (small and cheap cars) in the
U.S. in the 70’s competed with the car sales of Ford Motor Company. To
meet this challenge, Ford Motor decided to manufacture its own version
of subcompact cars, which they called the Pinto. The design of the Pinto
was hastily done and was mass produced to cope with competition.
When the Pinto was subjected to crash testing, engineers of Ford Motor
found one serious problem: if another car traveling at a certain speed hits
the Pinto at the rear, the gas tank of the Pinto would punctured and
would eventually explode. Despite this, the Pinto passed the safety stan-
dards existing in U.S. laws at that time. This, however, did not prevent
the management of Ford Motor from considering the redesigning of the
Pinto if it would be in the best interest of the company. But when they
made a study to this effect, they found out that it would be cheaper for
the company to just pay the necessary expenses in case there would be
accidents involving the Pinto (like expenses for the burial and hospital-
ization of the victims, insurance, legal fees, etc.) than for the company to
redesign all the Pintos that had already been manufactured. As a result,
Ford Motor decided not to redesign the Pintos and they just paid the
necessary expenses for the accidents that happened. (Velasquez, 1988)
This decision was legal at that time, but was it ethical? Did their consid-
eration of the law lead them to morally desirable behaviors? Why?
The third one called The Amorality Argument, claims that business ac-
tivities are amoral or do not have moral worth, that is, it cannot be said to
be morally good or bad because moral principles do not apply to them.
This argument looks at business as a game akin to games like poker and
basketball. When we play a game, we normally do not judge the value of
playing it using moral principles; we judge it according to whether it fa-
cilitates the winning of the game. Just like chess, we say that an act is
either a “good move” or a “bad move” depending on the results of our
moves. Notice that the terms “good” and “bad” here have nothing to do
with morality. Morality only comes in when one is already cheating in
playing the game, like in chess when one changes the position of the rook
while his opponent is not looking to gain advantage.
So long as behaviors are allowed by the rules of the game, we normally do

not speak of their morality. Think of the infliction of pain in the game of
boxing, and deception in the game of poker or better, yet in the card game
called “bluff.” If these acts and the manner in which they are done are
allowed by the rules of the games, we normally look at this as amoral acts.
UP Open University
The argument that sees business as being amoral makes it possible for
businesses to use deceptive techniques in marketing their products. Ob-
serve the various advertisements on TV. How many can you say are tell-
ing the truth? Yet society and the law allow these practices. Why? Part of
the reason is the belief that deception, just like in some card games, is an
allowable move in the “game” of business. But let us consider the follow-
ing case.
Marketing Infant Formula
During the 70’s, corporations in the infant formula business (especially

Nestle Corporation) aggressively advertised their products in Third World
countries. Their marketing practices included the following:
1. Dressed as health care professionals, representatives of formula com-

panies visited villages to promote the use of infant formula.
2. While interned in clinics and hospitals, new mothers were given free
samples of infant formula.
3. Free or low-cost supplies of infant formula were given to health insti-

tutions, thus routinizing bottle-feeding within hospitals and discour-
aging breastfeeding.
4. Product labels failed to warn of potential dangers from incorrect use

of infant formula. (Shaw, 1996, p. 182)
Most of their advertisements also did not mention breastfeeding while

conveying messages like:
“Give him Klim and watch him grow! Klim is full of goodness to build
strong bodies, bones, and teeth. Give your baby the best full cream
powdered milk—give him Klim. KLIM IS GOOD FOR YOUR BABY AND
YOUR GROWING CHILDREN TOO!” and ‘Help your baby grow healthy
and happy. Give him [Nestlé’s] Lactogen with Honey” (Velasquez, 1995).
These companies were very successful in marketing their products. As a

result, many mothers in underdeveloped countries switched from
breastfeeding to bottle-feeding, even though they were healthy enough to
breastfeed their babies. And because of their ignorance of how and when
to properly use the infant formula plus the lack of readily available clean
water in their places (that virtually contaminated the formula), there was
a considerable increase in infant-morality rates (See Shipp, 1992).
Can we say that the deceptive marketing techniques of these corpora-

