A pleasant day to everyone and welcome to our first lesson in ethics. And the first topic which we are going to discuss in this subject is entitled, The Ethical Dimension of Human Existence. As human beings, we have to bear in mind that there are several distinct dimensions that makes us humans.
That separates us from other... creation of God, if you are atheist, for example, that makes humans, humans. And one of the major and unique characteristic of human beings is we have given the capacity to think.
And in connection to our rationality or in connection to our thinking, God has also given us and He has endowed us the capacity to know if the thing that we are thinking or the action that we are doing is actually morally right or morally wrong. And when we talk about ethics, basically, it's all about that. Therefore, on our first lesson, what we are going to discuss is the ethical dimension of human existence. And to begin with, let me first just highlight the basic definition of ethics. We will try to unearth the meaning of the word ethics so that once we go along our discussion, it would be very easy for us to connect the things that we have learning under the umbrella of ethics.
To begin with, let's look at its working definition. What is ethics? Ethics, generally speaking, it's about matters such as the good thing that we should pursue and the bad thing that we should avoid.
The right ways in which we could or should act and the wrong ways of acting. It is about what is acceptable and unacceptable in human behavior. It may involve obligations that we are expected to fulfill or prohibitions that we are required to respect or ideals that we are encouraged to meet. Ethics, therefore, as a subject for us to study is about determining the grounds for the values with particular and special significance to human life.
So based on this overview of what ethics is all about, we could learn several things. Number one, when we talk about ethics, it is actually the philosophical study of moral values and rules. Therefore, other term for ethics is actually moral philosophy.
We are studying the foundation of our morality. And when we talk about morality or morals, it talks about what? Based on the definition, It talks about the good things that we need to pursue and the bad things that we need to avoid. It talks about what is a right action and it differentiates the right action from the wrong action.
It tells us the reason why a right action is right and consequently, on the other hand, it talks about why does a wrong action becomes a wrong action. It's not only talking about... the major difference between right action and wrong action, but it also deals with things like which are acceptable behaviors and on the other hand, which are unacceptable behaviors.
And what are the reasons why we say these are acceptable or why these are not acceptable behaviors. So based on that particular definition, we could learn three guidelines of morality. Based on that particular presentation that you are seeing right now, there are three guidelines of morality or three guidelines in ethics. Number one, ethics talks about, number one, obligations or the duties we ought to fulfill. As a human being endowed with human dimension, knowing what is right from wrong, what are the things that we need to do?
Therefore, ethics talks about our obligations. It talks about our duties that we need to fulfill. Say for example, In the light of being a student, in connection to ethical standards that you need to do, one thing that could help us is, as a student, what is your duty? What are your obligations that you need to fulfill? And while you are doing your duties, you are acting morally correct.
But once you fail to do your duty as a student, therefore, you are not acting in the light of the moral responsibility of a student. So number one, it talks about the obligations that you ought to fulfill. Number two, not only your duties, not only your obligations, but when we talk about ethics, it also talks about the obligations that you ought to respect.
Okay? The first one talks about the things that you need to do. And on the other hand, the number two guideline here is that what?
Prohibitions that we ought to respect. It talks about the things that we should not be doing. Okay?
So, in this particular subject, we should also learn that, say for example, as a student, you have a duty. On the other hand, there are things that you should not be doing because you are a student. So, ethics combining these two guidelines, it helps you to show or to understand the things that you should be doing. One phase and the second phase talks about the things that you shouldn't be doing. That's what we call the prohibitions that you need to respect or you should avoid doing in order for you to do your duties.
And number three, three guidelines. Three guidelines. One, obligations.
Number two, it talks about prohibitions. Number three, it also talks about the ideals which are encouraged for us to do or to accomplish. That's the good thing about ethics.
It doesn't only talk about the things that we need to do. It doesn't talk about only about the things that we should not be doing. But it talks about the ideals, yung mga bagay na tinatanaw natin na dapat magampana natin in order to become a better person. So if we will try to consolidate all these three, generally speaking, ethics now studies the grounds for the values which are very crucial to human life.
When we talk about grounds for the moral values, ito yung nagbibigay ng value o halaga. Bakit tayo naging tao? Ito yung nagbibigay ng kulay at nagbibigay ng panlasa sa atin bakit natin ginagawa yung mga tao.
dapat natin gawin at bakit hindi natin dapat gawin yung mga makakasama sa atin. Okay? So when we talk about moral valuation, sa pag-aaral nito, dito natin maunawaan ng tunay na halaga ng buhay ng isang human being. Okay?
However, when we talk about moral valuation, ethics is not just about knowing our own worth as a human being because it would lead to selfishness. things, okay, or selfish attitude. But when we talk about ethics, more importantly, ethics is about showing and expressing not only our worth as an individual, but ethics is about showing and expressing the worth of others as well, okay?
We are studying ethics not to know your worth as a person, but more importantly, we are studying ethics why? So that we could show and express the worth of other people around us. So technically, that's what we are going to talk about in this particular subject.
Now, in order for us to understand what ethics is, I think it would be better for us to understand what ethics is not. Actually, okay, when we talk about ethics, ito yung nagbibigay ng direction sa atin upang malaman natin kung ano yung tama at mali. Okay? but not all things that lead us to the decision of right and wrong revolve around ethics.
There are several things that we judge as right or wrong, but if we will carefully understand them, hindi naman talaga sila saklaw ng etika. So for our second point, i-clarify muna natin yung mga terminologies na ating gagamitin para malaman natin kung ano ba talaga ang etika at ano ba ang hindi etika. Okay, so By merely recognizing the notions of good and bad, and right and wrong, these are the primary concern of ethics. But in order to start, I think it would be useful for us to clarify several points.
Una, when we talk about kinds of valuation, that's what I have said a while ago, ethics gives us the reason why we need to value ourselves. It helps us to see what is right and what is not. is wrong? What are the things that we shouldn't be doing? And what are the things that we need to emulate?
Kumbaga. However, valuing one thing, whether it's right or wrong, has some limitations. Tingnan natin, ano yung makikita natin dito na gumagawa tayo ng judgment, sinasabi natin tama o mali, pero hindi pa rin siya technically sa claw ng ethics. Okay? Now, the first point of clarification here is to recognize...
That there are several instances when we make value judgments that are not considered to be a part of ethics. There are several things that we say, this is right, this is wrong. However, even though we are making some value judgments there, those judgments that we are doing are not actually a part of ethics.
For example, I could say that a new movie that I have seen was a good one because I enjoyed it or perhaps I idolize the main actor or actress. actresses or actors of that particular movie. However, when it comes to my value judgment, in the light of the new movie that I have watched, even though I made a judgment, it's good or it's not good, it is not a part of ethics.
I may have my opinion, for example, as to what is the right dip, ano ba yung tamang sausawan for my chicken barbecue, but my judgment there is not directly related to ethics. I may maintain that it is wrong, for example, to wear leather jacket vest over a barong Tagalog but my judgment when it comes to my fashion has nothing to do with ethics. Therefore, most of the time, we make some value judgment na akala natin part of ethics but actually they are not. So, ano yung tawag ngayon dun sa mga judgments na ginagawa natin na hindi saklaw? ng ethics.
Most of the time, there are three things. The first one is what we call this. Ethics is not aesthetics. Anong ibig sabihin nun? Sometimes, we make value judgments pero hindi siya saklaw ng moralidad ng tao.
Pero ito ay saklaw ng preference o aesthetics ng isang tao. When we talk about the word aesthetics, it is derived from the Greek word aestheticis. Or it means basically sense or feeling. And it refers to the judgment of approval that we make about our senses.
That we make about what we see, hear, taste, smell, or taste. Or any part of that particular faculty, human faculty. In fact, we often use the word taste to refer to those personal choices or personal aesthetic preferences that we have on various matters such as my taste for music, my taste for food, my taste for fashion, my taste for clothing, and so on and so forth.
We have to take note that when we are judging about beauty, ay maganda to, ito pangit to, it is not under the umbrella of ethics. It simply falls under the umbrella of aesthetics. Most of the time, little did we know, ang nakakalungkot, we tend to judge the moral valuation na huhusgahan natin ang pagkatao ng isang individual, hindi naman dahil sa moralidad o ugali o asal niya.
Kadalasan, maging tayong mga Pilipino, hindi natin alam na huhusgahan natin ang isang tao not based on his ethics but only based on his aesthetics. Let me give an example. Halimbawa, Nakakita kayo ng isang tao na ang fashion statement ay para siyang rockstar, para siyang rakista.
