Sei sulla pagina 1di 21

Ethical Frameworks and Principles in Moral Disposition

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.

Activating Prior Learning


In a small group share your idea about the following: Imagine you are trapped in the
middle of a forest. With you are other adults and women and children. There is not much food
left. How are you going to apportion the food left for everybody to survive while waiting for the
rescuers? (Share it!) 15 minutes.

Presentation of Contents

Arete (Virtue) as Moral Excellence


Values can be good or bad. The good values are virtues and the bad ones are vices. Since
virtue has the ability to bring positive changes and enhance the quality of life, it is power in
itself. It is power as disposition or state. This power is a means to attain excellence or human
excellence, “the ability to function according to reason and to perform an activity well or
excellently” (Bulaong Jr. et al, 2018). It can be achieved by developing the good values. Hence,
the role of human reason is vital in the discernment in which manner power has to be used.
Individuals do not become virtuous overnight. The power to attain excellence is
nourished by the moral character of a person as a result of practicing the virtue. If virtue or the
manner of doing things excellently is achievable only by training oneself or by constant practice,
virtue must be something which individuals must strive for. They must constantly make the habit
of practicing them in their day-to-day existence, constantly doing what is good and correcting
oneself if one falls short in its practice. In the same vein of idea, virtue cannot be the result of a
single act. The act of honesty is considered virtue if it is done not once, not twice but when it has
become part of one’s character.

Virtue as the Golden Mean (Nicomachean Ethics)


It is not clear whether it is Aristotelian or written by Aristotle himself but it is clearly
dedicated to his son Nichomea. The concept of virtue is explained by the golden mean (mesotes
or measurement). It is a means by which the human person is acting in measured way being
rational. The question therefore to be asked is “where can I find excellence?”. The answer is
found in the mean or moderation. Example, the lack of love is hatred or indifference. And
excessive love is obsession as illustrated below:

Lack The Mean Excess

Hate/indifference Love Obsession

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.

Lack Mesotes Excess


Punctuality
Integrity
Commitment
Knowledge
Humility
Discipline
Charity
Love
Religiosity
Obedience
Righteousness

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?

The Natural Law Ethics Theory (Divine Law)


Introduction
Timbreza (2007) claims, that “there exists a natural moral law which is
manifested by the natural light of human reason, demanding the preservation of the
natural order and forbidding its violation.” Furthermore, St. Thomas Aquinas, as cited by
Timbreza (2007) explains that the source of moral law is reason itself. Reason directs
individuals toward the good as the goal of our action. In the same context, Aquinas
concludes that the good is discoverable within the human nature and in its operation.
Reason recognizes the basic principle of “Do good, avoid evil.” The idea is synthesized
in what he calls “SYNDERESIS or the capacity of each individual to desire what is
good.”
The natural law ethics suggests that it is inherent in the human individual the capacity to
recognize what is good and what is evil. Individuals are given this capacity through the light of
human reason and as St. Thomas Aquinas suggests,” it is the voice of right reason which he also
calls “the voice of conscience.”

Learning Outcomes

1. Articulate the basis of the natural law;


2. Discuss what is meant by, “To desire what is good;” and
3. Identify experiences in which reason or conscience have been their basis.

Activating Prior Learning


Share it! (15 minute) You identify your experiences and decisions made in which the
sole basis for doing them would be reason or one’s conscience.

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

Laws of Nature ----------------- Moral Law ------------- Natural 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.

Guide for Understanding the Natural Law


How do we understand natural law? To understand it, we have to look into two
elements: the purpose and the essence.
First, to be able to understand the natural law, one must look at the purpose, “Para saan
ito?” You are created for what? Example, something is wrong because it is not used for its
natural purpose and vice-versa. Like the male organ is for the female organ and they are used for
reproduction. In the same manner referring to marriage, it is meant to be consummated and
ratified (solemnized). There is no marriage when one is missing. Honoring the purpose of things
is fundamental. Immediately something is out of track when the purpose of a thing is not
respected. For instance, being a student, your main purpose is coming to school to study. Having
put aside this main purpose will jeopardize results. A student may fail in the subjects if not given
appropriate attention. Those students who excel are those who had constantly given themselves
to their main task which is studying. Or, a driver who continuously does texting while driving
may meet a vehicular accident and may not reach the destination. Thus, the rightness of one’s
action according to natural law depends on whether its purpose is respected for which it is being
performed. An action is wrong when it does not express the purpose for which it is meant for.
How do you determine your purpose? The law seems to be a part of you. Reason
tells you that you are doing the right thing or its opposite. In an example, it says that it is natural
that you don’t have sex with a dog. Nobody told you about that.
To understand the natural law, one ought to know the essence of a “thing.” What is this
about? (Ano ba ito?) I am a person (my essence), then, you should not kill me. Knowing what
the thing is or its nature, guides one to deal with it appropriately and not otherwise. The problem
starts when one has a distorted idea about the essence or nature of things. When that happens,
inappropriate dealings follow. But if I know the right value of a thing, I would deal with it
appropriately. Again, the question is how does one know the essence of things? Reason will help
one to recognize the value of a thing and Natural Law tells us that it is in the nature of human
beings to know it.

Criticisms on the Natural Law


1. Rachels (2003) claims that the idea that everything in nature has a purpose is
stunningly anthropocentric since everything, as it were, is arranged for the sake of
people whose well-being is the point of the whole arrangement. By saying this,
Rachels seems to imply, without saying it directly, that it is too neat to believe. He
said: “Humans are a remarkably vain species.”
2. Citing David Hume, Rachels argues that in the discussion of the laws of nature,
there is a confusion of “is” and “ought.” He tries to point out that they are
different notions and that there can be no conclusion that can be derived or that
follows from the other. That is, if for instance, man was made beneficent, it does
not follow that he ought to be.
3. Relative to the question of moral knowledge, Rachels suggests that because
human are following the laws of reason and since God, the author of the natural
order has made us rational beings, it means that the religious believer has no
special access to moral truth. The holy and the profane have equal access to moral
knowledge.

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?

Kant’s Ethics or Ethical Theory


Introduction
The Kantian ethics is a deontological model of morality based on the intention or duty of
the moral agent. “Deontos” in Greek means duty or obligation. The model emphasizes that it is
the intention of the responsible moral agent to always do his or her duty to do what is good. For
this reason, Kant’s ethics is also called deontologism. Following the same line of thought, the
motive which is the performance of one’s duty to do what is good, becomes the essence of
morality. It means that the rightness or wrongness of an act is determined by the motive to do
what is good regardless of the consequences of the act. Motive or intention also refers to the
motive of doing what one ought to do which of course is the duty to do what is good (Timberza
p. 44). The Kantian model of morality is often put in juxtaposition with the utilitarian perspective
of morality in which the consequence regardless of the intention of the motive determines the
rightness or wrongness of the act. The Kantian model has its own weaknesses and limitations
which are discussed below.

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.

Activating Prior Learning ( Share it!)


During election period, identify those which you consider as real duties. Why would you
consider these as duties? Are they absolute duties?

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.

Criticisms of the Kantian Ethics


1. Kant’s principles have no clear way of resolving cases of conflicting duties.
Example, it is one’s duty to always tell the truth. What if telling the truth to a
patient about the real health status will shorten his or her life.
2. Categorical imperatives fail to establish duties in cases involving maxims that
cannot be willed to become a universal law for subjective reason.
3. The problem related to the notion that we have a duty to treat others as rational
beings or persons. In bioethics, it is the question of whether to consider a
seriously deformed fetus a rational being or not (Timbreza, 2007).
Summary
Kantian ethics emphasizes that the rightness or wrongness of the act is determined by the
motive or intention regardless of the consequences of the act. On some light, it is understood that
morally right actions are possible only when one does something that one ought to do. And
therefore, it is important to ask , “ when does one do what he or she ought or obliged to do?” It
happens when one acts according to one’s sense of duty or obligation.
Clearly, the Kantian sense of morality demands that before doing anything one should
first seriously examine the motive or intention for doing the act. If the act lacks the requirement
of the sense of duty for doing it, the act does not reflect moral righteousness. Therefore, one
should always consider the sense of the categorical imperative value of an act or its
universalizability. If the act does not meet this requirement, the act does not reflect moral value.

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?

End of the tenth page…


Utilitarianism

Introduction

Ethicians classify ethical theories as either teleological or deontological ethics. In Greek


“telos,”or “teleos” mean “end” or “purpose” (Timbreza, 2007). When moral valuation is based
on this, it emphasizes the end result, goal or consequence of an act as the determining factor of
its rightness or wrongness. The utilitarian ethics or utilitarianism is considered the most
important of the consequentialist theories. As a consequentialist model, utilitarianism determines
moral valuation according to the consequence of the act. An act is considered right if it results to
something that is positive and good to people involved and bad or wrong if the consequence of
the act has brought about sadness. In the discussion below, what is “good” or “positive” refers to
the happiness an act brings to people as a result of the benefit brought about by the act.

Utilitarianism, in opposition to Kant’s ethics, is purely based on the consequence of the


act and never on its intention or motive. What is considered morally right is that which can bring
some good or happiness to its beneficiaries but never on the basis of the motive or the why of the
action. The rightness or wrongness in the utilitarian sense is further clarified and discussed
below.