tions were allowable moves (or better yet “good” moves) in the “game” of
business? And can we say that these behaviors should be exempt from
moral evaluation? Why?
UP Open University
Module 9 179
Among others, there are two criticisms hurled against this argument. First,
while there are indeed aspects of the business activity captured by the
game analogy, like the presence of competition and the goal of winning,
there are more serious aspects of the business activity that are glossed
over by this analogy. These include the following: (1) unlike ordinary
games, people affected by business activities, particularly consumers, have
not consciously and freely chosen to be part of this business “game;” (2)
unlike ordinary games, the rules of the business “game” are not always
clear to the people engaged or involved in it (for instance, when dining
out we do not always know when the food on display will exactly re-
semble what will be served to us or we might not be able to distinguish
truth from deception in the advertisements at all times); and (3) unlike
ordinary games, we cannot just quit this “game” of business—precisely
because it is so pervasive in society—if we do not agree to the rules of the
game (we cannot just quit being a consumer or a receiver of advertise-
ments). And second, even if we grant that business is some kind of a
game, any action cannot be exempt from moral evaluation just because it
is done in the context of playing a game; otherwise, anyone can just claim
that he is playing a game to excuse his immoral acts. Let us ask ourselves,
what if some people begin to think that killing other people is just a game?
Acts done in the context of playing a game are subject to the same moral
evaluation as any other acts, such that if these acts—like the deceptive
marketing strategies of corporations in the infant formula business—lead
to serious human injuries, injustices, and violations of moral rights, they
should be morally condemned.
The fourth argument can be called The Immorality Argument. This argu-
ment works under the premise that businesses are always immoral; hence
there is no need to subject it to a moral evaluation. This is based on the
claim that the profit motive, which is the essential goal of any business if
you will remember, is essential goal of any business if you will remember,
is essentially selfish. This makes it impossible for businesses to have be-
nevolent motives (motives which consider the welfare of other people).
To illustrate this, consider the situation of a selling agent of a certain cor-
poration who engages in a business transaction with a purchasing agent
of another company. The goal of the selling agent is to sell his products at
the highest possible price, while the goal of the purchasing agent is to buy
the products of the agent at the lowest possible price. In their transaction,
they haggle for their desired price while employing some deceptive mar-
keting techniques. In their business game, they go about bluffing about
the real quality and quantity of the products. They both act in ways that
would be profitable for their respective companies and would be advan-
tageous to their respective careers. In this situation, how can one regard
the welfare, or be concerned with the good, of the other?
UP Open University
However, this argument fails to consider two things. First, an action can
possibly have a more than one motive. And second, selfishness need not
prohibit one from being benevolent at the same time. Regarding the first
point, this means that it is possible for the same act to be driven by both
the profit and benevolent motive all at the same time. But this will only be
possible if we consider the second point.
Here, it is important to distinguish two kinds of selfishness: the vicious type

and the non-vicious type. Selfishness is considered vicious if it leads one to
violate the moral rights of others or if it prevents one from doing his moral
duties to others. Selfishness, which does not lead to these acts, is called non-
vicious. Vicious selfishness or greed is the immoral kind of selfishness. This
can never co-exist with benevolence. Non-vicious selfishness is regarded as
morally neutral and can co-exist with benevolence. The vicious kind of self-
ishness is the kind of selfishness that the Immorality Argument attaches to
the profit motive. But this need not always be the case. Let me illustrate why.
Let us consider the case involving Ford Motor Company again. Supposing
that the alternative decisions are as follows. The first alternative is to recall at
the Pintos and not to sell them anymore. In this case, no lives will be put to
danger but this would mean tremendous loss to the company. The second
alternative is to sell all the Pintos as they are. In this case, lives will be put to
danger but this would mean maximum profits for the company. And the
third alternative is to sell all the Pintos as they are. In this case, lives will be
put to danger but this would mean maximum profits for the company. And
the third alternative is to redesign the Pinto. In this case, lives will not be put
to danger but this would mean moderate profits for the company.
Someone who only has benevolence in mind and has no regard for profit
would probably choose the first alternative. Someone who only has profit in
mind and has no regard for the welfare of the Pinto users would probably
choose the second alternative. But someone who has profit in mind but also
has regard for the welfare of the Pinto users would probably choose the third
alternative. The person who has both regard for the welfare of the users will
choose the third alternative over the first alternative because of his profit
motive. But at the same time, he chooses the third alternative over the sec-
ond alternative because of his benevolent motive. In this case, the profit
motive co-exists with benevolence.
Think about this...