Ang initial impression natin sa mga ganyang uri ng tao, malamang kriminal, masamang tao, mukhang hindi gagawa ng mabuti. Pero hindi pa naman talaga natin kilala yung tao pero nahusgahan na natin agad ang kanyang moralidad. Why?
Hindi natin nakita na magkaiba ang ethics sa aesthetics. Do you follow? we actually do not have the right to judge a person by merely of his, when it comes to his, for example, fashion statement. We don't have the right to judge a person's morality, to judge a person's moral value, just simply because of his fashion statement. Okay?
So, it doesn't mean na porke ganyan ang itsura, masamang tao agad. Actually, mga tao nga na mukhang mabait, pero actually, hindi naman talaga mabait. So makikita natin dito, ethics is not aesthetics. And in connection to that, halimbawa, ang current trend ngayon is when you see a person which body is filled with, for example, tattoos like that, ang judgment natin, ako mukhang maton yan, o kaya baka barumbado yan, masama ugali yan, siga e yan, o kaya yung iba, yung mga lumang judgment natin dyan. punong-punong ng tattoo ang katawan, malamang dating preso yan.
So if you could observe, just merely because of the aesthetics or the taste or the preference of the person, nahusgahan na natin ang kanyang buong pagkatao. However, we have to bear in mind that aesthetics is not directly connected to ethics. Okay?
So, nililinaw natin yung pagkakaiba noong dalawang bagay na yun. Let me give another dimension of aesthetics. Salimbawa, you have a classmate who is very fluent in English.
Magaling siyang magsalita sa lingwahing English. And our common perception, most especially to us Filipino, is that If a person is fluent in English, automatic that person must be intelligent. At kapag hindi ka magaling mag-English, malamang hindi ka intelligent.
So saan natin nakuha yung moral judgment na ganon? Hindi natin pwedeng husgahan ang talino o ang pagkatao ng isang individual dahil lamang kung marunong ba siyang mag-English o hindi. We've got to remember that fluency in English, English particularly, is not a, it's not... the measure of judgment. It's not a measure of intelligence.
But basically, English is just merely a language. So wala tayong karapatan sabihin, uy, ang galing niyo mag-English. He must be intelligent.
Walang directly relationship ang fluency ng isang language sa intelligence ng isang tao. Okay? So that's it.
Another thing, halimbawa, Para makita natin na malaki ang value ng aesthetic sa atin, na minsan di natin alam, nahuhusgahan na natin ang pagkataon ng isang individual just merely because of his aesthetic preference. Halimbawa, nakakita ka ng isang babae, couple, nakakita ka ng couple, say for example, the woman is very lovely, she is very beautiful, but her boyfriend is not so handsome. Kapag nakakita ka halimbawa ng ganong couple, ang no-anjudgment natin sa kanila, agad-agad ang iisipin natin, Meron tayo agad negative judgment doon sa dalawang tao. Nakakita ko ng isang babae na mayroong pangit na boyfriend.
Nakasabihin natin, perhaps that boyfriend must be very rich. Malamang mayaman yun, kaya pinatus nung magandang babae. So hindi natin alam that by merely, just because of our aesthetic preferences, nahusgahan na natin yung dalawang tao na yun o yung couple na yun.
So hindi natin pwedeng husgahan ang... pagkatao ng isang tao dahil lamang sa itsura niya, dahil lamang sa forma niya, dahil lamang sa paraan niya ng pananalita, dahil lang may tattoo siya, o dahil sa kung anong meron siya. Okay? Why?
Because in the first place, ethics is not aesthetics. I hope that one makes clear, is clear to all of us, no? Okay?
So, in connection to that, hindi lang... ethics is not about aesthetics. Dapat meron tayong clear distinction between the two. But similarly, we do also have a sense of approval or disapproval concerning certain actions which can be considered relatively more trivial in nature. Minsan, hinuhusgahan natin ang ugali o moralidad ng isang tao.
Subalit, ang paghusgan natin sa kanila ay hindi naman dahil doon sa malaki nilang aksyon na ginagawa. But sometimes, we tend to judge persons just because of the trivial things that they are doing. When we talk about trivial in nature activities, ito yung mga maliit na bagay na hindi naman mahalaga. Pero minsan, maliit na bagay para sa ibang tao, masyadong natin ina-amplify to the point na dun sa mali niyang nagawang isang maliit na bagay, nahusgahan na natin ang kanyang buong pagkatao.
Okay? There are moral issues that have nothing to do with morality or the total persona of the individual but actually, maaaring maliit na bagay lang yun. Pero nahusgahan na natin ang buong pagkataon niya. Therefore, we've got to be aware that ethics is not also etiquette.
Ano ba yung etiquette? This is very important. Now, what's the big difference between ethics and etiquette?
Now, we have to remember that etiquette is also concerned with right or wrong actions, kagaya ng ethics. Yun ang similarity ng dalawa. Etiquette concerns itself. with what is right or wrong actions. But the big difference between the two is this.
When we talk about etiquette, it talks about the right or wrong actions which can be considered trivial in nature. Mga maliliit na bagay lang. They are not quite grave enough.
They are not big enough to belong to a discussion in ethics. Okay? Now, to clarify this point, may mga moral actions tayo.
na tama o mali, pero maliit na bagay lang para isama sa morality or ethics ng isang tao. Halimbawa, we can differentiate how I may be displeased seeing a healthy young man refuse to offer a seat on the bus to an elderly woman. or elderly lady. Kapag nakakita ka ng isang healthy na lalaki na hindi pinaupo ang isang matandang babae sa booths, ang sasabihin natin, nako, walang modo tong lalaki dito. Pero ang hindi natin alam, hindi natin pwedeng husgahan ang katauhan ng isang lalaki dahil lamang hindi niya pinaupo yung matandang babae doon sa booths.
Why? Kasi actually, maliit na bagay lang naman yun. Malaking bagay lang yun sa ating pangatilpino. Why? Kultura kasi natin yun.
But actually, if you will try to go to other country, for example, that kind of cultural good attitude is not actually good for them. Say for example, if you go to Japan and you allow or you give your seat to an elderly woman or an elderly man, okay? Pinaupo mo yung matandang Japanese doon, sa halip na matuwa siya actually sa'yo, ma-offend siya sa'yo.
Why? Kasi unlike sa kulturang Pilipino, ang tingin ng mga matatandang Japanese, for example, you are belittling his or her ability. Na ang pinamumukha mo sa kanya, pag pinaupo mo siya, parang wala na siyang lakas. Wala na siyang sapat na value. Kaya, nakuhin, mahinang klase ka na ng individual.
Kaya hindi mo na kaya, umupo ka na. Nakita niyo yung difference? Pag nagpaupo tayo ng matanda sa bus, ang tingin natin sa kulturang Pilipino, paggalang yun. Pero sa ibang bansa... ang tingin nila, iniinsulto natin sila.
Therefore, that kind of gesture or action allowing an elderly to sit in your seat, for example, in a bus, is actually not part of ethics, pero etiquette lamang iyon. Okay? So, maaaring madisplease ako. Maaaring medyo madisappoint ako when I see a healthy young man who failed to offer a seat on the bus to an elderly woman. Why?
Kasi, Okay? Culturally speaking, ako ay Pilipino. But, etiket yun.
Pero, I have now the right to say na nag-act immorally or nag-act badly ang isang lalaki. I may have an indignation or righteous anger. Maaari akong magalit at sabihin mali yung ginawa ng isang lalaki. Kapag halimbawa, yung lalaki nakakita ng isang matandang babae sa bus.
At sa halip na paupuin, itinapon pala ba sa bus? Yun na yung bahagi na yun ng ethics. Dahil alam natin na sa anumang kultura gawin yun, mali yung kanyang ginawa.
So when we talk about etiquette, what do I mean? Ano siya? It talks about moral values, pero hindi siya universal. But it talks about moral values na mainly culturally suggested lamang. Sa isang kultura lamang.
Kapag ganung bagay, etiquette yun at hindi yun under ng ethics. Halimbawa, sa kulturang Pilipino, pwede natin sabihin na isang bata ay bastos kapag hindi namumupo. Yung po at opo, para sa atin, sukatan yun para masabing mabait o hindi ang isang bata. Pero it's not under the branch of ethics.
It shouldn't be under ethics. Pero etiquette lamang yun. Halimbawa, farting or burping in public. Yung habang kumakain ay mumangasab.