Learning Outcomes

1. Articulate the utilitarian Ethics;


2. Apply Utilitarianism ethics in moral experiences; and
3. Criticize the Utilitarian Ethics.

Activating Prior Learning

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.

Criticisms on Utilitarian Ethics

Timbreza (2007) notes several difficulties of utilitarianism as pointed out below.

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?

Rawls’ Theory of Justice


Introduction

Historical events and situations are excellent backgrounder to contextualize something


for better and appropriate understanding. In the historical sense, justice is born as a clamour
where it was not given a chance to flourish even when the opportunities were there.
The French Revolution has led to the three great ideas of liberty, equality and fraternity.
Later reason was the center piece of the period of enlightenment and the period of Romanticism
gave rise to the importance of the idea of being able to contribute. Throughout the different
periods, a number of important ideals developed - independence, reason, respect and tolerance,
but justice was far from being perfected. John Rawls’ theory of justice as fairness is thus
anchored on the idea that justice was never given enough consideration and importance. Justice
is far from being realized and “the obvious inequality is there,” as pointed out by Professor
Bitanga.

Learning Outcomes

1. Articulate the historical context of Rawls Theory of Justice;


2. Explain the significance of justice in the society;
3. Critically evaluate the need for justice; and
4. Research ways to contribute justice in society.

Activating Prior Learning

(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

A. Background of the Rawls’s Theory of Justice or Fairness

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.

B. John Rawls’s Justice as Fairness

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:

Class Poor Middle Rich


Eco A 10 k 50 k 100 k
Eco B 30 k 80 k 150 k
Eco C 1k 60 k 500 k

Above there is obviously unequal distribution of resources. It is clearly an


artificial and theoretical distribution, as it were, of resources, but what it wants to
demonstrate is that in some societies, the unequal distribution of resources is more
pronounced. Somehow, it is reflective of the reality that the poorer the society is, the
greater is the disparity in the distribution of wealth among the poor and the wealthy. In
poor societies, the poor are poorer and the wealthy wealthier. Hence, the clamor for a just
and fair society is stronger or in which the clamor for better distribution of resources is
more obvious.

Justice as Fairness in a Liberal Society

In a liberal society, we find the following characteristics:


 The liberal society is democratic, tolerant, open and tolerating.

 It is a society governed by a body that would heed to a clamor of society and


responds to their needs. It shows that the government cares for the people. This
government sets the maximal standard which is the best, arranging society to
bring out what is best in education, business, in the family, in the legislation of
laws or constitution, etc. They arrange together then they could give what is the
best (Emil Durkheim).

 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.

 Justice as fairness is egalitarian. It is the most fundamental interpretation of the


concept of liberalism. Fairness provides a superior understanding of justice better
than utilitarianism.

 In Rawls’s concept, transformative change in the exercise of justice should start


with the basic structure of society. When this happens there will be a major
change in social institutions like the family, school, etc giving them what is
morally the best. There will be an arrangement of societal basic structure aligning
them and working as a team. The basic structure is the place of justice. The locus
where justice has to bloom is in the structure. It will imply the provision of basic
rights, etc. Why the structure? Because it has profound influence on the people’s
life. This will have effect on their relationship and their life in the society. There
will be more institutions that will be involved. Favorable conditions should be
met to serve the needs of the people. The idealism is “Gawin nating kaayaaya
para sa lahat lalo na sa mga nangangailangan,” Professor Bitanga exclaimed!

 Guiding ideas: Social cooperation will be necessary to live a decent life.


Cooperation should be fair. Here, both positive and negative theses are implied
because of the assumption that people have been deprived of the fundamental
justice due to them.
- Negative: Citizens do not deserve to be born rich or poor. Born poor – we do
not deserve that. A lot of people are poor because of unfair set up. This is the
reality but this is not supposed to be how things should be. This inequality
should not be the basis for the services in the society.

- Positive: Equality is based on reciprocity. Goods should be distributed


equally. It is the guiding idea. Justice requires that any inequality must benefit
all citizens especially those who will have the least.

 Principles of Justice as Fairness:


1. Each person has the same opportunity. The society fills the gaps. In the
liberal society, the government has to move first. The top has to initiate
changes since it has the resources and power to make changes.

2. Social and economic principles are to satisfy two conditions:


1.2 They are attached to offices and positions open to all under the
conditions of fair and equal opportunity.
1.2 They are to be to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged
members of the society (the difference principle). In terms of
equal opportunity, priority should be accorded to those who
need the most in the society. This must become the policy and
the first move is to be initiated by the government. Then, make
laws for the benefit of the least in the society.

Timbreza (2007) further explains Rawls Theory of Justice twofold principles in


the following manner:

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?

Potrebbero piacerti anche