Are you in favor of advertisements directed at children
(like the use of cartoon characters to market certain prod-
ucts)? Do you think this is moral?
UP Open University
Module 9 181
SAQ 9-2
A. Fill in the blanks with the correct answers.
1. ______________ claims that there is no need for moral prin-

ciples to guide business behaviors or practices for the pur-
suit of profit will bring about what is most beneficial to
society.
2. _____________ claims that there is no need for moral prin-

ciples to guide business behaviors because the law is suffi-
cient to do this job.
3. _____________ claims that business is a game and as such

morality does not apply to its activities.
4. _____________ claims that there is no need to morally

evaluate business behaviors or practices for anyway they
are always immoral.
B. True or False
1. What is profitable is not always beneficial to society.
2. Following the law sometimes do not bring about

morally desirable behaviors.
3. An act done in the context of playing a game is al-

ways exempt from moral evaluation.
4. Selfishness does not always prevent benevolent ac-

tions.
UP Open University
ASAQ 9-2
A. Now it’s time to check your answers.
1. Invisible-Hand Argument claims that there is no need for

moral principles to guide business behaviors or practices for
the pursuit of profit will bring about what is most beneficial
to society.
2. Legal Argument claims that there is no need for moral prin-

ciples to guide business behaviors because the law is suffi-
cient to do this job.
3. Amorality Argument claims that business is a game and as

such morality does not apply to its activities.
4. Immorality Argument claims that there is no need to morally

evaluate business behaviors or practices for anyway they
are always immoral.
B. True or False
True 1. What is profitable is not always beneficial to society.
True 2. Following the law sometimes do not bring about

morally desirable behavior.
False 3. An act done in the context of playing a game is al-

ways exempt from moral evaluation.
True 4. Selfishness does not always prevent benevolent ac-

tions.
UP Open University
Module 9 183
Applying Ethics to Business:

The Environmental Context
Many blame corporations for the damages brought on the environment.
This is based on two observations. First, many corporations are involved
in extracting natural resources from the environment thus contributing to
resource depletion or they might also be involved in dumping wastes thus
contributing to pollution on a large scale. Second, many are responsible
for man-made environmental disasters like oil spills and accidental re-
lease of toxic substances in the atmosphere and ecological abuses such as
animal maltreatment. This reality has given rise to two needs: the theo-
retical need to include the business angle in the ethical analysis of man’s
relationship with nature as done in environmental ethics and the practi-
cal need to make corporations more aware of the important role they play
in environmental protection. In the ensuing discussion, we will address
the second need to make corporations more aware of their role in the
environment. But let us first consider the following case.
Catching Tuna and Dolphins
StarKist Inc. once had a problem regarding their business of catching

