GE 8

moral because we are persons, persons who exist in the collectivity of persons. Because we live with others. we have to respect each other's rights as persons. To put these reasons in a lighter vein, man's realistic de-sire to be good is caused a great deal by his obsessive concern with public relations.

Now, as believers in God, we cannot just get stuck in the realistic level of positing the why-be-moral-ques-tion. Otherwise, if the realistic level is the terminal point of our why-be-moral-question then there is no differ-ence between our stance and Nietzsche's. There should be a point of departure between the realistic why-be-moral-question from our faith in God. Thus, the fun damental reason why we want to be moral is because we need to be moral: because for all we know, the moral law cannot be dissociated from the Natural Law and the Eternal Law of God.

But, why do we need to be moral, anyway? By their etymological definitions, ethics is derived from the Greek word ethos and morality from the Latin word mos and moris. Surprisingly, both of them mean one and the same thing. Le. custom. Would this mean that our need. to be moral is just part of our custom so that if it is our custom to be immoral then we can be immoral?

How can we prove that morality is indeed founded on the Natural and Eternal laws of God and not just on custom? Much of what we know from the bases of our common experience is that we want to be good and we indeed do good deeds because of our belief in salva tion. Doesn't this demonstrate that we are always re-ward-oriented creatures? Isn't it right if we say that of all creatures, man alone is a reward-oriented mammal? I have never seen a carabao who clamors to his master for a reward after a hard day's work under the scorch Ing heas of the sun nor have I seen a dog who bites his master for an unjust reward. So, we are just "lucky" enough that God. In His own wisdom, knows how to reward us properly not only later in Heaven but already here on earth.

Probably, a few clarificatory remarks would help put our contention in a better perspective. It is very difficult to provide a delineating line between moral philosophy and moral theology. There is much faith that sustains the moral agent in his struggle to do good. Thus, I for one do not believe that our moral lives can fully be lived, understood, and explained through our reasoning alone. Thus, it is an absurdity to deny that Natural and Eternal laws of God, and most importantly our faith in them, have nothing to do with our moral lives.

The categorical association of the moral law with the Natural law and the Eternal law of God is the broad schema which this book follows. However, this book. for the sake of philosophical inquiry and analysis, deals also with other ethical theories that are not oriented to the schema Ethics, Greek Ethics, Kantian Ethics. Existential Ethics, and Situation Ethics. The book has the following parts, namely: Introduction, expose of Western and Eastern Ethics, general ethics, and spe cial ethics. In the introductory part the following are presented: Overview, meaning of ethics, ethics com-pared with other sciences dealing man, and morality and human existence. Part One has two chapters: Part Two has two long chapters; and Part Three has five chapters.

Let us formally start our inquiry by studying the meaning of ethics.

B. Meaning of Ethics

1. Definition

Etymologically, ethics is derived from the Greek word ethicos, or that which pertains to ethos the English translation of which is "custom" or "character. From this etymological meaning the following vernacular or formal definitions are drawn:

a. "Ethics is the practical science of the moral-ity of human conduct.

b. "Ethics is a philosophical science dealing with the morality of the human acts."

c. "Ethics is the systematic study of human ac tions from the point of view of their rightness or wrongness as means for the achievement of ultimate happiness."

d. "Ethics is the normative science of the con-duct of human beings living in societies. science which judges this conduct to be right or wrong, to be good or bad....

"Ethics means a philosophical study of mo rality, of the foundation on which morality is based, and of the practical implications of a systematic moral outlook.

f. "Ethics is a normative science based on rea-son, which interpreta specific and paramount facts, the elements of which are conduct and oughtness."

We can list as many definitions of ethics as we wish, but we have to limit our inquiry. Our listing of these definitions of ethics, however, is not intended for our own confusion but for a broader exposure to various interpretations and understandings of the meaning of ethics.

Because we have, in our survey, provided several definitions of ethics, let us take one that should serve as our working definition of ethics in this book.

For the sake of simplicity, let us take Pantzo's definition. Panito says that ethics is a philosophi-cal science which deals with the morality of the human acts. Let us analyze what this definition means.

Ethics in a philosophical science. This means that ethics is one of the many disciplines in phi losophy. In general, we can speak of four divisions of philosophy, namely: Descriptive or speculative. normative, practical, and critical. Descriptive or Speculative Philosophy is a discipline in philoso phy that posits the question: What is the nature (essence, substance) of reality? Metaphysics (philo-sophical science of beings) falls under this. Nor-mative Philosophy is a discipline in philosophy that posits the question: What is good and what is bad or what is right action or wrong action? Eth ics or Moral Philosophy is categorized under this. Practical Philosophy is a discipline in philoso phy which reflects upon truth in relation to ac tion. Logic belongs to this discipline. And Critical Philosophy is a discipline in philosophy that pos its the question: What is truth? Epistemology is categorized under this.

