Lesson 2: Moral & Non-Moral Standards

Ethymology and Meaning of Ethics 

The term "ethics" comes from the Greek word "ethos" means "custom" used in the works of Aristotle, while the term "moral" is the Latin equivalent. Based on the Greek and Latin etymology of the word "ethics," ethics deals with morality. When the Roman orator Cicero exclaimed, tempora o mores" (Cicero, 1856) (Oh, what time and what morals), he may have been trying to express dismay of the morality of his time. 

Ethics or moral philosophy, is a branch of philosophy which deals with moral standards, inquires about the rightness or wrongness of human behavior or the goodness or badness of personality, trait or character. It deals with ideas, with topics such as moral standards or norms of morality conscience, moral values and virtues. Ethics is a study of the morality of human acts and moral agents, what makes an act obligatory and w makes a person accountable. 

"Moral" is the adjective describing a human act as either  Right or Wrong. or qualifying a person, personality, character, as either ethically good or bad. 

Moral Standards or Moral Frameworks and Non-Moral Standards

Since ethics is a study of moral standards, then the first question for the course is, what are moral standards. The following are supposed be examples of moral standards "Stealing is wrong." "Killing is wrong "Telling lies is wrong." "Adultery is wrong" "Environment preservation is the right thing to do". "Freedom with responsibility is the right way "Giving what is due to others is justice". Hence, moral standards are norms or prescriptions that serve as the frameworks for determining what ought be done or what is right or wrong action, what is good or bad character.

In the Activity phase of this Lesson the following can be classified as moral standards: 

• Do not lie 

• Don't steal 

• Don't cheat others

• Don't kill 

Moral standards are either consequences standards (like Stuart Mill's utilitarianism) or non-consequence standards (like Aristotle's virtue, St Thomas' natural law. or Immanuel Kant' good will or sense of duty) The consequence standards depend on results, outcome An act that results in the general welfare, in the greatest good of the greatest number, is moral. To take part in a project that results in the improvement of the majority of people is, therefore. moral.

The non-consequence standards are based on the natural law Natural law is the law of God revealed through human reason lt is the "law of God written in the hearts of men" To preserve human life is in accordance with the natural law. therefore it is moral. Likewise, the non-consequence standard may also be based on good will or intention. and on a sense of duty. Respect for humanity, treatment of the other as a human person, an act that is moral. springs from a sense of duty, a sense of duty that you wish will apply to all human persons.

On the other hand, non-moral standards are social rules, demands non-moral of etiquette and good manners. They are guides of action which should be followed as expected by society. Sometimes they may not be followed or some people may not follow them. From time to time, changes are made regarding good manners or etiquette. In sociology, non-moral standards or rules are called folkways. In short, non-moral actions are those where moral categories cannot be applied.

Examples of non-moral standards are rules of good manners and right conduct, etiquette, rules of behavior set by parents, teachers, and standards of grammar or language, standards of art, and standards of sports set by other authorities. Examples are "do not eat with your mouth open;" "observe rules of grammar," and "do not wear socks that don't match." 

In the Activity phase of this Lesson, the following are non-moral standards:

• No talking while your mouth is full. 

• Wear black or white for mourning; never red.

• The males should be the one to propose marriage not females

• Observe correct grammar when writing and speaking English.

• Submit school requirements on time. 

• If you are a male, stay by the danger side (roadside) when walking with a female.

• Go with the fashion or you are not "in."

• When you speak pronounce words correctly. 

• Focus the microscope properly. 

• Maintain a good body figure.

An indicator whether or not a standard is moral or non-moral lies in it compliance as distinguished from it's non-compliance. Non-compliance with moral standards causes sense of guilt, while on- compliance with a non-moral standard may only cause shame and embarrassment.

Classification of the Theories of Moral Standards

Garner and Rosen (1967) classified the various moral standard formulated by moral philosophers as follows: 1) Consequence (teleological, from tele which means end, result, or consequence) standard states than act is right or wrong depending on the consequences of the act, that is the good that is produced in the world. Will it do you good if you go school the answer is right, because you learn how to read and write then gong to school is right. The consequence standard can also be a bass for determining whether or not a rule is a right rule. So the consequence standard states that the rightness or wrongness of a rule depends on the consequences or the good that is produced in following the rule. For instance, if everyone follows the rule of a game, everyone will enjoy playing the game. This good consequence proves the rule must be a correct rule. 2) Not-only-consequence standard (deontological), holds that the rightness or wrongness of an action or rule depends on sense of duty, natural law, virtue and the demand of the situation or circumstances. The rightness or wrongness of an action does not only depend or rely on the consequence of that action or following that rule. 

Natural law and virtue ethics are deontological moral standards because their basis for determining what is right or wrong does not depend on consequences but on the natural law and virtue. Situation ethics, too, is deontological because the rightness or wrongness of an act depends the situation and circumstances requiring or demanding exception to rule. 

Rosen and Garner are inclined to consider deontology, be it rule or act deontology. as the better moral standard because it synthesizes includes all the other theory of norms. Under this theory, the rightness or wrongness of an action depends on (or is a function of) all the following: a) consequences of an action or rule, what promotes one's greatest go or the greatest good of the greatest number; b) consideration other than consequences like the obligatoriness or the act based on natural law, or its being one's duty, or its promoting an ideal virtue. Deontology also considers the object, purpose, and circumstances or situation of the moral issue or dilemma.

All these moral standards or ethical frameworks will be dealt with more in detail in Chapter IV of this book.

What Makes Standards Moral? 

The question means what obliges us to follow a moral standard? For theists, believers in God's existence, moral standards are commandments were revealed by God to Moses. One who believes in God vows to Him and obliges himself herself to follow His Ten Commandments For theists, God is the ultimate source of what is moral to human persons revealed to human persons.

How about non theists? For non-theists, God is not the source of morality. Moral standards are based on the wisdom of sages like Confucius or philosophers like Immanuel Kant.

In China. C Confucius taught the moral standard. "Do unto others what you like others to do unto you" and persuaded people to follow this rule because it is the right way, the gentleman's way. Later, Immanuel Kant, the German philosopher, formulated a criterion for determining what makes a moral standard moral. It is stated as follows: "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law." (1993) In other words, if a maxim or standard cannot pass this test, it cannot be a moral standard. For instance, does the maxim "Stealing is wrong" pass this test' Can one will that this maxim be a universal maxim? The answer is in the affirmative. The opposite of the maxim would not be acceptable. Moral standards are standards that we want to be followed by all, otherwise, one would be wishing one's own ill fortune. Can you wish "do not kill to be a universal maxim" The answer has to be yes because if you say "no" then you are not objecting to someone killing you. Thus, the universal necessity of the maxim, what makes it a categorical imperative is what makes it obligatory. "Stealing is wrong" means "one ought not steal and "Do not kill means "one ought not kill." It is one's obligation not to steal or kill. Ultimately, the obligation arises from the need of self-preservation. 

The Origin of Moral Standards: Theist and Non-Theist 

Related to the question of what makes moral standards moral is how do moral standards arise or come into existence? A lot of new attempts to explain the origins of morality or moral standards have been made.

The theistic line of thought states moral standards are of divine origin while 20th century thinkers claim state that they simply evolved. The issue is: Are moral standards derived from God, communicated to man through signs of revelation, or did they arise in the course of man's evolution? 

With the Divine source concept, moral standards are derived from natural law, man's "participation" in the Divine law. The moral principle, Do good and avoid evil" is an expression of natural law. Man's obliging himself to respect the life, liberty, and property of his fellowman arises from the God-given sacredness, spirituality, and dignity of his fellow man. It arises from his faith, hope. and love of God and man.

With the evolutionary concept, the basics of moral standards- do good and avoid evil - have been observed among primates and must have are of have evolved as the process of evolution followed its course.

Are these theist and non-theist (evolutionary) origin of moral standards reconcilable? The evolutionist claims that altruism, a sense of morality, can be observed from man's fellow primates-the apes and monkeys and, therefore it can be said that the altruism of human persons evolved from the primates. However, the evolutionist cannot satisfactorily argue, with factual evidence. that the rudiments of moral standards can be observed from the primates. Neither can it be scientifically established that the theist view that man's obliging himself to avoid evil, refrain from inflicting harm on his fellowman, is a moral principle implanted by God in the hearts of men. But the concept of creation and evolution are not necessarily contradictory. The revelation of the norms of Divine origin could not have been instant, like a happening "in one fell swoop." It could have happened gradually as man evolved to differ from the other primates. As the evolutionists claim creation may be conceived as a process of evolution story of creation could have happened in billions of years instead of six days.