tuna and selling canned tuna. There was a time when the fishing nets
that they used to catch tuna accidentally caught dolphins as well. Most
of these dolphins died in the process. Because of this, the company
became the target of protests from environmentalists. At first, they did
not mind these protects for the reason that changing their nets would
mean additional costs and besides there were nothing illegal about their
practice at that time. However, when the protests increased, they no-
ticed that there was a considerable decrease in the sales of their canned
tuna. Because of this, they eventually decided to change their nets.
Their decision was based on their calculation that the profits that would
be lost if they would not change their nets would be higher than the costs
of changing their nets (Dobson, 1999).
In this simple case, we can see how corporations usually perceive the
duty of being conscious of nature’s welfare, in this case, the dolphins.
First, this duty can be viewed from a legal point of view wherein the
corporation does its duty because it is a duty imposed by the law. In this
instance, if the law does not require it, it need not be done. And if the law
does not require it, corporations would only perform this duty for eco-
nomic reasons.
UP Open University
This leads us to the second view, which looks at the duty of regarding the
welfare of nature from an economic point of view. Accordingly, regard
for the welfare of nature in this instance is considered a duty only if it is
an alternative that will bring in the highest profit. There may be cases
where, like the example we have given, considering the economic and
legal factors would lead to the morally desired behavior. But this is merely
coincidental and this is not what usually happens. This is because the
legal and economic factors change relative to the situation. This means
that we need more than legal and economic reasons for corporations to
be more responsive to the environmental crisis. What we need is to look at
this duty from a moral point of view, that is, to look at this duty as an
ethical duty. More particularly, we need to look at this duty from the
point of view of the moral principles of moral rights, utility, and justice.
Some philosophers have already worked on this issue, and they have ap-
proached it in various ways. Without going through the details, the fol-
lowing are some of their main arguments put across by Velasquez (1988):
1. From the point of view of moral rights: corporations ought to con-

serve resources for future generations because they have an equal right
to the limited resources of this planet.
2. From the point of view of justice: corporations ought to converse re-

sources for justice requires that we hand over to the next generation a
world that is not in worse condition than the one we received from
our ancestors.
3. From the point of utility: corporations ought to conserve resources for

each generation has a duty to maximize the future beneficial conse-
quences of its actions and to minimize their future injurious conse-
quences.
UP Open University
Module 9 185
SAQ 9-3
Corporations are held responsible for environmental damages for

two reasons. First, corporations are usually the ones (1)
_____________ from the environment (thus contributing to re-
source depletion) and (2) ______________ into it (thus contribut-
ing to pollution) on a large scale. And second, they are usually the
ones responsible for (3) ____________ (like oil spills and acciden-
tal release of toxic substances in the atmosphere) and (4)
________________ (such as animal maltreatment).
The duty to regard the welfare of nature can be viewed by corpo-

rations in various ways. From a (5) _____________ point of view,
this is a duty merely imposed by the law, such that if the law does
not require it, it need not be done. From an (6) _____________
point of view, this is a duty only if it will bring in high profits. And
from a (7) _______________ point of view, this is a duty required
by moral principles. But accordingly, corporations will take their
important role in environmental protection more seriously if such
duty is viewed from the (8) __________ point of view.
UP Open University
ASAQ 9-3
Corporations are held responsible for environmental damages for

two reasons. First, corporations are usually the ones (1) extracting
natural resources from the environment (thus contributing to re-
source depletion) and (2) dumping wastes into it (thus contributing
to pollution) on a large scale. And second, they are usually the
ones responsible for (3) environmental disasters (like oil spills and
accidental release of toxic substances in the atmosphere) and (4)
ecological abuses (such as animal maltreatment).
The duty to regard the welfare of nature can be viewed by corpo-

rations in various ways. From a (5) legal point of view, this is a
duty merely imposed by the law, such that if the law does not
require it, it need not be done. From an (6) economic point of view,
this is a duty only if it will bring in high profits. And from a (7)
moral point of view, this is a duty required by moral principles. But
accordingly, corporations will take their important role in envi-
ronmental protection more seriously if such duty is viewed from
the (8) moral point of view.
Summary
The dawn of the global age has spawned the increase of business activity.
It has become so pervasive that we can no longer ignore it. We encounter
it at many points in our life; it can even be said that it has become a
permanent fixture in our everyday lives, affecting our well-being, our val-
ues, and even our environment. Perhaps, this is enough reason to subject
business to a moral evaluation.
However, there are sectors that downplay the importance of morally evalu-
ating businesses. The use arguments like the Invisible Hand Argument,
Legal Argument, Amorality Argument, and the Immorality Argument.
The Invisible Hand Argument, if you will remember, says that businesses
do not need moral principles because its outcome, which is profit, will
turn out to be beneficial to society. On the other hand, the Legal Argu-
ment says that the law can take over the role of moral principles. As long
as business go by the rules of law, then business acts cannot be considered
morally wrong. The Amorality Argument in the mean time likens busi-
UP Open University
Module 9 187
ness to games that we usually label as moral. The final argument—the

