Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Introduction
In the succeeding discussions, only the four mental frameworks are discussed - Virtue
Ethics, the Natural Law, the Utilitarian Theory and Kant’s Theory. The reason for this is that
before the preparation and conceptualization of the suggested curriculum in Ethics by the
Commission on Higher Education CHED, a survey of the different frameworks commonly used
by Filipinos has been undertaken. The survey revealed that these are most commonly used
frameworks.
People are unaware, they are utilizing these frameworks in the way they deal with their
situation in life, but the manner in which they decide and act upon those decisions are
reflective of the models mentioned above. By studying them, people will be able to
maximize the benefits they can get from the models with which they are working with.
Furthermore, learning them will help them realize the advantages and disadvantages of
the models in use. Another benefit is that the study of the different models can bring
about the limitations and weaknesses of the models. Such awareness can make people
more critical and avoid the pitfalls inherent in each of the models.
Virtue Ethics
Introduction
What makes virtue ethics different from the other ethical frameworks is that it is
anchored on the character of the individual. By this, it should be understood that the application
or the practice of the model is not based on the knowledge of the framework per se but on the
character of the individual. Someone does or reacts in a particular manner because it is his or her
character reacting in that manner. The person who has the habit of practicing kindness is most
likely to display the virtue when it is called for. It is unlikely that he or she will react violently
even if his or her situation may necessitate it. Being kind has become part of the character of the
person. Kindness or virtues for that matter are then products of a long process of forming a habit
of practicing what is ethical or what is upright and continuously correcting oneself in the process.
By saying this, the natural implication is that virtues are not acquired overnight or
instantaneously. No book will be as effective in teaching virtues as helping a child practice them
constantly. The framework reminds us about the importance of educating or forming character as
early as possible and more specifically among children so that by the time they reach the age of
reason, they must have imbibed in them the virtue necessary to live ethically, doing what
promotes the good and acceptable to the rational mind.
Learning Outcomes
1. Explain the role of Virtue Ethics in moral experience;
2. Articulate the virtue ethics; and
3. Criticize virtue ethics.
Presentation of Contents
The mean is in the middle. It signifies how strong you are to withstand tension between
the lack of and excess of love. It is the test to the moral character of an individual. Aristotle is
concerned about achieving the appropriate action which is neither deficient nor excessive. Virtue
is found in the middle or intermediary between extremes. It is the application of the right amount
of passion or feelings and the exercise of one’s ability to do a particular act. It follows that in
themselves, feelings and passions are neither good nor bad. It is in the manner of applying them
that the wrongness or rightness of the act is manifested. It is alright for instance to be angry when
it is reasonable but it is not right to be angry beyond what is required by the situation that
triggered it.
Another question that must be settled here is the question of how to judge the mesotes or
the middle. Does it depend on the individual?
According to Aristotle, the mean or mesotes does not depend on the person because it is
different from one person to another. Otherwise, the person will be accused of relativism or
subjectivism. Rather, the mesotes depends on the situation. It requires a serious consideration
and examination or the situation. It is the situation that will determine where mesotes is found or
what is the mesotes for a particular situation. Again, reason will be important in order to
appropriately assess any given situation, thereby appropriately judging as well where mesotes is
to be found.
Another idea that needs special consideration about virtue ethics is that it is the
counterpart of Duty Ethics. Where duty ethics is the power to live virtuously in accordance with
what is right in terms of obligation and duties. Morality in virtue ethics is procedural and
process. Duty ethics is based on what is right and what is wrong which is based on laws and
duties. If you do it, you are doing the right thing.
Virtue ethics is different. What you set is human excellence. Virtue implies that you do
something more than doing what is right. Virtue is doing not only following rules and therefore,
it is not enough to be right (following rules) but looking for excellence. As cited by Professor
Bitanga, religion is asymmetrical; it is always giving more to the other. In the same manner, the
way in which you treat someone in a relationship characterized by respect and recognition of the
importance of the other, you always think in terms of the maximum that you can offer the other
person and not simply in accordance to what is dutiful.
Also, moderation is not the same as the mean. Moderation in the sense of the middle does
not apply to all situations. For example, in the use of shabu, moderation or the middle is not
applicable. We cannot say that moderately using the drug is the best way. It is simply not
applicable since using it in any manner is unacceptable. Virtue as the power to stay within the
mean calls for reason. Aristotle’s discussion ultimately leads us to the definition of moral virtue
which is the “state of character concerned with choice, lying in a mean and determined by a
rational principle.”