So, ethics as a philosophical science is a nor-mative philosophy. But what makes ethics as a normative philosophy a science?

Ethics is a science (normative science) be cause it systematically establishes standards or norms of human conduct. It therefore qualifies human conduct as to whether it is good or bad and right or wrong. After it qualifies human con duct, ethics also requires a definitive human con-duct. This means that it requires man to act prop-erly as man. And to act properly as man, ethics idcalistically requires man to do what is good and what is right.

Since we have already clarified our terms on ethics as a philosophical science, now let us in-vestigate how and why ethics deals with the mo rality of human acts.

What do we mean by "morality of human acts"? Morality of human acts refers to the good ness or the badness, the rightness or the wrong ness of human acts. With this, we now say that ethics is a nогта tive philosophical science that deals with the good ness or badness, the rightness or the wrongness of human acts.

1. The Difference between Ethics and Morality

Etymologically, there is no difference between ethies and morality. As we stated earlier, Ethics comes from the Greek word ethos meaning "cua tom. Morality, on the hand, comes from the Latin word mos or moris which also means "custom, Because of this, ethics is also called moral phi losophy or precisely, the other name of ethics is moral philosophy.

There is of course an undeniable affinity of ethics with moral philosophy and vice-versa, based on their etymological construction. However, there is a slight difference between the two. This differ-ence can be traced, if not asserted, by way of ap-plying the concept of theory and practice in eth-

Ethics, as a normative philosophical science. is a theoretical science of good and bad or right and wrong actions. So, ethics provides principles. on the morality of human acts; it equips man with a (theoretical) knowledge of the morality of human acts. We know, however, that knowing is different frou doing. It does not necessarily follow that man does what he knows. This means that ethics does not actually guarantee that man will be moral. One can only become moral when one applies ethics. In other words, when one does the theories of eth-ics one actually performs the theory, meaning one is actually doing ethics. This is morality: the praxds of the theory (Ethics). If morality therefore is the practice of ethics morality, then it should be prop-erly called Applied Ethics.

While ethics (as a theoretical science) provides principles or bases of right or wrong and good or bad actions, morality actualizes the theory. As eth ics outlines theories of right or wrong and good or bad actions, morality translates these theories into real actions. Thus, morality is nothing else but a doing of ethics.

1. Postulates in Ethics

Postulates are proven facts that need to be presupposed. Some examples of postulates are: the Theory of Relativity or the Theory of Gravita-tional Pull and the other established scientific theo-ries. Ethics need not prove them, instead it takes them as they are because they are already proven by the other sciences. In moral philosophy, there are three basic postulates, viz.:

a The existence of God:

b. The existence of intellect and free will; and

c. The spirituality and the immorality of the soul.

C. Ethics Compared With Other Sciences That Deal With Man

1. Ethics and Psychology

Psychology is a descriptive philosophy that treats of man's intellect, free will, and conduct while ethics guides man's intellect to know moral truths and man's will to translate his intellectual knowledge of moral truths into action (conduct). Further, psychology, generally, deals with human behavior. It posits the question "How does man behave?" Ethics, on the other hand, posits the question "Why does man ought to behave?"

1. Ethics and Sociology

Sociology deals with human relations. Human relations, however, presupposes proper setup or order in society. This proper per order postulates the observance of proper laws. These proper laws pos-

1. Ethics and Logic

Logic is the branch of philosophy that deals with man's correct thinking. Ethics, on the other hand, deals with man's correct doing and correct living. Therefore, like sociology, logic is closely as sociated with ethics since a person who does not know how to think correctly can never live his life rightly.

1. Ethics and Anthropology

Anthropology deals with man's origin and the behavior of primeval man. Ethics, on the other hand, deals with the principles of right conduct as applied to all men at all times.

1. Ethics and Moral Theology

Moral philosophy (Ethics) and moral theol-ogy presuppose God's existence; they too have the same end, te. the attainment of man's ultimate goal: God. They have the same means towards the attainment of this end, Le right living. The two. however, differ in their basis. Moral philosophy bases its principles on reason; moral theology, on Faith or Divine Revelation and reason.

D. Morality And Human Existence

Categorically, there is morality only in the context of humanity. There is no morality outside the context of humanity. In simple terms, we say there is morality because there is man.

1. Man Is the only Moral Being

Man is the only moral being by virtue of the following reasons:

Man has intellect. His Intellect enables him to know, to know what is right or wrong and good or bad actions. Because he is capable of knowing, he is therefore mandated to face the consequences of his actions. Thus, the mo-rality of human acts can be applied only to those who have the knowledge of right or wrong and good or bad actions. Morona, idi-ota, Imbeciles, insane persons, and the like are not moral agents. The same thing can be said of infants and children who have not yet reached the age of reason.

c. Man has will. Man is free to act or not to act. Man's will equips man with the power to choose either good or bad and right or wrong actions. It is his will that enables him to en-joy freedom to act or not to act and freedom. to choose what course of action to perform. Man's will, therefore, requires of man a deci sion which obligates him to be responsible for the consequences of his actions.