Immorality Argument—takes a pessimistic view of business. It sees busi-
ness as consistently immoral; hence, there is no sense in subjecting it to a
moral view.
These arguments, however attractive they may seem, have certain loop-
holes that put to test their validity. For example, the Invisible Argument
fails to take into account businesses involved in drugs and prostitution
that do not bring good to society. The Legal Argument, on the other hand,
fails to consider that laws are not necessarily ethical at all times. In the
mean time, the Amorality Argument can be used as a convenient excuse
for business establishments to engage in deceptive techniques to lure the
public to purchase their products. Lastly, the Immorality Argument elides
the possibility that actions can have more than one motive and that self-
ishness need not prohibit one from being benevolent at the same time.
We cannot deny the effects of business to the environment, particularly

those that contribute to its destruction. This has inspired some sectors to
call for the inclusion of business in the ethical analysis of man’s relation-
ship with nature and the practical need to make them aware of their role
in protecting the environment. Furthermore, its morality should be ex-
ploded because the moral standards of utility, moral rights, and justice
apply to them. Business acts also have the potential to injure, to violate
rights, to render injustice, and, as mentioned earlier to degrade the envi-
ronment; hence, it should not be allowed to escape moral scrutiny.
UP Open University
References
Adeva, I. (1990). Medical & Sexual Ethics. Manila: Sinag-tala Publishers.

Allan, D.J. (1952). The Philosophy of Aristotle. London, Oxford University
Press.
Aristotle. (1953). Nicomachean Ethics. J.A.K. Thompson (trans). London:
George Allen and Unwin, Ltd. Numbers in parentheses after the quoted
passages refer to the pertinent books and chapters.
Ayer, A.J. (1954). “The Principle of Utility.” Philosophical Essays. London,
Macmillan & Co. Ltd.
Bentham, J. (1969). An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Leg-
islation. In D.D. Raphael (ed). British Moralists, II. Oxford: Clarendon
Press.
Brandt, R.B. (1963). “Toward a Credible Form of Utilitarianism.” In H.N.
Castañeda and G. Nakhnikian, (eds). Morality and the Language of Con-
duct. Detroit, Wayne State University Press.
Campbell, C.A. “A Defence of Free Will.” In In Defence of Free Will. Lon-
don: George Allen & Unwin Ltd.
Card, R. (2000). “Infanticide and the Liberal View on Abortion.” Bioeth-
ics, 14:9.
Commission on Population. (2001). State of Philippine Population Report
2000.
Coplestone, F. (1988). Aristotle’s Ethics. Oxford, Basil Blackwell Ltd.
Dobson, J. (1999). “Defending the Stakeholder Model: A Comment on
Hasnas, and on Dunfee’s MOM,” Business Ethics Quarterly. 9:2.
Fletcher, J. (1973). “Medicine and the Nature of Man,” In R. Veatch et al
(eds). The Teaching of Medical Ethics. New York: Institute of Society,
Ethics and the Life Sciences.
Harrison, E. and Shryver, T. (1989). “Weeping Father Pulls Gun, Stops
Infant’s Life Support,” Los Angeles Times.
Flew, A. and G. Vesey (eds). “Physical and Moral Causes: Profiting from
that Distinction.” Agency and Necessity. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, Ltd.
“Freedom and Necessity.” (1954). Philosophical Essays. London: Macmillan
and Co., Ltd.
French, P. (1995). Corporate Ethics. New York: Harcourt Brace and Com-
pany.
French, P. (1992). “The Corporation as a Moral Person.” In T. White.
Business Ethics: A Philosophical Reader. New York: Macmillan Publish-
ing Co.
Gewirth, A. (1982). “Can Utilitarianism Justify Any Moral Rights?” In
Human Rights: Essays on Justification and Applications. Chicago, Uni-
versity of Chicago Press.
Hanson, David. (1992). “The Ethics of Development and the Dilemmas of
Global Environmentalism,” In T. White (ed). Business Ethics: A Philo-
sophical Reader. New York: Macmillan Publishing Co.
UP Open University
Module 9 189
Hoffman, M. (1992). “Business and Environmental Ethics.” T. White (ed).

Business Ethics: A Phillosophical Reader. New York: Macmillan Publish-
ing Co., Inc.
Holbach, B. (1970). “Determinism.” In Robert E. Dewey and James A.
Gould (eds). Freedom: Its History, Nature and Varieties. New York,
Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc.
Johannes Paulus II. (1995). On the Value and Inviolability of Human Life.
Journal of the American Medical Association. (1988). “It’s Over, Debbie.”
259:2. 8 January.
Kant, I. (1938). Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals. Trans. By Otto
Manthey-Zorn. New York: D. Appleton-Century Company, Inc.
Lyons, D. (1965). The Forms and Limits of Utilitarianism. London, Oxford
University Press.
MacIntyre, A. (1981). After Virtue. University of Notre Dame.
Marcelo, A. (1991). “Attitudes and Perceptions Towards Induced Abor-
tion.” Unpublished paper quoted in Perez, et al 1977.
McCarty, R. (1992). “Business and Benevolence.” In T. White (ed). Busi-
ness Ethics: A Philosophical Reader. New York: Macmillan Publishing
Co.
Melden, A.I. (1964). Free Action. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Meyers, C. (1992). “The Corporation, Its Members, and Moral Account-
ability.” In T. White (ed). Business Ethics: A Philosophical Reader. New
York: Macmillan Publishing Co.
Michelman, J.H. (1992). “Some Ethical Consequences of Economic Com-
petition.” In T. White (ed). Business Ethics: A Philosophical Reader. New
Moore, G.G. (1903). Prinicipia Ethica. Cambridge, Cambridge University
Press.
Mill, J.S. (1987). Utilitarianism. Buffalo, Prometheus Books.
Perez, A., J. Cabigon, S. Singh, and D. Wulf. (1997). Clandestine Abortion:
A Philippine Reality. New York: The Alan Guttmacher Institute.
Ramsey, P. (ed). (1957). Freedom of the Will. New Haven: Yale University
Press.
Shaw, W.H. (1996). Business Ethics, 2nd ed. London: Wadsworth Publish-
ing Company.
Shipp, S. (1992). “Modified Vendettas as a Method of Punishing Corpo-
rations,” In T. White (ed). Business Ethics: A Philosophical Reader. New
Sidgwick, H. (1874). Methods of Ethics http://www.la.utexas.edu/re-
search/poltheory/sidgwick/me/me.preface.s01.html
Singer, P. (1994). Rethinking Life and Death: The Collapse of our Traditional
Ethics. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
Skinner, B.F. (1973). Beyond Freedom and Dignity. Harmondsworth: Pen-
guin.
UP Open University
Smart, J.J.C. (1973). “An Outline of a System of Utilitarian Ethics.” In J.J.

C. Smart and B. Williams. Utilitarianism: For & Against. Cambridge:
Cambridge Univesity Press.
Sun, L.H. (1991). “A Cyclone Survivor’s Grief: He Let His Children Die So
He Could Live” International Herald Tribune.
Tadiar, F. with M. Omictin-Diaz, M. (1993). “The Problem of Abortion:
The Philippine Case.” In International Planned Parenthood Federa-
tion, East and Southeast and Oceania Region, Country Experiences on
Abortion.
Tooley, M. (1972). “Abortion and Infanticide.” Philosophy and Public Af-
fairs, 2.
Urmson, J.O. (1953). “The Interpretation of the Moral Philosophy of J.S.
Mill.” In The Philosophical Quarterly, Vol. 3. January.
Velasquez, M. (1988). Business Ethics: Concepts and Cases, 2nd ed. New
Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Velasquez, J. (1995). Business Ethics: Concepts and Cases, 3rd ed. New Jer-
sey: Prentice Hall.
Warren, M.A. (1996). “On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion.” In T.
Mappes and D. DeGrazia, (eds). Biomedical Ethics. New York: McGraw
Hill.
White, T. (ed). (1992). Business Ethics: A Philosophical Reader. New York:
Macmillan Publishing Co.
UP Open University

Philo 173 - 2 - 11

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Philo 173 - 2 - 11

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ethics: Theory and Practice

University of the Philippines

Copyright © 2003 by Leonardo D. de Castro with Earl Stanley Fronda,

Published in the Philippines by the UP Open University

Layout by Cecilia G. Santiago

Printed in the Philippines

Professor and Chair of the Department of

He has a Ph.D. (Philosophy) from University

He is a member of various local and international

Prof. de Castro’s Teknolohiya at Pagkatao was the recipient of a National Book

Module 1 Introduction to the Study of Ethics, 3

Module 3 Duty and Categorical Imperative, 31

Module 4 Aristotle and Excellence of Character, 47

Module 5 Freedom, Determinism, and Moral Responsibility, 75

Module 6 Punishment, 103

Module 8 The Value of Life: Contraception, Abortion and Euthanasia, 141

Module 9 Ethics and Business, 173

O rdinarily, people have notions about right

What is Ethics About?

Take note that questions concerning values cannot be settled merely by

Admittedly, it is also useful to determine facts. If it can be shown that the

We can see in the example that the rightness or wrongness of an action

1. Erap stole from the state coffers.

F 1. Erap stole from the state coffers.

Descriptive versus Normative Ethics

We can use these questions to illustrate the difference between “ethics”

The first question—Is capital punishment wrong?—calls for judgment

The second question—Is abortion contrary to the teachings of the Catho-

Sometimes, we are led to confusion when we fail to distinguish normative

Ethics and Morals

To refer to questions of the third type, analytical philosophers have cho-

Whatever word we use, one effect is to contrast ethics with “morals.” We

1. Normative ethics (morals) seeks to discover or formulate “correct” moral

2. Descriptive ethics merely studies accounts of judgments formulated by

3. Ethics (in the narrow sense preferred by many philosophers) or metaethics

1. Many anthropologists in the past had said that val-

2. Anthropological studies have shown that there are

3. Abortion is murder, therefore, it is wrong.

4. Some philosophers seek to define ‘good.’

5. The Bible should be the basis of moral instruction.

6. Some philosophers seek to analyze how the word ‘im-

7. Pleasurable consequences ought to be the sine qua non

8. Actions, if they are to be good, must be based on uni-

9. God’s commands ought to be obeyed.

10. There ought to be universal values, even if there are

D 1. Many anthropologists in the past had said that values

presumed that a meaningful study of ethics is possible even if its scope

Topics of Ethical Inquiry

The main concern of the study of ethics is (1) ___________. The

Ethics and Human Conduct

A partial explanation is found in our hesitation to use the word “action”

Ethics of Actions versus Ethics of Character

In addition, we are going to take up Aristotelian ethics as an example of

Actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happi-

A perennial concern of ethics is to search for

he wants to qualify to medical school. Most likely, he wants to qualify to

If we ask the student why he wants to be happy, we are likely to get a

For many people, only happiness has inher-

If something has instrumental value, its value depends on what it serves

To determine whether a is valuable or not, one has to examine its conse-

Preference utilitarianism seeks to maximize the satisfaction of preferences.

Act Versus Rule Utilitarianism

In contrast to Act utilitarianism is rule utilitarianism. Rule utilitarianism