CHAPTER 6

ETHICS OF VIRTUE
Ethical and moral philosophers of various strands and is divergent traditions agreed
overwhelmingly, that there are three (3) main ethical schools of thoughts. They are Virtue
Ethics (by the Greeks), the Deontological Ethical School of Thought and Utilitarianism.
It does not mean that the above enumeration cited are exclusive or that there is no other
different kind of schools of moral and ethical thoughts. This is very far from the truth. The truth
of the matter is that, the different ethical and moral schools of thoughts are not limited to the said
three (3) schools listed above. Yet, the said schools enjoys a certain edge as compared to the
others, because they (the other branches or breeds) are just sub-variety, sub-branch or they just
came by and arose from the same specie of the same brand. Meaning, the three (3) ethical
schools of thoughts are the prime sources, while the others are mere footnotes or sub-schools.
"Let us begin our discussion with the ethical school of thoughts of the Greeks. The Greek word for
virtue is arête, while ethics came from ethikos, which means "arising from habits." Aristotle, 1 particular
used the word hexis, to mean an "entrenched state of moral character that orients our feelings and desires
in a situation." (Professor Michael Tan's article "Habits of the Heart, PinoyKasi, Philippine Daily
Inquirer)

To the Greeks, to be moral, is to be ethical and to be ethical is to be virtuous; to be

virtuous or to act accordingly based on d set of fundamental virtues is to be good. The Greek
word for virtue is translated today as arete, while Good is known as Agathon. In Plato's Dialogue
"Meno", he boldly asks: "Why do we have to desire the Good?" Perhaps, corollary to this
thinking, we can also pose the question of: "Why do we aspire to be good, noble and virtuous?”
Such questions are the central nucleus of Greek Ethical Thoughts. Our intellectual journey would
not start if we will not commence the discussion on the philosophy of the Three Greatest
Philosophers of the ancient times. Incontestably, and without the slightest iota of doubt no book
nor module or even a simple lecture-notes with regard to ethics and moral philosophy will be
sufficient, nay complete; without having a chapter dealing with the Greek Masters! They are
known in the history of philosophy as the Greek Triumvirate. Hence, this chapter is welcoming
all of the readers back to the past. Without further ado, let us begin our academic discourse with
the Grandfathers of Moral Philosophy.
SOCRATES (470-399 B.C.)
Socrates was born in Athens -raised there, lived there, and died there. His father,
Sophroniscus was a sculptor. His mother, Phaenarete was a mid-wife. According to him, his
calling was to help others give birth to their ideas. Socrates was married to li Xanthippe who is
best known for the stories about her shrewish character, which may or may not be true. She was
a dutiful Ohausfrau and mother of three sons.
The conversion of Socrates, which brought about the definite H change to his mission
ironic moral philosopher, was because of tie famous incident of the reply of the Delphic Oracle.
Chaerephon, a devoted friend of Socrates, went to the temple of Apollo near Delphi and asked
the Oracle if there was any man living who was wiser than Socrates and received the answer
"No, none is wiser. Socrates is the wisest man in all Hellas." Socrates interpreted this reply to
mean that he was the wisest because he realized and admitted his own ignorance. He knew what
he didn't know, others didn't. He then set out on his mission for abiding truth and wisdom.
Socrates was put to death with a cup of poison hemlock almost 2400 years ago in 399
B.C., at the age of 71. He drank the hemlock poison in compliance with the death sentence issued
by the court it that tried him.

He is perhaps the greatest philosopher ever produced by western civilization. Through it

is ironic and interesting to note than he did not even wrote down a single line of thought or left
any writings. What we know about him as a person and as a philosopher are the notes and
writings given to us by Plato and Xenophon.
According to the very accurate depiction of Richard Osborne of our philosopher and
ethical hero:
"He wrote nothing himself, but from the general Xenophon and philosopher Plato we get a very
real picture of the man. Shabbily dressed, always barefoot, physically tough, and with a record of courage
in battle, he loved to spend his days arguing in the market-place. With Socrates there is a shift away from
the scientific querying we have so far to the problems of Ethics. He was deeply concerned with morality,
with discovering the just, true, and the good." (Philosophy For Beginners, illustrated by Ralph Edney,
1991, Writers And Readers Publishing, INC.)

While another author described him thus:

"Socrates had the distinction of being one of the ugliest men of his time. He was short
and pudgy. His eyes were frog- like, his lips were thick and he had a stubby nose. His manner of
dress added nothing to his grotesque form. He owned one Wool cloak which he wore the whole
year round. He was also the habit of going shirt less and barefoot even in winter. 1owever he is
one of the greatest figures in the history of Philosophy." (Billi P. S. Lim, Dare To Fail, 1996)
So why did his pupils, adherents and students loved and reverence him so? In order for us
to answer the question, let us quote the utterly beautiful answer to the query given by the eminent
and noted professor Will Durant:
Perhaps because he was a man as well as a philosopher he had at great risk saved the life
of Alcibiades in battle, and he could drink like a gentleman---without fear and without excess.
But no doubt they liked best in him the modesty of his wisdom: he did not claim to have wisdom,
but only to seek lovingly; he was wisdom's amateur, not it's professional. It was said that the
oracle at Delphi, with unusual good sense had pronounced him the wisest of the Greeks; and he
has interpreted this as an approval of the agnosticism which was the starting-point of his
philosophy---"One thing only I know and that is that I know nothing. Philosophy begins when
one learns to doubt--- particularly to doubt one's cherished beliefs, one's dogmas and one's
axioms... There is no real philosophy until the mind turns around and examines itself.
Gnothiseauton, said Socrates: Know thyself." (The Story of Philosophy, 1961)
For him, philosophy was not a profession, as compare other thinkers and 'philosophers of
his time, but a way of life. He is the first philosopher to die struggling and fighting valiantly up
to the end in the name of virtuous life and free thought. His alleged "crimes" were:
1. 'Corrupting the minds of the youth'; and

2. Introducing new gods', as well as not believing in the state gods.

Because of those two (2) baseless charges, he was tried by an incompetent, 1gnorant jury.
Instead of appealing for the jury's leniency, he gave such an explosive defense speech at the trial
that further infuriated those 'righteous' men. Hence, he was sentenced to death by drinking a
poison known as hemlock. With all dignity, composure and true bravery, he accepted his fate,
drunk the hemlock and died heroically as the first martyr of philosophy. Why was he killed?
Well, simply because he was a true, good, just and indeed a very noble man and philosopher.
He keeps on saying that, he who knows what good will do good and that 'unexamined
life is not worth living. We could also add that a life without discourse would be unworthy of a
man. According to JosteinGaarder:
“By this he meant that the right insight leads to the right action. And only he who does right can
be a 'virtuous man. When we do wrong it is because we don't know any better. That is why it is so
important to go on learning. Socrates was concerned with finding clear and universally valid definitions of
right and wrong...he believed that the ability to distinguish between right and wrong lies in people's
reason and not in society.” (Sophie's World, A Novel about the History of Philosopliy, 1991).

Needless to state, such "brutal and 'subversive ethical beliefs of Socrates cost him his life, but
certainly not, never his soul, dignity and humanity. The ignorant jury of his land may have succeeded in
killing his body, but they miserably failed to kill Socrates' ideas and ethical philosophy.

We shall now turn our attention and exposition to his greatest student.

PLATO (428-348 B.C.

Plato was born at Athens, according to some accounts, on the 7th of Thargelion in the first year of
the Olympiad 427 B.C. originally, his nane was Aristocles, but because of his robust figure his coach
nicknamed him Plato-from the Greek work platon which means "broad-shouldered.” According to
Diogenes Laertius, Plato became pupil of Socrates when he was twenty years old probably, Caught by the
brilliant charisma of Socrates. As a descent from a distinguished Athenian family, he originally intended to
pursue his political career. His relatives in the Oligarchy of 404/3 urged him enter political life under their
patronage. When the Oligarchy started to pursue policy of violence and accused Socrates his teacher - for
their crimes, Plato became disgusted with them and abandoned the idea of political career. There was a
tale saying that on his eightieth birthday one of his students invited him to a wedding feast. After he took
leave of that night, he withdrew to rest and said to have died in his sleep.
Tripartite Division of the Soul
Plato holds the idea that man's soul is composed of three 93) elements or areas. Before
we proceed to that, may t the author clarify that the word soul (translated today as the anima) is
not the same as the spirit (the nous or something like that, as the Judeo-Christian writers and
commentators used and understood the term). To them, the soul and the spirit is the same, while
to Plato, this is not so. To our philosopher, the soul is the very substance or the central element
that animates the body. According to Plato, the three (3) elements or division of the soul and
their corresponding virtues are the following:
Body Soul Virtue
Head Reason Wisdom
Heart/Chess Passion/Will Courage
Stomach/Abdomen Desire and/or appetites Temperature

So for Plato, in order for a man to have a well-ordered, well-organized, complete soul,
the said three (3) elements must be in perfect order of things. In simple terms, what he is trying
to convey to us is that we as human must use the reason of our heads, the passion of our hearts
and the desires of our stomach --- properly. In order for us to understand this better, let us have a
simple illustration. For our example, let us suppose that Y is a student who will going to have d
final examination tomorrow under Professor X. It so happens that today was the birthday of
his/her dearest friend and the celebration would be held tonight. Now, Y knowing his friend
since day one is a beer lover and that it used to drink to death. Y knew from past experience that
if he will attend the (drinking to the max) birthday celebration of his friend, he without a doubt
will be dead drunk. How will he going to take the said examination the following morning at
exactly 7:30am?
So, this is our case in point. Now, applying the ethical philosophy of Plato, how are we
going to react and decide, we are in the shoe of Y? How and why?
Before we dwell and analyse the problem, let us first enumerate the Four (4) Cardinal
Virtues according to our philosopher. He lay down and discusses them thoroughly in his
monumental work, The Republic. No doubt about it the said book is one of his magnum opus.
These are the following virtues:
1. Wisdom (translated as Sophia. Some commentators, translates this as Episteme, yet such
translation is not accurate, because that word means today as knowledge. In fact, the
word is the very root word of another branch of philosophy which is known as
Epistemology [it is the branch of philosophy that deals with the study of knowledge;
its origin, sources, values, evaluation and validation, etc.]; while some other writers
and commentators claimed it is also known as Techron)
2. Courage (translated today as Andrea).
3. Temperance (translated today as Sophrosune, which means a ‘sense of the whole’, sense
of balance and equilibrium)
4. Justice (today, it is translated as Dikaiosune. The root word of this particular virtue is
dikaios, which means fair, just, righteous, also it means pious).
5. Later, Plato's greatest student, Aristotle (in his book, “The Nicomachean Ethics") will
include in the list of the Cardinal Virtues, the virtue of Friendship. Such virtue today is
translated as Philia and/or Agape as opposed to Eros or the erotic kind of love and
'friendship’)
Let us try dissecting the given problem and see if we can apply Plato's idea for a reasonable
resolution of the problem, in conjunction with the given Cardinal Virtues.
If we will go to the party, definitely, we will get drunk. If that happens, it goes without
saying that we won't be able to take the examination. Or assuming, for the sake of the argument
that we were able to take the said test, are we sure that we will have a good score? On the other
hand, if we decided not to come to our friend's celebration, we will be attacked by a certain
degree of guilt feelings. Imagine, we are the best friend of the celebrant, yet we are absent on
his/her special occasion! Now, are you seeing and appreciating the complexities of the given
varied situations? Here now comes the so called “struggle within" or "internal conflict." It is the
understandable that a portion of ourselves or our soul want to go and another wish to stay and
study and review. Following Plato, it is more reasonable based on the given problem to just stay
in the house and study for the examinations. If your friend is a true friend, then he/she would
undeniably understand your predicament. Because if you decided instead to go and be with your
friend, then that would entail disastrous effects on your part. Undeniably, you have committed an
act of injustice to yourself, to your teacher, to your parents, to your love-ones, and in a larger
sense, to the world in general. Plato in a way will tell that it is not reason that you followed but
your passion or desires. Hence according to him, that choice is giving- in to the weakness of
your will. In Greek, Plato calls it as Akrasia
To further elucidate on this very important point, according to Professor Alasdair
Maclntyre:
"Justice in the soul is likewise a matter of each part of the soul performing its proper and
allocated function. An individual is wise in virtue of reason ruling in him and brave in virtue of the spirited
part playing its role; an individual is temperate if his inferior bodily appetites are ruled by his reason. But
justice belongs not to this or that part or relationship of the soul, but to its total ordering.” (A Short
History of Ethics, 1966)

The time now is ripe for us to turn our academic examination and intellectual discourse to
the last member of the Greek Triumvirate. He was well-known to be Plato's greatest pupil and
was even considered as the walking encyclopaedia of his time.

ARISTOTLE (384-322 B.C.)

In a small colonial town of Stagira, on the Aegean coast of northern Greece, Aristotle was born.
His father, named Nichomachus, was a court physician of the king of Macedonia. His mother was Phaestis.
At eighteen, his father sent him to the Academy and became a student of Plato for twenty years. At the
Academy, he performed brilliantly. Plato called him "the mind” of the school and his quarter was referred
to as the bookworm's house for accumulating library of scrolls. He left the Academy at thirty- eight (two
years after the death of Plato) and sailed to Asia Minor, lived there for three years, joining an old friend.
In 343 B.C. Philip of Macedon invited Aristotle to become the tutor of his son Alexander, 13 years
old at that time. When Alexander assumed the throne after his father's death, Aristotle's duty as tutor"
ended and returned to Athens and began his most productive period of his life. He founded his school
known as the Lyceum. When Alexander died in 323 B.C., Aristotle being associated with Alexander the
anger of the citizens turned against him. At the age of sixty-two, he died. Long before that, in his last will
and testaments, he freed some slaves and provided supports for his children and servants.

NICOMACHEAN ETHICS
For Aristotle, the solution for the perfection of man's soul lies in forging a sense of
balance. That is how to seek the Golden Mean.
According to Professor Rogelio B. Maguigad, Aristotle viewed morality as:
"A state in which reason controls a person's irrational desires and appetites so that he or she
expresses acceptable behaviour...Aristotle believed that moral conduct needed more than just
knowledge of the good; it requires that a person practices the good until it becomes a habit and part
of his normal behaviour." (Philosophy of Human ben8, 2000, Libro Filipino)

You will immediately note the similarity of Socrates, Plato and Aristotle's ethical
viewpoints. The three of them, believes unshakably in the power of man's reason. Indeed, to
them, the answer lies within and not without.

The Golden Mean

To be ethical is to be good, to be good is to be virtuous, to be virtuous is to be wise, to be
wise is to be happy. In a nutshell, the author had given the reader of the correct way and
sequence of our ethical development. Yet, may he clarify on the spot that our concept,
specifically the Greek concept of Happiness is different from ordinary happiness. It is Happiness
under the universe and guidance of virtue (arête) and excellence (techne). The Greek word for
Happiness is translated today as Eudaimonia. So, where does the Golden Mean comes in? To
answer that, let us quote the remarkable words of Professor Will Durant:
"The chief condition of happiness, then, barring certain physical prerequisites, is the life of
reason---the specific glory and power of man. Virtue, or rather excellence, will depend on clear judgment,
self-control, symmetry of desire, artistry of means; it is not the possession of the simple man, nor the gift of
innocent intent, but the achievement of experience in the fully developed man. Yet there is a road to it, a
guide to excellence, which may save many detours and delays: it is the middle way, the golden mean. The
qualities of character can be arranged in triads, in each of which the first and last qualities will be extremes
and vices, and the middle quality a virtue or excellence. So between cowardice and rashness is courage;
between stinginess and extravagance is liberality; between sloth and greed is ambition; between humility
and pride is modesty; between secrecy and loquacity, honest; between moroseness and buffoonery, good
humor; between quarrelsomeness and flattery, friendship; between Hamlet's indecisiveness and Quixote's
impulsiveness is self-control." (ibid., Will Dura1t, 1961)

Such is the way, the road to the Golden Mean.

Name: Date:
Year/Section: Rating:

EXERCISE NO. 6
Meeting Ethical Dilemma and the Moral Landscape

Now that we are through tackling the three (3) ethical schools of thoughts, though in brief; you know
have a working knowledge of their central ethical philosophy, the time now is ripe to apply those
principles that you have just learned. Below are problems, series of ethical dilemmas. Use all the things
that you learn in the module in finding the most appropriate solution to the conflict.
1. You and your mother, together with your father are in a boat or yacht somewhere in Coron,
Palawan. The three (3) of you are now in the middle of the sea; suddenly without any sign or
warning the weather changes from such a beautiful sunny day into a raging typhoon. Next thing
that you saw is a giant wave that made your vehicle buried underneath the angry waters. Because
you're an excellent swimmer, you fought your way all the way back to the surface. The question
is, who among our parents would you going to salvage/save? Why? Before you answer, be put on
notice that both of them do not know how to swim. Both of them are 55 years old. Further, given
the Condition, you can only save one. Who would it be? Again, why?
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________

2. Same situation as problem no. 1, yet we will vary the facts of the case. This time, you are with
your mother and wife, who would you going to rescue! Why?
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
3. Still, same situation as nos. 1 and 2, only this time, you are with your wife and son, who would
you going to salvage? Why
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
4. Yes, we are still on situations nos. 1, 2, and 3, but this time, you are with your son and daughter;
who would you going to save? Why?
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
5. What particular ethical school of thoughts you will apply use or utilize? Would it be the Greek
Virtue? Or, may be, The Utilitarian or perhaps the Kantian imperative? Why? Would it be
possible to combine all of the said ethical schools? Why?
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
CHAPTER 7
UTILITARIANISM
JEREMY BENTHAM (1748-1832)
Bentham was born at Houndsditch, London. At the age of four, he v\was already learning Latin
grammar. At the age of 12, he studied at Queen's College in Oxford where he was not attracted due to the
vices and laziness of his fellow students. His father destined him for legal profession but Bentham
preferred the life of reflection. Before his death, he left directions that he wishes his body to be dissected
for the benefit of science. His body was preserved at the University College in London.

Bentham is well-known for his principle of utility. However, clarification must be made since
strictly speaking, Bentham did not invent the principle by himself. Epicurus of the ancient has already
made use of it. Even Hume has already expressed it in his notion of justice where its sole origin is public
utility. Bentham expounded and applied the principle universally as the basic principle of morals and
legislation. He was described as a man of reason than the heart or feel11

The Principle of Utility

The principle rests on the Psychological hedonism. It claims that by nature, every human
being seeks to attain pleasure and avoid pain. According to Bentham, pain and pleasure tend to
be the masters of mankind. In other words, all men move to action by the attraction of pleasure
and the repulsion of pain. The principle of utility is sometimes called the greatest happiness
principle. For Bentham, property in any object, whereby it tends to produce benefit, advantage,
pleasure, good or happiness, or that which prevent the happening of mischief, pain, evil or
unhappiness to the party whose interest is considered. Pleasure means not only in terms of eating
and drinking but also include the pleasure of reading, listening to music and so on.
A certain action is right (right action) if it tends to increase the sum total of pleasure or
diminish the sum total of pain of the party. When a moral agent make a decision whether a
certain action is right or wrong he has to make an estimation (approximation) of the amount of
pleasure and the amount of pain. The value of the estimated amounts will depend on four (4)
factors (dimensions of value) namely, intensity, duration, certainty or uncertainty, propinquity or
remoteness. With regard to action whether the action will produce pleasure or pain, for Bentham
there are two (2) factors which one has to consider that is, fecundity (productiveness) and purity.
Example for purity, love of art should not lead to vandalism. But if the community is involved or
will be affected by the decision making the moral agent must consider the seventh (7th) factor
which taking into account the number of persons who will be affected by the pleasure or pain.
Common Good
Community is a fictitious body composed of individual persons who constitute it as its
members. The interest of the community is the sum of the interests of the several members who
composed it. According to Bentham, the degree of conduciveness to the greater happiness of the
greatest possible number of human beings or members of the society should be the measure of
utility of legislation and of the political institutions. There are many actions which can be useful
to the community but do not promote the public interest. Hence, the law and the government
should be directed and conforming to the common good. In times where individual and private
notion of happiness clashes with the other, according to Bentham harmonization must be needed
in order to attain the interest of the common good. It is in here where the government and the
legislation do its function. In the common good every private interest has a stake. Thus,
education can help the individual understand that in acting tor the common good, he is also
acting for his own good.

JOHN STUART MILL (1806-1873)

Mill was born in London. He started to study Greek at the age of three (3). By the age of
twelve (12) he already knows Greek and Latin Literature. At thirteen (13) he completed the
course on Political Economy. At fourteen (14) with his uncle Sir Samuel in France he learned
French language and literature. He studied chemistry, mathematics, zoology. At fifteen (15) he
studied law. At the age of sixteen (16), he founded the little Utilitarian Circle which lasted more
than three (3) years. Mill never holds an academic chair. In 1851, he married Harriet Taylor
whose first husband died in 1849. In 1859, his wife died. From 1865 to 1868 Mill was a Member
of Parliament for Westminster. He died at the age of 67.
The Greatest Happiness Principle
According to the British proponent and ethical philosopher John Stuart Mill:
"Actions are right n proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce
the reverse of happiness.” (Utilitarianism, 1987)

Science cannot dictate what consequences are to be preferred. Utility (The Greatest
Happiness Principle) is a principle of conduct which prescribes that actions are right only in so
far as they promote the general happiness, or greater happiness of the greatest number. Actions
are wrong if they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. It is not a definition in which the
logical function of the word "right” must be fully explained. In other words, utilitarianism for
Mill is rather a way of life rather than a moral theory. Morality for him should be an art of
individual and social happiness. Happiness is universally recognized to be a good. It is the
ultimate end which all desire and seek. But things which originally sought and used as a means
to pleasure according to Mill, can be sought for its Own sake because (as long as associated to
pleasure) it is sought not as a means to pleasure or happiness but already as constituent and part
of it. Happiness is intended pleasure and the absence of pain. Unhappiness means pain, and
privation of pleasure. It is not a philosophy of ego1Sm because happiness base on Mill definition
does not pertain to the agent's own greatest happiness but the greatest amount of happiness
altogether. Each person's happiness is a good to that person, and the general happiness, therefore,
is a good to the aggregate of all persons. In other words, the one which is desirable is the general
happiness. If the general happiness is related to my happiness as a whole to part, in desiring the
general happiness I am desiring my own. Happiness is the harmonious satisfaction of the desires
of the individuals. A large part of it depends upon the satisfaction of his social impulses and
other regarding sentiments, According to Mill, a life of personal pleasure-seeking is self-
frustrating He has concluded that happiness is not attained by seeking it directly. One finds it by
striving after some goal other than one's own happiness or pleasure. The firm foundation of the
utilitarian morality is to be found in "the social feelings of mankind." These social feelings can
be described as the desire to be in unity with our fellow creatures.
From the foregoing, we can immediately discern a sense of 'the end justifies the means'
approach and tendency to this particular school of thought. And that claim will be bolster by the
fact that to the Utilitarians, the act would always be moral and ethical, so long as the
consequences of the act benefited a large number of people. The moral focus of this theory is not
the act itself of the moral agent, but primordially on the consequences, results and end-product of
the actions. As one of their central beliefs have stated, "The greatest good for the greatest
number. This moral theory as contrast to the Kantian Ethical School based the morality of their
actions, not on the goodness of the act itself, but on the benefits or the good results or the
favorable consequences of the said actions. Notably, the Utilitarians do not bother themselves
whether the act is moral or not, their only consideration is: will it benefit 'the greatest number of
the population of people. That is there only condition. Undeniably, this particular moral theory is
"result-oriented" or they are depended on the favorable consequences.
It must be noted that for Mill, pleasures are not all the same. According to him, some
kinds of pleasures are more desirable and more valuable than others. For him, it would be absurd
to suppose that pleasure only depend on quantity. Thus, in order to show this he gave us his
famous phrase that, "it is better to be a dissatisfied human being than a satisfied pig, and or,
better to be a dissatisfied Socrates than a satisfied fool." It is also interesting to note that the
other name of this moral theory is, The Consequentialist Ethical School of Thought.
Name: Date:
Year/Section: Rating:

EXERCISE NO. 7
REFLECTION
Confronting Corruption and Developing Ideals and Values of an Organization
It would be better to give a concrete situation, as always, for us to better understand this
particular subject matter. Below is an ethical problem concerning graft and corruption that is
presently happening in our society today!
Let us assume that you are a government employee. You are one of the staff under the finance
department. As an insider, you knew perfectly that your superior, the Undersecretary of the Department is
intimately involved in what we called as 'under the table, over the table, including the table" evil
transaction, yes indeed, super-corruption to the detriment of the public at large. Will you report or file a
complaint to the Office of the Ombudsman (yet you found out that, so many had already done so, yet the
said official had not acted upon the said complaint!). On the other hand, would you be willing to resign
your post? How about the future of your family? Or, are you willing to spill the beans, so to speak, be a
whistle-blower and face the entire bureaucratic wrath of your department?

Professor Tan gave such a deep observation with regard to the said problem we are
confronting, not only as a people but most importantly as a country. This is what he stated:
What's dangerous about these forms of corruption is that they are almost innocuous. Not
only that, they are sanctioned because everyone" seems to be doing it. The many forms of
corruption are there, accumulated and passed on as part of culture until it is no longer recognized
as wrong.
We need then to aim for a society where individuals can do good out of kusa, a
voluntary compliance that grows out of the "disposition"referred to by philosophers.
When we act out of kusa, it means it is spurred by a habit of the heart. (ibid., PDI, Feb.25,
2009)
In connection to this, another famous professor and a noted Sociologist gave us a firm
and straightforward advice and admonition Professor Randy David sternly wrote that:
Corruption will not be wiped out by mere moral exhortation. The pursuit of a just and
modern society has to find concrete expression in our everyday lives---in our efforts to assist the
poor among us in whatever way we can, in our refusal to take short cuts in public transactions, in
our resolve to criticize and avoid conflict-of-interest situations, in our staunch defense of the
autonomy of institutions, and in our conscious efforts to teach our children the values and norms
of modern citizenship. (Morality and Modernity, Public Lives, Philippine Daily Inquirer,
February 28, 2009, underscore supplied by the author)
In answering this ethical dilemma, you will also answer and settle the score with regard
to the topic above. Let me restate the matter once again, with resolve but this time, in a larger,
collective sense:
How are we going to confront and subsequently, ultimately fight corruption?
For the last barrage of the writer, he certainly begs the indulgence and patience of the
reader, if he will for the last time quote once again on another brilliant scholar and teacher.
According to Professor Christine Korsgard:
The moment of revolution is a vindication of morality, and so of our humanity. We are
masters of our own self-mastery, in control of our self-Control. Being human is not sapping our
strength, for we still know when to fight. The revolutionary does not become strong and free
when he picks his gun. Instead, he proves to us that he's been free all along. It is because the laws
of morality are his own laws that he finally prepared to fight for them. The doubt created by the
antimony is dispelled. Revolution teaches us nothing but what we have known all along: that
the good and the free person are one and the same. (Kant on the Right to Revolution, in
Reclaiming the History of Ethics, 1997, page 323)
It is only in doing so, that we will and the advocate sincerely hope that; finally --- we will
be able to develop ideals, genuine ones and for truly noble, not superficial nor imaginary and
pure values not only our internal organization, but our society as a whole and humanity in
general.
To wrap up this small, yet humble module, tell me what you do, what you blatantly
believe in, what you reasonably and passionately fighting and struggling for and I will
undeniably tell you --- who you are!!!
CHAPTER 8
SOCIAL CONTRACT THEORY
It is hard to imagine people arriving at agreements knowing they come from different families,
cultural backgrounds and traditions, social status and possess different kind of personalities. That is why it
is not surprising to find different conceptions of the good even in exclusive groups who adhere to the same
religion, even between friends, and inside a family. It is somehow part of what we may call natural
boundary that what T have in mind is different from yours or from another else. My hands are not your
hands. Even we read the same kind of book definitely, we will see different perspectives. But we can
exchange ideas. We can share hands in work regardless of our unique thumb marks. And, we can have a
discourse and a brainstorming of what we have in our minds. These what make a society no longer an 1-
Thou and 1-It relationship as in Martin Buber's account but more on We, Us and Our effort relationship.
Thus, the challenge is how can a government make the pluralist society engage in a social cooperation
without compromising the citizens differences or avoid the clashes of identities without any hostility? How
she can stabilize a connection among individuals while advancing her ideals as a society?

Contractarian Theory is a process of social arrangement. It is the key notion for achieving a
stable society and an excellent way of legitimizing the kind of society we want to live where there is no
violation of fairness. It means that we would not rely on a ready- made set of i.e., principle of justice that is
distributed to everybody regardless of any form of pluralism. In other words, it is a way of making a set of
standards for a society that permits coexistence in the face of I ndividual differences.

THOMAS HOBBES (1588-1679)

Hobbes was born in at Westport, England. He was a son of a clergyman. He studied in Oxford
and became the tutor of the future Earl of Devonshire (1608). He also became tutor of the son of Sir
Gervase Clifton for three year (1629-1631). His acquaintance to the philosophical and scientific circles
thru Mersenne made his Knowledge of Galileo and objection to Descartes Meditations possible. Hobbes
mind is well occupied with social and political concerns. His life was also full of controversies; from his
determinist view of freedom to atheism. Aside from his famous work Leviathan, he also wrote The Elements
of Law, Natural and Politic, and De Corpore Politico. He died at the age of ninety-one (91).

One of the fears of Hobbes was the evil result of a civil var. Having witnessed its drastic effects in
his own country and his hatred from it prompted him to suggest a centralized power which 1s the only
remedy he saw in order to attain peace, the preservation of life, and security from becoming prey to others.
Hobbes believed that men have the natural desire to have these and that the submission to an agreement
which will promote all of these desires would be their means of assurance for its compliance and
successful achievement.

The Law of Nature

According to Hobbes, the law of nature is the "dictate of right reason" which leads man to
whether pursue things or avoid them. It is a general rule in him which discourages him to do
something self-destructive or to do something which will destroy or take away his own life. It is
what he calls the dictate of egoistic prudence and it has two kinds, i) man's instinct to pursue
self-preservation and security, (ii) man's rational pursuit of self-preservation. The former leads
man to pursue his own advantage. This instinctive desire leads to the three principal causes of
man's quarrel or the natural state of war namely, (a) competition, (b) mistrust, and (c) glory. The
latter leads men to form commonwealth or states.
Social Covenant
In the natural state of war, individual depends on his own strength for his security. In this
state, there are no objective moral norms. There is no justice and injustice. Unless men live under
a common power or organized themselves as society peace and civilization cannot be attained
and the state of war with one another will always remain. The organized society are the State is
the only means to unite individuals and this can be possibly achieved through a social covenant
(contract) made with one another. According to Hobbes, contract is "the mutual transferring of
right. It takes place when a man gives up his rights of governing his self (entrusting it) to others
and authorizes others in the same manner, and for a moment each other must be trusted.
According to Hobbes, when there is a fear of non-performance on either part the covenant of
mutual trust becomes invalid. However, the covenant has an obligatory character in a sense that a
rational man will always desire its observance or perform the covenant made for his own defense
and advantage and non-performance of the covenant would be otherwise.
Commonwealth
According to the Leviathan's general rule of reason, every man ought to endeavor, seek,
and follow peace but in thevnatural state of war man cannot achieve this end or purpose alone
and the instinctive desire of individual to protect and preserve his self-interest make it more
worst. But not under a common power (commonwealth) which will bear all their self-interests,
promote all their different voices, and preserve individual life. It is only through this centralized
power (Commonwealth) which differences can hold them together. According Hobbes,
commonwealth is the unity from different individuals into becoming as one person (through the
sovereign). It is an assembly of those who transferred their rights. In other words, the institution
of commonwealth is derived from the social covenant made with one another for the peaceful
security of those who are member of its covenant.
The Sovereign
ln the commonwealth every member made himself the author and at the same time
everyone else is his subjects. The commonwealth (with regard to plurality or differences)
appoints one man (or assembly of men) to reduce the different voices into one. This is the
sovereign. It is an artificial person or assembly of men (not a party of the commonwealth) who
will represent the unity of the members of the commonwealth. He represents the centralized
power or the general will. With this, the sovereign determines what is good and what is evil His
power is unlimited. Since the institution of the sovereign Was the result of the authorship of
every member of the covenant, whatever the sovereign does will not bring harm to any of his
subjects. On the other hand, the sovereign cannot be punished since to punish him would mean
punishing also his authors.
Liberty
Although the power of the sovereign is unlimited and cannot be punished, it does not
mean that members of the covenant who instituted him no longer have the freedom to refuse
from his authority nor does the sovereign will control all human activities. First and foremost, his
authority was instituted only for the purpose of legislating and maintaining peace and security,
Second, his subjects have the freedom to disobey or are absolved from their duty of obedience to
him if he is no longer able to protect his subjects. Third, it the sovereign is defeated in war then
the subject’s obedience will go to the victor. Fourth, if the commonwealth which he promotes
will be divided (ex. due to internal conflict) and returns to the state of nature. Fifth, subjects
enjoy the freedom as far as their actions are regulated by law.

JOHN LOCKE (1632-1704)

Locke was born at Wrington. His early education took place at home. He studied at Westminster
School when he was twelve (12) and entered the University of Oxford when he was twenty (20) years old.
He finished his B.A. and M.A. and became a lecturer in Greek. He served as Censor of Moral Philosophy.
While he was in Oxford, Locke became dissatisfied with the philosophy of Scholasticism because of its
admiration to vague and obscured terms which he thought to be useless. He was attracted to Descartes
philosophy because of its systematic and clear way of thinking. He also became interested in the study of
physics and chemistry. Aside from these, he obtained his medical degree and license to practice in 1674.
He served as the medical adviser of earl of Shaftesbury and became the secretary of a council. His political
career vas stormed by controversies and disagreements with Shaftesbury and also with King James II.
Locke returned to London and held minor office due to health problems. He died at the age of 72.

For Locke, Ethics is an analysis of moral ideas. It is an activity of making a choice and giving
ideas structure frame) in order to pronoun1ce them as rules. According to Locke, there is no single set of
moral ideas or rules which men obey. Moral goodness for him is the agreement of our (voluntary) actions
to law in which the "idea of good" comes from the will (intention) of the law-giver while moral evil is the
opposite. However, the problem is which and whose law will be followed.

State of Nature
He maintained that in the state of nature, men were naturally free and equal. Men remain
free and equal according to their consent as they make themselves members of some political
societies. Unlike Hobbes, for Locke, men are not in a state of war. For him, men live together
according to reason but without a common superior who have authority to judge them. What
makes a state of war is the exercise of force and not the exercise of what is right. The exercise of
force is the violation of the state of nature. Although the state of nature is exercise at liberty, it is
not a license, It has a law of nature that governs everyone and that is the law of reason, liberty or
possessions. Reason obliges (dictates) men not to harm the life of another, health, liberty or
possessions. On the other hand, even there is no common sovereign or judge for them, and can
defend themselves against any aggressor's attack, men’s conscience (as creatures of God) are
bound by the natural moral law which obliges all free and independent civil society including all
its legal actions to abide (live according) by it.
Social Compact
For Locke, the very purpose of why men unite themselves into a political society under
one supreme government is for the preservation of their properties their lives, liberties, and
estates. This political society is established base on social compact (one collective consent) and
reason. Social compact is made by individual's consent. Whenever a person lends his Consent, at
the same time, he is making two contracts namely; (1) the formation of a political society and,
(2) the setting of a government within.
In setting up a government, each person's liberty has to be given up (sacrifice) in order to
authorize a legislative and executive power to make and implement the necessary (1needed) laws
for the common good. The person's surrender of liberty also means putting (subjecting) himself
along with the rest of the constituents (members) under the sets of limits arranged by the
legislative and executive power. But, these sets of limits will not make the constituents slave.
According to Locke, the will of the majority should always prevail and, the individual consent
must submit into it. On the other hand, Locke emphasized that no one can be subject to political
power of another or can be taken away from a government and political society without a
person's consent If, for example, the person is born in Canada or in London, he has no choice but
to submit himself to the obligation of being a citizen of that particular society. But later, the
person can renounce or withdraw from that society and can go to another society or can retire
somewhere in the world where living in the state of nature is allowed.
Government Built on Trust
The government has an obligation to fulfill. It has to fulfill the trust given by the people
who created it. In other words, the authority of the government is not absolute or without limit.
The supreme power and authority still remain in the hands of the people especially, the power to
remove or change the government when it is no longer acting for the common good or when it
fails to fulfill the people's trust. What is trust? Locke gave us tour bases or contents of this trust.
First, the legislative power must be under a law not contrary to the will of the majority and the
same for all. Second, the end of law must serve only the common good. Third, as protector of
property, taxes must be raised only according to the consent of the people. Fourth, power or
authority cannot be transferred to those whom the people did not entrust this power and
according to their consent.

JEAN-JACQUES ROUSSEAU (1712-1778)

Rousseau was born at Geneva. His life started in a humble condition as a servant who suffered
from the rectifying social down-grading. He was the second son of Isaac. His father was an unsuccessful
watchmaker who was living in a world of fantasy and from a low strength of character. His mother died
few days after his birth.

When the priests of Confignon were looking for young converts from his Calvinist republic, he
was introduced to the Baroness de Warens before turning to sixteen (16). Baroness de Warens was a
woman of thirties and is separated from her husband. She specialized in helping young men. She urged the
young Rousseau to renounce his Protestant faith. She took him into her household and mothered him. She
even arranged a music lessons for him and gave hi1 access to library. ln 1778, he died at the age of 66.
Man's State of Nature
In his Discourse on the Arts and Sciences, for first Rousseau before, (primitive) man
satisfies his hunger at the first oak, foot slakes his thirst at the first brook. He finds his bed at the
fool of a tree which affords him a meal. Through all of these, alt of all his wants are supplied. He
is physically strong and unafraid of animals, and yet, overcame by his strength and skills. He
suffers from few illnesses. He needs little medicines and less doctors. His primary concern is
self-preservation. The s operations of his soul were to will or not to will, to desire and to fear.
His savage desire never goes beyond his physical wants. The only goods he recognizes were
food, a female and sheep he only evil he fears was pain and hunger. He is a man who wanders up
and down the forests, without industry, without speech and without home. He is an equal
stranger to war and ties. He does not need his fellow creatures. He does not have desires to hurt
them either. He does not have moral qualities and yet, he is not evil. He has no idea of good but,
he is not bad. Man in the primitive state of nature was good but not in the moral sense. There was
no sin in human nature.
Inequality
In his Discourse on Inequality, according to him, in the state of nature, the only
inequality in men was natural (physical). They were inequality in natural gifts and talents
(physical or mental) and, in all the rest men were born equal. When private property was
introduced, equality disappeared, forests became smiling fields, slavery and misery emerged, and
moral or political inequality took into effect. Metallurgy and agriculture have produced great
revolutions. And, moral distinction between justice and injustice appeared. According to him, if
there were no 'mine and thine' then, there were no concepts of justice and injustice. When the
first man enclosed a piece of land and said "this is mine” and found the people who were made
to believe it, according to Rousseau, that fist man was the real founder of the civil society. From
time on, the new born state of society gave rise to the horrible state of war. Rousseau thought
that men have returned to the state of nature but, unlike the original state of nature which rest on
innocence and simplicity, the new born state of nature was the result of corruption. According to
Rousseau, the solution is neither to abolish the new born society nor to go back to the woods.
What we need is to reform the society which hopefully, can be resolved through his Social
Contract theory.
Social Contract
For Rousseau, men are free by nature. They unite in societies in order to secure not only
their property and lite but also their liberty. Membership in society and obedience to its law
involve restraint or limit of liberty. Man becomes a subject to a master. But according to
Rousseau, it is in law alone that men owe justice and liberty. The law is the expression of man's
will. Thus, in obeying the law man is therefore, obeying his own reason and judgment and
following his own real will. To follow one's own judgment and will is to be free. Hence, the
obedient citizen is the truly free man since he obeys a law which expresses his own will (as long
as the law really expresses the general will and the real will of everyone and what their reason
dictates).
In the Social Contract, according to Rousseau, each person gives and makes his self and
all his power in common under a supreme direction of a general will. In a corporate (combine)
capacity, each member is welcomed as an indivisible part of the whole. The contract
immediately creates a moral and a collective body. This collective body will be called State
when it is passive. It will be called Sovereign when it is active and it will be called Power if it is
compared to other collectively body. The government will depend on the power of the sovereign
assembly. For Rousseau, the rise of the civilized society especially, through the invention of
private property 1s evil. But the society which was the product of the Social Contract makes
man's true nature fulfilled in the social order. Hence, the state becomes the source of justice and
the basis rights. In the society, intellectual and moral life can develop
Sovereignty: The General Will
The sovereign, according to Rousseau, is the public person which is formed by the union
of the individuals through the Social Contract. In other words, the sovereign is the whole body of
the people (themselves) as legislating, as the source of law. The law is the expression of the will.
It follows, that the sovereignty is the exercise of the general will itself. Each citizen 1S a member
of the sovereign and a member in the source of the law. If the sovereign is the power which
possesses the right of legislation then, the duty of the legislator is to make the laws agreeable to
the General Will or agreeable to each of its members.
The General Will is the people (public) who always aim for the preservation and welfare
of the whole and of every part of the legislating body. They are the source of the law. Its laws are
constituted for all the members of the State. It rules their relations to one another and, the rule for
what is just and unjust. The true sovereign is always the people, the whole body of citizens, and
the exercise of the General Will. Rousseau distinguished the General Will from the will of all.
According to him, the General Will is concern only with the common interest. The will of all
takes the private interest or the sum of particular wills (commonly represented by the will of
majority). In other words, the result of election might give us the wrong idea of what really is the
common good. Even the actual decision of the sovereign might also fail to express the General
Will but instead express the private interests. In this case, the law is not necessarily the true
expression of the General Will.

JOHN RAWLS (1921 - 2002)

A professor of philosophy at Harvard University for more than thirty years, and worked on
several moral and political theory, such as, A Theory of Justice (1971), Political Liberalism (1993), The
Law of Peoples (1999), and Justice as Fairness (2001). He also taught at Cornell and MIT. And as a
student of Princeton, one of his great influences was Norman Malcolm, a former student of Ludwig
Wittgenstein, who was also a former student of Bertrand Russell.

Part of the main aims of Rawls' book Theory of Justice was to provide a workable and
systematic moral idea that can oppose the theory of utilitarianism. For Rawls, the utilitarian idea
suggests that society has to be arranged so as to maximize the total "expected" well-being. He
complains that it fails to take seriously the distinction between persons (A Theory of Justice,
p.24). For Rawls, the problem is how to consider the inherent ability of each individual to think
for themselves (i.e., about their moral powers). How about the right of the people that the
principle (utilitarianism) is sacrificing, like that of the minorities? If we only have one life to
live, will it be justified to spare it for "others" and not for the sake of one’s own conception of
goal or plan of life? If it is not for the same liberty each individual has, then no liberty can be
protected at all. "A society united on a reasonable form of utilitarianism...would...require the
sanctions of state power to remain so. Rawls called this the fact of oppression (Political
Liberalism, p. 37).
The Two Principles of Justice
The two principles of justice address two different aspects of the basic structure of
society: The First Principle addresses the essentials of the constitutional structure. 1t holds that
society must assure each citizen "an equal claim to a fully adequate scheme of equal basic rights
and liberties, which Scheme is compatible with the same scheme for all. Among of these equal
basic rights and liberties are; freedom of thought and liberty of conscience; political liberties and
freedom of association, as well as the freedoms specified by the liberty and integrity of the
person, And the rights and the liberties covered by the rule of law. [cf. PL p.29]
The Second Principle addresses those aspects of the basic structure that shape the
distribution of opportunities, offices, to income, wealth, and in general social advantages. The
first part of the second principle holds that the social structures that shape this distribution must
satisfy the requirements of "fair equality of opportunity”. The second part of the second principle
is the famous "Difference Principle." It holds that it “social and economic inequalities...are to be
the greatest benefit of the least advantaged members of the society”. Each of these three
centrally addresses a different set of primary goods: the First Principle concerns rights and
liberties; the principle of Fair Equality of Opportunity concerns opportunities; and the Difference
Principle primarily concerns income and wealth [cf. Henry S. Richardson]
On the Priority of Liberty
According for Rawls, in understanding the priority of the basic liberties, we must
distinguish restriction and regulation PL. When we say tor example norm with respect to reasons
for public good, the priority of liberties is not infringed, they are mere regulated or just a
regulative means. For Rawls, each person has the capacity to think of his own goals or plans of
life and pursue them even they are firmly and deeply-held by religious, philosophical and moral
views. To protect one's ability to exercise one's power to change one's mind about such things
requires an adequate scheme of basic liberties so it can allow everyone to participate in i.e.,
political activities allow everyone of speech and organization, and maximizes each autonomy. In
the first principle we are made equal a break the barriers of differences with regard to color anu
race, gender and age, social status and other contingencies religious, philosophical and moral.
But it is important to know that liberties are much more important than equality. Equality 1 the
quality. Equality is only a guarantee of liberty. Prisoners, for example, enjoy the same equality
with us but are constrained in terms of liberty. Rawls argues that securing the First Principle
serves the higher-order interest in an effective sense of justice compare the pure utilitarian
alternative- by better promoting social stability, mutual respect, and social unity.
However, the principles of justice are to be ranked in lexical order, so as to restrict liberty
but only for the sake of liberty itself. There are two cases. First, a less extensive liberty must
strengthen the total system of liberty shared by all. Second, a less than equal liberty must be
acceptable to those with the lesser liberty. On the first case, it is best understood in the form of
constraining liberty to protect the liberty of all. "...a system of unfettered liberty will tend
overtime to accumulate concentrations of power and wealth which undermine the possibility of
being fair and truly free exchanges between economic and political unequal. Thus, even in the
name of liberty, it is important to constrain liberty [Norman Daniels Just Health Care]." We
cannot pursue our conception of the good and ideals as persons and as citizen if our means of
achieving liberty are held and oppressed.
On Fair Equality of Opportunity and Difference Principle
Second priority rule: the priority of justice over efficiency and welfare. It says that the
second principle of justice is lexically prior to the principle of efficiency and to that of
maximizing the sum of advantages; and fair opportunity is prior to the Difference Principle.
There are two cases: one, an inequality of opportunity must enhance the opportunities of those
with the lesser opportunity; two, an excessive rate or saving must on balance mitigate the burden
of those bearing this hardship [Zosimo E. Lee, Elements of John Rawls Political Conception of
Justice].
With regard to Equality of Opportunity and the Difference Principle, they precede the
First Principle and address rather the matter of social inequalities. The Fair Equality of
Opportunity is said to be far less controversial. It holds that society has to be for the benefit of
everyone.
Example, U.P. as a state university, has to be accessible to all, especially for the
Filipinos, not only in financial aspect but as much as possible in all aspects, like in rules and
policies considerations. Even in terms of the design of the structure and building (i.e., Palma
Hall), many are saying that it is not conducive for those who are physically handicapped. There
1S no way a wheelchair for example can reach the fourth floor because there is no elevator or a
run way appropriate for them.
The Difference Principle is primarily concerned about the acceptable distribution of
income and wealth in a social order. It requires that, in the existence of social and economic
inequalities, they should be arranged ensuring that the social dynamics are to be in the greatest
benefit of the least advantaged members of the society. This principle can resolve Karl Marx's
concern in his dialectic materialism's "who have and who have not" and his prediction about the
worsening gap between the rich and the poor - that the poor will become poorer and will
multiply, while the rich will1 become richer and will become fewer.
Name: Date:
Year/Section: Rating:

EXERCISE NO. 8
QUESTIONS/ACTIVITIES/ASSIGNMENT
1. In your opinion, who among the Greek Triumvirate of Socrates, Plato and Aristotle is the
greatest philosopher? Why? Defend your answer by writing a brief, yet concise and
comprehensive essay in connection to the question.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
2. Based on your thorough evaluation and critical analysis which; among the Three (3)
Main Ethical School of Thoughts is the finest moral theory? Is it the Greek version? Or
was it Kant? Or perhaps, Mill? Why? What is your basis or reason behind your
contention?
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
3. Among the Five (5) Greek Cardinal Virtues, which 1s the most important according to your
viewpoint? Why? In conjunction to this query, can you live a noble, happy and virtues life, if one
of the said virtues is missing or lacking? Why? Why not?
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
4. What is your own personal, particular ethical school of thought?
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
5. Do you think and believe that Ethics and Morality are still important and relevant today, in the
age of globalization and information technology? If your answer is in negative, why is that so? If
your answer is in the affirmative, what’s in ethics and morality that makes them still relevant,
important, meaningful and absolutely necessary today? (Have a debate in the class with regard to
the said topic/proposition).
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________