Conclusion
Moral virtue is first, the condition arrived at by a person who has a character identified
out of the habitual exercise of particular actions. One’s character is the result of continuous
preference for the good.
Second, in moral virtue, the action done is chosen because it is the middle. The middle
does not fall short or is excessive of the proper proportion by which feelings or passion should be
expressed. Aristotle adds that the middle or mesotes does not totally depend on what the person
perceives as the middle because it would imply that he adheres to relativism. But the middle
depends on the situation and the circumstance of the individual. It is the situation that identifies
the proper way of dispensing feelings and passions.
Third, the proper identification of the middle is through the practical wisdom or rational
faculty. The virtuous person has learned from experience and has therefore learned to know the
proper way of carrying out feelings, passions and actions. It means further that habit is not
simply the result of repetitive and mechanical action but is also the product of the constant
application of reason on one’s actions.
It must be said further that not all feelings and passions have a middle point. When a
mean is sought, it is the context that can identify the good act in a situation. As a conclusion, for
Aristotle, being superfluous with regard to expression of virtue is no longer ethical, one has gone
beyond the middle. This has some practical consequences to Filipino having the inclination of
using superlative expression such as “sobra,” “super,” etc. in their description of certain acts that
they usually consider as virtuous. Aristotle’s perspective on virtue can clarify better the Filipino
understanding what virtue means.
Below is a list of virtues. The list will be helpful for you students, to assess how much
you have given to them. It will encourage them to give it a try or strengthen them for better
commitment and stronger stance.
- Honesty - Humility
- Punctuality - Patience
- Benevolence - Temperance
- Courage - Prudence
- Discipline - Righteousness
- Courage - Wisdom
- Chastity - Integrity
- Resilience - Fortitude
- Faith - Love
- Charity - Obedience
- Commitment - Religiosity
- Knowledge - Prayerfulness
- Piety - Mindfulness
- Patriotism - Impartiality
Summary
Arete or virtue being the mean of all moral actions really requires character. It is a
difficult job to maintain oneself in the middle as there are always situations that can tempt
individuals to depart from the middle. People may easily slide to either of the extremes of lack or
excess. Virtue ethics is a framework or model in ethics to remind us about the importance of
forming the character of the individual that can help one to remain in the middle or attain
excellence. Also, virtue ethics will make people aware that character is not something that
individuals learn theoretically but is the result of a long process of trying to do what is the
rightful manner and in that process continually correcting oneself when one falls short in the
practice of certain virtues.
Assessment
Identify the lack or excess of the following mesotes.
Reflection
What are the usual tendencies or moments that I either lack or excess of something? In
what way or ways must I overcome these weaknesses?
Learning Outcomes
Presentation of Contents
The natural law is deeply rooted in Christian law theory and theology. This idea is also
rooted in the divine law. The origin of natural law at its very basis is God’s intention to put order
in the world through the moral law which was made known to man. This moral law is the natural
law.
Illustration:
Divine Law
Example:
Law of gravity, etc. - Expressed in (Fair and square) human law - Expressed as Church
law (Ex. Canon law)
Points of Consideration:
1. The natural law is a body of unchanging moral principles regarded as a basis for all
human conduct.
2. An observable law relating to natural phenomena. The natural law is a theory that
says that there is a set of rules inherent in human behaviour and human reasoning that
govern human conduct.
3. The natural law is divine law revealed.
Summary
The natural law provides us an internal guide that we can follow so that decisions are
based on that which is desirable and good. The model views human nature as basically good and
desires what is beneficial and serves the interests of the common good. Most people they express
this desire to do good by following their conscience, the natural light of human reason or the
voice of reason. The daily human situation at home, in the work place, when relating with others
or alone is guided by that principle to do what is good or what is moral. To follow the dictates of
the conscience or the voice of reason is moral or ethical which implies that when someone acts
contrary to it a person acts inappropriately and may act unethically.
People feel good when they have acted upon what their conscience tells them and
experience remorse and deep sense of guilt when they have acted against their conscience.
People can trust one another on the basis that what each one is up to is what is beneficial and
what can lead them to treat others with the same dignity and respect they accord themselves
Assessment
True or False. Determine if the statements below are True or False. Write
your answer on the space provided before the number.
_________1. Natural law is deciding on the goodness or wrongness of an act based on
reason or the best to do.
_________2. The best people who can tell what is the best decision according to natural
law are the religious.
_________3. What is natural is what is morally right.
_________4. Same sex marriage is alright according to the natural law.
__________5. Avoiding evil is doing what is good.
__________6. Children below the age of reason cannot perform moral acts.
__________7. Contraception is unnatural.; therefore, it is wrong according to the natural
law.
__________8. The Sacred Word or the Bible is the Ultimate source of the natural
law.
__________9. Killing any form is unjustifiable according to natural law.
__________10. What is unnatural is a sin.
Reflection
Do you always follow the voice of reason or the voice of conscience when doing
something? How did you feel having done it? Were there resolutions in your life that you made
based on the dictates of your conscience?
Learning Outcomes
1. Articulate the Kantian ethics;
2. Substantiate why a categorical imperative as a central element of Kantianism;
3. Criticize Kantianism theory in terms of its strength and weaknesses.
Presentation of Contents
Kant’s ethics is the theory of the good (ethics). Kant emphasizes the intention or the will
which is the intention to do the good, the duty of every rational person. Hence, acts are good
only when they are done out of duty more than the end or regardless of the consequence of the
act. The crucial element for Kant is the intention or motive which is the duty of every individual.
Hence, acting in the sense of duty is the one that makes an act moral. When someone does
something out one’s pleasure for doing it or it is based on one’s inclination to do it, it does not
reflect a moral act. It is the sense obligation or duty that makes an act moral or ethical. Duty or
the intention to do what is good is that which one ought to do. Hence, duty is doing what one is
obliged to do. Duty is also known as obligation. The presumption is that everybody has good will
in which again, the good will is our duty. The golden rule; therefore, the Golden rule; “Do unto
others what you want others do unto you.”
The important question that should be asked now is how can one know one’s duty in a
given situation? To determine if one acts from the sense of duty, one must judge his or her action
in the light of the universalizability of the act. This means, act according to the maxim that you
would wish all other rational people to follow, as if it were a universal law or code of behavior.
The universalizability of an act is verified if it has the characteristic of the categorical imperative,
meaning the doing of the act is done without mental reservation at all.
The good involves the principle of universalizability. Kant argues that there are
four formulation of this principle.
1. Formula of the law of nature. Act as if you can at the same time will that it should
become a universal law. The act implies that it is an acceptable act that can be willed
and be acted upon by every rational moral agent. It reflects the idea of modelling. The
intention to do good to another and the act of doing it is first acted upon by the moral
agent. It is not intended for others to do it. Further, what you do is acceptable to
others. It has the sense of strictness because the basis is good will.
2. Formula of the end in itself. It means “act in such a way that you always treat
humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, always as an
end, never simply use the other as a means” (Prof. Bitanga). An intention and the act
itself is good when it has respected the dignity of the person to whom the act is
intended and not using the same person of selfish ends. It is the humanitarian aspect
of the Kantian theory.
3. The formula of autonomy. Act that your will can be regarded at the same time as if
you are making a universal law. It is as if you want your action to be legislated. You
look at it as if an action can become a law. In doing an act of goodness, the goodness
itself is self-evident. It does not require another evidence or proof of goodness.
4. Formula of the Kingdom of Ends. It is expressed by maxim, “Act as if you were
setting yourself as a standard. Never treat a person as a means but always as an end.
Never exploit anyone for any purpose” (Prof. Bitanga, 2018). An act is expressive of
this principle when it is motivated by absolute recognition of the sanctity and dignity
of person for whom the act is done. An act done to gain the recognition of others, no
matter how good it appears to be does not belong to this formula of the kingdom of
ends.
Distinction between a Perfect Duty and an Imperfect Duty
Perfect Duty. It is the duty which we are obliged to do all the time. Example, no killing,
no harming others physically, no lies, etc.
The Imperfect Duty. Imperfect duties are those we should do as often as possible but
cannot be expected to do always. Example, be charitable, loving, etc. (Timbreza, 2007).
Some Kantian Ethical Principles
1. In the medical context for Kant, it is always wrong to lie. It says that medical
investigators should not lie to their patients.
2. People should be treated as ends and not as means.
3. That we have also a duty to treat ourselves as ends and to preserve our dignity and
worth as human beings.
4. That an action is right insofar as it satisfies the categorical imperative.
5. The distinction between perfect and imperfect duties suggests that some rights
should be recognized.
Assessment
True or False. (10 points). Determine whether or not the following statements
are true or false. Write Aye for truthful statements and Naye for your answer on the space
provided before the number.
_________1. The perfect duty is the duty that is well accomplished.
_________2. To oblige someone to perform an act is what is known as categorical
imperative.
_________3. According to Kant’s ethics, preference is the basis of the wrongness or
rightness of an act.
__________4. If you will that an act should be followed by all rational people, it has
the characteristic of universalizability of the act.
__________5. To be charitable is a perfect duty.
__________6. Miss X is acting on Kant’s ethics by studying hard because he believes
that it will result to high grades.
__________7. Motives can be judged by the consequences of an act.
__________8. Having finished the construction of the rod, the governor has executed
his or her categorical duty for the province.
__________9. Intentions are reflected in the consequences of an act.
__________10. A heroic act is a categorical duty.
Reflection
When deciding to perform an act, what were my considerations? Did I make the decision
only on the basis of my personal interests and the consequences of the act? Have I considered
reflecting on my intentions or motives for doing it?
Introduction
Learning Outcomes
Share it! (15 minutes) Evaluate the popularity of dole-out in terms of its consequence
and as a method of helping people.
Presentation of Contents
Timbreza (2007) claims that utilitarianism is the most important consequentialist theory.
This moral theory was first introduced by Jeremy Bentham and James Mill in the18th century.
Later, it was popularized by John Stuart Mill (1806 – 1873. It argues that what makes an act right
is its consequence. If an act has resulted in good consequences, then it is moral; if not, then it is
immoral.
John Stuart Mill formulated the Principle of Utility. It claims to be the only moral
principle expressed as: “actions are good insofar as they tend to promote happiness, bad as they
tend to produce unhappiness.” To determine whether an action tends to produce happiness, one
has to look into the consequences or result of the act rather than by means of some features of the
action itself, for instance, its intention. Actions are neither intrinsically right nor wrong, nor does
the goodness or badness of an action depend upon the motive or intention or past action of the
doer. Consequences, effects, results are most important. Bearing in mind the principle, we should
consider the possible effects of each action or moral decision before they are acted upon. We
ought to choose the action that produces the most benefits at the least cost of pain or
unhappiness.
Concerned about the possible cloud of individualism and subjectivism, Bentham and Mill
suggested an alternative formulation of the utilitarian principle popularly known as the “principle
of the greatest happiness” – An action is good insofar as it produces the greatest happiness for
the greatest number of people; bad insofar as it produces more harm than benefit for the greatest
number of individuals.
By introducing the “calculus of pain and pleasure,” Bentham suggests that the principle
of the greatest happiness is still made more specific in some aspects. This “calculus of pain and
pleasure includes the following aspects – “intensity, duration, certainty, propinquity, fecundity,
purity and extent.” So to speak, the more intense the pleasure is, the better, the longer it lasts, the
better.
1. The principle of utility can sacrifice the few for the sake of the many. This implies
that some individuals are considered more important than others. Their happiness is
more important than the happiness of the impoverished or ordinary individuals. It is
apparent that the utilitarian principle lacks the principle of justice.
2. The utilitarian principle comes from its own consideration that before an action is
done, there has to be thorough investigation on the different possible consequences of
the action. It would be impossible to be able to identify all the possible legitimate
consequences of any act.
3. Lastly, the utilitarian principle does not give consideration to the intention or motives
of the doer of the act. Or, it ignores the motive from which moral decision are made
or based. This would imply that a person who is acting out from an evil motive but
nonetheless produces some good benefits is a good individual.
Summary
Utilitarianism has serious difficulties but enjoys certain popularity. People act with the
immediate concern whether the action benefits and warrants better conditions for the majority
especially when needs and concerns are characterized by certain urgency. Utilitarianism has the
advantage of the clarity as a moral theory and can be measured more easily as its rightness or
wrongness is determined by the consequence of the act. If an act brings good consequences, then
it is good, if it doesn’t, then it is not good.
However, Utilitarianism fails to ask the intention or motive behind the act and whether
the act in its performance has not affected or disadvantaged some.
Assessment
True or False. (10 points). Determine whether the statement is correct or
false. Write your answer on the space provided before each item.
__________1. Utilitarianism is a moral theory anchored on the consequence of an act.
__________2. Every act of kindness is a utilitarian act.
__________3. According to Utilitarianism, “ The end justifies the means”.
__________4. The goodness of an act can only be determined by its result.
__________5. A good intention is good because consequences emanating from it is
good.
__________6. It makes sense killing a terrorist, because it stops having more victims.
__________7. The displacement of the natives near the Chico river is justifiable
because the construction of the dam will benefit more people and
generate more jobs.
__________8. No best intention can be better than the good result of an act.
__________9. Acts with evil intentions are considered good provided these acts can
benefit people.
__________10. Capital punishment is based on the principle of utilitarianism.
Reflection
Did you always favor utilitarianism? Why or why not? Can you cite an experience? What
is your ultimate basis of a moral or ethical act, the intention, the consequence or both?
Learning Outcomes
(Share it!) 15 minutes. Discuss in small groups where you see and find injustices.
Enumerate these situations and offer Resolutions for justice to prevail.
Presentation of Contents
Scholars agree that the modern period started with the French Revolution. The people
revolted against the monarchy and were successful. This event, the French Revolution resulted to
three great ideas:
1. Liberty
2. Equality
3. Fraternity
The three were born through rationality. This was the time when rationality was given
importance and influenced the development of things. Thinkers came out also during the era like
Rene Descartes and others.
Rationality influenced the way things developed. Rationality has triggered the invention
of gadgets, technology and advancement was in. Continuing the direction of development
resulted to new ways of thinking and led to the period of post-modern period.
Liberty is understood in the sense of autonomy, the ability to do what you want,
organize, plan according to what you think make sense for you. Without which, there can be no
liberty.
Further, autonomy is also understood in the sense of freedom. Freedom is born from the
experience of autonomy. Closely then, liberty and freedom are deeply rooted in the idea of
autonomy which is understood as independence or the state of being and having the power to do
things according to your choice and this in turn is the essence of liberty. Because of this, it
resulted to invention, innovation and discovery. Science then overcame theology. Philosophy and
theology tried to be powerful. As a consequence, this resulted to specialization. It is expressed in
the sense of “I could be good without the help of religion.” This is the age of great narrative
according to sociology.
What about equality? How should equality be understood? It is understood in the sense
of having equal value. For instance, now philosophy and theology and others are of equal value.
You can now criticize especially religion. However, theology still enjoyed certain superiority.
The church was still too powerful to go against it. Thus, in the work of Rene Descartes, “The
One Outside is Given by God,” is an admittance that one is trying to be careful and avoiding to
be excommunicated by the church.
Fraternity came out from the idea of independence. How come? Is it out place? It has
nothing to do at all with love. But related to people we do not love at all even those we hate.
What is then the sense of fraternity? It came from the idea of equality. It implies the sense of
equal value. Equality in value implies the dignity in each person and that calls for respect which
is a call to fraternity. Brothers are equal.
Thus, the virtue of tolerance has to be operative. Those in philosophy were allowed to
exercise their kind of discipline or that they allowed others in their field to flourish. “Hayaaan na
natin” because they have their own autonomy and therefore let us give them respect for what
they are and for the things they want to achieve.
The climate above has given rise to empiricism, positivism and the descriptive ideas. It
has resulted to experimentation characteristically physical and concrete. These concepts are the
concepts of the period of Enlightenment characterized by the idea of independence, the
opportunity to achieve which gave the idea that one had always the chance to become better. The
period also allowed the recognition of the value of others: this is me and that is you. But it meant
that one could always go up in the sense of more and better achievements. This is now the
modern period and the ideal of the modern man. Here, anyone can make a difference.
The concept further developed with the advent of the period of romanticism. The new
idea is that you and I are different but we are related. The idea is, we are different but we can
work together and which is why we are related. The big word is unity in diversity. We recognize
therefore plurality in our midst. We move in the same space and therefore we have to learn how
to live with one another. With this, it announces the end of the narrative. Why, because the
narrative highlighted only the great and maybe the worst. Now we give importance to the small
and ordinary people having done small things but contribute to achieve greater things. The idea
behind was tolerating people with “small” mind; it was enough that you make sense. The
spotlight is no more, as it were, on the main actors but on the supporting actors.
In contradiction to politics that is looking for power, now there is also greatness below
and that is the spirit of Romanticism. Equality is now to be understood in the sense of equal
value as having the same dignity and respectability as human beings. In this new context,
tolerance has become the new challenge because of the wide differences. Respect then has
become wider during the period.
In this brief presentation of the historical context of Rawls theory of justice, there are two
movements involved namely: 1) during the time of enlightenment reason was considered the
goal, expressed in terms of scientific research and hard science, and 2) during the period of
romanticism in which the most important thing was being reasonable. It is enough that you make
sense (not anymore the achievement of something great). This makes us acceptable already. We
tolerate ordinary and simple people but who make their share of contribution that made impact as
a whole (Example, independent films are now popular and not necessarily the ones with big
budgets.).
In Romanticism, we are more for the difference than similarity, looking for the in-
between and this meant the emancipation and recognition of the lowly and ordinary people. The
teaching is that it allows people to contribute.
The Theory of Justice as Fairness consider the idea of tolerance, equality, independence,
reason, respect, etc. Even if we talk about them though, reality tells us that justice has not yet
been perfected. We need to recognize that there are those who benefit better in the world. There
is something not equal. The obvious inequality is there. There is wide gap between the situation
of the poor and the rich. In this sense, to be fair is to give to the poor.
The basic concept about justice is the giving what is due and it is called fairness. This
presupposes that there is something unequal. Hence, we speak of justice as fairness. Let us
consider the Illustration below:
For Rawls, it is the question of providing not just the best but the morally best for
the society. This is justice as fairness in which citizens are equal within a realistic
society where people are free and they have to be fair to one another. In such a
society, people are considerate by being fair.
As each does his or her services, there is a need to be fair. Along this line, the
delivery of services people need to be considerate and should practice fairness.
Example, if people came from a considerable distance and they happen to reach
the office at mealtime, to be fair is to be able to accommodate these people.
1. “Equal access to the basic human rights and liberties. The first principle of
justice articulates that every individual has inherent equal liberty of citizenship. It means
that the basic right and liberty of every citizen includes the right to vote, to be eligible for
public office, freedom of speech and peaceful assembly, liberty of conscience, freedom
of thought, right of ownership and freedom from arbitrary arrest and seizure...”
2. “Fair equality of opportunity and the equal distribution of socio-economic
inequalities.” Timbreza explains, that Rawls admits” not everyone in the society enjoy
the same privileges and opportunities or status. But that he maintains; however, that in a
just society, the differences are tolerable only when they can be shown to benefit
everyone, including and especially those who have the fewest advantages. Further, he
maintains that in a just society it is not that everyone is equal, but in which inequality is
demonstrated to be legitimate.
Rawls theory of Justice as Fairness is not a naive kind of idea in which everybody
is equal and enjoys equal privileges and much more with equal economic resources.
Having not the same will always characterize every society. But where inequality is
present, Rawls looks for their legitimacy.
Summary
Rawls exposes the inequalities in the society both on the level of the social and economic
domains. He reports that the present situation characterized by bitter injustice is rooted in human
history. Somehow the French revolution that has inspired significant socio-economic and
political reforms and the ideals of the succeeding important historical periods inspired by it did
not succeed to eradicate injustice.
Rawls proposes avenues by which to combat injustice in the society. Thus, he came out
with his theory of Justice as Fairness. Rawls suggests that the liberal society is the venue for his
theory in which it should be the task of the government to initiate structural changes that can
benefit other institutions – family, education, etc. He believes that the top has the power to do it
because it has the resources to make it happen. He proposes as well that in the liberal society, the
government should not only offer what is the best for its citizens, but what is morally the best.
This will bring about changes in dealing with one another as everyone will be fair in offering
their services giving priority to the least advantaged member of the society. Rawls admits
however, that in a society not everyone will enjoy the same benefits, privileges and
opportunities. But that the differences will be tolerable. Further, he maintains that in a just
society, not everybody will be equal, but that such inequality must be based on legitimate reason
or that it should be demonstrated to be legitimate.
Assessment
Answer the following questions briefly:
1. What is the background of the Rawls’ theory of justice as fairness?
2. Explain the ideal role of government in a liberal society.
3. Why should transformative changes start with structural change?
4. What is a morally acceptable behaviour described in Rawls’ theory of justice?
5. How would you describe the realistic society according to Rawls?
Reflection
Have I been just in dealing with others? Have I not sought personal advantages at the
expense of others?