You should not talk while your mouth is full. Nakataas ang paa mo habang kumakain ka. Yung pamilya mo, ganoon din. Nakataas ang paa ninyo habang kayo'y kumakain at nagkikwentuhan pa kayo. Or, sanay ka na you are picking your nose in public.
Yun yung mga example na para sa atin, mali bilang mga Pilipino. Pero, wala pa rin tayong karapatang husgahan ang moralidad ng isang tao patungkol dun sa mga ginagawa niyang iyon. Why? Because those actions, although good, are not part of ethics. Pero etiquette lamang iyon.
Ang point natin ganito, natural, kahit na hindi bahagi iyon ng ethics, dapat i-observe natin ang isang kultura. Why? Because that's part of our community. Ang paggalang sa mga etiquette o nakasanayang magandang gawi sa isang kultura ay pagpapakita ng ating pagpapasailalim at paggalang sa kanilang kultura.
and there's nothing wrong with that. Therefore, pag alam natin na sa kultura nila, mali iyon at ikaw ang dayo, dapat kahit hindi ka naniniwala na mali talaga technically because you came from another culture, therefore, you need to submerge. You need to follow their communal etiquette there.
At iyon ang paghalang na dapat ipinapakita pa rin natin. Okay? Ethics is not etiquette. However, ang problem dito ganito. Merong mga borderline na minsan hindi natin alam kung maliit na bagay ba o malaking bagay ba.
Hindi natin alam kung ito'y under ba ng ethics or etiquette lamang. Halimbawa, sa panahon natin ngayon, how about, for example, breastfeeding in public? Tama ba yun o mali?
Is it part of etiquette or is it part of ethics? Yun. Okay? How about public display of affection? Ito ba ay culturally influenced lang?
Ito ba ay etiquette lang? O ito ay patungkol sa morality or ethics? How about, for example, ito yung medyo mainit ngayon in our community. How about a transgender going to a public male or female restroom? Ito ba ay tama?
o mali, ito ba ethically driven or etiquette lang. Ito yung mga bagay na meron yung gray area o borderline na I think dapat maingat nating pagpasyahan at pag-isipan. Okay?
So, yun yung pangalawa. Ethics is not etiquette. Okay?
The first one is what? Ethics is not about aesthetics. Number two, ethics is not about etiquette.
And number three, ethics is not about technical valuation. When we talk about technical valuation, patungkol ito dun sa mga right and wrong actions that we do that easily appear in a certain context. Tama o mali, pero nakapalibot siya sa isang konteksto.
Okay? We have to remember that not all things that talk about what's right or wrong always deal on ethics. May mga bagay na patungkol sa tama o mali, pero saklaw siya ng isang konteksto na kung titignan mo, hindi naman talaga bahagi ng etika. May mga rules and regulations teaching you what is the right thing to do, what are the wrong things to do, pero if you will carefully study their context, hindi pa rin siya bahagi ng ethics.
Halimbawa, lahat naman tayo ay marunong... All of us are involved in a certain game. Halimbawa, basketball na lang.
Okay? When we are playing basketball, ang paglalaro ng basketball, meron siyang rules. Kaya kami referee every time we play basketball.
Ngayon, if you have violated the rules in basketball, it does not mean that you have violated an ethical rule. You have simply violated a technical valuation. Kumbaga. Okay?
Halimbawa, sa basketball, lalo na yung mga mahiling mag-basketball ng mga lalaki dyan. Halimbawa, you commit traveling. Okay?
So, mali ka doon. You have violated a certain rule. But it doesn't mean na kung nag-commit ka ng traveling, eh, immoral ka na. Do you follow? Na six-fouls ka, ang judgment sa'yo ng tao, Naku, naka-six-fouls nga kanina yan, eh.
Mamamatay tao yung tao na yan. Walang koneksyon, actually, ang technical valuation doon sa etika. o moralidad nung isang tao.
Okay? We have to remember that a person's worth is not defined by a single action he or she committed. Okay?
It doesn't fall on ethics but it falls and it belongs to the category of technical valuation. Okay? When we talk about technical valuation, actually, when we talk about technique, okay, it comes from the Greek word techne. which denotes the right way or proper way of doing things. Halimbawa, hindi ka marunong magluto and nag-prescribe ka sa isang how to cook in 3-minute video sa YouTube.
Tinignan mo yun. Okay? Nag-describe siya, this is the right way to cook sinigang.
Hindi mo sinunod yung isang step doon but instead, minodify mo yun. Hindi porque hindi mo sinunod yun, e nagkasala ka na. O immoral ka na.
Why? Kasi may konteksto yun. You have violated not a morality act or a moral principle, pero you have simply violated what?
A certain technique. So kapag mga ganong bagay, it's not part of ethics. You are simply under the compelling act of what we call technical valuation.
Yun yung tatlong bagay na dapat nating tandaan. Ethics is not about technical valuation. Ethics is not aesthetics. And number three, ethics is not about etiquette.
Now, ang malaking problema natin ganito, minsan mahirap ma-discern kung itong bagay ba na ito ay technical valuation lang, etiquette lang, or aesthetics lang. It's very difficult in ethics to have a distinction between what are trivial offenses and what are grave or big offenses. Halimbawa, clothing for example. Alam natin clothing, pananamit, hindi siya bahagi talaga ng ethics.
Why? Because clothing or your preference when it comes to fashion is simply aesthetics. Pero halimbawa, is clothing really always a matter of taste?
Halimbawa yung babae, yung kanyang fashion statement, lagi siya nagsusot ng mga provocative clothing. Ang suot lang niya ay masyadong provoking, sensually appealing sa mga lalaki. So ang tanong natin ngayon dito, is clothing always a matter of taste?
Or provocative clothing demands a call for some kind of moral judgment? Halimbawa. Yung language natin ay parang ano lang naman yan, cultural yan.
Hindi bahagi ng morality ang ating mga language na ginagamit. But can we say that a man, for example, who verbally abuses his girlfriend is simply showing bad manners? Or does this behavior deserve strong moral condemnation na dapat bahagi na or under na ng ethics?
So may mga gray areas pa rin. That's why we've got to be careful thinking if this action falls under the umbrella of ethics, o ito ba ay hindi siya. Okay?
So, merong mga gray area na ganoon na iyon ang ating pag-aaralan as we go along in our studies. Okay? That's the first thing.
At least, malinaw sa atin ngayon what ethics is not. Ngayon, tingnan natin ngayon yung mga cognates o yung mga hawig o directly related naman as we go along in studying ethics. Tingnan natin. What do we mean then by ethics and morals?
May pagkakaiba ba ito? Synonymous ba ito? How can we approach this one in our subject matter?
Okay. Our second point of clarification is on the use of the words ethics and morals. This discussion of ethics and morals would include cognates. Pag sinabi natin cognates, these are words which are related to one another.
So ang pag-aaralan natin yung mga salita na related sa ethics such as ethical, unethical, immoral, amoral, morality, and so on. Sa mga words na yan, somehow we have an idea what is ethical, unethical, immoral. What do you mean by amoral? When we say amoral, it mainly talks about an individual or a person who lacks moral principle.
Amoral siya. May mga issue na hindi naman siya kasama doon sa realm ng morality. Okay?
Ang ibig sabihin nun, amoral issue siya. Okay? That's it. As we go along in our study, mas makikita natin difference nung immoral, amoral, and so on and so forth.
Okay? Now, as we proceed, we should be careful particularly on the use of the word not when applied to the words moral or ethical as this can be ambiguous. Minsan, pag sinabi natin, halimbawa, yung prefix na not, ay yung word na not, ikinabit natin sa moral or ikinabit natin sa ethical, not.
Pero minsan, ang kinabit natin doon sa word na ethical ay yung prefix na un. Malaki ba ang pagkakaiba ng meaning ng not ethical at unethical? Yun din dapat maging malinaw tayo doon.
Magbibigay ako ng example. Bakit maging ambiguous yun? For example, I may say that Halimbawa, cooking, pagluluto, it is not ethical. Ang ginamit ko, yung word na, what?
Not ethical. Bakit? Kasi yung pagluluto, hindi ito sakop ng etika. Kaya, not ethical.
Okay? That is, the act of cooking does not basically belong to ethics. Kaya, ang gamit ko, not ethical. On the other hand, I might say that lying or cheating is what?
Ethical. Okay? So makikita natin sa context na yun, magkaiba pala ang meaning ng not ethical at unethical.
Pag sinabing unethical, you have violated a rule in ethics, such as lying and cheating. Pero pag sinabi natin not ethical, ang ibig sabihin lang nun, hindi bahagi ng etika yung isang bagay na ating ginagawa. Okay?
So be careful with substituting the words not and un. in ethics. Kasi we cannot use actually these words interchangeably. Kasi may iba yung meaning niya.
Let's continue. The term morals may be used to refer to specific beliefs or attitudes. Anong ibig sabihin ng morals? Specific beliefs or attitudes that people have or to describe acts that people perform.
Thus, it is sometimes said that an individual's personal conduct is referred to as his morals. Okay? Now, say for example, if he falls short, of behaving properly, this can be what? This can be described now as an immoral act.
Okay? Let's continue. However, we also have the terms as moral judgments or moral reasoning, which suggests a more rational aspect. Okay?
Now, when we talk about ethics, the term ethics can be spoken of as the discipline of studying. and understanding ideal human behavior and ideal ways of thinking. Inaaral natin yung ethics para ano?
Malaman natin yung ideal, yung tama, yung prescribed, hindi lang ng kultura, hindi lamang ng reliyon, hindi lamang na nakasanayan natin kung ano. Kung hindi ito'y base sa ating mga paniniwala na bakit ito ay tama na dapat natin gawin. At sa paggawa natin ng mga bagay na yun, we are becoming... moral persons. Okay?
So, let's continue. Thus, ethics is acknowledged as an intellectual discipline which belongs to philosophy. However, acceptable and unacceptable behaviors are also generally described as ethical and unethical, respectively.
Now, in addition, with regard to the acceptable and unacceptable ways of behaving in a given field, we have the term professional or professional. Ethics. Now, when we talk about, i-differentiate na lang muna natin anong pagkakaiba ng morals at saka ng word na ethics.
When we talk about morals, tinutukoy natin dito it's the person's personal conduct. Ito yung asal niya, ito yung ugali niya, moralidad ng tao. Ano naman ang ethics?
Ito ay isang, according sa definition natin, ito ay isang philosophical na pag-aaral. Upang malaman natin kung ano yung ideal human behavior. Ano yung ideal o yung wastong ugali, yung wastong asal, moral values and rules na dapat natin ginagampanan bilang tao ay because we are moral agents. Tandaan natin, sa lahat ng nilikha ng Diyos, tayo lang ang binigyan niya ng kapasyahan o katalinuhan upang malaman ng tama at mali.
Okay? And as human beings, it is our duty to do the right thing and it is our duty not to do the wrong. things.
Okay? Now, habang ikaw ay sumusunod dun sa mga tamang ideal preference na yun, yun ang responsibility ng ethics. Ituro sa atin kung ano yung tama, ano yung mali, at bakit siya tama, at bakit siya mali.
Okay? Now, yung pag-aaral ng ethics, actually, when we study ethics, tingnan natin yung dalawang uri ng ethics. Merong tinatawag na descriptive ethics, meron din namang tinatawag na normative ethics. What's the big difference between the two?
As we study ethics, may dalawang lapang. The first one is the descriptive approach and the second one is what we call the normative approach. Now, let's continue.
The third point of clarification is to distinguish between descriptive and a normative study of ethics. First, descriptive. A descriptive study of ethics reports how people, particularly groups, make their moral valuations without making any judgment either for or against these valuations.
Okay? Ngayon, basically, when we talk about descriptive study of ethics, that is basically the work of a social scientist. That's the work of social science. Okay? Halimbawa, sino ang involved sa descriptive study of ethics?
Ito yung point na inaaral mo yung ugali, inaaral mo yung morality ng isang grupo ng tao, pero hindi mo hinuhusgahan kung tama ba o mali ang kanilang ginagawa. Inaaral mo ang kanilang moralidad by simply studying it, but you're not judging whether it's right or wrong. Kapag ganoon ang ginagawa natin, we are involved actually in a descriptive approach in ethics. At ang mga gumagawa doon, yung mga social scientists. Halimbawa, can you give an example of social scientists?
Halimbawa, historian. A historian studies the different moral standards of a particular group of people in a certain period of time. Okay, historian.
Descriptive study ng ethics ang kanilang inaaral. Sociologist. Ano pa? Anthropologist. They are studying different moral standards across cultures or in a certain specific period of time.
Hindi nalang sinasabi kung tama o mali yun, pero ano, dinidescribe lang nila. So, yun yung keyword. When we are talking about descriptive ethics, you are simply describing the morals of a certain people, group of people, but we don't have the right to judge whether their actions are good or not.
Not good. Okay? Yun ngayon, yung pagkakaiba ng descriptive sa normative.
Ano naman ba ngayon yung normative? A normative study of ethics then is what? Done in philosophy or moral theology.
And when we do normative ethics, it engages itself with the question what could or should be considered as the right way of acting. In other words, a normative discussion prescribes what we ought to maintain as our standards or basis for moral valuation. When engaging a discussion of ethics, it is always advisable to recognize whether one is concerned with a descriptive view or with normative perspective. Ang point natin dito, kapag normative study of ethics or normative approach to ethics, hindi mo lang inaaral kung ano yung moralidad nila. Kung hindi yung normative, ini-implement mo or sinasabi mo kung ano yung tama o mali sa kanilang ginagawa.
Pag alam mo na yung tama at mali, tinatry natin i-normative or i-normalize. Dahil ito ay tama, dapat gawin natin ito. Dahil mali yung kanilang ginagawa, dapat iwasan natin ito. So, yung normative study of ethics, merong command. Meron siyang prescription na ano, these are the things, these are the standards that we need to do, and these are the actions that we shouldn't be doing.
Kapag na-involve tayo doon sa pagja-judge kung ano ang tama o mali in the light of studying ethics, we're not actually doing descriptive ethics, but we are doing a normative study of ethics. Okay? Let's continue.
We need to go further. A philosophical discussion of ethics. which would be our approach in our study of ethics, goes beyond recognizing the characteristics of some descriptive theory. Also, it does not simply accept any correct normative theory. A philosophical discussion of ethics engages in a critical consideration of the strengths and weaknesses of these theories.
This will be the primary concern of this subject throughout our study. Kaya, inyong sinabi ko sa inyo, during our orientation last week. What we will be doing is a philosophical discussion of ethics. Meaning, what we will be doing should actually goes beyond recognizing the characteristic of some descriptive theory.
Di lang natin na-aralin. Para sa kanila, ito tama, ito mali. Kung hindi, ano? Dahil philosophical yung ating pag-aaralan, we should not simply accept as correct any normative theory, but a philosophical discussion of ethics.
ethics what? Mainly, it engages in a critical consideration of the strengths and weaknesses of those descriptive theories, of those ethical theories, which is actually the primary concern of our subject matter. So, hindi lang natin naalamin, ah, tama pala yun.
Ah, mali pala yung pagmumura. Kundi dahil philosophical yung approach natin, ang tanong natin, bakit mali? Bakit tama yung isang bagay?
So, we will delve deeper on the reasons or the roots of our ethical theories that we are observing in our life. So, more on ano tayo? Normative.
Hindi lang tayo descriptive. Why? Kasi philosophical yung magiging approach natin sa ating pag-aaral.
Now, in connection to the study of ethics, in connection to human beings as moral agents, Meron din tayong mga dapat na mga terms na dapat maging pamilya tayo. Ano yun? We need to familiarize ourselves with the following terms.
Issue, decision, judgment, and dilemma. What do you mean by moral issue, moral decision, moral judgment, and moral dilemma? Una, as what I've said a while ago, we've got to remember that among all the organisms that God created, we are the only ones. The human beings were bestowed by God.
The ability to know what is right and what is wrong. Okay? Ethics, morality.
Therefore, tayo lang ang may tuturing na agent of ethics. Ang tawag sa mga tao, dahil tayo lang may alam ng tama't mali, we are called moral agents. And as moral agents, dapat alam natin kung ano ang meaning ng moral issue, moral decision, and so on and so forth. Itay sa in natin.
What do you mean then by moral issue? Look, moral issue... it's often used to refer to those particular situations that are often the source of considerable and inclusive debate.
Ang point dito ay patungkol, ang moral issue ay patungkol dun sa mga iba't-ibang sitwasyon na nakikita natin sa ating lipunan o ating nararanasan na patungkol sa moralidad ng tao na mayroong concern or related sa moralidad o kaugalian ng isang tao. Halimbawa, ng isang moral issue, ganito. Say for example, a poor son who cannot afford his dying mother a medicine. Mamamatay na yung nanay nung isang mahirap na bata. Iyon yung kanyang sitwasyon.