It is his nature or his being what he is that makes man moral. But, what is man? Ethics does not provide a detailed and com-plete answer: Philosophy of Man does. In eth-ics, we simply take refuge into the Aristote-lian view of man as a rational animal. It is man's being rational, therefore, that makes man a moral agent. This is the reason why those people who are not capable of rational-ity are not moral agents-but this does not mean they cease to be human beings.

1. Man as an Animal

Perhaps, it helps if we present a diagram to illustrate man both as an animal and as a rational animal:

As we see in the diagram, it is clear that brutes and ordinary grades of animals do acquire knowi edge through their senses. Their senses, undoubt edly, are their indispensable medium of knowledge. As an animal, man also acquires knowledge through his senses.

By appetency, we mean the drive to seek or to strive for something. Brutes and ordinary forms of animal are driven to seek for something out of their instincts. Instincts are natural biological drives of animals. Thus, man, being an animal. is also a subject of these drives. Just like any other annal, man destres food when hungry and seeks water when thirsty. There are of course manifold kinds of psychological drives or instinctive drives.

Sex is one of them. And inasmuch as man is an arunal, he is also subject to the instinctive sexual drive

In this given schema, nothing special can be said of man. He is just like any of the other forms of animals. If we rely on this, man cannot be con-ceived of as a moral agent. His animality does not give him a license to be moral.

1. Mart as a Rational Animal

As cited earlier, it is his being rational that makes man man. It is only in this context that man is to be understood as a moral being or a moral agent. It is man's being rational that makes him a unique grade of animal. Being rational, man's knowledge does not stop in the senses since his sensual knowledge (perception) is further "proc ensed by his intellect in a form of abstraction. Man's perceptual knowledge helps him draw judg ments as he compares ideas so that eventually he engages in what is called reasoning. Man, there fore, does not just simply perceive things but also analyzes, assensen, criticizes, or, in a word, intel-lectualizes things.

As rational animal (animal rationale not ca pax rationale or capable of reason), man strives for something not only through his instincts, but also through his will. It is true man has instinc tive driven, but man can transcend all these drives. into a higher degree. Man, therefore, is capable of Injecting a dose of discipline to his physiological drives because he has intellect and will.

1. Intellect Compared with Will

Intellect and will go hand in hand as comple mentary factors as they are intrinsically endowed in man as the moral agent. In order that we can view the difference between intellect and will prop erly, let us consider another diagram:

Because man is a moral being, man possesses intellect and will. Through his intellect, man knows and can know right or wrong actions. Through his will man can choose between good or bad actions.

Man's intellect makes him capable of under-standing right or wrong actions; his will makes him capable of doing for expressing) his choice, either good or bad actions.

Man's intellect enables him to search for truth while his will, for good. When man is in posses-sion of truth then he can practice what he knows (wisdom) while his exercise of good makes him vir tuous. In the fundamental moral option between right or wrong and good or bad actions, man is will-bound to choose what is right and what is good. This is the moral command demanded in ethics. But, whether or not man opts for what is wrong and what is bad, he still remains a moral being, since he has freedom.

1. Concrete Basis of Morality

There are still other questions that we have to consider: "Is morality absolutely based only on the categories of intellect and will?" "Is morality mu.ely a cerebral affair?" "Is morality anchored only in the sphere of concepts?" "When can we say that morality is real enough or experienceable?

Morality is not a mere cerebral affair. it is applied ethics. Therefore, it is also real or con-crete.

a.When one encounters a moral experience;

b. Moral experience could ensue when one en-counters a moral problem; and

c. A person encounters a moral problem when the problem injuncts him moral obligation.

Not all experiences, obviously, are moral. It can be moral only when it makes one entangled in a moral problem. In like manner, not all problems are moral. A problem can become moral only when such a problem calls one on his obligation.

It is obligation, therefore, that makes the problem and an experience moral. There can be no morality apart from obligation. That is why morality is always associated with the "ought." What is the meaning of ought? "Ought" is only one of the degrees of moral obligations. In reality, moral obligation is of three degrees, namely: "should," "must." and "ought." Any of these degrees singles out man to be responsible for his actions. But, since man has freedom, it is "ought" that fits in morality.

Therefore, when one is caught up in a moral problem one should face his obligation: "What ought I to do?" "What must I do?" And "What should I do?" These are all moral questions. And they belong to the intellectual level of man. What about the will?

Because man has will, man can also enter tain options on what to do with his obligation. In the context of the will, we can speak now of the polarity in morality. What is meant by this? By polarity in morality, we mean that man has free-dom to choose between good and bad or right and wrong responses to his obligation. Let us illustrate it through the following diagram: