ETHICS

Submitted by:

Beltran, Erica

Bernal, Eunice Maybelle

Cabag, Jorge Russel

Capacio, Allyza

Carias, Julchen

Maligaya, Jessica Mae

Parao, Loidelie Eloisa

Reformo, Princess Cyra

Paliwag, Joshua

2BSA-2

Submitted to:

Mr. Norvin Tamisin

MORAL STANDARD

• Norms that individuals or groups have about the kinds of actions believed to be morally
right or wrong, as well as the values placed on what we believed to be morally good or
morally bad.
• Moral standards normally promote “the good”
• Norms plus values equal moral standards.

According to many scholars, moral standards have the following characteristics, namely:

1. Moral standards deal with matters we think can seriously injure or benefit humans,
animals, and the environment, such as child abuse, rape, and murder.
2. Moral standards are not established or changed by the decisions of authoritative
individuals or bodies.
3. Moral standards are overriding.
4. Moral standards are based on impartial considerations.
5. Moral standards are associated with special emotions.

NON-MORAL STANDARDS

• Refer to standards by which we judge what is good or bad and right or wrong in a non-
moral way
• Technically, religious rules, some traditions, and legal statutes (i.e. laws and ordinances)
are non-moral principles, though they can be ethically relevant depending on some
factors and contexts.
• If a moral standard says “Do not harm innocent people” or “Don’t steal”, a non-moral
standard says “Don’t text while driving” or “Don’t talk while the mouth is full”

MORAL DILEMMA

 A dilemma is a situation where a person is forced to choose between two or more

conflicting options, neither of which is acceptable.
 When dilemmas involve human actions which have moral implications, they are called
ethical or moral dilemmas.
 Moral dilemmas, therefore, are situations where persons, who are called “moral agents”
in ethics, are forced to choose between two or more conflicting options, neither of which
resolves the situation in a morally acceptable manner.

According to Karen Allen, there are three conditions that must be present for situations to be
considered moral dilemmas.

1. The person or the agent of a moral action is obliged to make a decision about which
course of action is best.
2. There must be different courses of action to choose from. Hence, there must be two or
more conflicting options to choose from for moral dilemmas to occur.
 3. No matter what course of action is taken, some moral principles are always
compromised. This means that, according to Allen, there is no perfect solution to the
problem.

6 Types of Moral Dilemmas

There are several categories of moral dilemmas within philosophical thought. They can seem
complex, but learning the basics of them can help identify them and mould a solution for them:

1. Epistemic moral dilemmas

 “Epistemic” means to do with the knowledge of something.

 More information and knowledge are needed before making an informed
decision.

2. Ontological moral dilemmas

 ‘‘Ontological’ means the nature of something or the relation between things.

 Options in this dilemma are equal in their moral consequences.
 The individual cannot choose between the two.

3. Self-imposed moral dilemmas

 Caused by the individual’s mistakes or misconduct.

 Self-inflicted
 Can cause a number of complications when attempting to make a decision.

4. World-imposed moral dilemmas

 Events that we can’t control have created an unavoidable moral conflict

 An individual must resolve a moral dilemma, eventhough the cause of it is beyond
his/her control

5. Obligation moral dilemmas

 We are obliged to opt for more than one choice

 An individual feels obliged to opt for several of the choices in front of them but
can only choose one

6. Prohibition moral dilemmas

 All choices are considered wrong, but we must choose one

 They could be illegal, or just plain immoral.
These are examples of some of the types of moral dilemmas that may arise. Our actions will
affect not just ourselves, but many other people as well. So, we should thoroughly consider the
action before we carry it out. However, they are complex and problematic, and resolving them
may seem an impossible task.

LEVELS OF DILEMMA

Kohlberg's Stages of Moral Development

Level 1 - Pre-conventional morality

At the pre-conventional level (most nine-year-olds and younger, some over nine), we
don’t have a personal code of morality. Instead, our moral code is shaped by the standards of
adults and the consequences of following or breaking their rules.

Authority is outside the individual and reasoning is based on the physical consequences of
actions.

Level 2 - Conventional morality

At the conventional level (most adolescents and adults), we begin to internalize the moral
standards of valued adult role models.

Authority is internalized but not questioned, and reasoning is based on the norms of the group to
which the person belongs.

Level 3 - Post-conventional morality

Individual judgment is based on self-chosen principles, and moral reasoning is based on

individual rights and justice. According to Kohlberg this level of moral reasoning is as far as
most people get.

Only 10-15% are capable of the kind of abstract thinking necessary for stage 5 or 6 (post-
conventional morality). That is to say, most people take their moral views from those around
them and only a minority think through ethical principles for themselves.