Pero nagkaroon siya ngayon halimbawa ng possibility na makapagnakaw ng gamot sa isang drugstore. Ano ngayon ang gagawin niya? Pag nagnakaw ba siya ng gamot sa drugstore for his or her dying mother, mali ba o tama yung kanyang ginawa? Pag inaral natin yung sitwasyon na yun, ang tawag doon, it is a moral issue.
And some people would say tama lang yung ginawa niya, and some people would say mali yung kanyang ginawa. So we could see here that this is now a matter of ethics. Because it involves the question of what? Pag dinakaw niya, ang tanong dyan, he kahit tama yung kanyang motibo para gamutin ang kanyang nanay, ang problema, he did not respect the property of another individual dahil dinakaw niya ito.
So ang tawag doon, moral issues. So moral issues are actually those situations that are often the source of considerable and conclusive moral debates. Tawag doon, moral issue.
Can you think of other moral issues which are prevalent in our society today? Halimbawa, capital punishment. That's a moral issue.
Euthanasia or mercy killing. That's a moral issue. Halimbawa, same-sex marriage.
Yun ang mga examples ng moral issues. At least sa ethics, pag-aaralan natin ito. We call that moral issues. May sitwasyon na hindi ikaw ang gumagawa pero nakita mo sa lipunan o sa buhay ng isang tao, you're observing it objectively, you're assessing whether it's right or wrong, we call that a moral issue.
Pero, tingnan natin yung pangalawa. Ano ngayon pagkakaiba ng moral issues, a moral decision? Okay?
When we look at moral decision, it is this. When one now is placed in a situation and confronted by the choice of what act to perform, he or she is called to make a moral decision. Okay?
Sa moral issue, you are simply the observer. Pero sa moral decision, ikaw mismo'y nasa isang sitwasyon na nangangailangan ng isang desisyong pang moral. Okay?
Ikaw yung magde-decide. Kaya ang tawag dun moral decision. Halimbawa, you are the kid that you have an ailing mother but you do not have money and you have given the opportunity to steal from a drugstore.
Kapag ako nag-decide na I decide to steal the medicine for the fast recuperation of my mother, therefore, what I have made is what? A moral decision. May bearing na.
Basta involved ka at ikaw ang nagpa siya, we call that a moral decision. For example, I decide to fake my instructor in ethics as if I will try to say that I've watched this lecture but actually I'm not paying attention while watching this lecture. Therefore, it's your moral decision. Ikaw ang nagpa siya doon. For example, I decide not to take something that I did not pay for.
It's a moral decision. Okay? Basta involve ka at ikaw ang nagpa siya, you call that moral decision.
On the other hand, yung moral issue naman, someone is doing that okay? And you're or observing his action at ikaw yung nagda-judge kung tama o mali at ano yung dahilan kung bakit nasabing tama o mali, ang tawag ng moral issue. Okay? Next one.
What do you mean by moral judgment? When a person now is an observer, observer ka lang, okay? Who makes the assessment on the actions or behavior of someone is actually making a moral judgment. And now, ang pagkakaiba ng moral issue sa moral judgment, yung moral issue, ito yung concern ng lahat sa isang lipunan.
Same-sex marriage, mercy killing, euthanasia, and so on and so forth. Yung moral judgment naman, mas maliit yung saklaw niya. Mas maliit yung sakop niya.
You're simply observing the acts of a person or a group of people at ikaw ang magja-judge kung tama ba o mali ang kanilang ginawa. We call that moral judgment. Okay? That's moral judgment.
Halimbawa, may your friend, for example, chooses to steal from a store. Okay? Ikaw ngayon, bilang observer, i-judge mo or i-assess mo kung tama ba ang kanyang ginawa o mali.
Meron kayong online quiz. Habang nag-online quiz ka, nag-decide ka na mag-quiz habang binabasa mo yung handout na binigay sa'yo. Okay?
Tapos yung kaibigan mo o yung kapatid mo nakita ka is doing a moral judgment kung tama o mali ang iyong ginawa. You call that moral judgment. Okay?
Pangapat, moral dilemma. What do you mean by that? When an individual now is torn, hindi niya alam, naiipit siya between choosing one of the two goods or choosing between the lesser of two evils, this is referred to as a moral dilemma.
Okay? Moral dilemma yung hindi mo alam kung ano yung pagpapasyahan mo na makakaapekto sa moralidad mo. Okay? Halimbawa, Alam mong masama magsinungaling. Pero kunyari, dumayo ka sa bahay ng classmate mo and it just so happened that her mother, for example, ay nanganak at may bago siyang sanggol.
Nakita mo yung sanggol, hindi naman talaga cute. Pero ang tanong ngayon ng nanay, ay naku, nakita mo yung anak ko, di ba ang ganda-ganda niya? Moral dilemma. Hindi mo alam kung nasabihin mo. Sasabihin mo, ay opo, ang ganda-ganda po ng anak ninyo?
O sasabihin mo yung totoo na hindi po ako nagagandahan sa anak ninyo? You are in a situation where you are torn what to say. Moral dilemma yun.
Very light lang ang example ka but on a serious note, halimbawa, moral dilemma. A mother, for example, is conflicted between wanting to feed her hungry and starving child but then recognizing that it would be wrong for her to steal. She doesn't have money. Her son or daughter is starving to death.
but she knows that it's wrong to steal, that particular mother was in a moral dilemma. Siguro inyong medyo decent na example ng moral dilemma. So at least we are now familiar with the words moral dilemma, what else?
Moral judgment, moral decision, and moral issue. At iyon yung pagkakaiba-iba nila. Now, let's move to the third part of our study. I hope.
medyo nakikita na natin yung flow nung ating pag-aaral. Let's now proceed to reasoning. When we talk about philosophy, that's what I've said a while ago. What we're going to do is we're not simply describing the moral act of people in a certain community. But what we're going to do is the philosophical approach in ethics.
And when we talk about philosophy, we're not only judging na tama o mali yun kung hindi... Ang role natin ngayon sa ating pag-aaral, ano yung mga dahilan para masabi natin tama o mali ang isang bagay? Therefore, reasoning plays a crucial role in our study.
Kaya medyo malalim yung ating pag-aaral ng ethics. It is philosophical. Why? Because we will be squeezing our brain juices para malaman at ma-extract natin bakit mali ang isang maling bagay at bakit tama ang isang bagay.
Doon papasok yung ating sound reasoning. Okay, so let's continue. Why do we suppose that a certain way of acting is right and its opposite wrong?
The study of ethics is interested in questions like this. Why do we decide to consider this way of acting as acceptable while that way of acting, its opposite, is unacceptable? To put it in another way, what reasons do we give to decide or to judge that a certain way of acting either right or wrong?
Kayo, alimbawa, noong bata kayo, bakit yung sinasabi o anong nagdadrive sa iyo, anong dahilan para gumawa ka ng mabuti? Yun ang reason mo, bakit mo ginagawa yung mabuti at bakit hindi ka gumagawa ng mabuti. Sa pasimula, alam nyo, kahit tayo yung mga bata, for example, you're just merely a toddler, hindi natin alam na i-inculcate na ng mga magulang natin ang tama at mali sa mababaw na kaparaanan.
Alimbawa, Alam natin na tama o mali ang isang bagay. Why? Kasi bilang bata, halimbawa, pag gumawa ka ng tama, ikaw ay ire-reward. Pero pag gumawa ka ng mali, ikaw ay paruusahan.
So kadalasan, iyan ang dahilan bakit tayo gumagawa ng mabuti. Why? May reward eh.
Bakit tayo gumagawa ng mali? Eh kasi, merong punishment. Okay?
So ang tawag dyan, reward and punishment. Iyon ang reason why we are acting ethically. Okay?
So, iyon yung mga common. Doon tayo nagsisimula. Yun ang ating karanasan.
Pero pag inaral natin to, parang mababaw na dahilan yun. Gumagawa ka ba ng mabuti dahil lang sa reward? At gumagawa ka ng umiiwas ka sa masama dahil lamang sa punishment?
What if sa paggawa mo ng masama, doon ka makakakuha ng reward? What if sa paggawa mo ng tama, doon ka magsasuffer? Therefore, on that particular situation which I have given, therefore, the reasoning...
for reward and punishment is highly questionable. Gagawa tayo ng mabuti hindi dahil may reward. Kundi gagawa tayo ng mabuti dahil ito ang tamang gawin ng isang moral person.
or moral agent. Okay? Naalala ko yung sabi ni Zhuang Zhu. Sabi ni Zhuang Zhu, rewards and punishments are the lowest form of education.
Okay? So, yun yun. Okay? Halimbawa, magbigay ako ng example, reward and punishment.
Ito yung dilema dyan. Halimbawa, you know a friend and your friend is in a certain position to get a better grade by cheating. Okay?
Yung kaklasim mo, halimbawa, naghahabol para ma-dincelist siya. So, meron siyang pagkakataon na mandaya para lang makuha yung pagiging dincelist. Kung reward and punishment ang magiging reason niya, makikita natin na magiging justifiable yung pangungopya niya o yung pag-cheat niya.
Why? Kasi it brings some rewards. Ano yun? Madi-dincelist siya.
Therefore, dun sa example ko, simpleng ilustrasyon yun na magpapakita na hindi tama na ang dahilan lang natin upang maging moral agent sa paggawa natin ng tama at pag-iwas sa mali ay dahil lang sa reward and punishment. Kaya doon tayo papasok sa philosophical ethics. Ang dapat natin alamin, we need to ask why.
Why is cheating wrong? Why is being unfaithful to my partner is wrong? Why being stupid, for example, or being disobedient is wrong?
So asking the question why somehow eliminates those superficial discussion in morality. We need to rise above our conventional reward and punishment backgrounds at malaman natin bakit nga ba mali ang isang bagay. Meron pang there's more to life than rewards and punishment. That's why you need to ask why.
Okay? Yung pangungopia, mali. Pero bakit siya mali? Dahil ba mali yun? Kasi nahuli ka?
Baka mahuli ka ng teacher? Pag yun ang dahilan mo, bakit mali mangupia? Eh kasi baka mahuli ako.
Reward and punishment din yun. Right? So ang tanong, mahuli ka man o hindi, bakit mali mangupia? Yun ang ating pag-aaralan.
You need to ask why. Kaya when you talk about asking why, ang susunod na keyword here is what we call abstraction. Halimbawa, Our thinking about what's right and wrong should be on the level of obstruction. Ang ibig sabihin ng obstruction, it's a concept or an idea not associated with any specific instance.
Halimbawa, magbibigay ako ng example. Yun na lang sinabi ko na yan, cheating is wrong. Ang context natin sa cheating ay cheating is wrong in the context of exam. Pag sinabing abstraction, dapat i-detach mo yung cheating hindi lang sa konteksto ng examination or quiz. Ang gawin mo, i-detach mo siya sa situation na yun.
Huwag mo siyang i-associate sa exam. Abstraction ang tawag doon. Inihawalay mo siya sa original context niya and that is cheating on the exam.
And you separate it and it becomes cheating lang. Pero alam natin, cheating is wrong. But what makes cheating wrong? So iisipin mo ngayon.
Para magkaroon ka ng level of obstruction, ang tatry mo gawin ngayon is what? Dapat i-apply mo to. Cheating is wrong. Gamitin mo yung ibang sitwasyon. How about sa exam?
It's wrong. How about cheating in a particular love relationship? Cheating when it comes to money, and so on and so forth.
So, ang point to obstruction, dinetach mo yung cheating sa isang particular situation, tinanggal mo siya doon, at in-apply mo siya sa iba't ibang aspeto ng buhay. At aaralin mo why. Bakit mali ang pandaraya? Okay?
At unti-unti, ang hindi mo alam, nakagawa ka na ng principle. Okay? At habang iniisip mo bakit mali ang pandaraya, makakakonklud ka. Halimbawa, ganito. Mali ang pandaraya.
Why? Kasi, number one, sa pag-iisip ko kung bakit siya mali, you have concluded that you are violating the sense of fair play. Okay?
Hindi ka nagiging patas kapagka nandaraya ka. Hindi lang sa exam. Hindi patas yun eh.
Yung ibang kaklase mo nag-review, kaya mataas ang quiz. Samantalang ikaw, hindi ka naman nag-review, nandaya ka lang, mataas ang quiz, hindi ka patas. That's why mali yun.
Okay? Hindi ka fair. Okay? Number two, yung cheating, inapply mo sa love relationship.
Nag-cheat ka sa girlfriend mo. Bakit mali? Kasi hindi rin patas yun. Kasi yung girlfriend mo faithful sa'yo, on the other hand, ikaw hindi ka faithful sa kanya. So, nabaviolate yung fair play.
So, meron ka na nga yung prinsipyo na mali talaga. yung pandaraya. Okay? And number two, hindi lamang issue of fair play kung di yung pandaraya or particularly cheating in exam is what? You are actually, if you are cheating, for example, in a quiz or exam, you are questioning The validity of testing.
Hindi ka naniniwala na kailangang, paano ba testing? Hindi ka naniniwala na kailangang pangsubukin upang mapatunayan na karapat dapat ka. Halimbawa, sa grade na yun, subukin na karapat dapat ka sa isang relasyon, subukin na karapat dapat ka sa paghandel ng pera.
Okay? Actually, you're questioning the validity of testing every time you are cheating. Okay?
So, yun na lang ang dalawa. Halimbawa, validity of testing and fair play, yun ang main principle mo kung bakit ka ngayon nag-conclude na okay, mali ang pandaraya. Cheating is wrong. Okay?
So, yun yun, na-establish na sa buhay mo, kaya yun na yung naging moral principle mo. Pero nagsimula yung moral principle na yun when you learn to abstract. Okay? You remove a certain issue from its context and you apply it to every single... aspect of your life.
And while asking the question why, nakakakuha ka ng mga moral or ethical principles na iyon ngayon ang nagdibigay ng dahilan sa'yo bakit nasasabi mong mali ang isang bagay. Kapag ka ngayon ginawa mo yun, ang hindi mo alam, nagkakaroon ka na ng tinatawag na moral theory. Meron ka ng sariling teorya bakit mali ang pangungopya. Alimbawa, huwag naman pangungopya. Why is killing evil na lang?
Bakit mali ang pagpatay o pagkitil ng buhay ng isang tao? So makikita natin, malalaman natin may dahilan bakit mali. Una, kapag kaikainaniniwala sa Diyos, mali ang pagpatay.
Dahil mali, ito ay pinag-utos ng Diyos. Kasama ito sa sapung-utos ng Diyos, huwag kang papatay. Pero bukod doon, ano pa kaya yung mga dahilan? Bakit masasabi natin mali ang pagpatay?
Kagaya ng sinabi ko, a person may say that life is sacred. It is God-given. Okay?
Or, another thing is we may say that we can declare that human life is a priceless dignity. That is your moral theory. Okay?
Or we may put forward the fact that taking another's life does not contribute to the happiness. Okay? But, the happiness of human beings but to human misery instead.
So, nakakagawa tayo ng mga moral theory and principles. Okay? So, when we say a moral theory, It is actually now a systematic attempt to establish the validity of maintaining certain moral principles. Marami tayong mga prinsipyo, hindi lang cheating, kung hindi faithfulness.
Halimbawa, being courteous, being loving. Pag pinagsama-sama mo lahat ng mga principles mo na yun, nakakabuo tayo ng moral theory natin. At yung moral framework natin ngayon, yun ang nagdidikta sa atin why you are acting that way. Why you are believing those principles. Okay?
So, kung papansin natin, ito ay nagsisimula saan? Ang pagiging ethical pala ng isang tao, using the philosophical approach, dito lagi nagsisimula. Number one, reasoning. Nakita natin na hindi lang pala reward and punishment ang dahilan why I am acting good. Meron talaga akong dahilan at pinaniniwalaan.
At yung reasoning na yun, nanggaling saan? Sa pag-a-abstract mo ng isang bagay. Inihiwalay mo yung isang act.
or moral principle doon sa sitwasyon niya at inapply mo sa iba't ibang aspeto ng buhay mo or different facet ng buhay mo at nakita mo na sa lahat ng pagkakataon pala na ito, ang pandaraya halimbawa ay mali. Therefore, na-abstract mo yung idea that cheating now is wrong at ito'y ginawa mong principle sa iyong buhay. Na ano man ang gagawin ko, hindi ako mandaraya.
I will do my best. Okay? And, kapag pinagsama-sama mo yung prinsipyo mo, halimbawa, prinsipyo sa relationship.
prinsipyo sa relasyon mo sa Diyos, prinsipyo sa relasyon mo sa kapwa, prinsipyo sa iyong ethical studies, paraan ng pag-aaral mo. Alimbawa, pag pinagsama-sama mo lahat ng prinsipyo mo, ang tawag doon, meron ka ng sariling moral theory o meron ka ng sariling moral framework. At pag pinagsama-sama natin ito, yun ang nagiging paniniwala natin kung bakit mali ang isang bagay, kung bakit tama ang isang bagay, at bakit ito ang ating pinaniwalaan sa etika. Doon nagsisimula ayun.
At sa ating pag-aaral ng mga iba't-ibang moral theories, doon natin papasukin lahat yan. Alamin natin yung reasoning, alamin natin kung paano i-apply sa iba't-ibang aspeto ng ating buhay, ano yung mga prinsipyo na maaari nating mabuo doon sa reasoning na iyon, at iyon ay magko-contribute sa kabuoang paniniwala natin morally speaking. Okay?
So I hope, little by little, nakikita ninyo kung saan patungo ang ating pag-aaral. And as we go along in our studies, ang pag-aaralan natin yung mga moral theories, yung mga moral framework na nabuo ng mga tao mula sinanguna hanggang sa panahon natin ngayon at mapapansin mo yung palang dahilan bakit ito ang ating panitumala. So I hope this one would interest all of us.
Ngayon, when you talk about right and wrong, dun tayo ngayon sa pangapat. Sa source ng authority. Anong ibig sabihin ng source of authority?
Okay? Sino nagsabi ng tama o mali? Sino ang otoridad natin sa etika? Sino ang may karapatang magsabi para sabihin na ito'y tama at ito'y mali?
Sino ang nagdidigta sa moral agent? Who is the authority in ethics, kumbaga? Okay?
Ngayon, makikita natin dito, basically there are three. When we talk about ethics and philosophy, basically there are three sources of authority na hindi natin alam ito nagdedictate ng ating moral standards ng tama o mali. The first one is law. Kung ano yung batas. Ito yung tama.
Why? Kasi ito yung utos ng batas. So ang authority, ang supreme authority for some, ang supreme authority ng ethics ay kung ano ang batas. Okay? Gawin mo ito.
Why? Utos ng batas. Huwag mong gawin ito dahil pinagbabawal ng batas.
So the first authority in ethics is law. Pero yung mga critics ng law, ang sabi nila, hindi iyan ang authority ng ethics. Ang batas sa isang komunidad, hindi iyan dapat ang magdigtang kung ano ang tama at mali.
Why? Ang main argument nila kung bakit hindi dapat batas ang maging standard ng tama at mali ay ito. Ang point nila ganito.
When you talk about law, Pansin nyo lahat ng law sa ating, halimbawa in the city of Valenzuela, most of the law, ano siya? Hindi naman siya positive law. When we talk about law, mostly they are prohibitive in nature. Ang ini-implement ng batas, ito yung wag mong gagawin. No jaywalking, no and so on and so forth.
No throwing of garbage in this area and so on and so forth. Kung papansin nyo, ang batas palaging tinuturo, ito yung mga bagay na wag mong gawin. Pero ang problema, yung batas hindi daw sa atin tinuturo kung ano yung mga dapat nating gawin. Puro pagbabawal, pero hindi tinuturo yung ano yung dapat nating gawin. Hindi sinabi ng batas na mahalin mo ang kapwa mo, patawarin mo kapag nagkasala sa'yo.
So paano magiging standard ng moralidad dito kung lahat na lang i-bawal? Prohibitive in nature siya, pero hindi siya positive in response. Okay? Iyon yung unang kritisismo kung bakit kinikwestiyon nila na dapat.
ang law ang maging standard ng ethics. Okay, why? Because of its prohibitive nature.
Okay? Law cannot tell us, in other words, let me say that, laws cannot tell us what to pursue. Okay?
But instead, law simply tells us what to avoid. And because of that, law cannot be the standard of ethics. Yun ang criticism number one. Ang criticism number two, hindi lahat daw ng moralidad ay saklaw ng batas.
Okay? There are certain ways of acting, actually, which are not forbidden by law, but are ethically questionable to us. Alam nating mali, pero dahil hindi pa saklaw ng batas, therefore, yun ang patunay para sabihin hindi dapat ang law, ang universal judge, kung anong tama at mali. Halimbawa, Ano yung alam nating mali pero hindi pabahagi ng batas natin o wala pang itinuturo ang batas patungkol? Halimbawa, contractual system.
Sa contractual system, employees are deprived not only of the benefits but also the job security. Alam nating mali yun. But since right now, there is no law applicable for that, ginagawa pa rin yun.
Kulang, kumbaga. Therefore, law cannot be the universal authority. when it comes to ethics.
Halimbawa, ang kahinaan din ng law, ganito. Halimbawa, nakakita ka ng toddler o isang bata o pulube who had run over by a couple of vehicles. Nasagasaan na siya ng truck, nasagasaan na siya ng nabun, excuse me, ng iba't ibang sasakyan. Pero ang problema, yung mga passers-by, yung mga witness, wala man lang ginawa doon dahil takot sila na tumulong. Baka pati sila ma-aksidente.
Diba? For quite a long time, there are many passers-by who witness what had happened to that toddler but they offer zero help. Okay? However, if you are a human being na nakita mo yung sitwasyon na yun, nasasabihin nyo, mali yung mga tao na yun, dapat tinulungan nila.
Pero dahil walang batas patungkol doon, walang maling ginawa yung mga tao na nakawitness doon sa toddler at sa situation na yun. So, yun ang limitation ng law. Okay?
Marami siyang naitutulong pero marami siyang kulang. Okay? Number two, ang paniniwala ng iba kung mali ang law, Kung hindi batas ng lupa ang dapat maging standard ng morality, baka dapat batas ng langit o religion na lang.
So yan ang paniniwala ng iba. Bakit mali? Kasi pinagbabawal ng Diyos. Bakit tama? Dahil iniuutos ng Diyos.
Now, most of us actually, yun ang paniniwala. Ang standard ng tama at mali ay ang relisyon or technically ang Diyos. Tama naman, hindi ba? Pero yung iba, kine-question ang authority ng religion when it comes to ethics.
Okay? Ang strength ng religion, ganito. Religion is not simply prohibitive like law.
Hindi lang na tinuturo kung ano yung mga bawal, but it also provides ideals or good things or values that we need to emulate or pursue. Okay? Number two, merong supreme authority ng religion ang Diyos ang nagsabi doon. So who are we to question the rules of God?
Okay? However, ang malaking problema sa religion is what? Okay, given the, for the sake of argument, given the fact na ang supreme authority ng morality ay religion, ang tanong, what religion specifically?
Catholic? Protestants? Muslims?
What religion? Yun ang malaking problema sa religion. Yung multiplicity of it.
So kung ang reliyon ang tama, para magsabi kung ano ang tama at mali, ang tanong lang ng mga ethicist ay, anong reliyon na dapat natin sundin sa dami ng reliyon sa mundo? Kaya iyon ang question nila. At may mga utos ang isang reliyon na actually binaviolate ng isang reliyon.
Na tama sa isang reliyon, na maliit sa isang reliyon. Kahit nga pagkain halimbawa ng dugo, pagkain ng pork, bawal sa iba, tama sa iba. So alin doon ang tama?
So iyon ang problem sa reliyon. It's multiplicity. Kaya yung iba, ang point nila, baka hindi religion ang official supreme authority when we talk about ethics.
At yung iba naman ay ganito, baka naman hindi law, baka naman hindi religion, baka naman culture. Kasi ang point nila ganito, actually, kaya nga ganun ang religion ng Kristyanismo dahil nang galing yan sa kultura ng mga Hudyo. Limbawa, Kaya ganyan ang batas sa isang lipunan kasi ito ay dikta ng kanilang kultura.
Kaya malamang ang tamang magdikta kung anong tama at mali sa isang individual ay ang kanyang kultura. Parang strong. Pero ang main criticism naman sa culture ay ganito, what culture are you talking about?
Meron din tinatawag na cultural relativism. Meron din namang mga punto na tama sa kulturang ito pero mali sa kabilang kultura. And if these two cultures contradict one another, which among the two cultures should be emulated and should be followed?
So may problema din doon. So another example, halimbawa, yung tinatawag din na magkaiba ng kultura. Halimbawa, merong isang Pilipino na half Filipino siya and half American siya.
So magkakaroon ng conflict sa kanya. What culture should I follow? Right?
So merong confusion din. Say for example, I am a Filipino Muslim. I am a Filipino in the context na ang Filipino is saturated sa kulturang Kristyanismo. Na alam ko ang pag-aasawa, dapat isa lang ang mapapangasawa ko. But the problem is I'm not only Filipino, but I am a Muslim Filipino.
At sa kultura ng Muslim, pwede ako mag-asawa ng ilan? Hanggang apat for example. So I am now torn between my culture as a Filipino.
And my culture, for example, as a Muslim, which among the two should I follow? So magkakaroon din ang problema dun sa cultural relativity and cultural confusion sa akin. Kaya hindi rin daw pwede na maging authority ang ating kultura. So technically, there are three competing positions as to which should be the authority and ethics. Maganda to kung meron tayong physical class kasi magkakaroon tayo ng ano eh.
discussions but because of the limitation of online class at least aware kayo na bilang individual na binigyan ng capacity upang masabi ang tama o mali, isipin ninyo sino ang nagpapasya at authority sa'yo. Sinabi mo bang tama yan o mali dahil ang batas ang nagturo sa'yo, ang religion mo ang nagturo sa'yo, o yung kultura mo ang nagturo sa'yo. Yun yung mga external forces ng morality. However, Kung ito ang mga external forces, meron naman tayong tinatawag na internal forces.
Hindi ko na nasama sa handout natin yan sa ating PowerPoint presentation. But if you try to look on our handouts, ito yung last part. Yung iba, meron yung tinatawag na internal disposition. Hindi nila alam kung ano yung dapat kong sundin.
Yung law ba? Yung religion ba? Yung kultura ba?
Ang gusto nila ng iba. Yung sarili ko na lang ang susundin ko. Meron tinatawag na senses of the self. You refer to your handout now. Okay?
So, ang external authority sa ethics, yung tatlo na binanggit ko. Religion, culture, and then, what's the other one? And law.
Pero merong internal authority. At kadalasan, ang internal authority yung ating sarili. Pansin niyo, at the end of the day, at ikaw din naman na magpapasya kung anong tama at mali.
At kapag we try to dissect this, meron pang tatlong senses ang ating sarili. Senses of the self in light of ethics. Number one, may mga tao nang pinaniwalaan lang niya yung kanyang sarili. Ang tawag doon ay, number one, refer to your handout, It is subjectivism.
Yung iba, sasabihin ganito, okay, walang makakapagsabi sa akin kung anong tama o mali. Ako lang ang magpapasya. Walang nakakaalam sa sitwasyon ko, kundi ako lamang. Okay?
I am entitled to my own opinion. It is good because I say it's good. It's wrong because I say it's wrong.
Ang tawag doon ay, number one, subjectivism. Ang authority, what's right and wrong, ay ang iyong sarili. Wala ka ng pakialam sa iba.
Basta sinabi kong tama, tama yan. Pag sinabi kong mali, mali yan. Ang tawag doon, subjectivism. Okay? Number two naman, meron naman tinatawag na psychological egoism.
When we talk about psychological egoism, the word ego mag-focus sa'yo. When we talk about ego, sarili lang. Ang paniniwala ng mga psychological ego is ganito. As human beings, we are naturally self-centered. Lahat naman daw ng tao, pinanganak na self-centered.
Kasi kung hindi tayo self-centered, Ang argument nila, bakit yung mga bata tinuturuan natin na magbigay, magshare? Lahat ng bata sa simula ayaw magbigay. So lahat tayo, pangsarili lang talagang iniisip.
So it therefore follows that all our actions are always motivated by self-interest. Yung mga psychological egoists, ang paniniwala nila ganito, gagawin ko ang tama dahil may beneficyo ito na makakabuti para sa akin. Hindi ko gagawin ito dahil alam ko in the long run, pag ginawa ko ito, makakasama ito sa akin.
Yung ego lang niya ang iniisip niya. And we call that psychological egoism. Bakit mo binabasa yung libro na yan? Hindi lang gusto ko.
Subjectivism yun. Kundi pag binasa ko ito, matututo ako at may benepisyo itong may dudulot sa akin. Nagiging psychological egoist ka na. Dahil alam mo na makakabuti ito sa'yo.
Number three, meron naman tinatawag na ethical egoism. Ang point ng number three, ethical, kanina psychological, You're doing good things kasi alam mo na makakabuti sa'yo ito in the long run. Hindi mo ginagawa yung isang bagay dahil makakasama sa'yo ito in the long run. Selfish pa rin.
Ang tawag doon ay psychological egoism. On the other hand, yung pangatlo naman ng senses of the self is what we call ethical egoism. Okay? Ethical egoism.
Ang pagkakaiba ng ethical egoism sa subjectivism at psychological egoism, yung ethical egoism, it does not... suppose all our actions are inevitably self-serving. Dinedenay nung ethical egoist na lahat ng ginagawa natin self-serving. Bagkos, kapag ethical egoist ka, ang sinasabi mo ganito, kailangan mong tumulong sa iba, hindi lang para sa'yo, kundi makakabuti kasi sa iba yun. At kapag naging mabuti yun para sa ibang tao, in the long run, may mabuting balik din sa'yo yun.
Yun ang iyong overriding concern. You're not simply becoming selfish, but by doing good to others, it will benefit other people, and in return, magugulat ka na lang, makakabuti rin naman pala sa'yo yung kabutihan na ginawa mo sa iba. Okay?
So, in this particular point, you're not actually thinking yourself as the priority in ethics, but you're trying to be somehow, somehow, selfless. Why? Because you're thinking about the welfare of other people, pero alam mo that as you continue to help and be good to other people, good things will come back to you as well.
Okay? So parang medyo, kaya nga egoism pa rin. Pero ethical ka na. You're not only thinking about yourself, parang subjectivism.
Kung hindi ano, iniisip mo rin yung kapakanan ng iba. Kapag ka halimbawa, breakup. Kunyari, yung subjectivist person, sabihin niya, Okay?
Hindi tayo pwedeng maghiwalay. Pag naghiwalay tayo, magpapakamatay ako. Wala akong pakialam kung masaya ka sa relasyon natin o hindi.
Basta akin ka lang. Subjective yun. Kapag ka naman halimbawa psychological egoist yung isang tao, hindi ka pwedeng makipag-break up sa akin.
Why? Kasi marami akong benepisyo sa iyo. I love you because I need you. Kailangan kita. Ang tawag naman doon ay psychological egoist.
Ngayon naman yung ethical egoist naman ganito. I will be faithful to you. So that in return, maging masaya ka, but in return, maging masaya din naman ako. Okay?
So, meron ding pakinabang para sa iyong sarili. O kaya naman, yung martyr type ng ethical ego is ganito. If you don't love me anymore, then go.
And when you find the right person for you, kapag masaya ka na, masaya na rin ako. May pagka-martyr type naman yung ganoon. Pero yun yung mga major differences nung ethical egoism, psychological egoism, and subjectivism. Yun yung internal authority naman ng ethics.
Okay? So there you have it. Those were the contents of the first lesson, the ethical dimension of human existence.
And I hope you learned something from our panoramic view of ethics. At sa susunod nating pag-aaral, ang pag-aaralan natin ngayon yung mga iba't ibang moral theories na nabuo over the period of time na until now ay ating sinusunod. Okay? So, that's it. That's the end of our first session.
Thank you for your time. Okay? And let me give some announcement now.
Ang announcement lang natin ngayon ay yung ating assignment. Okay? Yung ating, what do you call that? yung ating reflection paper should start next week. This is what you're going to do.
Unit number one is already published in our Canvas account. I want you to read that. And after reading the entire unit, you just have to give a reflection paper. And all your reflection papers should be first submitted to your class president.
Okay? And then the class president would be the one for rewarding those to me. Okay, those reflection papers. Yun yung una nating assignment.
So, come next meeting natin, make sure that prior our next meeting, kailangan masubmit nyo agad yun because I will not allow you to take the 10-item quiz in the light of our lesson today if you wouldn't be giving or submitting your reflection paper. So, palaging ganun na lang yung ating gagawin. Requirement, para makapagtika ng quiz, dapat maisubmit mo muna.
ang iyong reflection paper bago ka makapag-quiz. Okay? So, that's it. So, I hope you learned many things in our first lesson and I will be seeing you again next week.
Thank you for your time. Okay? Have a blessed day.
Magandang araw sa inyong lahat.